Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, Your's is a personal view; most Americans don't want Congress to interfere in family matters.

The courts can only rule on existing law, which is what they have done in this case. There are currently in place laws governing end of life issues, as well a numerous other issues connected with families, e.g. spouse abuse, child abuse, etc. Florida has a Department of Children and Families, and many states have similar agencies. The country has numerous laws governing family issues, and end of life issues. The ones that exist now are not set in stone and can be corrected if the people's representatives think they are morally wrong. In this country, the ability to make laws is restricted to the legislature.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

That was in response to Lash's post about the Pope btw (Brandon got in between). Hope my posts were useful for you by the way, Lash; I hadnt before gotten into the primary sources quite that deeply. Note that not one of the quotes I brought was from some opinion piece - its all the original court documents, and I'd say they're pretty unambiguous about some of the points you brought up.

Re the Pope: I thought it was a point of interest. If it wasn't for you, don't feel you have to address each of my posts. I was not suggesting anything but an odd coincidence.

And, no. I'd seen what you brought before. Not one of those items "made" my decision. But, it is made. As I've said, people's threshholds for what constitutes life, and cognition and value and "mindless responses" differ. Just because she doesn't score 100% on "tests of responses" doesn't mean anything to me. I've had two babies, who have behaved very similarly. They wouldn't have scored the same on response tests, either. Sometimes you're thrilled when they smile at you, and you call the family---and then you do the same thing...and nothing. Luckily, no one was standing by to kill them if they didn't perform.

She did react. That proved to me someone of some level of functioning life is in there. That she doesn't repeat it on demand makes no difference to me, other than signalling a lower level of funcioning that if she were able to repeat her responses reliably.

0 Replies

That's where the editing comes in, Lash. When she was tiny, my daughter loved to say "four!" She'd just kind of say it randomly. I could ask, "what's two plus two?" and she'd say "four!" I could ask, "what's the square root of 16?" and she'd say "four!" I could ask, "what does a golfer say when he hits a ball over a tree?" and she'd say "fore"! If I edited out the zillions of times that she said "four!" for no reason -- the times I said, "are you tired?" and she said "four!", "what's your name?" and she said "four!", "I love you," "four!" -- it would look like she was a genius.

Terri Schiavo is not still. She moves. She smiles, etc. The question is whether it means anything, and actual neurologists say no, it doesn't. It's all consistent with PVS, editing notwithstanding.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Better not only close all the hospitals in this country but also the courts, because they're all part of the problem; those murderous sob's.

One wonders what the courts of the era had to say about the 19th century genocide of the American Indians.

Didn't Andrew Jackson force the Cherokees on the trail of tears in spite of a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary?

0 Replies

The reason she can't respond is her cognitive part of her brain is kaput, gone, sayonara, the end. Her eye movements and everything else people see on that short tv clip is only a physical response, not a cognitive one. That part of the brain that allows people to "really" respond is gone, kaput, sayonara, the end, and reactivating her feeding and liquid tube will never bring her back. She's been in this condition for ten years or more, after she suffered the heart attack. People are not keeping her alive for Terri; they're keeping her alive for many other reasons, but not for her. She's gone....

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Better not only close all the hospitals in this country but also the courts, because they're all part of the problem; those murderous sob's.

One wonders what the courts of the era had to say about the 19th century genocide of the American Indians.

Didn't Andrew Jackson force the Cherokees on the trail of tears in spite of a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary?

Despite the fact that there were rulings favoring the Indians, I'd think it was a safe bet that there were rulings favoring their suppression. And even if not, my only point, that there have been court rulings which we would today regard as abhorrent, is clearly true. Do you believe that there have not been numerous such rulings? Finding one counterexample has no bearing.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

Despite the fact that there were rulings favoring the Indians, I'd think it was a safe bet that there were rulings favoring their suppression. And even if not, my only point, that there have been court rulings which we would today regard as abhorrent, is clearly true. Do you believe that there have not been numerous such rulings? Finding one counterexample has no bearing.

Why would a counterexample have no bearing? To claim such presupposes that you know that your viewpoint will be supported in the future. You have no way of knowing that for sure. The odds are pretty much 50/50 that future will look back in one way or another. If we base it on present public viewpoint it is 70/30 against you. If we look at it strictly from the standpoint of overturning prior USSC rulings, then the odds are stacked even more against your opinion.

0 Replies

Yeah, soz. She didn't know what she was saying. But, she had the ability to say it, and it gave her pleasure.

I realize you and others think it (Shiavo's facial reaction, following balloon...) was a random, meaningless brain fart--that she experienced nothing to cause that expression/behavior. That it happened completely independant of Terri's awareness.

I don't mind that you believe that.

I don't believe it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon wrote:

Quote:
Despite the fact that there were rulings favoring the Indians, I'd think it was a safe bet that there were rulings favoring their suppression. And even if not, my only point, that there have been court rulings which we would today regard as abhorrent, is clearly true. Do you believe that there have not been numerous such rulings? Finding one counterexample has no bearing.
Why would a counterexample have no bearing? To claim such presupposes that you know that your viewpoint will be supported in the future. You have no way of knowing that for sure. The odds are pretty much 50/50 that future will look back in one way or another. If we base it on present public viewpoint it is 70/30 against you. If we look at it strictly from the standpoint of overturning prior USSC rulings, then the odds are stacked even more against your opinion.

Holy cow. My point is pretty simple. Since there have, in fact, been many high court rulings that we would today regard as absolutely wrong, therefore it follows that the mere fact that the courts have now come down on one side of the argument is not much of an indicator that that is the morally right side. Let's see how much more you can confuse my specific and clear statement.

0 Replies

That's fine, but why?

If neurologists, experts on the subject, who don't have a dog in the fight, say that it was random and meaningless -- why do you still think that? What do you base it on?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That's fine, but why?

If neurologists, experts on the subject, who don't have a dog in the fight, say that it was random and meaningless -- why do you still think that? What do you base it on?

1. The fact that some of the doctors and some of the people closest to her have disagreed. There is not a complete consensus of opinion.

2. The decision is based on her husband's claim that she whispered something in his ear. That is unverifiable. The articles I have seen indicate that she probably said conflicting things to different people. Since this is the basis for most of what has happened, the case rests on a very weak foundation.

3. It is not really much of an argument, but I cannot quite see why at some point the husband, now happy with a new family, would not recognize the parents' strong desire that their child be allowed to live and just leave and let them care for her.

0 Replies

All Things Considered on WBUR (local NPR) had an interview with Father John J Paris, today, about the catholic church's stand on end of life treatment. It was interesting. He told a story about his grandmother being appaled at the propect of entubing dying relatives. She didn't understand why the doctors would want to pester her dying kin. She believed that god was calling them home, why would they want to wait if god was calling them?

You can listen on www.wbur.com

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

All Things Considered on WBUR (local NPR) had an interview with Father John J Paris, today, about the catholic church's stand on end of life treatment. It was interesting. He told a story about his grandmother being appaled at the propect of entubing dying relatives. She didn't understand why the doctors would want to pester her dying kin. She believed that god was calling them home, why would they want to wait if god was calling them?

You can listen on www.wbur.com

She wasn't dying until they started denying her food and water.

0 Replies

You mean she was dying until they began force feeding her food and water.

0 Replies

Most people feed and offer water to those too weak to feed themselves.

I guess there are some who would choose to leave her in that predicament.

0 Replies

Feeding her soup, strained foods, liquids which she could swallow is fine. Once a person can no longer swallow, they are dying.

0 Replies

Actually, they should shoot the Pope if that is so. You know, there is this freaky esophageal thingie that causes people not to be able to swallow on demand. It takes a while, and meds, to clear it up.

But, you wouldn't want to kill these people.

0 Replies

No, I think medical types know when the effort should or shouldn't be made. Personally, I think a feeding tube is fine for a period of time. After that it should be pulled.

0 Replies

Oh, and I think they should allow the pope to die with some integrity.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Better not only close all the hospitals in this country but also the courts, because they're all part of the problem; those murderous sob's.

One wonders what the courts of the era had to say about the 19th century genocide of the American Indians.

Didn't Andrew Jackson force the Cherokees on the trail of tears in spite of a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary?

Despite the fact that there were rulings favoring the Indians, I'd think it was a safe bet that there were rulings favoring their suppression. And even if not, my only point, that there have been court rulings which we would today regard as abhorrent, is clearly true. Do you believe that there have not been numerous such rulings? Finding one counterexample has no bearing.

Was more pointing out a historical case of the Executive branch exceeding its authority....

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know