Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Are all of them nuts? Or is it only my imagination?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Are all of them nuts? Or is it only my imagination?

Think about it. I'd explain, but I don't have that much time.

0 Replies

thank god!

0 Replies

... for the first time ever actually grinning at brandon, re: dookie ... perhaps you're better with jokes than with politics, man

0 Replies

I think Brandon has finally cracked up.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Geli writes

Quote:
Fox, wrong .... people are not born with tubes in their stomachs ..... it's called 'life support'. Terri could not swallow food or water .... she had to be fed and watered like a vegetable ...... persistent vegetative state ....

If the medical community, including those care givers who were with Terri day in and day out, had been in agreement on that, and they weren't, then there is the possibility of error. And if we err, I still always want us to err on the side of life. If she truly was PVS there was no harm in allowing her parents and siblings who loved to to continue to care for her. If she was not, then what was done to her would have been murder doing it to anyone else. If they were so sure she was unaware and unable to feel or think anything, then why administer morphine during the starvation/dehydration process? It is just all too macabre for me and is unconscionably cruel to intentionally do to any living creature.

Every thing you just said was ignorant opinion ........ documentation free ignorant opinion and wrong!.

There have been many times in other threads when I have disagreed with Foxfyre. But, I must acknowledge that Foxfyre always responds to disagreements with class and dignity. She never resorts to character assassination. She remains polite and respectful under circumstances where most other people, myself included, will falter. For that, Foxfyre has my admiration because she is undoubtedly a far better person than most of us are in the face of disagreement and personal attacks.

Foxfyre's opinion is neither ignorant nor wrong. Even the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Due Process Clause not only protects an individual's choice to refuse medical treatment, but it also protects an individual's right to life. In the Cruzan case, the Supreme Court set forth the reasons why it is better to err on the side of life. Obviously, an erroneous decision in favor to removing hydration and nutrition and causing the death of the incompetent individual is irreversible. An erroneous decision that causes the death of a human being can never be remedied. Accordingly, it is far better to err on the side of life when there are doubts, questions, and disagreements.

Additionally, if Terri was truly in a persistent vegetative state, she would not be sentient. She would not feel any pain. She would be completely unaware that she was being starved and dehydrated to death. Yet, those who swore on a stack of bibles that Terri was PVS, decided to medicate her with morphine to make her more comfortable. If she was truly PVS, then she wouldn't need morphine. It goes to show that those who would starve and dehydrate her to death weren't truly convinced themselves that she wouldn't feel the cruel pain of the death they were imposing upon her. And that, ironically, leads us back to the first question: If there's any question of whether she's truly PVS, why kill her at all?

Gelisgesti, it is neither ignorant nor wrong for people to want to err on the side of protecting life rather than snuffing it out. No matter how you look at Terri, she was not a vegetable. She was not suffering; she was not terminally ill; she was not causing harm or detriment to any other person on this earth. She was a human being and her existence was worthy of protection no matter how meaningless some people thought her life to be.

I am struggling with extreme disappointment in my fellow Americans who believe that imposing death upon this incapacitated woman was not only acceptable -- but also warranted. It makes me wonder where they will draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable in the future.

0 Replies

Fox's position is wrong, as it ignores a very real fact:

Quote:

If she truly was PVS there was no harm in allowing her parents and siblings who loved to to continue to care for her.

In fact, this is completely wrong. There is major harm in keeping a dead woman's body alive in order to assuage the feelings of parents who can't let go of their DEAD daughter. Death is a part of life, and for all intents and purposes, Terri Schiavo has been dead since 1990. The sooner her parents realize this fact, the sooner they can start moving on with their lives; the obsession they have shown with Terri's body is just plain sick and may be indicative of mental disorder.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well I shall bask in Debra's praise which will no doubt last only until she and I go toe to toe on another issue. Smile

(You won't find many on A2K who present an opinion as well reasoned and, as necessary, as well supported as Debra does however. She's really tough to debate.)

And I will wait for references testifying to Cycloptichorn's medical license that gives him the knowledge and authority to pronounce a person dead before I respond to his post.

Debra's question however is the crux of the whole issue for me now:

Quote:

It makes me wonder where they will draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable in the future.

The danger as I see it is that a very well publicized precedent has now been set. All it takes to order a disabled person to be killed is a debatable statement from a person's spouse or other guardian stating that the person wished to die. Those who cannot see a problem with that simply don't want there to be a problem I think.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra's question however is the crux of the whole issue for me now:

Quote:
It makes me wonder where they will draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable in the future.

The danger as I see it is that a very well publicized precedent has now been set. All it takes to order a disabled person to be killed is a debatable statement from a person's spouse or other guardian stating that the person wished to die. Those who cannot see a problem with that simply don't want there to be a problem I think.

I said I'd be quiet, but I have to respond to this. Fox, if I thought this case was setting a precedent that would be used as the basis for mass genocide, I would be shouting from the rooftop along with you. I don't see it that way.

This case is about one woman and her wishes. There was a disagreement among her loved ones about what to do regarding her care. It was settled by the courts. I might or might not agree with the decision of the courts, but that's irrelevant. Her parents were within their rights to challenge the court's decision, which they did and the decision of the court was upheld.

This story was not about all CVS patients, or any other disability. This was about Terri Schiavo and whether or not she wanted to remain on artificial life support. The judge found in favor of the husband, Terri's legal guardian. It became a political football, as this thread correctly called it, when outside groups decided they knew better what this one woman wanted and turned it into something beyond one person, when Congress tried to turn it into something else, when the President of the United States tried to turn it into something else, and when millions of people around the world decided they needed to turn it into something else, and perhaps have done so.

I don't think we have crossed any lines into large scale euthanasia or genocide of the infirmed. This was only ever about one woman and her wishes.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I think Brandon has finally cracked up.

Hint: It's easy to ascribe base motives to anyone. It requires no proof, it frees you from the necessity of countering what he has said, and it is almost impossible to defend against.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra's question however is the crux of the whole issue for me now:

Quote:
It makes me wonder where they will draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable in the future.

The danger as I see it is that a very well publicized precedent has now been set. All it takes to order a disabled person to be killed is a debatable statement from a person's spouse or other guardian stating that the person wished to die. Those who cannot see a problem with that simply don't want there to be a problem I think.

I said I'd be quiet, but I have to respond to this. Fox, if I thought this case was setting a precedent that would be used as the basis for mass genocide, I would be shouting from the rooftop along with you. I don't see it that way.

This case is about one woman and her wishes. There was a disagreement among her loved ones about what to do regarding her care. It was settled by the courts. I might or might not agree with the decision of the courts, but that's irrelevant. Her parents were within their rights to challenge the court's decision, which they did and the decision of the court was upheld.

This story was not about all CVS patients, or any other disability. This was about Terri Schiavo and whether or not she wanted to remain on artificial life support. The judge found in favor of the husband, Terri's legal guardian. It became a political football, as this thread correctly called it, when outside groups decided they knew better what this one woman wanted and turned it into something beyond one person, when Congress tried to turn it into something else, when the President of the United States tried to turn it into something else, and when millions of people around the world decided they needed to turn it into something else, and perhaps have done so.

I don't think we have crossed any lines into large scale euthanasia or genocide of the infirmed. This was only ever about one woman and her wishes.

If this was about what her husband (her legal guardian) wanted,let me take this one step further.
Who has the final authority,the parents of a minor in Terri's condition,or that minor's legal guardian (the state)?

I ask this because my sister is the legal guardian of a 10 year old boy that has a feeding tube,is not aware of anything,and will never progress beyond the state he is in now.

He was born that way,caused by a virus his mother got while she was cleaning a cat box while pregnant.
I dont know the name of the virus,but apparently it is fairly common.
Since my sister is his legal guardian,should she be allowed to order his death,even though his birth mother is against it?
The mother and the county made my sister the legal guardian,because the mother has 2 other kids.
She always visits,and is involved in his care.

So,can my sister order his death,or cant she?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox's position is wrong, as it ignores a very real fact:

Quote:
If she truly was PVS there was no harm in allowing her parents and siblings who loved to to continue to care for her.

In fact, this is completely wrong. There is major harm in keeping a dead woman's body alive in order to assuage the feelings of parents who can't let go of their DEAD daughter. Death is a part of life, and for all intents and purposes, Terri Schiavo has been dead since 1990. The sooner her parents realize this fact, the sooner they can start moving on with their lives; the obsession they have shown with Terri's body is just plain sick and may be indicative of mental disorder.

Cycloptichorn

The only thing that any of us can truly agree upon is that Terri suffered brain damage. But, she was not brain dead. She did not die in 1990.

Hours before she collapsed and Michael allegedly awoke from his sleep because he heard a "thump" in the hallway, Terri went to have her hair done. It was one of those small self-indulgent pleasures in life that we all experience. Shortly thereafter, Terri had a fight with her husband. He was angry with her for her alleged selfishness: for spending money on herself at the hair salon. Fighting with a spouse is one of those painful experiences in life that many of us have experienced.

She spoke on the phone with one of her friends. She was upset about having yet another fight with her husband. She talked about divorcing Michael. She was dissatisfied with her marriage. If she had not collapsed that night, she might have sued Michael for divorce. We'll never know for sure . . . .

We do know that she responded to painful stimuli by retracting her limbs and displaying a painful grimace on her face. This was noted during her early rehabilitation efforts and that is why her physician ordered bone scans approximately one year after she collapsed. The bone scans revealed that many bones in her body showed healed fractures demonstrating that she had been subjected to injurious trauma.

Years later, Judge Greer wrote that it might be interesting to investigate the source of that injurious trauma to Terri's body that was discovered in 1991, but he ruled it was not relevant to the issue of whether Terri wished her life support removed in 2002. I can make many substantial arguments on the relevancy issue, but it would simply fall upon deaf and uncaring ears the same as the Schindler's arguments fell upon Judge Greer's deaf and uncaring ears. So let's move on.

Not only did Terri respond to painful stimuli through grimaces, she responded to pleasant stimuli by smiling and showing glee. She repeatedly demonstrated that she could distinguish between pain and pleasure through her responses. So, even in her most elementary, brain-damaged state, Terri responded appropriately (in the way we all do) to painful and pleasurable stimuli. When we experience pain, we grimace. When we experience the pleasure of seeing loved ones coming to visit us, we smile.

An individual who can experience pain and pleasure is NOT dead. Those of us who value Terri's life and the small pleasures that she derived from her existence are not sick nor suffering from a mental disorder.

If there was any possibility at all that Terri derived the smallest of pleasure from her existence and being loved by her family, why is it acceptable to snuff out her existence?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Geli writes

Quote:
Fox, wrong .... people are not born with tubes in their stomachs ..... it's called 'life support'. Terri could not swallow food or water .... she had to be fed and watered like a vegetable ...... persistent vegetative state ....

If the medical community, including those care givers who were with Terri day in and day out, had been in agreement on that, and they weren't, then there is the possibility of error. And if we err, I still always want us to err on the side of life. If she truly was PVS there was no harm in allowing her parents and siblings who loved to to continue to care for her. If she was not, then what was done to her would have been murder doing it to anyone else. If they were so sure she was unaware and unable to feel or think anything, then why administer morphine during the starvation/dehydration process? It is just all too macabre for me and is unconscionably cruel to intentionally do to any living creature.

Every thing you just said was ignorant opinion ........ documentation free ignorant opinion and wrong!.

There have been many times in other threads when I have disagreed with Foxfyre. But, I must acknowledge that Foxfyre always responds to disagreements with class and dignity. She never resorts to character assassination. She remains polite and respectful under circumstances where most other people, myself included, will falter. For that, Foxfyre has my admiration because she is undoubtedly a far better person than most of us are in the face of disagreement and personal attacks.

Foxfyre's opinion is neither ignorant nor wrong. Even the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Due Process Clause not only protects an individual's choice to refuse medical treatment, but it also protects an individual's right to life. In the Cruzan case, the Supreme Court set forth the reasons why it is better to err on the side of life. Obviously, an erroneous decision in favor to removing hydration and nutrition and causing the death of the incompetent individual is irreversible. An erroneous decision that causes the death of a human being can never be remedied. Accordingly, it is far better to err on the side of life when there are doubts, questions, and disagreements.

Additionally, if Terri was truly in a persistent vegetative state, she would not be sentient. She would not feel any pain. She would be completely unaware that she was being starved and dehydrated to death. Yet, those who swore on a stack of bibles that Terri was PVS, decided to medicate her with morphine to make her more comfortable. If she was truly PVS, then she wouldn't need morphine. It goes to show that those who would starve and dehydrate her to death weren't truly convinced themselves that she wouldn't feel the cruel pain of the death they were imposing upon her. And that, ironically, leads us back to the first question: If there's any question of whether she's truly PVS, why kill her at all?

Gelisgesti, it is neither ignorant nor wrong for people to want to err on the side of protecting life rather than snuffing it out. No matter how you look at Terri, she was not a vegetable. She was not suffering; she was not terminally ill; she was not causing harm or detriment to any other person on this earth. She was a human being and her existence was worthy of protection no matter how meaningless some people thought her life to be.

I am struggling with extreme disappointment in my fellow Americans who believe that imposing death upon this incapacitated woman was not only acceptable -- but also warranted. It makes me wonder where they will draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable in the future.

What is the nature of your medical training that allows you to diagnose a patient over a TV broadcast and say that she was not in a PVS when a majority of real doctors that examined her first hand says she was. Are you saying that a tube surgically inserted into her stomach is not artificial? Do you have one?

2 entries found for ignorant.
ig·no·rant Audio pronunciation of "ignorant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Not name calling, fact. She claims to get her knowledge from the web and Fox tv. Think of how many neurologist their money on medical school when they could have done the same thing sitting on the sofa.

My credentials? Thirty five years as a Cardio Pulmonary Technician ..... working on patients such as Terri, at least a thousand of them. I'm the guy that gets acall from the unit to please come down and pull the plug on so and so ..... the guy that keeps them alive and breathing.

On what do you base your observance of sentiency .... when and where?

0 Replies

Debra,

Nicely written - thanks.

Many here would likely applaud the life Christopher Reeve lived after the tragic horseriding accident that left him almost totally paralyzed from the neck down. He required an artificial breathing apparatus fopr most of his remaining years and very likely was fed in the same manner as Terry Schiavo. Despite his horrific injuries, the prospect of which might well have led him to prefer death if asked, he found the will and desire to live about ten productive years afterwards and to inspire many people in the process. Was this stage of his life worth living?

0 Replies

MM Writes

Quote:

is not aware of anything,and will never progress beyond the state he is in now.

And it is here that my personal convictions come into play. For we don't know what medical miracles are just around the corner to bring somebody just like this back. Maybe its just wishful thinking. But when there's life there is always hope. In this case, as the child had no chance to give his personal wishes, I would say the Schiavo case would not apply. But what if he had? Would a minor child's wishes be considered?

But in response to J_B, let's take another case like Terri's. A medical mishap, perhaps, or an accident. And the husband wants to get on with his life, start over or whatever. So he files suit to order her feeding tube removed, and he says she told him she never wanted to live like that. Do you in your wildest dreams think that his attorney won't cite the Schiavo case as a precedent?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

If there was any possibility at all that Terri derived the smallest of pleasure from her existence and being loved by her family, why is it acceptable to snuff out her existence?

Gelisgesti wrote:

...in a PVS when a majority of real doctors that examined her first hand says she was.

What did the minority have to say? What did the people who spent a lot of time around her say? I'd sure hate to snuff someone out agonizingly, who wanted to live, if I weren't sure they were unaware.

0 Replies

Quote, "And it is here that my personal convictions come into play. For we don't know what medical miracles are just around the corner to bring somebody just like this back."

Thanks for my first laugh for today. Probably the best chance for that ever happening is not during Bush's tenure, because he's against stem cell research. Besides, Terri's brain was damaged, and most experts in the field already said it was irreversable.

From today, we're gonna keep all brain damaged patients alive and in limbo while we look for a cure, because "medical mircales are just around the corner." That's about the most insane idea to come up the pike in many a year, and probably the most stupid statement on a2k - ever.

0 Replies

What if she was aware? And she couldn't speak, move, communicate, anything?

You'd feel comfortable keeping someone trapped inside a literal prison for the rest of their natural life?

It would be like hell! Even if there are chances for medical advances in the future, she's already had to deal with 15 years of non-communication.

Not that this conversation matters, as the part of one's brain that deals with consciousness is located in the area of the brain that TS didn't even have anymore, so....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Debra,

Nicely written - thanks.

Many here would likely applaud the life Christopher Reeve lived after the tragic horseriding accident that left him almost totally paralyzed from the neck down. He required an artificial breathing apparatus fopr most of his remaining years and very likely was fed in the same manner as Terry Schiavo. Despite his horrific injuries, the prospect of which might well have led him to prefer death if asked, he found the will and desire to live about ten productive years afterwards and to inspire many people in the process. Was this stage of his life worth living?

Pleease excuse the crude unpolished nature of my answer, I know sentence structure and all that mean more than the basic import and factual content but to answer your question ... not to me

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

What is the nature of your medical training that allows you to diagnose a patient over a TV broadcast and say that she was not in a PVS when a majority of real doctors that examined her first hand says she was. Are you saying that a tube surgically inserted into her stomach is not artificial? Do you have one?

2 entries found for ignorant.
ig·no·rant Audio pronunciation of "ignorant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Not name calling, fact. She claims to get her knowledge from the web and Fox tv. Think of how many neurologist their money on medical school when they could have done the same thing sitting on the sofa.

My credentials? Thirty five years as a Cardio Pulmonary Technician ..... working on patients such as Terri, at least a thousand of them. I'm the guy that gets acall from the unit to please come down and pull the plug on so and so ..... the guy that keeps them alive and breathing.

On what do you base your observance of sentiency .... when and where?

I do not lack education or intelligence. I do not lack knowledge of the facts. I am not unaware or uninformed.

I am aware that there is substantial disagreement among medical professionals concerning the diagnosis of PVS. I don't need to be a medically trained professional to understand that when people who are trained in the profession disagree that there is room for error on either side.

And, for your information, the court did not merely rule that Terri would wish to have her feeding tube removed when her wishes could not clearly and unambiguously be known, he ordered that no food or water be allowed to pass her lips. He had armed guards at her door to ensure that no person place a single drop of water in her mouth. Tell me, how can placing a drop of water in Terri's mouth be construed as "artificial life support?"

The court did not simply order the removal of life support, he unequivocally ordered her death by starvation and dehydration.

You are not engaging in a debate on the facts or information available to us, you are engaging in name-calling.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know