Schiavo postscript

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:48 pm

honestly we must look at it this way:

Did she say anything IN WRIGHTING that states that she wanted to die if in a vegitative state?

If she wanted to be kept alive did the parents want to take care of her if the husband wanted to cut ties with her

Personally, as a christain concervative, i have no problem with Mike wanting to divoce terri with her in the state she is in. It is very cruel to force one man to stay married to a woman that is in the state that she is in. That in saying, if she did not state on paper, that has not been signed by a public notory, she must have been kept alive, plain and simple.

before anyone tries to typcast me as one of those people who are against divorce, i have personally seen the worst possible case senerio of a children that is in a bad relationship, and it is ugly. I belive that people have the free will to do whatever they want within the law.

why did Michael want her dead? Her parents were willing to take care of her, and there was nothing on paper stating that she wanted to die if in a PVS. Please dont say that she "said", because it is only heresay and therefore should not be consitered as truth. and also please dont say that her life would be not worth living....kinda up to her to say, which she didnt.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:47 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:and also please dont say that her life would be not worth living....kinda up to her to say, which she didnt.

So since she couldn't talk (or move, or see, or...), she was obviously never going to tell them or write out what even the soldier in the "One" video** was able to say by tapping his head against the pillow in Morse code ("kill me, please kill me!"), I guess the only option would be to keep her alive artificially hooked up to machines for the next 70 years. By that time she would look roughly like the host of "Tales from the Crypt" and would have had the pleasure of staying alive for several more decades to enjoy that transformation.

I'm sorry, I vote strongly for "life not worth living."

As a conservative Christian, can you please explain to me why you were so dead set (so to speak) against her going to heaven sooner rather than later? Isn't that arguably a better option than being imprisoned in a broken body?

The husband did the right thing, and as the legal guardian under the state laws of Florida, it was his right to do so. I feel for the family, but they were and still are in denial about her condition. I hope they find closure and let go of all of the ugliness that arose during the legal proceedings. A lot of lives were destroyed as a result of that case, and that is truly sad.

** Story and footage lifted from the movie "Johnny Got His Gun" for those more versed in movie references than Metallica references.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:55 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote: I'm sorry, I vote strongly for "life not worth living."
As a conservative Christian, can you please explain to me why you were so dead set (so to speak) against her going to heaven sooner rather than later? Isn't that arguably a better option than being imprisoned in a broken body?

i am not trying to argue if her life was worth/not worth living. What i am trying to say is that she did not communicate in a legal means that can be upheald in a court of law if she wanted to die or not. all we have is a conversation she had with her husband which is heresay. If anything this case is a strong case for anyone to file the legal means necessary to communicate that you want to die if in a vegitative state.

all i am saying is that we dont know what she wanted and we should respect it

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:06 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:and also please dont say that her life would be not worth living....kinda up to her to say, which she didnt.
I'm sorry, I vote strongly for "life not worth living."

As a conservative Christian, can you please explain to me why you were so dead set (so to speak) against her going to heaven sooner rather than later? Isn't that arguably a better option than being imprisoned in a broken body?

If she had not yet accepted Christ as her savior, she would be destined for an eternal life in hell. That would be one reason.

The other reason is we are not God. It's time we stopped trying to be.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:41 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote: I'm sorry, I vote strongly for "life not worth living."
As a conservative Christian, can you please explain to me why you were so dead set (so to speak) against her going to heaven sooner rather than later? Isn't that arguably a better option than being imprisoned in a broken body?
i am not trying to argue if her life was worth/not worth living. What i am trying to say is that she did not communicate in a legal means that can be upheald in a court of law if she wanted to die or not. all we have is a conversation she had with her husband which is heresay. If anything this case is a strong case for anyone to file the legal means necessary to communicate that you want to die if in a vegitative state.

all i am saying is that we dont know what she wanted and we should respect it

I agree that the major lesson is that we should all communicate exactly what we would want while we are still alive.

As for the legal argument, our legal system gives the right to decide to the husband, as he is her legal guardian. He is her proxy to make that decision, even if she never communicated anything to him (if she did, that's just legal gravy). As such, I agree, we should respect her decision as made by her legal proxy. We can now only pray that she accepted the right flavor of religion while she was still lucid or else she is apparently burning in hell with Ghandi, Buddha and Ben Franklin.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:43 pm

First the retraction:
I have found on a multitude of sites that the extent her occipital lobes had atrophied (for lack of a better word) she suffered from cortical blindness.

Now the rest:
1. I'm not a doctor, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Regardless, the coroner himself wrote in the report an autopsy cannot determine the existence of PVS. Moreover, the coroner's careful analysis could find no evidence that Terri had been abused, instead relying on Terri’s medical records as well as her autopsy. After all this he still could not find a root cause. I find that disappointing, because now this issue will drag on longer than any of us really want (BTW, I will not be posting on this thread again for this very reason).

2. This wasn't about Terri's "right to die" case, as stated by some. Terri had never requested to die. All we have, and had, for witnesses on her state of mind was her husband--who waited until after he had won a large lawsuit to finally remember a conversation in which Terri made an "oh, by the way" comment about not wanting to live on a machine--and two of his own relatives who corroborated his story. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, because of his relationship with another woman and fathering two children, all polygamy arguments aside. On Terri's side, her family was willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

Grizlaw, care to comment on the ramifications of these facts?

3. The autopsy report affirmed Terri was not dying.

4. Despite all of this, the State decided that it would kill Terri on the basis of her husband's wishes, without any living will or formal indication of her state of mind. Unable to speak for herself, Terri’s life rested in the hands of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. For its decision, the State should have relied on more than an estranged husband's tardy recollection of a superficial, general conversation.

5. Accuse the Christian Right about politicizing this issue--but there are serious holes in the morality of this issue from both sides of the political issue.

BAC, you wrote

I'm sorry, I vote strongly for "life not worth living."

I wasn't aware that you were the decider of who lives and who dies. How much money do you need from me to make sure you vote for my life as "worth living?" My wife and kids would appreciate me staying around for a few more years. Thanks.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:54 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:3. The autopsy report affirmed Terri was not dying.

She was not dying because a machine was keeping her alive. Without that machine, she would have been dead 15 years ago.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:18 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Now the rest:
1. I'm not a doctor, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Regardless, the coroner himself wrote in the report an autopsy cannot determine the existence of PVS. Moreover, the coroner's careful analysis could find no evidence that Terri had been abused, instead relying on Terri’s medical records as well as her autopsy. After all this he still could not find a root cause. I find that disappointing, because now this issue will drag on longer than any of us really want (BTW, I will not be posting on this thread again for this very reason).

the ME also stated in the report that any signes of abuse would have disappeared because they happened years ago, 15 to be exact. Also there was also no indication of what brought her to her PVS, dismissing all these ED rumors

2. This wasn't about Terri's "right to die" case, as stated by some. Terri had never requested to die. All we have, and had, for witnesses on her state of mind was her husband--who waited until after he had won a large lawsuit to finally remember a conversation in which Terri made an "oh, by the way" comment about not wanting to live on a machine--and two of his own relatives who corroborated his story. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, because of his relationship with another woman and fathering two children, all polygamy arguments aside. On Terri's side, her family was willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

EXACTLY! That is the reason why we are having this argument in the first place, and why millions of americans are screaming foul! her wanting to die was heresay and therefore null and void. Since the argument was made in the court of law, it should have been null and void and therefore terri should be alive

4. Despite all of this, the State decided that it would kill Terri on the basis of her husband's wishes, without any living will or formal indication of her state of mind. Unable to speak for herself, Terri’s life rested in the hands of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. For its decision, the State should have relied on more than an estranged husband's tardy recollection of a superficial, general conversation.

5. Accuse the Christian Right about politicizing this issue--but there are serious holes in the morality of this issue from both sides of the political issue.

BAC, you wrote
I'm sorry, I vote strongly for "life not worth living."
I wasn't aware that you were the decider of who lives and who dies. How much money do you need from me to make sure you vote for my life as "worth living?" My wife and kids would appreciate me staying around for a few more years. Thanks.

honesely what harm would it have done if terri would have been left alive and her parents taking care of her?

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:20 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:3. The autopsy report affirmed Terri was not dying.
She was not dying because a machine was keeping her alive. Without that machine, she would have been dead 15 years ago.

and without the medical malpractice lawsuite, scheivo would not have been able to afford to put her in that machine which is why he filed it in the first place.....right???

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:35 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:2. This wasn't about Terri's "right to die" case, as stated by some. Terri had never requested to die. All we have, and had, for witnesses on her state of mind was her husband--who waited until after he had won a large lawsuit to finally remember a conversation in which Terri made an "oh, by the way" comment about not wanting to live on a machine--and two of his own relatives who corroborated his story. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, because of his relationship with another woman and fathering two children, all polygamy arguments aside. On Terri's side, her family was willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

Grizlaw, care to comment on the ramifications of these facts?

I'll try to write more on this thread tomorrow (it's about 1:30 am here, this is my third straight night of working 18+ hours, and frankly, any response I wrote now would not be worth much). But let me ask -- by "ramifications," do you mean legal ramifications or moral ramifications?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:51 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
'93HonoluluCat wrote:2. This wasn't about Terri's "right to die" case, as stated by some. Terri had never requested to die. All we have, and had, for witnesses on her state of mind was her husband--who waited until after he had won a large lawsuit to finally remember a conversation in which Terri made an "oh, by the way" comment about not wanting to live on a machine--and two of his own relatives who corroborated his story. The husband had a conflict of interest in the matter, because of his relationship with another woman and fathering two children, all polygamy arguments aside. On Terri's side, her family was willing to take over her medical care and the responsibility for its costs.

Grizlaw, care to comment on the ramifications of these facts?

I'll try to write more on this thread tomorrow (it's about 1:30 am here, this is my third straight night of working 18+ hours, and frankly, any response I wrote now would not be worth much). But let me ask -- by "ramifications," do you mean legal ramifications or moral ramifications?

Legal. I'm interested in what a lawyer thinks about the facts surrounding the case.

President John Kerry · Post by **President John Kerry** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:10 am

It's official...terri is voting demicrat in the year 2008!!!

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:03 am

I have to ask. How many people think Terri Shiavo would’ve rather had the money (what is now wasted money), that was spent on sustaining her organs, spent on sustaining hundreds or thousands of starving children around the world?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:05 am

There must be some political capital left to gain. Just when we thought the issue would finally go away:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 248D61.DTL

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:06 am

President John Kerry wrote:It's official...terri is voting demicrat in the year 2008!!!

Enough with the Kerry second username, HB....

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:59 am

Quick point. Nazi Germany began killing bed ridden patients, and then people with mental disorders and we all know the rest of this history lesson. I know that the Shiavo case in not comparable to the atrocities that were committed by Hitler and his SS, but they slowly were able to devalue life. You start off by accepting mercy killings, and then the next step (the elderly or mentally handicapped people) is much easier to take. I think it should definitely be on the mind of all people how important human life is, and all cases should be looked at long and hard.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:48 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:There must be some political capital left to gain. Just when we thought the issue would finally go away:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 248D61.DTL

lets just let a sleeping dog lie....im sick of this its been an issue since 03 nationally and in flda since 90

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:20 pm

next thing you know the government will be telling you who you can marry!?!?!?!

it's amazing how much people know about other people they've never met. polygamy? everyone needs to stay out of their backyard. the courts have ruled, so it's time to drop it.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:52 pm

Jeb Bush has just asked for a probe into Terri Schiavo death.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=858356

This is sickening ! Why must he try to make political gain over this tragic event

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:07 pm

mslacat wrote:Jeb Bush has just asked for a probe into Terri Schiavo death.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=858356

This is sickening ! Why must he try to make political gain over this tragic event

i dont think political gain is being made out of it. Personally i am with you on this one msla, i want it over. But in his eyes, there still is *groan* questions that need to be answered. I am not going to argue with ya on this one if it were a political move or not. if it were a political move then we would have seen national guard troops at scheivo's bedside. What he is trying to do is either answer questions or torture us with more scheivo