Terri Shiavo

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 23 2005, 02:17 AM

In this case, I think the judge blew both calls. I tend not to buy late-in-the-game sudden late-in-the-game recollections of convenient facts, least of all when lawyers are involved. And if Terri's nurse wasn't lying when she testified Mr. Schiavo muttered "why won't the b**** just die", then his legal surrogacy should have ended right then and there.

PD,

I agree that the judge blew it big time. In your opinion, why do you think he failed to make the right decision?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Mar 23 2005, 06:17 AM

Yes, I believe that the U.S. civilization should have a vested interest in what happens in Terri’s case because this case will set precedence for others to come. Any one of us could be in Terri's position with the blink of an eye because brain injury is REAL and it happens to people every day. It is the reality of how easily this can happen to us or one of our loved ones which keeps most people in denial that it exists.

Strawberry,

Please explain the precedence that is being set.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 23 2005, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 23 2005, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Mar 23 2005, 06:17 AM

Yes, I believe that the U.S. civilization should have a vested interest in what happens in TerriÃÔ case because this case will set precedence for others to come. Any one of us could be in Terri's position with the blink of an eye because brain injury is REAL and it happens to people every day. It is the reality of how easily this can happen to us or one of our loved ones which keeps most people in denial that it exists.

Strawberry,

Please explain the precedence that is being set.

Snow,

You are a very smart man and I have never questioned that.

The precedence (did I use this word wrong or something?) being set here is pretty clear to me. Once this is allowed, I mean the ability for a corrupt man to murder his disabled wife, through the drawl of food, for his own selfish reasons. it will happen again. This case, from as far as I can tell, that is so unique it will be quoted for years to come.

I believe that Terri is being treated in a way that is barbaric (starvation) and I believe that it is even illegal to starve even a dog to death. If the courts believe that Terri is human, then why, oh why, would they allow for her to be starved to death?

I also believe that Michael wants his "beloved wife" to die because of what she could do to his life if she were ever to recover from this. Look at the facts, he either is a sadistic control freak, or has something to hide by not allowing Terri to recover...maybe both. You said that she had four years of rehab, could you show me where that information came from?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 23 2005, 08:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 23 2005, 08:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Mar 23 2005, 06:17 AM

Yes, I believe that the U.S. civilization should have a vested interest in what happens in Terri’s case because this case will set precedence for others to come. Any one of us could be in Terri's position with the blink of an eye because brain injury is REAL and it happens to people every day. It is the reality of how easily this can happen to us or one of our loved ones which keeps most people in denial that it exists.

Strawberry,

Please explain the precedence that is being set.

PD already explained that precident.

[StrawberryFields]

To the best of my knowledge, she is being feed through a tube because of her inability to swallow. For a short time Nick was also feed through a tube and it took a loy of therapy for him to be able to swallow again. If you have never witnessed someone who has lost that ability, and then had to go through extensive therapy to relearn something that we take for granted, it would be very difficult to understand.

When brain injury occurs, it is imperative that the injured person get therapy as quickly as possible. Failure to see that this happens is like writing a permanent disability sentence. Within a few days after awaking from his coma they had Nick up walking... of course with support. A few days later, he was placed in rehab and the real work began. They worked him for an average of six hours a day. Sure, not everyone will be as lucky as Nick, but it is a crime not to try.

[Amillia]

How many years has she been on it? And how much progress has she made? What quality of life does she have ~ and if she were able to just go home to the Lord, would she choose that over just laying there waiting for someone to pay attention to her?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 23 2005, 09:30 AM

How many years has she been on it? And how much progress has she made? What quality of life does she have ~ and if she were able to just go home to the Lord, would she choose that over just laying there waiting for someone to pay attention to her?

Excellent questions Amillia.

Any one of us could be in Terri's position with the blink of an eye because brain injury is REAL and it happens to people every day. It is the reality of how easily this can happen to us or one of our loved ones which keeps most people in denial that it exists.

SF - If you had the chance to swap bodies with Terri, would you? If you believe her brain injury is treatable and if you could, would you take her place?

It's easy to say Terri should keep living (if that's really what she is doing) because she is removed from all of us by not being us - she is the one going through this. We have no idea what her life is like, if you can call her ability to breathe, life. She has no quality of life, she's been like this for 15 years; if she keeps living what makes you think she won't spend another 15 years in this same vegetative state. Would you want to live that way?

M.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Maureen+Mar 23 2005, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Mar 23 2005, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Mar 23 2005, 09:30 AM

How many years has she been on it? And how much progress has she made? What quality of life does she have ~ and if she were able to just go home to the Lord, would she choose that over just laying there waiting for someone to pay attention to her?

Excellent questions Amillia.

Any one of us could be in Terri's position with the blink of an eye because brain injury is REAL and it happens to people every day. It is the reality of how easily this can happen to us or one of our loved ones which keeps most people in denial that it exists.

SF - If you had the chance to swap bodies with Terri, would you? If you believe her brain injury is treatable and if you could, would you take her place?

It's easy to say Terri should keep living (if that's really what she is doing) because she is removed from all of us by not being us - she is the one going through this. We have no idea what her life is like, if you can call her ability to breathe, life. She has no quality of life, she's been like this for 15 years; if she keeps living what makes you think she won't spend another 15 years in this same vegetative state. Would you want to live that way?

M.

I honestly think it is very selfish of those people who are trying to keep her in this condition. It certainly isn't for her. ~

[StrawberryFields]

Quote from Amillia.. How many years has she been on it? And how much progress has she made?

[

No one with a brain injury can make progress without treatment.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen@Mar 23 2005, 10:54 AM

SF - If you had the chance to swap bodies with Terri, would you? If you believe her brain injury is treatable and if you could, would you take her place?

It's easy to say Terri should keep living (if that's really what she is doing) because she is removed from all of us by not being us - she is the one going through this. We have no idea what her life is like, if you can call her ability to breathe, life. She has no quality of life, she's been like this for 15 years; if she keeps living what makes you think she won't spend another 15 years in this same vegetative state. Would you want to live that way?

M.

NO, I would not take her place. YES, I live with someone who has a brain injury and I have seen that it is a treatable condition. Her condition is not real to you because you apparently have not been close enough to see someone with a brain injury and get better with treatment.

I do not believe that Terri has had the chance to be rehabilited. The media has done a good job in pushing the real issue under the rug. The issue being that a human being who can not speak for herself, and who is disabled, can be murdered through starvation.

Sure, currently Terri¡Çs' position is bleak at best but give her a fighting chance. Take away the guardianship from her sadistic husband, give it to her parents, and see what happens.

If she is dies from starvation, we all loose and most Americans won't realize this until after the fact.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 23 2005, 11:06 AM

I honestly think it is very selfish of those people who are trying to keep her in this condition. It certainly isn't for her. ~

Think as you wish.

Sometimes it is just easier to turn a blind eye.

Her condition is the way it is because she has not been given proper treatment.

What do you think about Michael not allowing Terri¡Çs family to spend time with her while she dies this SLOW and PAINFUL Death?

Is letting her leave this earth by starvation and without treatment right for her?

[DisRuptive1]

We've seen that she really can't do anything but the basic functions (breathing, etc.). If she had any thought processes going on in her head, do you really think that she would want to continue living? Even patients who are bed ridden who have to stay in hospitals for all kinds of tests and such can't last that long. Even though they know the medicine is helping them stay alive, sometimes they choose not to. They choose to leave the hospital and at least "live" their life until it is finally time for them to go (such as when the cancer overwhelms them). Certainly they could have lived for another 5 or 10 years but they would have to do it in a hospital, always taking medicine that made their stomach hurt and what not.

But imagine what Terri has been thinking (assuming she COULD think). She's been sitting there for 15 years with the same expression on her face, drooling like crazy, and she can't say anything or show any physical sign that something is going on up there. She's probably bored with life, and is willing to let her husband finally put her to sleep.

Now I don't agree she should be starved to death. That's torture (imagine if she had the ability to feel and recognize the pain). But if the political people decide that she's going to die, at least do it in a humane way. We don't starve animals, we put them down. Starving Terri makes us believe she is less than an animal.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Mar 23 2005, 12:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Mar 23 2005, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Mar 23 2005, 11:06 AM

I honestly think it is very selfish of those people who are trying to keep her in this condition. It certainly isn't for her. ~

Think as you wish.

Sometimes it is just easier to turn a blind eye.

Her condition is the way it is because she has not been given proper treatment.

What do you think about Michael not allowing Terri¡Çs family to spend time with her while she dies this SLOW and PAINFUL Death?

Is letting her leave this earth by starvation and without treatment right for her?

I know there has been a lot of pain caused by her surviving ~ that much I do know.

[Amillia]

Now I don't agree she should be starved to death. That's torture (imagine if she had the ability to feel and recognize the pain). But if the political people decide that she's going to die, at least do it in a humane way. We don't starve animals, we put them down. Starving Terri makes us believe she is less than an animal.

I can't see why she has to be awake during this process ~ they could give her morphene or something to keep her sedated until she quiety passed away.

In all actuallity, I find it very disturbing that they have allowed this to go on for 15 years. I also believe many are using her situation to push forth their political and personal views ~ total rot I say!

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 23 2005, 01:15 PM

I know there has been a lot of pain caused by her surviving ~ that much I do know.

Pain cause by her surviving her brain injury? So if something it painful for others to see just look away or better yet kill them?

Since when did we become a nation and people so intolerant to people with a disability that it is just easier to have them dead?

[DisRuptive1]

It is easier to have people dead. It's too expensive to keep them locked up in jails or to have our tax dollars go towards keeping someone alive who will no longer contribute in any way to the human race. Actually the members of her family might go back to contributing as usual if they kill her, and let her parents grieve and mourn. After she's dead they won't devote so much time towards her which can better be used to helping the human race as a whole.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 23 2005, 12:37 PM

Now I don't agree she should be starved to death. That's torture (imagine if she had the ability to feel and recognize the pain). But if the political people decide that she's going to die, at least do it in a humane way. We don't starve animals, we put them down. Starving Terri makes us believe she is less than an animal.

Disruptive,

You have made some very good remarks here.

If Terri was to be unaware of what is happening to her I believe that her spirit would have had to leave her body. I believe that she knows what is happening to her because her spirit is still with her.

I also believe that the government has chosen to send the message that those with disabilities can be killed in this manner because they are less then animals.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 23 2005, 04:54 PM

It is easier to have people dead. It's too expensive to keep them locked up in jails or to have our tax dollars go towards keeping someone alive who will no longer contribute in any way to the human race. Actually the members of her family might go back to contributing as usual if they kill her, and let her parents grieve and mourn. After she's dead they won't devote so much time towards her which can better be used to helping the human race as a whole.

Sad, but true in many ways.

Terri did not commit a crime though!

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen@Mar 23 2005, 10:54 AM

It's easy to say Terri should keep living (if that's really what she is doing) because she is removed from all of us by not being us - she is the one going through this. We have no idea what her life is like, if you can call her ability to breathe, life. She has no quality of life, she's been like this for 15 years; if she keeps living what makes you think she won't spend another 15 years in this same vegetative state. Would you want to live that way?

M.

I don't believe that I answered Maureen¡Çs question about what I would want if I were Terri.

* I would want and expect treatment and then rehab for my injuries so that I had a fighting chance to get well

* I would want the government to see what is in my best interest if my legal guardian becomes corrupt and self motivated to find my parents as suitable replacements in this case.

*I would NEVER want the government to kill me, and claim it to be legal because I became a nuisance to my husband and society.

She is still a human being even though she isn't being treated as such.

[StrawberryFields]

Lastly, I have made a promise to my family that I need to keep. Spring Break has arrived to our neck of the woods and I will be away from the computer with my family so I will be unable to comment.

I know, I know, you will all be on the edge of your seats for my return.

Terri could very well be gone next time I get by a computer but I hope not. It is no secret that I am outraged by the total disregard to help this woman get treatment and be tested. I have included in previous posts, within this thread, links to information from experts indicating that she can be helped in improving her condition. The reason why she has not improved thus far is because Michael would not allow it.

[Outshined]

I have to say I haven't been this sick of hearing a subject beaten to death since the OJ trial. Everyone is an expert on the subject, everyone has an opinion.

Of course, the Jackson trial hasn't really heated up yet.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 23 2005, 05:33 PM

I have to say I haven't been this sick of hearing a subject beaten to death since the OJ trial. Everyone is an expert on the subject, everyone has an opinion.

Of course, the Jackson trial hasn't really heated up yet.

And OJ got away with what?

M U R D E R

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Mar 23 2005, 08:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Mar 23 2005, 08:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 23 2005, 09:41 AM

Strawberry,

Please explain the precedence that is being set.

Snow,

The precedence (did I use this word wrong or something?) being set here is pretty clear to me. Once this is allowed, I mean the ability for a corrupt man to murder his disabled wife, through the drawl of food, for his own selfish reasons. it will happen again. This case, from as far as I can tell, that is so unique it will be quoted for years to come.

The precedence, you believe, is that from this point on corrupt men will be allowed to murder their disabled wives?

I am not a lawyer (although I play one on TV) but I can legitimately tell you that that is insane thought. It will always be illegal to murder wives, disabled or not. No offense to you personally, it's the idea that's nonsense.

Besides that - that you have to charge that he is a murderer indicates a bit of corruption on your part. It's better to make your case honestly.

[Snow]

So I heard on the News today more propoganda.

Gov. Bush says that a neurologist now claims that Terri is probably not in a persistent vegatative state but rather a semi-conscious type state.

False.

That is not what the neurologist said. The neurologist (a member of a Christian ethics board) who DID NOT examine Terri but did sit in her room for 90 minutes said that he observed nothing in Terri that indicates she is conscious but that he got the sense that they was a living sentient being there.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Mar 23 2005, 07:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Mar 23 2005, 07:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 23 2005, 02:17 AM

In this case, I think the judge blew both calls.  I tend not to buy late-in-the-game sudden late-in-the-game recollections of convenient facts, least of all when lawyers are involved.  And if Terri's nurse wasn't lying when she testified Mr. Schiavo muttered "why won't the b**** just die", then his legal surrogacy should have ended right then and there.

PD,

I agree that the judge blew it big time. In your opinion, why do you think he failed to make the right decision?

1. I think Mr. Schiavo's sudden recollection of Terri's "wishes" not to be kept alive is not credible.

2. I think Mr. Schiavo has enough conflicts of interest with respect to what happens to Terri, especially now that he's moved on with his life, that he should have been relieved as legal guardian.

3. I think the court made up its mind that Terri was PVS in the first hearing, and like most judges, refused to take a second look.

4. I think that no matter what the law provides, in this case the law is wrong. As between a nominal husband of five years who is now living with another person, and devoted parents, the parties with the stronger moral claim to act for Terri are her parents.

As for the people who've made variations on the "would you really want to live like that" -- that's an argument that the legal presumption in these cases should be that a minimally conscious person would want to die. Without any exception that I'm aware of, though, the legal presumption in every state is just the opposite -- that the person would want to continue medical treatment, a presumption that must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the "she MUST have wanted to die" argument isn't particularly relevant here; the time to make that argument would have been before the state legislature when the presumption was established. Since a presumption in favor of death was rejected, it can't be used as evidence of what Terri would have wanted.

Would I want to live in Terri's state? Obviously not. I wouldn't have wanted to cut my knuckle near to the bone Saturday trying to fix the dent some jerk put in my dear Tacoma, but I did. All things being equal, I'd rather be alive, healthy and conscious.

Given the choice between dying and lingering in a twilight state, I think I'd hope to be killed outright. "Rage against the dying of the light" only goes so far as advice; at some point, the light is so dim you might as well not bother. But there's an independent variable here: Terri's parents. If I knew that in lingering in some marginally conscious state, the people I love would be happier than the would be if I were dead and buried (as apparently Terri's parents derive some comfort from having Terri at least partly with them) I think I would choose Terri's position, especially if I knew I wouldn't know the difference. Give me the full "Weekend at Bernie's" treatment, if it makes my family happy; what does a vegetable care about what happens to its body for the short time before it's turned over to the worms, who'll surely treat it much worse?

I think what captures people's attention here is that the law is marching coldly and rationally (according to its lights) forward, ignoring the pain it's causing to parents who I think it's clear love Terri more than her nominal husband, and ignoring the plain fact that it's starving somebody's daughter to death against their wishes.