Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Gelisgesti wrote:

Tico,
I argued only medical points and issues. I don't understand your point in asking for law degrees ..... that would be Debs place don't you think? I would be out of place to argue the legal aspects as I am ignorant of the law.
What's your point?

You asked Debra why a judge would interfere with normal intake of food and drink. You're suggesting that is a medical point or issue and not a legal issue?

After she answered your question, your reply was to dismiss her response as "ridiculous" and "tripe" and to essentially proclaim that your medical certification as a repiratory therapy technician makes you the by-all and end-all on the subject -- at a minimum that your opinion is entitled to greater deference than Debra's. You have now asked her on what experience is she basing her medical opinion. You can disclaim all you want that you did not intend to imply you were an expert on the subject, but that certainly appears to be the intent of you asking those questions.

In light of your questions -- and Lola's obvious pressing desire to see them answered -- I think it to be a very valid question to ask upon what experience are those in this thread basing their legal opinions, and what are their legal credentials? With all the lay people offering their legal opinions on this subject, have you seen Debra or I flaunt our law degrees, legal education and experience, or demand to know the legal training of those offering their opinions, with the obvious intent to denigrate them in the process? The answer is "no." Debra in particular has done a yeoman's job of trying to educate on the law in this area.

I'll make you a deal though: I'll accept what you have so say about the medical issues as gospel, if you do the same about what I have to say about the legal issues. Agreed?

Ticomaya wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:

Tico,
I argued only medical points and issues. I don't understand your point in asking for law degrees ..... that would be Debs place don't you think? I would be out of place to argue the legal aspects as I am ignorant of the law.
What's your point?

You asked Debra why a judge would interfere with normal intake of food and drink. You're suggesting that is a medical point or issue and not a legal issue?

After she answered your question, your reply was to dismiss her response as "ridiculous" and "tripe" and to essentially proclaim that your medical certification as a respiratory therapy technician makes you the by-all and end-all on the subject -- at a minimum that your opinion is entitled to greater deference than Debra's. You have now asked her on what experience is she basing her medical opinion. You can disclaim all you want that you did not intend to imply you were an expert on the subject, but that certainly appears to be the intent of you asking those questions.

In light of your questions -- and Lola's obvious pressing desire to see them answered -- I think it to be a very valid question to ask upon what experience are those in this thread basing their legal opinions, and what are their legal credentials? With all the lay people offering their legal opinions on this subject, have you seen Debra or I flaunt our law degrees, legal education and experience, or demand to know the legal training of those offering their opinions, with the obvious intent to denigrate them in the process? The answer is "no." Debra in particular has done a yeoman's job of trying to educate on the law in this area.

I'll make you a deal though: I'll accept what you have so say about the medical issues as gospel, if you do the same about what I have to say about the legal issues. Agreed?

Re-write this with more fact and less your interpretation or twisting of what I have said. If you are going to accuse then provide proof of your charges. Back up your words as does everyone else with a valid point.
BTW .... what's your dog in this hunt?

Gelisgesti wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:

Tico,
I argued only medical points and issues. I don't understand your point in asking for law degrees ..... that would be Debs place don't you think? I would be out of place to argue the legal aspects as I am ignorant of the law.
What's your point?

You asked Debra why a judge would interfere with normal intake of food and drink. You're suggesting that is a medical point or issue and not a legal issue?

After she answered your question, your reply was to dismiss her response as "ridiculous" and "tripe" and to essentially proclaim that your medical certification as a respiratory therapy technician makes you the by-all and end-all on the subject -- at a minimum that your opinion is entitled to greater deference than Debra's. You have now asked her on what experience is she basing her medical opinion. You can disclaim all you want that you did not intend to imply you were an expert on the subject, but that certainly appears to be the intent of you asking those questions.

In light of your questions -- and Lola's obvious pressing desire to see them answered -- I think it to be a very valid question to ask upon what experience are those in this thread basing their legal opinions, and what are their legal credentials? With all the lay people offering their legal opinions on this subject, have you seen Debra or I flaunt our law degrees, legal education and experience, or demand to know the legal training of those offering their opinions, with the obvious intent to denigrate them in the process? The answer is "no." Debra in particular has done a yeoman's job of trying to educate on the law in this area.

I'll make you a deal though: I'll accept what you have so say about the medical issues as gospel, if you do the same about what I have to say about the legal issues. Agreed?

Re-write this with more fact and less your interpretation or twisting of what I have said. If you are going to accuse then provide proof of your charges. Back up your words as does everyone else with a valid point.
BTW .... what's your dog in this hunt?

If you feel I have twisted what you said, please provide clarification. I stated what you said, and the context you said it in. What "proof" do you require? Do you need me to go back a few pages and cut and past your posts? You flaunted your certification because you feel your opinion is entitled to greater deference therefor. I'd be willing to accept your denial of that if you can tell me the true reason for your pointing out your medical training and experience, and demanding to know the same of Debra.

My point, initially, was to try and subtly point out that nobody else was trying to claim expert status in this thread based on the papers they have hanging on their walls. I didn't really want to see anybody's "legal credentials," but if we were to accept the natural extension of your approach, there would be few people qualified to speak on the legal issues involved because they lack any formal legal training or experience.

You made the accussations and now refuse to back them up? What does that say about you?

Just for starters show me the post where I claimed 'expert' status ...the entire post, not your summation.

Expert. One who is knowledgeable in specialized field, that knowledge being obtained from either education or personal experience. Midtown Properties, Inc., v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 139 Ga.App. 182 .....One who by habits of life and business has peculiar skill in forming opinion on subject in dispute. Brown v. State, 140 Ga.App. 160

Also if you will, post the post where I stated my credentals you will see that I identified my credentials only after asking for hers ....

Gelisgesti wrote:

You made the accussations and now refuse to back them up? What does that say about you?

What accusation did I make that I did not provide an explanation for how I arrived at my conclusion? I said you posted your credentials because you thought your opinion deserved greater deference, and wanted to use your qualifications to show why you felt that was the case. You have yet to provide an explanation for your having done so if the real reason is otherwise.

Gelisgesti wrote:

Just for starters show me the post where I claimed 'expert' status ...the entire post, not your summation.

You did not use the term "expert," but you did not need to. I have answered EVERY question of yours up to this point, but you have yet to provide me with a rational explanation for your providing Debra with your qualifications if the purpose was not to claim a superior opinion with regard to the matter at hand. Do you need me to provide you with a definition of "expert," or are you a big boy and can look it up yourself?

Nevermind. Here is the definition in Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition ( ..... the one sitting on my desk. ):

Quote:

Expert. One who is knowledgeable in specialized field, that knowledge being obtained from either education or personal experience. Midtown Properties, Inc., v. George F. Richardson, Inc., 139 Ga.App. 182 .....One who by habits of life and business has peculiar skill in forming opinion on subject in dispute. Brown v. State, 140 Ga.App. 160

Gelisgesti wrote:

Also if you will, post the post where I stated my credentals you will see that I identified my credentials only after asking for hers ....

What is your point? Are you suggesting that by asking for her medical credentials first, before you flaunted yours, that in some way negates your intent to set yourself apart as the expert in the subject matter, as between yourself and Debra?

Of interest to all ....


Living wills.

From Disinfopedia: (3MX)

Alexander Strategy Group (3MY)

The Alexander Strategy Group (ASG) is a Republican Party-associated lobbying and political strategy firm with offices in Washington and Hong Kong. ASG was founded by Ed Buckham, the former chief of staff to Texas GOP Congressman and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, and Tony Rudy, a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies and also a former top aide to DeLay. (3MZ)

Christine DeLay, Tom's wife, also receives a salary from ASG.[1] Her approximately $40,000 a year salary, though, is "for her job as chief executive officer of Americans for a Republican Majority." According to Tom DeLay's communications director, "DeLay's wife is paid through the Alexander Strategy Group primarily as a bookkeeping arrangement... She does not keep an office at the firm and often works out of the couple's home."[2] But Christine DeLay is not listed among the firm's 17 staff members on ASG's website.[3] (3N0)

According to its website: "Unlike traditional lobbying firms, Alexander Strategy Group offers an integrated suite of advocacy services that includes government affairs, strategic consulting, public relations, grassroots development, creative media, international representation, coalition building, business development and corporate/crisis communications."[4] And, from a press release: ASG has "worked extensively with the Executive and Legislative branches of government, been involved in numerous Presidential and Congressional campaigns, forged alliances with numerous conservative advocacy groups and worked at the highest levels of the international arena."[5] (3N1)

Enron was ASG's biggest client; they received at least $411,000 from Enron between 1999 and 2001.[6] Ed Buckham and ASG were involved with a "secret 'grassroots' campaign -- spearheaded by Enron -- to deregulate energy markets... An outline for the plan was faxed to Tom DeLay?'s Washington office. It was printed on Alexander Strategy letterhead complete with Ed Buckham's name in print. The only problem was that Alexander Strategy's CEO was still in the employ of the federal government at the time... Alexander Strategy Group was, as Enron promised, awarded the $750,000 contract to drum up support for electric power deregulation -- a goal that Enron believed would open the $300 billion a year electric markets to Enron. The stealth campaign would operate out of an energy consortium dubbed, 'Americans for Affordable Electricity' -- a name that Californians would find bitterly ironic just three years later."[7] (3N2)

The North Carolina-based private military contractor Blackwater USA hired ASG for crisis management, public and media relations as Blackwater - and private military contractors in general - came under increased public scrutiny following the public killing and mutilation of four employees in Fallujah, Iraq on March 31, 2004. [8] (3N3)

Other ASG clients include the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, the Asbestos Study Group[9], Time Warner, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Housing & Rehabilitation Association[10], AT&T[11], the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, Eli Lilly, KOCH Industries, Microsoft, Nuclear Energy Institute, Xcel Energy and United States Telecom Association.[12] (3N4)

All opinion ... sans anything but your summation, remember I asked for fact, not summation. At least preface your charges with something like 'what you meant to say was' ....... do you read minds or something? You lose respect each time you try those tactics I am tired of your words ..... show me proof..... that is the only wayyou are going to convince anyone. Until you do that you are merely blowing smoke out of your sphincter. (thats a medical term)

220 pages of opinions and counting...

Although Terri is now dead, the societal and political issues that surrounded her case have not died. As a society, we need to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable concerning the end of life determinations that are being made for persons who can longer speak for themselves.

Whooda thunkit? When I started this thread, not too much was being said publicly about the political implications of the Schiavo case. Have I created a monster????

Gelisgesti wrote:

All opinion ... sans anything but your summation, remember I asked for fact, not summation. At least preface your charges with something like 'what you meant to say was' ....... do you read minds or something? You lose respect each time you try those tactics I am tired of your words ..... show me proof..... that is the only wayyou are going to convince anyone. Until you do that you are merely blowing smoke out of your sphincter. (thats a medical term)

Might be my opinion, but I identified the facts that support my opinion, and the rationale I used to arrive at same. I am still looking for your clarification, which would be much more useful than your continuing repetition of your concern that it's just my opinion. You have had ample opportunity to provide it, but it appears you have chosen not to.

WHAT ARE YOUR MEDICAL CREDENTIALS?

I have no desire to go back over the last 20 or 30 pages and cut and paste all the demands by Gel to list my medical credentials. Gel has repeatedly accused all persons who question the propriety of removing Terri's feeding tube as "ignorant" and "typing a load of tripe." To bolster Gel's opinions, which frankly amount to nothing more than telling other people how stupid and ridiculous they are, Gel listed her medical credentials as a certified respiratory therapist technician.

What is the relevance of Gel's "medical credentials" to this discussion? Gel has made it clear that Gel believes that Michael is a loving and caring husband and, because Michael went to school to become an R.N. to allegedly help Terri, Michael is the person who is in the best position to determine what is best for Terri, an incompetent person who could no longer speak for herself. Many of us challenge that assertion. In response to our challenges, Gel counters that we are ignorant, stupid, ridiculous, and tripe mongers. To substantiate her personal attacks, Gel offers nothing more than a listing of her medical credentials. The obvious significance of listing one's medical credentials is to establish oneself as an expert and the rest of us without similar medical credentials as morons.

I would certainly bow to Gel's alleged superior knowledge on medical issues if Gel would actually express that alleged knowledge. However, the only thing Gel offers to the discussion is insults such as, "you are IGNORANT -- go look up 'ignorant' in the dictionary -- here, I'll do it for you," followed by a definition of "ignorant" that is copied and pasted from an online dictionary. Rather than explain why a statement is "ignorant" by sharing knowledge, Gel rests solely on the claim, "I have medical credentials, show me yours." That is the kind of kindergarten, "na, na, na-na-na-nana," argument that reasoned adults should try to avoid when discussing issues of great public importance with respect to governmental involvement in end-of-life determinations.

Although Terri is now dead, the societal and political issues that surrounded her case have not died. As a society, we need to determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable concerning the end of life determinations that are being made for persons who can longer speak for themselves.

Gelisgesti wrote:

All opinion ... sans anything but your summation, remember I asked for fact, not summation. At least preface your charges with something like 'what you meant to say was' ....... do you read minds or something? You lose respect each time you try those tactics I am tired of your words ..... show me proof..... that is the only wayyou are going to convince anyone. Until you do that you are merely blowing smoke out of your sphincter. (thats a medical term)

Might be my opinion, but I identified the facts that support my opinion, and the rationale I used to arrive at same. I am still looking for your clarification, which would be much more useful than your continuing repetition of your concern that it's just my opinion. You have had ample opportunity to provide it, but it appears you have chosen not to.

Each person that frequents this thread is aware of the fact thata all you do is accuse with nothing but your opinion to back up your charges.

A more extensive review of the scientific literature relevant to starvation and dehydration appears in an article by Sullivan entitled, Accepting Death without Artificial Nutrition or Hydration.[Sullivan] Published studies of healthy volunteers report that total fasting causes hunger for less than 24 hours. Ketonemia occurs and is associated with relief of hunger and an accompanying mild euphoria. When ketonemia is prevented by small feedings hunger persists, explaining the obsession with food commonly observed during semi-starvation occurring in times of famine or war. Animal studies also suggest that ketonemia may have a mild systemic analgesic effect. Experimentally induced dehydration in normal volunteers may report thirst, yet this sensation is consistently relieved by ad lib sips of fluid in cumulative volumes insufficient to restore physiologic fluid balance. One study of healthy subjects suggests there is a decrease in the severity of experienced thirst associated with older age.