|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Harry and Terri - the Schiavo case
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I admit, at the beginning, I at least felt sympathy for the parents even if I disagreed with them. The more I see of them and hear them speak the more I think "these people have serious serious issues and I can't believe I was originally sympathetic to them!" The brother in particular is coming across as almost violent, the parents just seem more like they pathologically can't let go.
I just read the thing in Time that says that according to court documents, they encouraged Michael to see other women. Sounds like they turned on him a long time ago and not over this issue.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Ugh... Pardon me while I retch. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Check out this guy's living will.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
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? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
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. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Fear doesn't empty tomorrow of its perils; it empties today of its power.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
I wonder nothing aloud -- I post nothing -- I make no statement of any type, re: Terri's situation or her parents or her husband or his family or the state of Florida --
From a position that I am somehow in a sort of moral/ethical crystal castle and thus pure enough to pronounce opinions that everyone should pick up because, after all, Wonderful Me has spoken.
I hope I'm like everyone else here. I hope we're wondering things or observing things because we try to imagine what we would want to happen if we were Terri or her parents or siblings, Michael or his new lady or their kids.
I recall the time I've been able to spend with folks in terminal illness or the end stages of Alzheimers', or with their families, and wonder stuff.
That's all I can do, that and pray.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Billfrid:
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?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
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?
This seems to me to be the crucial question here. Just as a data point for US shipmates, I've heard very little broadcast coverage here that mentions the issue of Terri's wishes. It is largely presented as "the parents who want Terri to be kept alive against the wishes of her husband who wants her to be allowed to die". 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.
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?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
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.
A couple of comments...
In my book there's a huge difference between being blind, or in a wheelchair versus a hospital bed for fifteen years.
If you're in a coma or PVS (as we're so delightfully abbreviating it) it's a little late to "wait until that happens" to make a decision, now isn't it?
Who has said Terri Schiavo's life isn't as valuable as anyone elses? Seems to me the huge effort put into keeping her alive and taking care of her shows her husband put great value on her life.
Lastly, I have learned over time that the phrase "Surely as Christians...", although suave and silky sounding, generally means "if you don't agree with me you're not a Christian." and is best avoided.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Not
Ship's Quack
# 2166
|
Posted
I've been following the thread closely, and managed to keep my mouth shut so far, but...
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.
--------------------
Was CJ; now Not
Posts: 600 | From: the far, far West | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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).
It has nothing to do with other peoples' computations of how worthwhile or valuable her life may be. If it did, do you honestly think she would have been kept alive for 15 years like this? If we're providing medical care on the basis of someone's worth, or even on the basis of best cost-per-item ratio, think how many neo-natal units, or knee ops, or ICU wards, or what-have-you could have been funded with the money.
It's not about whether she's worth being treated or not.
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.
In what sense is the diagnosis dubious? In the sense that Terri's forebrain has been reabsorbed into the fluid surrounded it, and all that is left is the hindbrain, which controls most automatic bodily functions and reflexes? Unless you can create neurons and rebuild a brain, I'd love to know how you cure or even ameliorate this.
Have you really not read the last 6 pages of debate, where this has been exhaustively thrashed out?
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Rat:
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
I imagine that Catholics, or those who oppose the withdrawal of feeding on the grounds articulated by Trisagion earlier on in the thread would maintain that withdrawal of food is an intrinsic moral evil and therefore should not be done whatever the wishes of the patient.
If, for example, someone were paralysed from the neck down and asked to be given a lethal injection, according to Catholic moral theology (and the law in most places, still) this would be wrong, despite the wishes of the patient as it would constitute euthanasia. For Catholic moral theologians, and those who concur with them on this issue, withdrawing feeding is morally closer to euthanasia than it is to, say, switching off a respirator. The moral law, for Catholics, trumps human autonomy.
I await correction but that appears to be the position articulated earlier.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
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? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Billfrid:
A bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit.
Well, it's nice to know that you've actually taken the time to research the case. Except, you know, NOT.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Janine: your latest contribution would be more earnest somehow if your one before it hadn't been such an unsupported litany of evil against the husband.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
There is that side of things, but I wasn't really addressing that. What I was addressing was the idea that people here are making decisions for someone who's unable to make their own feelings clear through incapacity. We are talking rather about what is to be done with the physical remains of someone who but for artificial animation of those remains is actually dead.
I'm trying (probably badly) to dispel the notion that Terri is lying there thinking that she wants one outcome or another, but can't communicate it. That is not the situation.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279
|
Posted
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.
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?
"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?
I am appalled that so many people posting on a Christian site have such a materialistic view of personhood.
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?
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I Thought This Was A Christian Website™ strikes again!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Billfrid:
Care to answer my perfectly reasonable question? I can post it again if you missed it the first time ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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?
What assumptions? This entire situation is based on the premise that Ms. Schiavo has the right to refuse medical treatment. The courts have repeatedly found that the available evidence indicates that she would not want to have nourishment injected into her through a surgically implanted tube in order to keep her alive but without hope of recovery. Apart from a right to refuse such treatment, what is being assumed here?
quote:
I am appalled that so many people posting on a Christian site have such a materialistic view of personhood.
I am appalled that so many people speaking publically on behalf of Christianity have such a fixation on extending this life at any cost. It speaks volumes about what they think happens next.
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.
Why should a Christian's "first presumption" be toward life, as opposed to free will or self-determination? And what does this have to do with anyone's life being worth more than anyone elses? You seem to have a narrow and rigidly-defined view of what a Christian should think.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
Perhaps you would like to point us to any such literature that documents a person able to function as a conscious self aware person with nothing but a brain stem.
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?
"Thin end of the wedge" argument. My point is that we must get away from thinking in terms of a "very vulnerable woman". To be blunt, we are actually talking about a "very dead woman". That her body is artificially kept alive does not make it any less an empty shell than any corpse.
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?"
See? You can throw these statements around as much as you like in any direction.
quote:
I am appalled that so many people posting on a Christian site have such a materialistic view of personhood.
I am convinced that the seat of personality and consciousness is the brain, as all the scientific evidence points that way. Why is that so appalling?
URGH - Hit reply instead of "edit". Would a kind host delete the preceding post? Ta.
[Done.]
[ 29. March 2005, 15:10: Message edited by: Scot ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
I think it's Billfrid's interpretation of what I said, and actually I think it's close enough not to be worth arguing over the wording of.
The question is this. If Fred and Bill had their skulls opened by a perfectly skilled surgeon, and their brains swapped, which personality would inhabit which body? I say Fred would find he had Bill's body, because that's where Fred's brain is. What happens under Billfrid's model I'm not sure.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sewanee_angel
Shipmate
# 2908
|
Posted
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?
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger
Seriously, Billfrid, the Shiavo circus is not about "throwing away" a damaged person. It is about who determines when and what type of medical care a person receives or rejects. Does an individual have that right of self determination or not. It has been proved in a court of law at least 17 times (the number is higher by now) that Terri Shiavo did not want to have a feed tube if she was in the situation she is now. She should not be forced to receive care of this nature just because her parents can't deal.
Surely, as Christians, as we contemplate the death and resurection of Christ, we know that death is not always bad/evil nor should life always be extended at all costs.*
*Please note I am not comparing Shiavo to Chirst - just meeting one "surely, as Christians" thought with another. Billfird, not all Christains think alike.
Posts: 598 | From: a van down by the river | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
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. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
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.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Exiled Youth
Shipmate
# 8744
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Gold from Egypt is still gold -- St. Augustine of Hippo
Posts: 411 | From: Home Sweet Home | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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?
The "grow a spine" remark is the closest this thread has gotten to unacceptably personal discussion. You've come right up to the line; please don't cross it.
RuthW
Purgatory Host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
bilfrid, what everyobody else said. plus, this:
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.
what in heavens name are you talking about? there _is_ no "right to life". and this is the text of the first amendment.
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.
nothing that could concievably have anything to do with the terri schiavo case.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
what in heavens name are you talking about? there _is_ no "right to life".
I assume (s)he was referring to the Declaration of Independence, in which it is asserted:
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
which is not, mousethief, as you should know, a legal document, simply a historical one.
edited to add, besides, he specifically cited the first amendment.
[ 29. March 2005, 17:25: Message edited by: nicolemrw ]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
which is not, mousethief, as you should know, a legal document, simply a historical one.
True.
quote:
edited to add, besides, he specifically cited the first amendment.
Ah; somehow I missed that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
no prob, mousethief. if he hadn't mentioned the first amendment i would have made the same assumption. it was the miss-cite of the first amendment that pissed me off... if he can't be bothered to be accurate in something as simple as that, then why should he expect anyone to pay any attention to what he posts?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Jesse is now on the scene. Fabulous.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Something about horses and barn doors comes to mind.
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?"
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
