The W
Views: 100912814
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.07 1344
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - GOP Bill to Reinsert Schiavo Feeding Tube Signed by Bush
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next(362 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (101 total)
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 109

Posts: 1086/3409
EXP: 13625156
For next: 334534

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 21.3.05 1341.22
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1342.21
I guess what I don't understand is this:

If the parents want to maintain her, why doesn't the Husband (who says his wife is dead to him) step away?

Why would we barbarically starve a person to dead. A dog has more rights that this. If we're gonna put her down, let's put her down.

How do we really know what's going on with this person is obviously a question - we don't really know for sure. But I can't imagine that starving, even someone who is obviously disabled, would be pleasant. Seems like we have to maintain or eliminate her.

But I do disagree with republicans and think this is a states rights issue that the Feds should not have interferred with, as barbaric as it seems to me.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 3150/5404
EXP: 27268650
For next: 584090

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 21.3.05 1352.22
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1354.57
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I guess what I don't understand is this:

    If the parents want to maintain her, why doesn't the Husband (who says his wife is dead to him) step away?

    Why would we barbarically starve a person to dead. A dog has more rights that this. If we're gonna put her down, let's put her down.

Why? Because the precedent has always been that unless we have some overwhelming reason to believe otherwise, we trust that the spouse of someone in her case is the one to whom the wishes of the patient have been most accurately transmitted. And because we respect (theoretically) the decision of the patient who can no longer make that decision for herself. I've read nothing thus far that tells me I shouldn't believe this man. Simply because of the fact he has set himself up as an object of nationwide scorn by millions when this fight is one he could easily walk away from. Just say "sure, give me that $10 million you wanted to toss me, mom and dad, you care for the vegetable, I'm outta here." and retire into the sunset. To pursue something this long and this arduously tells me that he believes that this woman made her wishes clear to him and he wants to honor those final wishes. I hope that even though I have been derelict in not creating a living will that should I ever have some tragedy occur to me that those who are the closest to me will respect my orally transmitted wishes, instead of letting me become a political pawn for opportunistic politicians to whom Terri Schiavo is nothing more than a chance to possibly create a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2609/2679
EXP: 9228732
For next: 88626

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3297 days
Last activity: 3297 days
#23 Posted on 21.3.05 1353.24
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1355.45
    Originally posted by AWARulz
    Why would we barbarically starve a person to dead. A dog has more rights that this. If we're gonna put her down, let's put her down.


That would be assisted suicide or in a lot of people's minds, murder. If you did that then you'd have to be willing to do the same for all terminally ill patients.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1931/2042
EXP: 6333507
For next: 59292

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3069 days
Last activity: 282 days
#24 Posted on 21.3.05 1400.49
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1402.09
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I especially find it hard to believe he cares so much about her, that he started a new family while she lay in a hospital bed.


...for FIFTEEN YEARS. With no hope for improvement or recovery of her lost brain sections. With no responses whatsoever from the warm shell, being kept artificially alive by a feeding tube, that would give him even a glimmer of the notion that the mind of the wife he knew was still in there somewhere.

Terri's mind fled the scene over a decade ago. I think he could use a little closure on the sad state of affairs, and to see his wife buried with a tiny modicum of dignity.

But this fight should've ended _years_ ago. Every time he thinks he can finally put his wife and this whole tragic affair to a well-deserved rest, some new legal tactic by his in-laws pulls a Frankenstein and zaps the body "alive" again. Her parents have done everything but claim that Terri can put on a top hat and sing "Puttin' On The Ritz." He's lived up to his end of "'Til death do us part" and then some.

If he divorces Terri, he abandons her to the in-laws that want to keep her in this mockery of "life" indefinitely. I laud him for doing what he can to prevent that, but also can't blame him for wanting to at least _pretend_ to move on and have a semblance of a normal life again.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 297/512
EXP: 730664
For next: 35545

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 260 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#25 Posted on 21.3.05 1421.22
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1422.03
I don't understand why those who come to Michael Schiavo's defense in this matter & throw scorn at those that who would question him, are just as quick to dismiss the wishes of Terri's parents & label them as opportunist with various motives.

Disregarding any of the political implications, & ignoring the machinations by the various politicians involved in this case; why are those who would be so quick to remove Terri's feeding tube so dismissive of the people who gave birth to her & raised her, yet so accepting of the word of her husband of a few years? Why do we assume that this man knows more about her wishes than the parents & sister that she's known the whole of her life??

The only thing that supports his claim that she be taken off of the feeding tube is HIS word that she said something to him. I personally, politics aside, am not comfortable with killing this woman on that word alone...
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 641/1579
EXP: 4307072
For next: 75173

Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 22 hours
Y!:
#26 Posted on 21.3.05 1426.09
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1426.29
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    why are those who would be so quick to remove Terri's feeding tube so dismissive of the people who gave birth to her & raised her, yet so accepting of the word of her husband of a few years? Why do we assume that this man knows more about her wishes than the parents & sister that she's known the whole of her life??

From personal experience, I'm pretty sure that I knew my wife better after 5 years of marriage than any of her family knew her. There are certain things that you discuss with a spouse that you don't discuss with parents and/or siblings. It seems to me that the same would be true here.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2357/6363
EXP: 33812883
For next: 307215

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#27 Posted on 21.3.05 1438.08
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1438.11
But does that discount the people who raised her for 18 years?

Man, this is tough for me to figure out.

(edited by StaggerLee on 21.3.05 1439)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 298/512
EXP: 730664
For next: 35545

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 260 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#28 Posted on 21.3.05 1448.34
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1451.33
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53
    There are certain things that you discuss with a spouse that you don't discuss with parents and/or siblings. It seems to me that the same would be true here.


I don't know about that Sec19... My sisters talk about everything together. Some stuff that they would probably NEVER discuss with their husbands!! :-)
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1932/2042
EXP: 6333507
For next: 59292

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3069 days
Last activity: 282 days
#29 Posted on 21.3.05 1450.31
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1452.54
That's part of legal marriage, yes. The father "giving the bride away" to the groom is more than symbolic.

When it comes to basic, binary, yes-or-no decisions, final authority has to rest _somewhere_. It goes Spouse, Adult Children, Parents (in that order) under most legal circumstances.
CarlCX
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 127/219
EXP: 219638
For next: 9544

Since: 1.5.02
From: California.

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#30 Posted on 21.3.05 1450.33
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1452.58
In terms of credibility, I don't place Schiavo above the Schindlers on account of the husband/parent relationship, I place him above them because between them, he's the one that hasn't dropped into personal attacks, underhanded tactics and moral shit-slinging.

There's a lot of legal ground to cover, but if you want to boil it down to a case of morals, it seems like Schiavo's stood on one platform and held to it throughout the duration of this trial, whereas the parents--and at this point, the freakin' Congress, as a note of personal annoynace--have gone to great lengths to drag his name through the mud and disparage his reputation in hopes of lending credence to their case. To me, that's usually a bad sign as it comes to assigning credibility.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 2608/5229
EXP: 25955474
For next: 469216

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 2 days
#31 Posted on 21.3.05 1522.53
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1529.01
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
      Originally posted by AWARulz
      Why would we barbarically starve a person to dead. A dog has more rights that this. If we're gonna put her down, let's put her down.


    That would be assisted suicide or in a lot of people's minds, murder. If you did that then you'd have to be willing to do the same for all terminally ill patients.


I think it is cruel to let her starve to death.

This is a glaring example to have anyone here who is married or has elderly parents to get them to have a living will, or somehow express their wishes.

My mother had a living will and told anyone that would listen that she never wanted to be a vegetable.

Nov 30th, 2003 I had to watch her die as the doctors took her off of life support. She had been dead for 10 mins before they could revive her and there was no higher brain functions and if she somehow managed to breath on her own, she'd be severely brain damaged.

I would HATE to be in the husband's shoes. I think I had an easier choice. My mother made her choice for us. We just had to make sure that there was NO chance for a recovery and that this was the best choice for HER. I wouldn ot want to watch the woman I loved for 15 years suffer like this because the parents can't let go. She can never lead a "normal" life.

Hell, what kind of quality-of-life does she have? They need to let her pass, and do it in a very humane and painless way. Letting her sit there and starve for two weeks is sooooooooo cruel. I'm surprised some lawyer hasn't tried to get her off under the provision for no cruel and unusual punishments.

Having what I had to live through, I can SO understand the husband's side of things.
CarlCX
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 128/219
EXP: 219638
For next: 9544

Since: 1.5.02
From: California.

Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 21.3.05 1544.02
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1544.06
For what it's worth...

http://libsyn.com/media/catholic/terriresponses.mp3

This is a mirror for the "Terri responds" sound file that the Drudge Report made a decently-sized deal out of, and is one of the things the Schindlers are pointing to as an indicator of Terri's ability to understand and respond to her environment.

I can't help feeling that the guy on the tape is reaching about as constantly and randomly as he can for a response. All in all, though, my sole conclusion at the moment is that it's really fucking hard to listen to.

edit/update: This was the topic of discussion on Glenn Beck's show, resulting in Terri's brother calling in and explaining that while the recording was legitimate, it's also from some time ago, so its accuracy may be questionable in the present.

(edited by CarlCX on 21.3.05 1407)
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 708/1040
EXP: 2101954
For next: 112155

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2392 days
Last activity: 862 days
#33 Posted on 21.3.05 1612.40
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1612.42
    Originally posted by CarlCX
    In terms of credibility, I don't place Schiavo above the Schindlers on account of the husband/parent relationship, I place him above them because between them, he's the one that hasn't dropped into personal attacks, underhanded tactics and moral shit-slinging.


I'm very disappointed that it's been alleged that Michael tried to murder Terri and has been trying to cover it up for all these years. That's not coming from the parents, but it's coming from those close to them. I've gotten a ton of "Michael Schiavo is a murderer" email forwards from my ex-boss (who you could say is on the far religious right).

I understand the parents' rage, though. They've made Terri their life. A child shouldn't die before a parent does, but it just seems to me that Terri died a long time ago. A friend of mine who was a nurse in the neurological ICU before he went to graduate school used to tell me stories of parents who couldn't let go, and parents who would get excited because of low level responses like hand squeezing and face making, when, in reality, there was very little hope.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4571/7534
EXP: 43912436
For next: 389326

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 514 days
Last activity: 514 days
#34 Posted on 21.3.05 1751.08
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1751.09
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    But does that discount the people who raised her for 18 years?

    Man, this is tough for me to figure out.

    (edited by StaggerLee on 21.3.05 1439)








Putting aside the parent/spouse issue and getting back to the main problem with the current situation: How does this case call for a special meeting of the Senate and the House on a Sunday Night/Monday Morning with the President of the United States signing legislation in the early morning hours, causing a family court matter to turn into a federal matter? Maybe the husband is wrong, maybe the parents are wrong, however, what person would want their life determined by the Congress of the United States?
Now, a scenario for you: 2015 occurs, a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and a Democratic President, who has appointed a fair share of judges to the federal bench. Due to this legislation that passed today, they now have the precedent in place to throw any state court case into the federal system if they don't like the judges ruling. I don't feel comfortable that a Republican controlled system could do this, a Democratic controlled system with this ability petrifies me. But, I'd have to accept it due to this precedent fostered on us by the religious right.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1933/2042
EXP: 6333507
For next: 59292

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3069 days
Last activity: 282 days
#35 Posted on 21.3.05 1811.20
Reposted on: 21.3.12 1811.46
Because there are people who use talk radio as their sole info source.

Talk radio programs that think that pages like this pass for reasonable public discourse.

Or talk radio programs like Hannity's, who had on a sock-puppet "doctor" today who claimed openly that his ten-hour examination of Terri revealed that "Terri is alert and aware, she can eat and swallow _now_, she can turn her whole body to look out the window, and after therapy she'll be able to talk, go out to restaurants and movies and enjoy them."

Hannity: Are they literally trying to murder Terri Schiavo?
Doctor: (guarded pause) I really don't need another lawsuit.

Because too many respond to gutter-level prodding like this, and vote accordingly.

Sick to my stomach? Yes, I am.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1151/2182
EXP: 7012628
For next: 176008

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 369 days
Last activity: 363 days
#36 Posted on 21.3.05 2122.26
Reposted on: 21.3.12 2122.40
If the woman is allowed to starve to death, where will the line be drawn?

My cousin had triplets, one of whom cannot swallow food, he does have brain damage, somewhat recognizes people, cannot walk and must be pushed around in a wheelchair. He is constantly going to a nearby state's children's hospital for many illnesses. He can barely communicate at all.

Not that they would ever consider it, but they have exhausted a great deal of work, time and money trying their best to give him a life. They could use those in the future to help out the other two less-challenged siblings.

Would you consider his situation, being taken care of by two hard-working, loving parents, a life of quality? Or should his feeding tube be removed as well?
sweetroll
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 36/82
EXP: 50539
For next: 7812

Since: 23.3.02
From: Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Since last post: 366 days
Last activity: 111 days
#37 Posted on 21.3.05 2148.07
Reposted on: 21.3.12 2150.24
I think everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree that the principals in this case -- the Schindlers, Mike Schiavo, and (obviously) Terri Schiavo -- LOSE no matter what. This situation completely sucks for everybody.

Reading through these posts, the recurring theme is the tragic story of a woman either a) starving to death, or b) laying in a vegetative state while her family prays for an impossible outcome.

No matter what the eventual outcome of this matter is, at the end of the day, the court system must detach itself from the emotional aspects of this woman and rule on the procedural issues. Most people will look at the emotional aspects of the case, and the media will shy away from what's really going to be adjudicated. Constitutional law, civil procedure, family law aren't sexy topics for the media and the watercooler, so the right to die/live issue will take center stage.

Personally, I can't really choose which of the families is right or wrong, because they're both doing what they think is right. Again, this must absolutely suck to go through, and nobody involved is ever going to lead a normal life when Terri's fate is settled. I can't see myself rooting AGAINST any of these poor people. I just want to see jurisprudence rightfully executed.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1934/2042
EXP: 6333507
For next: 59292

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3069 days
Last activity: 282 days
#38 Posted on 21.3.05 2215.35
Reposted on: 21.3.12 2215.36
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    Would you consider his situation, being taken care of by two hard-working, loving parents, a life of quality? Or should his feeding tube be removed as well?


Has he got a brain? That's a good start, he passes muster.

This isn't a "kill the cripples" crusade by any stretch of the imagination. This isn't about eugenic slippery slopes. This is about letting a 99%-dead woman with her brain missing rest in peace.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 109

Posts: 1087/3409
EXP: 13625156
For next: 334534

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on 21.3.05 2305.01
Reposted on: 21.3.12 2307.50
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
      Originally posted by AWARulz
      Why would we barbarically starve a person to dead. A dog has more rights that this. If we're gonna put her down, let's put her down.


    That would be assisted suicide or in a lot of people's minds, murder. If you did that then you'd have to be willing to do the same for all terminally ill patients.


So, allowing someone to starve to death is OK, and even encouraged, but a painless death isn't?

You see, everyone - this is my point. There are thousands of people out there in this woman's relative mental state. My Mother-in-Law is about 77, has Alzheimer's - end stage, cannot speak, cannot eat, cannot go to the bathroom, cannot dress, cannot do anything. She is dressed and will sit in a chair. She'll swallow if food goes in her mouth, she goes in a diaper.

Now, if her caretakers didn't feed her, she would also starve to death. I suspect that there are a dozen more men and women in her hospice that are in the same situation.

Is this what it comes out to? A Person says another person said that they wouldn't want to live and that life can be ended by what can only be described as torture?

Damn. I hope not. I am not for euthinasia, but if that's gonna be ok, I vote for humane euthinasia and sophisticated barbarism rather than this more nasty and unsuportable torture.

I am certainly not questioning anyone's motives. I have a pretty good idea about what everyone is going though. I have a problem with the end game.
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 225/545
EXP: 802356
For next: 21192

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1334 days
Last activity: 259 days
#40 Posted on 21.3.05 2341.29
Reposted on: 21.3.12 2341.29
I hope I don't get banned for this, but I am very concerned that the parents will be recording her last moments, to make another buck. Death on PPV? Paging Dr. Kervorkian.

I fall into the camp of supporting her wish to die, and I am outraged at the Congressional and Presidential action to bring this farther than it ever needed to be.

This will help the living will industry as the more attention this gets, the more folks will want their wishes documented.

AWArulz, you said a dog has more rights. Who would keep feeding a dog that cannot interract with its environment? It would be "inhumane".

Terri Schiavo is purely and simply being used. Since the religious right did not get the result they wanted from the state court, they pressured Congress to give them some chance to overturn it.

I hope the federal judge who's hearing this case takes his time, and she goes peacefully.

My Dad was on a feeding tube after a stroke, and it was tough as hell when he had a second stroke. The documentation was there to stop feeding him, but we waited a few weeks to see if he would make progress. Thankfully he did, and 4 months later he was eating on his own. He was able to see my brother's wedding and a few more grandchildren.

I learned in the process was that they don't "remove" the tube, they disconnect it. Depending on the patient, death should occur in only a few days not from starvation (nutrition) but from dehydration. Painkillers can and are often given just in case, but since the patient is not conscious, they don't feel anything.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextThread ahead: Last Rites given to Pope John Paul II
Next thread: Sandy Beger to Plead Guilty Today
Previous thread: Some Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
(362 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - GOP Bill to Reinsert Schiavo Feeding Tube Signed by BushRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.283 seconds.