Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Foxfyre wrote:

Only if that's what you read that into what has been said J_B. Or you could actually read what is said within the context in which it is said. We either value life or we don't. And there is a line in which a person's life becomes 'worthless' or there isn't.

And for you, that line is when a tube is providing air to breathe. But life is not worthless when a tube is providing a nutrient glop directly into one's stomach.

Gotcha.

0 Replies

Posted in numerous places throughout the thread Drewdad by various people. I don't want to hunt up the links again.

But go to the last paragraph of this one for one:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513%2Chentoff%2C62489%2C6.html

0 Replies

Drewdad writes

Quote:

And for you, that line is when a tube is providing air to breathe. But life is not worthless when a tube is providing a nutrient glop directly into one's stomach.

And you (and the other 'kill Terri' group) have still not answered the question. If you see no difference between hydration, nutrition, and air as life support, why not deprive her of air for a relatively painless and mercifully quick death?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

And for you, that line is when a tube is providing air to breathe. But life is not worthless when a tube is providing a nutrient glop directly into one's stomach.

Gotcha.

Feeding tubes are quite common in hospitals. Stroke patients often use feeding tubes during recovery.

0 Replies

I hardly trust Nader to give me an opinion on TS' medical condition. He seems to think that swallowing saliva is consistent with swallowing food; it is not. One of the reasons the court ordered against this path was the strong likelyhood of TS choking to death.

And the last line,

Quote:

In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.

Doesn't apply at all, because convicted serial killers have thoughts, memories, feelings. They can experience. TS has none of those. Therefore, the analogy fails.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

And you (and the other 'kill Terri' group) have still not answered the question. If you see no difference between hydration, nutrition, and air as life support, why not deprive her of air for a relatively painless and mercifully quick death?

What are you talking about? I, and others, have answered this question several times. But I'll do it again:

Why not deprive her air? Because it is inconsistent with the laws of the US to do so in any case of terminal patients, or any patient for that matter. Morally? Nothing wrong with it at all, though a morphine overdose would be both convienent and pain-free.

Happy?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Drewdad writes

Quote:
And for you, that line is when a tube is providing air to breathe. But life is not worthless when a tube is providing a nutrient glop directly into one's stomach.

And you (and the other 'kill Terri' group) have still not answered the question. If you see no difference between hydration, nutrition, and air as life support, why not deprive her of air for a relatively painless and mercifully quick death?

A) I have not advocated "killing Terri." I advocated following her wishes in not wanting to be kept alive by artificial means when there is no hope of recovery.
B) I would have to say that since a machine was not providing air to breathe, then you cannot remove artificial means of allowing her to breathe.
C) I can't decide if that was a lame strawman argument, or a lame attempt to deflect the conversation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Posted in numerous places throughout the thread Drewdad by various people. I don't want to hunt up the links again.

But go to the last paragraph of this one for one:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513%2Chentoff%2C62489%2C6.html

Hate to break it to you, but an article that quotes Ralph Nader saying that she isn't to be fed is not exactly overwhelming evidence.

Can you show me the primary source? When was this alleged court order made?

0 Replies

No, not a strawman. It is a sincere question. If you believe Michael Schiavo that Terri would have chosen the death ordered for her, that is one thing. Given the extreme suffering associated with idying via dehydration, can you honestly believe she had that in mind? If she had known the unbelievable pain it would cause her parents, would she have requested that?

You can disconnect a respirator but have to allow the person to live if s/he breathes on her own. You can disconnect the heart machine but you have to allow the person to live if the heart continues to beat. But in Terri Schiavo's case, nutrition and hydration was discontinued and she was given no chance whatsoever to continue.

I see a huge difference in withholding nutrition and hydration. And for those who believe that was an empty shell with no person inside it, would you advocate at least a quick, less traumatic death? Cutting off her air supply would certainly do it.

0 Replies

There was no court order not to feed her naturally. That was Michael Schiavo's decision alone I believe.

0 Replies

Quote:

But in Terri Schiavo's case, nutrition and hydration was discontinued and she was given no chance whatsoever to continue.

Sure she was given a chance to continue! All she had to do was ask for some water or signal in some fashion. She did not.

I and others already answered your third question, Fox. Quit being obtuse.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ralph Nader is the same guy through his ego thought he would run for president twice knowing damn well he was only a spoiler and not a real contender for president. Someplace between being a consumer advocate and his run for the presidency, he lost all his capacity for cognitive thinking.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There was no court order not to feed her naturally. That was Michael Schiavo's decision alone I believe.

According to your own source there was a court order not to feed her by mouth.

Now you say there was no court order...

Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

0 Replies

I stand corrected. I forgot about Judge Greer's order to the parents when they asked to be able to try to feed Terri manually:

Quote:

Sixth Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer doggedly continued his resolve to execute neurologically disabled Terri Schindler-Schiavo Tuesday, denying a motion by her parents to orally feed the disabled woman after the removal of her gastric feeding tube March 18 as he has ordered

http://www.theempirejournal.com/03090501_judge_rules_no_food.htm

0 Replies

Now then Drewdad, I've given you links not counting the several dozen others I've probably posted on this thread and elsewhere. If you want to be taken seriously about even caring whether justice was done to Terri Schiavo, you'll present something disputing the facts presented. And don't forget that the Village Voice that you pretty well scorned is a very popular publication of the left. Smile

0 Replies

Facts?

Can you find a non-partisan site that mentions it? Please? Personally, I can't find it. I'd like to hear Greer's reasoning, if it is available.

0 Replies

What would you consider nonpartisan? The Empire and Village Voice are opposite ends of the political spectrum. Put together they aren't nonpartisan enough for you?

0 Replies

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, Associated Press? I've never even heard of the Empire Journal. The article doesn't even have an author's name!

Who are they, Jeff Gannon's neighbors?

0 Replies

As an aside, all I had to do is look at the ads on the site to know that it is partisan.

Terri Schinler Life Ribbon Campaign?
Stop Judicial Tyrrany ribbons?

Try reading this:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/03/Perspective/Before_the_circus.shtml

0 Replies

Again,

I want C-R-E-D-I-B-L-E sources. Fair and balanced... someone who reports both sides of the story.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know