2
   

Sciavo - Couldn't we figure this out while she was "alive"?

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 03:57 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
Allright ALL sarcasm off:

How, exactly, do humans look at a report like that and simply state that she was 'brain damged'? Will? Faith? Stupidity? I simply wonder how humans can consistently fool themselves so completely. Serious replies only please.

TF

My acknowledgement that we don't know everything is the reason I preferred being overly cautious, rather than unknowingly hurting a woman, or killing someone who didn't want to die.

Many things would have changed my mind: a living will, her ability to communicate that she wanted to die, some definitive knowledge that there was absolutely nothing about the brain that medical science could possibly not know, and their unanimous agreement that there was absolutely no human in that body, and no possible chance for any improvement.

I don't think that falls in the realm of will, faith or stupidity. I base my opinion on respect for human life, compassion toward her and logical deference to a patient in the absence of ironclad facts about her condition.

Did you happen to read the article bbaptiste brought to another thread? It may shed some light on those of us who's opinion about this subject you say you don't understand.

Joan Didion's research on Terri Shiavo.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:32 pm
Noddy24 wrote:


thethinkfactory--

My belief systems requires examining facts including unpalatable facts. This is not true of all belief systems.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but not all opinions deserve to be taken seriously--some opinions are more grounded than other opinions.


So it is not that 'people' believe what they want - it is that 'most people' simply believe what they want.

This is where I come and I wonder if I am one of those people simply believing I am not. If this is a disposition that humans tend to have - how can we be sure we don't have it?

TTF
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:34 pm
Lash:

Don't you think that looking for some sort unanimous opionion in science, religion, or family is essentially a non starter?

We had a vast majority of doctors giving good medical reasons to believe that she was not recouperatable. One that did not believe so.

I am not sure it gets much better than that.

TTF
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:39 pm
The fact that it doesn't get better than that was my reasoning to let her live rather than cause her to die.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 05:35 pm
TTF--

I've settled for working notions of myself and the nature of reality rather than seeking Ultimate Truth.

I would prefer to believe that practicality is permissible--but I could be wrong.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 06:35 pm
Lash - Practically thought - due to cost and relative benifit - could we not argue that the tie goes to the whole? Meaning, our resources could be spent in a better fashion than the millions of dollars we spent on Mrs. Shiavo.

Noddy -

I get it better. Thanks.

TF
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 06:42 pm
I couldn't do it to save money. Euthanasia as a cost saving measure... This makes me sad.

But, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 10:45 pm
The simple fact is that the right-to-lifers took an unspeakable tragedy and managed to make it worse, hard as that is to imagine.

The damage was done in two forms.

The first, maintaining the agony for years when it was obvious it was all over. Court fights after court fights. All this while a family struggles to come to grips with the situation. Fact is, the way it normally works is: the spouse gets asked when to pull the plug, the next-of-kin has to agonize, but at some point the people left behind get to begin the healing process, and to deal with the other things in their life. Thanks to the right wing, the agony lasted 15 years, instead of two or three.

Second, the unspeakable campaign by the right-to-lifers against Michael Schiavo, openly accusing him of being a murderer. It is like the right thinks it has this button-push it and all the right wing media outlets unleash an unstoppable flood of venom against the victim.

Oh my , how dare Michael find some intimacy with another woman while this process is dragged out for years by the parents and siblings, with encouragement from the Christian right. Why, he must be unfit to make a decision about Terri! Take away his guardianship!

The campaign against Michael Schiavo was nothing less than disgusting. The autopsy vindicates Michael all the way.

May Terri rest in peace.

May Michael get what he may from his complete vindication.

May the right-to-lifers who butted in rot in Hell.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 04:50 am
kelticwizard pretty much expresses my view in his last post. I would avoid these sick arguments, except I resent being part of a group labeled as a murderer.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 05:32 am
I believe Bush said it best when he donned the moniker of 'compassionate conservative'. Akin to walking down the hall with a tp tail hanging out of the back of your pants, it suits him perfectly.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 06:43 am
It killed me a few weeks back when he said:

I am not going to spend taxpayers dollars on the destruction of life

This was in response to stem cell research.

What is the 200 billion in Iraq being spent on? I am sure he would say that you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet. Isn't THAT exactly what we are talking about in the stem cell research direction.

But, in line with how he thinks, you can only kill adults... and adults that you are convinced are 'evil'.

TTF
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 07:32 am
Re: the blindness thing: it is possible that both sides are right -- that she was blind, and that she occasionally tracked the balloon. The parts of the brain that process visual information and send it out to other parts of the brain for cognition and conscious action (visual cortex in the occipital lobes) are not the same as those responsible for certain reflexive eye movements (the rostral colliculi in of the brain stem, if memory serves). If the former was annihilated and the latter intact, there could still be signs of ocular activity (pupillary relexes, rudimentary tracking of moving objects -- especially moving objects that stand out strongly from the rest of the visual field, like a colorful balloon) and the individual would still be functionally blind.

Re: the "L" word... If half the brain has disappeared, it can indeed be said to have liquefied, even without a bunch of ooze hanging around in thebrain box. The body doesn't like to have ooze hanging around, and so it has cells that are specialized to break down dead cells and shunted away -- in this case into the blood stream via cerebrospinal fluid.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 07:47 am
Correct, patiodog.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 09:52 am
Where's The Apology?



Quote:
Bending the Facts on Schiavo

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A31



We are entitled to our moral, ethical and philosophical commitments. We are not entitled to our own facts.

So why is this basic rule of argument often ignored by politicians whose certainty about their righteousness convinces them that they can say absolutely anything to further their causes?


The autopsy in the Terri Schiavo case provides a rare moment of political accountability. We should not "move on," as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggested. No, we cannot move on until those politicians who felt entitled to make up facts and toss around unwarranted conclusions about Schiavo's condition take responsibility for what they said -- and apologize.

Nothing in the autopsy report prevents those who opposed removing Schiavo's feeding tube from continuing to insist they were right. It's legitimate and honorable to argue on philosophical grounds that every medical decision in a tragic circumstance such as Schiavo's should be made on the side of keeping the sick person alive.

But those who supported an extraordinary use of federal power to force their own conclusion against the judgment of state courts knew that philosophical arguments would not be enough. Most Americans were uneasy about compelling Schiavo's husband, Michael, to keep his wife alive if -- as the state courts had concluded and as the autopsy confirmed on Wednesday -- she had suffered irreversible brain damage and was incapable of recovering.

So the big-government conservatives had to invent a story. They had to insist that they knew, just knew , more about Terri Schiavo's condition than the doctors on the scene. They had to question Michael Schiavo's motives and imply that he wanted to, well, get rid of her.

"As I understand it," Frist said on the Senate floor, "Terri's husband will not divorce Terri and will not allow her parents to take care of her. Terri's husband, who I have not met, does have a girlfriend he lives with and they have children of their own." No accusation here, just a brisk walk through innuendo city.

Dr. Frist, as he likes to be known, didn't just make his case as a pro-lifer. He invoked his expertise as a member of the medical profession. "I close this evening speaking more as a physician than as a U.S. senator," Frist said during the March 17 debate on the bill forcing a federal review of the case.

Proffering references to medical textbooks and journals, Frist led his colleagues through to his conclusion. He argued that "a decision had been made to starve to death a woman based on a clinical exam that took place over a very short period of time by a neurologist who was called in to make the diagnosis rather than over a longer period of time." Dr. Frist, in other words, was offering a second opinion.

In an appearance yesterday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Frist insisted: "I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not."

Well, that depends on the meaning of "diagnosis." In the midst of his impressively detailed medical review, Frist declared flatly: "Terri's brother told me Terri laughs, smiles, and tries to speak. That doesn't sound like a woman in a persistent vegetative state."

So, Frist wanted to be seen as having the medical expertise to support his conclusion when doing so was convenient -- and now wants us to think he did nothing of the sort.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay didn't pretend to be a doctor, just expert enough to know what was wrong with the news reports."Mrs. Schiavo's condition, I believe, has been at times misrepresented by the media," DeLay said on March 20. "Terri Schiavo is not brain-dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life-support."
You wonder: Will DeLay now say to the media that he's sorry? Will he acknowledge that, in the Schiavo case, he honestly didn't know what he was talking about?Right-to-life politicians have done terrible damage to a serious cause. They claimed to know what they did not, and could not, know. They were willing to imply, without proof, terrible things about a husband who was getting in their way. Instead of making the hard and morally challenging case for keeping Terri Schiavo on life support, they spun an emotional narrative that they thought would play well on cable TV and talk radio.No, we should not move on. We should remember that some politicians will say whatever is necessary to advance their immediate purposes. Apologies, anyone?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:38 am
Governor Bush wants prosecutor to examine Terri Schiavo's collapse


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. The release of an autopsy report on Terri Schiavo (SHY'-voh) hasn't put an end to the investigations of her collapse and her death.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush is asking a prosecutor to investigate why Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago.

Bush says he also wants prosecutor Bernie McCabe to look at an apparent gap between the time Schiavo's husband found her collapsed, and the time he called 9-1-1.

Bush says Michael Schiavo testified in 1992 that he found his wife at 5 a-m -- and that he said two years ago that he found her at about 4:30 a-m. He called 9-1-1 at about 5:40 a-m.

The governor says he knows of "no explanation for the delay."

Michael Schiavo's attorney told the Miami Herald it's "preposterous" to suggest that Schiavo didn't immediately call 9-1-1. He says if he'd really waited 70 minutes, his wife would have been dead.

Source

Sheesh.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:40 am
Oy
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:46 am
It's good to know that Jeb's got everything else under control in Florida so that this can be on the front burner.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:57 am
more from AP:

(Jeb) Bush said his request for the probe was not meant to suggest wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo.

it's considerate of him to clarify this.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 01:09 pm
I think the term "Graveyard Vote" is being enlarged. What does Florida have that Chicago lacks? More flexible campaign tactics.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 05:31 pm
On MSNBC it was reported that the Shiavo's are considered legal action. Who the hell else are they going to sue?

Excuse me - God - yes the Shiavo's would like to serve you this subpeona to appear in court. They are suing you, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, Lady Luck, and the Fates for a 'poor draw' and a 'bad shake'.

WTF mate?

TF
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 06:59:36