Party of Suffering also proves it doesn't really care about the court system

[camoor]

News Link (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-fpols18mar18,0,2284835.story?coll=sfla-news-florida)

Republican legislators in Tallahassee and Washington were rushing Thursday to pass a law that would keep Terri Schiavo alive. A judge has cleared the way for the severely brain-damaged woman's feeding tube to be removed at 1 p.m. today.

But many of the same legislators have campaigned in Florida on a slogan of less government and more freedom, the central message that has helped the GOP gain control of state government.

"If that's your standard operating procedure, then how in the world can you justify putting state government on the back of the most personal decision a family would have to make?" asked University of South Florida government Professor Darryl Paulson. "It's a political lightning rod and fundamentally the wrong position for the Republican Party."


It's sad that the parents of this poor woman can't let go, but why punish the husband and this woman by continuing her suffering (if she indeed has any consciousness) through the use of grotesque, frankensteinesque machines.

That aside, the Repulican party has gone horribly astray. Anything to put the christian god back into the government, including overruling the decisions of state courts in a clumsy grab at power.

[MrBadExample]

When will they let this poor woman die? Her situation was tragic enough to begin with before all the grandstanding politicians appeared.

[evilmax17]

Here's what I don't like:

They're pulling her feeding tube. They're basically saying "We're taking her off of life support", in effect, sentencing her to death. Fine.

But if you KNOW you're killing her, why not just do it quick and painlessly? You're really going to let her starve and dehydrate to death for a week?

If you're going to kill her, at least do it with some compassion.

[camoor]

Here's what I don't like:

They're pulling her feeding tube. They're basically saying "We're taking her off of life support", in effect, sentencing her to death. Fine.

But if you KNOW you're killing her, why not just do it quick and painlessly? You're really going to let her starve and dehydrate to death for a week?

If you're going to kill her, at least do it with some compassion.

That's a great point, and I attribute it to this awful taboo about death that a very vocal segment of American christians have. It's this bizarre idea that any form of life, however grotesque and full of suffering, is somehow "good".

[Admiral Ackbar]

The thing I don't like about this is that it is Shamelessly Political. Ultimately, the Congress is using the suffering of the family, Terry Schiavo, and her husband for political gain and it's very disappointing.

Personally, I think that the congresss shouldn't get involved because this has been in litigation for fifteen years already. I would have more sympathy for congress if this stalling tactic was due to a lack of due process. But it's been fifteen years. I understand the parents position and respect it. I am so sorry for their loss. Unfortunately, in situations like this most likely sadness is the only outcome for all parties involved.

But whether you support or are against the removal of the feeding tube, the actions from Congress are an insult to each side of the debate. They are wholly politically motivated and hallow. First the bills in the congress were taken by voice vote. That way, the votes would not be recorded so that none of the members of congress could be held accountable for their votes. This was done not just to protect members of both parties but so that everyone in congress can say whatever they want about the bill and sound good to constituents.

Secondly, if congress was serious about this they would have passed a working bill. Instead, due to the conflicts between the house and senate bill which i believe were intentional the whole vote was moot anyway. I don't think the congress in good faith really wanted to make a law influencing this case. But they can all say, "we tried."

Then, the comments last night by Senator Rick Santorum were disgusting. He called the Judge who has been prosiding over the case a killer on C-span. This is a man who is just trying to do his job and give a fair hearing to all sides and follow the rule of law in a difficult case. He has been ostrocized by of his Church. He is constantly followed by bodyguards because of the serious threats against his life by radicals.

And Mr. Santorum has the gall to call him a killer in the Senate and on national television. I'd like to know if he would have the courage to say it to that Judges face. That comment was insulting, disturbing, and wholly politically motivated. Does that mean that the Supreme Courts are killers for not hearing the case too? Does that mean Terry's husband is a cold blooded killer because he wants the feeding tube removed? It disappoints me greatly to hear a Senator of the United States use such derogatory language on the Senate floor.

Finally, the idea of parading Terry Schiavo, her husband, and her family before a senate comitte is sickening. She's a vegetable! The congress would be exploiting her suffering purely for political gain. What are they going to ask her? She can't respond! And if the comittee isn't serious about bringing her before them then this tactic is just as disgusting because it's a misuse of power for political gain.

Look, you may support keeping Terry alive. You may not. But the way congress is behaving on the issue insults both sides of the debate.

[ElwoodCuse]

Wouldn't the Christians WANT her to die? You know, so she could be with Jesus already?

[alonzomourning23]

Here's what I don't like:

They're pulling her feeding tube. They're basically saying "We're taking her off of life support", in effect, sentencing her to death. Fine.

But if you KNOW you're killing her, why not just do it quick and painlessly? You're really going to let her starve and dehydrate to death for a week?

If you're going to kill her, at least do it with some compassion.

Assisted suicide is illegal, that's why kevorkian is in jail (unjustly in my mind). I think sweden, or one of the scandinavian countries, is the only country where assisted suicide and euthenasia are legal. Basically, the way I see it, if it is inhumane to allow another animal, such as a dog, to got through this sort of suffering, but humane to euthanize it, why is it the opposite with people? Usually people apply lesser standards with non humans, this is one of the few times where they apply the complete opposite standards. Seriously, if I'm a vegetable, conscious or not, I'd rather someone kill me than have to sit there motionless and unable to communicate for years on end. How humane is it to force someone to lie in bed for 14 years without communicating, or doing anything for themselves? Consciousness shouldn't even play a part here.

[E-Z-B]

The common misconception is that she will die a horrible, excrutiating death. When the body starts to starve, it actually begins to shut down. She won't feel the horrible pain that so many think will come to her. It's the feeding tube that will lead to serious infections, that's when she might experience pain. That, and also bed sores.

Dear Lord, the woman's cerebral cortex has been replaced with spinal fluid. She will NEVER EVER be healed. She will always be in this state. There's a better world waiting for her on the other side.

What's funny is that Mr. Ethics himself, Tom DeLay, is vowing "we will save Terry's life" over Easter weekend!

[E-Z-B]

Funny how the Republican party is trying to break laws to save one woman who's basically already dead.

What about the 45 million or so Americans that lack any health coverage at all? Ah, that's right. F.U.

[bmulligan]

Funny how the Republican party is trying to break laws to save one woman who's basically already dead.

What about the 45 million or so Americans that lack any health coverage at all? Ah, that's right. F.U.

How ironic coming from someone who advocates socialized medicine, or "healthcare for all." This is the end result for a nationalized healthcare system that will drive the entire healthcare industry back to the 18th century. Healthcare on demand, by every citizen, for every citizen, in all cases, at all costs is what you yearn for, yet in this case you want to kill someone becuse you believe she is a vegetable, or has a sub-standard quality of life.

Shouldn't every Joe Homeless person be able to keep his carrot-brained wife on life support ad infinitum ? Aren't we supposed to take care of ALL people, regardless of race, income, or any other state of mind or status?

Personally, I think the husband should be able to pull the plug, but I don't think all you people advocating her death realize the contradiction in your belief in this case. Unless, of course, you believe in government instituted euthanasia along with government mandated healthcare because that is what will inevitably result.

[alonzomourning23]

Funny how the Republican party is trying to break laws to save one woman who's basically already dead.

What about the 45 million or so Americans that lack any health coverage at all? Ah, that's right. F.U.

How ironic coming from someone who advocates socialized medicine, or "healthcare for all." This is the end result for a nationalized healthcare system that will drive the entire healthcare industry back to the 18th century. Healthcare on demand, by every citizen, for every citizen, in all cases, at all costs is what you yearn for, yet in this case you want to kill someone becuse you believe she is a vegetable, or has a sub-standard quality of life.

Shouldn't every Joe Homeless person be able to keep his carrot-brained wife on life support ad infinitum ? Aren't we supposed to take care of ALL people, regardless of race, income, or any other state of mind or status?

Personally, I think the husband should be able to pull the plug, but I don't think all you people advocating her death realize the contradiction in your belief in this case. Unless, of course, you believe in government instituted euthanasia along with government mandated healthcare because that is what will inevitably result.

What contradiction? It's inhumane to let her live like this, if you believe euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legal, that is part of health care. Letting her die IS providing care for her, simply removing the tube is worse than being able to end her life quickly, but blame the current laws for that.

[bmulligan]

What contradiction? It's inhumane to let her live like this, if you believe euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legal, that is part of health care. Letting her die IS providing care for her, simply removing the tube is worse than being able to end her life quickly, but blame the current laws for that.

Apparently alonzo has only heard of the hypocritic oath. And who is to be the judge of who lives and who dies? The government? A bureaucrat ? A committee? You? Who are any of us to judge when it's humane to allow someone to die by starvation? Or when to pull the plug on the breathing machine? Who determines what quality of life means? Where it begins and ends?

I thought everyone had a right to life in America, or doesn't that rule apply when you can't answer your executioner ?

[alonzomourning23]

What contradiction? It's inhumane to let her live like this, if you believe euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legal, that is part of health care. Letting her die IS providing care for her, simply removing the tube is worse than being able to end her life quickly, but blame the current laws for that.

Apparently alonzo has only heard of the hypocritic oath. And who is to be the judge of who lives and who dies? The government? A bureaucrat ? A committee? You? Who are any of us to judge when it's humane to allow someone to die by starvation? Or when to pull the plug on the breathing machine? Who determines what quality of life means? Where it begins and ends?

I thought everyone had a right to life in America, or doesn't that rule apply when you can't answer your executioner ?

It's not humane to let someone die of starvation, that's why there should be laws allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide. There aren't, therefore we have to look at it and say what's more humane, letting a brain dead person die naturally, or keeping them alive artificially with really no hope of improvement. And if she has any level of consciousness it's even worse, lying in bed for years on end unable to do anything, even communicate in the most basic sense, is nothing less than torture. Also when you take into account that likelihood that the woman didn't want to be kept alive like this, at least according to her husband and the judges who found that there was strong evidence to support this.

Little, if anything, is black and white. There are always shades of grey. Yes, everyone should have health care and medical treatment, she does. Her husband (through her own words according to him), doctors, and judges who have heard the case seem to agree, she did not want to be kept alive, and there is no reason to keep her alive due to the fact that there really is no hope for improvement. When you analyze everything in black and white, many things don't make sense. That's what you're doing here.

And who is to be the judge of who lives and who dies? The government? A bureaucrat ? A committee? You?

I should have expected, you leave out the most suitable solutions, doctors and close family. The doctors and husbands decisions should carry more weight than the parents decision.

[bmulligan]

that's why there should be laws allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Unfortunately, you seem to forget this when you conjure up your final solution, blanking out that laws have to be written in the first place, somewhere where standards must be laid down to describe what is legal and what is not when it comes to ending people's lives:

should have expected, you leave out the most suitable solutions, doctors and close family. The doctors and husbands decisions should carry more weight than the parents decision.

If not for legal standards, a whole lot more people may be put to death unjustifiably, wouldn't you agree? Then some bureaucrat, judge, or legislator will be deciding whether or not circumstances warrant that you and your doctor even get to make a decision based upon the legal definitions.

Little, if anything, is black and white. There are always shades of grey. Yes, everyone should have health care and medical treatment, she does. Her husband (through her own words according to him), doctors, and judges who have heard the case seem to agree, she did not want to be kept alive, and there is no reason to keep her alive due to the fact that there really is no hope for improvement. When you analyze everything in black and white, many things don't make sense. That's what you're doing here.

Who are you to say what level of conciousness constitutes acceptable quality of life? How do we know she hadn't changed her mind? You claim the "black and white" is non-sensical, yet you are relying on the "black and white" facts in the legal actions justifying her killing: she wanted to die, the husband has final say, there's no hope pf recovery. These things are the "black and white" and YOU are neglecting the shades of grey here. You are the one who just says we should euthanize, as a "black and white" solution. When you're dead, there's no going back. You can't get more "black and white" than that.

[alonzomourning23]

[quote=alonzomourning23]that's why there should be laws allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Unfortunately, you seem to forget this when you conjure up your final solution, blanking out that laws have to be written in the first place, somewhere where standards must be laid down to describe what is legal and what is not when it comes to ending people's lives:

She has severe brain damage, her life is over. It's just a question of when her brain and heart stop entirely, there is no recovery here.

should have expected, you leave out the most suitable solutions, doctors and close family. The doctors and husbands decisions should carry more weight than the parents decision.

If not for legal standards, a whole lot more people may be put to death unjustifiably, wouldn't you agree? Then some bureaucrat, judge, or legislator will be deciding whether or not circumstances warrant that you and your doctor even get to make a decision based upon the legal definitions.

I don't see many bueaucrats deciding when a patient should have heart surgery etc. It's a medical decision left up to a doctor and family, just like every other medical decision made when a person is not conscious.


Who are you to say what level of conciousness constitutes acceptable quality of life? How do we know she hadn't changed her mind? You claim the "black and white" is non-sensical, yet you are relying on the "black and white" facts in the legal actions justifying her killing: she wanted to die, the husband has final say, there's no hope pf recovery. These things are the "black and white" and YOU are neglecting the shades of grey here. You are the one who just says we should euthanize, as a "black and white" solution. When you're dead, there's no going back. You can't get more "black and white" than that.

Ok, so when someone says they don't want to be kept alive if they cannot function on their own, we shouldn't follow their wishes since "they may have changed their mind"? Why do we follow wills? We never know if the person changed their mind after they wrote it.

As far as I'm concerned the most qualified person to discern the condition of a patient is the doctor, and the most qualified people to make the decision of a patient incapable of deciding for themselves are the family. We have the husband and the doctor in agreement, as well as judges who have tried the case, that's enough evidence for me. There is nothing to suggest that lying in bed, unable to do anything even if conscious, is compatable with a decent quality of life. Without the black and white argument that "everything should be done to keep everyone alive no matter what", there is no reason to let this person, if conscious, continue to, in the minds of people most qualified to make the decision, suffer.

Life and death, physical conditions, those may be black and white, that is different than what we were discussing, right and wrong. You're arguing that people believe everyone should have health care, in those realms of argument, morals, right and wrong and most legal situations, it is all shades of grey. Many physical conditions, particularly life and death, are entirely different.

I think half the arguments you make are made simply becuase they "sound good".

[bmulligan]

That's amusing becuase your whole argument is based on what "sounds good" at any given moment. It's easy to judge whether someone should live or die when you are so far removed from the situation, isn't it? I'll hazzard a guess that you don't have children yet, alonzo. God forbid you should ever have to decide to kill your baby, no matter what state she's in.

She has severe brain damage, her life is over. It's just a question of when her brain and heart stop entirely, there is no recovery here.

Her life is not over, that is your opinion, not a statement of fact. She is still a breathing human entity who just happens not to be able to communicate or feed herself. Shouldn't we be protecting her right to life like we are so righteously ferverant upon saving the lives of caribou in Alaska from assured oil drilling death? Perhaps caribou are more importantly protected than humans in your twisted view of reality. For someone who doesn't believe in absolutes, this one sure seems black and white, doesn't it?

I don't see many bueaucrats deciding when a patient should have heart surgery etc. It's a medical decision left up to a doctor and family, just like every other medical decision made when a person is not conscious.

That's becuase medical decisions are made to SAVE lives, not to end them. Doctors are in the business of PRESERVING lives, not ending them. The government is also in the business of PROTECTING lives, not ending them. The fact that you can't see this chasm reveals the lack of respect you really have for humanity and life in general. We are all just meat sacks waiting to die and be put out of our misery.

[alonzomourning23]

That's amusing becuase your whole argument is based on what "sounds good" at any given moment. It's easy to judge whether someone should live or die when you are so far removed from the situation, isn't it? I'll hazzard a guess that you don't have children yet, alonzo. God forbid you should ever have to decide to kill your baby, no matter what state she's in.

If I argued "whatever sounds good" I'd constantly change my argument, I don't.

Ya know what, it's her husband opinion and its the doctors opinion. I shouldn't have any say in this, neither should you or a judge. It should have been up to them, and she would be dead by now. They're not so far removed from the situation, neither is kevorkian and the people he helped commit suicide, though people far removed from the situation, make it their business. The social and legal implications of this case, the fact that any one of us could find ourselves in her situation, is what make it our business. Not her personally, but the laws that resulted in this situation.

She has severe brain damage, her life is over. It's just a question of when her brain and heart stop entirely, there is no recovery here.

Her life is not over, that is your opinion, not a statement of fact. She is still a breathing human entity who just happens not to be able to communicate or feed herself. Shouldn't we be protecting her right to life like we are so righteously ferverant upon saving the lives of caribou in Alaska from assured oil drilling death? Perhaps caribou are more importantly protected than humans in your twisted view of reality. For someone who doesn't believe in absolutes, this one sure seems black and white, doesn't it?

Not an absolute, absolute would be no one can ever be ALLOWED to die, or decide they should die if a condition is met. Saving wildlife is different, one is invasion of their habitat and killing otherwise healthy animals if it wasn't for human intervention. Without intervention she would have been long dead. With intervention she has been kept alive, against what her husband, doctors and, for what it's worth, judges think is best. Her own words are believed to even argue against keeping her alive.

She is incapable of any form of participitory social existence, of taking care of herself, or making (or at least making known) any decisions relating to herself. Her life, in any meaningful sense, is over. Keeping someone alive just for the sake or registering a heartbeat serves no purpose other than to make the family feel better. She's already believed to have stated she didn't want this, and there is no evidence to suggest she, would want to be kept alive in this situation. Why don't we let the medical experts and her husband do their job, and stop letting politicians and the public interfere. That's what the law should be.

I don't see many bueaucrats deciding when a patient should have heart surgery etc. It's a medical decision left up to a doctor and family, just like every other medical decision made when a person is not conscious.

That's becuase medical decisions are made to SAVE lives, not to end them. Doctors are in the business of PRESERVING lives, not ending them. The government is also in the business of PROTECTING lives, not ending them. The fact that you can't see this chasm reveals the lack of respect you really have for humanity and life in general. We are all just meat sacks waiting to die and be put out of our misery.

Funny, I thought the enjoyment of life revolved around experiences and social awareness and participation. A life consisiting of a heartbeat and little else lacks this. Though doctors have been doing this sort of thing for a while, shutting of life support systems, letting doomed babies die more quickly etc. Is it worth saving life when that life will gain, if anything, only suffering? I think not.

[ElwoodCuse]

HER CEREBRAL CORTEX NO LONGER EXISTS LET HER DIE ALREADY

[alonzomourning23]

I'll hazzard a guess that you don't have children yet, alonzo. God forbid you should ever have to decide to kill your baby, no matter what state she's in.

So, if I tell my partner that I don't want to be kept alive by artificial means, my parents should be able to step in and go against our, and my doctors, wishes and force them to keep me alive?

[camoor]

I'll hazzard a guess that you don't have children yet, alonzo. God forbid you should ever have to decide to kill your baby, no matter what state she's in.

bmulligan, you're the type of swell guy who, if he had a baby with two heads, would keep the two heads attached because it's "god's will" (must be a fairly cruel, toture-loving god) instead of removing a head and giving the baby a chance at a normal life.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Well I must admist I was slightly mistaken. I didn't think COngress would actually push something through and it looks like they're going to. At least they deserve kudos for seeing the proposal through, even if I don't agree with it.

I stilll think Congress did the wrong thhing, but it seems pretty obvious the popular will is there and they have every legal right to do what they're doing.

Sadly, they haven't actually changed any laws regarding the case. So I dunno how this will actually change the outcome. Or what laws the federal court will follow. It's gotten beyond my understanding of the law since by introducing federal courts in an appelt fashion which is complex for a states rights issue. But I don't see any legal outciome other than having her feeding tube removed. I think this just ppostpones the process again.

The courts have looked at this for fifteen years. Adding another appelate level is highly unlikely to alter the oucome.

[E-Z-B]

It's funny listening to Republicans advocate for government intrusion into personal lives, along with big spending and an expansion of government.

[camoor]

Latest news:

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html)

Great, the federal government makes another power grab. These guys are for state's rights only if the states make the "right" decision. Whatever happened to "voting with your feet"?

President Bush has signed legislation transferring jurisdiction of the Terri Schiavo case to a U.S. court...

After the vote, Delay expressed some sense of relief.

"I tell you I won't feel good until that tube is put back in. It's been 58 hours. I hope, I pray she lasts until that judge puts that tube back in," he said.

Delay received a hug from Bobby Schindler, Schiavo's brother, who was waiting for him in his office.

But Democrats said Congress has no right to become involved in a sensitive family issue.

"We are members of Congress. We are not doctors. We are not medical experts. We are not bioethicists. We are members of Congress," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

"Courts in Florida have received expert testimony from prominent neurosurgeons and neurologists throughout the country," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. "The evidence provided by a standard of clear and convincing evidence is that it is Mrs. Schiavo's wish that she not be allowed to continue in a persistent vegetative state"

"If this bill passes, this Congress is saying that the court system of Florida will lose its long jurisdiction of history in this matter and others like it, and the jurisdiction of the federal court will be substituted," Wexler said.

"If the Florida courts had found in favor of Terri Schiavo's parents, would we be here this evening? I suspect not."

Approving the bill would "undermine over 200 years of jurisprudence," he said. "We are willing tonight to replace our judgment with the judgment of the most prominent doctors in our country and a court system which has labored extensively to reach a just result."

[Admiral Ackbar]

Usually I'm pretty good at guaging political opinion but I keep getting proved wrong in my assertions on this specific case.

Listening to C-span I got the distinct impression that public support was on the side of supporting congressional action. It was generally four to one, or eighty percent of the calls in the two hours I heard, supported congressional action. Personally I don't think congress should get involved. But the suprising number of calls made me take noticed that maybe most Americans disagreed with me.

Then I read this poll today (and you knew they were coming) that states that around 70% of americans disapprove of congressional action. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1)

I guess it's a good reminder that you can't rely solely on anecdotal evidence.

[MrBadExample]

Thanks for the poll. I was surprised to see that most people support removal of the feeding tube even in the evangelical republican group.

[alonzomourning23]

On a somewhat related note, I saw this this morning:

And again, I believe any act to end her life through dehydration and starvation, is unbelievably inappropriate and barbaric.http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:bsucuq5Z8l4J:www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1327232.htm+schiavo+barbaric+delay&hl=en

I fully agree. We should not allow someone to starve to death when there's a chance she may have any level of consciousness whatsoever. Unfortunately the law won't allow any other way, and we're left with a decision. If a level of consciousness exists, is it better to suffer for years, unable to communicate, care for yourself or do anything and have people disregard your wishes, or is it better to suffer the painful death of a possible week long starvation and dehydration (dehydration will kill her faster than starvation).

[Admiral Ackbar]

Hey, my congressman Mike Castle voted against the bill.

Man, I love my representative. Only one of five Republicans who voted against it.

This summer I planned on calling his campaign office and becoming more active in the party. It's uncanny but nearly every view I have on politics he shares.

[ElwoodCuse]

We should not allow someone to starve to death when there's a chance she may have any level of consciousness whatsoever.

There isn't a chance of this. Many medical experts have testified to this, and the Florida courts agreed.

[alonzomourning23]

We should not allow someone to starve to death when there's a chance she may have any level of consciousness whatsoever.

There isn't a chance of this. Many medical experts have testified to this, and the Florida courts agreed.

Actually, there seems to be some debate, whether she is in a vegetative state or has minimal conscious. At this point, the debate structured as it is, it's better to argue both points, if she is and if she isn't conscious. Though you really should read the rest of my post, or my earlier ones.

Read this article, it's not as clear cut:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503190166mar19,1,6252137.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Mind's mysteries leave issue murky
The difference between a functioning brain and an empty shell is small, doctors say; yet it is the key point in a heated ethical debate

By Judith Graham
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 19, 2005


Since James Wolfe's snowmobile rolled over in December, severely injuring his brain, the former power plant official has been in a netherland known as a minimally conscious state.

His wife, Jennifer, doesn't know what he is thinking, or even whether he can think at all.

Does his mumbling and babbling mean Wolfe is trying to communicate? When Jennifer takes James' hand and his grip tightens, does that signal acknowledgment of her presence?

"I don't know," said Jennifer, who lives in Beach Park and whose doctor at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago has said James is minimally conscious. "It's so hard to tell."

Indeed, much remains unknown about the condition at the outskirts of consciousness, which became part of the contentious right-to-die debate over Terri Schiavo.

Her parents have insisted their 41-year-old daughter is minimally conscious because she smiles and seems to respond in other ways. But Florida courts have ruled that Schiavo is in a more profoundly compromised condition known as a persistent vegetative state, without true awareness or hope for any improvement.

Some ethicists say there is a deep difference between life-and-death decisions made on behalf of someone who is alert but not aware of herself or her surroundings and a person who retains even limited awareness.

One is a human shell without a human spirit, they suggest; the other is a sentient being in whom consciousness flickers, like a light bulb with a bad electrical connection.

For physicians and families, however, telling the difference between the two conditions often is extremely difficult.

In any case, no tests can definitively determine what Schiavo knows and feels. Will she feel pain or discomfort as she starves to death now that her feeding tube has been withdrawn? There is no way to know for sure, medical experts say.

"For all that medicine can do, we have no way of looking into another person's mind and understanding what is there," said Dr. James Bernat, professor of neurology at Darmouth Medical School.

Though Schiavo has become a cause celebre, her case is not unusual. Every day in hospitals and nursing homes, physicians and families struggle to understand what is going on in people who have suffered severe brain injuries: Do they feel? Do they think? Is this the way they'd want to live?

In trying to address these questions, distinguishing between minimally conscious and a vegetative state is important, medical experts report. The diagnosis can affect outcomes for patients, medical treatments and decisions on continuing life supports.

A person in a vegetative state is "awake but not aware," said Dr. Jeffrey Frank, director of neurological and neurosurgical intensive care at the University of Chicago. Though reflexes may cause them to turn toward a sound, gaze at an object or respond to touch, "there is no thought connected ... these are primitive, instinctual responses."

Some patients begin to improve and show signs of consciousness up to a year after a severe brain injury, when healing is most likely to occur.

But if someone is in a vegetative state for more than 12 months, medical experts agree "there is no possibility of recovery," said Dr. Jack Kessler, director of the clinical neuroscience research institute at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.

People in a minimally conscious state give evidence of some awareness and connection with their environment. Signs are subtle but persistent over time and can include tracking a person visually, blinking in response to questions, grasping an object purposefully or moving a finger or a limb when asked. Experts estimate 120,000 to 280,000 Americans who have suffered traumatic injuries or heart attacks and strokes fall into this category.

"The prognosis is better for both spontaneous recovery and the ability to harness treatment interventions to improve functioning," said Joseph Giacino, associate director of neuropsychology at JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute and the New Jersey Neuroscience Institute.

Once again, however, time makes a difference and prospects for significant functional recovery after 12 months are "very low," Giacino said.

The challenge for physicians lies in discerning random reflexive behavior from intentional response, which may look very similar on the surface.

Several studies have documented high rates of misdiagnosis. In one 1996 British Medical Journal report, 43 percent of patients admitted to a London hospital brain-injury unit were found to have been wrongly classified as being in a vegetative state. Other accounts have put misdiagnosis rates at about 18 percent.

"The slow-to-recover patient is often incorrectly labeled as being in a vegetative state," wrote Dr. Keith Andrew, director of research services at London's Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability in the British Medical Journal.

What's more, the extent of brain functions in at least some minimally conscious patients may be more significant than experts had thought, according to new research published last month in the journal Neurology.

Two men who were minimally conscious underwent sophisticated brain scans--called functional magnetic resonance imaging--while listening to family members read narratives about past experiences. In one case, a sister spoke of their childhood and toasts at her wedding. Their scans were then compared to those of seven healthy men and women who underwent similar simulation.

Results showed that activity in the brain's language process centers were virtually the same for both groups, indicating higher-level brain circuitry had remained remarkably intact for the minimally conscious men.

"We were taken aback," said Dr. Joy Hirsch, director of the Functional MRI Research Center at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. "It was not what we expected."

Hirsch acknowledged difficulties in interpreting the results: Only a few people were tested, and the fact that brain centers were active doesn't establish that the subjects were comprehending what was said.

She and collaborators plan to test more minimally conscious patients. The ultimate goals are to predict which patients might benefit from therapies designed to help them emerge into an "aware state" and to establish the effectiveness of these therapies by charting their effects on the brain.

Giving hope is the recent example of Sarah Scantlin, a brain-damaged Kansas woman in a minimally conscious state who started talking last month after 20 years. And in June 2003, an Arkansas man deemed minimally conscious regained the ability to read and talk 19 years after a devastating truck accident.

"The question for all of us is, how many minimally conscious people are there in this country, many of them probably in nursing homes, with more capacity than anyone knows?" said Dr. Joseph J. Fins, chief of medical ethics at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City.

"The notion of people isolated from their community and not perceived as having any kind of life of mind when in fact they do is sobering."

[MrBadExample]

Here's something interesting:

The Texas case Bush won't mention

As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her six-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn't want the tube removed, but the baby's doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law -- a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas can, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile. Bush signed the bill after interested parties, including anti-abortion activists, agreed on compromise language that required hospitals to give families 10 days' notice before terminating care and to help families find an alternative treatment facility that would continue care instead.

That process worked last week for the family of Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer who was critically injured in a car accident 10 years ago and has been in a persistent vegetative state since at least 2001. The Houston Chronicle reports that a lawyer for Nikolouzos' family was able to delay the termination of care by a Houston hospital just long enough for the family to find a nursing home in San Antonio that would take him in.

Wanda Hudson didn't have that option. According to the Chronicle, Texas Children's Hospital said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but not one of them would accept Hudson's baby. He died last Tuesday, just minutes after doctors removed his breathing tube. So far as we can tell, neither the White House nor any member of Congress made any effort to intervene in the case.

Link (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/)

[Ikohn4ever]

Here's something interesting:

The Texas case Bush won't mention

As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her six-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn't want the tube removed, but the baby's doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law -- a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas can, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile. Bush signed the bill after interested parties, including anti-abortion activists, agreed on compromise language that required hospitals to give families 10 days' notice before terminating care and to help families find an alternative treatment facility that would continue care instead.

That process worked last week for the family of Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer who was critically injured in a car accident 10 years ago and has been in a persistent vegetative state since at least 2001. The Houston Chronicle reports that a lawyer for Nikolouzos' family was able to delay the termination of care by a Houston hospital just long enough for the family to find a nursing home in San Antonio that would take him in.

Wanda Hudson didn't have that option. According to the Chronicle, Texas Children's Hospital said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but not one of them would accept Hudson's baby. He died last Tuesday, just minutes after doctors removed his breathing tube. So far as we can tell, neither the White House nor any member of Congress made any effort to intervene in the case.

Link (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/)

damn

I find it funny how hard Bush is tryin to save one life that is pretty much gone, but how quickly he sent so many men and women to their death. PLus it sickens me how many Repubs are using this from a theist prospective. They stand on a soap box and preach whats right and wrong for the whole country. Then if any Dems wanted to fight this they are muderers. ITs a lose lose situation for democrats.

[alonzomourning23]

Here's something interesting:

The Texas case Bush won't mention

As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her six-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn't want the tube removed, but the baby's doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law -- a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas can, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile. Bush signed the bill after interested parties, including anti-abortion activists, agreed on compromise language that required hospitals to give families 10 days' notice before terminating care and to help families find an alternative treatment facility that would continue care instead.

That process worked last week for the family of Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer who was critically injured in a car accident 10 years ago and has been in a persistent vegetative state since at least 2001. The Houston Chronicle reports that a lawyer for Nikolouzos' family was able to delay the termination of care by a Houston hospital just long enough for the family to find a nursing home in San Antonio that would take him in.

Wanda Hudson didn't have that option. According to the Chronicle, Texas Children's Hospital said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but not one of them would accept Hudson's baby. He died last Tuesday, just minutes after doctors removed his breathing tube. So far as we can tell, neither the White House nor any member of Congress made any effort to intervene in the case.

Link (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/)

I don't agree with that one. It's much more common to misdiagnose a baby, and it was only 6 months old. Considering the baby had no way of making a previous decision, the fact that there is a much higher chance of a 6 month old baby improving than a women who has been lifeless for 14 years, and that no one in the family wanted this, that should be illegal since there was no consent. If we had doctor, hospital room shortages etc. then decision like that are necessary, but we don't.

[camoor]

PLus it sickens me how many Repubs are using this from a theist prospective. They stand on a soap box and preach whats right and wrong for the whole country. Then if any Dems wanted to fight this they are muderers. ITs a lose lose situation for democrats.

I think I know what you mean by a theist perspective - that all life is sacred and that it's the domain of the christian god to decide when life should be ended. However these "distinguished gentlemen" in congress have taken that decision out of the hands of their god, haven't they? What kind of god wants his followers to prop up brain-dead bodies to bizarre heart-pumping IV-feeding machines, making these followers suffer (if they are event conscious in a rudamentary sense) in a cruel and inhumane manner for years on end, especially if he's offering all the good people a paradise after death? Playing up the delusions of this poor woman's parents for political gain - that is the real evil here.

[Drocket]

Its impossible to make a real call on the 6 month old's case without a whole lot more information. Presumably, the doctors in that case had that information, though, and I'm sure they did what they thought was best. Its unfortunate that the mother is unable to come to grips with the situation. Still, though, the case definitely demonstrates the hypocracy of the politicians who want to interfere in the Schiavo case. This is a case that's been in appeals since the late Jurrasic era and has been heard by half the judges in the state of Florida, and they think its necessary to stretch it out even longer. Meanwhile, they ignore the case of the 6 month old who's mother didn't even get 2 full weeks to make any legal appeals that she would have felt was necessary.

I have to admit, there's nothing I would like more than to see Congress have a hearing on this case. Its probably a bit sick, but I woud LOVE to see them prop up a drooling vegetable in the chambers of Congress and have congressmen stand up and make speeches, pretending that they know more about the case of this woman they met 5 minute before than the doctors who have been treating her for 15 years.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Not only did the Judge refuse to reinsert the feeding tube, the legal reasoning of the family's lawyer was farcical.

"Gibbs and Felos also clashed over Schiavo's religious beliefs. Gibbs said that 'fairly dramatic developments,' including a statement by Pope John Paul II that removing a feeding tube would be a sin except in rare instances, are proof that Schiavo's constitutional rights to freely practice her religion are being infringed upon. Refusing to resume her tube-feeding would 'jeopardize her eternal soul,' Gibbs said.

"The central judicial player in the legal saga -- Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer -- was not in the courtroom. But his oversight of the case was at the heart of the arguments. Gibbs accused Greer of improperly serving as Schiavo's "surrogate decision maker" and as a judge ruling on the legality of decisions related to her care.

""What's wrong with that?" Whittemore asked, pressing Gibbs for case law that proves Greer acted improperly by "doing what the law requires a judge to do."

[Backlash]

Posted in another topic, but fits better here:

All those Congressmen should have to watch the video for "One" by Metallica.

[ElwoodCuse]

Read this article, it's not as clear cut:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503190166mar19,1,6252137.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true


None of the people in that article had their cerebral cortexes turn to mush, like Terri Schiavo's has. It's clear cut FOR HER. It doesn't matter what happened to other people.

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/2527/catscan3wd.th.jpg (http://img130.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img130&image=catscan3wd.jpg)

[RedvsBlue]

Here's something interesting:

The Texas case Bush won't mention

As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her six-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn't want the tube removed, but the baby's doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law -- a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas can, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, can overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile. Bush signed the bill after interested parties, including anti-abortion activists, agreed on compromise language that required hospitals to give families 10 days' notice before terminating care and to help families find an alternative treatment facility that would continue care instead.

That process worked last week for the family of Spiro Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer who was critically injured in a car accident 10 years ago and has been in a persistent vegetative state since at least 2001. The Houston Chronicle reports that a lawyer for Nikolouzos' family was able to delay the termination of care by a Houston hospital just long enough for the family to find a nursing home in San Antonio that would take him in.

Wanda Hudson didn't have that option. According to the Chronicle, Texas Children's Hospital said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but not one of them would accept Hudson's baby. He died last Tuesday, just minutes after doctors removed his breathing tube. So far as we can tell, neither the White House nor any member of Congress made any effort to intervene in the case.

Link (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/)

So what your telling us is that if Teri lived in Texas, that she would have had the tube removed already? Texas is getting good at killing all kinds of people now. I don't really believe that, to tell you the truth, I just think its an amusing way to think about it.

[RedvsBlue]

Read this article, it's not as clear cut:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0503190166mar19,1,6252137.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true


None of the people in that article had their cerebral cortexes turn to mush, like Terri Schiavo's has. It's clear cut FOR HER. It doesn't matter what happened to other people.

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/2527/catscan3wd.th.jpg (http://img130.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img130&image=catscan3wd.jpg)

Yeah, the thing is, even if somehow she did wake up, her brain doesn't still contain any of her old memories. Also, there's no brain matter left to hold any new memories, she's as good as dead right now, the only thing keeping her alive is her cerebellum, which has sometimes been referred to as the extent of a reptile's brain.

[Backlash]

Maybe her parents are hoping she could become like Robocop? She'll become a crime-fighting cyborg, who may eventually magically regain her old memories and drop by their house just to haunt them.

[E-Z-B]

Schiavo Splinters GOP

by kos
Tue Mar 22nd, 2005 at 22:07:01 PST

Man. This Schiavo thing is becoming even more a disaster for DeLay and company. First, Democrats got to sit back and quietly watch the GOP make asses of themselves with the public. Now, we get to watch an encore -- Republicans turning on each other.
Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."

My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."

[coffman]

Funny how the Republican party is trying to break laws to save one woman who's basically already dead.

What about the 45 million or so Americans that lack any health coverage at all? Ah, that's right. F.U.

I wonder if Medicare funds are being used to keep her alive. It would be interesting to know, because on the same day the senate voted to keep her alive they also voted to cut funding for Medicare.

[Backlash]

Maybe all those ppl protesting outside the hospice would like to foot the ([no doubt huge] bill to keep her alive.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Funny how the Republican party is trying to break laws to save one woman who's basically already dead.

What about the 45 million or so Americans that lack any health coverage at all? Ah, that's right. F.U.

I wonder if Medicare funds are being used to keep her alive. It would be interesting to know, because on the same day the senate voted to keep her alive they also voted to cut funding for Medicare.

Yes, medicaid funds are being used to keep her alive. They were discussing that today on C-span due to an article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58069-2005Mar22.html

[E-Z-B]

^^ oh, the hypocrisy.

[Admiral Ackbar]

This case is getting more politically morbid every day. And I have yet to hear any good arguments to support the case for keeping her alive.

The latest one is that we should, "err on the side of life." That keeping her alive does no harm. That argument has so many flaws its almost disturbing.

1) It assumes Terry Schiavo is alive. The frank matter is she's dead. Lets be honest. The human being known as Terry Schiavo is dead. All that is left is a corpse that still has its hearts and lungs beating a few neurons firing in the brain stem.

After five years of trying in vain and using every means available including experimental surgery, her husband came to accept the death of his wife. He still loves her, but he recognizes that his wife is dead and moved on. But it's hard to do.

Unfortunately, the parents have not moved on. They still believe firmly and sincerely that their daughter is alive. It''s a hard thing to do to accept the death of a loved one in that condition. But they just don't recognize that their daughter is dead, never to return.

Of course, the parents would say I am wrong. But when 90% of the world can see that there is no hope for their daughter, when almost no reputable doctor without a conflict of interest would declare she is not a vegetable. When the parents are not a neutral party and have heavily invested emotions in this case, what can any reasonable person say but that they are mistaken.

Unfortunately, fifteen years ago Terry Schaivo died.

2) But lets assume for a moment she isn't deceased. Lets side with the view that Terry is locked somewhere in that brain.

What ultimately matters is not what the parents want. It's not what her husband wants. It's what Terry wants. And all reputable evidence states that she would not want to live this way. That's just the facts.

And if she does not want to live like this, then every moment we leave her locked in a living hell is another day of harm to her. People say, "Well, what if she changed her mind. What if she didn't mean it." Well, what if she did? They never ever look at the other side. What if she's lying in bed praying for sweet release.

And the only eveidence is that she ever wanted the former. And there is a moral obligation to respect her wishes.

Though, as stated earlier in (1), She's truly dead.

3) If we accept that she is dead, then is this unnatural state of her body some form of Desecration? Again, this is a subjective question. One that cannot be answered equivocally because every person would see it differently.

Put is another way. If your wife, husband, parents, or children died, would you like their corpses to be displayed in a museum? Would you like them disected without your permission? I can't answer that for you but look at that from the perspective of Terry.

We she want her body to be displayed in such a fashion. Dressed up and shown on video nationwide. Every evidence shows that she would not, and doing so is direct harm to her and her family. (Both the Husband by making him suffer and the parents by promoting an unhealthy psychological situation.)

4) Every bit of law supports the Husband in his fight to remove the feeding tube. There has been absolutely no reputable evidence presented by the family or a reputable doctor to support the other side of the debate. This case has been litigated for fifteen years.

Further, the parents have stated that even if it was the express wishes of Terry Schiavo to have the feeding tube removed, they woukld still fight it. Remember, ultimately it isn't what the family or her Husband wants that matters. It's what Terry herself would want for her body.

So, seeing all this, keeping her attached to Terry Schiavo does serious harm to her. It denied her her wishes, it damages her memory, it hurts her familly, it does nothing but harm. So the idea that keeping the tube in her is harmless is asinine. I'm all for "erring on the side of life," but after fifteen years the time for erring is over.

Let the woman rest in peace.

[MrBadExample]

I think the republicans are really overstepping their bounds here in a major faux pas on par with the Clinton impeachment. Some polls are showing as much as 80% disagree with White House and Congressional involvement in this case. This is going to bite the GOP in the ass come mid-term elections.

[alonzomourning23]

I think the republicans are really overstepping their bounds here in a major faux pas on par with the Clinton impeachment. Some polls are showing as much as 80% disagree with White House and Congressional involvement in this case. This is going to bite the GOP in the ass come mid-term elections.

I have to disagree, killing someone evokes much stronger emotions than not letting someone die with dignity. It isn't all about support, but how important particular issues are to particular people/groups. I'm sure those 20% feel much more strongly than most of the 80% percent. Polls do not indicate strength of an opinion or its importance.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Ackbar I basically agree with most of your points but you state over and over the the evidence of her wanting to die if she was in this sate but where's all that evidence. All I've heard is her husband, who clearly isn't going to state otherwise. Frankly if all this evidence this denying her wishes existed as you say this would've ended years ago. If anything good comes from this whole tradegy/fiasco it's that maybe it motivated some of the more procrastinating people to create a living will to prevent situations like this ever occuring to them.

[ElwoodCuse]

All I've heard is her husband, who clearly isn't going to state otherwise. Frankly if all this evidence this denying her wishes existed as you say this would've ended years ago.

You are 100% wrong. It is clear that it was her wish not to have her life continue like this, every single court has determined that. The only reason this has dragged out so long is because of her attention-whore parents and the Republican party's love affair with the Christian Right.

[Drocket]

Actually, there isn't a whole lot of evidence that Terri would want the plug pulled. It simply that that's all the evidence there is, and according to Florida state law, that evidence is more than sufficient. For all the legal wrangling that Jeb Bush has done over this case, including the utterly RIDICULOUS motion to try to become her legal guardian (wonder if he'd mind paying her medical bills while she rots in a bed for the next 30+ years, too?), as far as I know he hasn't even tried to change the law that's the heart of this case: that a verbal statement to a loved one is sufficient evidence of a person's will to discontinue life support, assuming that medical science has deemed that recovery is impossible (if recovery is possible, the standards of evidence needed go up.)

Possibly that law should be changed (though I'm not too sure about that. It would likely lead to a whole lot of vegetables with no hope of recoverty on life support for years...), or at the very least looked at. The fact is, though, that for all the hand-wringing about this case, no one (among the politicians, at least) is bothering to discuss the most important legal issue that's the heart of this case, and that's pretty pathetic. Congress 'cares' about this issue enough to use the Constitution as toilet paper, but not enough to even discuss creating a universal legal standard for these sort of issues. As always, a whole lot of showmanship, not a whole lot of substance.

[Duo_Maxwell]

All I've heard is her husband, who clearly isn't going to state otherwise. Frankly if all this evidence this denying her wishes existed as you say this would've ended years ago.

You are 100% wrong. It is clear that it was her wish not to have her life continue like this, every single court has determined that.

They upheld her husband's claim as the offical guardian and their decisions were largely based on his testimony (I think they heard other people who said something similar but that's never going to hold much water in court), but there is no true evidence available other than statements she apparently made to her spouse, whom was also her guardian at that time. Sure the court agreed with the guardian, but that doesn't mean there is overwhelming evidence that she wished to have no heroic measures used to keep her alive. That decision is still based on what Michael Schiavo is saying his wife told him some 20 years or so ago, I didn't see them pulling out documentation or anything else.

Like I said I mostly agree with Ackbar, but bottomline is people neeed to put their final wishes in writing, make it known to and file with their doctors, lawyers, etc., which is real evidence and works far better than passive statements, and people need do it sooner rather than later.

[camoor]

Like I said I mostly agree with Ackbar, but bottomline is people neeed to put their final wishes in writing, make it known to and file with their doctors, lawyers, etc., which is real evidence and works far better than passive statements, and people need do it sooner rather than later.

What if someone has a masochistic desire to live on for 15 years in a comatose state, hooked up to bizarre hospital machines, from which they cannot communicate with the outside world. Do we have to honor their wish to be treated in such a cruel and unusual fashion?

[alonzomourning23]

Like I said I mostly agree with Ackbar, but bottomline is people neeed to put their final wishes in writing, make it known to and file with their doctors, lawyers, etc., which is real evidence and works far better than passive statements, and people need do it sooner rather than later.

What if someone has a masochistic desire to live on for 15 years in a comatose state, hooked up to bizarre hospital machines, from which they cannot communicate with the outside world. Do we have to honor their wish to be treated in such a cruel and unusual fashion?

If that their wish, then yes. Whatever someone wants done to themselves, hell if they want to be a slave, as long as it's of their own free will it's fine. But, seriously duo, how many 10, 20, 30 and 40 year olds have living wills? Do you have one?

[camoor]

If that their wish, then yes. Whatever someone wants done to themselves, hell if they want to be a slave, as long as it's of their own free will it's fine.

In America, that's no longer fine. Each person is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You can't be a slave even if you request it.

You can be a butler, maid, or escort service employee (you can even work in the white house while doing this last job) but those are completely different occupations.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Like I said I mostly agree with Ackbar, but bottomline is people neeed to put their final wishes in writing, make it known to and file with their doctors, lawyers, etc., which is real evidence and works far better than passive statements, and people need do it sooner rather than later.

What if someone has a masochistic desire to live on for 15 years in a comatose state, hooked up to bizarre hospital machines, from which they cannot communicate with the outside world. Do we have to honor their wish to be treated in such a cruel and unusual fashion?

If that their wish, then yes. Whatever someone wants done to themselves, hell if they want to be a slave, as long as it's of their own free will it's fine. But, seriously duo, how many 10, 20, 30 and 40 year olds have living wills? Do you have one?

Yeah you are supoosed to abide the wishes a person decrees in their living will no matter if you or I think it's crazy, that's why they exist. Also, yeah I do have one my parents basically made me file a living will (it's not really considered a full will because I have no estate or anything to declare, but it includes my decisions regarding life prolonging procedures) when I went to college. I chalked it up to thier usual over protection at the time, but now I realize how important it was and am glad they hounded me to do it.

[ElwoodCuse]

THIS IS NOT ONLY ABOUT THE HUSBAND

"Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri's supposed statements on her views about living on life support?

No, others did as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. As the Second District explained:

We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process."

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

[Admiral Ackbar]

Ackbar I basically agree with most of your points but you state over and over the the evidence of her wanting to die if she was in this sate but where's all that evidence. All I've heard is her husband, who clearly isn't going to state otherwise. Frankly if all this evidence this denying her wishes existed as you say this would've ended years ago. If anything good comes from this whole tradegy/fiasco it's that maybe it motivated some of the more procrastinating people to create a living will to prevent situations like this ever occuring to them.

I don't know the people involved in the case. I don't know much of anything at all about the husband or wife. But it has been stated by both the husband and coworkers and friends that she would not want to live this way. Of course her parents disagree. Ultimately, we need to take the word of the individuals in the case, because she left no living will.

As for the parents, it should be made clear that the parents have presented no reliable evidence to support their position that has stood up under cross examination.

As for the husband, he is not just supported by his own statements but by his co-family. Further, the courts have found no evidence to conclude that he wasn't a kind and caring husband. Nor has there any evidence been presented that the statements made by him and his co-family aren't credible.

Again, that's not something in writing, but there has not been any credible challenges to the husbands assertions.

For many people, this won't be enough. But barring written instructions, this is the next most convincing and thorough evidence we have.

Let me quote the independents guardian report. (http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm)

"Of the Schindlers, there has evolved the unfortunate and inaccurate perception that they will "keep Theresa alive at any and all costs" even if that were to result in her limbs being amputated and additional, complex surgical and medical interventions being performed, and even if Theresa had expressly indicated her intention not to be so maintained. During the course of the GAL's investigation, the Schindlers allow that this is not accurate, and that they never intended to imply a gruesome maintenance of Theresa at all costs.

"Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations."

Ultimately, it can be said that this is a horrible tragedy. But with all the evidence that is reasonably available, it can be said that she wouldn't want to survive in a vegatative state. I'm not saying that because I know it. I don't know squat about these people.

But I know that the comments of her husband and those that add vocal evidence that she wanted her tube removed have stood under examination. While the vocal comments of the family have serious flaws and contradictions that place huge doubts on even when Terri made statements that she would wanted to live.

So looking at the reliable evidence in the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that this is what Terri would have wanted. It's not just that her husband said it. It's how she said it. Who she said it to. The context of it all. The testimony has to sound reliable and it does for the husband. The testimonials from the families side are not nearly as reliable.

To see the summary of the evidence and how the judge determined his decision, click here (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf)

[alonzomourning23]

In America, that's no longer fine. Each person is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You can't be a slave even if you request it.

You can be a butler, maid, or escort service employee (you can even work in the white house while doing this last job) but those are completely different occupations.

I know, I assumed you meant that as in "is it right" not "is it legal".

[David85]

I love the fact Bush keep going "Vote for me or the terrorists kill you!"

But what are the Repubs and dumbos doing? Wasting peoples time and money and trying to take away our freedom instead of better things like.. I don't know making the country safer!

I hope she dies soon so this mess ends.

[Drocket]

On one hand, I'd like it if she'd just die already and get it over with so that everyone can get back to news that really matters (like, you know, the Micheal Jackson trial (*tries to figure out how to insert a 'rolling-eyes smilie, and gives up*) ) On the other hand, I'd love to see Jeb Bush do exactly what so many people are begging him to do and simple forcably take custody of Terri. That would be SUCH a massive shitstorm that it would be absolutely beautiful to watch.

[ElwoodCuse]

Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own father when it became apparent that machines would have to keep him alive and he had no hope of getting better

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[camoor]

I'd love to see Jeb Bush do exactly what so many people are begging him to do and simple forcably take custody of Terri. That would be SUCH a massive shitstorm that it would be absolutely beautiful to watch.

Better yet, make it the new reality sitcom on FOX. Bout time they merge the ridiculousness of the entertainment FOX with the utter absurdness of the news FOX.

[alonzomourning23]

On one hand, I'd like it if she'd just die already and get it over with so that everyone can get back to news that really matters (like, you know, the Micheal Jackson trial (*tries to figure out how to insert a 'rolling-eyes smilie, and gives up*) ) On the other hand, I'd love to see Jeb Bush do exactly what so many people are begging him to do and simple forcably take custody of Terri. That would be SUCH a massive shitstorm that it would be absolutely beautiful to watch.

In a way I agree, it would amusing. But, at the same time, it would bother me immensely since I don't want to toy with the emotions of the family any longer than is necessary. No sense in cruelly bringing the parents daughter to near death, then bring her back, rinse, repeat etc. And the husband as well, he obviously thinks he's right but this has to be taking a heavy toll on him as well. I often wonder if he, or the judge will even survive this. Some of the people are outright dangerous, the judge has 24 hour protection, not sure about the husband. The funniest one was a few days ago I heard a guy was arrested robbing a gun store in an attempt to either save terri or kill the husband/judge (can't really remember exactly, it was one of those).

Tom DeLay pulled the plug on his own father when it became apparent that machines would have to keep him alive and he had no hope of getting better

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Now there's a man of integrity!

[Admiral Ackbar]

Okay, this following is sickening.

"The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"'These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri,' says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. 'These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!'

"Privacy experts said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable, if ghoulish."


Basically the Schiavo's are to using Terry to make money off their supporters. That's disgusting.

[David85]

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/angels.html

[camoor]

Okay, this following is sickening.

"The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.
...
Basically the Schiavo's are to using Terry to make money off their supporters. That's disgusting.

You need to remember that the Republicans are also the party of corporate America. Jesus would want it this way.

[Mookyjooky]

Here's what I don't like:

They're pulling her feeding tube. They're basically saying "We're taking her off of life support", in effect, sentencing her to death. Fine.

But if you KNOW you're killing her, why not just do it quick and painlessly? You're really going to let her starve and dehydrate to death for a week?

If you're going to kill her, at least do it with some compassion.

It's funny, I've been saying that all week.

"Why dont they just put her to sleep?"

[MrBadExample]

In another blow to "Fair and Balanced" coverage, Fox News finally had two people on this morning who support Michael Schiavo. They also just happened to both be members of the Communist party and the commentators did their level best to keep mentioning that throughout the interview. So they're telling us that while as much as 80% of the country supports Michael Schiavo's decision to remove the feeding tube, the first people they could find just happened to be communists. Right.

Unfortuantely for Fox, the two women articulated a reasonable argument that the Republicans are overstepping their bounds in creating laws to keep Terri alive. But because they are communists, I'm sure most Fox viewers will dismiss them entirely.

[Scrubking]

In another blow to "Fair and Balanced" coverage, Fox News finally had two people on this morning who support Michael Schiavo.

Stop being a lying idiot. Fox has had a lot of people on who are on the side of State Law and personal decision. The fact is ALL the media loves interviewing the parent's side becuase it stirs up controversy and gives them something to report.

And people wonder why I hardly post here anymore.

[MrBadExample]

Stop being a lying idiot. Fox has had a lot of people on who are on the side of State Law and personal decision. The fact is ALL the media loves interviewing the parent's side becuase it stirs up controversy and gives them something to report.

And people wonder why I hardly post here anymore.

If by "wonder why" you really mean "are thankful", look no further than the above statement.