Terri Shiavo

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 05:17 PM

I'd rather be shot in the head than die through starvation. At least the gun makes it quick and less painless.

Of course, so would I.

But rather than living decades of the rest of my life brain dead, I would prefer the temporary pain of starving to death over several days...and hope that they would medicate me so I would sleep and not feel any pain.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 24 2005, 06:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 24 2005, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 05:17 PM

I'd rather be shot in the head than die through starvation.  At least the gun makes it quick and less painless.

Of course, so would I.

But rather than living decades of the rest of my life brain dead, I would prefer the temporary pain of starving to death over several days...and hope that they would medicate me so I would sleep and not feel any pain.

I SO agree!

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2005, 10:43 AM

As I said before, if my existence as Terri exists gave comfort to people I loved, then I'd choose life as Terri exists. Why not? -- it's not like I'd be conscious enough to care either way. Stuff me and prop me up in the coat closet, for all I care.

That sounds a bit at odds with your part of your earlier argument about the value of human life. If life is sacred, then reducing it to something worth preserving because it is roughly equivalent to a warm, albeit breathing, blanket cheapens it somehow.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Mar 24 2005, 02:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Mar 24 2005, 02:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 04:20 PM

Her spirit doesn't have a working body that can feel or think properly.

I disagree, her spirit know that she is being murdered. Our spirits are the only part of us which is eternal.

Come on Strawberry. You know good darned and well that it is not murder. You only use it as an emotional battering ram, seemingly because your argument doesn't stand on it's own.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Mar 24 2005, 01:24 PM

Sure, I may be somewhat corrupted by passion with this MURDER Case. Yes I do believe that Terri¡Çs sadistic husband wants her dead before if she is to be rehabilited and recall what has happened to cause her injury his lovely life will be over. He will be sent to prison. I believe that he is holding control and not allowing MRI's and bone scans because of what they will show. She was preparing to leave him right before she was injured. Michael¡Çs current girlfriend was silenced when she told others that He (Michael) made up the lies that he is telling about Terri's wishes not to live.

There is more but I am holding up my family so I need go soon.

You've gone fruity Strawberry. Let's get a grip shall we.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 24 2005, 10:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 24 2005, 10:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2005, 10:43 AM

As I said before, if my existence as Terri exists gave comfort to people I loved, then I'd choose life as Terri exists.  Why not? -- it's not like I'd be conscious enough to care either way.  Stuff me and prop me up in the coat closet, for all I care. 

That sounds a bit at odds with your part of your earlier argument about the value of human life. If life is sacred, then reducing it to something worth preserving because it is roughly equivalent to a warm, albeit breathing, blanket cheapens it somehow.

You may have a point. My "prop me up in the coat closet" and "Weekend at Bernie's" references were a bit flippant. I think what I'm trying to say is that from my hypothetical perspective as a permanently unconscious person, what happens to my body is really no skin off my nose.

I don't think Terri's parents think of her as a living security blanket, which would cheapen the idea of life. Rather,they apparently think -- misguided though they may be -- that there is something left of Terri in the shell of her body, and they cling to what remains, directing their love to that tragic remnant for the precise reason that they believe it is at least something of the person they loved when she was whole. They think that what remains of Terri is still something towards which parental love may be directed.

I don't think the emotion of the Schindler's parental love for their daughter has changed, as would be the case if what we had were something pathological and objectifying like, as you put it, a view by the Schindlers of Terri as a warm, breathing blanket. Unless their love for their daughter were that one-sided, objectifying, and selfish when she was alive (as some parents' "love" for even their healthy children may well be), unless there has been some fundamental change in the way the Schindlers feel, it's not that one-sided or objectifying now.

What is present is at worst a misplaced virtue -- parental love being directed at an object that has ceased to be a proper subject for it. I can't bring myself to judge the Schindlers for not being convinced of this -- they seem to be simple people, and reading what I've written is awfully dry and philosophical -- not the kind of thing that would likely resonate with someone so involved in the emotions of the situation. They apparently feel that what they're doing is right. I'm nowhere near confident enough in my abstract reasoning as to what quantum of brain activity constitutes "life" to tell them they're wrong.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 21 2005, 10:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 21 2005, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 21 2005, 10:10 PM

That's the issue, not whether those in her condition should have there lives terminated, but rather can families make their own decisions.

Rather--can the spouse make the decision over the objections of the rest of the family. The majority of her family wants her to live.

Absolutely, the spouse is the one who takes precedence over the birth family. Legally, marriage makes you repsonsible to and FOR the other; spiritually, marriage entails the moral obligation to look out for the interests of your spouse AS IF YOU WERE ONE FLESH. The marital relationship trumps that of the parents every time!

I completely agree with Snow on this one.

The law allows Mr. Schiavo the responsibility and right to determine his wife's wishes. The law has been tested on his right and on what Terri might wish and has determined Mr. Schiavo can request the feeding tube be removed.

Congress and the Prez have attempted to interfere with THE LAW on this issue and subvert Mr. Schiavo's rights and responsibilities as the HUSBAND. This is plain wrong and political football at it's worst. This decision is rightfully seen by the courts as belonging in the family realm as a personal and private matter. The parents have had their arguments heard and decided against.

All of us who have been married know they have confided personal wishes and feelings in private intimate conversations in the marital bed that may never have been expressed to parents. A parent can not be the one to act, it must be the spouse, as they are the ones presumed to be the intimate confidants and keeper of secret desires and wishes. They are the ones presumed to KNOW and to act for each other by proxy.

I would NEVER want my spouse to divorce me and give me over to what my parents might THINK I wanted if they disagreed. I would trust that he would vigorously oppose EVEN MY PARENTS in seeing that my wishes would be carried out. I would expect that he would exhaust every rational path first, but then to follow through and let me goif no hope remained.

Then, I would want him to go on living his life, I would want him to find love again, I would want him to spend any $ on HIMSELF and having a good life. Life is short, no need to squander $ and time on an unresponsive uncaring body. LET IT GO!

As a parent, the mere idea of the death of any of my children squeezes my heart so terribly that I can't help but be sympathetic to the Schindlers, me heart aches at their pain. However, the political exploitation of their anger and grief has been shameful and I can't help but feel has made if impossible for them to come to grips over the reality of Terri's condition and let her go.

The Randall's and Bo's and the right to lifers and the conservative Republican Right have homed in like vultures, using Terri as a pawn to further their own agendas. This makes me sick. No wonder Mr. Schiavo is indignant and angry. I would be if I was him!

I trust the courts and the doctors have come to the correct conlcusion and that Mr. Schiavo is acting on behalf of Terri's wishes. I would prefer that Congress stay out of private family decisions.

[Guest bizabra]

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

Originally posted by -Snow@Mar 23 2005, 09:41 AM

<!--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?

Obviously, the many and varied COURTS OF LAW that have reviewed this case year after year have not come to the conclusion that Mr. Schiavo is the murderous demon you believe he is. And I think the Court has heard a great deal more information and evidence, both pro and con, in this case than you have, so I trust the judgement of the Court over that of you, SF, private citizen.

Are you really saying that the Courts are in some sort of conspiracy to aid and abet a murderous husband? That they are actively allowing him to "get away" with literally the murder of his wife?

BTW, when a person dies of natural causes, they eventually stop eating and drinking all on their own, in effect "starving" themselves to death. Apparently this is a painless process. The brain produces opiates in it's starved and dehydrated state, and hunger pangs are not felt. People often become lucid and clear in their thoughts the first few days of their ending nutrition and water, but will gradually slip away into a peacefull dreamlike state as the organs stop functioning properly in the absence of nutrition/ water.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Biz -- I trust the courts generally to follow procedures correctly, which I believe they have done in this case. I trust them far less as finders of fact. My experience with courts has been that when there is substantial evidence on both sides of a question, a court is only slightly better at finding the actual truth than a coin flip would be. And that's when there's a full adversarial process, with zealous representation on both sides. That was not the case here.

I'd be very surprised if any large number of the tube-pullers accepted certain other judicial findings with the degree of certainty they're accepting Mr. Schiavo's story. Take the Warren Report, for example.

Of course the right-to-lifers are vultures in this case. I find that events like this tend to reflect poorly on pretty much everyone. But I take a dim view of humanity generally.

Are you really saying that the Courts are in some sort of conspiracy to aid and abet a murderous husband? That they are actively allowing him to "get away" with literally the murder of his wife?

Doesn't need to be a conspiracy. All it takes is for a judge to share many people's assumption that "no one in her right mind" would want to live like Terri exists (even though the law presumes otherwise) and surprise, surprise -- the court's factual determinations result in an outcome that reflects that assumption.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Making several of my points:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-e...t-steyn271.html

[StrawberryFields]

I'm back aren't you glad? B)

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 28 2005, 04:46 PM

Making several of my points:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-e...t-steyn271.html

Thanks for the link, PD. It made me think about this in another way than I have been. I feel a bit less certain about my conclusions, the writer did shed another light on this for me and given me some new food for thought. He is showing a more gentle shade of gray, rather than the stark black and white this situation is portrayed.

Thanks again, it's good to have a different perspective offered, esp. one that is measured and coherent.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 24 2005, 11:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 24 2005, 11:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Mar 24 2005, 02:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 04:20 PM

Her spirit doesn't have a working body that can feel or think properly.

I disagree, her spirit know that she is being murdered. Our spirits are the only part of us which is eternal.

Come on Strawberry. You know good darned and well that it is not murder. You only use it as an emotional battering ram, seemingly because your argument doesn't stand on it's own.

Snow,

I thought that I had already explained why I feel that she is being murdered but I will try again.

1. Her HUSBAND wants her dead because if he was to ever be forced to get her REHAB (still waiting for you to show me that she has ever received anything substantial in rehab) she would be able to give information about HOW she came to be brain damaged.

2. Her HUSBAND wants her dead so that he can carry on with HIS OWN LIFE unburdened by her.

3. Her HUSBAND is a sadistic control freak who NOW wants her remains cremated even through it goes against HER religious beliefs.

4. The COURTS are not educated in what it takes to recover from a TBI and so they are blinded like so many other people. They view her life as something not worth saving when she has been denied the one thing that will help her get better and that is THERAPY.

NO, Terri can not speak for herself. Terri has had a Tracheotomy at some point in her illness. When someone has had one of these, THERAPY is the only way that they will ever be able to swallow food again or even to speak. Terri has been denied the therapy needed to help her to be able to eat again on her own. The reason she has had a feeding tube is because she can not swallow. Yes, these are the reasons why I consider the with holding of food to be murder in Terri¡Çs condition.

I hope that this has become clearer for you this time.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by bizabra@Mar 27 2005, 02:58 PM

Obviously, the many and varied COURTS OF LAW that have reviewed this case year after year have not come to the conclusion that Mr. Schiavo is the murderous demon you believe he is. And I think the Court has heard a great deal more information and evidence, both pro and con, in this case than you have, so I trust the judgement of the Court over that of you, SF, private citizen.

Are you really saying that the Courts are in some sort of conspiracy to aid and abet a murderous husband? That they are actively allowing him to "get away" with literally the murder of his wife?

BTW, when a person dies of natural causes, they eventually stop eating and drinking all on their own, in effect "starving" themselves to death. Apparently this is a painless process. The brain produces opiates in it's starved and dehydrated state, and hunger pangs are not felt. People often become lucid and clear in their thoughts the first few days of their ending nutrition and water, but will gradually slip away into a peacefull dreamlike state as the organs stop functioning properly in the absence of nutrition/ water.

Hello Biz,

I believe the OJ also got away with the murder of his wife, and the courts also allowed a murderer to walk free then.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by bizabra@Mar 27 2005, 02:58 PM

BTW, when a person dies of natural causes, they eventually stop eating and drinking all on their own, in effect "starving" themselves to death. Apparently this is a painless process. The brain produces opiates in it's starved and dehydrated state, and hunger pangs are not felt. People often become lucid and clear in their thoughts the first few days of their ending nutrition and water, but will gradually slip away into a peacefull dreamlike state as the organs stop functioning properly in the absence of nutrition/ water.

Biz,

I have witnessed a person dying. I have seen them turn away food and water and I have been educated that it is the bodies own way of shutting down. To feed a person when the organs have begun to shut down only confuses the body and is cruel.

Terri is not in this same category because there IS or WAS something that could have made her life better that she was denied. Terri was denied therapy and rehab by her legal guardian...her husband.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Mar 28 2005, 09:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Mar 28 2005, 09:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Mar 24 2005, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Mar 24 2005, 02:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 24 2005, 04:20 PM

Her spirit doesn't have a working body that can feel or think properly.

I disagree, her spirit know that she is being murdered. Our spirits are the only part of us which is eternal.

Come on Strawberry. You know good darned and well that it is not murder. You only use it as an emotional battering ram, seemingly because your argument doesn't stand on it's own.

Snow,

I thought that I had already explained why I feel that she is being murdered but I will try again.

1. Her HUSBAND wants her dead because if he was to ever be forced to get her REHAB (still waiting for you to show me that she has ever received anything substantial in rehab) she would be able to give information about HOW she came to be brain damaged.

2. Her HUSBAND wants her dead so that he can carry on with HIS OWN LIFE unburdened by her.

3. Her HUSBAND is a sadistic control freak who NOW wants her remains cremated even through it goes against HER religious beliefs.

4. The COURTS are not educated in what it takes to recover from a TBI and so they are blinded like so many other people. They view her life as something not worth saving when she has been denied the one thing that will help her get better and that is THERAPY.

NO, Terri can not speak for herself. Terri has had a Tracheotomy at some point in her illness. When someone has had one of these, THERAPY is the only way that they will ever be able to swallow food again or even to speak. Terri has been denied the therapy needed to help her to be able to eat again on her own. The reason she has had a feeding tube is because she can not swallow. Yes, these are the reasons why I consider the with holding of food to be murder in Terri¡Çs condition.

I hope that this has become clearer for you this time.

Could you make that any clearer, SF? I'm still a little confused.

[StrawberryFields]

If nothing else I hope that my rants on this topic will educate others in the fact that any one of us, at any moment, may become brain injured. Anyone who has been hit on the head enough to "see stars" can be considered brain injured. the outside of our skulls are smooth but the inside, they part that come in contact with our brain is jagged and sharp. Shaking a baby is very dangerous because the baby¡Çs brain is tossed back and forth on these sharp and jagged shards on the inside of our skull. Brain injuries when slight build upon each other. A damaged brain does not regenerate, it only develops new paths. Have you ever thought about why boxers or football players get forced into retirement? Many of them get told that it could be the very next hit that will PERMANTLY change their lives.

As a society, we have been very callus when it comes to people with brain injuries. We term them a vegetable or possibly even call them brain dead. Having a son who recently was struck in the head and almost killed, I have hopefully forever, changed these terms in my vocabulary to brain injured. Nick has a traumatic brain injury and I have personally witnessed him change from a child in a coma to someone who can do many of the things he could do before the accident just 8 months ago. Therapy has been one of Nick¡Çs saving elements. As you have seen from the CT scan I posted previously his injuries are extensive. I will be the first to say that every condition is different but to have DENIED Nick therapy would have stopped his progress and I believe that he would have been very disabled. I don¡Çt see how he could have walked or talked. He certainly would NOT be doing the things that he is able to do today. If we would have denied Nick therapy early on in the healing process we would have been signing him a sentence to be totally dependant on us for his every need. I see no other reason for Michael to deny Terri rehab but to keep her silenced.

[StrawberryFields]

I agree that I am no writer.

http://www.theempirejournal.com/53209_schi...ngled_web_o.htm

[Snow]

Strawberry,

Snow,

I thought that I had already explained why I feel that she is being murdered but I will try again.

A standard definition of murder is "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being."

Even the Supreme Court of the United States agree that allowing Terri Schiavo to die is legal.

1. Her HUSBAND wants her dead because if he was to ever be forced to get her REHAB (still waiting for you to show me that she has ever received anything substantial in rehab) she would be able to give information about HOW she came to be brain damaged.

Are we all idiots Strawberry? That you can invent in your head that Michael Schiavo tried to kill Terri does not make it so, any more than me imagining that I scored 56 points against Michael Jordan in the NBA Finals makes that real.

I can prove anything, including that the earth is flat resting on the bosom Kate Smith and that the four winds are caused by her singing America The Beautiful if you accept whatever invention my mind can create.

2. Her HUSBAND wants her dead so that he can carry on with HIS OWN LIFE unburdened by her.

Her death is not required form him to carry on with his own life. The only thing required for him to carry on is for him to carry on.

3. Her HUSBAND is a sadistic control freak who NOW wants her remains cremated even through it goes against HER religious beliefs.

...and, (for the sake of argumen) you are a bearded but attractive papaya thief who chases after moving cars and sailors when she is not serving time for arson and illegal tatooing. Again, me, or you, saying it don't make it true.

4. The COURTS are not educated in what it takes to recover from a TBI and so they are blinded like so many other people.

The courts are as capable of listening to competing arguments and deciding the merits as anyone. In fact, more competent since that is what they do for a living. They are at least as competent as you but you act like your opinion is superior to theirs.

They view her life as something not worth saving when she has been denied the one thing that will help her get better and that is THERAPY.

That's another invention of your imagination. You have no idea whether the courts view her life as this or that or any such thing. The courts are ruling on the rights of Terri as expressed by her legal guardian. Period, that's it. There has no ruling about the value of Terri's life.

NO, Terri can not speak for herself. Terri has had a Tracheotomy at some point in her illness. When someone has had one of these, THERAPY is the only way that they will ever be able to swallow food again or even to speak. Terri has been denied the therapy needed to help her to be able to eat again on her own. The reason she has had a feeding tube is because she can not swallow. Yes, these are the reasons why I consider the with holding of food to be murder in Terri¡Çs condition.

It is a matter of public knowledge that Terri got nearly four years of rehab. Do a google and you can find out in 30 seconds. Regardless of the reason she has a feeding tube, it is her brain, not the tube, that is the issue. If her brain worked, then none of this would be an issue. And regardless, you are still misusing the word "murder."

I hope that this has become clearer for you this time.

It has always been clear to me what your opinion is but, respectfully (I really do respect and like you Strawberry) your reasoning is most cloudy on this one.

[begood2]

SF,

Yes I have missed you. I have enjoyed reading your post concerning Terri Shiavo. I have also read some of the articles in the websites you have referred to.

Several people have expressed the view that they would not want to trade places with Terri, ... that life would not be worth living in that state. I don't know that I would want to trade places with her either, but on the other hand I don't know that I would have wanted to trade places with Chtistopher Reeve either.Different injuries yes, but his case was just as hopeless a few short years ago.

You might say that he didn' t live very long after his accident though. But in this short time that he had left he became a symbol to millions of people both those with disabilities and those without disabilities that there was hope, there is always hope in what tomorrow can bring.

I'm not talking about God intervening directly either. God has given humans a brain ... a great gift that he can use to the betterment of mankind.

Great advances are being made in medicine everyday. Future spinal cord injuries will be able to make use of and build upon the knowledge that was achieved in treating Mr. Reeve ... till someday his condition will be curable. After reading some of SF's post I wonder if Terri received the best care , diagnosis of her condition and treatments that all patients deserve as human beings. Remember the medical team that originally treated Terri, fumbled the ball ... maybe the second medical team that had to step up to the line and pick up the pieces after Terri's tragic collapse also fumbled the ball with a mis-diagnosis of the extent of her treatable or untreatable brain condition.

If you follow SF's website threads there were about 30 highly specialized brain neorologist with qualifications equal too and exceeding the (doctors's qualifications that came up with PVS as a diagnosis ), that wanted to examine Terri because they were not sure that there had been a correct diagnosis. Some of these doctors also felt that through proper therapy Terri's quality of life could be greatly enhanced. Why did the husband not allow a lot of medical testing after 1993, when he won his malpractice lawsuit? Not even an MRI?

All human beings are endowed with inalienable rights to life. Terri does not have the means to make her intentions known. We don't really know what she would have wanted. She didn't have a living will, no advance directives or durable power of attorney. The only thing the judge had to go on was the recollections of her husband and his relatives ... Terri's relatives (parents) had the opposite recollection.

How do we know that the husband has not confused his wishes with what her wishes would have been? I find it strange that for several years, Michael and his inlaw's both wanted Terri kept alive. When Michael files a medical malpractice lawsuit in 1992, he wants the money to be used to treat his wife. After winning the lawsuit ... his recollection of his wife's wishes came to him! He also lives with another woman now and has had children with her ... could this cloud his recollection? The money from the lawsuit is basically gone, he was offered one million dollars by one individual and 10 million by another to just walk away so it cann't be about the money right? How about book rights, tv & movie rights, insurance policies. Also if the conservative pro-right, pro-lifers offered him money to walk away, what makes you so sure that the pro-choicers , euthanasia mind crowd haven't also offered an equal amount if it weren't broadcast to the public.

Terri is a symbol in the battle over life and death issues that confront us. Some people believe that life evolved by pure chance in a random universe. They don't think that there is a purpose for living here on Earth except to eat, sleep and have fun because when you die that's it.

There are other people however that believe that there is a God that created us and has a purpose for us all in every circumstance. They believe that all human life is sacred and should be defended. Remeber Terri is not dead ... she is a living, breathing human being. Some call her a vegetable but no one really knows for sure what is going on inside this woman's head only God knows.

Oh yes, this case shows the value of living wills but I wonder if we haven't also opened a can of worms and started on the slippery slope that Jenda mentioned? Who is to say what quality of life should be saved? as our resources become more scarce maybe we won't need SS, I'd hate to think that when I'm no longer contributing to the work force that I'm of no value and have no useful purpose to continue living and draining these scarce resources off. I would hate to be told that children or adults below a certain IQ level would not be able to experience a meaningful quality of life and therefore shouldn't be allowed to live and be a burden on society.

On the 8th day that food & water had been denied Terri, Michael's lawyer talked to the media and said that Terri looked the most beautiful and at peace that he had ever seen her! Yeah, right I'm sure he never lies. I would like to figuritively withhold food and water from this lawyer and ( judge Greer who three times did an unbiased fact finding in this case), and see if they looked the most beautiful and at peace that I had ever seen them! What an inhumane way to die! Of course the lawyer was trying to say that in Terri's case there was no awareness, no one home in her body to feel or know what was happening to her but only God knows this. So why then the rush to have her die?

This very judge that gave her not once but three times this barbaric death sentence would have his ruling over turned and quite possibly loose his judgeship if he would have sentenced the most vicious, mass murder, rapist and hideous criminal to ever walk the face of the earth to death by starvation. What crime did Terri commit? The president can and does pardon criminals but in Terri's case, since she is not a criminal ... it would be a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers to interfere.

[Snow]

Originally posted by begood2@Mar 29 2005, 12:55 AM

How do we know that the husband has not confused his wishes with what her wishes would have been? I find it strange that for several years, Michael and his inlaw's both wanted Terri kept alive. When Michael files a medical malpractice lawsuit in 1992, he wants the money to be used to treat his wife. After winning the lawsuit ... his recollection of his wife's wishes came to him! He also lives with another woman now and has had children with her ... could this cloud his recollection?

This is such a load of bunk. You people fabricate nonsense in your mind and then spout it as if it were a simple matter of fact.

How on earth do you know that prior to 92 he had no recollection of his wife's wishes?

Answer: You don't. You invented that detail because you think it supports your position, or maybe makes you seem informed er something.

Here my little rule of thumb, admittedly not a perfect guide but the validity of a position can be guessed by the number of crazies that flock to support it, (like the nuts trying to break in and give Terri water) or by the amount of dishonesty the proponents inject into it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by begood2@Mar 29 2005, 12:55 AM

This very judge that gave her not once but three times this barbaric death sentence would have his ruling over turned and quite possibly loose his judgeship if he would have sentenced the most vicious, mass murder, rapist and hideous criminal to ever walk the face of the earth to death by starvation. What crime did Terri commit? The president can and does pardon criminals but in Terri's case, since she is not a criminal ... it would be a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers to interfere.

Golly, look, more of the same.

The judge sentenced no one to nothing. You fabricated that little twisting of the truth because, I can only guess, you can't make your argument honestly. The judge upheld the legal guardian's right to make private health care decision. That is hardly sentencing someone to something.

Like I said, the validity of a position...

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by begood2@Mar 29 2005, 02:55 AM

SF,

Yes I have missed you. I have enjoyed reading your post concerning Terri Shiavo. I have also read some of the articles in the websites you have referred to.

Several people have expressed the view that they would not want to trade places with Terri, ... that life would not be worth living in that state. I don't know that I would want to trade places with her either, but on the other hand I don't know that I would have wanted to trade places with Chtistopher Reeve either.Different injuries yes, but his case was just as hopeless a few short years ago.

You might say that he didn' t live very long after his accident though. But in this short time that he had left he became a symbol to millions of people both those with disabilities and those without disabilities that there was hope, there is always hope in what tomorrow can bring.

I'm not talking about God intervening directly either. God has given humans a brain ... a great gift that he can use to the betterment of mankind.

Great advances are being made in medicine everyday. Future spinal cord injuries will be able to make use of and build upon the knowledge that was achieved in treating Mr. Reeve ... till someday his condition will be curable. After reading some of SF's post I wonder if Terri received the best care , diagnosis of her condition and treatments that all patients deserve as human beings. Remember the medical team that originally treated Terri, fumbled the ball ... maybe the second medical team that had to step up to the line and pick up the pieces after Terri's tragic collapse also fumbled the ball with a mis-diagnosis of the extent of her treatable or untreatable brain condition.

If you follow SF's website threads there were about 30 highly specialized brain neorologist with qualifications equal too and exceeding the (doctors's qualifications that came up with PVS as a diagnosis ), that wanted to examine Terri because they were not sure that there had been a correct diagnosis. Some of these doctors also felt that through proper therapy Terri's quality of life could be greatly enhanced. Why did the husband not allow a lot of medical testing after 1993, when he won his malpractice lawsuit? Not even an MRI?

All human beings are endowed with inalienable rights to life. Terri does not have the means to make her intentions known. We don't really know what she would have wanted. She didn't have a living will, no advance directives or durable power of attorney. The only thing the judge had to go on was the recollections of her husband and his relatives ... Terri's relatives (parents) had the opposite recollection.

How do we know that the husband has not confused his wishes with what her wishes would have been? I find it strange that for several years, Michael and his inlaw's both wanted Terri kept alive. When Michael files a medical malpractice lawsuit in 1992, he wants the money to be used to treat his wife. After winning the lawsuit ... his recollection of his wife's wishes came to him! He also lives with another woman now and has had children with her ... could this cloud his recollection? The money from the lawsuit is basically gone, he was offered one million dollars by one individual and 10 million by another to just walk away so it cann't be about the money right? How about book rights, tv & movie rights, insurance policies. Also if the conservative pro-right, pro-lifers offered him money to walk away, what makes you so sure that the pro-choicers , euthanasia mind crowd haven't also offered an equal amount if it weren't broadcast to the public.

Terri is a symbol in the battle over life and death issues that confront us. Some people believe that life evolved by pure chance in a random universe. They don't think that there is a purpose for living here on Earth except to eat, sleep and have fun because when you die that's it.

There are other people however that believe that there is a God that created us and has a purpose for us all in every circumstance. They believe that all human life is sacred and should be defended. Remeber Terri is not dead ... she is a living, breathing human being. Some call her a vegetable but no one really knows for sure what is going on inside this woman's head only God knows.

Oh yes, this case shows the value of living wills but I wonder if we haven't also opened a can of worms and started on the slippery slope that Jenda mentioned? Who is to say what quality of life should be saved? as our resources become more scarce maybe we won't need SS, I'd hate to think that when I'm no longer contributing to the work force that I'm of no value and have no useful purpose to continue living and draining these scarce resources off. I would hate to be told that children or adults below a certain IQ level would not be able to experience a meaningful quality of life and therefore shouldn't be allowed to live and be a burden on society.

On the 8th day that food & water had been denied Terri, Michael's lawyer talked to the media and said that Terri looked the most beautiful and at peace that he had ever seen her! Yeah, right I'm sure he never lies. I would like to figuritively withhold food and water from this lawyer and ( judge Greer who three times did an unbiased fact finding in this case), and see if they looked the most beautiful and at peace that I had ever seen them! What an inhumane way to die! Of course the lawyer was trying to say that in Terri's case there was no awareness, no one home in her body to feel or know what was happening to her but only God knows this. So why then the rush to have her die?

This very judge that gave her not once but three times this barbaric death sentence would have his ruling over turned and quite possibly loose his judgeship if he would have sentenced the most vicious, mass murder, rapist and hideous criminal to ever walk the face of the earth to death by starvation. What crime did Terri commit? The president can and does pardon criminals but in Terri's case, since she is not a criminal ... it would be a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers to interfere.

Thank you Begood2 you were able to state the facts clearly and calmly. I feel very close to what is happening with Terri because of the trauma that I have experienced these last several months with my own son Nick. I feel for Terri's parents who have always had her best interest at heart but have been stripped of all legal rights. The only right which they still have is that of being able to speak out and to be heard.

Thank you for also reading the links that I included where many might just consider me to be a raging lunatic driven by passion.

I see that Snow has also attacked you for seeking out more then the media is willing to produce, and for that I feel bad.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 29 2005, 03:32 AM

How on earth do you know that prior to 92 he had no recollection of his wife's wishes?

Answer: You don't. You invented that detail because you think it supports your position, or maybe makes you seem informed er something.

Um Er Snow,

Don't you think that this is a pretty important "fact" that he failed to mention until years later?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 29 2005, 12:44 AM

Strawberry,

Snow,

I thought that I had already explained why I feel that she is being murdered but I will try again.

A standard definition of murder is "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being."

Even the Supreme Court of the United States agree that allowing Terri Schiavo to die is legal.

Snow,

Did you even read ANY of my links?

http://www.theempirejournal.com/53209_schi...ngled_web_o.htm

Here is just a portion of the above link...

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

How applicable to the Terri Schiavo case.

Virtually as soon as Michael Schiavo received the monies from the medical malpractice claim involving his wife, Terri Schindler-Schiavo, he withheld all therapy and rehabilitation services from her.

Terri Schiavo had sustained a serious brain injury as the result of a suspicious incident in their home in 1990 and in 1992, her husband had filed claims against several of her former doctors, claiming her ¡Ècollapse¡É was caused by a misdiagnosis. He received over $1.5 million in 1993 including $750,000 which had been specifically earmarked by the trial jury for Terri¡Çs rehabilitation based on a life expectancy of 50 years.

Mary and Bob Schindler Sr., her parents, consulted a St. Petersburg attorney about removing Michael Schiavo as their daughter¡Çs guardian and discussed the case at length with him.

Unfortunately, the Schindlers did not have the amount of money the attorney demanded as a retainer to take the case.

That attorney then became the judge in the case-----a totally prohibited conflict of interest.

Thereafter, the attorney-judge approved the hiring of George Felos as the attorney for Schiavo to be paid from the trust fund and the stage was set for judicial homicide..

The judge wasn¡Çt George W. Greer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida.

It was Sixth Circuit Court Judge Mark I. Shames.

Since the inception of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case in the Florida courts, the fix has been in.

Premeditated.

¡ÈThe law of this case is that she will die¡É, Greer has steadfastly ruled .

While Greer is the ultimate executioner in the case of the 41-year-old disabled woman dying of starvation and dehydration, he has had accomplices in the court system in this judicial homicide and Terri Schiavo¡Çs destiny was predetermined in early 1997 in the court of Sixth Circuit Court Judge Mark I. Shames and allegedly all the way up to the 2nd District Court of Appeals and Chief Judge Chris Altenbernd.

Not only did Shames allegedly try to covertly withdraw the feeding tube from Terri as early as 1997 but he had a wholly prohibited conflict of interest which has tainted the case from the beginning and is clear evidence of the fraud and deception that exists in the case.

The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that a judge is mandated to disqualify himself in a proceeding in which he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding and if the judge has served as a lawyer (or been consulted) in the matter in controversy.

After the Schindlers discussed their potential case at length with Shames and wanted to hire him to represent them to remove the guardianship of their daughter from Michael Schiavo, Shames announced his candidacy for Sixth Circuit Court judge. Upon being elected, Shames was assigned the guardianship case of Schindler v. Schiavo and Shames failed to disqualify himself as required.

But even more disturbing is the involvement of Florida¡Çs Attorney General Charlie Crist in the election of Mark Shames and his now known refusal to investigate allegations of abuse and Medicaid fraud in the Schiavo case.

Perhaps the reason that all attempts for a criminal investigation into the alleged attempted abuse and homicide of Terri Schindler Schiavo have been stonewalled lays in the 1996 election of campaign of Shames---the former president of the St. Petersburg Bar Association who had inside, privileged information concerning the Schiavo case."