Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

nimh, I read your link earlier, but it seems the counter-challenge by the "other" side is always - but, but, but...

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If not, I can't help it, and we are highjacking Phoenix's thread so I will politiely withdraw until I am no longer the topic of the thread and we can get it back on track.

I don't think we are making you the topic of this thread; I think we're completely on-topic still. Namely, on the question of what doctors have said about Terri and what their opinion means.

Now some confusion may have arisen, for sure. Like Parados, I took your repeated point about "giving more credibility to the opinion of the doctor who had examined the patient than to the opinion of the doctor who had not", in the context of your argument for the parents' case, as an assertion that there are doctors who did examine Terri, and are on the parents' side - versus the husband's case being based on doctors who supposedly didn't spend time with her? Or something like that?

None of that is true (not a question of opinion, just not true), but then perhaps that was never what you intended to say!

The question of who exactly has seen/treated Terri and what they said remains as on-topic as any though. If you (or anyone) do(es) know of any other doctors but the 5 (3 on the husband's side, 2 on the parents') + 4 (all on the husband's side) we've talked about, let us know. I'm stopping Googling myself now, it's early in the morning here.

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Fox, Hammesfahr is the "world-renowned neurologist" I was talking about, who turned out not really to know what he's talking about it seems. That's what I got from exactly the link you now bring, anyway. Did you read it?

I made a mistake here: the link Fox brought was that of Hammesfahr's report; the link I quoted from was the judge's order, which evaluated all the different doctors' reports. It was on the same site, so I got confused: hence my assertion that I got what I quoted "from exactly the [same] link".

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

would be a far far better thing to allow humane euthanasia, a simple sleeping med overdose but that is against the will of the religious right-wing nuts. This, obviously, is a difficult and complicated social/political issue and will not be easily resolved to anyones satisfaction. the political grandstanding by the DeLay/Frist crowd is only making it far far worse for no apparent reason then their own personal/political agenda.

Dys- I could not have said that better myself!

Foxfyre- Don't worry about "hijacking" my thread. I am pleased that my writing it allowed people to share many differing views, Carry on!!!

0 Replies

Welcome to a New American Morning. We now enter the era of the right wing unabashedly using it's majority power in Congress to enter into any area, private or public, of American life. Got a State Supreme Court ruling in your favor? Too bad if it doesn't comply with the beliefs and feelings of the Republican Members of Congress, they'll just intervene and subvert your little set of Court Orders, meaningless before their immense sense of what's right and what's wrong.

In the truest exposure yet of the bizarroworld philosophy, the party, whose basic tenants proscribe against the intrusion of government into private lives, has thrust in entire weight of the Federal Government into the lives of one Husband and one Wife. Oh, and all that business about the sacredness of the marriage bond can be put aside too if the wife's mom has anything to say about it.

Yup. Marriage is the most important thing, say the Republicans, so important they think there should be a Constitutional Amendmemt defining it. So here is their new bizarro definition: Marriage is sacred only so long as we can use it to our political advantage.

Welcome to the new American morning where anyone is free to do whatever the Republican rightwing deems is okie-dokie.

Joe(I can buy a 50 caliber machines gun, I just can't make judgements as to the health and well-being of my wife.)Nation

0 Replies

Right you are, Joe.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Welcome to a New American Morning. We now enter the era of the right wing unabashedly using it's majority power in Congress to enter into any area, private or public, of American life. Got a State Supreme Court ruling in your favor? Too bad if it doesn't comply with the beliefs and feelings of the Republican Members of Congress, they'll just intervene and subvert your little set of Court Orders, meaningless before their immense sense of what's right and what's wrong.

In the truest exposure yet of the bizarroworld philosophy, the party, whose basic tenants proscribe against the intrusion of government into private lives, has thrust in entire weight of the Federal Government into the lives of one Husband and one Wife. Oh, and all that business about the sacredness of the marriage bond can be put aside too if the wife's mom has anything to say about it.

Yup. Marriage is the most important thing, say the Republicans, so important they think there should be a Constitutional Amendmemt defining it. So here is their new bizarro definition: Marriage is sacred only so long as we can use it to our political advantage.

Welcome to the new American morning where anyone is free to do whatever the Republican rightwing deems is okie-dokie.

Joe(I can buy a 50 caliber machines gun, I just can't make judgements as to the health and well-being of my wife.)Nation

What you have said here is pretty much a paranoid fantasy. The truth is simply that we are horrified at the idea of killing her, and would work the system almost any way we had to to get the feeding tube back in her, even if the method was only of temporary effectiveness. We do actually regard the marriage bond as being sacred, but slightly less so when the husband is trying to kill his wife. The really proper way to have done this would simply be to have created a law defining what is and is not allowable for euthanasia, but such attempts failed, and the woman is starving, which means that something has to be done quickly.

0 Replies

Paranoia within paranoia.

0 Replies

Brandon writes

Quote:

What you have said here is pretty much a paranoid fantasy. The truth is simply that we are horrified at the idea of killing her,

This is it in a nutshell. There is no way that some of us can accept condemning an innocent living human being to a death by a process that is so brutally slow, painful, and cruel that it would be illegal to do to any cat, dog, or the worst criminal. No matter which group of 'professional experts' one considers the most credible, there is a split decision on whether Terri can feel pain and/or is aware. If there is any chance she can/is, I could not vote other than on the side of life.

That Michael Shiavo is so determined to kill her when there are people who love her and care about her and are willing to take responsibility for her for the rest of her life puts his 'expert witnesses' in a less credible light so far as I am concerned. Any attorneys in the group well know when you hire an expert witness, you hire one that is going to say what you want said. The testimony of all the doctors therefore has to be considered in that light as does a doctor appointed by a judge who had already ruled once to withhold food and hydration.

What Congress did was not to overturn the courts but rather to clear the way for appeal to a higher court. How can we do less when a human life is at stake? I shudder at the precedent that may be set here.

There is something to say for clearing the way to use lethal injection or some humane way to stop the heart in cases where there 'is no hope' and where there is certainty that all cognitant brain activity has ceased. But even the implications of that are chilling given the apparent uncertainty re whether a person is in a 'pertistant vegetative state'.

0 Replies

The doctors hold out no hope for one like TS. It is delusional to think otherwise.

0 Replies

This is a paranoid fantasy -

Quote:

the husband is trying to kill his wife.

Something to be afraid of?

Quote:

The truth is simply that we are horrified at the idea of killing her, and would work the system almost any way we had to

Quote:

an unsigned memo circulated to Republican lawmakers over the weekend calling the Schiavo case "a great political issue" that resonates with conservatives.

I am sorry but when you violate the legal and ethical rights of others to get your way it is NOT "the right thing to do."

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

the apparent uncertainty re whether a person is in a 'pertistant vegetative state'.

There is no "uncertainty". There is a lot of chatter from uninformed people but there is no doubt from the medical and legal community on this one.

You say one thing Fox then turn around and ignore what you said when the facts don't support your preordained conclusion.

- you said we should listen to those that have actually examined her.
- All impartial people that have examined her agree she is PVS with no chance of recovery. The court appointed ad litems and Drs are NOT agents of Michael Schiavo.

You then ignore the facts because they don't agree with you. That is down right scary.

0 Replies

Are you saying that the husband is not wishing to terminate her life, Parados?

We aren't 'working the system any way we had to' but Congress with a unanimous vote in the Senate and more than a 2/3rds majority in the House cleared the way for a legal appeal to the courts to be possible.

That 'unsigned' memo has been disavowed by all the Republicans. Now who had the most to gain by such a memo being leaked to the press? It sure wasn't the Republicans. All but the most blatantly partisan would have to consider more than one possibility there.

You can be as insulting as you wish, and it will not change the fact that there are more than just facts supporting your point of view.

0 Replies

Quote:

What Congress did was not to overturn the courts but rather to clear the way for appeal to a higher court. How can we do less when a human life is at stake? I shudder at the precedent that may be set here.

Actually, Congress is attempting to overturn the courts. The courts said there is no basis for appeal. Congress didn't like that ruling and is attempting to force the courts to take an appeal. You can spin this any way you like Fox but the courts ruled and Congress is ordering them to reverse that ruling. Any sane person will see as that. The courts will see it as that. This will be thrown out so fast and I doubt even Scalia or Thomas will vote to uphold this law.

My guess is the first court that rules on it throws it out and no appeals court will even take it up because it is SO OBVIOUS. This never makes it to the USSC because the law has no merit whatsoever.

0 Replies

And you can spin it any way you like Parados, but all Congress did was pass a law to make an appeal possible. They didn't order the court to reverse its prior ruling and did not attempt to order the court to rule in any particular way. The prior law allowed for no such possibility.

100% of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House disagrees with your opinion that the law has no merit whatsoever.

0 Replies

Quote:

We aren't 'working the system any way we had to' but Congress with a unanimous vote in the Senate and more than a 2/3rds majority in the House cleared the way for a legal appeal to the courts to be possible.

Of course you are "working the system".. the vote was nothing but political cover. The idiots in the House know it will be thrown out by the courts and the memo talking about the way it plays to their conservative base reveals their cynicism. This vote violates the Constitution big time on several levels. It is nothing but a slap in the face to democracy and our way of life.

0 Replies

When the court rules there is no basis for an appeal any law that creates a basis for appeal overturns the court's ruling.

No basis..

A basis..

One is direct OPPOSITE of the OTHER. This is one big fantasy world we are now living in if when a law creates the opposite it isn't really opposite anymore.

0 Replies

You're entitled to your opinion Parados and I accept what you are saying as your opinion even though it isn't labeled as such. Smile

I am also entitled to my opinion, and on this issue I am very glad I hold the opinion that I hold and that I don't share yours.

And now I have to get to work.

0 Replies

Quote:

100% of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House disagrees with your opinion that the law has no merit whatsoever.

I keep forgetting. There are only what? 20 Senators in the Senate and how many House members? oh.. I guess in your world it is 306.

Your justification is funny. The Senate never called for a quorum and the House barely met their quorum minimum before they voted.

This was nothing but a cynical ploy to play to people like you. The members of the House should know full well that this law will not stand up to any court challenge. Every member that voted for it should be voted out for attacking the US constitution in such a blatant fashion.

We will see if a court even orders an injunction to put the tube back in. My guess is they will go court shopping after they lose their first attempts at it.

0 Replies

The entire basis of logic is that something either "is" or "is NOT." "Is" is opposite of "is NOT". "No basis" is the opposite of "basis." When people consider it merely to be an opinion that "is" is different from "is NOT" then we have no logical way to discuss anything.

0 Replies

Amen.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know