homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Harry and Terri - the Schiavo case (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Harry and Terri - the Schiavo case
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?"

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Votive]

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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."



--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Confused] [aside]

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Confused]

I agree completely; but who said they were different?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lots of people have, mousethief, some even on this thread. i don't see any difference myself, but apparently some do. don't ask me why.

--------------------
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
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, mousethief, I should have quoted someone saying that.

The comment was in response to, primarily, this by Billfrid:

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.

Notice that he referred to the fact that life support includes eating. But, if Terri could eat, she wouldn't need the tube, so, the tube must be life support.

Makes my head spin a bit.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jlg

What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98

 - Posted      Profile for jlg   Email jlg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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? [Confused]

I agree completely; but who said they were different?
The RCC has made the distinction (there are links earlier in this thread, I believe) that turning off a respirator is OK, but removing a feeding tube is not. And Terri Schiavo is RC.

One thing this whole circus has made me realize is that when I document my beliefs about dying I need to make it 100% clear that my membership and active participation in the RCC in no way should be taken as indication that I agree with church teachings on these matters.

God forbid that my husband, children, and siblings (all of indeterminate or no particular Faith) should find themselves arguing with some self-righteous fanatic claiming "But she was a daily communicant! Surely she would want to to be kept alive!" despite my having told those closest to me "If it comes down to a contested decision, err on the side of death.".

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to be worrying about creating iron-clad legal documents in order to ensure that we might be allowed to die in peace when our body and soul are ready to go.

I'm old enough to remember when pneumonia was known as the Friend of the Elderly, because it was the medical complication by means of which nature cut short otherwise long and painful deaths.

Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Someone on Terri's parents' side has already referred to this as a "crucifixion".

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You mean Pneumonia isn't still known as that? I know that it is a huge risk to those laid up for a while in hospital. In fact, hospitals are not great places to be sick as there's so much infection floating around (and I'm not just talking MSRA)

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Yes, this is the key, isn't it. Not knowing the US legal system I don't know how much closer it is to get to legal clarity on this case than has already been achieved. The legal issue appears at this stage to be completely cut and dried.

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).

The legal clarity that has been achieved allows a legal resolution, without providing any real answer for the resolution of nagging doubt. To which I suppose some would say, so what; but that "so what" in itself would demonstrate that the real issues are not legal but ethical.

--------------------
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
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon---I admit I'm curious. Would you be willing to explain why you changed your mind?

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sewanee_angel
Shipmate
# 2908

 - Posted      Profile for sewanee_angel   Email sewanee_angel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

Yeah, but see, for the last 9 years, you've literally had a brain and been able to think and change your views and tell people about it. The grey matter of Shiavo's brain is not there. She can't have changed her mind while in a pvs.
Posts: 598 | From: a van down by the river | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
                  

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

Yeah sure; I was reflecting on the nature of personhood and its relationship to the terminating of human life.

I took the view (and still do) that our being in the image of God is expressed in at least two ways: in our stewardship over this creation under God, and in our capacity for relationship — in particular, Male-Female — which is a reflection of God's intra-trinitarian relationships. Genesis 1:26 stuff.

My previous line of thinking was that insofar as our capacity for relationship is impaired or non-existent, we can no longer be said to be in the image of God — obvious applications to things like the TS case, where we might say she is in God's image only less and less so (on my former view).

But on reflection and further reading I've come to the view that our personhood is dependent on God's creative word ("Let us make man in our image") rather than our ability to function in a particular way. Our imagehood has been marred but not obliterated (and of course, is fully seen and restored in Christ). I take it this is one of the reasons we can't just go 'round, after the fall of Genesis 3, killing people randomly in the way we might squash a bug; thus Genesis 9:6.

Terri S is still a person in God's image. It does not automatically follow that she should be kept alive, but it changes the way we approach such a question. I am rather chilled, for example, by the way some posters want to turn this into a matter of financial calculus, whereby a certain number of starving children could've been saved if she'd been zoffed five or ten years ago. All of God's children are precious, and arguments such as this I find nauseating.

Far stronger to argue on the basis of the right to refuse medical treatment, though I personally haven't yet worked out whether that settles it, especially in this case. Legally, case closed. Ethically, all sorts of questions.

--------------------
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
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

I will grant that it's possible she might have changed her mind and failed to tell her husband so. I honestly don't think that matters. It's possible that, even if she had a living will, that she'd changed her mind after she'd had it drawn up, and hadn't gotten around to changing it yet. But the only information that someone else can know, and act on, is what you say, or what you write down somewhere. The only way anyone can follow your wishes is for you to express them.

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.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Yes, I don't doubt that if such a thing as a 'living will' — or possibly a legally recognised equivalent — existed in law, it would be ethically defensible to follow its provisions.

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...?

--------------------
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
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But if you change your mind, the onus is on you to tell the people who need to know. This is where I absolutely insist on personal responsibility to the very last. To place others in the position of ferreting out whether you still mean what you said ten years ago is cruel. Your family and friends honor you by making sure your last known wishes are carried out. If you can't be arsed to tell them that you've changed your mind... well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

ETA: her crazy parents are now selling the names and e-mail addresses of the people who've donated to their cause and/or responded via their website to a fundie spammer group. Gawd, how tacky.

[ 29. March 2005, 22:12: Message edited by: Erin ]

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.


Which means, for Terri, as a baptised Christian, that to be allowed to die is gain.

Let the poor woman go.

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

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...?
If, in your Last Will and Testament you directed that everything go to your church, and then decided that you hated that church and all its teachings and everyone that had ever had anything to do with it, and you left there, never to darken its door again -- and you died without changing your will, everything would go to the church that you hated.

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.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Gordon---that's very interesting.

I have two reasons for not wanting to live if I were to be in a PVS: First is that I am pretty much of the Descartes school---"I think, therefore I am." So if I'm not thinking anymore, I'm not ME in any way other than the physical shell. At that point, I'd like to be allowed to go home to God.

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.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
jlg

What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98

 - Posted      Profile for jlg   Email jlg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...?

emphasis added

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.

Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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. There are all sorts of cases where I assume (not being a lawyer) that this already happens. For example, could I write into my real will a sum of $AUD50 for anyone prepared to knock off the POTUS or someone else I happened not to like? Well I could, but I very much doubt that it would carry legal weight in any jurisdiction.

At this point we enter into the ethics of the laws that are made to deal with situations such as Terri Schiavo's. And I've argued earlier on this thread that there might be good reasons for lawmakers to legislate in a way that is extremely conservative in matters of life and death. What is ethically right for someone to do with their sick gran who wants to come off her anti-cancer chemotherapy (and I would argue yes, it's her choice to do that) does not translate easily into public legislation. The decisions made by government and the decisions made by individuals may be quite different, and for good reason.

Paige, you said

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.

I do understand this way of thinking. Once it becomes widespread, however — and especially when it is used to inform government legislation — it can add dreadfully to the burden of the depressed and somewhat unwell person, and can be used by unscrupulous individuals to apply enormous pressure to old, sick people and others.

I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in recent years in Australia we have had some horrendous scandals relating to the treatment of frail elderly in private nursing homes. Some nursing homes are terrific and look after such people very well. Other nursing homes will cut financial corners at every possibility, and hold the vulnerability of the elderly over their heads as a very effective weapon of silencing complaint.

I would be deeply alarmed if legislation meant that greater power passed into the hands of some of these operators to make determinations about ongoing life support. What happens, for example, to the patient in the early stages of Alzheimer's who passes a certain point (perhaps even before they are diagnosed), after which they will happily sign some sort of living will in the belief that they will receive a better quality of care from the nursing home in which they are compelled to stay?

This is not pie in the sky dreaming about the future. The current Dutch situation with regard to treatment of the seriously ill and dying is an alarming example of how unintended consequences can and have followed from the simple desire to help those who suffer. (check out the Journal of Medical Ethics reference I made here)

--------------------
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
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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). It also legislates that patients have a right to execute an advance directive for instructions relating to medical care in the event the patient is unable to make those decisions him or herself. Like many things the federal government does, interpretation of the law was left to individual states.

So now we move to the state of Florida. Florida specifically recognizes, by law, three types of advance directives: a Living Will, which is a document outlining the types of treatment a patient does or does not want in the event of either a terminal condition, an end-stage condition or a persistent vegetative state; a Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare, which names another individual as the healthcare surrogate when a patient is incapacitated (be it temporarily or permanently); and an Anatomical Gift (i.e., donating your body to science).

A patient may verbally revoke or amend an advance directive at any time.

So when we talk about the Schiavo case, we are in essence talking about a verbal Living Will. Florida has outlined what a Living Will must contain if it is drafted in the state of Florida. Florida does honor Living Wills drafted in other states, provided they follow that state's guidelines. And believe me when I say that hospitals, hospices and other institutional providers know the ins and outs of every state's requirements, because failure on this point means you lose your Medicare and Medicaid certification as well was JCAHO accreditation. In other words, failure to follow the law is the kiss of death.

Anyway, Florida has legislated that yes, these are legal documents, and they provide not only for the specific conditions under which each one may be executed, but in the case of the Living Will, there is specific mention of artificial nutrition and hydration. Here is the state's version of the Living Will (it's page five of the document).

All of this is to say that there is no if or assuming. It IS the law.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

1. I think you mean "predicated".

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.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Ex-friggin'-actly.

It's only because we've got to such an advanced state with medical science that this is even an issue.

Kinda makes me wonder though. Why is it that none of the religious nutjobs pull the "playing God" card when we artificially extend life?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apparently the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an emergency petition from the Schindlers to reinsert the tube.

ABC News

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Go Anne Go

Amazonian Wonder
# 3519

 - Posted      Profile for Go Anne Go   Author's homepage   Email Go Anne Go   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They may have agreed to hear it, but odds are against their winning.

Didn't these people say they were giving up their legal options?

--------------------
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
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, you didn't answer my question. 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?

Would we have to provide all possible treatment? Would their next-of-kin be able to speak on their behalf? What the courts have to take on this role?

If you would not allow me to tell you what I want or don't want, then what is the alternative?

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trisagion

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.
I think Orthodox opinion pretty much lines up with this view. 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.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

With which I vehemently disagree. A feeding tube is, in fact, an extraordinary measure. Someone losing the ability to eat and drink is their body's way of saying "it's time to go."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235

 - Posted      Profile for Trisagion   Email Trisagion   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

There's nothing second-hand about it in the circumstances Gordon put forward. When someone is received into full Communion with the Catholic Church they have to say something along the lines of, "I believe, hold and teach all that the Catholic Church believes, holds and teaches to be true..." (Sorry for the inaccuracy of the quote but my copy of the Rites is at work and I'm at home). It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that someone who says that, actually means it. It is a public statement made before witnesses and would (in the circumstances outlined) involve a direct expression of wishes made in a prior Lving Will, if that Living Will (is there any other kind?) included statements about wishes, intentions or instructions which were contrary to anything that the Catholic Church believes, holds or teaches to be true. Whether an advance directive stipulating no ANH is such is quite another matter.

--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse

Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Pity God gave me this brain, if I'm not allowed to use it.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

FWIW, Alt Wally, I did talk to our priest about it at some length on Sunday. I was concerned about the statements, because my family did not consent to a feeding tube for my grandmother or my mother, and we discontinued a feeding tube for my father. After reading the statements, I was quite concerned.

He had not read the statement on the website, but thought that it applied only to the Schiavo case. Generally, he said, decisions about end-of-life care, including whether to initiate treatment, what treatment to permit, what to refuse, and so on and so forth, are made on a case-by-case basis, according to pastoral needs and the wishes of those involved.

He did say that providing food and water is different from other medical treatment, because of the specific blessings Jesus spoke to those who gave food and drink to the hungry and thirsty. For the sick, he didn't say, "Blessed are you who provided treatment" but "blessed are you who visited me," suggesting, to him, no obligation to treat, beyond providing nutrition and hydration.

But there are exceptions even for that. For example, if a monk were to refuse to be removed from the monastery to a hospital for treatment (including ANH), on the grounds that he had lived his life in the monastery, and wished to die there, that desire would be honored.

He felt that the decisions we made for my family members were appropriate, and within the bounds set by the church. My mother's wish to die at home rightly overrode taking her to the hospital for ANH. The fact that my father's body was shutting down, as was his mother's when she died, and the fact that both had strongly expressed the desire not to have their dying interfered with (my father having put that in writing), meant that not providing ANH was appropriate.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't see how an obligation to feed the hungry is relevant. Terri isn't hungry. She does not feel hunger.

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

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402

 - Posted      Profile for Weed     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Karl, I think this is very unhelpful. She is alive according to law and it is precisely because she is regarded as a living person that her wishes are being given effect to.

--------------------
Weed

Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261

 - Posted      Profile for Paige   Email Paige   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem, as I see it, is twofold. First, now that we have the technology to keep people alive, there are some who demand that we do so. Second, we as a culture are so absolutely obsessed with preventing death that we have lost all sense of proportion about the end of life.

Fifty years ago, Terri Schiavo would have died of the heart attack. The chances of her being revived from it would have been almost nil, and there would have been no option to feed her long-term, even if she had been revived.

That is why I have such trouble with this "duty to feed" issue. Terri Schiavo cannot eat on her own. In every age up to the last 30 years or so, she would have died quickly and quietly. And I cannot help but believe that would have been a mercy to her, to her husband, and to her family. She was kept alive merely because the technology exists, not because it was the best thing for her.

I think we have lost the capacity to deal with death. We fear it so much that we are willing to expend our last bit of money and energy to keep it at bay. I think that is sad, and rather a telling commentary on our trust in God.

I am NOT making an argument that we should start putting old or very sick people out of the way---but I am asking why we think we need to defeat death in a case like this?

As repulsive as many of us find the subject of money and human life, we live in a world of limited resources. It's all well and good to say "We must never count the cost of a human life," but we do it all the time, and we must. There simply is not enough money to keep a world full of people in PVS alive. And I think we have a duty, as good stewards, to at least contemplate the issue of who goes without the basic necessities of life because we cannot let go.

--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection

Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420

 - Posted      Profile for Newman's Own     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

I have no patience with 'religious nut jobs,' yet I rather wish someone would ask that question.

I have been reading this thread with sadness, and must admit that few matters of which I have read recently (or, perhaps, ever) have left me as totally puzzled and perplexed. 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.

I personally do not believe one ever has a moral obligation to use extraordinary measures. In fact, were (for example) a cancer patient, faced with that surgery and other therapies could extend his life, to decline those treatments is doing nothing wrong - and may indeed be making the best decision for himself. Why are Christians so terrified of death that life must be extended at all costs?

I can well understand that Rome would caution against seeing feeding as not being 'extraordinary' - I know well what it is to care for someone who is dying (and losing mental capacity), and, though I never would do this, can see where people might starve the elderly to death. But feeding when someone still can swallow, or when a tube might be used temporarily because another medical procedure hindered swallowing for a period, is a far different matter from this.

What is the bizarre logic here? (Rhetorical question.) Has the radical pro-life stance extended so that the syllogism seems to be: babies in the womb cannot survive outside of their mothers' bodies (at all, or without medical assistance in the late stages); abortion is wrong, and people who justify it do not think the unborn are human; therefore, anyone, of any age, who cannot survive must be placed on machines or they are being considered less than human and being murdered if they are taken off machines?!

I have been at the side of those who are dying - seen the involuntary movements and heard the sounds from their mouths (even when their minds no longer really function.) I do not know, but can only imagine, how painful it is to have one's child die, and could see that parents could delude themselves into believing that a child was still reacting to and communicating with them. But charity here would have been far better placed at helping the parents see the truth. (I would not imagine that watching a spouse die, over 15 years, would be terribly pleasant... good Lord, what her husband must have suffered, and the nut jobs are making him out to be a monster.)

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.

--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn

Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bartolomeo

Musical Engineer
# 8352

 - Posted      Profile for Bartolomeo   Email Bartolomeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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:

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.

It would appear that congressional leadership misread the public sentiment and was trying to divert attention from an ethics probe. Beyond that, I think it was a calculated political move, and that they thought that the people who oppose federal intervention will forget about it by the next election while the right-to-life people will not. I believe their calculations are in error.

--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase

Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

 - Posted      Profile for Erin   Author's homepage   Email Erin       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, the court just rejected the Schindlers' appeal, so maybe this is the beginning of the end of this whole sordid mess.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

This is why my friend, who is a priest, a physician, and a medical ethicist, doesn't like living wills, and much prefers a medical proxy, or medical power of attorney, or whatever it's called. He believes that, rather than spelling out which procedures you would or would not like to have, you're better off with a person who understands you, who can make the call based on a full understanding of your wishes, and a full understanding of the situation.

Before my father's final illness, he had stipulated that he didn't want a feeding tube, he did want treatment with antibiotics for infection should one occur, and he did want to receive medication to control the encephalopathy that could occur as a result of his underlying condition (medication that must be administered orally). Then he developed an infection, and at the same time developed encephalopathy which prevented him from swallowing or communicating. We couldn't ask him which took precedence, the desire to receive appropriate medication, or the desire not to have a feeding tube.

I understand that, with living wills, those sorts of difficulties regularly occur. Someone has to decide how to apply them, because life and death are not as simple as the piece of paper would lead one to believe.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026

 - Posted      Profile for Caz...   Email Caz...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We surely can't be far off of the end, at least of this stage, though it seems the aftermath may stretch on and on.

But for Terri, yes, the physical end must be in sight. And for that I thank God, and and so thankful for good sense prevailing over emotionalism amongst the judges.

Janine, y'know I usually love to read what you write, but your comments about Michael Shiavo's dedication or lack thereof to Terri left a really bad taste in my mouth. I can't think how he could have been a better husband to that woman these last 15 years than he has been. I couldn't let this thread finish without registering that.

--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard

Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just looking at one argument: I'm not sure that the "she would've died if this'd happened thirty years ago anyway" is either here or there in helping decide the ethics of this case. The feeding tube is hardly the latest and greatest in advanced and intrusive medical technology.

What's more, there is a reason why people don't just die the way they did, and it has to do with working really hard to find ways to keep them alive, because we think it really matters. So the "she would've died thirty years ago" argument cuts both ways, in that it shows how seriously we continue to take the idea of not just letting people die.

As for what this shows up about our views of the afterlife, this is a bit of a non-sequitur. Just because we think Christians might be better off in the life to come doesn't mean we go around tossing live handgrenades into packed churches. The ethically correct way to proceed has to be decided on other grounds doesn't it?

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?



One alternative to having a binding living will would be I suppose for the government to legislate that some third party, eg a spouse, or perhaps a defined group of family members who would have to be unanimous, to be given legal power to act (or not act) in the application of a written living will.

I'm arguing therefore that the right to patient self-determination is an important ethical issue but not the only one.

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

No, I don't question that in Florida the situation in this case is legally unambiguous. The "ifs and assumings" related to the possibility of similar cases in different jurisdictions, not even US ones necessarily.

I feel for all the parties involved in this situation; the unfolding legal and social consequences of this case are of as great concern, perhaps even more.

--------------------
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
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Terri Shaivo has died. May she and those who cared about her finally find some peace.

--------------------
“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
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026

 - Posted      Profile for Caz...   Email Caz...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
May the memory of her as she once was be eternal.

--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard

Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Campbellite

Ut unum sint
# 1202

 - Posted      Profile for Campbellite   Email Campbellite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Requiscat in pacem. [Votive]

--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?

Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools