This is topic Terri Schiavo Dies in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=033193

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Legal Murder: Terri Schiavo Dies
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Oh dear, now she'll miss out on that lovely full life she was going to have.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, let's take a few days or so to simply mourn her passing and to pray and/or sympathize with all those she left behind.

There's always time for politics later.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
 
If Jay will edit his post then i will respect that Dag.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I like the way you react, Dag. [Kiss]
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
14 days -- wow. I was amazed it was that long. I didn't think the human body could go that long without hydration.

Farmgirl
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
For what it's worth, one can take the high ground regardless of the other travellers.

Peace to her and those who loved her.
 
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
 
Like I said in the breakroom the other day. I'm writing a living will and I want it to say..."But please don't starve me to death, just walk in and shoot me in the head. It will be so much more humane." Oh but that will never happen b/c that is murder and this is not. Right.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I hope the autopsy shows that the right choice was made.

Farmgirl, I was surprised by that too--I'd had the impression that 3 days was the longest a human could survive without water. Maybe it's because she was almost completely inactive?
 
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Edit my post so that murder is out of it?
Her parents were denied access to their daughter's bedside in her final hours. I’m sure they’re simply morning and not blaming Michael in the least for their loss.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Jay, do whatever you want to do.
Dag just suggested everyone to back off a little and show respect. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.
 
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
quote:
Her parents were denied access to their daughter's bedside in her final hours.
I don't think this is true.
quote:
Brother Paul O'Donnell, a spokesman for Bob and Mary Schindler, Schiavo's parents, said the couple was with their daughter's body and praying.
From CNN. Gotta watch the spin at Fox News, man--sometimes it doesn't tell the whole story.
 
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
I grief for the family. It’s a shame that Michael won’t ever be charged with murder until the final judgment day. Hopefully some kind of new legislation will come out of this so that this kind of torture won’t be allowed in the future without express written consent. I’m also hopeful that this will energize the nominations for judges so that Bush’s nominees will get through and the liberal courts can changed into the interpreters that they are supposed to be instead of the legislators that they are being. It’s just a shame that Terri had to be the sacrifice.
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
If it's on CNN, it must be true!
 
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
No, but the fox news article simply says that they plead to be allowed at the bedside.

The CNN article cited their spokesman as saying they were praying at the bedside.

They're not contradictory, but it's two entirely different spins.

Just sayin'.
 
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Notice that it says body. Huh.... interesting. I bet that means she was already dead. Well, gee.
 
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
 
Why does jebus oppose everything?

I think this is a horrible thing no matter how you look at it. I think we'll see some things in the next few days that will alter the way we see the case.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Rest in Peace, T.S.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Scott, jebus just likes to troll. The recent rise would indicate that he is either unemployed or not in school (or seriously procrastinating in either).
 
Posted by KrabbyPatty (Member # 7055) on :
 
It's true the CNN article said:

"Brother Paul O'Donnell, a spokesman for Bob and Mary Schindler, Schiavo's parents, said the couple was with their daughter's body and praying."

But further along it the article, it said:

"Thursday morning, O' Donnell said that Schiavo was in her final hours of life, and police have prohibited her blood relatives from spending time with her.

"O'Donnell, one of the family's spiritual advisers, said that her parents and siblings were "begging to be at her bedside...but are being denied."

"Michael Schiavo was Terri's guardian and controlled who may visit her and when."
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
[Frown] Rest in peace, Terri.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
[Frown] Poor her... No one really wins in this...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I’m also hopeful that this will energize the nominations for judges so that Bush’s nominees will get through and the liberal courts can changed into the interpreters that they are supposed to be instead of the legislators that they are being."

Liberal courts? *blink*
Jay, do you still -- after everything we've shown you so far on this issue -- think it was liberal courts who decided this?

For that matter, what "legislation" do you think the "liberal" courts were doing? The courts interpreted existing law.

C'mon, man. Prove to me that you can think for yourself.
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
Megan,
As KrabbyPatty pointed out...the CNN article that you linked to said that the parents were not allowed in the room in her final hours. He kept them out. The part that you quoted from the article was talking about after her death (note it said they were with her body)

The Fox article and the CNN article don't contradict each other...the first part of the CNN article is just talking about a different time period (post death).
 
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
 
[Frown]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Oh my, that is absolutely horrible that police prevented her parents from being there in her final moments. [Frown]

That is absolutely sickening to me, why would Michael not let her parents be with her? What purpose is served by leaving the parents outside begging and calling police in to prevent them from sitting and praying with their daughter?

My heart goes out to her parents, I hope they find a way to have peace about this somehow.
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Considering the animosity between her husband and her parents I think I can understand why he would bar them from the room when the moment came. I'm not saying he should have done it, but I understand.

Needless to say, I hope she and those she leaves behind find their peace.
 
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Tom,

How about the original finding of allowing Michael to be the guardian despite him having a new common law wife? Who on earth can think he’s in it for her best interests? If nothing else he should have been found guilty of adultery or polygamy.

How about the courts ignoring the facts that there was a chance if she would have gotten the proper treatment whatever the slight chance it might have been? We have a guy here at NASA who was declared brain dead after a car wreck, but received the proper care and miraculously recovered enough that he was able to get his degree. He still has troubles, but he’s alive. There are countless cases like that. Sure they’re unlikely, but they do happen. Michael didn’t give her a chance.

How about that the laws passed by both federal and state legislatures to save her life were ignored and overruled? 100% ignored. They were going to kill her no matter what seemed to be the attitude.

Everything about this that the courts did was ugly, uncaring, and just plain biased. So why is it that since I’m conservative that means I can’t think for myself? I kind of find that a tad bit insulting. Yet, if I do any kind of personal attacks like that I get bamboozled and labeled. I’m seeing a bit of bias here. Interesting.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Was Michael with her in her final moments? Was anyone that cared about her?

If he was there and wanted to avoid a scene or confrontation, then I suppose there might be a glimmer of understanding, though I still think it's petty and malicious of him. If he wasn't there, then it was downright viciousness on his part, to let her die alone and not let her parents be with her.
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
It's disappointing that can people become so polarized over an issue that they have no option left except to restate their opinions in louder and more obnoxious ways.

So, let's just leave Jay to his opinion. He's obviously right [Roll Eyes] and nothing that anyone says will have an impact on someone who's so self-righteous about their opinion.
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Belle, if it offers you any comfort, yes Michael was with her when she died. He and her parents had been alternating visits for some time now and they were asked to leave when his turn came. It was shortly after that she died.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
It really bothers me that people are so willing to assume that Michael is a horrible person without any knowledge of the history of his and Terri's relationship with her parents. I'm certainly not willing to make that assumption, and think that particularly now both he and her parents ought to be left well enough alone.

Edit: I also don't think that this should ever have become a political issue.

[ March 31, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I'm not saying he's a horrible person, I'm saying the act of prohibiting parents from being with their beloved daughter by force is wrong.

Even if there are problems between them,I would hope they would both, out of respect for Terri, set those differences aside in this situation.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
I agree with what twinky said.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
So why is it that since I’m conservative that means I can’t think for myself? I kind of find that a tad bit insulting. Yet, if I do any kind of personal attacks like that I get bamboozled and labeled. I’m seeing a bit of bias here. Interesting.
It is interesting, as sort of a case study of how your own biases can blind you. After all, here is Jebus being roundly criticized, and called a troll, for obnoxiously expressing opinions contrary to your own, and all you can see is that people are picking on little old you.

Maybe the key is here: "Yet, if I do any kind of personal attacks like that . . ." The true personal attacks by liberal trolls have always been called as such. And so have the personal attacks by conservatives. If you want respect, maybe the answer is not to do any kind of personal attacks.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Icarus, jebus calls himself a troll.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:

How about the original finding of allowing Michael to be the guardian despite him having a new common law wife? Who on earth can think he’s in it for her best interests?

Jay, this is precisely the problem here. Eleven separate court cases have reviewed this, and all of them agree that he's entitled to be her guardian. You disagree.

That does not make the courts incompetent, or "activist," or unable to correctly interpret the law; it simply means that you disagree with or don't understand the law.
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I hope everyone involved in this situation, especially Terri, find peace.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
PC, the relevance of this to my point that Jay only notices those who disagree with him is . . . ?

[ March 31, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
quote:
Scott, jebus just likes to troll. The recent rise would indicate that he is either unemployed or not in school (or seriously procrastinating in either).
Whereas you just like to go into a thread where fans are discussing how Star Wars could have been better and call it "NERDity".

Trolling is doing something with the sole purpose of causing trouble, which I rarely do, it's just always interpreted as such.

quote:
Icarus, jebus calls himself a troll.
Indeed, but that would be a little thing called humour. Joking around. Making fun of oneself.

[ March 31, 2005, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
 
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Thanks for showing your bias Icarus. I assume Jebus is adult enough to defend themselves. Not my job. Tom on the other hand attacked me, as he loves to do, and usually no one but me calls him on it. So wait… you say “If you want respect, maybe the answer is not to do any kind of personal attacks.” Yet Tom is the one who personally attacks me, yet you’re yelling at me? Whatever……

Now, back to the topic at hand…..

Tom, I could care less if every court in the land found it the same way. It was wrong on every level. Our courts are out of control. They have zero accountability and show it in most of their decisions. They’ve quit interpreting law and continue to ignore what they don’t like. I’m hopeful that this killing of an innocent American will help reign in their arrogance.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But they did interpret law. And accurately.

Now if you believe that the wishes of someone in a similar state cannot be legally determined by hearsay and that in absence of signed documentation otherwise that person should be kept alive at all costs, work towards legislation that says that. I anticipate quite a bit of it in the very near future. And if it passes, the courts will follow it because it will be the law.
 
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
 
Terry's death is sad, but not much more sad than the last 15 years of her "life".

I do not confess to what side of the issue I take since to be honest I am not so sure. Would I fight to preserve the life of my child--with my own life I would!

But, would I sustain my childs life if I knew that child would never be back? Would I fight to maintain them in a condition of limbo, as a warm, breathing entity for my self serving needs?

Nobody wants their child to die, but understanding that life is eternal and that there is a heaven(Which Catholics do believe), and that she will be free or pain, of afflictions and in the arms of her Savior, would or should we deny her the right to go there. Or should we go to whatever length to keep her between this life and the next?

To me, her body lived on, she did not.

Another perspective: I wonder in amazement the amount of money that was spent by all perspectives in this. Her parents for 15 years of life support. The media for all the hype. The courts for all the time.

Now imagine how much attention, time and money we have put towards sustaining life in those third world countries where tens of thousands die of hunger each week.

No, I do not suggest that we should have let Terry die a long time ago in order to spend the time and money elsewhere, I just want to put things in perspective.

In America, evidently, one single life still counts. Jay said a "murder" was committed against someone who could not have a chance of a normal life. Who is guilty of murder for those that starve to death who had a chance at a quality life while we stuffed ourselves with pizza and cry foul?

I guess I had a hard night under the bridge. I need a bowl of soup.

I died years ago. My feeding tube is the soup kitchen on the corner of 4th and Main.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
^
|
more or less, agrees.

Rest in peace, TS.

--j_k
 
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
 
[Frown]
Peace to her soul and to her family.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
PC, the relevance of this to my point that Jay only notices those who disagree with him is . . . ?
It had nothing to do with Jay. I dismiss anything Jay says immediately and without remorse. I was just explaining why I called jebus a troll- which you referenced in your post. Perhaps I shouldn't have addressed it specifically to you.

quote:
Whereas you just like to go into a thread where fans are discussing how Star Wars could have been better and call it "NERDity".

Trolling is doing something with the sole purpose of causing trouble, which I rarely do, it's just always interpreted as such.

I consider what I do not so much trolling "being a general asshole." Which I love to do.

quote:
Indeed, but that would be a little thing called humour. Joking around. Making fun of oneself.
I know, I enjoy your humour. The purpose of my original comment was to explain to scottneb your perceived insanity. I also wanted to get under your skin a little bit.
 
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
My bad about the CNN article. I confess that I was in a hurry this morning and didn't read the whole article through; I had just decided to look for another perspective than fox, and that was the first thing that struck me about the two articles.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
My heart goes out to TS's family, Michael Schiavo, her parents, extended family, etc. They've been put through a horrible ordeal, only made worse by the people on the outside trying to exploit this case for their own ends.

quote:
How about that the laws passed by both federal and state legislatures to save her life were ignored and overruled?
Jay - You seem to think that once a law is passed it is magically immortal and indestructible. The job of the courts is to uphold and overturn laws as they see fit. More than 60% of the American people disagreed with Bush and others trying to pass legislation to screw with judicial rulings. We have severe separation of powers issues going on here.

But what I'm more curious about, is how you would have reacted in the last generations to those crazy reactionist judges forcing integration of the schools. I mean, come on, those damned liberal judges on the benches force all those evil black kids to go to school with the pious, good, white kids. If that is the sort of injustice you're stemming your arguments from, you need to check yourself.

Personally I think the courts are the last line of defense against our sometimes out of control Congress and President. They seem to think of the courts as their battlefield, their enemies when they want more power, and their pawns when they are fighting each other for power.

I'm sad that Terri Schaivo is dead, but perhaps some good can come from her death in the form of settling this damned argument once and for all.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
How about that the laws passed by both federal and state legislatures to save her life were ignored and overruled?
The federal law was not overturned, overuled, or thwarted. It granted review. It also enabled, but did not compel, the courts to grant a stay in the order to withhold nutrition.

This makes it clear that the federal courts did not disregard Congress, and also that Congress did not "interfere" with the courts. Congress exercised it's legitimate authority to define jurisdiction. The courts exercised this jurisdiction.

quote:
More than 60% of the American people disagreed with Bush and others trying to pass legislation to screw with judicial rulings.
This is, of course, irrelevant to how the courts decided the issue once the law was passed.

quote:
We have severe separation of powers issues going on here.
Not really. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives Congress the authority to determine jurisdiction for the federal courts.

Dagonee
 
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Heh, ah well then, aren't I the fool for rising to it? [Grumble]
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
This is, of course, irrelevant to how the courts decided the issue once the law was passed.
I never said it was relevant to how the court rendered its judgement. I guess I'm speaking more to the perceptions of the people in these issues, and the attitudes of some Congressmen. More than half of Americans felt the Congress and the President were encroaching on judicial territory, and the other half wanted them to outright overrule the courts.

quote:
Not really. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives Congress the authority to determine jurisdiction for the federal courts.
Tell that to the screaming masses demanding an immediate solution to whatever is bothering them this week. This speaks to the point I made before, the people demand action, and they don't seem to be either well informed, or if they are they don't seem to really care. Just an observation mind you. But there are other things that have happened in the last couple years that are also treading close to breaches of seperation of powers.

(Yay! I've reached the Congressional Signpost: 535 Posts!)

Edit to add: (Now at 536, and thanks to Dagonee for reminding me about DC)

[ March 31, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And many of those encroadhments on the separation of powers have been committed by the courts.

I don't think the judges in this case can be called activists judges if the term is to have meaning. But I disagree with Thomas's statement on the term as well. Just because people misuse the term does not mean the concept referred to by the term doesn't exist.

In this case, I think the trial judge allowed his own preconceptions about disability and quality of life to improperly influence his decision. That's not an accusation of activist judging; it's an accusation of bad fact-finding.

But there are instances of activist judging, just as there are instances of encroachment on judicial independence.

Dagonee

[ March 31, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You need one more post to account for Del. Norton of DC.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
There's a lot about Terri's life and death to be sad about. There's some to find joy in. From what's been documented publicly:

1) Terri had a severe eating disorder. A potassium imbalance brought on by bulimia stopped her heart. The subsequent lack of oxygen (probably coupled with the potassium imbalance already damaging neurons anyway) severely damaged her brain.

2)Terri and Michael appear to have had a happy marriage from all accounts except for, perhaps, allegations by her parents that Michael beat her. There's been no proof of this, but let us at least leave open the possibility that Terri may NOT have been happy in her marriage, but also it may have been a source of great happiness to her. One can only hope.

3) Either way, however, her eating disorder continued well into adulthood. She and Michael married knowing that she suffered from it, and that it could prove deadly.

4) We do not know what kind of home life she had. It is, however, quite likely that her parents feel a fair amount of blame for her eating disorder. That's not to say that they ARE to blame, but it is certainly natural for the parents of child suffering from such a self-destructive disorder to wonder if there's anything they could/should have done. To see her ultimately destroy her self must've been doubly hard on them. And...it's not inconcievable that they would think that Michael should shoulder some of the blame since their daughter at least LIVED THROUGH her life with them, and she died on his watch. (That is, the eating disorder didn't get better after marrying him, and may have gotten worse.)

5) Even if that bit of amateur psychology turns out to be completely false, there's the natural desire of a parent to keep their child alive at all costs. The pain of letting go while their loved one is still able to breathe, see, hear, etc. is just horrible to contemplate. What we know and more importantly don't know about her ability to comprehend or make sense of the world around her makes it worse.

Ultimately, cases like her tend to focus us on questions like what does it mean to be "human?" what does it mean to be alive? Who can speak for the incapacitated? Can more than one person be a true voice for an incapacitated individual? Can the healthy truly judge the value that an ailing or disabled individual would place on their own life, or is their perspective too skewed by the comparison by the thought that they would never CHOOSE to live "that way?"

then there are all the things that cases like this would say about us as a nation and as individuals. If one wants to affirm life, does that mean all life, innocent life only, mostly (or especially) those unable to speak for themselves, etc.

Her life gives us a lot to contemplate, but we should not lose sight of the fact that her life ended in tragedy that was, really, completely avoidable. What really would've helped Terri was better treatments for eating disorders, more understanding of what the risks are, and probably a extra dose of psychotherapy. Years ago. When she was really young, but also into adulthood.
 
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
 
I agree with Bob Scopatz. Well said.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I mourn for her death. I'm just not sure that she died today.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I am. She wasn't brain dead, she wasn't in a coma.
 
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
 
I mourn Schiavo's death as well. But I have other question that, even if slightly off topic, I feel I should ask.

While the country debated and continues to debate, black Africans in Darfur continued to be systematically massacred. Why did the Schiavo bills take hours to pass and the Darfur Bill take weeks? Don't the people of Darfur have a "Right to Life" as well?

This is not a political criticism, even though I am a liberal. I have also lost a lot of faith in the Democratic Party because it has done virtually nothing. In fact, one of the reasons why I didn't like Kerry because he, like Bush, when asked about the Darfur genocide during a debate, essentially said, "AUtroopsaregreatnextquestion." But presently, it is Republicans with the power to send bills clean through Congress. So I find any claims about their respect for life to be absurd. Democrats also have done nothing dramatic, and I am further disillusioned with them as a result.

Why do people have stronger opinions about Schiavo's death than about the Sudanese villiage that was just bombed?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Why are we up in arms NOW? Why weren't we THEN?
Because Americans tend to not notice important issues unless the media rams them home. Then all of a sudden it's the most important issue in the world.
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
She was partially brain dead. The question is: did the part that was still alive actually contain Terri?

I honestly can't say I know where I stand on this issue. As has been mentioned before, it isn't reasonable to project what I would want to happen to me onto someone else.

I do think that it would have been reasonable for Micheal to divorce her and leave her in her parents hands, especially if she did have no consiousness. If she's not aware of her predicament, it would have hurt no one to keep her alive.

But I also think her parents' behavior wasn't healthy. They needed to grieve for her long ago, and I think they were clinging to more than what was there.

Was she alive? I dunno. Was she dead? I dunno that either. But I don't think that letting her go was murder. That's too strong a word for a bad solution to a no-win situation.
 
Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
 
I'm not trying to be flamed but....

Since she had a eating disorder, which means she was probably extremely vain about her appearance. How pissed off would she be to have her picture plastered all over the world in her "vegetative state"?
 
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
:Flames B-HAX: Happy now?

I hadn't heard about the eating disorder until today. How very ironic.

I'm sad that the parents are going to be kept out of the funeral as well.

I wonder why the willingness to believe she was brain dead generally falls so predictably down party lines. I guess it's a question of some people seeing life as inherently sacred or not. Others feel the quality of life is more important than the actual life. And yet it seems there is information supporting both sides, and it is a matter of who we choose to listen to. I sure hope there is a God, because it will be so annoying to never know the answer to some questions otherwise.

CNN also made the "persistent vegetative state" claim again.
 
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
What? How can he bar them away from her funeral?
That just isn't right...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I wonder why the willingness to believe she was brain dead generally falls so predictably down party lines."

Honestly? It's because the media has defined it as a party issue (largely thanks, mind you, to Republican attempts early on to use this for political capital), and Americans are lemmings.

[ March 31, 2005, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
 
It really is a crappy situation. It is really sad that Michael and the family could never reconcile their differences. All I can do is relate to myself in that hypothetical situation, so I have no idea what they are going through.

I am troubled by how easy it is to trash the husband and how the Schindlers seem to be free of the most extreme detractors. The abortion clinic rock throwers championed this cause as if it were a game, with no caring towards the family or especially the husband.

My best friend today told me his wishes in that situation and actually he is going to make me responsible for seeing his wishes carried out in that situation, via a living will. The fact that more people are now taking a serious look at living wills is probably the best thing to come out of this.

What I would want is to be given an overdose of morphine and call it a day. Is that legal? The starving to death option doesn't seem to be very humane. We can put our dear pets to sleep when they are suffering, why can we not do the same thing for humans?

[ March 31, 2005, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: B-HAX ]
 
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
From my perspective, people's opinions don't seem to be divided down party lines as much as they say.
 
Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
 
quote:
What? How can he bar them away from her funeral?
That just isn't right...

No it's not. Also there is probably alot of spin on that. It seems to me that the Schindlers are irreasonable and insist things being done their way or no way. There is enough blame on both sides as to how the situation was allowed to spin out of control. I couldn't imagine conducting a funeral after all of this with usual civility.
 
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
quote:
What I would want is to be given an overdose of morphine and call it a day. Is that legal? The starving to death option doesn't seem to be very humane. We can put our dear pets to sleep when they are suffering, why can we not do the same thing for humans?

Erm, yeah. I was made sadder by a statement I ran across on PBS where some doctor said he didn't know if starvation is cruel. Maybe in the sense that if you assume the body you are treating is no longer human.

It says she was in hospice, was she receiving any anaesthesia?
 
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
quote:

I do think that it would have been reasonable for Micheal to divorce her and leave her in her parents hands, especially if she did have no consiousness. If she's not aware of her predicament, it would have hurt no one to keep her alive.

I must admit, I have kinda been thinking this myself. I don't know Michael, and even if I did, how could I *really* know his motivations? Maybe he *really* did want to do her will.

As Trisha said, we can't know that. And yes, in my hope of there being a God there is definitely the hope to eventually know "why" about everything.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
If my husband went through this and his parents behaved the way Terri's did, I certainly wouldn't divorce him and let him in their hands.
That would be betrayal, at last that's how I see it.
We both know what the other wants in this kind of cases, and knowing it and not act in consequence would be betrayal.
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
May Terri, her husband, parents, siblings, and friends find peace.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It's because the media has defined it as a party issue (largely thanks, mind you, to Republican attempts early on to use this for political capital)
Tom, that's crap. (Blaming the media spin on the Republicans, that is.)

[ April 01, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, it's not. It's deliberate spin. Republican strategy memos sent to members of Congress outlined their intention to turn this into a political issue; it's how they got so many legislators on board for their pathetic little stunt.

[ April 01, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yes - the same documents with no attribution and no letterhead.

Even if that memo is real, it happened AFTER the media turned this into a two party dispute.

[ April 01, 2005, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Everyone here would do well to read David Brooks' column in the NYT

Morality vs. Reality

quote:

The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult.

Social conservatives go on to say that if we make distinctions about the value of different lives, if we downgrade those who are physically alive but mentally incapacitated, if we say that some people can be more easily moved toward death than others, then the strong will prey upon the helpless, and the dignity of all our lives will be diminished.

The true bright line is not between lives, they say, but between life and death.

The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living.

...

The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Ms. Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence.

On one end of that continuum are those fortunate enough to be able to live fully - to decide and act, to experience the world and be free. On the other end are those who, tragically, can do none of these things, and who are merely existing.

Social liberals warn against vitalism, the elevation of physical existence over other values. They say it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence.

The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin.

...

What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.

Thoughts?

[ April 01, 2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So, leaving aside your skepticism, do you think compassion for the poor, sick little woman was what drove Bush to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money to fly back to sign a bill on her behalf, wearing all the while an expression of extreme constipation?

Yeah, Dag. It wasn't deliberately political at all.

I'm not saying that there aren't people on both sides of the divide working at this for their own moral reasons -- see NDY, as an example -- but it's pretty hard to deny that the Republicans in Congress seized on this as a way to score easy points and jumped like they'd touched a stove when it backfired.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
It's because the media has defined it as a party issue
This is what you said resulted from the Republican's actions. This happened YEARS ago. Are we into reverse temporal causality here?
 
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Yeah, shame on Bush for being in the side of life! Tom you sound like you're really grasping at straws here. By the way, did you get your documents from CBS? [ROFL]
 
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Honestly, it's not a party issue. The Republicans played it like that because they were trying to cememt an evangelical base, again. And now 82% of Americans think Congress and the President should have played no role in this at all. 82%! 82% of Americans hardly ever agree on anything. Remarkably, I thought the media did a reasonable job of not making this a partisan issue; they gave very little space and airtime to DeLay and those Republicans who showed up in Congress during recess to pass a bill, and plenty of the same to Jesse Jackson, who, as well all know, does not get along very well with Bush. If anything, this is a personal, religious issue, not a partisan one.

I think everyone, across all party lines, is very shaken up by this issue because it's something every one of us could face at some point in our lives. Really, try and think for a second what you would want in this situation. Would you trust your spouse to make decisions on your behalf? Or not? If your parents ended up in a dispute with your spouse, who would you want to take precedence? Would you want the tube taken out, or left in?

This is much, much more complicated than Republicans and Democrats.

[ April 01, 2005, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
quote:

By the way, did you get your documents from CBS?

Where do you get YOUR info, the funny pages?

Good grief, people, quit it. This thread is no place for pettiness.
 
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
I remember that one day, OSC said in a collumn that your spouse is the only person of your family you actually choose. (I believe it was around Christmas and on the subject of presents)
Well, it strucked me as obvious, but you never think about it. So : if someone has to take decisions of life-or-death for me, would it be better that the person is someone blood-related to me but that maybe I have no real emotional link with, or someone I actually chose as my family and love ?

[ April 01, 2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"This is what you said resulted from the Republican's actions. This happened YEARS ago. Are we into reverse temporal causality here?"

Ah. I assumed you -- or, rather, the person to whom I was originally replying -- were referring to the recent media circus, not the entire "sanctity of life" debate in general. [Smile] The "sanctity of life" issue is in fact a great deal less partisan than the specific cynical abuse of the Schiavo case.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Ah. I assumed you -- or, rather, the person to whom I was originally replying -- were referring to the recent media circus
I assumed they were referring to the media circus that has surrounded Schiavo for at least 5 years.

Dagonee
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I assumed they were referring to the media circus that has surrounded Schiavo for at least 5 years."

It doesn't count as a media circus until I've heard of it. [Smile] And this is less tongue-in-cheek than it sounds.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If it comes to that, Tom, then I submit that this media circus started when the tube was removed and Schiavo's supporters began agitating for Congress to do something, but before they took up the call. And it was political even then.

Dagonee
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
If Bush is on the side of life, why is he cutting the very services that were paying for Schiavo's care?
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Thanks for clarifying, PC. I should adopt your strategy with Jay.

For the record, my "biases":

I wish she could have been kept alive. I think it should take more than hearsay to make the decision to remove nutrition and hydration, even if that hearsay is from the husband. I don't think this was an example of judicial activism, but of courts following our inadequate laws coupled with, as Dag noted, prejudices about the quality of Schiavo's life. I think we should clarify what level of communication of wishes is required to end a life--specifically, I think something like this (not an extreme measure in my view) should require a written statement--but I don't think laws designed to apply to one case are a good idea.

But much more importantly, I notice that poor widdle ol' Jay isn't the only one that is ever criticized, so my biases must be huge. [Roll Eyes]

-o-

I don't think it's along party lines, since I am not a republican. I don't agree with that NYT column either, because I don't consider myself a social conservative, but I do consider individual lives sacred apart from their quality or thei contribution. I don't agree with the distinction or the lines being drawn up in either case.
 
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
quote:
I think it should take more than hearsay to make the decision to remove nutrition and hydration, even if that hearsay is from the husband.
What about a situation where the wife and children all agree that the patient would not want to be kept alive like that?
 
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
 
I'll sum up my thought's on this situation with a quote.
quote:
The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.

Over 300,000 people have died in Darfur, and the number one story on the news continues to be about Terri. If Bush wants to be on the side of life then something has to be done.
 
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
Yes, the Miami Herald ran a great cartoon last Sunday highlighting the attention paid to the Schiavo story, while ignoring what has been happening for months in Darfur. Wish I could find a link to it online.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Three important notes:

1) Jay, I see your point about the wrongness of Terri's death, but I believe you are wrong in saying this is Judicial Activism. The judges here were forced to follow inadequate laws because of Legislative Cowardice. The legislative branches, in the federal government and in the state government, do not believe these issues are worth the contraversy they cause, so create inadequate laws governing them.

You can't blame the judges for following the laws they are given any more than you can blame a soldier for murder when at war, he shoots the enemy. You can blame the people who wrote those laws, or chickened out from writing better ones.

2)Many of you mention Darfur, and the deaths there. You leave out one startling fact. Terri Schiavo was one woman who starved to death, reportedly without pain. In Darfur tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, many good Christians, are starving to death, and feeling every excrutiating moment of pain.

3)ENOUGH! Much of America's attention has been wasted on this case not because of the good sounding causes opponents and proponents mouth. To many claim to care about life and dignity, but the truth, the awful ugly truth that is witnessed by the front page story about the funerals is this:

We love the Schiavo soap opera. We want the juicy details of over bearing parents, wicked lustful murderous husbands, and the tears, guilt, and blame that lies in the wake of this tragedy.

Terri Schiavo is in reallity just Survivor 05, reality TV at its pinnacle. Advertisers like Tom Delay and President Bush have gotten their money's worth. The final scene has been shot, but we are still waiting around for the next juicy season, Schiavo Season 16--Vultures And The Corpse.

I am tired of being a vulture. I am changing the channel.
 
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
 
Where I got the question I'm about to ask

"The examiner’s office has said it would conduct routine examinations and look for any evidence of what might have caused her 1990 collapse."

They didn't know?! 15 years later, and they didn't know? I guess this just shows how uninformed I am, but I thought that the main portion of the family feud was brought on by the feeding tube being removed. But does this mean they've been fighting for 15 years over this? How horrible.

and, as much as i hate to be the one to bring it all back up.. what was going on with the republican memos mentioned earlier? true, not true?

[ April 03, 2005, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Tater ]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2