The question is whether they will agree to hear the appeal.
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) – After losing two consecutive appeals in federal court, Terri Schiavo’s parents vowed Wednesday to take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court as their severely brain-damaged daughter began her fifth full day without the feeding tube that has kept her alive for more than a decade.
In a 2-1 ruling early Wednesday, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the parents “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims” that Terri’s feeding tube should be reinserted immediately.
“There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo,” the ruling said. “We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law.”
In his dissent, Judge Charles R. Wilson said Schiavo’s “imminent” death would end the case before it could be fully considered. “In fact, I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube,” he wrote.I remain skeptical of the argument the Schindler’s lawyers have put forth (they claimed that Terri Schiavo’s religious and due process rights have been violated) in their federal case, and suspect the Supreme Court may decided not to hear the case. I still believe their only path to victory would have been to challenge the flimsy evidence to suggest that Terri Schiavo would have wanted the fate she’s now about to meet.
Been There,
As far as morals being subjective:
I don’t think it is moral to keep people alive against their wishes in accordance with the law. You seem to think so. Fortunately, the state is not restricted by your morality and I don’t have to be governed by it.
There are a lot of points where people’s morals conflict. As a society, we must decide what we want to do and how to enforce it. What you seem to want is an open mandate for YOUR morality (cause it’s so obviuosly correct). You and the pedophile both want that.
People are quick to quote other decisions by the court, historical leaders, etc., etc. that we now recognize as being non-moral. In general, this is because societal morality has shifted and evolved. Something I believe very strongly may be considered insanely wrong 200 years from now. Ditto for something you believe. However, we can’t see the future and we have to make decisions based on our current knowledge and experience.
TruthTeller,
“Of course not. When the shoe is on the other foot moral relativists cry foul.”
Since you’re the one crying foul in this case against the law, the courts, and public opinion (as if that one matters), I guess moral absolutists (which I assume you are) and moral relativists have this in common.
“Mrs. Schlinder testified that her daughter made comments during the television news reports of the father’s attempts to have life support removed to the effect that they should just leave her (Karen Ann Quinlan) alone. Mrs. Schlindler first testified that those comments were made when Terri was between 17-20 years of age but after being shown copies of newspaper accounts, agreed that she was 11 perhaps 12 years of age at the time…” So let’s not have any pretend outrage that the parents didn’t get to testify, shall we.
Au contraire, angel of death. The passage you site is not RELATED TO TERRI SCHIAVO, just to Quinlan. Irrelevant. And even if it was, are the parents not allowed to have a change of heart??? Or does your precious court rulings disallow that???
The PROOF that she did NOT want to die in this state that has been presented by you is exactly nil.
I don’t have to present proof to PRESERVE LIFE. You, as the death squad commander, must present proof to murder. Works that way in death sentences too by the way.
What you’re asking for here is incontrovertible evidence of her wishes, and I’ll readily admit that I don’t have it.
I agree. You don’t.
I think my moral beliefs have the same value as yours. In a society where different people value different things, it’s important to have a court system set up to resolve disputes. You’re just mad that they’re not deciding in your favor.
We happen to disagree on what’s moral here.
No, I would say you have it completely wrong. When your morals allow you to murder a human being against the wishes of their parents without good cause, your morals do not have the same value as mine, because you have no morals. And let me clue you in about morals: they are absolute, not relative, like that ignoramus GC stated. I get my morals from the study of my religion. Where do your morals come from????
I don’t think you can cite the courts as your authority for proof that she wanted to die.
You can certainly say the court believed she wanted to die, but the clear and convincing evidence standard is not reasonable doubt, and I think given the witnesses and circumstances surrounding this case, that there is ample evidence to doubt that this was her wish.
The court found that it was her wish to die, but courts make bad decisions all the time, even when they are decisions that are permissable within the perameters of the law. Frankly, had this been a case before a jury, and I was on it, I wouldn’t have found in favor of her wish to die, I see too many conflicts of interest here to trust the witnesses.
What you seem to want is an open mandate for YOUR morality (cause it’s so obviuosly correct).
Wrong again. It is not my morality, it is God’s morality. Again, I ask, where do you get your morals from???
Since you’re the one crying foul in this case against the law, the courts, and public opinion
Oh, public opinion??? You quoting the ABCNEWS poll??? The one that incorrectly characterized Terri’s medical condition??? That one!?!?!?!?
Something I believe very strongly may be considered insanely wrong 200 years from now. Ditto for something you believe.
For 3000 years, God said (or whoever you think said it) murder, theft, adultery, etc. has been wrong or immoral as us absolutists say. Hmmm, I guess I missed the part where God said “murder” was now okay.
“The passage you site is not RELATED TO TERRI SCHIAVO, just to Quinlan. Irrelevant. And even if it was, are the parents not allowed to have a change of heart??? Or does your precious court rulings disallow that???”
“Mrs. Schlinder testified that HER DAUGHTER (Terri Schiavo) made comments…” How is that not related to Terri? Terri was commenting on a case similar to the one she now finds herself in to her mother. Seems pretty relevant to me. In any event, my only point here was that the parents had a full and complete opportunity to present their evidence and opinions about Terri’s beliefs as they were expressed to them. Your question was, “where in the court proceedings are the PARENTS examined?” I pointed out one place where they were examined that was relevant to Terri’s beliefs about death, since you didn’t seem capable of finding it on your own. If my answer isn’t satisfactory for your original question, perhaps you should rephrase it, since I answered exactly what was asked. There’s something really funny about your interpretation of the above quote, but, since you’re oblivious, I won’t point it out to you. I only mention this in case you happen to realize what it is and then state that I was claiming something that I’m not about Mrs. Schlinder’s testimony.
And what’s this “change of heart” business. Mrs. Schlindler is relating an exchange that happened between her and her daughter. How can you have a change of heart about the contents of a past conversation. You might change how you feel about it, but you can’t change what was actually said. That’s the point of the testimony. Like I said — oblivious.
>>”The PROOF that she did NOT want to die in this state that has been presented by you is exactly nil.”
>”I don’t have to present proof to PRESERVE LIFE. You, as the death squad commander, must present proof to murder. Works that way in death sentences too by the way.”
All I’m saying here is that the judge and I both feel that the evidence presented was clear and compelling enough to make the ruling he did about her wishes. When one side has evidence and the other has none, it’s not too much of a stretch to reach this point. As I have repeatedly pointed out, I might give your feelings a little bit more weight if you’d read the testimony and the judges decision. Of course, that might actually require you to think, so I can understand why you don’t want to go there.
As long as we’re on the subject, ‘I’ don’t have to do anything. That’s why we actually have courts, judges, etc. To hear evidence and make these decisions. They did and you don’t like it. Sorry.
>>What you’re asking for here is incontrovertible evidence of her wishes, and I’ll readily admit that I don’t have it.
>”I agree. You don’t.”
OK, we’re agreed on both:
1) that you have no proof of her wishes
2) I have no incontrovertible proof of her wishes.
The disagreement is whether the evidence presented was “clear and compelling”. After reviewing it, the judge and I think it was. Before ever reviewing it, you reached your opinion. For you, what would be “clear and compelling” oral evidence, given the parents have their current wishes for Terri?
>>We happen to disagree on what’s moral here.
>When your morals allow you to murder a human being against the wishes of their parents without good cause, your morals do not have the same value as mine, because you have no morals.
Glad we got down to the crux so quickly. I can see why I MUST be a troll to you. Your beliefs don’t brook any opposition. Those who aren’t believers can always have their beliefs discounted as “immoral”. Thankfully, I live in America where there’s freedom of religion. I’m sorry you hate America because we’re free.
>And let me clue you in about morals: they are absolute, not relative.
>I get my morals from the study of my religion. Where do your morals come from????
It must be nice to not have to think about morals and just have them handed down to you by your superior. I actually try to think about what’s moral and what I believe can actually change. Sure, it harder work than your system, but I’ll take it.
Why don’t you pass along the name of the particular religion you adhere to and I’ll review their holy text(s) and let you know where my other morals conflict with yours and why. Should be interesting.
Look….
1. IF Terri’s wishes were to not be kept alive by “machines” or “artificial means” or even “extrordinary methods,” THEN she should be allowed to be given food and water by mouth.
Yes, even if she might choke and die (what a joke). She is not even allowed to have her mouth swabbed with hydrogen pyroxide/water or be given an ice cube as a comfort measure! This is assured by the armed (heartless SOB) police officer next to her bed.
2. IF Terri’s wish was to “die if I’m ever in a situation like that,” THEN that is suicide. It’s illegal. One cannot chose to kill oneself.
She is being purposely killed by starvation and dehydration by the state. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I predict she, an innocent subjected to great suffering, will die on Good Friday. (yes, I have religious convictions. Sue me)
Posted by: jYt at March 23, 2005 05:32 PM
Brian asked if I’d be happy with a deliberate lethal overdose. While I wouldn’t be happy, of course, I think if we’re going to make it a part of our culture that we kill people, we have a responsibility to do it in the most humane and gentle way possible. So if my choices were death by deliberate starvation and an overdose of morphine — if those are the only two choices available to me — I would push the plunger myself.
I think it’s a mistake to start acting like those are the only two choices available, however.
On the question of laws versus morality, I don’t think anybody here could argue that our system of laws is perfect. We create laws to try to impose order on what would otherwise be chaos, and we use morality as our guide in defining those laws. There are times when the system of laws is constructed in such a way that a person can take a course of action that is both legal and wrong. This is one of those times.
The laws in Florida say that a patient in a hospital or hospice can be starved to death? That’s obviously the wrong answer. Those laws are broken and must be fixed. As I’ve said before, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m baffled by why the plaintiffs’ attorneys are arguing what to my uneducated eye seem like technicalities rather than attacking the law that permits ritualistic starvation head-on.
>>What you seem to want is an open mandate for YOUR morality (cause it’s so obviuosly correct).
>Wrong again. It is not my morality, it is God’s morality. Again, I ask, where do you get your morals from???
You’re the one who’s writing messages on this board. I assume that these are your morals. If God wants to express an opinion, let him get an internet connection. I already answered the “where do you get your morals from” in another posting where I was replying to you. Keep your pants on. Since I actually have to take the time to go find evidence and quotes for my posts they take a little longer than yours.
>>Since you’re the one crying foul in this case against the law, the courts, and public opinion
>>Oh, public opinion??? You quoting the ABCNEWS poll??? The one that incorrectly characterized Terri’s medical condition??? That one!?!?!?!?
I see you decided to cut off my “(as if that one matters)” after “public opinion”. Intellectually dishonest much? Anyway, I was using the Fox Poll with this question, “Terri Schiavo has been in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” since 1990. Her eyes sometimes open, but doctors say she has no consciousness. Terri’s husband says his wife would rather die than be kept alive artificially and wants her feeding tube removed. Terri’s parents believe she could still recover and want the feeding tube to remain. If you were Terri’s guardian, what would you do? 1. Would you remove the feeding tube 2. Or would you keep the feeding tube inserted? 3. (Not sure)” “61% Remove” was the response. Other polls besides this one and the ABC one showed similar results. You can let me know your problems with the Fox question in your next post, but try to cut down on the unnecessary punctuation. I know that you get really excited when you think you see a viable point for yourself, but it just makes it sadder when I have to point out that you’re wrong again about the facts.
>Something I believe very strongly may be considered insanely wrong 200 years from now.
>Ditto for something you believe.
>For 3000 years, God said (or whoever you think said it) murder, theft, adultery, etc. has been wrong or immoral as us absolutists say. Hmmm, I guess I missed the part where God said “murder” was now okay.
Since it’s not murder, here, but granting the (court determined) wish of a woman in a PVS, I think were OK. 3000 years ago, there were no feeding tubes, so I kinda doubt this particular thing was covered.
Since we’re on the subject, though, of what God said 3000 years ago, what did he say about adulterers and how they should be dealt with? If you don’t know (which wouldn’t surprise me AT ALL), I’ll be happy to provide some documentation for you to go over. I assume that you’re down with his commandments and all that and that they were moral at the time and just as moral now. If not, whither moral absolutism?
TruthTeller,
Regarding your post at 5:41 — finally, a post where I can agree with everything you said 🙂
jYt
Please see:
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html
About the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo ever said that she would prefer her life to be ended for her if ever faced with a situation requiring life support and/or a feeding tube:
Michael Schiavo and some of his siblings, from what I’ve read, say that she ‘said’ so. And that’d place her statements within the confines of a social group under the controlling influences of Michael Schiavo.
But it’s also reported by people who knew Terri Schiavo well (and one who it’s agreed was Terri’s closest female friend) that Terri spoke out to indicate quite the contrary, that she shared that she found the idea of ending a disabled person’s life to be unacceptable on various levels.
There are, in fact, more people who heard Terri Schiavo say express that last sentiment than there are who heard her, so they allege, express the former.
It’s a case so far of what has been admitted into court record/proceedings as to whatever Terri Schiavo wanted and now wants and unfortunately, what I’ve concluded is that the entire legislative process has failed to be qualified to meet her level of need as it is now, that the proceedings were limited by their limited scope and content and considered information, sorta bound by their own closed society, so to speak, and that there has been a huge failing to provide this woman and those like her with adequate recourse.
But, about honing in on the “court proceedings” routinely and dismissing all other concerns, it is a retrogressive and wasteful concentration of effort because it’s clear to nearly everyone else (who is not doing so, but taking into consideratin only that which has already occured) that there has been a huge failure throughout the past fifteen years on this woman’s behalf, if on her behalf at all (it seems that Michael Schiavo has been represented well while Terri has not, to be succinct), and although perhaps legally correct, all the t’s crossed, i’s dotted, all that, morally wrong, morally and humanely failed.
Even to the point of ending her life, we provide convicted felons and other species with greater care and considerations than has been provided to Terri Schiavo as human being. That’s the worst point of all.
Jeff,
“I’m not a lawyer, but I’m baffled by why the plaintiffs’ attorneys are arguing what to my uneducated eye seem like technicalities rather than attacking the law that permits ritualistic starvation head-on.”
Since the Florida law is what it is AND the Supreme Court has already upheld such laws are constitutional in Cruzan (see first post in this thread), they parents’ lawyers correctly realized that they had no possible case to make on this point. There is simply no basis for overturning it in the courts. If you’re against this law, I suggest you fight it in the Florida legislature. That’s where the law was passed and where it would have to be rescinded.
To other posters talking about wrong decisions made by the court(s), I have the following points:
1) Yes, courts can make incorrect decisions. That’s why there are appeals, higher courts, etc. This case has gotten more than its fair share of review and appeal and could still be overturned.
2) The purpose of the courts is NOT to legislate. That’s why “activist judge” is a slur. If you want to disagree with the finding of fact in the case, please show why WHAT THE COURT HEARD should have led to different decisions or why the law as written was misinterpreted.
Since my morality is relative, I don’t lay claim to an absolute knowledge of what’s right and wrong. However, having reviewed this case, I think that the right decisions were made based on the evidence and the law. Since this decision doesn’t conflict with my morality, that’s great. For those of you that it does conflict with, work/contribute to elect different state representatives and senators in Florida.
Posted by: jYt at March 23, 2005 05:32 PM
The Quinlan case is irrelevant here. An 11-12 year old has no grasp of death of someone else, let alone herself. Hell, even the SCOTUS (your beloved judges) said that 16 and 17 year olds were not eligible for the death penalty because they’re too young.
All I’m saying here is that the judge and I both feel that the evidence presented was clear and compelling enough to make the ruling he did about her wishes.
Yes, yes. I know what you are saying. You keep repeating it ad naseum. How about trying to think about this though, without disparaging morality, shall we??? So the bottom line is that you believe it is okay to murder a human being against the wishes of their parents without good cause. YES or NO?
I actually try to think about what’s moral and what I believe can actually change. Sure, it harder work than your system, but I’ll take it.
You THINK about what’s moral?!?!?! So its a feeling you have that determines what you feel is moral??? That’s moral relativism. That was discussed above and was shown to be quite silly. BTW, moral relativism is easy because it eminates from a single individual. No universal interpretation needed, its just about how one feels about a particular situation. Applying God’s morality to a situation is difficult (which law, how to interprete the law, etc.). Sort of like a judical system, but with morality.
Thankfully, I live in America where there’s freedom of religion. I’m sorry you hate America because we’re free.
That’s right, you live in America where there is freedom of religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. Our founding fathers, declaration of independence, and laws are all based on God’s law – morality. Your presumptuous statement that I hate America because we’re free is, of course, assinine. Are you a child??? Because you argue like one.
And now, I am through with you.
-S-,
Good post. I’m glad to see someone actually followed testimony and evidence.
I did have two points, though:
1) “There are, in fact, more people who heard Terri Schiavo say express that last sentiment than there are who heard her, so they allege, express the former.”
Michael, Michael’s brother, and Michale’s sister-in-law are 3. Terri’s friend is 1. Who are the others expressing that sentiment? (OK, I know of 1 more, but why should I do all the work)
Part of the problem with the testimony of Terri’s friend was that she wasn’t consistent. From the trial record, “The court further notes that this witness (the friend) had quite specific memory during trial, but much less memory a few weeks earlier on deposition.” The other main problem was that her conversation with Terri took place when she was just a child of 11 or 12, as opposed to the other testimony took place when she was an adult, according to the court findings.
I’ve heard the “representing Terri” argument several times, but I don’t see how that would be possible. The court acted to determine her wishes. Since those were not determinable beforehand, what would Terri’s representation have done and what arguments would he have presented?
“The judge noted that Hammesfahr testified that he had treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo yet ‘offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim.'”
Is there any possibility that medical privacy laws would have precluded him from doing so?
This is a guy who has never examined a PVS patient that he didn’t think could be rehabilitated. To him, PVS is never a valid diagnosis.
And Dr. Cranford, the major medical witness for Michael Schiavo, is apparently the exact opposite:
From Starving for a Fair Diagnosis:
Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.
In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.
In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.
In cases where other doctors don’t see it, Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS. Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless. Fortunately for Wendland, the California supreme court was not persuaded by Cranford’s assessment.
Expert witnesses in court are supposed to be unbiased: disinterested in the outcome of the case. Part of the procedure in qualifying expert witnesses is establishing that they are objective and unbiased. But given Dr. Cranford’s history of advocacy in the “right to die” and euthanasia movements, and given his track record of almost always coming down on the side of PVS and removal of nutrition and hydration, one might question his objectivity. Indeed, the Schindlers’ attorneys attempted to do so in the 2002 evidentiary hearing at which Cranford testified, but went unheard. Organizations such as the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the appellate proceedings in Terri’s case, demonstrating Cranford’s bias in detail. But these arguments also seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Some neurologists who also consult in legal cases were not surprised at the handling of Dr. Cranford’s expert testimony. In theory, they said, the expert witness is supposed to be objective, but, as Dr. Bell explained, “the way it really works is that an attorney carefully selects an expert that will give him the outcome he desires.” He related that he has been asked by attorneys to serve as an expert. “I have looked over medical records,” he said, “and told attorneys what I thought.” But on occasion, he said, his opinion was “obviously not what they wanted to hear” and “they moved on to another expert.” Bell acknowledged that Cranford is “a highly accomplished and experienced speaker,” but said that in him the court “likely found a highly prejudiced expert.”
From Killing Terri Schiavo:
In light of Felos’s association with the euthanasia movement, it’s hard to imagine that his choice of Cranford is coincidental, as Cranford is perhaps the leading medical exponent of the pro-death movement.
Cranford jokingly refers to himself as “Dr. Death” and, for a fee, will come to a trial and testify that the person whose life the plaintiff wants to end is in a PVS. He was the leading medical voice calling for the deaths of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, all of whom were brain-damaged but not dying. Nonetheless, he advocated death for all by dehydration/starvation, just as he has for Terri.
Nancy Cruzan—one of his “patients”—required no skilled nursing, no care but food and fluids, hygiene, and turning to prevent bedsores. She didn’t even need tube feeding, but Cranford testified that he would even consider spoon-feeding “medical treatment.” Cranford wrote in the summer 1998 issue of Concern for Dying that he foresees “that there may be extreme situations, and in the future increasingly common situations, where physician-assisted suicide may not only be permissible, but encouraged.” In a 1997 op-ed for the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, Cranford advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. ……….
Cranford has testified that patients in a PVS have “no hope of recovery,” but this is simply untrue. A number of people found to be “unrecoverable” have, in fact, recovered. Cranford himself diagnosed Sergeant Richard Mack, a police officer shot in the line of duty, as “definitely…in a persistent vegetative state…never to regain cognitive, sapient functioning.” Almost two years later, Mack “woke up.” He eventually regained almost all his mental abilities.
As for Dr. Hammesfahr, the article says: Hammesfahr is one of the doctors challenging medical orthodoxy regarding PVS patients. He has had promising results in treating stroke and other brain-injured patients. The effectiveness of his treatment program has been confirmed by Medicare, which, by law, is not permitted to pay for treatments that are experimental or not demonstrated to be medically effective. In a 2001 decision, after review of more than 700 patients and the medical literature, Medicare ruled that Hammesfahr’s therapy is “medically reasonable and necessary.”
>The Quinlan case is irrelevant here. An 11-12 year old has no grasp of death of someone else, let alone herself. Hell, even the SCOTUS (your beloved judges) said that 16 and 17 year olds were not eligible for the death penalty because they’re too young.
I’m so glad you took that position on that piece of testimony. So did the judge. So do I. The whole point of the Quinlan testimony was that Terri WOULDN’T have wanted to die. That’s probably why her mother was delivering it. However the judge discounted this as the opinion of a child, especially since the mother’s and friend’s testimony was shaky for other reasons. That was the funny part that I was referring to before about your lack of understanding of what you read. I’m glad that I got to share it. Since your moral determinations are based on “studying your religion,” your reading comprehension skills might need a little touch up. Otherwise, you might be basing your beliefs on mis-readings. I mean, if this little exchange is any indication.
>>All I’m saying here is that the judge and I both feel that the evidence presented was clear and compelling enough to make the ruling he did about her wishes.
>Yes, yes. I know what you are saying. You keep repeating it ad naseum. How about trying to think about this though, without disparaging morality, shall we???
>So the bottom line is that you believe it is okay to murder a human being against the wishes of their parents without good cause. YES or NO?
Also humorous. You print my position. You say that you understand it. Then you ask a question that clearly shows that you still don’t understand. I’m feeling better about your ability to make moral judgements based on what you read all the time. Are you sure quite you aren’t worshiping “dog” instead of “god”? Just so you won’t get your panties in a wad over my not answering your burning question, the answer is “NO”. We probably disagree on the terms “murder” and “good cause” though.
As a follow-up to you, what would you consider “good cause”? War, capital punishment, adultery, all of the above?
>>I actually try to think about what’s moral and what I believe can actually change. Sure, it harder work than your system, but I’ll take it.
>You THINK about what’s moral?!?!?! So its a feeling you have that determines what you feel is moral??? That’s moral relativism.
Yes, it is. It’s more of a belief system based on my experiences rather than feelings, but you’ve got the essence?
>That was discussed above and was shown to be quite silly.
You’ll have to repeat the argument for me on relativism that showed it to be silly. Was it clear and compelling? I hope it wasn’t the one where you said that relativists whine when decisions go against them in the midst of your whining when this decision has gone against you.
>BTW, moral relativism is easy because it eminates from a single individual. No universal interpretation needed, its just about how one feels about a particular situation. Applying God’s morality to a situation is difficult (which law, how to interprete the law, etc.). Sort of like a judical system, but with morality.
Which I guess is why the application of “God’s morality” keeps changing over time by the true believers, even though he and his word supposedly don’t. Of course what often remains consistent, from Jesus, to Constantine, to Pope Pious II, to today is that the believers always state that they’re consistent and the current interpretation of the texts is now wholly consistent.
>>Thankfully, I live in America where there’s freedom of religion. I’m sorry you hate America because we’re free.
>That’s right, you live in America where there is freedom of religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. Our founding fathers, declaration of independence, and laws are all based on God’s law – morality.
Oh, I guess that’s why adultery is illegal in the US? Oh, and not keeping the Sabbath holy, also illegal? Surely, placing no God before the God of the Bible is illegal here, then? What’s actually based on the Bible in our laws? No stealing? No murder? What countries are these legal in today? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of the US as written and enforced here in the 21st century.
>And now, I am through with you.
Awww, what’s the matter? Your beliefs can’t stand up to a little examination, TruthTeller? I’m really starting to feel kind of sorry for you. You remind me of the guy on the Daily Show who said that all kinds of prophesies from Revelation had come true. When asked what they were, just stopped, stared, and said nothing. It was unbelievable to him that anyone could possibly ask such a question. The fact he couldn’t name one was beside the point.
Part of the problem with the testimony of Terri’s friend was that she wasn’t consistent. From the trial record, “The court further notes that this witness (the friend) had quite specific memory during trial, but much less memory a few weeks earlier on deposition.” The other main problem was that her conversation with Terri took place when she was just a child of 11 or 12, as opposed to the other testimony took place when she was an adult, according to the court findings.
And part of the problem with the testimony that was accepted: 1.) The first time Michael mentioned “Terri’s wishes” was 8 years after her collapse. 2.) Michael’s brother and sister-in-law didn’t say anything about remembering her “wishes” until after the guardian ad litem said that corroboration of Michael’s statements would give them more weight.
Inside the hospice is Terri Schindler Schiavo, whose collapse in 1990 and subsequent brain injury has left her severely disabled. ………
In 1998, Michael petitioned the court to remove Terri’s feeding tube. He argued that there was no hope for her recovery and that Terri had expressed the wish to him that she would not want to be kept alive in her condition. This was the first time that Michael had ever claimed such a wish on Terri’s part. Terri’s parents and several of her close friends—who found his assertion totally out of character with what they knew of Terri—vigorously disputed the claim. ………
At the time of Pearse’s report, the only evidence that Terri had expressed a wish not to go on living was Michael’s assertion. Pearse had mentioned that Michael’s story would be “more credible if it were corroborated.” It’s strangely coincidental then that at the last minute before the trial, Felos produced two witnesses who corroborated Michael’s claim: his brother and sister-in-law. Felos delayed producing his witness list until two days before the trial, preventing the Schindlers’ attorney from deposing them. Nevertheless, Judge Greer permitted their testimony to be entered into evidence, and the Schindlers’ attorney, who was not an experienced trial lawyer, didn’t contest his decision. from Killing Terri Schiavo
jYt: several people have made first-hand statements, live on broadcasts for all the world to hear, that they knew Terri Schiavo well enough to be regarded as some special or even close friend and all share that they heard Terri say and say several times that she found the idea of inducing death among the disabled to be offensive to her set of morals and religious values, and, that she found it unacceptable.
And, several of those say and have said quite publicly that Terri made those statements among a group of people, at mutual meeting places, and all share that their testimony was never heard, so to speak, not included on Terri’s behalf by Michael Schiavo…and all say that what they heard Terri share with them was even soon before Terri became incapacitated so it’s not like it was random, uninformed, not related to her condition at present.
It’s above the number count of “one” as to those who heard what Terri shared with them and in the case of those who endorse what Michael Schiavo says that Terri ‘said,’ those are his siblings, and again I write, persons within some area of his control.
I’d have dismissed his sibling’s statements or, if considered them, would have required statements by persons not related to Michael Schiavo by family or commerce, which was not allowed (as in, the persons with whom Terri shared what she did have been disallowed from the record, inexplicably, out of deference for Michael’s assumed status as spouse).
I’d find the sibling testimony questionable, by the way, but that’s me. When her “best friend” and those other associates non related to Michael and not influenced by him all heard Terri Schiavo say what she said (that she found inducing death to be objectionable, etc.), I’d have considered that to be far more credible than Michael’s (even) statements and the sibling’s, too…who also say that they heard what they heard during depressed experiences and also earlier in Terri’s life than did her friends hear the opposite, while Terri was not with Michael.
There’s also the suggestion of physical abuse by Michaal Schiavo and that completely startles me that has not been taken into consideration where her situation has been concerned these many years. I’d say that there is social agreement to indicate that Michael Schiavo held a ‘controlling’ presence over Terri (Terri is described as having been ‘swept off her feet’ by Michael who was literally the first adult male in Terri’s life who showed any interest in her, so that alone tells me that she was a vulnerable person who attracted someone who found her controllable if not attractive because of that)…
Her friends are still findable and available, by the way, and still have the same story to tell, but are not being included in the issue on any official basis, again, while pandering to Michael Schiavo simply because he was ‘spouse.’
Once you consider that Terri had an eating disorder, was displeased with her relationship of marriage to Michael in the year prior to her disability adn that there’s the suggestion of physical abuse by Terri at Michael Schiavo’s hand (and pscyhologically), I’d say that there’s a lot of smoke to indicate that, at least, Michael Schiavo was not qualified to be responsible for her care. Since he’s long ago deemed the living Terri as being “dead,” and denied her compassionate care (because she’s “dead” already), I’d say that there’s more than a reasonable doubt there to indicate that Micheal Schiavo was and is not a person who ever intended Terri well, but harm.
Just saying, it was worth considering and should even now be considered, despit what or whatever ‘the courts” have had to say about whatever.
And, no, I haven’t been following the court record so much as I’ve been following the story and reading a lot. I hold of the opinion that the legislative process, although perhaps done legalistically accurately, has failed Terri Schiavo and emphasises just how inept it can be in the face of human need.
I hope that Florida’s Social Services can tonight intervene, and think they should have years ago.
Do you people just like to argue?
Not one of you addressed my post regarding Terri’s wishes.
Even IF she wanted to die, she either doesn’t have the right to die (suicide) OR she doesn’t have to die like this (withdrawl of all food and fluids administered by mouth).
Feeding and hydration can be attempted via mouth unless the sole intent is murder/assisted suicide. Suicide is illegal, making State imposed starvation and dehydration murder and those involved should face trial.
Maybe Dr. Kevorkian’s lawyer is available.
Been There,
As far as morals being subjective:
I don’t think it is moral to keep people alive against their wishes in accordance with the law. You seem to think so. Fortunately, the state is not restricted by your morality and I don’t have to be governed by it.
But the converse seems to be true
There are a lot of points where people’s morals conflict. As a society, we must decide what we want to do and how to enforce it. What you seem to want is an open mandate for YOUR morality (cause it’s so obviuosly correct). You and the pedophile both want that.
I don’t know you so I can’t speak to your motives on the wording you use but more often than not I have found people that say “we must decide what we want…” have already decided what “we” want and are very deterimed that their desires will be enforced.
I don’t expect anyone else to be bound by morality. However deneyal of basic human rights based on disability or debility is a fairly straightforward concept.
As far as your insinuation that I believe only my morals are correct:
BITCH!
Women and minorities are more often the recipients of so called death with dignity. Does this make it an affimitive action program? A brave moral statement or racism and sexism.
Many in the disabilty rights movement view what is happening to TS-S as ableism and anything but protection of her rights. This includes people that were diagnosed with PVS and even some that were started on terminal dehydration.
People are quick to quote other decisions by the court, historical leaders, etc., etc. that we now recognize as being non-moral. In general, this is because societal morality has shifted and evolved. Something I believe very strongly may be considered insanely wrong 200 years from now. Ditto for something you believe. However, we can’t see the future and we have to make decisions based on our current knowledge and experience.
You learn from history to hopefully make a better future. One of the reasons that some uf us keep bringing up T-4 and eugenics. Care to speculate on those that get angry at us for bringing those subject up?
“The judge noted that Hammesfahr testified that he had treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo yet ‘offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim.'”
Is there any possibility that medical privacy laws would have precluded him from doing so?
Names, quite possibly, though I imagine that the judge knows that legal boundary better than I do. Case studies, no. The whole reason that they’re created is for presentation purposes. The other doctors didn’t seem to have any problem presenting their cases studies.
This is a guy who has never examined a PVS patient that he didn’t think could be rehabilitated. To him, PVS is never a valid diagnosis.
And Dr. Cranford, the major medical witness for Michael Schiavo, is apparently the exact opposite
Well, that’s probably why there was an independent, court appointed physician. Because the judge knew that both sides would bring the iron-clad extremes.
>From Starving for a Fair Diagnosis:
I’ve seen and responded to this article several times already in other threads. Why do you guys always have to post the text over and over again. I can follow links. Short summary: written by Reverend Johansen (sp?), noted right to life advocate. Spends 10 paragraphs on Cranford, 0 on Hammesfahr. The article by the same guy (Rev. Johnasen) drools all over Hammesfahr and his diagnosis, even, though, as you note. They’re exact opposites. The judge in the case basically discounted both, and mainly relied on the court appointed doctor (not that Johansen’s article hints at this). Only Hammesfahr was characterized by the judge as a “self-promoter” who “operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance”, from which he offers a “patented procedure” which is “not recognized in the medical community”. If you need more details, go to other threads and search for Hammesfahr.
-S-:”several people have made first-hand statements, live on broadcasts for all the world to hear, that they knew Terri Schiavo well enough to be regarded as some special or even close friend and all share that they heard Terri say and say several times that she found the idea of inducing death among the disabled to be offensive to her set of morals and religious values, and, that she found it unacceptable.”
Now those are references I’d really like to see. Since your counting them and they’re speaking out quite vocally, I’m sure you can come up with the references for me. It’s intersting that they care enough to say this in interviews, but not enough to testify in court and be cross-examined on the matter.
To be very clear, before you send all the links, references, please make sure that they said that “She said X and I heard it myself”, not “Terri wasn’t the kind of person that would want X”, since one is not subjective and the other is.
Well, TruthTeller cartainly thinks that her best friend’s testimony of what she said when she was 11 should be discounted, since at that age, one has no concept of death. Since he had every reason to believe that Terri wants to live, I have to applaud his objectivity on that matter.
Again with the Michael bashing and the tired old conspiracy theories of abuse? “I’d say that there’s more than a reasonable doubt there to indicate that Micheal Schiavo was and is not a person who ever intended Terri well, but harm.” Wow, pretty stong words, -S-. Let’s look at a few more judicial findings and facts, shall we.
“By *all* accounts, Mr. Schiavo has been very motivated in pursuing the best medical care for his wife, even taking her to California for a month or so for experimental treatment. It is *undisputed* that he was very agressive with nursing home personnel to make certain that she received the finest of care.” What a heel, indeed. I have more specific testimony and findings to that effect, if you’re interested.
Gina,
“Even IF she wanted to die, she either doesn’t have the right to die (suicide) OR she doesn’t have to die like this (withdrawl of all food and fluids administered by mouth).”
I had already answered that question (maybe a little differently) in another thread. The law in Florida is that:
“The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.”
Further:
“Life-prolonging procedure” means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
Hope that explains the nature and limits of the law.
>”Feeding and hydration can be attempted via mouth unless the sole intent is murder/assisted suicide. Suicide is illegal, making State imposed starvation and dehydration murder and those involved should face trial.”
It’s state sanctioned, by the above law and therefore, it’s explicitly legal.
Been There,
>>As far as morals being subjective:
>>I don’t think it is moral to keep people alive against their wishes in accordance with the law. You seem to think so. Fortunately, the state is not restricted by your morality and I don’t have to be governed by it.
>But the converse seems to be true
Not at all. I’m simply standing by the court determination of what this woman wanted. I’m not trying to impose ANYTHING on Terri against her will. If her wish had been to live on in this state, more power to her. If you wish to live on in such a state, more power to you (unless you’re on a respirator in Texas and can’t pay). I would like her, and everyone else, to be able choose for themselves.
>>There are a lot of points where people’s morals conflict. As a society, we must decide what we want to do and how to enforce it. What you seem to want is an open mandate for YOUR morality (cause it’s so obviuosly correct). You and the pedophile both want that.
>I don’t know you so I can’t speak to your motives on the wording you use but more often than not I have found people that say “we must decide what we want…” have already decided what “we” want and are very deterimed that their desires will be enforced.
Hey, I’m the moral relativist here. The absolutists are the ones that *by definition* can’t change. Their beliefs are absolute. I guess you’ve dealt with a lot of those in the past. TruthTeller, for instance. Absolute, unchangeable, mind made up, even if arguments fall flat as a pancake. Eventually just can’t talk about it any more, because other points of view are being heard.
>I don’t expect anyone else to be bound by morality. However deneyal of basic human rights based on disability or debility is a fairly straightforward concept.
The courts have decided that this choice can be made by individuals. The court has determined that this individual chose to die instead of live in such a state. The only denial of rights is potentially denying the carrying out of Terri’s wishes.
>As far as your insinuation that I believe only my morals are correct:
>BITCH!
>Women and minorities are more often the recipients of so called death with dignity. Does this make it an affimitive action program? A brave moral statement or racism and sexism.
I assume that your only talking about the ones where individual choice is a factor, since that is what we’re talking about here. I’d love to see your statictics on the matter. I honestly don’t know the answer. However, if this study includes cases where life is ended because of inability to pay (which I DO NOT support), then I certainly believe you. However, that’s not relevant here.
>Many in the disabilty rights movement view what is happening to TS-S as ableism and anything but protection of her rights.
What’s ableism?
I don’t doubt that many hold that view. We disagree on that point and her rights and how they’re being honored.
>This includes people that were diagnosed with PVS and even some that were started on terminal dehydration.
How many of them had high quality brain scans showing the same level of deterioration as Terri and were in a PVS for 15 years? If you can provide independent documentation for a single one meeting that criteria, I’ll admit that you’re right and convert to your side of this issue.
>One of the reasons that some uf us keep bringing up T-4 and eugenics. Care to speculate on those that get angry at us for bringing those subject up?
It’s simply not a logical argument. It’s the slippery slope where you take the worst possible thing you can think of that’s remotely related and say X leads to Y. It’s like the South Park underpants gnomes with the three steps:
1) Steal Underpants
2) ?
3) Profit
Your steps are:
1) Terri Schaivo is allowed to die (replace stem cell research, heart transplants, capital punishment, torture of captives, etc. for different variations)
2) ?
3) Eugenics
I’m not going to argue that if Terri doesn’t die that the states will lose all powers, since the federal gov’t overstepped its constitutional bounds. Why? Because at every step of the decision making process in this country, we discuss, pass, and interpret laws. Not much that is so wide ranging just happens because the one right building block fell into place. I kind of doubt that if Terri dies that you’ll just sit in your house and wait for the lethal injection squad to come for you, so let’s not pretend that this case has any such levels of implication.
jYt you seem to very capable of carrying on both your side and my side of a conversation and, as my true words and thoughts do not match your script, there seems to be little reason to continue with you.
You might find if you continue your conversation with myself and others off line you will be spared the annoyance of people attempting to correct you on what they really think.
Say hi to Toto and the wiz for me.
Been There,
>there seems to be little reason to continue with you.
Soooo, I take it those statistics on women and minorities being given death with dignity more often AND the independent verification of the people who were diagnosed with PVS according to that criteria won’t be forthcoming. Not a huge surprise, but I am a little disappointed.
>as my true words and thoughts do not match your script…
You not answering my questions about claimed factual data matches my script perfectly. It comes right after you call me a “BITCH!” and accuse me of wanting an “affirmative action program” of death for minorities and women based on said data. Then you roll on off into the sunset without providing it. I hope that part at least matches the script you’re reading from.
I guess you’ll just join the ranks of “TruthTeller” as someone who just wants to spout off about how great his/her beliefs are, but can’t or won’t stand by them when the basis for them is challenged. A pity. Go on back to your echo chamber. It’s safe there. No people with different, scary ideas.
Say “Hi” to the underpants gnomes for me. And try to keep the eugenics hysteria to a minimum. That’s all I’m really asking for.
I think one unmistakeable fact that has been lost in this mess is that Michael Schiavo is a DICK. Only a DICK would euthanize someone elses child. Even if he is right, He’s still a DICK.
I don’t know how one debates such a fine pointed argument as Terry’s. Nice work sport keep up the good work.
jYt and Gabriel, thanks for keeping the discussion rational. Thanks, too, for your forbearance with those who know only one thing, but can spout off on it forever.
As a Floridian, I’ve already called my Assembly senator and representative and told them to back off, immediately, from the misguided attempts to change legal fact that were being undertaken by the governor. I’m pleased to see that they shared my concerns and voted accordingly. Surprisingly, although this is a Republican-majority district, they said nearly all of the people calling in were recommending the same action.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the FL laws, though it’s clear that they don’t agree with everyone here. I second your suggestion that they move to FL in order to elect representatives more friendly to their world views. But I’d just as soon they stayed far away. The kind of ‘thinking’ they seem to conduct is simply dangerous.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I think most of America has no clue, no idea, of what it’s like to be in this position. I also don’t think anyone has ever walked into a room of a person who is brain dead – ie vegetative state. At the age of 27, the last thing Terri would be thinking of, is a living will, so she’d she something on tv or out on a walk and chatting with her husband, she’d tell him how she felt about living in such a situation. At the time, living wills and donor cards were just starting. So the only person who would know what she felt and what she wanted would have been her best friend, lover and that man would be her husband.
There are thousands of cases like this throughout the country and we don’t hear about them because they didn’t have parents who splashed it all over the front pages and now all over the friggin internet. They won’t even show you pictures of what she looks like today so all I can tell you is to think of Karen Ann Quinlin.
Yes, her brain stem still functions. The only thing the brain stem does is breathing, body temperature and blood pressure. Just because that grape sized thing at the base of the neck still functions, does not mean she does. She is brain dead and probably noticibly seen over the the last of the 15 years she has been in a vegetative state.
You can thank Medical Science for this conundrum. I was 24 years old when I had to make the decision for my husband to be unplugged. At one point, even Terri was in that condition. Again, over the past year, I had to push that decision through on my father because I knew this was not what he wanted. He did have a Living Will but you also need a DNR – a do not resuscitate order. And if you’ve been resuscitated, you have immediate shut down. Even with a living will, they will monitor your brain activity for three days before they will again, shut you down.
They are also not telling you the complete story. She is not being starved to death and without fluids- even though that is the case. She is heavily sedated just in case – one of the benefits of being in a hospice. Back when I did my thesis on eutanasia for college (in my mid thirties), I learned even more than I had after I was 24. (That situation caused me to go out and get a living will and a DNR).
You would be amazed at the lengths some people have gone through to die – and most of them without dignity. Many were not brain dead but their brain stems were dead or almost dead. Perfect example: ALS
There was a woman who actually had herself removed from her hopital bed, brought to a motel, so she could starve herself away. Starvation is incredibly painful. Although they have not said it and would probably deny it, Terri is heavily sedated. No one is that cruel and I’m sure her hospice is seeing to her care. Trust me, they didn’t close the door and walk away; she is indeed being cared for. I doubt she feels anything but they’ll do it anyway for the sake of the families and that of Terri.
Now if she were not in the news CONSTANTLY and was not in the news over the past years because of her parents, her husband could bring her home and arranged for her to have a shot – not unlike those they get on death row and her ending would have been quick and over in ten minutes. But too much notice about this situation has been given, so they did not have the option. All that’s left is the option to starve and remove fluids but let me tell you from studying, from example, from knowledge, she is not suffering even if she could feel suffering. So instead they make this really big deal about her starving to death – not even having water without telling you the entire truth. For some one who has been in this state for 15 years and over the last 7, completely brain mush, is indignanty for her and for her family.
Her family has to move on now; they need to let go of their daughter and let go and start living for themselves right now. They have put off their lives for over 15 years and if anything was going to happen, it would have happened by now. So what they need to do is get along with her husband, plan her final body goodbyes and then focus on living their lives without Terri.
If they hadn’t made such a big deal over it, they could have quietly let her die by the lethal shot which really lasts at most 5 minutes and no one would even know the difference. She doesn’t know the difference now and she never will.
It’s time for this country to move on – this stuff if happening every day. She’s not in a coma, but in a constant vegetative state from being brain dead. It’s way past time to say goodbye. And her family and spokespeople are going to make it worse than it really is. There is just so much you do not know.
This can be reproduced anywhere.
JyT/jYt:
You do realize that you display in your expressions an ongoing denigration and disrespect for the information, opinions, if not persons of others, do you not?
I read your earlier determined aggression on a personal level, this thread, involving others and now you’re including me in your target practice.
From what you write, I assume you don’t listen to anything on the television because if you were and had been, you’d have been hearing actually “live” persons speaking “live” as living, present persons from Terri Schiavo’s past years offering their names, speaking in their own voices, names provided to the whole world, sharing information and stories about having known Terri well and sharing what Terri Schiavo shared with them prior to her disability and that it was that she found inducing a disabled persons life to be unacceptable from a religious and ethical, and emotional, basis.
You can make your snarky demands for “proof” all you want but it only offputs persons such as myself who at one point MAY have attempted to interact about points you’ve raised in your Holy Grail of Court Record worship…
It only convinces others, your didactics and nasties to and about what others try to share here, that you’re not a nice person, not worth much time even trying to interact with. I think that also explains why you’re so reliant upon copying and pasting “court records” and such…
Not like anyone else hasn’t read them, can’t find them, not like they’re your opinion, by the way, just that you’re using your cut and paste method here like some word hammer to attempt to discredit the information that anyone else attempts to share.
Much as, I write here, Michael Schiavo (and Felos) have done where the information from others that counters Michael’s insistences are concerned, to the extent that they’ve managed to use “the court” in all it’s dotted i’s and crossed t’s to enforce the disallowance and silencing of other opionions.
There are people even as recently as yesterday on FOX News speaking out on Terri’s behalf, sharing their relationships with her and to what extent they knew her, sharing what she told them, under what circumstances she said what, and that counters what Michael Schiavo insists and had courts affirm (yet they only affirmed that Michael Schiavo said what he said, not that Terri Schiavo ever expressed what Michael Schiavo insists, so “the court” to my view has affirmed time and time again Michael Schiavo’s need to be right, his own opinion, his own perspective, his own insistences including the fact that a living person is, preposterously, “dead”, all that, but they have yet to establish proof that what Michael Schiavo says Terri expressed was ever what Terri Schiavo intended on her own behalf).
Even medical professionals who interacted with Terri Schiavo have attested to the fact that they experienced Terri Schiavo at different times expressing a desire to remain alive and yet those, too, were preposterously refused into the court record out of some, it seems, desire to affirm Michael Schiavo’s opinion and no one else’s.
And, court records, although possibly accurately composed, legally arranged well and correctly as to precedent, et al., are not a moral force.
And, last thing here, they are also a record of the past. The rest of us are concerned with the present and future, in what will respect the life that Terri Schiavo has and should be able to enjoy to the best of her diminished capacity.
“I also don’t think anyone has ever walked into a room of a person who is brain dead – ie vegetative state.”
After all the debates on this, you still think brain dead and PVS are the same thing? They aren’t you know.
“There are thousands of cases like this throughout the country and we don’t hear about them because they didn’t have parents who splashed it all over the front pages and now all over the friggin internet.”
Actually there are probably thousands of people on various types of life support and feeding tubes that have to deal with situations to remove it, but the majority of cases, the families agree on the wishes of the person. The big difference in this case is that there is disagreement between family members on what she actually wanted.
“Her family has to move on now; “
Funny, I think since Michael has pretty much already moved on, he should just finish the job, and let her parents take care of her, that is all they want to do.
“She’s not in a coma, but in a constant vegetative state from being brain dead.”
Once again she isn’t brain dead she is brain damaged, and there is a difference, you don’t seem to know that, or you haven’t been reading all that closely.
And, JtT: you can focus on all the “legal findings and facts” all you may care to — be my guest, enjoy your reading — but people lie all the time even under oath. Yes, that actually happens. Meaning, they then go on record as part of “legal findings” and their deceit is later acquainted with ‘fact’ but it may not be.
Your determination to justify your own concept of morality (you’ve alreaedy many times expressed that you consider it ‘immoral to keep a person alive against their wishes’, so it’s pretty well established that that is your bone of contention here about Terri Schiavo, that you determine that she is being beset by [your applied moral standard here] immoral requirements of being alive, of remaining alive despite ‘legal proceedings’ determining already that she be [as per your code, morally] put to death).
We get that, we being me and others, this thread, that your concept of morality is what it is.
However, it isn’t a morality that some of the rest of us share, and if applied to the legalistic standard that you continue to insist must be met, then no one with a fatal condition who feels they have no chance of survival should ever be presented with healthcare/treatment options, since that might be an “immoral” attempt to motivate them to live.
No one should wish them well. They should not eat. They should go without water, be deprived of that, even, if taken to the extreme application of your morality. Because, they believe they cannot survive, should not survivce and therefore no one should attempt to motivate them to survive, offer them alternatives to their demise…suicidal persons should be allowed to destroy themselves, no treatments should be offered, no one attempting suicide should be held for observation afterward with the attempts to protect them from themselves and others from them…
The concept of “morality” that you insist as being necessarily applied to the Terri Schiavo situation (as with others of similar disability) is not, thank God, shared by the general society, who assumes it is necessary on a humane level alone to at least offer to assist or intervene when someone displays a marked denigration about their capacity to survive, even those determined to end their lives.
Had Terri Schiavo left a record of her wishes for such circumstances of disability that later befell her, then there would be little argument here by many, despite many even disagreing about whatever her moral choice was, on a differential moral scale. And, yet, all and only that which existed was Michael Schiavo’s opinion about what Terri Schiavo may or may not have expressed at an earlier time in her life. Maybe she said she didn’t want to live, maybe she was depressed when she said it, maybe she was angry, maybe she was fearful, who knows, maybe she never expressed what Michael Schiavo says she expressed but that he INTERPRETED her expression as meaning.
Again, I write that there is ENOUGH SUGGESTION TO MY VIEW that counters the opinion of Michael Schiavo about what was best for Terri Schiavo, there is enough to suggest that Michael Schiavo has not intended and does not now intend what is best for Terri Schiavo, has not acted in her best interests and worse, has actually appeared to insist on her demise by one means or another (since there is a suggestion that he was abusive toward Terri Schiavo earlier, certainly has been in her disability)…
You continue to assert and insist that your moral choice be met by society and continue to copy and paste “legal decision” to advance your morality and interpretations, and yet it does little to make for a discussion here, other than to share what your concept of morality is.
About Terri Schiavo, her circumstances of present exist because and only because and by that very “legal decision and fact” that you continue to further, yes, we all understand that and have already, long ago even. But the point of the discussion is what can be done to resolve the quagmire-toward-death that is objectionable to those who love Terri Schiavo, recognize the possibilities of inaccuracies included in that “legal decision and fact” as to applications of those, and more.
Even this morning, people continue to cite “nineteen courts” have affirmed Terri Schiavo should die, that it was “her decision” not to survive under disabiliity, and yet that in and of itself is yet another lie by Michael Schiavo (there have not been “nineteen courts” making decisiions, but Michael Schiavo said that inaccuracy on a television broadcast and some people now assume it to be true…if a person can lie about something that huge, they can lie about anything else and I do believe that Michael Schiavo has long ago proven himself to lack credibility, particularly as to his capacity to care for Terri Schiavo).
It’s a case now of trying new things. And that’s what all this recent discussion is about: what can now be done on her behalf, and that includes trying to discover just what Terri Schiavo’s wishes actually were and are now and what the rest of us can do to prevent someone else from inducing death upon a person with grave disability.
Disability Perspective
Yeah, cindy. you keep telling us that only you know the TRUTH! Jeesh! Get over yourself.
You never responded earlier when I asked you how do you reconcile your position with Pope John Paul. You profess to be a good catholic, so how can you be spouting off in direct contradiction of his teachings?
Of the many ironies generated by the case of Terri Schiavo – the comatose woman whose fate has divided America – two currently stand out. The first is that what originally seemed an overwhelming victory for conservatives – with Republican congress and president in an unprecedented federal intervention in the Florida “right-to-die” case – has now exposed a deep conflict in conservatism itself. At issue is a dilemma for many of George Bush’s strongest supporters. Are they primarily social conservatives – in which case they back the federal government’s move to keep Mrs Schiavo alive at all costs? Or are they primarily constitutional or “federalist” conservatives – in which case they dislike Washington imposing itself over the decision of state courts, a precedent that conservatives would bitterly resist if it was pursued by a Democratic congress or by a liberal president?
The second is that Ms Schiavo’s best chance of returning to a cognitive state lies with stem-cell research. Although stem-cell therapy is still in its infancy, a likely future application is expected to be the replacement of damaged brain cells, such as those that have reduced Ms Schiavo to a vegetative state for the past 15 years. In a few years, it is possible that Ms Schiavo may be curable. But for this to happen, moral conservatives, including Mr Bush, would have to revise their view that stem cells not only have the right to life, but one that outweighs the right to cognitive life of sufferers from brain conditions such as hers. Having demonstrated how much value he attaches to Ms Schiavo’s life – allowing himself to be wakened in the early hours to sign the federal intervention into law – Mr Bush may one day have to decide whose hopes for life are higher value: a woman who was in the prime of her life when she was struck down by brain damage, or a group of cells forming part of an embryo of four or five day’s existence.
When this case took off, conservaives may have treated Ms Schiavo’s case as a black-and-white moral issue. But they will have to wrestle with the complex consequences for many years to come.
-S-,
Only time for a quickie reply at the moment.
First, I have respect for other people’s opinions and beliefs. What I don’t respect is totally uninformed opinions expressed in contradiction to actual facts. In this thread alone, I have been called “death squad commander”, “BITCH!”, “troll”, and “immoral”, mainly for presenting informaion that people didn’t want to hear.
My major point here has been to explain the laws, how they were applied, and why they are applicable. Very few people on this board seem to understand them. To this end, court records and laws are actually relevant. When I start seeing understanding, I’ll stop using them. I have used a few other references as well, but to me, the court documents are THE MOST relevant, since we are actually discussing court decisions, court findings, and ongoing court proceedings. One of the things you supposedly want is to recognize the “possibilities of inaccuracies included in that ‘legal decision and fact'”. When people in this thread have blu-skied about such matters, I’ve been more than happy to say they’re wrong and show exactly why.
Look at my converstaion with “Truth Teller”. He demands to know where the parents got to speak in court. I give him a reference. He says it has nothing to do with Terri. I show him why it does (Mrs. Schlindler was talking about what her daughter told her). He claims that the whole thing is irrelevant because Terri was 11 at the time. I tell him that’s what the judge found and, that if he’d read more closely, he’d understand that this was testimony to support his position. Of course, I thought this was all hilarious, but in a sad sort of way.
I admit I don’t watch a lot of TV. I watch even less Fox. I believe Media Matters has already posted about 5 articles on their various slanted presentations and what they leave out of each one. While you point out people can lie in court, court is the place where we, as Americans, actually resolve disputes of fact such as this. Not on the TV. See, in court, there are two sides, cross examinations, a judge, and a court reporter. And the oath and threat of perjury. On TV, you get none of this. I can understand why you’d rather rely on Fox news reporting of this rather than actually review the evidence presented in court, but you and I differ on that view.
What I have seen on TV is some old friends of Terri’s saying that the person they knew would never have wanted this. Of course, that’s a far cry from “She told me that, if in such a condition, she would want to live”. One is just inferring based on the kind of person that they saw; an interpretation in their own mind only. The other is actual information imparted from Terri. Of course the one exception is the best friend who has already testified what Terri told her regarding the Quinlan case, but we’ve already discussed that point.
So, is what I’m asking so hard? The nice thing about the net is that this type of information gets recorded and everybody can see the same thing — just like with the court records. Your claim is that these people are all over TV, but you don’t want to give me one reference on the net that I can go read about what they’re saying?
jYt
Your wasting your time . . .and why bother. You are trying to force the visually impaired to see.
-S-
Interesting responses. Question, how do you reconcile this view . . .
I’m just saying here that ANYone can harass ANYone else by starting false rumors about them and most who harass others engage that very process and start their quite evil and violent process against and about someone else by attempting to proliferate false, negative characteristics about someone else. Which is, to my view, the actual violence, anyone who instigates and authors and encourages that sort of derogation of someone else based upon their own intolerances.
with these statements, which are basically unfounded rumor, or disproven rumor . . .
There’s also the suggestion of physical abuse by Michaal Schiavo and that completely startles me that has not been taken into consideration where her situation has been concerned these many years. I’d say that there is social agreement to indicate that Michael Schiavo held a ‘controlling’ presence over Terri (Terri is described as having been ‘swept off her feet’ by Michael who was literally the first adult male in Terri’s life who showed any interest in her, so that alone tells me that she was a vulnerable person who attracted someone who found her controllable if not attractive because of that)…
Once you consider that Terri had an eating disorder, was displeased with her relationship of marriage to Michael in the year prior to her disability adn that there’s the suggestion of physical abuse by Terri at Michael Schiavo’s hand (and pscyhologically)…
Looks a little hypocritical to me, but that’s just my opinion.
TruthTeller
Interesting moniker, and a very high opinion of ones self. Tell me though, can you hear the truth?
OK I’ve been trying to get these links up since last night and keep getting errors. I will try in smaller batches.
Minorities,
the Poor and Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
African-American academics who study bioethical issues have
expressed concern that permitting assisted suicide, along with new
limits on health care, presents new opportunities to victimize
minorities: “People know they don’t get the health care they need
while they’re living. So what makes them think anything’s going to
be more sensitive when they’re dying.” [Detroit Free Press 2/26/97]
.
A feminist case
against euthanasia
Yet it must also be recognized that women are going to be more
affected by the euthanasia debate than men, simply by virtue of the
fact that women live longer than men, and in their old age
command fewer financial and social resources. In a sexist society
that also suffers from ageism or prejudice and discrimination
against the old, more women will end up living alone as fragile
persons in need of care. As families become smaller and more
dispersed, many women, particularly single childless women, will
not have nearby kin who can care for them or serve as their
advocates within increasingly complex health-care systems.
jYt will have a fit over the E word but I’ll just have to live with that
EUTHANASIA
AND EUGENICS
The director of Hadamar institution was personally responsible
for the murder of “more than 1000 patients”. He opened the gas
cylinders and watched his patients die through the peephole,
children included. He declared: “Of course, that tormented me. But
the fact of learning that eminent scientists such as Pr. Carl
Schneider, Pr. Heyde, Pr. Nitsche, participated in this program
reassured me”. To justify himself, Dr. Karl Brandt, medical director
of the euthanasia project, says: “Weren´t the academics in favour
of this program? Who could be better qualified than them?”And in
fact, the most eminent psychiatrists had been the ones who
launched this program.
news/1085504/posts”>Dehydration Nation
The Eugenics
Movement in the U.S.
Euthanasia
: a choice for doctors
A
Defense of Genocide
international.org/holocaust/eugenics.htm”>Eugenics and the
German Medical Establishment
The definitive German examination of euthanasia, The
Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, was jointly written in
1920 by a professor of law and a professor of psychiatry. The
authors reasoned that a society has an accepted right to protect
itself against a foreign invader, which results in the deaths of young
soldiers, the healthiest members of society — therefore, a society
should have an even greater right to protect itself against human
parasites who weaken it from within.
With the rise of National Socialism, the advocates of sterilization
and euthanasia found ever-increasing support. More than half of
Germany’s doctors joined the Nazi party. In 1935, Adolf Hitler gave
his approval for the elimination of the “incurably ill.” In October
1939, Germany began its euthanasia program. This program
involved virtually the entire psychiatric community and a large part
of the general medical community.
Truncicated copy before sorry
Dehydration Nation
Eugenics and the German Medical Establishment
Let’s remember your statement before we begin that I objected to:
“Women and minorities are more often the recipients of so called death with dignity.” That’s what you’re trting to back up here; that and that Terri’s death leads directly to eugenics.
OK, I’ll try to deal with these all quickly:
1. “Minorities, the Poor and Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia” — This article contains lots of statistics about health care: broken bones, AIDS cases, ccancer treatment, etc. It has exactly 0 statictics on dying with dignity as applied to African-Americans. I actually support universal health care provided by the government to alleviate some of the actual inequities presented in this article. As they said on the Daily Show about Terri Schiavo, “We now know just exactly how sick you have to be before Congress gives a shit.”
2. A Feminist Case Against Self-Determined Dying in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
Once again 0 statistics to back up your claim. This article is mainly an examination of issues related to the morality of this decision, including from the personal level. Fine. I fully agree that everyone should make their own determinations, and the information in this article can help people do that.
That’s the end of the articles that were supposed to back up, “Women and minorities are more often the recipients of so called death with dignity.” Evidence presented to back up this statement. Still 0. If I missed the statictic in one of these articles that showed that this was true, please point it out.
Let’s move on to hadling more eugenics hysteria.
3. EUTHANASIA AND EUGENICS
So, how many of the patients that the Germans exterminated
4. The Eugenics Movement in the U.S.
Great, Peter Singer stuff. Let me know when he’s making US laws and we’ll talk.
5. Euthanasia : a choice for doctors
I believe this is a satirical piece. Excerpt: “Doctors have high rates of drug addiction, debt, divorce and suicide, not to mention high golf scores. Despite the sacrifices made by their families and by society, they are often unable to acquire even rudimentary social skills.” No actual argument is presented here.
6. A Defense of Genocide
Oh, wow. Another Peter Singer article. Perhaps you can come up with more than one fringe academic to base this incredible movement to eugenics on.
7. Dehydration Nation
Ahh. Great article. First sentence. “For more than ten years, conscious and unconscious cognitively disabled people who use feeding tubes have been legally dehydrated to death in the United States. This intentional life-ending act-clamping feeding tubes and denying all sustenance-has become so ubiquitous that, generally, little attention is paid. ” So true. As so many people have pointed out, this case is ONLY of interest because the judiciary, legislature, etc. has been so involved. For over 10 years, it has been legal to let the wishes of people be carried out not to live in PVSs, comas, etc. And guess what. We’ve survived. We haven’t started wholesale slaughter of minorities yet
So, on the first point, nice try, but please actually back up your statement with something that actually supports it. If I say “More red-haired people die in car accidents every year,” giving the stat that more are beaten up at school or slip in the tub doesn’t support me.
On the second point, yes, there are other people like you that believe that we’re headed down the eugenics path. Some of them even say so on their own websites. But, as they say in Reservoir Dogs, “just because you say something (on the web) doesn’t make it f***ing so.”
Drawing similarities to Nazi programs is such a staple of internet debate that we call it Godwin’s law. No matter what happens, whether it’s George Bush, Saddam Hussein, or Hillary Clinton, someone sees a direct link from what their doing to Hitler, the Third Reich, etc. However, as your own articles point out, we’ve had these laws for ten years and we’re pretty much still in the same state as we were then. No concentration camps yet. No vast killing of “undesirables”. Going back to “The Eugenics Movement in the U.S.”, it shows how there have been Peter Singer-like philosophers in the US since 1942. Somehow, we’ve survived. My guess is that having a totalitarian government had more to do with allowing eugenics than a right for people who desired not to be kept alive in a PVS to die. Actually, the Germans didn’t even have that law. They started out with mental patients and just killed them, so even that comparison falls flat.
Euthanists report their actions to the same agency the other murderers report their actions, so as to have accurate numbers for people like you. As I recall the office is in the same building as you beloved gnome underpants co world wide headquarters.
I am his Highness’ dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
Jeff wrote:
Brian asked if I’d be happy with a deliberate lethal overdose. While I wouldn’t be happy, of course,
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn’t alter my words intentionally. I didn’t say “happy”. I said “satisfied”, specifically with regard to how the solution proposed would address your legal argument.
So if my choices were death by deliberate starvation and an overdose of morphine — if those are the only two choices available to me — I would push the plunger myself. I think it’s a mistake to start acting like those are the only two choices available, however.
I was just responding to your contention that the plaintiff’s first and only argument [is] “WE DON’T STARVE PEOPLE TO DEATH IN THIS COUNTRY.” If that’s truly your “only” issue, then you would drop your objection if she was allowed to die by other means.