Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on March 22, 2005, 05:22:07 pm
-
What are your thoughts and opinions?
Mine:
First, lets get one thing strait. The woman is NOT in a coma, I'm sick of ignorant idiots believing she is in a coma and hopeless. In my mind, the term "vegetative state" does not apply to someone that can communicate and respond to stimuli. I'm absolutely horrified by the actions and words of her husband, "is she dead yet?". "when will that ***** die?" The truth is there is now harm in letting her parents take care of Terry, however Micheal Schiavo seems to want her to die. And I'm tired of the crap he tries to pull saying she wanted to die, he only said that what, 19 years after this whole thing began? And I seriously doubt that someone who is 20 (age at the start) would even discuss such matters.
[/rant]
-
Oops.
-
I don't care what the medical term for it is. She's as good as a vegetable, she's never going to get better, she's using hospital resources as well as Medicaid money, and the husband has a legitimate desire to move on with his life.
-
A. The husband HAS moved on with his life, he has had 2 kids with another woman.
B. She can get better, other people in the same situation have. People don't seem to realize that her state isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.
C. You are a cold-hearted person.
D. Her husband is freakin' EVIL. He doesn't need to kill her to move on with his life! Yet he persues that goal anyway.
As far as the money is concerned, her husband won a ton of money in a medical malpractice lawsuit a while back promising to "always take care of her." Now he won't use that money for the purpose it was given to him for.
-
I believe that they should keep her hooked up.......starving to death or dying of thirst has got to be one of the worst ways to go.
If they are gonna kill (or let her die rather) her they need to find another way.
-
She only will die on her own IF the feeding tube is removed, all of her other bodily functions function well enough to keep her alive as long as she has food.
-
Keeping someone in such a state, if they have little or no chance of recovery, is inhumane. If she's been like that for 15 years, do you honestly expect her to just get up one day and say "oh, I'm all better now". Face it, she's gone.
Seems to me that the case for keeping her alive is tinged with a religious agenda, as in "only God can decide who dies, and when".
-
She has not been like that for 15 years you ignorant idiot!!! She used to be able to talk normally, however her husband has made sure she has not recieved the treatment she needed and there is even evidence that he tried to kill her with an injection of insuling! Gah! Get informed!
-
Tell me, how is she gone? Is she in a coma? No. She is very much alive but is being MURDERED.
-
I guess my problem with it is not "is she gone" but "have we given her family enough chances to have this reviewed in court". Quite frankly, she has suffered horrible brain damage and has no "self" to recover to by all indications. It's not like she's in a coma, where she has a mind to recover to. She's as close to a vegitative state as you can get without your brain's functions ceasing altogether. My problem is, every court that's reviewed the case has sided with her husband on the matter, but everyone outside of the judicial system keeps going back for one more chance. I say get it over with already, as it's not helping her, her husband, her parents (who are still refusing to let go; it's them that need to move on, not her husband) or anyone else to have all of these special laws and repeated reviews only to have yet another court throw it out. It's not worth my tax money to decide something that's already been decided, that's for sure.
Deepblue: she's not dead in the physical sense, but she's not capable of sustaining even basic needs like feeding herself and she's never going to recover from that. It's no more murder to remove her feeding tube than it is to take any other dying individual off of life support, she will die without it no matter what. Extending life indefinitely with no hope of recovery, once consciousness is gone, is not humane.
-
Okay, watch the following clips.
http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
http://www.multistalkervictims.org/other/video/terri-balloon.rmm
http://www.multistalkervictims.org/other/video/terri-big_eyes.rmm
http://www.multistalkervictims.org/other/video/terri-hows_that_cold.rmm
http://www.multistalkervictims.org/other/video/terri-mum.rmm
http://www.multistalkervictims.org/other/video/terri-music.rmm
Her state is better than some severely mentally retarted children? Do you want to start denying them food? Or how about the late Ronald Reagan? In his last years he was utterly helpless? Should we have denied him the food he needed to survive?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I guess my problem with it is not "is she gone" but "have we given her family enough chances to have this reviewed in court". Quite frankly, she has suffered horrible brain damage and has no "self" to recover to by all indications. It's not like she's in a coma, where she has a mind to recover to. She's as close to a vegitative state as you can get without your brain's functions ceasing altogether. My problem is, every court that's reviewed the case has sided with her husband on the matter, but everyone outside of the judicial system keeps going back for one more chance. I say get it over with already, as it's not helping her, her husband, her parents (who are still refusing to let go; it's them that need to move on, not her husband) or anyone else to have all of these special laws and repeated reviews only to have yet another court throw it out. It's not worth my tax money to decide something that's already been decided, that's for sure.
She has a self, she can laugh, she can appreciate music. Watch the videos. It's interesting to note the number of broken bones she has and the fact that her husband is not being investigated by the PD.
So a person's life isn't worth your money?
-
Not someone in that state. There are plenty of people with real hope who need the government's money, but we seem to prefer telling them to get jobs.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
So a person's life isn't worth your money?
I didn't say that. What I did say is that the dispute has been settled by more courts than I care to count in the state of Florida, so there's no reason to move it in to federal courts to give one side one more chance. The same wouldn't be done if her husband had lost, I assure you, and that's not right by any measure. It just doesn't need to happen.
-
Watch the videos, there is hope. And the people with "real hope" should get jobs instead of relying on government money, they HAVE THE ABILITY to get themselves out of their situation. It's just idiotic to take away the idea of individual responsibility.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I didn't say that. What I did say is that the dispute has been settled by more courts than I care to count in the state of Florida, so there's no reason to move it in to federal courts to give one side one more chance. The same wouldn't be done if her husband had lost, I assure you, and that's not right by any measure. It just doesn't need to happen.
To be frank, there is a clear right and wrong in this case and the courts have obviously royally screwed up.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Watch the videos, there is hope. And the people with "real hope" should get jobs instead of relying on government money, they HAVE THE ABILITY to get themselves out of their situation. It's just idiotic to take away the idea of individual responsibility.
Well, I'm not going to turn this into a welfare debate, so how about this: There are plenty of people in need of organ transplants and cancer treatment who need the resources, on whom the money would be more fuitfully spent.
-
I guess the main question is: what are her chances of recovering within the next say 10 years. If its single digits, pull the plug.
Whats the big deal anyway? Its just one person. An innocent, yes, but hundreds of thousands of innocents die every day, and their deaths are easily preventable. What makes her so special?
-
The media does.
-
Watch the videos.
Again I point to the money that was won in the malpractice lawsuit but is not being used properly by Micheal Schiavo.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I guess the main question is: what are her chances of recovering within the next say 10 years. If its single digits, pull the plug.
Whats the big deal anyway? Its just one person. An innocent, yes, but hundreds of thousands of innocents die every day, and their deaths are easily preventable. What makes her so special?
We TRY to stop the deaths of innocents, the fact that it is not always successful does not give people the right to STOP trying. If you think otherwise you are a cold-hearted monster.
-
Careful with the categoricals, there.
-
I'm sorry but anyone who does have sympathy for others is exactly that.
-
None of us has classified you according to your stance on this issue, because we understand that your beliefs stem from genuine concern for the well-being of humanity. I am simply countering with what I believe to be for the best. I do not like to see people die or suffer. (Except for the internet videos I occasionally watch late at night.)
-
If you were living like this, would you want to live?
-
The question is, and always will be...
What does she want, not her husband. If she can communicate emotions, particuarly pleasure, and chooses to do so, then she has not given up on the 'real' world, and the real world should not give up on her.
-
i'm split. some say she's conscious, other say she's brain-dead, such as:
Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.
That's off MSN.com, and it's an awfully strong statement to make without evidence.
i'm going to watch those videos though
-
Flip: she's brain damaged. She has no idea what's going on, and can't really express true emotion, only childlike wonder. She is as bad as mentally retarded children. I say let her die; it's the kind thing to do. Would you want to stay in such a state for a normal human life span? No, I don't think you would, and neither would I. One could argue that it's a form of cruel and unusual punishment to keep her alive like this.
-
Supposedly those clips that DB posted are only mere moments of a 4 hour video. And that supposedly she makes similar noises and movements (the blinks and the like) when she's alone in her room, too.
That said, I dont know where to stand on this issue. I feel for her husband, who *may* genuinly believe that she is suffering somehow from her state, and wants to move on with his life, and be able to mrry again.
And I feel for the parents, for not wanting to give up on their child.
It's a tough chouce. not one I could make, certainly.
-
OK after watching close to a dozen videos, and reading most of this page: http://www.apfn.org/old/terri.htm here's my conclusion:
first, i don't trust her husband, although his motives COULD be be sincere, but i still don't trust him. however, the videos and testimonies don't demonstrate that Terri has any (hate to say this, but) intelligence. the tasks she's been asked to perform in those videos are ones that a 2 year old could perform (following a balloon with her eyes, smiling when people touch her and show her affection). so therefore i don't believe that she's completely there. i mean, if she can move her eyes and understand what's being said, then obviously people would've tried communicating with her (i.e. "Terri, move your eyes left for 'yes', or right for 'no')... particularly her parents. as was mentioned, i think she's just displaying "childlike wonder"...
Does this constitute her being a "vegetable" though? I doubt it, because as far as i knew a vegetable was someone who wasn't conscious of anything going on, they couldn't live without machines supporting them, and were completely and utterly brain dead.
Should she be killed? The whole "but she understands what's going on!!!" argument is invalid at this point. Will she recover? probably not, it's been 15 years and apparently there hasn't been much in the way of change. the point is not whether she'll recover or not, or whether she's a living, mentally aware person... it's whether the life she's living is worth living. do you think it is? I sure don't, and i'm sure most would agree. If there's no chance she'll ever be anything but a figure on a bed who can't communicate, who can't live on her own, lives each day like the previous, then i say kill her. not "let her die"........ kill her. make it quick, but put her out of her misery. removing the feeding tube is too painful, but there are other methods of terminating someone that are literally painless, can be done in her sleep.
-
Frankly I am torn,
A. Her husband is an ass. This is quite different than a Coma aswell
B. This is a job for the states courts to decide and they have. It was an infraction of states rights to have Republican pass that law. Although, it was kinda amusing to see hard left democrats argue states rights.
-
lolol i agree with "B" :p
-
BTW that statement above about court appointed doctors is not complete. They also had quite a few that argued she was not in a vegetative state.
-
Any life is worth living, death is not a viable option unless it is brought on by natural causes. It stuns me that they will not allow Terri's parents to put a freakin' ice cube in her mouth to help her.
-
i disagree with the way they're carrying this out, but i agree that it should be done, if only by a better means, such as lethal injection.
there have also been reports of videos been tampered with and edited, and other reports that her brain tissue is partially liquified, that she's pretty much not aware of what's going on and her surroundings, so i take back what i said... maybe she is a vegetable, although a more active vegetable than some.
no joke intended
ummm i think that since she didn't have a life will, or DBA, or anything like that, the responsibility rests on her husband to decide. and if i were in her situation, i'd be glad to be put out of my misery.
i disagree with your "any life's worth living". how about people that have been in comas for 20 years, been in the same position, and can't do anything (breathe, eat, etc.) on their own, but they've been kept "alive" on machines. do you think that even CONSTITUTES a "life"? would it be inhumane to put those people to sleep!? "death is not a viable option unless it is brought on by natural causes"... well this is pretty natural: she had a heart attack, and she WOULD have died (note, she would be dead) were it not for her being on a MACHINE. i say let her rest in peace...
-
She can breathe on her own, she just can't eat because they are afraid she will choke. Shes not on a machine, she WAS on a feeding tube. And her husband has pretty much caused her deterioted condition, he WANTS her dead. "When is that ***** going to die?"
-
This statement scares me a bit:
She is as bad as mentally retarded children. I say let her die; it's the kind thing to do.
So it's now okay to kill mentally deficient people because they don't have what you consider to be a minimum quality of life?
All the hubbub aside, she isn't being sustained in anyway except through the provision of nutrients. There aren't any respirators or cardiac stimulators/pumps.
We treat dogs better than we're treating her. At least when we put dogs down we give them a shot so they don't suffer.
OT
hoohah! I can post again!!!:D
-
Is that quote on record, or is it hearsay?
Now, if her husband could be proven guilty of trying to get something out of having her dead, I'd say shoot him and try and bring her out of it. As it stands, let her die... it's the humane thing to do.
EDIT: Liberator... she wasn't born this way. And yes, to a certain extent, it would help the human race out if mentally ill children were not allowed to live. Flame me all you want, but guess what: how do you think humankind got to where it is today? Natural selection... in other words, mentally ill people didn't survive. However, the recessive genes that can cause mental illness are still out there.. If I have a mentally ill kid.. holy ****. I don't even know what I'd do... I wouldn't kill it myself, because it's my kid, but I wouldn't want it to grow up like that. I reiterate, it's the kind thing to do.
-
but think though, just because her husband wanted her to die and he's evil, doesn't mean that because of that she SHOULDN"T die...
she isn't being sustained in anyway except through the provision of nutrients. There aren't any respirators or cardiac stimulators/pumps.
yeah, but i mean, she can't move or anything, sooooooooo it's not like the only thing she can't do is swallow food. she can breathe, and her bodily functions are carrying on as normal, no one said they weren't, but she's a vegetable apparently...
-
If I have a mentally ill kid.. holy ****. I don't even know what I'd do... I wouldn't kill it myself, because it's my kid, but I wouldn't want it to grow up like that.
god damn i laughed so hard you have no idea. my chest hurts from that.
-
Originally posted by Ghost
Is that quote on record, or is it hearsay?
Now, if her husband could be proven guilty of trying to get something out of having her dead, I'd say shoot him and try and bring her out of it. As it stands, let her die... it's the humane thing to do.
You should recognize it, you said it.
Originally posted by Ghost
Flip: she's brain damaged. She has no idea what's going on, and can't really express true emotion, only childlike wonder. She is as bad as mentally retarded children. I say let her die; it's the kind thing to do. Would you want to stay in such a state for a normal human life span? No, I don't think you would, and neither would I. One could argue that it's a form of cruel and unusual punishment to keep her alive like this.
You don't want to live like that? Put it in writing so this BS doesn't go on. Also, make sure your family is aware of you're feelings.
On the subject of her husband. I heard that he is in position to get something on the order of 20 million dollars upon her death. But that aside, he seems a little too eager for her to die. He says he's doing this because he loves her, however, if she is a bean sprout, he loses nothing by just walking away.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
... but she's a vegetable apparently...
I am not convinced of that when a Nobel nominee says that he believes that she can recover some functionality with the therapy she was supposed to have gotten.
double post...sorry:(
-
*peers in thread*
:nervous:
*runs away screaming*
-
Let's look at this from the way it happened.
- Terry goes into vegitative state.
- Husband Michael spends 7 years getting the malpractice money.
- After winning the court battles and getting the money, Michael claims his wife told him she wanted to die.
- Michael has offered no form of help to move his wife along in the process of getting better.
- Neurologists have said that she can be rehabilitated, and this is not a permanent state.
- Michael Schiavo has been living with another woman and having her kids while still refusing to divorce Terry.
- Only way for Michael to get the insurance money he earned from court battles is for her to die.
If he wanted to "move on" then he would simply divorce her and that would be that. However, he would much rather have her die, and how come a woman who can't speak told him specificially she wanted to be unplugged? It's simply his word against everyone else's.
The guy is a snake, a bastard who has been having sex with someone else whilst still married to someone else. Why wont he divorce her? He wants that insurance money, and he can't get it until she dies. Period.
People in worse condition have come out of this state without rehabilitation. If he would rather "move on", then divorce her, let her parents take care of their child, and just ****ing leave. I don't get what's so hard.
She's on a feeding tube, not freakin' life support.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Any life is worth living, death is not a viable option unless it is brought on by natural causes. It stuns me that they will not allow Terri's parents to put a freakin' ice cube in her mouth to help her.
Guess what? About 100 years ago, this would already be a "natural cause".
-
Well it's not 100 years ago, it's happening right now.
-
Liberator: I told my dad, if I ever go into anything like this to tell them to kill me. Living like that would be ****ing pointless.
20 million dollars, though.. Jesus. In that case, I want her to come out... (I'd rather she come out of it anyway, but there's no hope of it).. Can we make him the braindead one?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Well it's not 100 years ago, it's happening right now.
Yes, but we're using moral standards that are quite possibly over 100 years old to evaluate the right and wrong of this case.
-
Originally posted by Anaz
Yes, but we're using moral standards that are quite possibly over 100 years old to evaluate the right and wrong of this case.
Moral standards and medical conditions are two completely opposite things.
-
Ehhhhhh... no. The opposite of moral standards would be relativism, not... medical conditions.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Moral standards and medical conditions are two completely opposite things.
if you're not using your moral standards to evaluate whether or not she should have her feeding tube removed, what are you using :wtf:
-
I say remove his kitchen from his house and let hime starve!
-
see i'm going to go with what's been said on public television, as opposed to what's being said on now hundreds of websites. according to television (and MSN.com. msn counts too): her brain tissue has dissolved, and therefore there's no way for her to ever recover and live a (relatively) normal life. so assuming she'll be like that forever, do you think it would be humane to put her out of her misery? (note: misery. just because she's not in excruciating pain all day does not mean she's living a happy life. i'm sure (assuming now that she IS conscious of everything going on) waking up every day, and not being able to coordinate movements, or talk, or eat, etc. would get old after a few... minutes. let alone a whole life...)
also, i should mention that she should've written a life will or DBA. that's her own fault, because this whole issue wouldn't exist if she had, but guess what, she didn't, and no one's perfect, so...
i need to point out, though, that i don't agree at all with the way they've chosen to execute her. there's a difference "taking someone off the machine" that's, for instance, keeping their heart pumping, or something. but to take someone off a machine that's feeding someone, and just let them die over the course of a few weeks: that's wrong. that's what's morally wrong.
-
Stealth: As far as I know, euthanasia is illegal. They don't have another way to put her out of her misery
-
Originally posted by Anaz
Stealth: As far as I know, euthanasia is illegal. They don't have another way to put her out of her misery
Exactly the problem. If euthanasia was legal like it should be, she wouldn't need to suffer like this.
-
Yeah, but it would establish the precedent.
Who decides how much suffering is too much? The doctor? The government? If so, where do they derive that kind of authority?
What if you are in a wreck and are diagnosed with a spinal injury that leaves you paralyzed from the neck down, unable to speak. At that point, according to you're standard we should whack you, but what if a treatment was developed days after you're executed(and let's not mince words, it is execution) that would have restored you to something resembling full function?
-
I find it quite ironic, that the United States of America, which ranks as number 1 for wasting food (nearly fifty percent), is the place where this human being will be executed by starvation.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, but it would establish the precedent.
Who decides how much suffering is too much? The doctor? The government? If so, where do they derive that kind of authority?
What if you are in a wreck and are diagnosed with a spinal injury that leaves you paralyzed from the neck down, unable to speak. At that point, according to you're standard we should whack you, but what if a treatment was developed days after you're executed(and let's not mince words, it is execution) that would have restored you to something resembling full function?
Well, you have to take it on a case by case basis. Saying that there should be no euthanasia under any circumstances is a stupid as saying that you should always euthanize.
Who would decide? Well, assuming that you have left no instructions, a doctor (or panel of doctors, just to be sure) would give their professional opintion as to the chances for recovery, and then it would pretty much fall to the family. This is assuming you are unable to communicate, obviously if you are conscious and aware, you can make that decision youself...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, but it would establish the precedent.
Who decides how much suffering is too much? The doctor? The government? If so, where do they derive that kind of authority?
What if you are in a wreck and are diagnosed with a spinal injury that leaves you paralyzed from the neck down, unable to speak. At that point, according to you're standard we should whack you, but what if a treatment was developed days after you're executed(and let's not mince words, it is execution) that would have restored you to something resembling full function?
The person decides. If the person is left in a completely incommunicado state, brain damaged to the extent they cannot communicate or even form rational thought (note; there's at least one instance where a paraplegic has learned to communicate through blinking, and even wrote a book as a result), then the responsibility passes to the next of kin, whose motives are examined by the courts to ensure they are neutral.
In both cases, medical evidence is required in order prove that further recovery is impossible. I believe Switzerland and Holland in particular already have laws to this effect.
If medical technology is developed days after the euthenisation, then it's tough cheese
(NB: of course, medical technology and treatment is developed, documented and tested over long periods of time; any competent doctor would be able to point out the potential for treatment during an evaluation; as such it is vastly unlikely a wonder-cure would unexpectedly emerge 'days', or weeks, or even months after the person dies in a useable state)
(more general reply; not specifically @Lib)
On this specific case... firstly, it's completely wrong to pass a law for a single specific case and person (and the law apparently specifically refers to the Schiavos) - it smacks of dictatorial rule, and is simply morally wrong, regardless of what that law is.
Reading a little about it, Terry Schiavo has been described as in a Persistent Vegatative State for now 15 years, where involuntary stimuli such as screaming, smiling, grunting, etc can occur; it'd be very easy for hopeful parents to interpret this as voluntary response. Either way, it's symptomatic of PVs, so the issue is the medical diagnosis.
As such, if the doctors diagnose it as unrecoverable PVS, then I think there is a right to withdraw treatment; and I think it's the humane thing to do, rather than let her live in this way.
(note; this is not euthanasia in legal terms, because the patient cannot independently survive without treatment. So it's actually a different issue than letting a cancer sufferer OD, for example)
There is an issue of the humanity of allowing her to starve to death over a 2 wekks period... however, medical diagnosis apparently indicates that a large portion of her cerebral cortex has turned into fluid - in effect, she cannot actually feel hunger or thirst.
Incidentally, PVS is diagnosed as a case of serious brain damage with "wakefulness without awareness"; it was coined in 1972 partly because of medicines increased ability to keep the body alive. There are, IIRC, studies in the use of MRI that help determine whether PVS can be recovered from.
(another note; there's a difference in PVS compared to brain damage; PVS sufferers are never 'awake' and able to perceive the world around them - brain damaged or retarded individuals can, but in a 'damaged' manner)
Finally, Michael Schiavo won his malpractice suit in 1992 (according to the beeb); that's over 12 years ago. He's also refused $1m dollars (my emphasis) offered by a Californian businessman to keep his wife alive (and presumably sign away his guardianship rights). Perhaps it would be fair to mention that whilst you're busy character assassinating him?
-
Sandadandadan.......
-
Originally posted by Cancer
Sandadandadan.......
And what is that supposed to be??
:blah:
-
Spam. (note his title.....)
-
If I were in her place I would want to die peacefully..
But by that I don't mean death by starvation, but rather some injection or something.
Quick and painless....
nuff said!
-
I find it odd that he remembered here saying that she didn't want to be kept alive artificially only after he'd won a malpractice suit.
There is anecdotal evidence that swirling around as well.
There are multiple healthcare workers that state that he has denied her even basic care. Once of the more disturbing ones told that Michael was in with Terry for a period of 20 minutes with the door shut and that when she went to check on her after he left, Terry's IV had been turned all the way down, there were multiple needle tracks in places there shouldn't have been any(under her breasts, ect) and there was a mostly empty bottle of insulin hidden in the trash.
On a more general note: I find it horrifying that life has become so cheap that some of us can sit by and watch another human starve to death.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I find it odd that he remembered here saying that she didn't want to be kept alive artificially only after he'd won a malpractice suit.
There is anecdotal evidence that swirling around as well.
There are multiple healthcare workers that state that he has denied her even basic care. Once of the more disturbing ones told that Michael was in with Terry for a period of 20 minutes with the door shut and that when she went to check on her after he left, Terry's IV had been turned all the way down, there were multiple needle tracks in places there shouldn't have been any(under her breasts, ect) and there was a mostly empty bottle of insulin hidden in the trash.
On a more general note: I find it horrifying that life has become so cheap that some of us can sit by and watch another human starve to death.
6 years later (after the suit), he first filed to have the tube removed. That's a long time (8 years) to wait for any improvement.
Is their proof of this? Not anecdotal evidence, because that can be made up on emotive grounds. And if it is true, why wasn't there legal action taken at the time? And when was this? Was it after the first court case actions was taken? (in which case was it an attempt at euthanasia?). Because the implication you seem to make is that he, what? wanted to reduce his wife to a vegetative state and fight a (porbably vastly expensive) 7 year legal battle? Or did he just grow tired of watching his wife suffer?
Secondly, what's worse? Letting someone painlessly die (remember, her brain is almost literally mush - she doesn't feel hunger or indeed anything), or letting them live in a mindless state with no ability to reason, communicate, care for themselves - a state devoid of emotion, of understanding - of anything that makes the human brain 'human'. In a virtual coma, without the hope of ever 'waking up' and regaining consciousness.
Me? I'd choose death over that, any time.
Oh, and what I find horrifying, is that a debate over the right to die has suddenly became a mud-slinging fight attacking the husband - rather than considering the medical condition itself and the prospects of recovery.
The parents/relatives objection is because they perceive interaction from Terry Schiavo - isn't the medical evidence behind this what is important?
-
Huh....as much as I'm a fan for human life, keeping a vegetable (a SINGLE one at that) alive and wasting money and resources that could be used to save perhaps dozens of others simply does not make sense. That, and how can you possibly rationalize putting someone through such a life? It's more inhumane than killing someone. Few people seem to realize that their are fates worse than death; being stuck in that sort of a prison with no escape is one of them.....
Let her die; but make it painless.
-
Incidentally, I read an opinion piece (http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/35838.html) in the paper today which constrasted the furore over passing a law specifically to stop Terri Schiavos' feeding tube being removed, against the unwillingness of the same US administration to consider tighter gun control.
-
Lib: its not about starving to death. The point is that she may be better off dead, and starving her is the only legal way to do it. Sad, but you yourself have come out (or so I gather) against euthanasia, so unfortunately she has to suffer needlessly. If it was my own family, I would find a way to end it quickly and painlessly, law be damned, but that's not the case.
-
If she's better off dead, then get a gun and blow her brains out. Plead Temporary Insanity based on not being able to handle anguish of watching you're love suffer any longer and take you're licks.
-
Starving her is not legal by Florida law, at least what they are doing. By denying her parents the ability to put a freakin' ice cube in her mouth, they are breaking the law. It states that no one may stop people from orally consuming nourishment.
-
I wonder what would have happened if she was an Iraqi woman... ;)
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Starving her is not legal by Florida law, at least what they are doing. By denying her parents the ability to put a freakin' ice cube in her mouth, they are breaking the law. It states that no one may stop people from orally consuming nourishment.
It's not 'starving her', it's the withdrawal of treatment. The legal issue surrounding withdrawal of treatment, IIRc, is the same as giving it; it's just that the consequences are generally more emotive.
Now, the parents could put an ice-cube in her mouth... but they'd have to wait for it to defrost, and there's no guarentee it would go into here stomach rather than her lungs; offhand, I believe the feeding tube goes directly into the stomach.
She's almost certainly not physically or mentally capable of orally consuming food / water, otherwise they wouldn't be using a tube in the first place; her brain probably isn't capable of detecting the presence of food in her oesophagus, or in moving that food to her stomach.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
At that point, according to you're standard we should whack you, but what if a treatment was developed days after you're executed
well see, that's a "what if". i mean, what if the world gets pulled into the sun? what if you suddenly spontaneously combust?
... what if a treatment wasn't developed days after you're executed?
(and let's not mince words, it is execution) that would have restored you to something resembling full function?
and please notice that i never once side-stepped. i referred to killing, terminating, etc.
yes it's murder. but it's murder that helps someone.
i DO agree that they should put her out of her misery in a more painless way though.
-
Bear in mind it's not actually painful to her; she doesn't have the brain function for it.
(although I would prefer the option of injecting a lethal but painless & quick acting cocktail of drugs, as used in countries where euthanasia is legalised)
-
This thread made me hungry.
Also, right to die in dignity should be a basic human right. I have already (I am 21 years old, lol) told my family that if I go into coma or suffer unrepairable brain damage, the plug should be pulled off.
-
I've requested being shot into the sun, but I suspect it'll be more practical to use a nuclear reactor.
-
I just can't believe how so many of you folks just don't understand, or refuse to understand her family's perspective of "hope". Its says alot about your soul (or should I say lack there of) .
There have been many cases where people have been LABELED "a vegatative state" who have made nearly full recoveries. I've a particular instance where a lady was labeled as such, and she remembered the entire ordeal, that she was conscious and was trapped in a body that couldn't communicate her her thoughts. She was freakin screaming from the inside when they pulled her feeding tube for 8 days.
The courts did not consider the fact that Terry Schiavo's husband has a conflict of interest when deciding that his decision is paramount over her own parents. He has much to gain for her death and IMHO is a greedy heartless scumbag.
Terry could have been rehabilitated if her husband actually tried to help her. Instead he moves on collects the $$$ and starts another family. Whether or not its too late now is irrelavent. Her parents want to take care of her, LET THEM.
Do you people understand that this is judicial homocide?
-
Its says alot about your soul (or should I say lack there of)
Oh.... I don't have one of those. Where can I buy one?
Do you people understand that this is judicial homocide?
Nope, I just don't understand. I guess that's probably why I'm arguing the other side.
-
Its sad really.
I hope you all never have to go through a similiar situation. Its so easy to make heartless judgements from the sidelines. Let see if your "enlightened" thoughts hold up.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Its sad really.
I hope you all never have to go through a similiar situation. Its so easy to make heartless judgements from the sidelines. Let see if your "enlightened" thoughts hold up.
I went through something vaguely similar last autumn, so :rolleyes:
-
You're making this very personal. As counterintuitive as it may seem, debates really become less "enlightening" when you begin to call into question the "souls" of those with whom you are debating.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
You're making this very personal. As counterintuitive as it may seem, debates really become less "enlightening" when you begin to call into question the "souls" of those with whom you are debating.
psssssssst
That's what they do when they are losing argument! :V
No, not really. This is exactly the question which's difficulty lies in different morals of individuals - as seen here, some see it a-ok to pull the plug, some don't, and personal experiences just kinda mix the pot and don't really change opinions all that much. Thus we can only talk so much from objective and calm point of view, and eventually we have to use our personal morality as the guide on whether this thing is ok or not. This does not mean that the debate should revert to namecalling and flaming (yeah right I wish).
-
Well, the way I see it, people who want to die tend to close themselves off from the real world, close themselves off and await the inevitable. The whole fact that this woman is still showing interest and reactions suggests that, brain damaged as she may be, she is still a part of this world.
I suppose though, the day we start judging humanity by it's mental fitness to be a useable resource then we are all screwed....oh...hang on.....
-
Well, the way I see it, people who want to die tend to close themselves off from the real world, close themselves off and await the inevitable. The whole fact that this woman is still showing interest and reactions suggests that, brain damaged as she may be, she is still a part of this world.
I suppose though, the day we start judging humanity by it's mental fitness to be a useable resource then we are all screwed....oh...hang on.....
Except that there's no reason to believe that her behavior is evidence of an interest in anything, as Raa said earlier:
Originally posted by Raa
Supposedly those clips that DB posted are only mere moments of a 4 hour video. And that supposedly she makes similar noises and movements (the blinks and the like) when she's alone in her room, too.
I suppose if there isn't much of a logical basis for debate, (certainly a legitimate point), then there's really no point in arguing in the first place, because we have now inevitably turned onto Relativism Highway, which leads directly to Nihilism City. It's got a night life like you wouldn't believe but don't try to make a point.
-
"That's what they do when they are losing arguement!"-Janos
I didn't realize I was even arguing. I was mearly throwing in my 2 cents on the matter. This situation should not incite arguement and debate. It should provoke deep reflection on the current state of the human condition.
-
This situation should not incite arguement and debate. It should provoke deep reflection on the current state of the human condition.
But there is no 'should.' When an issue is presented, people will interpret a certain way. It's like saying the Earth should be flat.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
"That's what they do when they are losing arguement!"-Janos
I didn't realize I was even arguing. I was mearly throwing in my 2 cents on the matter. This situation should not incite arguement and debate. It should provoke deep reflection on the current state of the human condition.
I need sarcasm tags. :(
This is worth arguing and discussion. It's a pretty big deal, and outcome has a big impact on several people. Schiavo's condition sucks, ok, but the debate is not about that. It's about the right to die and when the doctors can end someone's life.
-
Oh let me guess.... Moral Relativisim.
I'm sorry,
I choose active compassion over idle intellectual vanity.
-
Well, even a two year old autistic child has intelligence, even if there is great difficulty in accessing it. I wonder what this lady would have to say for herself if she did manage to recover? Brain injuries have been known to do that before, but they take a significantly longer time that other injuries, but the brain is capable of slowly 'rewiring' itself around some injuries.
I suppose, at least the way I see it, I'd much rather my taxes go towards keeping somebody alive who did not choose to be this way than paying for methadone for junkies who then go out and sell it for Heroin money.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Oh let me guess.... Moral Relativisim.
I'm sorry,
I choose active compassion over idle intellectual vanity.
classy
So you don't really want to go into the reasons, you just want to cry over anything and don't thrive for change?
-
classy
-
(http://www.freshwasabi.com/art/bagmvc-006f.jpg)
Wasabi!
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
...because we have now inevitably turned onto Relativism Highway, which leads directly to Nihilism City.
[SIZE=40]DARTH NIHILUS!!!111[/SIZE][/b]
Seriously though, everytime I hear someone ***** about "moral relativism" I'm reminded of a certain shrub...
-
You know what? The issue is nearly a nule point because she is going to die soon, its her 6th day without food or water. I hope you people are happy.
Personally I hope that some compassionate person finds a way to get her the food she needs.
-
You know, to me personally this method of letting her die goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Triage is one thing, but to allow someone to starve to death over several days is doing harm. That is neither right nor dignified, in fact, I personally find it more than a little sickening.
Can you imagine if you were a mind trapped in a body that wasn't obeying it's commands? And then to sit and watch helplessly as they remove your only line to life, and check up on you to see how well you are dying?
That's not medicine in my books.
-
Apparently her skin has been cracking from the dehydration. This whole case horrifies me.
-
Originally posted by Janos
classy
So you don't really want to go into the reasons, you just want to cry over anything and don't thrive for change?
If there really was any reason in any of this, her husband would divorce her and let her parents take care of her. Wouldn't that make sense?
After all, when dealing with a particular individual's life, and I mean their life, then emotions play a very big part in the debate...
{sarcasm} However I suppose we should unplug her feeding tube and let that fat **** get 20 million dollars... after all, it's not like Terry is actually alive, so why don't we all take her life in our own hands and decide what's best? {/sarcasm}
An interesting thing for those who don't know what happens when you die from starvation or dehydration. Your skin dries out and cracks open, and your kidney's fail and your body posions itself. It's a slow and painful process, and watching someone slowly begin to decompose is horrid.
-
Dude starves dog, dude goes to prison. Dude starves wife, dude gets money.
What is wrong with this picture.
-
(note: i wrote this last night, when the thread was only getting started, so i probably missed somthing. i never got to post it then, but the hell with it.)
over %50 of her higher brain functions have been reduced to liquid.
She is in a state which many different private, and independent goverment appointed doctors describe as persistent vegetation, of which there is no recovery. Basically, a body in that state can support involuntary functions, and minimal reactions to stimuli.
All those alleged reports of her husband assulting her are just that, alleged. There is no evidence of such things ever happening, and if t here was, it wouldnt be relevent to the current case.
In its state, the terri schiavo case is not a case to ultimatly decide if she lives or dies; it is actually a case deciding the jurisdiction of the courts. Instead of leaving the decision in the hand of the State of Florida, the Republicans introduced legislation to expand the power of a Federal court into the decisions that have been, for literally hundreds of years, decided by the family and _local_ governments. The first bill on Terri's life was rejected, even with a Republican majority. Instead, they optioned for the second bill, which was convenitly slated for a late emergency vote, making the Republicans look like the saviors of this poor womans life. When Republicans in the House passed their bill that allowed a Federal court to decide the life or death Terri, they immediatly overstepped the moral and ethical jurisdiction of Law and grossly expanded the powers of government into peoples lives.
If a Federal government can decide who lives, the step to allowing the Federal government who dies is not logically far away. Even if the Federal court decides to save Terri's life, the step into What if the Terri case was in an opposite situation, such as if Republicans opened the door for Terris parents to plead for her death?
-
For me, as much as I'd like to see her given a chance to live, my biggest problem is the way she is being tortured to death, which is essentially what it boils down to.
For a government to say the Euthanasia is inhumane and yet fail to step in and intervene on the simple grounds of Human Rights is beyond me.
-
Okay, lets get rid of the issue of whether she wants to die or not. Why now?? Why can't we take the time to look at this case in detail? Why can't the parents have the right to take care of their child?
-
If her parents are willing to take on the responsibility of that, then the only problem the husband could have with it is that he wouldn't get the money, that is the only difference in the outcomes for him. This needs to be borne in mind.
-
Seriously though, everytime I hear someone ***** about "moral relativism" I'm reminded of a certain shrub...
Oh, I wasn't *****ing about it. I live in the dark void of moral uncertainty. Relativism is like heroin to me.
-
*Sigh*
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg
Reminds me of the days of Operation Rescue.
Even if Randal Terry is a Son of a B*tch.
-
They could, at the very least Euthanise her if they intend for her to die. What sort of image does this kind of thing project when the world is sitting round watching a hospital of all places starve a person to death?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, even a two year old autistic child has intelligence, even if there is great difficulty in accessing it. I wonder what this lady would have to say for herself if she did manage to recover? Brain injuries have been known to do that before, but they take a significantly longer time that other injuries, but the brain is capable of slowly 'rewiring' itself around some injuries.
I suppose, at least the way I see it, I'd much rather my taxes go towards keeping somebody alive who did not choose to be this way than paying for methadone for junkies who then go out and sell it for Heroin money.
Originally posted by Flipside
You know, to me personally this method of letting her die goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Triage is one thing, but to allow someone to starve to death over several days is doing harm. That is neither right nor dignified, in fact, I personally find it more than a little sickening.
Can you imagine if you were a mind trapped in a body that wasn't obeying it's commands? And then to sit and watch helplessly as they remove your only line to life, and check up on you to see how well you are dying?
That's not medicine in my books.
I don't think she's aware of it; her cerebral cortex is apparently turned to liquid (and it can't regrow and thus repair the damage). AFAIK it's effectively painless because she doesn't have the mental capacity to feel pain... whilst the states of dehydration are descriptively horrifying, they don't amount to much for a person incapable of feeling pain or thirst, or even perceiving what is happening to them. Some of the main deteriorations during dehydration actually match the symptoms of PVS anyways/
They should be allowed to euthanize her, though, simply because of the image and how it's emotively manipulated (in a way that will only hurt the family).
Oh, and RE: 'why now?' It's been 7 years since the first petition to remove treatment was made. They've not exactly been short on time to examine the case in detail.
I'd point out that, if the husband believes his wife is suffering, then offering / withdrawing money won't be an issue. Remember he's already been offered $1m to hand over custody to the parents.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
There have been many cases where people have been LABELED "a vegatative state" who have made nearly full recoveries. I've a particular instance where a lady was labeled as such, and she remembered the entire ordeal, that she was conscious and was trapped in a body that couldn't communicate her her thoughts. She was freakin screaming from the inside when they pulled her feeding tube for 8 days.
Yeah, but how many of those cases have a large part of their brain (particularly the cerebral cortex, i believe they said, in terri's case) turned to mush. non-functioning mush. human technology is good nowdays, but not when it comees to rebuilding brains...
Terry could have been rehabilitated if her husband actually tried to help her.
1) there's no proof that she "could have been rehabilitated IF"...
2) live for today... who cares if she could've been rehabilitated and become the richest, most powerful person in the world 10 years ago. right now, there's no hope for her. consider what IS, not what WAS or what COULD"VE been
Its sad really.
I hope you all never have to go through a similiar situation. Its so easy to make heartless judgements from the sidelines. Let see if your "enlightened" thoughts hold up.
i hope if i'm ever in the same situation, i'm put out of my misery...
-
Can you imagine if you were a mind trapped in a body that wasn't obeying it's commands? And then to sit and watch helplessly as they remove your only line to life, and check up on you to see how well you are dying?
OK....the cerebral cortex (in Terri's case: what's turned to mush) controls all higher level mental functions. Breathing, heartbeat, etc. is controlled by the medulla, which is at the top of the spinal chord (note: completely different part from the cerebral cortex).
that's why some people who are on machines that keep them breathing, their heat beating, etc. are still fully conscious. on the other hand, there are some (i.e. Terri?) who are 'conscious', but have no memory, are not able to RETAIN memory, and are basically just going to be vegetables their whole life.
IIRC it's the hypothalamus that's responsible for processing pain, which may/may not be still functioning in Terri's case, i don't know.
-
I suppose my problem with the whole starving to death thing is the same thing as with Death itself. Without being there, how can anybody make a definitive statement what is 'aware' and what is not? True there have been people who died and have 'come back', but the experiences of these cases vary from 'Nothing' to 'I saw God and he said "You are to return and be given large sums of money"'.
The same rule applies to Coma. No matter the situation her mind is in, if she is alive without any mechanical apparatus other than the feed tube, then how can we be certain the 'Lizard Brain', the part that controls Hunger, Sex drive etc, is not reacting, how can we know.
Personally, after 7 years, I would say that if dramatic improvement hasn't happened by this stage that it is unlikely to, but I find little empathy in the behaviour of these professionals, and that concerns me greatly, maybe this is some kind of radical stand against the anti-Euthenasia laws but either way, I find this quite a horrid way to end someones life :(
-
Shes worsened in the last years because her husband has denied her therapy and treatment.
@Aldo
Yes he's been offered a million, but the insurance would probably provide a lot more than that. It seems this guy is simply a greedy selfish ******. When nurses told him that Teri was has an infection of some sort he would get excited and sputter how rich he was going to be. When she got better he asked "when is that ***** going to die?
-
One more thing, how are you guys so sure her cerebral cortex is mush? There has not been a single CAT scan or MRI performed on her EVER. And if she is able to respond to her father's questions (albiet with unintelligible sounds, however she pauses when he speaks and responds to each question with a sound, sometimes varying the sound). In addition to that, a nobel prize winning neurologist spent 11 hours with her and concluded that she could recover and that she is NOT in a persistent vegetative state. However, it may be too late now that shes been starving for 6 days.
-
Okay, this part just bugs me.
"Supporters of Schiavo’s parents grew increasingly dismayed, and 10 protesters were arrested outside her hospice for trying to bring her water. "
That statement makes me feel depressed at the condition of the human race.
-
Sorry 'bout the quad post but something else caught my eye. Terri can smile at her parents, how many vegetables can express emotions?
-
a 6 month old baby can smile at people. that proves nothing about whether she knows what's going on or not.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The same rule applies to Coma. No matter the situation her mind is in, if she is alive without any mechanical apparatus other than the feed tube, then how can we be certain the 'Lizard Brain', the part that controls Hunger, Sex drive etc, is not reacting, how can we know.
because we know what the role of the cerebral cortex is in a human; we also know that hers is mush
-
Originally posted by Stealth
a 6 month old baby can smile at people. that proves nothing about whether she knows what's going on or not.
Should we start starving small babies and mentally retarted children? :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
because we know what the role of the cerebral cortex is in a human; we also know that hers is mush
In addition to that, a nobel prize winning neurologist spent 11 hours with her and concluded that she could recover and that she is NOT in a persistent vegetative state.
There has not been a single CAT scan or MRI performed on her EVER.
So tell me, how do you know?
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
So tell me, how do you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiavo#Schiavo.27s_condition
Most of Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by spinal fluid; Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo] has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region."
-
If I were the person in question. I'd want them to put me in a canoe on a secluded lake and let me go. After 15 years, there has been no improvement, only her autonomic functions are operating, the higher brain functions are essentially gone. We are prolonging life for what reason? So we can comfort ourselves and pat ourselves on the back because were preserving life? What life? Let her find peace.
At the very least, I'm told that she feels no pain. That is fortunate.
Just what I believe...my 0.02 cents.
-
And yet somehow she can tell her husband "I want to die"...
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
So tell me, how do you know?
are you that naive? do you think this is one big conspiracy, and that actually Terri's perfectly conscious, trapped inside a body where she can't communicate or move, but in the future there WILL be a way to cure her?
Get a grip man. do you think that in FIFTEEN YEARS no one's run any tests on her? that the doctors all look at her and say "oh yeah. she's a vegetable, her brain's mush".
don't believe everything you read on the internet, because in the end it's you that looks like an idiot when you quote it.
-
Actually Stealth, other than some incredibly broad generalisation, we don't have much of a clue how a very large percentage of the Human Brain works. Pain comes from the middle of your brain, not the cortex.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually Stealth, other than some incredibly broad generalisation, we don't have much of a clue how a very large percentage of the Human Brain works. Pain comes from the middle of your brain, not the cortex.
Actually, tests have indicated that patients with no cerebral cortex (which is responsible for receiving sensory information and motor control, incidentally) don't feel pain; http://www.biopsychiatry.com/gaba/pain.html
The cerebral cortex, as I understand it, is responsible for the transmission of pain messages; the frontal cortex (corticles? I forget the term) are responsible for the processing and reaction of it (hence why they have activity there).
-
The cantral issus are these:
- what do you thnik and normal individual (maby you too:D) would want in those conditions? I know I would want to die.
- is there hope of recovery?
- will she die painlessly?
-
From what I heard and read, a nobel prize winning neurologist said that with therapy she could come out of it. Also, people who have been in worse condition have come out of this sort of situation.
What I dont understand is how cases like this get so much attention. Worse things happen every day that never get as covered as the insignificant things like these.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually Stealth, other than some incredibly broad generalisation, we don't have much of a clue how a very large percentage of the Human Brain works. Pain comes from the middle of your brain, not the cortex.
note what i said 2 posts up please:
OK....the cerebral cortex (in Terri's case: what's turned to mush) controls all higher level mental functions. Breathing, heartbeat, etc. is controlled by the medulla, which is at the top of the spinal chord (note: completely different part from the cerebral cortex).
and
it's the hypothalamus that's responsible for processing pain, which may/may not be still functioning in Terri's case, i don't know.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
From what I heard and read, a nobel prize winning neurologist said that with therapy she could come out of it. Also, people who have been in worse condition have come out of this sort of situation.
What I dont understand is how cases like this get so much attention. Worse things happen every day that never get as covered as the insignificant things like these.
That's incorrect RE: recovery. Particularly concerning long-term PVS; the BMA (British Medical Association) belives that cases of 'recovery' have been due to original misdiagnosis. It also recommends that a period of 1 year expire before the diagnosis of irreversible PVS confirmed.
See http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/pvs?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,PVS
The doctor who said Terry Schiavo could be cured through therapy is, i presume, Dr. William Hammesfahr. Firstly, he's not a winner but a nominee (odd statement in itself, as nominee names are kept secret for at least 50 years from both the public and nominees). My understanding is that RE: the Nobel prize, his name was simply put forward. And his name was apparently put forward by a republican congressman, which doesn't qualify under nobel rules (has to be by someone within the same field, i.e. another doctor, etc).
The doctor was also fined and censured by the Florida medical board for taking $2000 off a patient without performing any therapy (this was in 2003); the board also rule his treatment of stroke victims was "not within the generally accepted standard of care", although some did improve. He's also provided no evidence (videos, case studies) that he has actually treated patients worse off than Terri Schiavo - in short, his credits are far from impeccable.
As an aside, RE: the nurse who alleged that insulin was found near Terry Schiavo. A judge dismissed her (and another nurses) testimony as 'incredible' (it featured descriptions of Terris activities and responses, and was completely without co-oberative medical evidence), and ordered the family not use it due to that. In other words, they are groundless claims.
-
The Republicans assulted the Constitution to save this woman. So much for their reputation as the "Party of small government and states Rights"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger33.html
-
assaulted the Constitution?
Oh I get it! It okay if some unaccountable prick in a black robe with a hammer dick's around with our rights, but when the people who we actually give power to do something, they are "fascists" and "teh ev1l!
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
From what I heard and read, a nobel prize winning neurologist said that with therapy she could come out of it. Also, people who have been in worse condition have come out of this sort of situation.
What I dont understand is how cases like this get so much attention. Worse things happen every day that never get as covered as the insignificant things like these.
Really? Because the MRI's were saying that large sections of her brain were dead and filled with spinal fluid. Far as I know, you don't recover those areas.
I know the brain can re-wire itself and sometimes recover but apparently not from damage like this. And then what is recovery really?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
assaulted the Constitution?
Oh I get it! It okay if some unaccountable prick in a black robe with a hammer dick's around with our rights, but when the people who we actually give power to do something, they are "fascists" and "teh ev1l!
Overidding the legal system in order to force a certain resolution to an issue, upon a specifically named and targeted individual or group... I'd say that's a dangerous precedent.
IIRC the courts have ruled the attempts to change the law unconstitutional, but you don't accept that because...why? You don't agree with them?
'The unnaccountable prick in a black robe' is a sacred part of any democratic, free country - the independent judiciary, the people who have to stand outside policitcal influence and interpret the law. You want to stop them, override them in this case? Fine, do it. Keep doing it. And then watch when the pretence of the rights you think that has given you, is shattered.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how many of my countrymen actually believe the "activist judges" garbage being spouted by the current administration. As aldo said, the independent Judiciary is vital to a stable democracy; it's judges who aren't afraid to nullify a law on the grounds that it conflicts with constitutonal rights who protect us from abuses of power by the legislature/executive, not the other way around.
And besides, the case in question has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo at this point, when it comes down to it. It's a battle over how many times you can appeal a court's decision that you don't like, regardless of why the ruling was made in the first place. Sleezeball or not, without a living will her husband is the final word on her medical care, period. Every court that has heard the case has come to the same conclusion; that really should tell you something about the validity of the claims.
-
point is: she's not going to recover. there has never to date been a case of anyone recovering fully with even half the cortex damage she has. her cerebral cortex is gone. humans can't rebuild it, and it can't rebuild itself. she'a a goner.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
assaulted the Constitution?
Oh I get it! It okay if some unaccountable prick in a black robe with a hammer dick's around with our rights, but when the people who we actually give power to do something, they are "fascists" and "teh ev1l!
The Constitution created one of the best forms of government ever devised by man. The government is meant to be at its own heels, to prevent Federal power from interfering with individuals lives. Giving the Federal government the power to rule directly over an individual, even for a righteous cause, is a dangerous overstep in power. The fact is, this is one of the few cases in recent years that the judges are doing their Constitutional duty. The Founders were collectivly more educated in the ways of government than probably anyone we know. The Constitution was meant to protect the individual; in order to do so, it must stay intact.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
'The unnaccountable prick in a black robe' is a sacred part of any democratic, free country - the independent judiciary, the people who have to stand outside policitcal influence and interpret the law.
You don't really believe that, do you?
Nevertheless, this is too far. They had a shot, these Republicans, but like the ACLU and other organizations before them, they reached too far and now people are going to turn on them.
-
Impartiality is important in Law. That is what the scales and the blindfold are for.
It's one of the hardest things to do, which is probably why it was one of the first.
-
@Lib, checks and balances are good. However, this still does not erase the fact that what they are doing to her is doing harm and is cruel and unusual. It's basically state-sanctioned murder. At best it's state-santioned suicide.
-
My Mother had to order my Grandad's Life Support turned off last year, his condition was nothing like this, he had collapsed 2 days before hand, and everything just shut down, it's a horrible decision to have to make, but when it gets ugly like this, it's all the more terrible.
I would not have liked to be the surgeon who detached that tube. Did I read earlier that this man had been given money in a medical malpractice case to use to keep her alive though? So she isn't actually draining public funds?
-
well im speechless ...lol
i have nothin to say except that the latest is the US Supreme Court has denied her the right to stay on the feeding tube
im sorry to say that deepblue
but thats the truth
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
You don't really believe that, do you?
Nevertheless, this is too far. They had a shot, these Republicans, but like the ACLU and other organizations before them, they reached too far and now people are going to turn on them.
Yes. How can a free country exist with political control over the judiciary? One of the first things most dictatorial governments do, is remove independent judges and install more amenable ones - surely that indicates something about the role of the law in enforcing freedom and democracy?
Originally posted by Flipside
My Mother had to order my Grandad's Life Support turned off last year, his condition was nothing like this, he had collapsed 2 days before hand, and everything just shut down, it's a horrible decision to have to make, but when it gets ugly like this, it's all the more terrible.
I would not have liked to be the surgeon who detached that tube. Did I read earlier that this man had been given money in a medical malpractice case to use to keep her alive though? So she isn't actually draining public funds?
I think the money has suposedly run out... but I don't think much or any public money goes towards public healthcare in the US anyways.
One of my cousins works in a hospital in Texas (he moved their with his American wife last year); we got a brochure - the hospitals are far better furnished than NHS ones, but the costs are enourmous - IIRC the deposit for treatment on a serious illness is $15k, and private rooms run at the cost of $1k a day.
On the general subject... my grandad died over quite a long time with liver failure. Whilst euthanasia was never even thought of (he wasn't on a respirator or anything, so you'd be talking murder, and it's just not something you think about where there is still forlorn hope), I still felt almost glad in a way when he died, because of the way he had been suffering and deteriorating. Before the end - and this is not a joke - he looked like a yellow (renal failure) gollum. So I'm in favour of euthanasia, or simply withdrawing treatment, if someone is suffering without hope of recovery.
-
Let me clarify: you don't really believe they're apolitical, do you?
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Let me clarify: you don't really believe they're apolitical, do you?
They're human, so of course not. But that doesn't justify the government overruling them to suit its own political ends; if your judges are halfway competent, then their politics are not an issue.
I'm not overly familiar with the US legal system, but I believe the Supereme Court sits with more than one judge to prevent politically motivated decisions, yes?
In an issue like this, both sides of the debate are politically motivated - and will attack any decision they disagree with as being so, too. That doesn't make it a correct assumption, though; any decision will in some way match a political side of the arguement.
-
True. In fact I think the sitting court might be mostly Republican, though I'd have to check. If they are, they aren't Republican enough to agree to this, and more power to them.
The Supreme Court has tended to rule with its political leanings, despite efforts otherwise in its makeup.
-
According to Wikipedia;
[q]
As of 2005, the United States Supreme Court Justices are:
* Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
* Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
* Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
* Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
* Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
* Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
* Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
* Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are generally considered to be conservative. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are generally considered to be liberal. Justices Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor are typically seen as moderates, and hence are the swing votes who often decide cases.[/q]
I think Clinton is the only Democrat president on that list, incidentally. Although changing society and politicals mean that, of course, a judge appointed by one party is constantly adherent to that parties modern policies; in fact, you'd hope not for the sake of proper legal decision making.
-
All I can really say is this, take a look at the UK law system, this is the perfect example of a System that got so obsessed with the 'Emotional' background and 'seeing every side' of the story that it has turned itself into a foam-rubber mallet.
The UK no longer takes it's own laws seriously, our Judges are more concerned about the fact that defendents 'had a bad childhood' than that they mugged a 70 year old woman.
This situation came about, to a large degree, because we did not stick to the letter of our law, we kept making one-off exceptions etc, our own fear of being called -ist about anything, racist, sexist etc, etc, coupled with the European Court, which is like the UN, only with more Bigots.
-
I had yet to give my input on this issue, and i was really wasn´t going to. But now i think i should.
First of all, i am totally all for euthanasia and unplugging this woman´s machines. There is no chance she will ever get better, not in her lifetime, or ours fo that matter. However, it is shocking to see the hipocrisy that rages on. If you disconect the machines, you are virtually killing her. So why on earth do they allow her to starve and suffer?? Why not put her asleep, in a painless manner? Why does she have to suffer more? Yeah, some say she doesn´t feel pain, but for pitty sake get it over with already!!!
Others say that she wasn´t given a right to choose. Well, that is true. But the raw truth is that the majority of the people who find themselfs in simillar situations, and yet still retain the lucidity of mind to vocalize their wishes, would choose to end their lifes instead of living the rest of their lives stuck in a bed looking at the walls. We know this already. I choose so too. So chances are Terry would choose it too had she the brain capacity to vocalize it.
Let´s face it, many people fight with tooth and nails for the life of somebody else, but if they were in the same shoes it´s curious to see how they change their minds about it. When it happens to others, it´s easy to play the "life is precious" advocate. But when it happens to you, when it´s you who have to face the endless pain, both physically, mentally and spiritually, we aren´t that concerned. Who amongst you would be prepared to live your life, year after year, strapped to a bed, your familly abandoned you, your friends gone, and the only confort you have are those few hours of sleep, if you are lucky? Or your daily dose of morphine and other drug cocktails?
I don´t envision Terry making any other choice than ending it all, if she could.
I agree that she is allowed to die, but i am totally against the method. Doctors aren´t allowed to "ease" her way out, because the law sees that as murder. And yet that same law doesn´t see starving her as torture? Such hipocrisy...
We are the masters of our bodies. we are the master of our lifes. We are allowed to smoke, drink, infect ourselfs with desiese, drug ourselfsf, sell ourselfs for sex, even sell parts of our body, but we cannot choose to live or die?? Such bull****...
:wtf:
-
Yes, but she didn't choose to die. Her husband chose for her.
As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place) you should be able to figure out a way to take care of it yourself. You do NOT have the right to make a physician, a person who has dedicated his or her life to saving life, do the job for you. That is the act of a coward.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, but she didn't choose to die. Her husband chose for her.
Which is what makes these cases so controversial; the issue was not her husbands 'choice', however; her husband took the matter to court, and let the court make that decision, based upon not just her husband, but the physicians evidence (from both parties and independently appointed doctors), and also based upon the statements of 3rd parties who knew her.
That's an important distinction; her husband never said 'she wants to die'. He effectively said 'I believe she would want to die', and the court reviewed the evidence and agreed with that side. Remember this has gone through pretty much every single possible avenue of law to reach this stage; it's scarecely the act of one man acting alone, but the comprehensive conclusion of the mediatory system provided by the courts.
Originally posted by Liberator
As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place) you should be able to figure out a way to take care of it yourself. You do NOT have the right to make a physician, a person who has dedicated his or her life to saving life, do the job for you. That is the act of a coward.
With the issue of euthanasia, you may not be physically capable of ending your own life; the most obvious example being a parapleigic.
The base of the Hippocratic oath is, IIRc, 'do no harm'; there are cases where a patient can make the arguement that a life of pain is doing harm. There is also the side issue that the input of a professional medic may be required to make euthanasia as painless as possible.
Imbalance is such a strange term to use.... does living in constant pain and deterioration constitute physical imbalance? I find that it's very easy for people to criticise the concept of euthanisia, when they themselves have probably never suffered to that extent; that's why my personal opinion is that the right to choose to die when critically ill without hope of recovery, is an important right to have.
And, at the same time, that scope should be given - with scrutiny - to allow that decision to be made by proxy when the person is incapable of making it. For example - I've never made a living will. But if I was in a vegatative state like Terri Schiavos, I would definately want my family to be able to tell them to turn off the life support.
NB: note that the Terry Schiavo case is not euthanasia; it's withdrawal of treatment. There are different legal issues in both, and also different medical/moral issues.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place).
Why is that? If i was to suffer an accident tomorrow and became tetraplegic, i would choose suicide. Am i imbalanced? What happened in between to make me imbalanced then, but not now?
And being a tetraplegic, having only the use of my neck (if lucky), i couldn´t physically pick up a bottle of pills or a gun to kill myself. Am i a coward then??
I haven´t made a will or testament, about what i would like to see done if i were in a similar situation to Terry. But i have vocalized my wishes to my family, they know i would rather get a peacefull send off and a quick end, than to live years and years as a vegetable. Infact, the loss of the use of my legs alone would make me consider suicide. I can´t see myself living in a wheel chair. I would rather die.
The problem is that in most countries the law would see such a will and testament as being null and void, because the law doesn´t consider suicide as one of your inate individual rights. That´s why no one writes them.
Basically we are ruled by religion, allthough we don´t admit it. The only obstacule to passing an ammendment to allow assisted suicide, is a religious one. Because the curch deems suicide as a sin (you can´t even be buried in consacrated ground if you kill yourself), the laws were made around it.
It´s about time we get over this religious dogma, and start thinking about changing such bias laws. I am not religious, so why should i be subjected to religious laws and considerations?
My body and my life are my own to decide what i wish done with them. It´s up to me alone, not to some priest or judges.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place) you should be able to figure out a way to take care of it yourself.
Like shooting anti-euthanasia protesters until they give you the death sentence????
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the most voratious supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to live because she didn't choose to die are also supporters of the death penalty?
You have the right to live! Only God has the right to choose who lives and dies. Unless you commit a crime in Texas. Then we'll kill your ass!
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Why is that? If i was to suffer an accident tomorrow and became tetraplegic, i would choose suicide. Am i imbalanced? What happened in between to make me imbalanced then, but not now?
And being a tetraplegic, having only the use of my neck (if lucky), i couldn´t physically pick up a bottle of pills or a gun to kill myself. Am i a coward then??
...
...
Basically we are ruled by religion, allthough we don´t admit it. The only obstacule to passing an ammendment to allow assisted suicide, is a religious one. Because the curch deems suicide as a sin (you can´t even be buried in consacrated ground if you kill yourself), the laws were made around it.
Much as you may say it Trashman, in the event I doubt you would actually go through with it. Even in places where euthanasia is legal, the vast majority of terminally ill or badly crippled people do not opt for that route. This reflects a basic biological drive to go on living, regardless of circumstances. Even in horrible pain, a dog or cat never kills itself. Nor a dolphin or a sparrow.
Those who lose such a basic instinct worry us of the majority. They appear a dangerous aberration which must be controlled. Perhaps they are. Perhaps not. But that, not religon, is why your amendment will not pass. Religon merely cloaks the more fundemental reason.
-
Who are you to judge what is and is not a dangerous abberation?
-
We don't know what Terri's(note the proper spelling) wishes are/were, what we do know is based on hearsay and conjecture. I will choose life every time because I beleive that every last man and woman on this pathetic mudball has a divinely decreed purpose to their living.
The fact that she is still conscious and alert after 11 days without food or water is enough to tell me that Terri hasn't fulfilled her purpose and wants to live.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The fact that she is still conscious and alert after 11 days without food or water is enough to tell me that Terri hasn't fulfilled her purpose and wants to live.
right...
-
While I do feel sorry for her and her family, I must reiterate that I concur with the courts' decision; the ultimate responsibility to determine when she should no longer be treated lies with her next-of-kin, her husband. It's the political wrangling, the media circus, and the misinformation about her and her family that I find appaling, and quite frankly I am glad that there is no more avenues to push this issue into. It's been said before, this has been going on for over seven years. Let her go in peace is all I can say.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
We don't know what Terri's(note the proper spelling) wishes are/were, what we do know is based on hearsay and conjecture. I will choose life every time because I beleive that every last man and woman on this pathetic mudball has a divinely decreed purpose to their living.
You would choose life. This isn't your choice, though - the court had to decide what it could, based on the evidence available of what Terri would have wanted; it's a bastard of a situation, no doubt, but if Terri Schiavo had been mentally able to make that decision, then there wouldn't have been a decision to make.
If your opinion is based upon a supposition of what she wanted, then I'd suggest it could easily be wrong - unless you've been to every court hearing, and heard every piece of evidence put in support of either viewpoint of her wishes, then you're not in a position to make a true judgement.
If it's based on medical evidence - i.e. that she's not in an irrecoverable post-vegetative-state - then I believe the court appointed neutral doctor would disagree, and the length of time would support the diagnosis of irrecoverable PVS.
If it's simply part of a view against euthanasia, then this isn't the issue for debating it, because this is allowing her to die, not killing her. Withdrawal of treatment is not euthanasia; it doesn't accelerate the process of death, because the treatment itself has only aritificially postponed it.
Originally posted by Liberator
The fact that she is still conscious and alert after 11 days without food or water is enough to tell me that Terri hasn't fulfilled her purpose and wants to live.
She was never conscious or alert in 15 years; that's what PVS is, a waking unconsciouness. Your eyes are open but there's nothing working behind them.
Don't let 9 hours of video - of random movements and responses - edited into 4 1/2 minutes of highlights fool you.
-
Update:
Jesse Jackson (whoa) visited her and thinks she should live...
-
Oh, well clearly all the doctors are wrong, then.
-
All? It's pretty divided among doctors.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the most voratious supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to live because she didn't choose to die are also supporters of the death penalty?
that sound just like a quota from "the life of david gale"
All? It's pretty divided among doctors
no it's not.
the vast majority of terminally ill or badly crippled people do not opt for that route. This reflects a basic biological drive to go on living, regardless of circumstances. Even in horrible pain, a dog or cat never kills itself. Nor a dolphin or a sparrow.
yeah, but you see, unlike humans, a dog, cat, dolphin, or sparrow lack the intellect of a human. they can't inject themselves with an overdose of morphine, etc. they most likely don't have the ability to think "wait, i'm in extreme pain, let me find a way to end my life"
don't try to correlate the life of an animal, to the life of a human.
-
Not amongst the independently appointed court doctors, AFAIK. All 6 agreed upon the PVS diagnosis.
The viewpoint of the doctors hired by either Michael Schiavo or Terri's family is pretty much irrelevant, because their association with either side raises questions over their neutrality.
Unfortunately, that is arguably applicable to every doctor cited outside of the court appointed ones, now; as it is plausible they will be selected because of a presupposition of what they will say, in order to prove a point.
Which is why i would stick with the medical opinions of the court appointed doctors, who are the only ones who are approached - i.e. whose opinions are sought - under the intent of complete neutrality.
Regardless, my point is; Jesse Jacksons' opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. So any visit he made, isn't really relevant towards this thread or debate, because it doesn't add anything beyond another opinion.
-
i thought this was amusing... on "terrisfight.org"
"She's not physically ill, other than being brain damaged," Wagner told WPTF reporter Sarina Fazan.
that's a nurse that used to work at the hospice
has anyone disputed this whole time that she wasn't physically ill?
-
cause what i heard was the majority of the court-appointed doctors said she was a vegetable...
-
Originally posted by Stealth
cause what i heard was the majority of the court-appointed doctors said she was a vegetable...
All of them concluded that AFAIK.
-
ahh ok. i wasn't 100% sure :D
-
Then they just need to let her die. She has no purpose anymore on this earth, I'm not trying to sound like a bastard, but they just need to let her pass on. I already told my family that if I ever turn like that, to pull the plug on me because it wouldn't be worth it.
-
Too bad, you do sound like one.
-
Jesse Jackson (whoa) visited her and thinks she should live...
Well that settles it. We have to do the opposite of whatever that man says.
-
Deepblue, have you even entertained the option that for some people, death might be better than life? People have commited suicide for less (say, life in prison). Without even getting into the specifcs here, can you admit that there might be some merits to a mercy kill?
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Much as you may say it Trashman, in the event I doubt you would actually go through with it. Even in places where euthanasia is legal, the vast majority of terminally ill or badly crippled people do not opt for that route. This reflects a basic biological drive to go on living, regardless of circumstances. Even in horrible pain, a dog or cat never kills itself. Nor a dolphin or a sparrow.
Those who lose such a basic instinct worry us of the majority. They appear a dangerous aberration which must be controlled. Perhaps they are. Perhaps not. But that, not religon, is why your amendment will not pass. Religon merely cloaks the more fundemental reason.
First of all, AFAIK a dog or cat is physically incapable of killing itself. Think of the ways you can commit suicide. Then take away all those that involve opposable thumbs or higher intellect (such as drowning yourself, or jumping off a bridge). See what I mean?
And you have some nerve to call people who would choose death in such a circumstance an abberation. And what's more, they must be controlled. Seems to me like thats the very basic freedom: the freedom to with your own life what you will. Yes, survival instinct is a very fundamental force in human nature, but we also have that which other animals do not: dislike of discomfort and helplessness, and the conscious recognition that we are capable of ending our own suffering. Balance the pros and cons of continued living (assuming you were badly crippled or somesuch) and I don't find it at all stange that some people might simply feel that its not worth it. What exactly does Terry Shcaivo have to gain by living? Is there a real hope of recovery? It is unfortunate that she cannot communicate her thoughts on the matter, I'm sure it would be easier for everyone if she was conscious, but that's life.
What amazes me is that you seem to be advocating a ban on euthansia, even when the person is fully conscious and aware of their situation. You are in effect telling me: you do not control your own life, the State does. How exactly does that mesh with personal freedom?
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Too bad, you do sound like one.
Don't resort to insulting people; it makes your arguements sound even more unfounded.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
yeah, but you see, unlike humans, a dog, cat, dolphin, or sparrow lack the intellect of a human. they can't inject themselves with an overdose of morphine, etc. they most likely don't have the ability to think "wait, i'm in extreme pain, let me find a way to end my life"
don't try to correlate the life of an animal, to the life of a human.
Actually, animals are also capable of self termination. A lion for ex, when is sick or incapacitated, will move away from the group and die alone. If he remained with the group, they would still share the food with him, so he could survive even though he can´t hunt for himself. By moving away, he is signing his own death warrant.
Lemingues commit mass suicide, allthough no one know why yet. Some think it has to do with excess population.
An octopuss will eat his own body to feed itself while he maintains vigil of its offspring. Many times they eat themselfs to death.
Elephants are believed to commit suicide by throwing themselfs off a cliff. Many mass graveyards were found in Africa. Evidence discovered examining the bones showed many of those animals were sick, or old. Maybe they knew their time had come.
The point being that claiming "animals don´t kill themselfs, so we shouldn´t either" is totally wrong. It is in the nature of all livings things to try to survive, but it is also in their nature to instintivelly know when their time has come and when to stop fighting for survival. Survival at all costs doesn´t exist.
-
NB: Lemmings don't commit mass suicide. That was just made up (the footage was staged) for a Disney (IIRC) documentary.
However, it's probably impossible to compare animal behaviour to humans, anyways; we simply don't know enough about it, and there may be an entirely different perception of pain an memory. There are also base survival instincts which humans either don't have, or don't have to that degree.... basically, we don't have the ability to understand completely when animal behaviour is intentional.
Oh, and (apparently - not found a definitive source for this yet, though) primates have been observed to commit suicide by starving themselves.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: Lemmings don't commit mass suicide. That was just made up (the footage was staged) for a Disney (IIRC) documentary.
Sorry, don´t know what you are on about. Never saw such a thing as a "Disney documentary". I thought they only made cartoons and children´s movies. :p
I saw it in National Geographic, btw. A similar occurrence took place with penguins, in the Arctic.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and (apparently - not found a definitive source for this yet, though) primates have been observed to commit suicide by starving themselves.
Wouldn´t be at all strange. Birds do it when they are caged. It´s as if they feel depressed, and choose to end it. Maccaws peck their feathers out because of depression, and freeze to death. Some parrots were observed pecking their own flesh off their bones, after being caged. I see a paralel with humans commiting suicide after being thrown in jail. Guantanamo is infamous because of it.
Other theories could explain that whales and dolphins beach themselfs to die, aswell. The theory that they somehow lost their bearings doesn´t make much sense. Whales migrate half across the world, and never miss their destinations, and all of a sudden they loose their bearings? I don´t buy it. I think (personnal opinion here) that they do it when they are sick, old, or lose the parents for some japanese whaler boat or something. It´s just that no one wants to admit that whales are that inteligent and behave so much like us. Whales also die in captivity very often. Again depression is a likely explanation, since food and other needs are met just as if they were free. So it has to be an emotional problem, since physically they are under the same conditions as they would be at sea.
:blah:
-
Lemmings don't top themselves, just accept it right now.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Sorry, don´t know what you are on about. Never saw such a thing as a "Disney documentary". I thought they only made cartoons and children´s movies. :p
I saw it in National Geographic, btw. A similar occurrence took place with penguins, in the Arctic.
Wouldn´t be at all strange. Birds do it when they are caged. It´s as if they feel depressed, and choose to end it. Maccaws peck their feathers out because of depression, and freeze to death. Some parrots were observed pecking their own flesh off their bones, after being caged. I see a paralel with humans commiting suicide after being thrown in jail. Guantanamo is infamous because of it.
Other theories could explain that whales and dolphins beach themselfs to die, aswell. The theory that they somehow lost their bearings doesn´t make much sense. Whales migrate half across the world, and never miss their destinations, and all of a sudden they loose their bearings? I don´t buy it. I think (personnal opinion here) that they do it when they are sick, old, or lose the parents for some japanese whaler boat or something. It´s just that no one wants to admit that whales are that inteligent and behave so much like us. Whales also die in captivity very often. Again depression is a likely explanation, since food and other needs are met just as if they were free. So it has to be an emotional problem, since physically they are under the same conditions as they would be at sea.
:blah:
The problem is, that what you;ve described can't be proven as suicide. Now, the Lemmings thing is established as false; the footage used to 'prove' it was in a Disney (1958) documentary called 'White Wilderness', where they filmed the Lemmings being shepherded off a cliff; subsequent repeats have continued the myth.
Birds... there's not a way to tell if pecking is with the intent of suicide or simply due to boredom (for example, leading to over-grooming) or conditions leeding to mental defect.
Whales and dolphins beaching - there is no evidence that this is suicide; particularly as entire pods have been observed to do so. There are IIRC a number of theories, for example due to sonar or shipping affecting the whales natural echolocation.
Point is, we don't know this behaviour is suicide. It is unproven, and possibly unproveable; so applying that as reasoning behind human behaviour is quiestionable in itself. The secondary issue is that humans are not equateable with animals; we can't justify human nature based on animal nature, any more than - for example - we can explain kangeroo behaviour with the actions of dogs.
By the same context, dismissing suicide as unnatural is invalid, too.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Whales migrate half across the world, and never miss their destinations, and all of a sudden they loose their bearings? I don´t buy it. I think (personnal opinion here) that they do it when they are sick, old, or lose the parents for some japanese whaler boat or something.
a little offtopic here, but i thought that wales 'migration' has something to do with the moon, or tide patterns or something, and that they can be thrown off.
-
I think whale migration has been linked to oceanic currents or the Earths magnetic field, but I'm not sure.
-
The issue was not whale migration, it was whales beaching themselfs and die.
EDIT:
Oh, i forgot to add, Terri´s parents have managed to get another appeal in. I wonder when will they give up, and just let her go.
Becausse she is already more dead than alive. Her kidneys and intestines failed, her liver will be next, if they suddenly decided to reinsert the tube she would die just the same. So why bother?
:doubt:
-
the Earths magnetic field
yeah that's it. those are the words i was looking for :)
-
oh . hehehe worth mentioning:
I was playing WC3 yesterday, and this guy had registered the name: "TeRrIsCHiAvo"... and he'd join games, and the whole game he'd say, every few seconds "OMG HUNGER!!!!!111" and "FEED ME, I NEED A CHEESEBURGER" and stuff like that.
heh. it's amazing how much time people have on their hands :p
-
Well, to be a little on topic for the moment, Michael Chiavo is fighting against Florida law to have an autopsy done on his wife when she is dead. Florida law require that autopsy is to be performed on something like this before cremation. I think he has something to hide, since the whole time he has been denying her any more help after 7 years of court battles to get Medical inssurance of some kind. I think it was a few million dollars that were SUPPOSE to go to her rehabilitation and treatment but never got there... I wonder why?
-
source?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Well, to be a little on topic for the moment, Michael Chiavo is fighting against Florida law to have an autopsy done on his wife when she is dead. Florida law require that autopsy is to be performed on something like this before cremation. I think he has something to hide, since the whole time he has been denying her any more help after 7 years of court battles to get Medical inssurance of some kind. I think it was a few million dollars that were SUPPOSE to go to her rehabilitation and treatment but never got there... I wonder why?
eh? I read he had asked for an autopsy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4390501.stm
[q]The husband of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged US woman now on her 11th day without food, wants a post-mortem examination once his wife has died.
Michael Schiavo, who says his wife did not want to be kept alive artificially, wants the examination to uncover the extent of her brain damage.
Mrs Schiavo's parents, who have fought to keep her alive, are reported to have agreed to the request.
*snip*
Amid bitter divisions caused by the lengthy legal battle, Michael Schiavo has insisted on a post-mortem examination.
"He's requested this very strongly," said Mr Felos.
"He believes it's important to have the public know the full and massive extent of the damage to Mrs Schiavo's brain that occurred through the cardiac arrest in 1990." [/q]
EDIt; oh, and he won about $700,000 in the malpractice suit, not millions. He was offered millions to drop his case/position a few months ago, but refused.
-
Shhhhhh Aldo. You're interrupting the demonising! :)
-
After all.... who needs the facts when you can make up an opinion more easily?
-
He did not request an autopsy. Not even very strongly. The court cases are there to look at, but after loosing his court battle against an autopsy, he has finally agreed for one to begin. Lemme get a news article to go along with this.
EDIT: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371805/posts
EDIT 2: He must have changed his mind due to recommendation from his lawyers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/story/294367p-252064c.html
-
Is it possible he might not have been comfortable with the thought of his wife being sliced, diced and dissected? Just a thought.
-
You realise that Free Republic is scarcely an unbiased news source? (it's a - member funded - activist conservative news site)
Reuters, CNN and BBC all state the autopsy was called for by Michael Schiavo, not the parents;
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/schiavo/
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8016906&src=rss/topNews
With regards to the cremation issue; apparently Florida law requires a mandatory autopsy on bodies to be cremated.
According to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6324-2005Mar28.html the parents have not requested an autopsy.
-
:confused:
Someone check the dates on these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4390501.stm -> 29th
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371805/posts -> 27th
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/story/294367p-252064c.html -> 29th
-
BTW, Tin Can, extracted from your own links to the New York Daily News :
Others critical of the husband even charged that he wanted to cremate his wife's body to destroy evidence that he abused her. An autopsy could also settle any accusations of abuse.
Note the fact that it says that OTHER people CLAIMED, and didn't prove, that he wanted to cremate his wife. As for the Free Republic site, I give it as much credibility than Fox. Biased to the wazoo, that is, even if there's a few truths mixed into the bias.
And frankly, I do think it's better for the poor woman. Even if she responded to stimulus, I doubt she could have made a recovery, ever partial or full, after CAT scans already said that activty in her cortex was nearly nil.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
:confused:
Someone check the dates on these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4390501.stm -> 29th
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371805/posts -> 27th
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/story/294367p-252064c.html -> 29th
The one dated on the 27th is from a biased source, it's not reliable atall - to be precise, it's posted on freerepublic, a conservative/republican website. It's quoted as a news source from NewsMax, another conservative/republican website (which has been accused of bias; in particular distributed a 'Deck of Weasels' set of playing cards baring the faces of opponents to the War on Iraq). It (NewsMax) even has a 'media bias' section which compares non-negative coverage of the Terry Schiavo case (i.e. not actively against it; neutral) to Naziism.
Essentially, it's about as factual & reliable a news source as the stuff Steve the Invisible Flying Goat tells me.
-
She died this morning...
Do you understand that she STARVED to death? That is not a pleasant or peaceful way to die.
-
She´s dead now. Rest in peace.
Yesterday i saw a picture of her CAT scan, and i have to agree, from my layman´s perspective, that she was pretty much braindead. The cranial space was just filled with a black mass of dead tissue.
-
Any death can be regarded as peaceful if you are incapable of feeling or comprehending it.
I feel sorry for all sides, in all honesty, but IMO this was the right thing to do, but possibly in the wrong way. I would view euthanasia as more humane than simply withdrawing treatment, even if just to shorten the time for the family & friends.
-
It isn't over yet... And Micheal STILL wants to cremate the body (adding insult to injury for the parents), but he has agreed to have an autopsy performed first. Such a *******.
@ Aldo:
So just because a news source is right-leaning it is much less credible than left-leaning sources? :rolleyes:
-
BBC? Left-leaning?
-
Damnit!!!
From one doctor that says she is in a PVS:
"she has no visual tracking and she has no conscious awareness which are the cardinal signs of the vegetative state"
She did have visual tracking!!! Or was that just another "reflex."
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
It isn't over yet... And Micheal STILL wants to cremate the body (adding insult to injury for the parents), but he has agreed to have an autopsy performed first. Such a *******.
It's amazing, really; he wants to have his wife cremated, and he becomes a *******. My grandfather was cremated, does that make me a *******?
If not, then why him? Because you feel your best defense for your position is to demonise someone who took the opposite stance?
Originally posted by Deepblue
@ Aldo:
So just because a news source is right-leaning it is much less credible than left-leaning sources? :rolleyes:
No, any source which leans either way is not credible. That's why I focus on articles from neutral sites, particularly the BBC.
The fact that it is right leaning, highlights that it has a propensity to be biased in favour of the conservative, republican view - and that view is pretty obvious based on the actions of the president. In the absence of a neutral factual source to support the article, and clear evidence of the websites bias, I can't possibly view it as credible or factual.
Originally posted by Deepblue
Damnit!!!
From one doctor that says she is in a PVS:
"she has no visual tracking and she has no conscious awareness which are the cardinal signs of the vegetative state"
She did have visual tracking!!! Or was that just another "reflex."
Yes, it was. I can only assume you are referring to the 'edited highlights'; the 4 1/2 minute videos that came from 9 hours of tape.
Unless you're implying the doctors are deliberately lying and somehow missed this over 15 years?
-
Her parents are catholic I believe. Therefore cremation would add insult to injury for them.
Think about things BEFORE responding.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Her parents are catholic I believe. Therefore cremation would add insult to injury for them.
Well, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was to do so (after all, look at all the ****e that's been said about him), but I'm not going to prejudge intentions just to make a point.
AFAIK he believes that this would be her wish; if so, what is wrong with that? Certainly not enough to justify your level of insults.
-
Excuse me for asking, but, from a neutral point of view, which is more important in her eyes ? The guy she sweared an oath to spend the rest of her life with, or her parents. Given that she didn't have a choice of parents, but had the choice to marry or not, my opinion is clear-cut. And frankly, once she's dead, she's dead. Be it in ash or 6 feet under, I don't think it justifies getting that worked up upon where she ends up.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
She did have visual tracking!!! Or was that just another "reflex."
I'd imagine, YES!
-
I think, upon looking at the sources of info in this link my feelings are :-
Terri was braindead. She had been in care for a large number of years and had shown little, if any improvement. We cannot know what she wanted, we only have the Husbands word to go on. If those wishes are against Pro-Life beliefs, it doesn't automatically follow that he is lying or evil. As for the husbands motivation in this, I don't know him, and I never heard of him before a few days ago, I can't stand in judgement from News reports, because I cannot trust their impartiality.
The Autopsy is a good idea, it may not be palatable to some, but I think this needs closure.
Edit : The Schiavo affair, not this thread ;)
-
well aside from the fact that they tortured her to death (cmon 14 days without food and water instead of a lethal morphine dosage?!) i dont see anything wrong with euthanasia ... hell im 18 and i say with all certainty if i was a vegetable i would have prefered to die.
and i would also prefer to die if i was paralized neck below and other such matters.
-
Yes, the method of death was horrible, that was the worst part of it.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
BBC? Left-leaning?
By American standards, yes.
-
I fail to see why this is/was news. Distracts from the important stuff (like the completion of George Tennent's scapegoating), I suppose, so that's a reason, but this exact thing happens all the time, all over the world. It's hardly a new thing....
Withdrawing food is a nasty way to kill someone, I agree, but if they actively killed her (ie an overdose) then there'd be people screaming murder....
-
I fail to see why this is/was news. Distracts from the important stuff (like the completion of George Tennent's scapegoating), I suppose, so that's a reason, but this exact thing happens all the time, all over the world. It's hardly a new thing....
Bingo. The powers that be love this kind of sideshow. It's a shiny object that entertains the people so engrossingly that they don't even feel the dick of the corporate world in their ass and the dick of the government in their mouth.
-
Well, whether you call it assisted suicide, Euthenasia or Murder, I'd prefer it over the slow wasting. That said, you are both 100% correct, and it will continue going on long long after the name Terri Schiavo is long forgotten. And if it is not this, it will be some other shiny object for people to gawk at and be thankful it's not them.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, the method of death was horrible, that was the worst part of it.
To be fair, many - possibly all - of the symptoms of dehydration/starvation are the same as existing symptoms of PVS; when viewing what for us would be a horrible death, it's possibly worth noting that for someone in her condition there is not the brain function to process most (if not all) of the feelings and conciousness that makes it unpleasant.
-
Hmmmmmm... I suppose a lot of my empathy lay with the people who had to watch her die in such a way. I suppose that would be my main concern for me, would be to have people hanging on 'just in case' when they should be getting on with their lives. That memory, of watching her unknowingly starve to death will leave a far deeper scar, I feel, than a simple ending of pain for all involved, but then, to me Euthenasia is not just about ending the pain of the dying, it's about ending the pain of those left behind as well.
-
:sigh:
Convicted criminals: Check.
Unborn children: Check.
The disabled: Check.
Next up: The elderly.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Hmmmmmm... I suppose a lot of my empathy lay with the people who had to watch her die in such a way. I suppose that would be my main concern for me, would be to have people hanging on 'just in case' when they should be getting on with their lives. That memory, of watching her unknowingly starve to death will leave a far deeper scar, I feel, than a simple ending of pain for all involved, but then, to me Euthenasia is not just about ending the pain of the dying, it's about ending the pain of those left behind as well.
Well, yeah, I agree on that with respect to the family. But there's been a lot of over-emotive comparisons made with torture, concentration camps, etc - which is really a deliberate misrepresentation to support a viewpoint.
-
It is a valid question to ask why this particular case was highlighted. As has been said before, it goes on everywhere, everyday. I suppose part of me feels like the line between 'reality' and 'reality TV' is getting more and more blurred. I find that thought quite scary.
A case like this will cause emotions in people, it did in me, I'd be lying to say otherwise, but what made this case make it's way not only into Americas headlines, but into the UK's as well? A more pessimistic side of me says that we will be seeing more of these cases in the US. I have an inkling, but we will have to wait and see.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
:sigh:
Convicted criminals: Check.
Unborn children: Check.
The disabled: Check.
Next up: The elderly.
What exactly are you trying to infer? Eugenics? Or that this is somehow in your mind related to prolife issues?
-
Originally posted by vyper
What exactly are you trying to infer? Eugenics? Or that this is somehow in your mind related to prolife issues?
It's becoming a slippery slope. People don't value life as much as they used to.
-
Wow, you gotta do something bout the flux capacitor Goob!
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
:sigh:
Convicted criminals: Check.
Unborn children: Check.
The disabled: Check.
Next up: The elderly.
I disagree. The elderly are an easily manipulated voting bloc.
@the value of life
I expect for one of the Major Networks to start airing Ultimate Fighting Championship any day now.
-
It's becoming a slippery slope. People don't value life as much as they used to.
Yes, because in past ages, people have treated each other with great empathy and kindness. Life was precious to the Mongolian hordes, and the Romans, and the Greeks who left babies on hilltops to be "taken by the gods", and don't forget the Inquisition. Oh the best has to be the Aztecs, who marched people by the hundreds into their sacrificial temples.
We value life when we know the people involved, and when we can afford to value it.
-
I'm sure he thinks the "good old days" are a little more decent, Ford.
Let's take for example the "colonization" of America, the French-Indian Wars, the Salem Witch Trials, the American Civil War (where people were being maimed instead of outright shot on purpose, and then shot instead of being taken prisoner by both sides), and the students and protestors killed during the civil rights movement and Vietnam War protests.
But we're supposed to forget these things. Because America has always been a Good Christian Nation(tm) that has wholly obeyed the every whim of God's Given Bible(tm) except for this damn decadent age (post 1959). Minus the Holy Crusader Ronald Regan (god bless his pure soul!) and the Glorious Days of the Holy 1980s!
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
She did have visual tracking!!! Or was that just another "reflex."
dude, my dog's 2 week old puppy has "visual tracking"... if you snap your finger above his head and move it in a circle, he'll follow it. she's a vegetable... her cerebral cortex is mush. we discussed this today in anatomy, and there is no. way. that she is conscious of her surroundings. if she WAS, that would mean the last few hundred years of medicine, experimenting, and technology was for nothing
think sense. the most sophisticated part of her brain, responsible for higher mental functions (i.e. processing, etc.) is DESTROYED... it doesn't EXIST, and there's been no case of it completely rebuilding itself. rePAIRING itself, yes, but there's nothing to repair.
in fact, i'll bet she doesn't even have any brain waves, if they hooked her up to an electroencephalograph, it would showa straight line i'm betting...
-
Yarr, ye be high rollin' there pinky!
-
Oh great. Now the fundies have made this their rallyiong cry against the "arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president.", which by the way is exactly what they're supposed to do. The judiciary is the only place where the Republican party doesn't dominate completely, which means they're an evil, subversive force, as opposed to, oh I don't know, a legitimate counter-balance to executive and legislative power.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Oh great. Now th'fundies have made this their rallyiong cry against th'"arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress an' th'president.", which by th'way be exactly what they're supposed t'do. The judiciary be th'only place where th'Republican party doesn't dominate completely, which means they're an evil, subversive force, as opposed to, oh I don't know, a legitimate counter-balance t'executive an' legislative power.
I thought the whole point of an idependent judiciary was that it would be unaccountable to the government, myself.... this whole single case is being used to dictate policy, now; and it's not even majority policy (apparently, a Fox - ! - news poll said 54% of Americans viewed the removal of the tube as an act of mercy and 29% thought it was murder; so it's not even a majority view).
There seems to be an astonishing amount of hyberbole being spouted over a single individual case, to the extent that the independence of judiciary is being criticised and threatened - if you examine the particular quoted critcism, it's essentially aimed at removing the supreme courts (or any court) right to reject a law as unconstitional.
-
All aboard th'wagon, it's th'hype-express rollin' outta town.
Considerin' this came t'a head on account o' th'Government broke it's own laws t'give th'parents chances t'appeal, this utterly stinks o' a self-generated moral situation. As terrible as I feel for th'family an' all involved, doesn't it seem strange that this case gets highlighted, an' this case alone, a particuarly bitter case. It's strange how it appears th'husband has been villified from th'start, I heard talk o' him allegedly sayin' 'Is she dead yet?' etc, which seem t'have been false.
And then all o' a sudden, bam! up pop th' governemnt savin' us all from th'evil judiciary system, th'same Pro-life minded people who, apparently, drew this out into th'foreground in th'first place. It all seems far too...convenient, it's like playin' on a Bash-A-Mole, ye have t'make th'Mole stick it's head up before ye can hit it.....
If anything, it's highlighted to me the kind of suffering Euthenasia can relieve, rather than made me any more 'Pro-Life'
-
They're all a bunch o' ****ers.
When I seize power, thar won't be any more o' this moral ambiguity bilge. Euthanise th'lot o' them as soon as they're disabled. Not after they've sat around for 15 years burnin' a hole in me treasury.
EDIT: damn word filter.
EDIT2: What th'hell? Hang on a second...
-
Hey, when did they let you back? I must admit though, that's a hell of a first post.
-
Yarr. Aren't you dead?
-
Not anymore.
Trust the admins to **** up the April Fools joke enough to reset the forum permissions. You think they would have learned from last time.
-
Enough that you can edit posts again? Or are you still in the FUBAR'd group?
-
No, I can edit posts. But I seem to have acquired "other" abilities as well. I'm still checking things out.
-
Not good. Not good at all. You do look like an admin on the who's online bar.