Schiavo Autopsy Shows No Sign of Abuse

All that's left is the horses**t from those who are right brained and can't draw...conclusions, that is.

0 Replies

CI-- Compassion isn't defined based on who has healthcare. Are you not compassionate because people don't have healthcare? I know it's a Dem talking point, but don't you think you've overused it?

I know she's dead. I don't know what drew me back into this conversation. Something I saw a couple of days ago...

It still astonishes me that so many people here refuse to concede that the other opinion on what happened to Schiavo is as valid as their opinion.

0 Replies

You can't "concede" to another opinion unless you are in full agreement to that opinion. Get real.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

haven't set recovery as the standard Schiavo would have to meet to be allowed to live. Is that your standard?

.
oh? What standard did you set? You don't seem to have one? She would have ZERO recovery from her condition.

Quote:

But we don't know what was going on behind her eyes. We DON'T know if she was suffering in the absence of food and water. PVS patients do react to painful stimulus.

We do know based on medical literature. But don't let facts get in your way from making outrageous claims.

Quote:

When you're going to cause someone to die, it is a good reason to demand 100% information about what you plan to do and why you are planning to do it.

Yep, which is PRECISELY what those making the decision did. Now you come along without any facts and question them based on nothing. A standard that means an unintelligent person can demand that a reasoned decision not be implemented just because you say so.

Quote:

I didn't think she'd "come back". I just thought it was wrong to starve her.

Oh? Where did you say that?

Quote:

Do you know anything about compassion or respect for someone's life, who can't speak for herself? Take a class in that

. Compassion means you respect someone's decision especially when you know how hard it was to make. Respect says you do the same. I learned it from life. Life seems to be something you haven't lived much of yet. My father and my father in law both died in hospice care. Those people have compassion.

If you did know anything about compassion and death you would know about how the body reduces food and water intake as a person approaches death. It is in the literature handed out by hospice.

As for your opinion having validity in its interference with the real lives of others as they have to make end of life decisions, that is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever seen.

Tell you what Lash. Why don't you let A2K make all your life decisions for you from here on out. We can vote on it. Back up your opinion with your own life here. I bet you won't. You don't dare live by the rules you want to force unto others.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

I am getting a litle sick and tired of all these people who say there was NO indication that Teri would not want to live like a vegetable.

Isn't that marriage is all about? Intimacy? The other person is the one to whom you tell things that you DON'T tell anyone else? I happen to think the say-so of her husband is a VERY good indication that Teri would not want to live in a PVS.

That is why next-of-kin makes the call in these matters.

But because the Next-of-kin decided in a way the pro-lifers do not like, they demonize him, call him a murderer, and say that we cannot take her next-of-kin's word for it, the decision should be made by "the family".

Here's a news flash-Michael IS her family, more so than her parents or siblings. That happened when she walked down the aisle and said "I do".

There is no reason NOT to believe Michael when he says that Terri would not want to live in a PVS. It is, after all, the kind of thing people talk about with their spouse, not the sort of thing that comes out in conversation with the parents, aunts and uncles over turkey at Thanksgiving dinner.

To which Lash answered:

Lash wrote:

You brought up their relationship. In most marriages, there is intimacy and sharingh of deep personal information. I wasn't interested in what went on inside their marriage. YOU brought it up.

So, if you know so much--why don't you share what you know about the intimacy in their marriage?

I never brought up their relationship inside marriage, Lash, other than to point out that they lived together as husband and wife. This marriage bond has always been recognized as a special one, including one enabling one spouse to make important life-and-death decisions on behalf of the other.

Lash wrote:

In most marriages, there is intimacy and sharingh of deep personal information.

I agree completely, and that intimacy forms the basis for one spouse making life and death decisions on behalf of the other, when they are unable to do so themselves.

Lash wrote:

So, if you know so much--why don't you share what you know about the intimacy in their marriage?

I never said that I knew, or was interested in, the details of their marriage other than the fact that they lived together as man and wife, with all the presumptions of intimacy you admitted that entails.

Lash, is there a point to this rather disjointed post of yours? All you've done in this post so far is to agree with the points that lead to the conclusion that Michael, not Terri's parents, should make the decision as to whether or not to remove the tube.

0 Replies

Teri's parents are upset now, because Michael wrote "I kept my promise" on her tomb.

0 Replies

Good for him!

0 Replies

That should be the last word but for small minds, but it will be thrashed over for as long as they want to keep their declaration of phony "Godliness" up front.

0 Replies

LW, That's what I expect from the parents and siblings too! Kinda sad.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

You can't "concede" to another opinion unless you are in full agreement to that opinion. Get real.

Maybe I said it incorrectly. You can concede that someone who came to a different opinion did so based on as much consideration and thoughtfulness as you did--the only difference being that they reached a different conclusion. It isn't necessary to vilify someone just because they have a different opinion. I said concede the opinion is valid. There could be a distinction in the definition of "valid". I said I think both opinions should be considered valid. Meaning they were reached based on evidence that could be supported.

parados-- As I have said several times, I don't agree with the standard that if she can't recover, that is a good enough reason to withhold food and water from her. I didn't set any standard of hurdles for her to pass in order to allow her to live. Again, is that your standard? You would allow her to live if she could acheive some goal? The standard I think she should meet is that she is alive and has not expressed the desire to die.

You said you DO know from medical literature that it is a surety that she didn't suffer. Can you link this fact? You accuse me of making outrageous claims, when in fact most of what you say that about are my QUESTIONS that you can't seem to answer.

Unfortunately, I know plenty about hospices.

I would have respected her right to die. She didn't have a living will. I respected her right to make that decision, not someone else's to make that decision for her.

0 Replies

You may know plenty about hospices, but you know deadly about Teri's request to her husband not be kept alive in that condition. Many of you have called Michael a liar, but you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim. Your argument on this issue is without any basis of medical fact or ethics.

0 Replies

Do you have proof that Terri Schiavo told her husband she didn't want to live if it involved being fed and given water?

Do you know more about that conversation than I do?

0 Replies

Yes. Michael Schiavo said Teri made that request as well as Michael's relatives also heard Teri. That's what Michael told the world. It's not something I dreamed up like you people that would question the husband's honesty.

0 Replies

Do you believe everything someone tells you?

Her parents said she told them something different. The nurses said Schiavo was awful toward her. How do you decide who to believe?

0 Replies

From CNN: "Michael Schiavo contends his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially."

0 Replies

LOL. Oh, if CNN says it.

0 Replies

Face it, Lash; you have run out of options. The man had the final say, as is only right, since there was no evidence of criminal action or intent. He had the say-so, because he was the husband. Case closed.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you believe everything someone tells you?

I believe everything that you say. How's that?

0 Replies

Why do you think me having an opinion is any more aggressive than you having one?

Should I believe everything you say?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Why do you think me having an opinion is any more aggressive than you having one?

Should I believe everything you say?

You demand that you intrude into a marriage. You demand that we don't honor a husband and wife. You demand proof that a spouse isn't lying. What a crock. The standard is we believe the spouse UNTIL you provide evidence of his lying. You have failed to do so.

This is not about "opinions". This is about your demands that we ignore everything to do with honor and decency and compassion.

as for the body's reaction to starvation, here is a place to start

Starvation is not painful, experts say

Here is the study referenced in the above piece
Nurses' Experiences with Hospice Patients Who Refuse Food and Fluids to

End of life

0 Replies

Schiavo Autopsy Shows No Sign of Abuse

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know