BeeZarre

Diane wrote:

If anyone here would consider it meaningful to continue living without being able to communicate, without being able to participate in life, to cause those around you to spend all their time and money to maintain your existence, then don't sign a living will. Simple.

The person at the center of this controversy did not.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It may well be that the woman's husband has an ulterior motive, and the law should protect her from this possibility.

her husband went to great lengths to have various neuro surgeries performed on her, including the implantation of a chip that might help her recover some of her mind/function. when she did not recover it was at this point that she was determined as such, and at that point he decided to follow through with her wishes. in re : the profit motive, there just isnt one. there is no ' estate ' and monies collected have been spent on legal proceedings.

Quote:

She is perfectly healthy and is not being "allowed to die" but rather killed.

there's a big part of our brain called the ' cerebral cortex ' . if our brains were a cantelope it'd be the skin. it's responsible for memory, sensations and thought. it's what makes us human. in Terri's case, her cerebral cortex isn't there, it's full of a mix of degrqaded tissue and spinal fluid. in terms of humanity she's dead and has been for a long time. what she does have is her brain stem( medulla included ), thalamus, olfactory bulbs, amygdala and hippocampus however and more importantly her main processor is gone.

her having all of the senses and receptors we do the difference is there is nothing regulating any of it. she is literally a lump of receptors reacting to any and every sensation sometimes just randomly not even a reaction, merely an impulse because there isnt any regulation. we're attributing our everyday human characteristics to a human that can't process the world as a human can relate.

she is not perfectly healthy.

Quote:

Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

All laws deem the decision is to be made by her husband. Parents should not trump the law - particularly in this case.

Quote:

Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.

and by making far fetched statements such as ' she's perfectly healthy ' makes me wonder about your capacity for understanding basic science.

0 Replies

Brandon, would you wish to live such an existence?

0 Replies

wenchilina wrote:

... in Terri's case, her cerebral cortex isn't there, it's full of a mix of degrqaded tissue and spinal fluid. in terms of humanity she's dead and has been for a long time. what she does have is her brain stem( medulla included ), thalamus, olfactory bulbs, amygdala and hippocampus however and more importantly her main processor is gone....

Cite your source.

wenchilina wrote:

she is not perfectly healthy.

She is not dying as is often claimed or implied by the people in favor of terminating her. She is also free of disease. Many people would agree that a disease-free disabled person can be called healthy.

wenchilina wrote:

Quote:
Had her parents not existed, who would have spoken for her at all?

All laws deem the decision is to be made by her husband. Parents should not trump the law - particularly in this case.

Her husband has no legal authority whatever to decide that she should be starved to death, only to relate her own previous expressed wishes. Her husband may or may not have base, ulterior motives. She deserves an independent advocate before the courts. Your casual dismissal of her parents' concern for her is rather repellant.

wenchilina wrote:

Quote:
Asking the question which the poster did, in and of itself makes me wonder about the poster's capacity for empathy.

and by making far fetched statements such as ' she's perfectly healthy ' makes me wonder about your capacity for understanding basic science.

You have no basis whatever for making conclusions about my technical background. As it happens, I have a BS and MS in Physics, have worked professionally as a physicist for several of the largest American and multinational corporations, and am currently a systems analyst for the headquarters of one of the world's largest stock brokerage firms. Stop guessing personal details of my life, which you know nothing about.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Perhaps she is aware of her existence and doesn't want to die.

her response to stimuli is that of a plant to light or a venus fly trap to touch. you're applying an anthropomorphic view on her actions when they are not. there is nothing there processing thought.

0 Replies

wenchilina wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Perhaps she is aware of her existence and doesn't want to die.

her response to stimuli is that of a plant to light or a venus fly trap to touch. you're applying an anthropomorphic view on her actions when they are not. there is nothing there processing thought.

Please cite evidence to show that it is generally agreed by all doctors who have examined her that she has no consciousness.

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

Brandon, would you wish to live such an existence?

I don't mean to sound brusque, but what I would do in her case has no bearing. The relevant factor is what she wanted before this happened or wants now.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cite your source.

how about you do your own research as you clearly need to.

Quote:

she is not dying

is not interchangeable with she is perfectly healthy. she is as dead as it comes when applying the term ' humanity '.

Quote:

Her husband has no legal authority whatever to decide that she should be starved to death, only to relate her own previous expressed wishes. Her husband may or may not have base, ulterior motives. She deserves an independent advocate before the courts. Your casual dismissal of her parents' concern for her is rather repellant.

Her husband has every legal authority to her wishes. Not an independant advocate nor her parents. You need to brush up on FL law as much as you do on basic neurology.

Quote:

i have a BS and MS in Physics, have worked professionally as a physicist for several of the largest American and multinational corporations, and am currently a systems analyst for the headquarters of one of the world's largest stock brokerage firms. Stop guessing personal details of my life, which you know nothing about.

physics has absolutely nothing to do with neurology.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Please cite evidence to show that it is generally agreed by all doctors who have examined her that she has no consciousness.

Do your own research. You need to.

0 Replies

wenchilina wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Cite your source.

how about you do your own research as you clearly need to.

As a person making detailed medical claims about her condition, it is your responsibility, not mine, to support what you said. Are you unable to?

wenchilina wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
she is not dying

is not interchangeable with she is perfectly healthy. she is as dead as it comes when applying the term ' humanity '.

Why did you cut off most of my actual statement? Good way to win arguments.

wenchilina wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Her husband has no legal authority whatever to decide that she should be starved to death, only to relate her own previous expressed wishes. Her husband may or may not have base, ulterior motives. She deserves an independent advocate before the courts. Your casual dismissal of her parents' concern for her is rather repellant.

Her husband has every legal authority to her wishes. Not an independant advocate nor her parents. You need to brush up on FL law as much as you do on basic neurology.

A health proxy has no authority whatever except to interpret the patient's wishes. At least that is true in NY. If you have evidence to the contrary for Florida, cite it.

wenchilina wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
]i have a BS and MS in Physics, have worked professionally as a physicist for several of the largest American and multinational corporations, and am currently a systems analyst for the headquarters of one of the world's largest stock brokerage firms. Stop guessing personal details of my life, which you know nothing about.

physics has absolutely nothing to do with neurology.

You know as well as I do that I was responding to this statement of yours:

wenchilina wrote:

...makes me wonder about your capacity for understanding basic science...

0 Replies

wenchilina wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Please cite evidence to show that it is generally agreed by all doctors who have examined her that she has no consciousness.

Do your own research. You need to.

Translation: You cannot back up what you have stated.

0 Replies

Correction - you are now facing someone with expertise in the field, Brandon. And she won't do your homework.

(always good to see you, wenchy)

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Correction - you are now facing someone with expertise in the field, Brandon. And she won't do your homework.

(always good to see you, wenchy)

Every poster has the responsibility to back up claims he makes here or else not make them. When I ask a poster to cite evidence to support what she has posted, I am certainly not asking her to do "my" homework. It is rather bizarre to post a very detailed technical assertion, and when asked to cite some evidence to support it, to criticize the request as someone not doing "his" homework.

0 Replies

I'm sure you can Google as well as I can, Brandon.
I went and looked some of Wenchy's info up that I hadnt heard about.

Responsibility to back things up? I'd suggest almost no one who posts in politics can back up anything they post - and that's why they look for opinions that back up their own. However, this is science - and it can be backed up quite easily.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I'm sure you can Google as well as I can, Brandon.
I went and looked some of Wenchy's info up that I hadnt heard about.

Responsibility to back things up? I'd suggest almost no one who posts in politics can back up anything they post - and that's why they look for opinions that back up their own. However, this is science - and it can be backed up quite easily.

It is one of the most fundamental rules of debate, that when a debater makes claims of fact, not opinion, he must be prepared to provide some citation to show that he did not simply make them up or exaggerate. The idea that it is proper to claim facts and then put the total responsibility to research them on his debating opponent is......silly. Always be suspicious of someone who makes very detailed claims of fact with no citations, and then becomes huffy when asked to provide them.

0 Replies

1. we are not in the debate forum.

2. this is the politics forum, and a scientist has explained an area of science that they have expertise in. if we have doubts/questions, we can look it up.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

As a person making detailed medical claims about her condition, it is your responsibility, not mine, to support what you said. Are you unable to?

by your own admission you NEED to do your own research. my description of her current condition is as basic as one can get. it is by no means a detailed description.

Quote:

Why did you cut off most of my actual statement? Good way to win arguments.

the excess semantics you provided are of no correlation to the very real fact ' she is not dying ' is NOT interchangeable with ' she is perfectly healthy '.

Quote:

A health proxy has no authority whatever except to interpret the patient's wishes. At least that is true in NY. If you have evidence to the contrary for Florida, cite it.

again, by your own admission you NEED to do your own research.

Quote:

You know as well as I do that I was responding to this statement of yours:
wenchilina wrote:
...makes me wonder about your capacity for understanding basic science...

And as previously stated physics is not neurology.

Thus far we've determined you're unfamiliar with her actual condition, the lengths her husband went to when trying to revive some function of the mind and FL law. yet somehow you feel you have the authority to challenge others opinions on the matters. riiiiiiiiight.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

1. we are not in the debate forum.

In even the most informal debate, the person making claims has the responsibility to support them, not his opponent. I could bog someone down in research forever by making false claims and then demanding that he has sole responsibility to researchthem.

ehBeth wrote:

2. this is the politics forum, and a scientist has explained an area of science that they have expertise in. if we have doubts/questions, we can look it up.

Anyone can claim any expertise; anyone can lie; anyone can exxagerate. That is why, as everyone knows, each debater who claims facts is required to support them on demand or withdraw them.

0 Replies

Brandon, I have said several times -- and as far as I know, have been ignored each time -- that she is in a persistent vegetative state, and in one post included a quote as to what that means and another quote about the thousands of times a year the decision to remove the feeding tube from people in the same situation has been made by loved ones, including times when loved ones have disagreed with each other.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1231310#1231310

So while I won't presume to speak for Wenchilina, I have already made a similar statement and backed it up -- but that didn't seem to be enough for you.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Translation: You cannot back up what you have stated.

translation : having a grasp on the details of this case to make a reasonable assertion on the matter generally makes for a sound argument versus tossing out ignorant uneducated claims to debunk others opinions.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know