Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

No one really knows except those doctors that have diagnosed Terri and concluded she has PVS. Between them and you and your cohorts, I must trust those doctors.

woiyo, You probably didn't bother to read all the posts that describes what PVS is. Your "cohorts" are everybody that supports your views on this matter.

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo, You probably didn't bother to read all the posts that describes what PVS is. Your "cohorts" are everybody that supports your views on this matter.

Whatever - hater.

You also ignored my position statement.

That's OK. Your ignorance duly noted.

That's about the "best" we can expect; nothing more. They turn to name calling when they can't defend on the facts.

Did the State court rule properly in providing for the "former" husband" or did they not? That basiclly is what the FEDS should be looking at.

"She talks and she laughs and she expresses likes and discomforts," he said Sunday evening. "It won't take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo. It will only take the medical care and therapy that patients require."

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/21/State/Political_heft_behind.shtml

Were Frist rendering an official medical judgment, she said, relying on an "amateur video" could raise liability issues. After 15 years, "there should be no confusion about the medical data, and that's what was so surprising to me about Dr. Frist disagreeing about her medical status," Zoloth said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48119-2005Mar18.html

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's about the "best" we can expect; nothing more. They turn to name calling when they can't defend on the facts.

Nice try little ones, but you both are twisting the statements made and ignoring MY position.

Apparently, neither of you are capable of debating the most relavent point of this case intelligently which actually the decision by the State court.

So have a nice day and keep chirping.

You have the "freedom" to bankrupt your family and community by imposing your selfish wishes. Some of us have different ideas of responsibility to our families and community.

Now let's think about the many other times when Bush couldn't be bothered to spend an hour or two on an issue and decide if any of them were more important.

1. The tsunami victims -- More than 100,000 people died in the worst natural disaster of our lifetime. Millions were left homeless. It happened just after Christmas and hit hard our staunch ally, Thailand. (Many, many Muslims were devastated by this disaster.) Bush couldn't be bothered to step outside for FIVE minutes and offer his heartfelt sympathy to an event that had the rest of the world riveted and shocked. It took Bush DAYS to do anything, even after his aides had bungled our first offer of aid.

2. Investigating 9/11 with Congress -- Bush spent months hemming and hawing and avoiding having to meet with the bipartisan panel trying to look into the worst attack on US soil in history. He finally, grudgingly, spent a few hours but insisted he appear with Cheney by his side, cause they were busy and needed to get this over with.

3. Heck, 9/11 itself -- On the day of the worst attack on US soil in our history, Bush spent hours and hours flying around the country when he could have just spent a few minutes to get in front of a camera and reassure the nation that he was in charge and we'd get through this.

4. Military funerals -- Bush is the first President in US history during wartime (and presumably peacetime as well) who has refused to attend a SINGLE military funeral to honor one of our fallen soldiers. It's not just the couple of hours he can't be bothered to spend; Bush thinks it would be bad politics to remind people that young men and women die in war, so why bother honoring them? They can take a hit on the battlefield, but Bush won't risk taking a hit in the polls. And if things are going so swimmingly in Iraq, why does he STILL refuse to honor our military?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/03/bush-rushes-back-to-dc-ends-vacation.html

What galls me more is the emotional outburst of this congress talking about Terri Schiavo's thirst and hunger, while we have living children and families without food and health care.

Dookiestix wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Fortuantely, we have doctors to make this decision for us. They have made the decision that Terri is in a PVS. Who are you to say that they are wrong, Woiyo?

Given that the experts have agreed that she is in a PVS, a Persistent Vegatative State, then Terri Schiavo cannot be said to be alive in the way that most humans are alive. Her body is alive but her brain isn't.

Therefore; there is no purpose in continuing this charade of 'life' any longer... I wouldn't want to live that way, neither would you, neither would any sane person. Terri's parents aren't thinking of their daughter; they are thinking of themselves, and it's sad to watch.

Cycloptichorn

Do not speak for me. My living will basicly says take every and all extraordinary means to keep me alive.

And when your insurance runs out?

Personal assets. And if they run out then the family bank kicks in.

Well, then, lucky you, woiyo. Unfortunately, many others aren't so lucky. And wouldn't ya know it, it's seems to be because of a law that Governor Bush signed...

Quote:

Life-Support Stopped for 6-Month-Old in Houston

Under chapter chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

http://uspolitics.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof%5Fblog/2005/03/lifesupport%5Fsto.html

Boy, talk about compassionate conservatism...

What galls me more is the emotional outburst of this congress talking about Terri Schiavo's thirst and hunger, while we have living children and families without food and health care.