Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:

No prob. They agreed that Michael Schiavo could murder her. Clear now?

Oh, so far from it...

You are an expert at not backing up your statements.

Pot.
Ketttle.
"Black"

Oh and Brandon

I don't even remember you being here that long

It doesn't take me that long to work things out :wink:

Brandon you wrote- You can look at someone killing someone else and keep repeating that it's not murder if you like, but that's what the word means..

I'm not one to get involved in squabbling about definitions but this time I'm willing to make an exception. You're spraying all sorts of allegations around here and it's confusing the point you're trying to make - well it is for me. Whether or not a killing is "murder" is like it or not a technical issue. If A kills B then depending on the circumstances it may or may not be "murder". It could be manslaughter. It could be justifiable homicide. "Murder" is a particular concept so if you're going to use the word, with its highly specific meanings, then do so properly. Besides it's emotive in the extreme and really does detract from your argument.

Gelisgesti wrote:

I repeat, if she were physically capable of oral feeding ....why the feeding tube for 15 years?
What is more, why would a judge interfere with normal intake of food and drink.

I have to go back and find the link to your post on ignorance. Why haven't you read up on the case? Why haven't you clicked on the links provided and read the court documents? Why do you pretend not to understand a simple concept? The Schindlers asked for permission to provide their daughter with the normal intake of food and water, and the judge denied their request.

Terri was capable of oral feeding. Her former nurses testified that they used to give her both liquid and pudding by mouth until Michael ordered them to stop.

Additionally, people like Terri and other disabled persons eat very slowly and need a lot of assistance from their caregivers. How many hospitals, nursing homes, or hospices can spare a worker to spend all that time feeding just one patient? And if the time can't be spared, how can the caregivers ensure that the patient is getting enough nutrition and hydration to sustain his/her needs? It's not that difficult to understand why a feeding tube is used.

The problem, however, if you rely solely on the feeding tube, the patient loses the capacity to swallow. Retraining becomes necessary.

Because Schiavo could swallow her own saliva, more than two dozen neurologists and speech therapists filed affidavits in her case stating that she should be given the chance to relearn how to be fed by spoon before her gastric tube was removed.

THE JUDGE DENIED THE MOTION to feed Terri by mouth. No food or drop of water was allowed to pass her lips. And then you ask why would a judge interfere with normal intake of food and drink? Because the whole point of removing the feeding tube was to MAKE HER DEAD. If she was allowed to have food and water by mouth . . . she would live.

Do you get it now? This was not about honoring Terri's alleged wishes with respect to consenting to or refusing medical treatment . . . this entire case was about CAUSING HER DEATH.

Now go back to the Florida Statute at issue with respect to Health Care Advance Directives:

Quote:

765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.


765.102 Legislative findings and intent.--

(1) The Legislature finds that every competent adult has the fundamental right of self-determination regarding decisions pertaining to his or her own health, including the right to choose or refuse medical treatment. This right is subject to certain interests of society, such as the protection of human life and the preservation of ethical standards in the medical profession.

This is not a "right to die" statute. This statute concerns an individuals right to 1) choose medical treatment; or 2) refuse medical treatment.

An individual may execute an advance directive instructing the doctors to withdraw life-prolonging treatment including "artificially provided" sustenance and hydration. BUT NOTHING in the statute authorizes a guardian, proxy, or judge to order that no food or water pass her lips. She should have been allowed "naturally provided" sustenance and hydration through her mouth.

Yet, the judge had armed guards posted at her door and around the hospice to ensure that no food or water passed her lips. Approximately 50 people were arrested for trying to bring her water. This case was not about removing artificial feeding . . . this was about making her DEAD.

If the Schindlers want to make jackasses of themselves, they are entitled to do so. From what I have read, there is an obviously greater agenda going on, but the Schindlers have been made fools and patsies by those groups who used the tragedy of Terri to foster their ends.

You've asserted that I am an expert at not backing up my statements. I am calling you on it. Either withdraw the claim or provide support for it. And don't give me examples of purely subjective statements like "I like that" or references to public domain information like "the building is in downtown Toronto." I am referring to statements like "You're wrong," which ought to be accompanied by an argument or citation.

When your children get married, they do not stop being your children and love and concern for them is not lessened in the least, nor would most parents be simply passive if they felt their kid of any age was being done a huge injustice.

Phoenix writes

Quote:

If the Schindlers want to make jackasses of themselves, they are entitled to do so. From what I have read, there is an obviously greater agenda going on, but the Schindlers have been made fools and patsies by those groups who used the tragedy of Terri to foster their ends.

I guess that would make me a jackass too because, as I have already stated, the day my son-in-law orders my daughter, for whatever reason, to be killed via dehydration or any other similarly cruel method, is the day I will be going to court, pleading for relief from the governor, the President, Congress, and enlisting the financial help, moral support, and legal assistance from anybody willing to provide it. To fault the Schindlers for availing themselves of whatever help was available to them and to accuse them of being simply pawns in some political agenda is simply not reasonable in the face of the situation as it exiss.

When your children get married, they do not stop being your children and love and concern for them is not lessened in the least, nor would most parents be simply passive if they felt their kid of any age was being done a huge injustice.

DrewDad wrote:

Fox, Debra, Brandon:

Do you really believe that Terri Schiavo was capable of eating orally?

Do you really believe that no testing was ever done? The October 2003 ruling by Judge Greer denied additional testing. I presume this means that testing was done.

Too bad you are forced to do all this presuming.

DrewDad wrote:

So.

1. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I will believe that Terri Schiavo was incapable of ingesting food or water naturally.

Lacking evidence. Good.

DrewDad wrote:

2. Nutrition (food and water) through a surgically placed tube is artificial support.

It's a matter of semantics.

DrewDad wrote:

3. She stated that she did not want to be kept alive artificially.

Not really. She never wrote anything down and the testimony was contradictory.

DrewDad wrote:

Therefore, she is, in effect, refusing medical treatment; she is not being killed.

First of all, she would have to make her wishes known to be refusing something, and she didn't. Furthermore, I can say that I want to be shot, but anyone who does it is still a murderer.

So when a woman gets married and her father "gives her away" to her future husband (in Christian culture) is that merely symbolic?

Quote:

So when a woman gets married and her father "gives her away" to her future husband (in Christian culture) is that merely symbolic?

The act of the father giving the woman away to the husband IS symbolic, but comes out of an earlier time, when women were viewed as chattel.

This has nothing to do with the Schiavo case. If the roles were reversed, and it were Michael who was in a PVS, Terri would have had the right to call the shots!

Should parents have the right to interfere in the marriage? Should the parents have greater privilege than the spouse?

In reality, parents often interfere, (many times to the detriment of the marriage ), but that is an emotional, and not a legal issue.