quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Most of what I've read, aside from uninformed editorials that self-righteously demand that she be allowed to "die with dignity" (starved to death while doped on painkillers is "dignity"?),

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
I assume her higher brain functions are toast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
I assume the bigshots will be told that Terri laughs and smiles and vocalizes so rarely, maybe an hour out of every couple thousand.

So I guess they'll have to pick one of her hours when she's not grinning and reacting to Mother or music to yank her tubes.

---

And this would definitely, without any shadow of any doubt, be any hour of the last fifteen years or any hour of what remains of her life. Because, you see, she is NOT responding to her mother, or to music, or to anything else. The part of the brain that does those things no longer exists. It's not that it's damaged, it's that it is simply no longer there.

The court has determined several times over the last seven years that her wishes were, in fact, to not be kept alive in such a horrible, terrible state. You seem to be asking, Janine, why her wishes should be honored. Her wishes in this manner should be honored so that one day, in the future, when you're in a similar state, your previously stated wish to remain alive no matter what the existence will be honored as well.

It is not the government's right or responsibility to interfere in such a matter. That the US Congress has done so is a public raping of the Constitution. For that, you and every American should be deeply frightened.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
If we can stop feeding anyone without what we consider human intelligence then Capitol Hill will soon be a ghost town.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(P.S.: The people who dug in their heels wanting detailed proof beyond the "intelligence" re: the weapons of mass destruction, are the same people who complain that our forces didn't go thundering in, shoving Iraqies aside, to take over the weapons caches that were hustled away by Iraqis as we stepped onto Iraqi soil. C'mon, either there were dangerous types and quantities of weapons or there weren't, you can't complain out of both sides of your mouth like that!)

(P.P.S.: Well, you can, but it makes you look silly.)
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
My fondest dream for this situation is that it will end with the Supreme Court bitchslapping Congress back into the Stone Age. What a bunch of power-mad morality cops.

I'm sick to death of people talking about the Schiavo case as a question of a state "sanction". For the state to sanction it would imply that it's any of the state's goddamned business in the first place. It isn't. An individual case like this is especially not the business of the legislative branch. If anything, it's a matter for the courts.

While I'm at it, let me drip a little scorn on the media. Things might be a little easier for everyone if they would quit running that one picture that makes it look like Terri Schiavo is laughing and joking with her mom while they hang out in the hospital. We could also do without obscenely loaded and leading headlines like "Congress works on Schiavo's behalf".

The personal side of the situation is tragic, but not really unusual. Family members often disagree bitterly over the treatment of critically injured or ill loved ones. That's why next-of-kin and power-of-attorney rights are clearly defined. As hard as it must be for the Schindlers, this is Michael Shiavo's decision to make. It's a terrible responsibility that, as far as I can see, he has handled with dignity and integrity.

In the end, the only people I have any sympathy for are the Schiavos and the Schindlers. Everyone else should fuck off and leave this to be handled by the people who are involved.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Bu-u-u-ut... If she is kept alive by a feeding tube delivering nutrients and water, that ain't no different to me than saying she's being kept alive by a spoon delivering nutrients and water.

---

quote:

---

My word about what you told me you wanted to do with your medical destiny, what you told me before you became too incapacitated to speak for yourself, should count for very little by itself. There needs to be documentation.

Maybe there's 25 witnesses who heard Terri give an impassioned speech in favor of euthanasia before her heart stopped, maybe there's all kinds of evidence in her case...But in general, law ought to require distinct living wills for stuff like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Bu-u-u-ut... If she is kept alive by a feeding tube delivering nutrients and water, that ain't no different to me than saying she's being kept alive by a spoon delivering nutrients and water.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
(P.S.: The people who dug in their heels wanting detailed proof beyond the "intelligence" re: the weapons of mass destruction, are the same people who complain that our forces didn't go thundering in, shoving Iraqies aside, to take over the weapons caches that were hustled away by Iraqis as we stepped onto Iraqi soil. C'mon, either there were dangerous types and quantities of weapons or there weren't, you can't complain out of both sides of your mouth like that!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Why not let her parents feed her and talk to her and take care of her until she dies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foolhearty:
...Now, just to make matters truly hellish, the U.S. Congress is involved. The Senate Republicans have all saddled up their white chargers to "save" Terri's "life."

You know, the same guys who couldn't be arsed to find out if there really were weapons of mass destruction before consigning 1500 young Americans to their deaths in a foreign desert...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:

If Terri's not "there", then she's not suffering, is she? Why not let her parents feed her and talk to her and take care of her until she dies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
They are feeding a body. There is no one home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
They are feeding a body. There is no one home.

---

I think personal identity is a rather more complex issue than that. I suppose I just don't know enough to say with confidence that "there's nobody home." Perhaps if I were involved with the situation on a day-to-day basis I might.

FCB

---

quote:

---

If Terri's not "there", then she's not suffering, is she? Why not let her parents feed her and talk to her and take care of her until she dies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
I'm just wanting to find out others' justifications for where they stand, if they will share them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Mousethief: he doesn't have power of attorney. Not a Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare, anyway, which is completely separate from your standard power of attorney. That's the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I am watching C-SPAN right now. There are not sufficient words to express the level of contempt I have for the US House of Representatives.

---

Amen to that.
The vote was 203 to 58. It's been nicknamed the "Palm Sunday Compromise." Bush flew back to DC in order to sign the legislation. An abuse of power (as Scot said above), with political grandstanding as the frosting on the cake.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I don't know the right thing for Terri, but for her and everyone involved.

I don't like the government's involvement in this case. However, I suspect that if I was trying to save someone I loved, and really believed that they were still alive in some sort of meaningful way,...I just might welcome gov't support to keep the person alive.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
However, I suspect that if I was trying to save someone I loved, and really believed that they were still alive in some sort of meaningful way,...I just might welcome gov't support to keep the person alive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Ah. Now I'd regard that aside as a comment on the hypocritical stance of lawmakers when it comes to the sanctity of life. Let's call a special session of Congress to make an unconstitutional law for someone who is not living in any meaningful way while having no qualms about sending perfectly healthy, sentient, functioning, innocent (e.g., not convicted of a crime under penalty of death) adults to their deaths.

---

• something which is alive (if I cut off my thumb and stuck it in an appropriate nutrient bath it would be alive, technically speaking, and therefore an individual entity of the species homo sapiens: does that mean I'd be wrong to throw it away?)
• something which is a fully functioning person (in that it is conscious, can do all the things we associate with humanity, etc)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
It doesn't come automatically with a marriage license anywhere. DPOAH is an extra-special document that you have to physically draft yourself. A DPOAH trumps a spouse in Florida.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
ETA: never mind, I trawled through several news reports and found out that it was only Bill Frist, Mel Martinez and John Warner. [italics mine]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Does anyone know of how I can get ahold of the list of Senators in attendance yesterday? Since it was a voice vote there is no record, but I want to know who was there. I have looked and looked and looked, but so far have come up empty.

ETA: never mind, I trawled through several news reports and found out that it was only Bill Frist, Mel Martinez and John Warner.

---

quote:

---

The Senate also needed unanimous consent to take up the bill Sunday. But Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid worked out a compromise behind the scenes beforehand so even the Democrats opposed to the bill would not return to fight it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I have an Aunt who is totally with the husband on this one, due to her own personal experience with death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
My fondest dream for this situation is that it will end with the Supreme Court bitchslapping Congress back into the Stone Age. What a bunch of power-mad morality cops.[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And yes it is a lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
And this is Terri's husband's choice. It's his decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And yes it is a lie.

---

Sorry, you know this how?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Ah... so this thread isn't about Prince William's little brother and his new girl friend. I was afraid that he'd gotten into some little scrape again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And yes it is a lie.

---

Sorry, you know this how?

---

The parts of her brain which govern those functions are gone. Not damaged, GONE. How many times does this need to be repeated in this thread before people understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This simply illustrates [I say again, illustrates] a point that anyone with knowledge of scientific or medical method should know, namely: you don't just go on the results of diagnostic tests and scans (which can be inaccurate or misread), you go on all the evidence available. Including, presumably, eyewitness reports of patient behaviour.

---

quote:

---

This simply illustrates [I say again, illustrates] a point that anyone with knowledge of scientific or medical method should know, namely: you don't just go on the results of diagnostic tests and scans (which can be inaccurate or misread), you go on all the evidence available. Including, presumably, eyewitness reports of patient behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You, on the other hand, appear to be making a judgment based on Ma and Pa Schindler's word. While it is understandable that they attempt to read meaning into reptilian gestures and grunts, it is also delusional and cruel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Once the legislature are involved, I personally think they ought to take a position of extreme conservatism on whether or not to allow the ending of human life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
No, I'm going to admit to ignorance here and not make a judgment. But I also think 99.99% of the human population ought to do the same regarding this specific case at this particular time.

---

quote:

---

I do have a view on the involvement of legislators in specific cases, which is that I would rather they butt out altogether. When the judiciary gets involved, however, the legislature is also involved, like it or not, as they have a duty to pay attention to the consequences of existing legislation.

---

quote:

---

Once the legislature are involved, I personally think they ought to take a position of extreme conservatism on whether or not to allow the ending of human life. I don't know if I even think that on primarily ethical grounds; more because I have a deep and abiding mistrust of government to get it right, in anything — or rather, a suspicion that they will frequently get it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I do have a view on the involvement of legislators in specific cases, which is that I would rather they butt out altogether. When the judiciary gets involved, however, the legislature is also involved, like it or not, as they have a duty to pay attention to the consequences of existing legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But the evidence is out there to make an informed judgment. This is what is so frustrating for me -- it's there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lawrence:
I think the two sides can be boiled down to this: does someone ( either he or she acting or, if not competent to act, their legal guardian acting on their behalf and wishes) have the right to let nature take its course and be allowed to die versus does a legal guardian, acting with the power of the state behind him or her have the right to kill someone because it is the guardian or the states' opinion that the quality of life no longer warrants being kept alive.
Obviously Terri's husband and the Florida courts are taking the former position, since assisted suicide or murder ( depending on whether you think Terri would want to be dead now or just her husband and the state)is against the law in the US (with the exception of Oregon concerning assisted suicide) and Terri's parents and the Right to Life movement are taking the later position ( which is why Right to Life is involved).
God have mercy on Terri, her husband, her parents and on all of us now that this case is caught up in the extremist politics of abortion in America ( I speak of the the extremism on both sides). (Sorry for all the parenthetical comments).

---

quote:

---

Richard Doerflinger, vice president of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Monday praising Congress and Bush. "Terri is not terminally ill," he said. "She is a woman with cognitive disabilities."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And these are the same people who seem to be indifferent to how many Iraqis or coalition soldiers get killed. The sanctity of life seems to be on a sliding scale of a sort which I don't understand. Unless it has something to do with publicity.

I can't watch the news anymore. Really I can't. I just go into a small room, close the door and listen to my Taize CD. Otherwise I can't take it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
What makes you think that the people who wish for Terri to be kept alive are indifferent to how many Iraqis or soilders get killed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
For example, the question of how much brain she has left is a matter of fact that can be settled by the evidence. The question of whether the "self" is entirely co-extensive with the cerebral cortex is not an evidential matter, but (dare I say it) a metaphysical one. I tend to think that the self is not identical with the cerebral cortex: much of what makes us who are are resides in ingrained reflex and autonomic response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
[QUOTE] So even if the self isn't the cerebral cortex, it is interpreted through that part of the brain, so with a missing cerebral cortex you have no sentience to express that self.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

I am curious, though, as to why anyone would think someone is still "there", so to speak, if that person cannot think or feel pain and does not have the physical capacity to be aware of her surroundings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Which of us is worth such an enormous investment of human energies -- especially as this must come at no small emotional, social, and financial cost to others?

---

There are those who would ask which of us is not worth such investment. I count myself among them.

Financial grounds should never stop us doing whatever we can to care for those who both need and want such care.

However, I also believe that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to force medical treatment on someone who doesn't want it. All the indications are (and several court cases have established) that Terri falls into this category. Thus I say obey her wishes and pull the damn plug already.

---

quote:

---

Gibbs [the Schindler family lawyer] repeatedly called for urgent action, saying Schiavo is dehydrating and starving "as we speak."

He said her right to due process has consistently been denied by lower courts -- a statement that drew intense questioning from the judge.

Pressed by Whittemore to cite any case law to support his argument, Gibbs admitted he could not think of any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm wondering...

Part of the problem (for some people) seems to be the whole active "yank the tube" bit. I have to say it bothers me a little as well, having been through dehydration. It made me feel like sh*t. I hope she hasn't the ability to feel that anymore. Going without food would probably be easier, though.

Perhaps the tube could be put back and a Do Not Resuscitate order placed on her chart. Also, no antibiotics, etc. for the next infection/ pneumonia that I expect she's very vulnerable to (as all bedridden folk are).

I don't think it would take long before nature took over and that was the end.

Somebody will probably jump on me with "well, that's no different than yanking the tube." Well, to some of us it is. Passive vs. active makes a difference.

---

It all goes back to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990. I could give you a really long and involved explanation of that (I used to teach it), but the bottom line is that in Florida, that is one of your options. In fact, the Living Will I filled out makes specific reference to this exact issue: I have opted to check the "you'd better fucking yank it" box in the event that I am determined to be in a persistent, irrevocable state (whether it is actually PVS or some other terminal condition).

The point in this case is not what makes us squirm, but what the patient's wishes are. The courts have consistently found that her wishes were to withdraw nutrition and hydration when she is in such a condition. No court ruling has ever reversed this or found credible evidence to doubt that yes, these were her wishes.

This isn't Michael or someone else making the decision to yank the tube. This is Michael and her physicians carrying out her wishes.

Besides, several years ago she did develop pneumonia and Michael made the decision to withhold antibiotics. Her parents attempted an end run around it with a court action. He relented and allowed the treatment. Based on her parents' shameful and selfish behavior, I have no cause to believe that they would not make the same moves if it were to happen again.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
IngoB, read my previous links. All your questions are addressed therein far better than any of us could hope to articulate.

[ 23. March 2005, 03:22: Message edited by: RooK ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
IngoB, not feeding someone incapable of eating is hardly the same thing as shooting somebody.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I stand corrected.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I, too, have wondered if it might be kinder to give her an overdose of morphine or something, rather than withholding food/water.

Of course, that's illegal.

But if most of her brain really is gone, then IMVHO it's best to let her go.


 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I've just quickly read through the above, and have not followed all links. So excuse me if this is a superfluous question: Why are only CTs shown for the "liquidification" of her brain? CT - invariably but wrongly meaning X-ray CT - isn't exactly the technology of choice for looking at soft tissue these days. Hasn't anybody done a MRI on her? Do a FLAIR (FLuid Attenuated Inversion Recovery) MRI image of her head, maybe followed by some fMRI (functional MRI), to find out what's truly left of her cortex and whether it's working...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
IngoB, not feeding someone incapable of eating is hardly the same thing as shooting somebody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Passive vs. active makes a difference.

---

And yet you (presumably) had no problem with the very active act of shoving the tube down her throat in the first place, without which action this whole discussion would be moot.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 


There is a small but crucial distinction here that a few of you seem to be missing. I don't know if it's because you're not grasping it or because you choose to ignore it. But for whatever reason you're not addressing the point at hand. Which is that this is completely about the rights of you and me to determine what medical treatments we do and do not want. It doesn't matter if it seems to you to be cruel or splitting hairs -- the facts of the case are that Terri's stated wishes, upheld by the courts every single time, were that if she were ever in such a state she would want the artifical nutrition and hydration withdrawn.

It makes no difference if her husband or parents want the same things or not. It makes no difference if a random stranger on the street (which is all we are) thinks that death in such a manner is cruel, or that a quick administration of a syringe full of potassium would do the job better. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks of where a person begins or ends. The only thing that matters here is that Terri made it quite clear that if she were to be in such a state that she would not want to be kept alive like this.

This case is all about patient self-determination.
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
For those following, the Atlanta appeal has been denied.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4373669.stm

Erin, out of interest, if she'd had one of those Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare things you mentioned earlier; what would have happened when she first collapsed? What does this thing guarantee you over there?

FWIW I think they should let her go on both counts, both medical ones and consensual ones. The court's found the same thing over and over again. It's time to honour her wishes. I wish there was a quicker way too. But I can't see a way of legislating such a procedure that is worth it in this one case compared to the can of worms it would open in all other cases.

Take her quickly, God, have mercy.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I'm not sure a DPOAH would have made much difference -- the key would have been to have a Living Will. All a DPOAH does is designate in writing who you want making medical decisions for you when you are not able to make them yourself. Absent that, the next person in line to make the decision would be the patient's spouse.

A Living Will, on the other hand, states your particular wishes. Do you want to be kept alive on a respirator, or do you want them to administer artificial nutrition and hydration when that would only serve to prolong the dying process. That sort of thing.

But Michael Shiavo has always had the right to determine her care. Why this has become such a media circus is because all along he's tried to do the right thing. He acknowledged that because she never executed a Living Will, there could be questions about what her wishes were. So he asked the courts to determine if there was enough evidence to show that her wishes were to be allowed to die. Once the court determined that yes, there was sufficient evidence to indicate Terri's wishes, he directed her medical care accordingly. But because he went to the courts in the first place, you now have this shameful spectacle.

That's the one thing that continues to be lost in all of this. Her family has done nothing but trash him up one side and down the other, while he has reserved all of his vitriol for those outsiders who are attempting to interfere -- namely, politicians and right to life activists who are exploiting this for political gain. There is nothing on record of him ever having a negative word to say about her family, even after they went after him to try and cash in on the malpractice suit he settled. Setting aside the unsubstantiated bullshit on obviously biased sites, the man should really be canonized right here and now.

That said, I heard something very disturbing on Fox News (yes! Fox News!) last night. The judge who has handled most of this case, George Greer, who is a very staunch Republican and personally comes down on the pro-life side, has been expelled from his church for the crime of upholding the law. And Fox News is not normally known for their ultra-liberal take on issues, so I'm inclined to give this report some serious weight.
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
One thing that strikes me about all this is the potential for litigants in the USA to have umpteen bites at the cherry over an issue. How many times can a case come to court before it's regarded as settled? Does the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied" hold no water? I'm all for a thorough investigation, but this seems plain ridiculous! Who is paying for all this, by the way?

Congress interfering on top of an already protracted process adds insult to injury, but surely something could be done to limit judicial processes to a more reasonable timescale? The case smacks of an attempt to keep litigating until you get the answer you want.
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
That said, I heard something very disturbing on Fox News (yes! Fox News!) last night. The judge who has handled most of this case, George Greer, who is a very staunch Republican and personally comes down on the pro-life side, has been expelled from his church for the crime of upholding the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... with the very active act of shoving the tube down her throat in the first place,...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
There are a few, unfortunate, situations in which it can be justified to kill someone: self-defense, just war, maybe here... Further, I'm just using "kill" because I do not have a word for ending the life of the body of a person, rather than of a person. But with that understood, I'm not convinced that letting her die is not a form of killing her - in which case we could choose a different, better, form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... with the very active act of shoving the tube down her throat in the first place,...

---

It's actually a surgical stoma (opening) in the abdomen into the stomach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin: There is a small but crucial distinction here that a few of you seem to be missing. I don't know if it's because you're not grasping it or because you choose to ignore it. But for whatever reason you're not addressing the point at hand. Which is that this is completely about the rights of you and me to determine what medical treatments we do and do not want. It doesn't matter if it seems to you to be cruel or splitting hairs -- the facts of the case are that Terri's stated wishes, upheld by the courts every single time, were that if she were ever in such a state she would want the artifical nutrition and hydration withdrawn.

This case is all about patient self-determination.

---

quote:

---

and that she is not in torment - surely indicated by serotonin levels? -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Worse, "letting her die" means a terrible death. Dying of dehydration or starvation will be wrecking her body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
...In fact, when someone has reached the state that they either can't or won't eat or drink, artificial hydration and artificial nutrition generally results in more suffering, not less. ...

My mother, who had dementia, died of starvation and dehydration. She died at home, in her own bed, with my father sleeping at her side. She also died peacefully. She was in no pain. She was not suffering. She just quietly slipped away.

---

quote:

---

very active act of shoving the tube down her throat in the first place:

---

quote:

---

The Schindlers said ... her Roman Catholic faith would prevent her from wanting to die this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

And as always: Cui bono? It is vile for her ESTRANGED husband I know, but he should ONLY be pushing for it if she was in unalleviable torment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Have the judges been to see her? I have no respect for them whatsoever if they haven't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Have the judges been to see her? I have no respect for them whatsoever if they haven't.

---

Why? What purpose would this serve? I'd no sooner go to a lawyer or judge for a medical diagnosis than I would a physician for legal counsel. That's just fucking bizarre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh dear, I don't think I want to live in Gordonia, as it seems that the judges will be encouraged to ignore the law in favor of their feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

Whatever decision is reached, this case should be decided on an objective assessment of the medical evidence along with a judgement on what Terri would have wanted, not on the judge's personal response to her outward appearance and behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh dear, I don't think I want to live in Gordonia, as it seems that the judges will be encouraged to ignore the law in favor of their feelings.

---

Hey, I specifically did not say that. That would be sentimentality, and I hate sentimentality.

The right decision may be to allow her to die, and grieve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Those who make the decision must feel the weight of the decision they are making. Even if it doesn't change the decision. If you are going to order that someone's life be ended, then for God's sake see the person as a person. Visiting them may help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Even without the video evidence this is nauseating. Your testimony was beautiful Janine. If there's the SLIGHTEST doubt this poor woman is NOT in PVS and that she is not in torment - surely indicated by serotonin levels? - and will not improve then she should be sustained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:

quote:

---

and that she is not in torment - surely indicated by serotonin levels? -

---

martin, how is any physical marker going to show what condition her soul is in? which, if your refering to my post, is what i ment.

---

quote:

---

janine, you haven't, btw, answered my question on that... i did mean it quite seriously and not as a wind up. how can you know that a soul tied to a body that should be dead, with a mind that is dead, isn't in some sort of horrible hellish limbo state of torment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Well, I wouldn't starve even a lizard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Now, I want to know what evidence you have that the judges are NOT seeing her as a person that prompts you to cast such disgusting aspersions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Those who make the decision must feel the weight of the decision they are making. Even if it doesn't change the decision. If you are going to order that someone's life be ended, then for God's sake see the person as a person. Visiting them may help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Your assumption that all the many judges and others who have ruled on this case over the past many years are a bunch of ivory-tower intellects with no experience of real life is breathtakingly stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Would hearsay about that be good enough in any other type of case in court?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
But having read your justification for the "personal visit by the judge" it describes something that would just turn into a political game. In fact, it's exactly the sort of thing the federal and state politicians are doing (without actually bothering to visit Terri, of course).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Does the Roman Catholic Church have any specific rules that require the initiation or prevent the cessation of tube feeding, ventilators, dialysis, and the like? What would those rules be?

Thank you!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

Furthermore, I'd want to see a proper consideration of Terri's actual status. Much of what has been posted on this thread has centred around the interpretation and consequences of the CT scans. Some appear to be saying that, because of the deterioration of her brain she is no longer a human person and so the considerations should be different. I am not sure that I would be at all happy with that and I would be even less happy about my normally so orthodox Catholic brother IngoB describing the situation as "pseudo-life" and recommending poison. I'm afraid that such expressions and proposals revolt me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Finally, I think that there is a difference between ANH and artificial ventilation, dialysis and the like. I think that I'd say that these are qualitatively different from ANH. The one I would suggest was normal care, the others extra-ordinary means of keeping someone alive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
OK, I've just looked at a couple of the videos linked on page 1 of this thread, and TS looks like she's responding to voices and interacting with people — eye contact, doing what she's asked to. Could someone who knows better than me fill me in on why this is not the case?

So far the rebuttals I've seen on this thread amount to a number of experts saying "notnotnotnot" and "you're a *&%$# if you think different". Is that the extent of the argument?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Much of what has been posted on this thread has centred around the interpretation and consequences of the CT scans. Some appear to be saying that, because of the deterioration of her brain she is no longer a human person and so the considerations should be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Marvin, the qualitative evidence is the analogy with feeding a child who cannot feed himself. When my first son was born, he didn't develop the swallowing reflex until quite late (six weeks, iirc).

---

quote:

---

To have not administered ANH would have been to deny him food, which he could derive hyrdration and nourishment from. Had we done so, our action would have constituted a decision to allow him to die: we would have killed him by an act of omission.

Had he been unable to breathe and failed to respond to attempts at starting his respiration, to have artificially ventilated him would have been to take extraordinary steps to keep him alive.

---

quote:

---

We have a duty to feed the hungry but I'm not so sure that we have a similar duty to pump somebody's heart and inflate and deflate their lungs.

---

quote:

---

As I said in my post, I think what I was doing in answering Josephine's question was to suggest that there isn't a simple "Roman Catholic position", but that the consensus is as I suggested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.

---

quote:

---

The medical professionals who have actually evaluated her -- those who have conducted full neurological examinations and reviewed her medical records -- are all in agreement that she is in a persistent vegetative state. With the exception of the prostitutes her parents have paid, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.

---

OK, I get this. If it's true, then it weighs more than any of the other arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

The medical professionals who have actually evaluated her -- those who have conducted full neurological examinations and reviewed her medical records -- are all in agreement that she is in a persistent vegetative state. With the exception of the prostitutes her parents have paid, of course.

---

[italics mine - GC]

Right — and you know they are prostitutes because?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foolhearty:
There’s the “Whose is my life?” aspect. If my life is God’s free gift to me, then it’s mine to refuse. If, rather, it’s God’s life, which I only get to use, then it’s God’s, and I am in sin to reject it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
No no no no NO!!! I am sick to the back teeth of this bold-faced lie being reproduced on this thread.

The people who are siding with Michael Schiavo on this thread are not doing so because they regard Terri as no longer human. They are doing so because the medical evidence considered and adjudicated by the courts are that she is in a persistent vegetative state and that her wishes were that if she were in such a state to let her die. I don't think she should be disconnected because she's basically an animated corpse. I think she should be disconnected because Terri, the person, decided that was what she wanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the horror here occurs because of the appearance of very mixed motives in those (primarily her husband) seeking to hasten her death. Still, it doesn't do to make windows into others' hearts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I'm wondering how much the opinion divide on this question rests with how intimately one has been involved in death -- those who haven't been around death, perhaps, are wanting to fight it off at all costs.

---

quote:

---

"Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called "To Save or Let Die." He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology — these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human." - Jesuit theologian Rev John J. Paris, on how the religious right is deploying heresy in its absolutism in the Terri Schiavo case

---

quote:

---

(Paragraph 2278) Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Here's a nice quote (seized from the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who also liked it) that sums up my feelings about this:

[QUOTE] "Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil?

---

quote:

---

Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Others, who recognise the existence of objective moral norms which bind always and without exception, would suggest that Pinckaers, Grisez, May or Cessario are leagues ahead of McCormick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:

I think the horror here occurs because of the appearance of very mixed motives in those (primarily her husband) seeking to hasten her death. Still, it doesn't do to make windows into others' hearts.

---

quote:

---

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," DeLay told the crowd. "This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," DeLay said.

---

Oh, so it's all about YOU now, is it, Tom?

(At the site referenced, you can either listen to the tape from this speech or see quotes from it in a rather furious press release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.)
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
"I'm Tom DeLay. I'm not a doctor, but I play one in Congress."
 

---

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Trisagion:

That may not be the Church's position, but it certainly seems to have been adopted by the many of the more outspoken people on the Schiavo circuit who I've heard speaking publicly on the issue.

Furthermore, Schiavo's own parents and lawyer argued before the appeals courts that her freedom of religion was being abridged because disconnecting her feeding tube would damn her immortal soul because of her Catholic beliefs. What nonsense! Assuming arguendo that to deprive a person in her condition of artificial nutrition is murder, Schiavo's done nothing wrong. How in the name of God would the decision of the Courts be endangering her soul?

I think a timely reminder that death is not always bad and life is not always good and that the Church doesn't stand for such a principle does no harm.

---

quote:

---

Here's a nice quote (seized from the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who also liked it)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foolhearty:
Ah, but Pope John Paul II has weighed in on the case, as follows: "the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act," and is, therefore, "morally obligatory."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisagion:
Erin, I understand the point you are making and that Terri's wishes are the primary issue. It wasn't your argument I was highlighting, but that advanced by IngoB, who refered to a "pseudo-life" and suggested measures to terminate an animated corpse.

---

quote:

---

... my point was, what makes you think she isn't suffering, spiritually, if not physically? supose her _soul_, is desperate to get going to where its supposed to be, but can't because its stuck in a technically living body? as i said on the first page, i was haunted by that thought about my father while he was dying of alzheimers disease, and it haunts me with cases like this. think about it... 15 years stuck in that situation...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I'm afraid that the Holy Father is just plain wrong about this.

Just review this brief slideshow about the insertion of a PEG tube and tell me that it's not a medical act. It is a medical act. And it carries fairly high risks. (See this discussion of the risks in patients with impaired cognitive function.)

This paper provides a detailed discussion of the ethics of the procedure.

This review of the literature regarding patient refusal of hydration and nutrition is also worth reading.

There are certainly times when feeding tubes are good and appropriate medical treatment. But they are, in fact, medical treatment. There is no question about that.

---

Thanks, Josephine. Mind you, I agree, and think the pontiff's position is over the top. And I'm very glad the Supremes have refused to listen to the parents' appeals.

Prayers for Terri and her welcome, at long last, to her eternal home.
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
[from page one of this thread]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
ETA: never mind, I trawled through several news reports and found out that it was only Bill Frist, Mel Martinez and John Warner. [italics mine]

---

Damn! I used to respect him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.

---

quote:

---

Alogon wrote: On the other hand, those who oppose him might also hold it against him that he is "now seeing another woman" like a garden-variety jerk cheating on his wife. Is he? When these vows were written, I doubt that anyone's lying in a coma on life support for fifteen years with no prognosis was a possibility.

---

Here's my litmus test for bias: Any website or news report that refers to him as her "estranged" husband isn't worth reading.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Michael Shiavo is doing exactly what I would want my wife to do, should I ever be misfortunate enough to be in Terri Shiavo's condition. He appears to be absolutely steadfast in the only sort of faithfulness that really matters in this situation.

Presleyterian, Goldwater should quit his spinning and just be thankful that he was allowed to die. He's lucky that he wasn't fitted with animatronic prostheses and set at the front door of the White House to welcome visitors.

This episode is, I think, the final nail in the coffin of my longtime sympathy for the GOP. I've never agreed with all of their platform, but they used to come closer than the Democrats to my ideal of a limited government. No more. In recent years the Republican leaders have demonstrated a willingness, sometimes an eagerness, to get involved in virtually every aspect of our lives, from conception to death. If they could figure out how to meddle in the afterlife, I have no doubt that they would.

Of course the Dems are little better. I suppose I'm now Just Another Irrelevant Third-Party Voter.
 

---

Posted by Lady A (# 3126) on :
 
Makes me think about all the fun we could have with PVS Christianity.

But for Terri, and all those involved
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Schiavo apparently is hardly Mr. Warmth towards his wife (or what's left of her). He has reportedly asked nurses, "Is the bitch dead yet?" and I don't think that this, if it's true, speaks well of him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I suppose I'm now Just Another Irrelevant Third-Party Voter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If her cortex is indeed completely liquid, then the "biological carrier" of her soul has died, is gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
I understand that Terri isn't going to re-grow all that destroyed brain tissue. I discount not at all the Lord's ability to touch reality and change that -- but until He does I will continue to assume she won't.

But a simple delivery of food & water is what keeps her smiling her reptilian smile, and darting her reptilian glances about the room, and lying about for hours in between like a reptilian zucchini... (The "reptilian" being a reference to what some perceive her mental level to be, no high brain functions, primitive reflexes etc. because she basically has no brain.)

Well, I wouldn't starve even a lizard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
It was only a matter of time before the right to life nutjobs showed their true colors.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately the extremists from the other end of the spectrum need do little more at this point than sit back and watch it all unfold on CNN.

---

People who think her wishes ought to be respected are extremists? Compared to people who want to hunt down and kill her husband and the judge?

This is a sickening little piece of false moral equivalence.


L.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I'm curious. Who are the extremists on the opposite end? All I hear about are these people, who are, again, right to life nutjobs. There's not a single right to die extremist out there.
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
What if the husband and other people who testified that her wishes were that she not be maintained in this state, are lying?

Also even if she did say that, what if she has changed her mind about whether she wishes to be maintained?

And what if the parents and lawyer who reported that she responds to them and tries to talk are not lying or projecting? I am thinking especially of the piece that has been doing the rounds by the family's lawyer who states that she tried to vocalise when asked to tell them that she wanted to live.



I know that it is quite natural as people approach death to stop taking food, but continuing to keep them hydrated is usual isn't it?
 

---

Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 
No, it is not. To continue to provide artificial hydration to a body that is in the process of shutting down is far more uncomfortable, causing edema and other maladies. As one's body shuts down, it can no longer handle the influx of liquid.

(As I learned from being at my father's bedside as he slowly passed away last summer.)
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Coot:

What if they were lying? That's what the 17 lower court opinions were dealing with - determining what her wishes were and what state she was/is in. That's what that system is for. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this and it's starting to make me insane, how clouded all these issues have become.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I found this article fascinating. Seems that a PEG tube really is on par with a ventilator.
 

---

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I found this article fascinating. Seems that a PEG tube really is on par with a ventilator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
Also even if she did say that, what if she has changed her mind about whether she wishes to be maintained?

---

Kinda late now -- that's the sort of thing you have to make clear before you're incapable of communicating.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I just hope that her parents, in the midst of their desperation, can find the time and a way to say goodbye.



 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
And what if the parents and lawyer who reported that she responds to them and tries to talk are not lying or projecting? I am thinking especially of the piece that has been doing the rounds by the family's lawyer who states that she tried to vocalise when asked to tell them that she wanted to live.

---

Terri vocalizes off and on when she is awake. I heard a recording of it recently when her former guardian ad litem was interviewed on "Nightline" (a nightly news program in the US). The sound is chilling -- like a long, drawn-out moan. From what I have heard from many sources, she makes these sounds involuntarily, unrelated to whether or not someone has asked her a question. So, if Terri gave out one of these long moans a moment or two after the attorney asked her if she wanted to live, I'm not surprised he is circulating a story to the effect that "Terri said she wanted to live." It's like that picture you see everywhere of Terri seeming to gaze into her mother's face. Her eyes dart around when she's awake. Sometimes they dart in a person's direction. That doesn't mean she was "looking at" her mother, and her happening to groan in the attorney's presence doesn't mean she was "telling" him anything.
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
What a sad, pathetic spectacle this has been... I just hope she finally finds herself at peace sooner rather than later.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I heard the vocalization (there's an audio file floating around the net) and not only do I feel cheap and dirty, but it could have been interpreted in whichever way one wanted to. The family claims she said "AHHHHH" and "WAAAAAAA", meaning that of course she was saying "I want to live". If we're going with our own interpretations, I say it was "I want you fucking ghouls to leave me the hell alone".
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Exactly.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Per the news, Terri had Last Rites when she was disconnected from the tubes.
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Per the news, Terri had Last Rites when she was disconnected from the tubes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I'm curious. Who are the extremists on the opposite end?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Erin:
There's not a single right to die extremist out there.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Erin:
I heard the vocalization (there's an audio file floating around the net) and not only do I feel cheap and dirty, but… <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I'm curious. Who are the extremists on the opposite end?

---

Why ask me? How would I know, given that my only information on this case comes courtesy of this thread on this website.

---

quote:

---

Your statement here, however, is startling:

quote:

---

originally posted by Erin:
There's not a single right to die extremist out there.

---

Given that there are several million people who share your view that TS should be removed from life support — and possibly, I'm one of them — I’m guessing that you don’t know this for sure. Alternatively, you may have made up a definition of 'extremist' that automatically excludes anyone who agrees with your view. So maybe you need to say a bit more here to clarify or substantiate your view.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Erin:
I heard the vocalization (there's an audio file floating around the net) and not only do I feel cheap and dirty, but… <snip>

---

With respect, why did you listen then? Haven’t you already worked out from reading pages upon pages of expert legal and medical opinion that what you think of her vocalization attempts is essentially irrelevant? Even if you had worked out that she sounded like she was trying to communicate, wouldn't you have suppressed the thought, as you already knew that it was impossible for TS to be attempting to communicate? So the case, in your mind at least, seems to have been closed before you even began to listen.

---

quote:

---

Not being either God or American, I have the luxury of being able to sit slightly on the fence on this issue. But the more I read what is said here, the more it feels as if your ideology about the right-to-die has pre-determined what you are going to think on the subject.

Corrections welcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Your statement here, however, is startling:

originally posted by Erin:
There's not a single right to die extremist out there.

---

GC: Given that there are several million people who share your view that TS should be removed from life support — and possibly, I'm one of them — I’m guessing that you don’t know this for sure. Alternatively, you may have made up a definition of 'extremist' that automatically excludes anyone who agrees with your view. So maybe you need to say a bit more here to clarify or substantiate your view.

---

Erin: With respect to this particular situation, I have not seen or heard from a single person who has advocated that she SHOULD die...<snip>A right to die "extremist" would advocate that she should be put down like a dog no matter what her personal wishes were.

---

quote:

---

From earlier in this thread:

*”If Terri's not there, what is so wrong with letting her die?”

*”let her die in peace.”

*”Her husband has power of attorney; he says let her die.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If you wish to call it a right to die ideology, I think that may be stretching it just a bit. Though thinking about it, it's not at all surprising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I do wonder a bit at the way you insist on disconnecting the questions of patient self determination and death of the patient, in this case. You seem to imply that the case is all about the first issue and not even a little about the second — at times not seeming to recognise that in this case, patient self determination (as established by the courts) will lead inevitably to death. The questions are not the same, I agree. But let’s not pretend they’re unrelated.

---

1. Terri wanted to be kept alive regardless of the diagnosis or prognosis, using every medical intervention possible;
2. Terri is not, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state;
3. Terri never had the right to decide to refuse treatment when the result of the refusal is death.

Now, the first argument has already been defeated by the courts, and Judge Greer is 23-0 in all challenges against that. The second argument is being advanced ONLY by physicians her parents have consulted -- the original physicans and the court-appointed, independent physicians all agree that she is in a PVS. The third argument is the only one left standing, but you're going to have a hard time with that one because Florida (and federal) law does allow a patient to say "pull this shit out, I'm going home".
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
The part of this whole episode that upsets me is that once the decision was made to end her "life" then it should have been done quickly and painlessly. The attempt to ease guilt over the decision by letting her die of starvation and thirst "naturally" is selfish and insane.

Execution of criminals is done with more humanity than the method this woman is suffering.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Gort, where on earth did you get the idea that she's suffering?
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Good question. I must be assuming that there is some response there which is experiencing thirst and starvation. That implies a consciousness to experience it, which means she shouldn't be pulled off life-support.

Awww crap. Nevermind. I really don't know what to make of this nightmare.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Amen to that.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Things I Wonder That Aren't Important For Me To Know But What-The-Heck I Wonder Anyway:

* How long after Terri is in the ground will hubby wait to marry the mother of his kids?

*What do you call the second love, a wife in all but the paperwork I suppose, when the first wife ain't dead yet?

*How much of Terri's money will there be left for hubby to inherit -- if there is any money left at all -- after his lawyers take all they are due?

*What sort of coffin do you put such a tiny wasted twisted lady in? She doesn't look much bigger than my little one who died -- her coffin, I almost could have carried alone.

*How long before the Ship brings to our attention a Bobblehead Terri, complete with vocalization chip?

*Will it be a comfort to the new wife, when she prays over the health and safety of her own children, that her husband has experience & knows what to do when a loved one is brain-damaged?

*What, if any, of Terri's organs are suitable for donation? If any were, would they be after she's starved and dehydrated? Maybe the corneas...

*Will there be special interest, a watch if you want to call it that, to see if anything miraculous gets attributed to Terri after she's dead?

*Wouldn't it be freaky if Wife #2 turned out to also have an eating disorder?

*What will they bury Terri in -- what outfit, I mean? And will there be an open casket?

*Anyone who wanted to could hold memorial services of course; I guess her parents will do something along that line. But I wonder if her husband will have any sort of service at all? That's assuming he won't be handing over her body to her parents.

*Is there such a thing in Florida as a mega-church compound where they could have the funeral and the wedding and the cremation/burial simultaneously?

*And if they did would there be a multi-use discount? Maybe one of Schiavo's kids needs a christening, or a First Communion. I mean, as long as they're there...
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Janine--

Um, is this pushing buttons for you? IMHO, that post was way over the top.

BTW, the news has been referring to the woman as his common-law wife.
 

---

Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 
So are the right to lifers saying that Terri's husband is letting her die so he can marry his partner?

Or is it just Janine insinuating it?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
to all of Janine's post, but especially to this part:

quote:

---

*Is there such a thing in Florida as a mega-church compound where they could have the funeral and the wedding and the cremation/burial simultaneously?

*And if they did would there be a multi-use discount? Maybe one of Schiavo's kids needs a christening, or a First Communion. I mean, as long as they're there...

---

What this adds up to is further smearing of Michael Schiavo's character, all on the sole basis of what you've seen in the media, which has been horribly unkind to the man because he hasn't put his private life on display for them.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Quite a rant, Janine. Hardly makes you look good however.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
The part of this whole episode that upsets me is that once the decision was made to end her "life" then it should have been done quickly and painlessly. The attempt to ease guilt over the decision by letting her die of starvation and thirst "naturally" is selfish and insane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
The part of this whole episode that upsets me is that once the decision was made to end her "life" then it should have been done quickly and painlessly. The attempt to ease guilt over the decision by letting her die of starvation and thirst "naturally" is selfish and insane.

Execution of criminals is done with more humanity than the method this woman is suffering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
If all I had left of life was death, then the only duty that my wife would have to me would be to see me through that process. If someone with your views made that duty harder for her, then after I died I would find a way to come back and haunt you for the rest of your life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Wow, Janine. That was by far the most tasteless thing I've ever seen posted here. Not that (a) you actually care or (b) it's any of your goddamned business, but news reports indicate that Michael Schiavo is planning to have her cremated and buried in Pennsylvania, where they met.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
And I too have really started to feel that the parents are making a ghoulish spectacle out of the whole thing. And now they're going to fight Michael right to the end, even over the funeral. So much hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sewanee_angel:
I mean, hell, maybe they were against the marriage from the start and are taking all their grief out on him because they "never liked him."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sewanee_angel:
I mean, hell, maybe they were against the marriage from the start and are taking all their grief out on him because they "never liked him."

---

According to this story they liked Michael very well until he refused to share the insurance settlement with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sewanee_angel:
It is a terrible personal tragedy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sewanee_angel:
I mean, hell, maybe they were against the marriage from the start and are taking all their grief out on him because they "never liked him."

---

According to this story they liked Michael very well until he refused to share the insurance settlement with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And that's the thing. Her parents are clearly stark, raving mad, and if I were Michael Schiavo I would not trust them to look after a dead cat, much less my permanently incapacitated wife. ... They are saying, even now, that she is alert and responsive. After 11 days without nutrition or hydration, and after being placed on a morphine drip, they think she's alert and responsive? That alone would make you at least a teeny bit groggy; never mind the preceding brain damage. It just goes to show how delusionial they've become.

The man deserves a fucking medal for all that he's having to put up with, not least of which are her crazy parents and the lunatic right wing and a public ready to crucify him based on nothing more than the claims of her crazy parents and the lunatic right wing.

---

Word, sister. And to Scot, too. I think over the next few weeks we'll be seeing an increasing number of stories sympathetic to the husband as more of the lemming-y press realizes that the parents are loons. The folks around them sure are speeding up that process.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Report on yahoo that Tom Delay's very own father was taken off life support including air/water/food after a freak accident in his 60s. What a shock that DeLay should turn out to be a gold-plated hypocrite. His family gets to deal with that privately, but for others, he's willing to get Congress involved.

Story.

So, removing Schiavo's tube is an "act of barbarism" but his family's quiet decision is okay.

Interfering jerk.
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
Ugh... Pardon me while I retch.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Check out this guy's living will.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
OK, that is some funny shit.

It's even worse than DeLay, though... Terri's own father pulled the plug on his own mother (last paragraph of the story) after she'd gone into renal failure within a week of developing pneumonia.
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
Arrrrgh! I've allowed myself to get pulled into this whole debate on another forum with a fundie right-to-lifer, and an incredibly stupid one at that. Why do I do it?
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bessie rosebride:
Think of your most beloved family member and imagine them reduced to less than the cognition and ability of a reptile (since said lizard can seek and eat its own sustenance). What earthly purpose would it serve for them to be trapped for 15 years in this kind of existence when they had wished to be freed.

---

Furthermore, thanks to the publicity, Terri Schiavo, like Karen Quindlen before her, is now notorious the world over as a freak, some kind of ghoulish creature reminiscent of "The Head" in Lewis's That Hideous Strength. Their very names have become repellent. IMHO, the desperation of this campaign to keep "her" alive by these means is monomaniacally grotesque. I doubt that her parents are in their right minds.

As for the alleged cruelty of "starving her to death", the opponents of euthanasia have long insisted on such passsive measures as a bright-line distinction from it. I would guess that at least 90% of those who want her life support continued are opponents of euthanasia. It's rather ironic, then, maybe even hypocritical, for them to object that "they might just as well shoot her."

[ 28. March 2005, 23:50: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 

---

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :
 
So Robert Schindler let his mother go after a week, and after learning that mom wasn't going to get better.

His daughter has to be kept alive for 15 years.

The most charitable interpretation of this which I can come up with is that it's a form of age-ism. His mother was old, so let her go; his daughter is young, so there's hope . . .

The least charitable interpretations just don't bear repeating.

These people have to be off their rails. Grant you, it must be devastating to lose a daughter at only 26. Might put me round the bend if she were mine.

But not, I suspect, produce this same progressively-more-delusional obsession.

Poor Terri Schiavo. May she have a peaceful end, and soon.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
I’m not convinced that speculation as to the character and motives of the key players in the debate adds a lot to ethical clarity at this point. If it could be established that Michael Schiavo was of disreputable character, that would go to the value of his testimony about his wife’s wishes, and that would then have some bearing. But it appears that the courts have accepted MS’s word as reliable, and that his character is to be trusted at this point. So legally, this has been settled. In fact, all the issues have been settled from a legal point of view, so there is not much to say here.

The aspect of what Terry Schiavo would’ve wanted continues to trouble me. It occurred to me as I was thinking abou this that there was a period in the mid 90s where I not only held a particular view on the taking of life (thinking of a somewhat different scenario to the Schiavo case), but I had also had discussions with a number of people on this question and submitted an article for publication on the subject, in which my views were clearly outlined and argued for. My wife was also aware of what I thought.

Had I been hit by a tram and thrown into a persistent vegetative state in the twelve months after I wrote the article, my wife and the other friends with whom I’d discussed the article could’ve used it as one piece of evidence in having me removed from life support — especially if I’d taken the relatively simple step of re-styling that article as a ‘living will’.

So far so good — the only difficulty, though, is that I changed my mind in the months after I wrote the article. Leaving to one side the question of what should actually be done if I was in a PVS, I now rather shudder to think of my views from 10 years ago being used to formulate ethical decisions about my fate. I’d rather have my views from 9 years ago used to formulate those decisions; given that my views from 9 years ago are what I still believe at present. Now on one view the response might be — tough toenails; the evidence exists that you held this view, in the absence of further evidence (you wrote no subsequent articles, we know of no other conversations with friends) this is what we are going to go on. And if I was no longer able to communicate for myself, even though I had changed my mind, I think I’d be fairly unhappy about that (and yes, this does make certain assumptions about self-consciousness and the nature of personhood—but so do all those directly involved in the TS case).

Note that this is not to suggest that the legal question is unclear in the TS case. It seems to be pretty straightforward at this late stage of proceedings what “ought” to be done, from a legal point of view. The question is more one about the ethics of how the patient’s will is established in the absence of a direct word—and that does feed into a debate about how the law could or should be reviewed in future.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Terri's family and her husband's have both been bitten by the same media beast -- you're gnawed if you do and gnawed if you don't, I think, when you try to ride it your own way.

God watch over Michael's little family -- they ought to be able to live normally as soon as the funeral's out of the way. What else could the media find to report on after that?

I haven't some sort of high-horse objection to the guy, after a number of years, making a new life for himself. Where my incredulity comes in, is that he wanted to have the new life and the new wife and home and family and all, and still be Terri's husband too.

Unless something new's happened to the law, the only legal marriages are the ones involving two people. So, either he's a married man with a mistress and their progeny on the side -- or he's actually/practically married to the second woman, and has no right any more to speak for Terri as her husband.

I have no idea if it's just the media's idea to call the second lady "common-law wife", or if that's what she calls herself, or if that's what she is by Florida law. And if she is by Florida law, and if her husband is making his stand for Terri as her husband, then the guy's a bigamist. It's a wonder the Schindlers' lawyers didn't toss that idea in the mix.

Of course as with all other factors/facets of poor Terri's case, all my wonderings and opinions don't amount to anything, 'cause the law has spoken, and the lady will be beyond the law soon enough, Lord love her.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Janine, having grown up knowing and respecting a gentleman who was living with his "companion" and simultaneously looking after his wife of many years who was inch by inch dying of Alzheimer's disease, I find your last post just a bit on the judgemental side. Arthur, who was also the mayor of our small town, went in to feed his wife breakfast and dinner and spent at least two hours every day with her. But he also wanted someone to share his life actively. I don't find that morally objectionable, I find it human. I don't think it said anything about Arthur's ability to be the mayor or to make decisions for his wife's care. Nor do I think Michael Schiavo's choice to form another relationship and have children is morally offensive, if he is still doing his best in regard to Terri.

Just because the Schiavo case is horrifyingly public doesn't mean it is the only case of its kind. All over America (all over the world) there are men and women looking after wives and husbands who can no longer perceive the world. Those people are often doing their best for their, for all intents and purposes, no longer living spouse. I think it is healthy to form other relationships where there is no hope, otherwise it is one hell of a drain on one's personal resources. They also deserve our support rather than our condemnation, unless we really are in a position to throw that first stone.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Excellent post, Arabella.

Michael Schiavo was only 26 when his wife fell into a coma. By all accounts, he spent another five devoted years hoping for a miracle that never came. Although it would make a nice tear-jerker Movie of the Week to depict him chained to her bedside for the past fifteen years, sometime in his thirties he entered into a new relationship and had children.

He isn't a bigamist; he's a widower. And it's deplorable that many in the public eye who bear the name of Christian seem least willing to extent to him the grace and compassion that has been extended to them -- and to us all.
 

---

Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Sorry in advance for the long post, I have been following this appalling story for a few months now and should say that I have very serious concerns about Terri's situation. I should say that I am not at all interested in proving that her parents or her husband are heroes or villains. My view on the situation is that a disabled woman is being slowly murdered because (inter alia) she has not been able to demonstrate that her life is worthwhile (and someone keeps moving the goalposts). I am not a knee-jerk pro-lifer - there are very important issues at stake here, regardless of how we feel about Terri's parents or her husband, which may one day affect us all.

Firstly - the 'medical' diagnosis of PVS and the assumption that no improvement or cure is likely. Quite apart from the dubious diagnosis surely this is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy - you diagnose someone with PVS and then give them no treatment apart from a feeding tube and making sure that they don't die of bedsores. I would love to know what research is being done on this extremely unglamorous 'disease' - almost none I'd guess.

Secondly, invoking Terri's 'right to die' is nonsensical as it directly conflicts with her 'right to life' which she surely has as a citizen of the United States under the First Amendment - if she never made a living will surely the presumption should be right to life in all cases.

Thirdly - turning off life support is not the same as starving someone to death. Life support means exactly that - you can't breathe, eat, swallow, excrete without medical apparatus being constantly connected. People with end-stage diseases on life support are nothing like Terri Schiavo, so please stop making this comparison.

Fourthly - the disability issue. Severe brain damage is a disability - what's the difference between being born thus disabled or becoming so through accident? In the first case you would probably receive positive care with the understanding that your life span and mobility will be very curtailed. In the second case you will be diabnosed with PVS and be starved to death - your brain damage being invoked to assume that you do not want to live, or that your life is worthless. Think about that next time you get into your car, use electrical tools, have a blood clot diagnosed or any of the other ways in which you may suffer severe brain damage. It's so easy to say - I wouldn't want to live with....... brain damage, a broken spine, blindness, etc. etc. but why not wait till that happens (if it does) and then decide how much you want to live, and in the meantime don't impose your ableist values on others.

Surely, as Christians, our first presumption should be towards life? And Terri Schiavo's life is just as worthwhile as mine or yours.
 

---

Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
Just for the record, Florida doesn't recognize common-law marriages, so Michael Schiavo is not a bigamist.

Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that Michael Schiavo stayed married to Terri because he loves her? And that he believes her parents are working against her wishes and wanted to protect her from them? Certainly their insistence, in a court of law, that they would not have honored a living will even if Terri had one must have played some role in his decision.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:

He isn't a bigamist; he's a widower.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Do you believe we have the right to decide on our own medical treatment, or indeed lack thereof?

If the answer is yes, none of what you said matters. If it's no, who do you think should make such decisions for us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
It's so easy to say - I wouldn't want to live with....... brain damage, a broken spine, blindness, etc. etc. but why not wait till that happens (if it does) and then decide how much you want to live, and in the meantime don't impose your ableist values on others.

Surely, as Christians, our first presumption should be towards life? And Terri Schiavo's life is just as worthwhile as mine or yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:


Firstly - the 'medical' diagnosis of PVS and the assumption that no improvement or cure is likely. Quite apart from the dubious diagnosis surely this is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy - you diagnose someone with PVS and then give them no treatment apart from a feeding tube and making sure that they don't die of bedsores. I would love to know what research is being done on this extremely unglamorous 'disease' - almost none I'd guess.

---

Medline search: "persistent vegetative state" + "diagnosis" (both MESH terms)

419 hits. Just on diagnosis. That enough research for you?

No need to take me at my word - medline is available free to the public. Go and do a bit of reading. This is an established diagnosis and not one made lightly (though after 15 years how anyone can still be in doubt is incredible)

I am a palliative care physician. Most of my patients die peacefully without drips or feeding tubes. We use them only when there is a compelling clinical reason to do so. Usually there is not and their absence causes no discomfort or distress. Hunger and thirst are lost as the body shuts down; it's part of the normal dying process. Talking about "starving to death" is emotive and manipulative language which doesn't reflect the reality.

A reassuring ratio of sense to bullshit on this thread though.

for all those involved, including the hospice staff. Caring for patients like this is hard enough without a media circus outside.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
My view on the situation is that a disabled woman is being slowly murdered because (inter alia) she has not been able to demonstrate that her life is worthwhile (and someone keeps moving the goalposts).

---

quote:

---

Firstly - the 'medical' diagnosis of PVS and the assumption that no improvement or cure is likely. Quite apart from the dubious diagnosis, surely this is a case of self-fulfilling prophecy - you diagnose someone with PVS and then give them no treatment apart from a feeding tube and making sure that they don't die of bedsores. I would love to know what research is being done on this extremely unglamorous 'disease' - almost none I'd guess.

---

quote:

---

What I am wondering is how the activists (outside the family) view Terri's wishes? Does the 'right-to-life' case depend on Terri's wishes being possibly misrepresented? If she had left a witnessed living will clearly outlining her position, would 'right-to-lifers' (for want of a better term) accept that, or would 'right-to-life' take priority? Would they view such a will as effectively suicide, and thus to be opposed, or do they accept that people can reject treatment

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:


Thirdly - turning off life support is not the same as starving someone to death. Life support means exactly that - you can't breathe, eat, swallow, excrete without medical apparatus being constantly connected. People with end-stage diseases on life support are nothing like Terri Schiavo, so please stop making this comparison.

---

Huh?
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I think the point about the fact that the courts went to some lengths to establish that this was Terri's wish needs to be strengthened some more.
Recent polls indicate that 70% of Americans in Terri's position would wish to be disconnected from the feeding tube, but that doesn't mean it is what Terri would have wanted. No, the courts went back and talked to Michael and other people including the parents and then came to the conclusion that Terri didn't want to live this way.

And that's important. If you make your wishes known, even as with Gordon where you change your mind (and Gordon, put that in writing for your own sake and peace of mind), people will tend to follow them. My friend Stuart's father is very ill and has been so for quite some time. He's been in a nursing home for about two years and would have died a few times over had there not been some major medical intervention. Stuart, and indeed Stuart's Mom are quite certain that they wouldn't want to live this way (and have got their living wills and made their wishes very well known). They also knew, however, that Stuart's dad wanted every possible thing done. And it has pained them severely, but they've followed his wishes to the letter. It isn't that they want him to die, but they (and indeed by all accounts the father as well) are in severe pain watching this happen when he could have died naturally. It is very hard on all sides and takes considerable strength to abide by someone's wishes.

There's a mention in Time this week about how even if you have a living will, it might still get contested (which does NOT mean you'll win). There's a woman in PA this week going to court to prevent her mother connecting a feeding tube to her Alzheimer's father in direct violation of his wishes and living will. The guilt of the healthy can be phenomonal.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't actually care whether they disconnect my feeding tube or not if I get into this sort of condition. It's of no more importance than whether my coffin is pine or oak. I'm effectively dead.

As far as I can see, this debate is really about how long a hospital continues to ensure that a corpse does not rot.

Terri is not lying there thinking "I wish they'd put the tube back in" or "I hope they don't put the tube back in". As a conscious being, she is dead and has been for years. There is no consciousness, no self-awareness and no personality. She is gone.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
A bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't actually care whether they disconnect my feeding tube or not if I get into this sort of condition. It's of no more importance than whether my coffin is pine or oak. I'm effectively dead.

---

I care because I don't want one penny spent unnecessarily sustaining me that could be used to care for someone it might help, or to send my kids to college. I care because I want my husband to be free to remarry and be happy without having to put up with the sh*t Michael Schiavo has had to put up with.
 

---

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :
 
What Laura said.


 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't actually care whether they disconnect my feeding tube or not if I get into this sort of condition. It's of no more importance than whether my coffin is pine or oak. I'm effectively dead.

---

I care because I don't want one penny spent unnecessarily sustaining me that could be used to care for someone it might help, or to send my kids to college. I care because I want my husband to be free to remarry and be happy without having to put up with the sh*t Michael Schiavo has had to put up with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
PVS = brain gone = no longer a person.
If any of you can prove that personhood, personality or spirit resides only in the brain, and in a certain amount of brain, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

---

Who the fuck said any of this, and what the fuck does it have to do with the situation at hand?
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I Thought This Was A Christian Website™ strikes again!
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Billfrid:

Care to answer my perfectly reasonable question? I can post it again if you missed it the first time .
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the arguments between parents and husband (or who is the nicer and more believable person)assumptions are being made on behalf of a very vulnerable woman. How far could this be extended?

---

quote:

---

I am appalled that so many people posting on a Christian site have such a materialistic view of personhood.

---

quote:

---

From your previous post:
Surely, as Christians, our first presumption should be towards life? And Terri Schiavo's life is just as worthwhile as mine or yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
Oh dear - I seem to have annoyed people!

Can't be bothered to quote and reply to each, but for what it's worth:

PVS = brain gone = no longer a person.
If any of you can prove that personhood, personality or spirit resides only in the brain, and in a certain amount of brain, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize. Seriously. There is enough medial literature on anencephaly to make this issue very dubious.

---

---

quote:

---

I didn't want to get into the issue of heroes and villains because only three people in the world know the whole story, not because I'm better than anyone else. The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the arguments between parents and husband (or who is the nicer and more believable person)assumptions are being made on behalf of a very vulnerable woman. How far could this be extended?

---

quote:

---

]"Surely as Christians..." is just that, a question, it can have a yes or no response. If the answer is no - why not say that, don't put words in my mouth or impute motives to me. Would any Christian like to respond to this? Am I wrong in thinking that to be a Christian is to be life-affirming?

---

quote:

---

I am appalled that so many people posting on a Christian site have such a materialistic view of personhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
PVS = brain gone = no longer a person.
If any of you can prove that personhood, personality or spirit resides only in the brain, and in a certain amount of brain, I will nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

---

Who the fuck said any of this, and what the fuck does it have to do with the situation at hand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
If you want to have a go at me personally grow a spine and call me to Hell, otherwise can we please discuss the issue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Where my incredulity comes in, is that he wanted to have the new life and the new wife and home and family and all, and still be Terri's husband too.

---

What's incredible about this? Would you prefer that he divorce Terri first, deserting her when she is utterly helpless and defenseless? This were not very sporting or gentlemanly. I think that he did the very best thing for all concerned. It's probably what I'd try to do (if I were heterosexual, anyway. )

quote:

---

Unless something new's happened to the law, the only legal marriages are the ones involving two people. So, either he's a married man with a mistress and their progeny on the side -- or he's actually/practically married to the second woman, and has no right any more to speak for Terri as her husband.

I have no idea if it's just the media's idea to call the second lady "common-law wife", or if that's what she calls herself, or if that's what she is by Florida law. And if she is by Florida law, and if her husband is making his stand for Terri as her husband, then the guy's a bigamist. It's a wonder the Schindlers' lawyers didn't toss that idea in the mix.

---

Perhaps they didn't toss it in because they have been trained to know a fallacy of equivocation when they see one.
 

---

Posted by Exiled Youth (# 8744) on :
 
I looked at the BBC website and saw this headline.

They are already talking about what to do when the poor lady stops breathing. From the headline on the frontpage of BBC News, it did seem a bit like she had passed away...but no, they're just deciding what to do. At least they've agreed on something, and at least the parents will be forced to face the reality of the situation. So sad.

And Bilfrid the "I thought this was a Christian Website" right-to-lifer, read the whole thread first, yeah?



This has nothing to do with euthanasia; it's to do with the patient's right to choose. The choice was made by Terri, and the courts have affirmed this over and over again. Get a grip. And read the thread, the whole thing.

And shame on those campaigners at the hospice, as linked to by Erin. It does horrors to my blood pressure seeing things like that done in the name of Christianity™.

[ETA: I think one of the links further up on this page mentions that the new lady in Mr Schiavo's life is referred to by him as a fiancee...can't do accents i'm afraid...]

[ 29. March 2005, 15:38: Message edited by: Exiled Youth ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
If you want to have a go at me personally grow a spine and call me to Hell, otherwise can we please discuss the issue?

---

quote:

---

Secondly, invoking Terri's 'right to die' is nonsensical as it directly conflicts with her 'right to life' which she surely has as a citizen of the United States under the First Amendment - if she never made a living will surely the presumption should be right to life in all cases.

---

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
...Am I wrong in thinking that to be a Christian is to be life-affirming?...

---

quote:

---

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
what in heavens name are you talking about? there _is_ no "right to life".

---

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
which is not, mousethief, as you should know, a legal document, simply a historical one.

---

quote:

---

edited to add, besides, he specifically cited the first amendment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Must have been quite a dillema for poor Mr. Jackson.... All those TV cameras at Jacko's trial in California, versus all those TV cameras in Florida. "Hmm... What to do? What to do?"

---

 

---

Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
The poor man has finally slipped his last mooring...

But I get a fiendish feeling of glee at the thought of all those right-wingers finding themselves in his company.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Can I just say that I for one am glad she didn't die on Easter? The political and press circus fiasco on the timing of that would have been a nightmare. I was dreading it.
 

---

Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Can I just say that I for one am glad she didn't die on Easter? The political and press circus fiasco on the timing of that would have been a nightmare. I was dreading it.

---

GAG---my biggest fear was that she would die at 3:00 on Good Friday.

Poor woman.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I know this is a sad and tragic state of affairs, but this makes me cackle with glee:

quote:

---

But Jackson said he was rebuffed in his attempts to see Terri Schiavo.

"We did call Michael Schiavo and asked if we could go in and have prayer with Terri. He finally got back and said, he thought not."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...

quote:

---

"Surely as Christians..." is just that, a question, it can have a yes or no response. If the answer is no - why not say that, don't put words in my mouth or impute motives to me. Would any Christian like to respond to this? Am I wrong in thinking that to be a Christian is to be life-affirming?

---

Yes. But what Terri is doing is not living. If you want a "surely as Christians", how about this one?

"Surely as Christians, we hope that our life on earth is not the complete story, and therefore would hold onto physical earthly life less strongly than non-Christians?"

...

---

Indeed.

If I ever end up in Terri's state, I pray someone would have the courage to pull the tube out so I could go Home.

Clearly her wish was to not continue in this way.

[aside]I fail, also, to see the difference between forced breathing and forced eating. To disconnect either results in death - one in seconds/minutes the other in days/weeks - but the act and the result are the same. Why would one be worse than the other? [aside]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I fail, also, to see the difference between forced breathing and forced eating. To disconnect either results in death - one in seconds/minutes the other in days/weeks - but the act and the result are the same. Why would one be worse than the other?

---

quote:

---

Thirdly - turning off life support is not the same as starving someone to death. Life support means exactly that - you can't breathe, eat, swallow, excrete without medical apparatus being constantly connected. People with end-stage diseases on life support are nothing like Terri Schiavo, so please stop making this comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I fail, also, to see the difference between forced breathing and forced eating. To disconnect either results in death - one in seconds/minutes the other in days/weeks - but the act and the result are the same. Why would one be worse than the other?

---

I agree completely; but who said they were different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Unless you dig a little deeper, the fact that repeated court judgements have established Terri's wishes and medical state are not being mentioned much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is also the point at which I would suggest that there is plenty of room for doubt as to the reality of the situation. I've already given the example of how if I'd been in this position 9 years ago, there would be overwhelming evidence that I would like to have medical support withdrawn — evidence which would be simply wrong, given that I had changed my mind without having told people. Similar possibilities come to mind here, and of course we rely on the character and testimony of Mr Schiavo (which I'm not questioning, by the way—I don't know enough about that).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
                  

Gordon---I admit I'm curious. Would you be willing to explain why you changed your mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I've already given the example of how if I'd been in this position 9 years ago, there would be overwhelming evidence that I would like to have medical support withdrawn — evidence which would be simply wrong, given that I had changed my mind without having told people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
If your loved ones, your doctor, anyone else, follows your expressed wishes, they have done the best they can. The fact that you changed your mind is irrelevant. If they did what you asked, to the best of their ability, they've done all that they could do. If what you wanted is not what you said, you're responsible for that, not them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry Troup:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
...Am I wrong in thinking that to be a Christian is to be life-affirming?...

---

St. Paul saith, in Philippians 1:21 -- New International Version (NIV)

quote:

---

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Whether it's ethically wise for the law to recognise living wills or their equivalent, I am not so sure.

---

quote:

---

Presumably even those who favour such things would recognise exceptions, eg a living will written by someone prior to their conversion to Roman Catholicism, or in a depressed state, or...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Whether it's ethically wise for the law to recognise living wills or their equivalent, I am not so sure. Presumably even those who favour such things would recognise exceptions, eg a living will written by someone prior to their conversion to Roman Catholicism, or in a depressed state, or...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Whether it's ethically wise for the law to recognise living wills or their equivalent, I am not so sure.

---

What would be the alternative?

<snip>

If you make a living will, then change your mind about anything in the will, for any reason, you must change it, or (like a regular will), it will be enforced as written. That's how legal documents work.

---

quote:

---

Second, I could not bear to lay on my family that kind of hardship. Life is for the living, and I couldn't stand the thought that they would be tied by guilt (or political interference) to a breathing corpse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, of course, assuming that the law in your corner of the kingdom recognises something called a 'living will', which seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon of some Western cultures predicted upon the availabilty of medical technology.

One thing the lawmakers could do would be to refuse to recognise anything that purported to be a living will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes, of course, assuming that the law in your corner of the kingdom recognises something called a 'living will', which seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon of some Western cultures predicted upon the availabilty of medical technology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
2. Yes, of course, it is predicated on the availability of medical technology. Because without medical technology, people who are dying just die, and that's that. It's only with the possibility of "artificially" (to borrow a term from Trisagion's discussion of birth control on another thread) extending life for someone who otherwise would die, that such a thing as a 'Living Will' even becomes necessary.

---

quote:

---

We have a duty to feed the hungry but I'm not so sure that we have a similar duty to pump somebody's heart and inflate and deflate their lungs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
A feeding tube is not an extraordinary measure to keep someone alive. There have been statements from both the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and the Orthodox Church in America saying that removing the feeding tube from Mrs. Schaivo cannot be condoned or supported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
I find the phrase I put in bold rather interesting, Gordon, in view of my post just an hour-and-a-half ago stating that I didn't want the official stance of the RCC to be taken as mine.

Given a written document, that should be the basis for action. Second to that should be actual statements by the person as recalled by close family and friends.

Membership in a particular church should carry little weight unless the person regularly proclaimed (s)he was a sincere believer in ALL the teachings of that church. Second-hand opinions about what the person believed should be based on actual conversations about matters of ethical importance (as opposed to lip-service agreement with church teachings while chatting) not church attendance or participation in various and sundry social and quasi-liturgical activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I could only suggest that you speak with your priest then to see where he stands. The words of the hierarchs seem pretty clear to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I could only suggest that you speak with your priest then to see where he stands. The words of the hierarchs seem pretty clear to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The basic point that she is already dead to all intents and purposes doesn't seem to be entirely understood here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see how an obligation to feed the hungry is relevant. Terri isn't hungry. She does not feel hunger.

---

quote:

---

The basic point that she is already dead to all intents and purposes doesn't seem to be entirely understood here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why is it that none of the religious nutjobs pull the "playing God" card when we artificially extend life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I am wondering if any Ship mate knows of a standard, internationally recognised phrase (since I get around...) to the effect of "do not use extraordinary measures." If so, I am going to have it tattooed across my torso.

---

quote:

---

I also find myself unable to comprehend just what political statement the US federal government was trying to make where this poor woman was used as a token. And I do not mean I did not read the thread and links... only that the entire scenario leaves me totally confused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
The problem is that those measures that might be considered extraordinary are a question of judgement and are situational. Young accident victims, where there is hope of recovery, are treated differently that the terminally ill. In between are shades of grey where there is no right answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
If the government were to decide no longer to accept Living Wills, then what would be the alternative? How would someone consent to or refuse treatment if they were not able, temporarily or permanently, to say what they wanted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
You keep saying "if" and "assuming", as if there were any question. The federal Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 legislates that patients do, in fact, have a right to self-determination of treatment AND that patients are required to be informed of that right by healthcare providers (specifically, institutions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see how an obligation to feed the hungry is relevant. Terri isn't hungry. She does not feel hunger.

---

This I think is certainly true.

quote:

---

The basic point that she is already dead to all intents and purposes doesn't seem to be entirely understood here.

---

But not this. She is not brain-dead. She is not in a coma. All the autonomic functions are working just fine. She's definitely alive.

And, from the Orthodox POV, because the person is not the soul, which simply happens to be housed in a body, but is both body and soul, both material and immaterial, she is still a person, and she is still there. Damaged, yes, terribly so. But she hasn't ceased to be a person.

---

I think this is the problem here. I do not buy this "soul housed in a body" dualism one bit.

But let's run with it for just a second. Suppose Terri has a "soul" which is immaterial and so unaffected by her non-existant cerebral cortex.

Is this "soul" bound to her damaged body? If so, what on earth are we doing prolonging this soul's imprisonment in a body through which it cannot manifest any functions?

If it is free, and no longer inhabiting the body, then is she not physically dead by virtue of that fact?

What do you think Terri's soul is currently experiencing? I say it's oblivion, because her higher brain structures which give rise to what we call her soul no longer exist. Until the resurrection from the dead, she does not exist. That's why as far as I can see, legally notwithstanding, she is actually dead.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Terri Shaivo has died. May she and those who cared about her finally find some peace.
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
May the memory of her as she once was be eternal.
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Requiscat in pacem.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
May her memory be eternal.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
 

---

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
BBC report for those who wish to see it.
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on :
 
May God welcome her with open arms to her eternal home.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Why do I have the sinking feeling in my stomach that after an exceptionally short mourning period this is only going to launch a new and even more vicious round of fighting?

I hope Terri comes down and smites whoever is on the side of this fight she didn't agree with.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"To us who are alive, may God grant forgiveness; to all who have died, a place of light and peace."
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 

quote:

---

I hope Terri comes down and smites whoever is on the side of this fight she didn't agree with.

---

Not smites -- puts into a persistent vegitative state.
 

---

Posted by MrSponge2U (# 3076) on :
 
Lord have mercy on Terri and her family and friends. May they be comforted in their time of mourning.
 

---

Posted by Ye Olde Motherboarde (# 54) on :
 

quote:

---

Terri Shaivo has died. May she and those who cared about her finally find some peace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:

quote:

---

I hope Terri comes down and smites whoever is on the side of this fight she didn't agree with.

---

Not smites -- puts into a persistent vegitative state.

---

I say smite, you say PVC, for this one instance I think it is a "toMAYto/toMAHto" situation.
 

---

Posted by Herminator (# 5250) on :
 

 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
May the angels lead you into paradise. May the martyrs come to welcome you and take you to the Holy City, the new and eternal Jerusalem where Lazarus is poor no longer. Rest in peace and rise in glory, Terry - and may God grant peace to the living!
 

---

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
I was impressed with an interview with Dr. John Harvey on the PBS program Religion and Ethics Newsweekly. Dr Harvey is head of the Medical Bioethics Committee at Georgetown Univ. Hospital. He stated that there were 19.000 cases of a vegetative state presently in the US. Also that his practice was to distinguish those who might have a chance of recovery however slim and watch them for a year before recommending any further intervention.
The whole interview can be seen here:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week830/perspectives.html
 

---

Posted by bessie rosebride (# 1738) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :
 
At last the child is taken into eternal peace; but God must grieve afresh over those who continue to use her body.
 

---

Posted by CJ (# 2166) on :
 
How dare Bush continue to try to make political capital out of this; how dare he offer his condolences to her parents only, and not her husband


for peace now, and silence
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 

 

---

Posted by sundog (# 8916) on :
 

 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I will be very interested to see if more political hay can be made of this case and if legislation based on it will be proposed. And it's fascinating to me that the Schindlers playing to the media had such little effect on public opinion.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Or we could go back to the OP and discuss just how something as rigid and codified as the legal system can deal with something as nebulous and unclear as the point at which an inidividual passes the line between impaired but alive versus alive but no longer functioning.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I don't think the legal system can deal with the end of life in a lot of cases. That's why these should remain private decisions. But I'm afraid that this case will prompt legislation to remove end of life decisions from the private sphere.
 

---

Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But I'm afraid that this case will prompt legislation to remove end of life decisions from the private sphere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Big Brother will decide when you're ready to die. Or rather, when Big Brother is ready for you to die.

Novo ordo fuckedupum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Big Brother will decide when you're ready to die. Or rather, when Big Brother is ready for you to die.

Novo ordo fuckedupum.

---

Or rather, will try to stop little brother from pulling the plug when little brother gets the s_s with another family member for hanging around too long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
I get the feeling that you believe someone in a PVS has some sort of duty to live as long as possible. Is that a misperception?

---

quote:

---

Speaking with reporters later in Houston, DeLay said lawmakers "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the President."

---

It's so predictable it's depressing. I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to see that this is exactly the outcome the powers were hoping for.

FF
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Well, obviously, the patient has the choice. If the patient does not specify his/her wishes, then yes, it SHOULD fall to the family. Unless the state can prove that the legal next of kin is unfit to be the patient's guardian they should butt the hell out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not even sure I understand what this means. Presumably one of the things about PVS is that you're past making choices about your fate and you're in the hands of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I guess the family could have the choice — someone has to. I don't assume that the family is populated by good people, however, any more than I assume that the government is. Not really sure what the right thing is.

---

In most cases, families do end up agreeing on what is best. This case ended up splashed all over the news because it was a family dispute gone nuclear. Judges say "hard cases make bad law," and this is surely an example of that if there ever was one.

Bottom line, I trust my family to make decisions for me far more than I trust Tom Delay or George Bush.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
The nagging sense that everything done might've been perfectly legal and ethically defensible, and that in the process someone who wanted to be alive is dead.

(To which there are all sorts of good answers, I know).

But even more, an anxiety about whether this case will turn out to be a defining moment in how the Florida and/or US judiciary treats other cases which are not as clear cut. A line has now been drawn, and if you are on the far side of it, we can pull you off whatever life support you are on, and that's it.

I feel quite worried about how things will look in 10 years time, and I just hope and pray it's not like the Netherlands.

Anyway anxiety about the future is not a particularly Christian trait, so on that note I might just go off and have a sleep.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Oops, sorry, cross-posted with Paige. The previous post was as reply to GAG. Will get back to you Paige.
 

---

Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Gordon, the line was drawn ages ago. This case isn't spectacular in drawing some sort of new legal test. Hardly! The court went to some considerable lengths to determine what Terri wanted. Seven years of legal fighting. If there was evidence she wanted to be kept alive, I can't help but think that in seven years it would have come out.

Don't confuse Teri's wishes with the parents grandstanding.

And what about all the other people who wanted to be alive but are dead anyway? Through disease, being shot, being hit by cars, heart attacks, and so on. No one lives forever, and I think that's been overlooked here too. Death is as natural a part of life as being born.

[ 01. April 2005, 13:39: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
 

---

Posted by Paige (# 2261) on :
 
Thanks Gordon---I'm out myself for the day. I desperately need to finish up a project. I'll look forward to re-engaging soon. You have given me a lot to think about.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
What I think is interesting about this case is the number of people claiming to be operating out of religious motives, who want to side with the parents in this case. Doesn't the Bible say that a man or woman LEAVES their parents and cleaves to their spouse? The parents are no longer her immediate family, at least when compared to her husband. There is nothing in the Bible or even in Christian tradition that would say that the parents should trump the husband in this case.

Not only do bad cases make bad law, clearly they make bad theology too.
 

---

Posted by Halo (# 6933) on :
 


[ 01. April 2005, 19:31: Message edited by: Halo ]
 

---

Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
What I think is interesting about this case is the number of people claiming to be operating out of religious motives, who want to side with the parents in this case. Doesn't the Bible say that a man or woman LEAVES their parents and cleaves to their spouse?

---

Actually, I don't have the reference for this, but if I recall correctly, Gary Bauer did oppose the Congressional attempt at intervening, because of the sanctity of the marriage relationship. But indeed, this perspective seemed to be in the minority among the people claiming to speak from the fundamental Christian viewpoint...
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Sanctity of the marriage relationship? W/Michael Schiavo?


 

---

Posted by nickel (# 8363) on :
 
Funny, just a minute ago my husband put forth that same argument, about the husband & wife cleaving ... and I told him the fundies would have no problem denying the sanctity of marriage as it suits them.




Condolences to all who loved her.
 

---

Posted by nickel (# 8363) on :
 
Oh, apologies to TheRiv, I didn't mean label you anything by implication. Caught that too late for editing.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

I'm not even sure I understand what this means. Presumably one of the things about PVS is that you're past making choices about your fate and you're in the hands of God.

---

Gordon----I have thought a lot about your response to me earlier, where you pointed out that we have made medical advances to keep people from dying. And I guess the statement above gets to my question about "How far are we morally obligated to go, in order to do that?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
We can keep people alive for long periods of time now. What bothers me is that few people are asking whether we should

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
What is life? And what is merely existence? Are they separate states?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paige:
I have such a visceral negative reaction to the thought of ending up like Terri Schiavo---the notion literally makes my flesh crawl. And I think it's because I believe she was forced to remain an animated corpse

It is an awful thought. But I am not sure that it is more awful than the thought of being an unanimated corpse. Or if it is more awful, perhaps it shows how little we understand death. The writer of Ecclesiastes says “But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” (Ecclesiastes 9:4) The value of life is inestimable. We don’t know what it would be like to be near death and barely conscious, if at all. And we can’t second guess reality by projecting our anxieties and fears onto those who may or may not decide to care for us.


[quote]Originally posted by Paige
[qb]I do believe we all have a time to be born and a time to die---and I also believe that humans have reached a point where they can frustrate those plans.

---

quote:

---

I guess the question I want to ask is, "What purpose does it serve to keep people in a PVS alive?" Are their interests being served? Or do we do it simply because we feel guilt and pain at the thought of letting go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Hi Ruth,

Here's Tom DeLay's reaction for starters:

quote:

---

Speaking with reporters later in Houston, DeLay said lawmakers "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the President."

---

It's so predictable it's depressing. I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to see that this is exactly the outcome the powers were hoping for.

FF

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0