State meddles in private tragedy?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by 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.

And I as well... this IS kinda scary.

-m

[epeemike81]

[quote=epee1]

Originally Posted by 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".

Yeah, those liberal media propaganda machines like Fox...

You still believe the liberal media myth? you may be beyond help...

-m

[Maeve_Mari]

You know. I don't even like meddling in this affair. It's none of my business or anyone's except for her family. And they should discuss and rationalize this one out for themselves in private.

I don't know this family. I don't know Terri. And it should have been kept that way. My Congressman and Senators should not have taken it upon themselves to meddle either. How much government intervention do we want in our lives anyways? Do we need a two-third majority of Congress to make all our decisions for us?

You know what I wonder? What legislation has slipped through the houses and the President's pen while everyone was all distracted with Terri Schiavo. Just before this big bruhaha, the GOP Senate was desperately trying to change some voting and majority rules that Constitutionally required a two thirds majority for approval and change it to a simple majority ruling because they couldn't get through some of the lame approvals they needed if they had to do it as it's written in the Constitution. I wonder if they snuck that one in on us while we weren't looking!??

[keith]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

You know what I wonder? What legislation has slipped through the houses and the President's pen while everyone was all distracted with Terri Schiavo. Just before this big bruhaha, the GOP Senate was desperately trying to change some voting and majority rules that Constitutionally required a two thirds majority for approval and change it to a simple majority ruling because they couldn't get through some of the lame approvals they needed if they had to do it as it's written in the Constitution. I wonder if they snuck that one in on us while we weren't looking!??

In fairness to the Republicans the Filibuster is not a constitutionally protected right.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by keith

In fairness to the Republicans the Filibuster is not a constitutionally protected right.

But the majority requirement for judicial nomination is in the Constitution (citation below)... I agree with you, that changing the terms is allowed for, but our nomination and legislation process has worked fine for the last 230 years without changing it.

It's really not any different than the kind of negotiation you do in a community or family. You give a little, you take a little, you change a little and in the end, you get the process to work as it was intended. You don't change the rules if you don't get everything you want! I see it as a continual problem with our representatives lately and the overall general attitude of us all. We need a little more tolerance and compromise from everyone.

From the Constitution:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[epee1]

Originally Posted by Soldier

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.

Let's start with your final point - 15 years ago, where were you when she told you she didn't want to be in a vegetative state .... oh, that's right, she didn't tell you, so anything you believe is based on the testimony of others - hearsay. I don't think that the belief of others recounting a 15-year-old conversation is legit, how many conversations can you remember verbatim from that long ago? At 26 we usually think we're invincible - it's later on in life when we smack head first into mortality.

I wasn't trying to compare anything - I was trying to show that while doctors were convinced of their decisions in each of those instances, they were wrong. It's not an unusual circumstance. There is more unknown about the body/mind than is known. Therefore, there is a significant probability of error. But even if it were just one percent, is it worth the chance that they're wrong?

Yes, you can etherize an animal for any number of reasons. The pet is sick and you want to keep it from suffering OR.....Your apartment is too small, the new girlfriend doesn't like dogs, and the boyfriend's allergic to cats, too much hassle, and too inconvenient - all legitimate reasons for etherizing a pet. With that mentality I guess we'll be cleaning out the long term care facilities since the old folks there are past their prime, don't have quality of life, can't use the facilities and must use diapers, rarely get up and move around, can't feed themselves. YUP - kiss Nana goodbye!! We'll just cease keeping them alive.

[jeff]

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's a fact because you say so? I think it devalues life to keep Schiavo around as a houseplant to satisfy the religious zealots. But it's not up to me: as has been judged in court, what they're doing is consistent with Terri's wishes. Not my personal preferences or yours. If she had said "keep me breathing no matter what" then her husband would have had to comply with her wishes or face justifiable condemnation.

People keep bringing up examples of their dogs. Like Soldier, I had to put dearly loved dogs (whose pictures I've posted on this site) to sleep when they had uncurable illnesses. It wasn't easy to do, but it was the right thing to do. We don't offer that as an alternative for humans in this country, and maybe we never should, but remember that the flip side of "you wouldn't do that to a dog" is "you would have put the dog down."

Let's also watch words like "starve to death". Everyone whose healthy can imagine physical distress hunger would cause in them - distress that doesn't apply here. As one neurologist (one who examined her) said: if you put food in her mouth, she wouldn't recognise it as food, and instead of swallowing it would breath it into her lungs and choke. In other words, her awareness is so low that even a primitive function like "swallowing food" no longer exists. That's why there was a feeding tube so long. This is not an existence I would choose for myself, or an example for meddlers to insert themselves to extend.

Props to Soldier and MM for their recent posts, BTW. Hey, Soldier, I'm in Tokyo again!

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epee1

Let's start with your final point - 15 years ago, where were you when she told you she didn't want to be in a vegetative state .... oh, that's right, she didn't tell you, so anything you believe is based on the testimony of others - hearsay. I don't think that the belief of others recounting a 15-year-old conversation is legit, how many conversations can you remember verbatim from that long ago? At 26 we usually think we're invincible - it's later on in life when we smack head first into mortality.

As far as I know, that conversation has been offered as testimony in court. I'm not going by hearsay, I'm just repeating what the courts have ruled on. Again, and again, and again.

Originally Posted by epee1

I wasn't trying to compare anything - I was trying to show that while doctors were convinced of their decisions in each of those instances, they were wrong. It's not an unusual circumstance. There is more unknown about the body/mind than is known. Therefore, there is a significant probability of error. But even if it were just one percent, is it worth the chance that they're wrong?

The babies died because nothing could be done in utero...at the time. The mentally challenged were institutionalized because we knew of no other ways to help them...at the time. Cancer patients may have been considered lepers, because that's the best anyone knew...at the time. And Terry Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, which we don't know how to fix...at this time. Might that change sometime in the future? Yes. Should she be kept alive as long as possible in the remote hope that it will change before she expires anyway? Well, I would say that's up to her. And guess what? She said what she wanted in that regard. We can't always live in hopes for the future. We can try to move that way, but we still have to live in the present. And in the present, she is a huge responsibility, and cost, with no hope for recovery.

Originally Posted by epee1

Yes, you can etherize an animal for any number of reasons. The pet is sick and you want to keep it from suffering OR.....Your apartment is too small, the new girlfriend doesn't like dogs, and the boyfriend's allergic to cats, too much hassle, and too inconvenient - all legitimate reasons for etherizing a pet. With that mentality I guess we'll be cleaning out the long term care facilities since the old folks there are past their prime, don't have quality of life, can't use the facilities and must use diapers, rarely get up and move around, can't feed themselves. YUP - kiss Nana goodbye!! We'll just cease keeping them alive.

I'll let Inq gracefully point out the name of the fallacy/trick/whatever you're trying to pull here, but as I'm not quite as familiar, I'll just raise the BS flag.

I'm not advocating getting rid of anybody who's a burden on society. All I'm doing is refuting what you said earlier - that what is being proposed for Terry Schiavo would be illegal to do even on a dog. And that's false.

As for your 1% chance mentioned earlier...well, you have to do a cost/benefit analysis at some point. Cold as it sounds, it has to be done. And with 1% odds - which I think are actually very much lower in this case - it just doesn't work out well.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jeff

Hey, Soldier, I'm in Tokyo again!

Yeah, and we got a nice cold, wet, nasty snow today, so you can just eat sushi for all I care!

Bah.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I'll let Inq gracefully point out the name of the fallacy/trick/whatever you're trying to pull here, but as I'm not quite as familiar, I'll just raise the BS flag.

The fallacy of the slippery slope, ie. The Camel's Nose (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html)

Also used in your (epee1) arguments are the Ad hominem, Ad hominem tu quoque, Appeal to Authority (used by both sides), Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Tradition, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Special Pleading, Misleading Vividness, Red Herring, Spotlight, and Straw Man fallacies. Quite a list, don't you say? Perhaps if you keep going you can hit all of them.


Of course, if I were you, I'd cut my losses.

I'm sure Inq will add any I missed.

[L.O.A.S.]

In light of recent court decisions, I had not planned on posting anymore on this subject, but then I didn't want Epee 1 to be the lonely voice of reason on the right

Originally Posted by epeemike81

First off, she's not being "killed" at all. they're taking her off artificial support.

No, they are not feeding her. Lots of people need this type of "artificial support". I actually prefer Soldier's quote.

Originally Posted by soldier

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

You guys have a class on leadership and ethics? Two approaches; "A right is Right, and a Wrong is Wrong", versus "the ends justifies the means". Carefull how you justify your actions out in the field Soldier.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

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.

Sure. The Schindler's appealled to the Feds because they did not feel that their daughter's rights was being protected under state law. That is allowed for by the Constitution, and what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

try reading and hearing a broad range of views.
out of curiosity, though, who are these people you normally agree with?

I enjoy listening to Michael Medved on the radio when I get the chance. For right of center articles, TownHall.com has a bunch of columnist. For left of center views, this website and many of the links you guys post.

[dunastor]

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.

Originally Posted by epee1

I wasn't trying to compare anything - I was trying to show that while doctors were convinced of their decisions in each of those instances, they were wrong. It's not an unusual circumstance. There is more unknown about the body/mind than is known. Therefore, there is a significant probability of error. But even if it were just one percent, is it worth the chance that they're wrong?

As Soldier pointed out, the phrase "wrong" is inadequately used in the above quote. You even don't know whether there is more unknown about body/mind than is know, because there is a lot unkown. You therefore can't see to what extent our knowledge goes. Furthermore, knowledge itself is not as simple as it seems. Whether we can know anything at all is a question nobody knows an answer to, so you can't even know whether someone is right or wrong.

Now we have that behind us, we can go look at how the world functions without crumbling down in chaos about all the unknown quantities...
It's called science, and it consists in a number of occasions of consensus. Error is part of the knowledge, but it doesn't keep us from making statements. So the current consensus about persistent vegetative state is that it is irreversible, and that there is no functional consciousness. That is the background for medical treatment and/or withdrawal of treatment. Your quote lets me believe you want to get rid of "beyond reasonable doubt". There will always be doubt, so, for example, no-one will be convicted of any crime. If you're willing to go that far, fine by me... But it won't make the world any easier to live in...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by epee1

With that mentality I guess we'll be cleaning out the long term care facilities since the old folks there are past their prime, don't have quality of life, can't use the facilities and must use diapers, rarely get up and move around, can't feed themselves. YUP - kiss Nana goodbye!! We'll just cease keeping them alive.

Actually, most of them CAN use the facilities, do get up and move around, and CAN feed themselves. those that can't feed themselves can ASK to be fed (and, clearly, denying food to them WOULD be murder). There are no people in old folks homes who are in a persistent vegetative state. if they're in a vegetative state they're either in a hospital being cared for, or in a hospice being allowed to die because their doctors and loved ones have decided that there's no hope of recovery. The situations are COMPLETELY different.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by jeff

Let's also watch words like "starve to death". Everyone whose healthy can imagine physical distress hunger would cause in them - distress that doesn't apply here. As one neurologist (one who examined her) said: if you put food in her mouth, she wouldn't recognise it as food, and instead of swallowing it would breath it into her lungs and choke. In other words, her awareness is so low that even a primitive function like "swallowing food" no longer exists. That's why there was a feeding tube so long. This is not an existence I would choose for myself, or an example for meddlers to insert themselves to extend.

It's also important to remember that feeding tubes were never intended for long term use. they were intended as short term solutions (as in a couple of weeks to a month at most) to nourish the body while it RECOVERED from injuries that prevented eating, not to keep the body alive with the brain not functioning properly and no improvement in more than a decade.

-m

[keith]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

But the majority requirement for judicial nomination is in the Constitution (citation below)... I agree with you, that changing the terms is allowed for, but our nomination and legislation process has worked fine for the last 230 years without changing it.

It's really not any different than the kind of negotiation you do in a community or family. You give a little, you take a little, you change a little and in the end, you get the process to work as it was intended. You don't change the rules if you don't get everything you want! I see it as a continual problem with our representatives lately and the overall general attitude of us all. We need a little more tolerance and compromise from everyone.

From the Constitution:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Uhm so were again does it say you need a two thirds majority to appoint a judge? Also the date you are really looking for is 1917 (or 1919) since that is when the use of the filibuster was limited to its current form. The filibuster delays a vote - a right that isn't in the constitution, just the rules of the senate.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

The fallacy of the slippery slope, ie. The Camel's Nose (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html)

Also used in your (epee1) arguments are the Ad hominem, Ad hominem tu quoque, Appeal to Authority (used by both sides), Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Tradition, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Special Pleading, Misleading Vividness, Red Herring, Spotlight, and Straw Man fallacies. Quite a list, don't you say? Perhaps if you keep going you can hit all of them.


Of course, if I were you, I'd cut my losses.

I'm sure Inq will add any I missed.

Just out of curiosity, where does he use post hoc ergo propter hoc? not saying he doesn't, just that I don't see it quickly, and it's easier to ask than look back too far.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

In light of recent court decisions, I had not planned on posting anymore on this subject, but then I didn't want Epee 1 to be the lonely voice of reason on the right

I don't know about lonely, but he sure as **** isn't a "voice of reason."

No, they are not feeding her. Lots of people need this type of "artificial support". I actually prefer Soldier's quote.

again, I point out that feeding tubes were NOT intended for long term use. I also, again, point out that were she able to currently indicate her desire to be kept alive, she would be. she can't, though, much as she can't do anything else. We must, therefore, respect her STATED WISHES from before she entered this state, which courts have ruled (repeatedly) was to be allowed to die.

You guys have a class on leadership and ethics? Two approaches; "A right is Right, and a Wrong is Wrong", versus "the ends justifies the means". Carefull how you