Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Who's the terrier here? LOL A dog doesn't understand right from wrong; only acts under command by their "master" with no ability to think on their own - almost like a (right to life) religion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And it seems you pick out the parts of my argument that support your point of view and ignore the rest.

And it seems you do the same... or do you wish to address the question I asked?

No doubt about it, this is not a slam-dunk case for either side. Could Mr. Schiavo have ulterior motives? Yep. Can I peer into his head and determine them? Nope.

Why did he wait until after the malpractice suit? Dunno. Could be he wanted the money. Could also be that the end of the suit was an emotional turning point for him; he realized that his wife was never coming back.

But my point remains that the whole situation should have remained a private matter.

0 Replies

Quote:

And since there were family members, both parents and siblings, more than willing to take over the personal and financial responsibility for her care for the rest of her life, if she was PVS and therefore unaware as you say, what other reason could there be to kill her other than expediency?

How about, "it's sick to keep a dead woman's body alive in order to support the mental imbalances of her family, who can't let go?" That seems a good reason to many people.

Quote:

Some have said they want the plug pulled on this thread. I would imagine so because I can't imagine that some of you supporting Michael Schiavo's side in this are not at least a little uncomfortable when confronted with any data that suggests killing Terri was not the right thing to do. I think you don't want to look at it and don't want to believe Terri Schiavo was brutally killed.

You couldn't be more wrong. Terri Schiavo was killed in 1990. The death of her body is of no consequence to most of us whatsoever. I am not uncomfortable with what happened in the slightest, and I would suspect that my fellows-in-argument are not either.

Perhaps it is YOU who is uncomfortable with the way the facts of the case continually undermine your beliefs about the case.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Book project? Boy, that's news to me. Although, I am currently designing the cover for a book, but it's a fictional tale written by a local author here in the Bay Area. And you can rest assured it has absolutely NOTHING to do with a2k.

So, you are working on a book. The truth begins to surface.

<sigh> It seems as though the only thing that's surfaced here is your delusional paranoia. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Honest to god, Cyclo, these neocons would be happy if it was only Terri's heart beating in a glass jar hooked up to an artificial pump. This is the extent to which all their arguments have taken them.

Off the deep end.

Like Brandon, who seems to think I'm gonna write an "expose" on a2k. In fact, he seems quite certain of it.

I wonder how far down the rabbit hole they're willing to go? My guess is all the way down into the drug infested world of Lewis Carroll.

0 Replies

Which question do you want answered Geli? There have been several, most of which I took to be rhetorical. And if the Schiavos and Schindlers had come to an agreement about Terri, the matter no doubt would have remained private. But I guarantee you, the day my son-in-law orders my daughter to be dehydrated to death, it is NOT going to be a private matter for two seconds.

0 Replies

Delusional describes it pretty well, Dookie. They continue to grasp at straws to make their case, and even call it "kill" when the courts from the state of Florida, the district court in Atlanta, to the SC agrees with Michael's decision. Only their delusion about "right to life" counts, because the doctors and our legal system in this country is wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Which question do you want answered Geli? There have been several, most of which I took to be rhetorical.

Do you even read what others post here? Or pay attention?

I asked you a question. You stated something to the effect that you would work to make sure no one was ever dehydrated to death again. I asked whether you were serious, whether you wanted to override personal choices. Try re-reading here.

0 Replies

Why do you suggest she was not "killed," merely because the Florida Court condoned the action? You only do so because you do not think she was "alive" at the time of her death last week?

0 Replies

She wasn't alive last week. There was no "her" left.

There are those of you who will say 'you don't know that for sure,' but in fact we DO know that for sure. You see, there are sections of the brain that control thought, cognition, memory; all things neccessary for someone to be a someone and not a thing.

TS didn't have those sections of her brain anymore. They had atrophied and reverted to CSF, or Cerebral-spinal fluid. There is no reason to believe, medically, that there was any person inside that body anymore.

There's nothing wrong with disposing of her shell.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Drewdad writes

Quote:

Do you even read what others post here? Or pay attention?

I asked you a question. You stated something to the effect that you would work to make sure no one was ever dehydrated to death again. I asked whether you were serious, whether you wanted to override personal choices. Try re-reading here.

No I don't read every post. I don't read all the insultingly immature, self righteous, ignorant, or senile or those that just post purely for the purpose of being insulting. Life is too short to attempt to reason with the unreasonable or argue with idiots.

Personal choices are subjective as I explained in detail had you read all my posts. ( Smile

) What seems so reasonable when you're young and healthy and can't imagine life being much worth living after 50 or 60 or so looks very different later on when you're actually up against a crisis. So no, I would not agree for a person who might even possibly be conscious or capable of feeling die a death like Terri Schiavo died, nor would any sane person chose such a death. "Do not rescussitate" of course. "No heroic measures" by all means. Turning off the machines, fine. If the heart goes on beating though and the person breathes on his/her own after the machines are turned off, then s/he is allowed to live as long as s/he can.

But intentionally dehydrate a person to death? No way. That is intentionally killing somebody who is unable to get a drink of water on his/her own. I will never agree that nutrition and hydration are 'artificial life support'.

0 Replies

Fox:

Quote:

No I don't read every post. I don't read all the insultingly immature, self righteous, ignorant, or senile or those that just post purely for the purpose of being insulting. Life is too short to attempt to reason with the unreasonable or argue with idiots.

Transalation for ya, Drew:

"I don't read or pay attention to posts which contain facts which kill my argument, or which contain arguments which are superior to mine. Life is too short to be reminded that I can neither put together a coherent argument nor defend it from accurate critiques, so I choose to ignore them and live in my bubble of moral sunshine."

Take a piece of advice and just give up on the hope of meaningful conversation, Drew, and focus your energy on a more productive line. If we ignore her long enough, she'll go away.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

If the heart goes on beating though and the person breathes on his/her own after the machines are turned off, then s/he is allowed to live as long as s/he can.

What'd I tell ya, Cyclo? If it were just the heart and the lungs in a glass jar still beating and breathing, than that's life to a neocon.

Funny, though. If she can BREATH on her own, than she's allowed to live as long as she can. But if she can't EAT on her own, than we must keep her body alive indefinitely. Disregard the fact that the brain is gone in both cases.

I wonder what Dr. Frist would say about that?

0 Replies

She died bercause her physical condition was insufficent.
The judges order said to remove the feeding tube as feeding tube have been ruled as 'artificial life support'. Her wishes were not to be kept alive by artificial means. If she were able to take food and water orally she would be alive today.

The very same thing happens every day all across the World.

It's called 'mercy'. If you prefer killing then so be it but it will remain 'mercy' to those that are released from a prison of flesh.

0 Replies

Maybe we can display it at the Smithsonian to see how long we can keep it alive.

0 Replies

Geli writes

Quote:

She died bercause her physical condition was insufficent.
The judges order said to remove the feeding tube as feeding tube have been ruled as 'artificial life support'. Her wishes were not to be kept alive by artificial means. If she were able to take food and water orally she would be alive today.

The very same thing happens every day all across the World.

It's called 'mercy'. If you prefer killing then so be it but it will remain 'mercy' to those that are released from a prison of flesh.

I do hear what you're saying. But where do you draw the line? The profoundly retarded who must be fed? The quadriplegic? Stephen Hawkings? The comatose? Just this week I was talking with a woman who had been comatose for more than five years and then awoke and now, with a few residual symptoms, she is fine.

If Terri's killing had been truly merciful, what would it have hurt to have attempted to give her spoonfuls of water or thin pudding by mouth. According to caregivers, Michael Schiavo had forbidden any attempt to do that for a long time. Doctors have testified that she could swallow her own saliva.

And on that same score, if you view hydration and nutrition as no different from artifically keeping a heart beating or breathing with assistance from a respirator, why make her die of hydration? She could have been suffocated in minutes with a pillow--quick, clean, little or no suffering. Would that be okay for you who view killing Terri Schiavo as a mercy killing?

0 Replies

Generous doses of morphine would have been quite acceptable, I'm sure. And effective, too...

0 Replies

No, you don't hear what we are saying. Your quote, "I do hear what you're saying. But where do you draw the line? The profoundly retarded who must be fed? The quadriplegic? Stephen Hawkings? The comatose?" The BIG DIFFERENCE is the fact that your list includes people who can still feel and think with their brains. Terri's brain was severely damaged and had no cognition, and from this damage could not feed herself. The comatose? Well, you should know that some who have been comatose have come out and recovered, so why are you adding them to the list? Terri was not comatose; she had brain damage without any hope of recovery. BIG DIFFERENCE. Maybe, you still can't see it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And on that same score, if you view hydration and nutrition as no different from artifically keeping a heart beating or breathing with assistance from a respirator, why make her die of hydration? She could have been suffocated in minutes with a pillow--quick, clean, little or no suffering. Would that be okay for you who view killing Terri Schiavo as a mercy killing?

Excellent question, Foxy. What of it, Cyclops? A pillow over the mouth okay treatment for the shell?

0 Replies

I hve to stop reading this thread. I just can't take it anymore.

I'm on to something else.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know