State meddles in private tragedy?

[Soldier]

We've got Inq, Gav, Jeff, and myself, all in agreement here...

It's moronic for this case to be taken to a federal level. That basically every politician involved is simply playing to the party line, sickens me. Mrs. Schiavo needs to be let go, and people need to get off Mr. Schiavo's back about it.

And that people would send death threats to him regarding this issue...seems to me to be the very definition of hypocrisy.

[Maeve_Mari]

This is a good summary of my feelings beyond just the Schiavo case. The contradictions and hypocrisy.

[Maeve_Mari]

This is a good summary of my feelings beyond just the Schiavo case. The contradictions and hypocrisy.

[Gav]

We move into the end game ...

Schiavo rivals 'agree to autopsy'

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Funny that he didn't recall this conversation for 7 years, at least not until he won his court settlement.

as I understand it, he recalled it just fine, but felt that there WAS hope for recovery. he asked to have the tube withdrawn only AFTER he was convinced that there was NO hope for recovery.

The Schindlers offered Michael Schiavo money and an easy way out, but he rejected the money to pursue his wife's wishes. how, then, can you question his motives? I do feel very sympathetic for her parents, though I'm starting to lose that sympathy as they continue to tell lies that make no sense about Schiavo and the hospice.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Yes. As I understand this situation, the husband is not a very honorable person. He used his wife's situation to win a rather large medical suit, which was to go toward her treatment (but was not). It was not until much later that he "recalled" that his wife said she would not like to exist in such a condition. He has since moved on with his life ( with another woman, and had kid(s) as well). Why not leave the decision to the parents who still care for her?

Then you don't understand this situation. the settlement DID go to her treatment. more to the point, her parents OFFERED HIM JUST AS MUCH MONEY as he would get in the event of her death to just walk away. if he were motivated by money, instead of his wife's wishes, he would have walked away already.

-m

[epee1]

Originally Posted by jeff

"State meddles in private tragedy" summarizes it pretty well. The conservative party of "less government interference in private affairs" abandons its principles in order to serve the religious right.

The whole thing is a tragedy of course, but after 15 years of vegetative state there's not a hell of a lot of likelihood that this poor woman will regain consciousness. Her family is deluded in thinking she's responding to them - the parts of her brain that make a "mind" are no longer there, even if she sometimes reflexively responds to light stimulus.

Gav, I just checked with my wife (the surgeon). Deathly ill people who aren't fed (or refuse to be fed) don't suffer. In her case she'll probably enter renal failure (no hydration -> kidneys shut down) without experiencing discomfort (which can be managed with drugs in the general case anyway) and enter a coma that would lead to death. In her case, I think that's the merciful thing to happen.

God forbid I ever am in a vegetative state like her, but if I am, I don't want to be preserved in that state like a piece of meat. The merciful thing is to let her go.

All, merely my opinion...

It amazes me what people will believe just to ease their conscience. 100 years ago the mentally ill were confined to prisons because nothing could be done, 50 years ago cancer patients were considered lepers, 10 years ago babies died within hours after birth because of defects now fixed in utero.

The fact is that by killing this woman, it devalues life. Who are we to determine for another human being whether or not their life has value? If you want to be starved to death - your choice. Please do not tell me its mercy when you would be imprisoned for doing it to a dog. It's a convenient way to get rid of a loose end.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Yes. I do not know any of these people. My opinion is based on reading and hearing points of view of those whom I normally agree with.

try reading and hearing a broad range of views.

out of curiosity, though, who are these people you normally agree with?

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I just copied this from a pro-Terri site.
Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

This is tripe. EVERY DOCTOR who has testified in this case has testified that she IS in a persistent vegetative state. there is a reason that every court has ruled that there is support for the husband's claim that she is in a persistent vegetative state. saying this does not make it so, and a "pro-terri" site is hardly a reputable source. what is THEIR source?

-m

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by epee1

It amazes me what people will believe just to ease their conscience. 100 years ago the mentally ill were confined to prisons because nothing could be done, 50 years ago cancer patients were considered lepers, 10 years ago babies died within hours after birth because of defects now fixed in utero.

The fact is that by killing this woman, it devalues life. Who are we to determine for another human being whether or not their life has value? If you want to be starved to death - your choice. Please do not tell me its mercy when you would be imprisoned for doing it to a dog. It's a convenient way to get rid of a loose end.

It doesn't ease anyone's conscience to have this woman die. That's a callous statement. But I do hope you realize that this woman has been chosen as the martyr for the moral lunacy to parade, mock, and prod. There's not any compassion in what they are doing to this woman or her family as they use her for their own selfish purposes - none of which is death with dignity. There are hundreds of people who are removed from life support every single day in this country. Thousands have died with dignity during this fight.

Don't think there's money in this? Who do YOU think is paying for all the attorneys and petitions and legal fees for the Schindlers? What money do you think they have been living off of for the last ten years? How much money do you think they are going to get for their book?

[epee1]

[quote=Maeve_Mari]It doesn't ease anyone's conscience to have this woman die. That's a callous statement. But I do hope you realize that this woman has been chosen as the martyr for the moral lunacy to parade, mock, and prod. There's not any compassion in what they are doing to this woman or her family as they use her for their own selfish purposes - none of which is death with dignity. There are hundreds of people who are removed from life support every single day in this country. Thousands have died with dignity during this fight.

Do you KNOW there's a book deal? Or are you just making assumptions and reiterating what the liberal media propaganda machines are spewing? I don't know who's paying for anything. I also don't care. It's not about money, its about the value of one human life. Those thousands who died with "dignity” - did they have a living will with a DNR clause? Or were their families torn apart as in this case? I don't know that either.

Her "husband" as been in a common law marriage for about 15 years. At some point he should have been made to terminate his legal authority as he had so blatantly abdicated his moral responsibilities.

I absolutely believe with all the "moral lunacy" in me that this is not just about a comatose woman and her quality of life - it's also about the judiciary making decisions as to what constitutes quality and where the line is drawn. The courts are making law - not interpreting it as they are charged to do in the constitution. I don't know about anyone else, but there are a whole bunch of men in black robes I wouldn't let answer my phone never mind decide if my life has "quality".

[keith]

Originally Posted by epee1

I absolutely believe with all the "moral lunacy" in me that this is not just about a comatose woman and her quality of life - it's also about the judiciary making decisions as to what constitutes quality and where the line is drawn. The courts are making law - not interpreting it as they are charged to do in the constitution. I don't know about anyone else, but there are a whole bunch of men in black robes I wouldn't let answer my phone never mind decide if my life has "quality".

so you fully support the texas law that requires life support to be removed if no one can pay the bill? Clear proof that the courts don't interfere where the legislatures have made their wishes known. Guess what, the problem is the legislatures not the courts, so deal with it.

The funny thing is I have yet to see any legislative charge by these moral folks to make the withdrawal of life support illegal - one wonders why.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by epee1

{snip}
Her "husband" as been in a common law marriage for about 15 years. At some point he should have been made to terminate his legal authority as he had so blatantly abdicated his moral responsibilities.

The Schindlers encouraged him to get on with his life, and in fact met this woman while everone was getting along.

{snip}
The courts are making law - not interpreting it as they are charged to do in the constitution. I don't know about anyone else, but there are a whole bunch of men in black robes I wouldn't let answer my phone never mind decide if my life has "quality".

Have you read the Florida Statute at issue? The legislature put that procedure in place. The decision was not based upon the Judge's view of Terri Schiavo's quality of life. It was based on the evidence presented to it of 2 issues--(1) that she was in a persistant vegitative state with no hope of recovery; and (2) that her wishes in such a situation would be to not receive further care. This is what the legislature told the courts to consider.

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Hypocrisy? How so?

In oh so many ways...
* Tom DeLay chose not to keep his own father alive artificially because it was his father's wish, yet denies Michael Schiavo's right to do the same for her husband.

* The party which has pursued policies of torture, the death penalty, and an unnecessary war which has led to over 100,000 deaths is pursuing a "culture of life".

* The party of "States rights" used congressional power to attempt to remove a matter from state courts to federal courts.

* The party that said "at some point you just have to accept the court's decision" after the Supreme Court bestowed the presidency on their candidate (a REVERSAL of earlier rulings, so not without controversy) now refuses to accept the REPEATED AND CONSISTENT decisions of the courts.

* While governor in Texas, George W. Bush signed the Futile Healthcare Act, which empowers hospitals to remove patients from life support if they can no longer pay. It was used last week to take a 6 month old african american boy off life support OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE MOTHER. Apparently, though they oppose allowing a husband to decide to take his wife off life support, they support allowing the gentle hands of corporate America that power.

* Finally, there's the same hypocrasy that can be seen in nearly EVERY argument the republicans make. They believe in Freedom of Speech, as long as they agree with it, Freedom of Religion, as long as it's theirs, Freedom to Assemble, as long as it's not to protest Bush, Globalization, or the RNC, and the Sanctity of marriage, but not if they disagree with the husbands decision.

I'm sure I've missed some, so feel free to chime in with more!

-m

[keith]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I'm sure I've missed some, so feel free to chime in with more!

-m

nah, I think you got most of them.

[epee1]

Originally Posted by keith

so you fully support the texas law that requires life support to be removed if no one can pay the bill? Clear proof that the courts don't interfere where the legislatures have made their wishes known. Guess what, the problem is the legislatures not the courts, so deal with it.

I don't know anything about Texas law - so I have no opinion on what their right to life laws state. But if what you say is true than the LAW was originally a bill, passed by the legislators - the courts are only to interpret laws passed by the reps/senators.

The funny thing is I have yet to see any legislative charge by these moral folks to make the withdrawal of life support illegal - one wonders why.

You probably won't see the legislators get any more involved than they already have. There was such a backlash over the past 2 weeks that they would be committing political suicide. (no big loss in most cases - but that's a different thread.) While politicians may voice their opinions, they won't risk their cushy jobs (on both sides of the aisle) by trying to interfere any more. It's a matter of backbone - very few politicians have one.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

What they decry is judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. What they are arguing for in this case, is seeing that Terri Schiavo is not unjustly killed by the laws of the state. Isn't that their obligation? In this case, it seems like the federal judge is validating the states decision, so whats wrong with going thru the motions of due process?

In what POSSIBLE way is Terri Schiavo being killed by the laws of the state? First off, she's not being "killed" at all. they're taking her off artificial support. If, in response to being taken off, she wakes up and asks for food, nobody's going to say "nope, sorry, you're supposed to die." For that matter, if she merely says "put me back on," her wishes will be carried out IMMEDIATELY.

As for the decision to let her die, the actual issue here is the state REFUSING to let laws decide it, and rather leaving it up to her spouse, confidant, and legal guardian to do what is in line with her wishes.

As for "due proccess," Federal oversight of State decisions is NOT a standard part of due proccess. in state judicial matters, the buck stops with the STATE supreme court.

-m

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epee1

The fact is that by killing this woman, it devalues life. Who are we to determine for another human being whether or not their life has value? If you want to be starved to death - your choice. Please do not tell me its mercy when you would be imprisoned for doing it to a dog. It's a convenient way to get rid of a loose end.

What a sadly deceptive appeal to the emotions, in the hope of an emotional, irrational response.

1. Nobody's killing her. They're ceasing to keep her alive.

2. If it was so convenient, it would have been done fifteen years ago.

3. I can euthanize a dog perfectly legally.

You are trying to compare this case to the lack of medical advances in prior years, and trying to make them all sound as if they are murder. The simple fact is that there is nothing that can be done for her; only her most basic reflexes are still present. She is not even as "alive" as an insect. There is no point in continuing her basic functions.

And finally - most importantly - her wishes were to be let go were she to enter this state.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by epee1

Do you KNOW there's a book deal? Or are you just making assumptions and reiterating what the liberal media propaganda machines are spewing? I don't know who's paying for anything. I also don't care. It's not about money, its about the value of one human life. Those thousands who died with "dignity” - did they have a living will with a DNR clause? Or were their families torn apart as in this case? I don't know that either.

Her "husband" as been in a common law marriage for about 15 years. At some point he should have been made to terminate his legal authority as he had so blatantly abdicated his moral responsibilities.

I absolutely believe with all the "moral lunacy" in me that this is not just about a comatose woman and her quality of life - it's also about the judiciary making decisions as to what constitutes quality and where the line is drawn. The courts are making law - not interpreting it as they are charged to do in the constitution. I don't know about anyone else, but there are a whole bunch of men in black robes I wouldn't let answer my phone never mind decide if my life has "quality."

Yes, there is a book deal. And as it was reported today, Bob Schindler (Terri's Dad) has even started selling the mailing list of their supporters and contacts too, for money.

Terri's husband has not been in a common law marriage for 15 years. Terri herself has only been in a coma for 15 years. Terri's husband spent the first 8 years of Terri's coma taking care of her. He came to her hospital bed every morning to talk to her, hold her, ensure the hospital was doing everything that could be done. Michael Schiavo dressed her every day, talked to her as he brushed her hair, applied her makeup, and perfume. Because he knew that it wo