| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2005 10:37:41 AM · #51 |
If we are to believe that there was an attempt on the life of Terri by her husband, then where are the emergency room records that show multi-trauma when she was first admitted to the hospital back in 1990? An attack such as that would result in obvious injuries such as ecchymotic areas (black and blue marks), broken ribs, crushed trachea, flail chest, etc. If these did in fact exist, are we to believe that the hospital was neglegent in diagnosing and treating them, as well as, negligent in contacting and involving the authorities?
I also find questionable that important documents relating to the case would have found there way out to the public given the federal HIPPA laws that strictly govern privacy regarding medical records. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:01:28 PM · #52 |
RonB,
Stop trying to use me as an excuse for your use of questionable and fringe sources that support your view point. And, as an aside, I frankly cannot belive how in this and in other threads you've presented websites as legitimate sources of information; yet, when one searches a little bit deeper, one finds ridiculous and fringe theories in them as has already been pointed out here. RonB, rather than getting defensive about it, you should've simply excused your use of such fringe websites and attempted to find a more reputable source.
For the record, I did not ask for links to any site -- much less to such a fringe website as the one that RonB presented. Instead, I asked where is it that those that are attacking the husband are hearing such information. I noted that I've not followed the case via cable, since I don't subscribe; and that my primary source of information is print media (on and off line). I did not ask for a link to a fringe website, I merely wondered if people were hearing such attacks on the husband on TV? Radio? Print? And, too, could they list the program. I'm still interested in hearing where it is that such attacks on the husband are being heard. (Note: please don't provide a link to a fringe website as RonB had done, thank you.)
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 12:04:10.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:15:57 PM · #53 |
As I alluded to in a previous post, here's the cynical and malicious calculous that the party in power is making:
"In a memo distributed only to Republican senators," the Terri Schiavo "case was characterized as 'a great political issue' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006," the Washington Post reports.
Hence, Republicans are stepping into the Schiavo case, while ignoring other similar cases:
* Baby born with fatal defect dies after removal from life support.
* Hospitals can end life support -- Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis.
Both of these cases hinged on the Texas Futile Care Law, signed into the books by then governor George W Bush (after reaching a compromise and in consultation with the National Right to Life organization -- [article]).
Where was the outrage then? Why has Bush flipped flopped? Why aren't Republicans clamoring to step into the Texas cases?
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 12:17:10.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:32:12 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB,
Stop trying to use me as an excuse for your use of questionable and fringe sources that support your view point. |
I did not state my viewpoint. That was intentional. Stop trying to convince others of my viewpoint when you have absolutely no basis in making such statements.
Originally posted by bdobe:
And, as an aside, I frankly cannot belive how in this and in other threads you've presented websites as legitimate sources of information; |
Ah, but it IS a legitimate source of information. It is as legitimate a source of information as is voxmia.com, your own website. The credibility of either may be questioned, but both are legitimate as sources of information ( good or bad ) upon which people form opinions.
Originally posted by bdobe:
yet, when one searches a little bit deeper, one finds ridiculous and fringe theories in them as has already been pointed out here. |
I did not, and do not pretend to support the accusations made on that site. You asked for sources of why people attack Michael Schiavo. The site I posted represents the kind of information that is presented, and some folks base their attacks on the information presented there. Just because you don't find it credible does not detract from its influence on others - and that influence is what you asked for the source for. Don't shoot me for being the messenger.
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB, rather than getting defensive about it, you should've simply excused your use of such fringe websites and attempted to find a more reputable source. |
Why? Do you really think that the attackers of Michael Schiave only get their information from reputable sources? If so, then why didn't you state your question such that you only wanted to know what REPUTABLE sources were used by people attacking Michael Schiavo?
Originally posted by bdobe:
For the record, I did not ask for links to any site -- much less to such a fringe website as the one that RonB presented. Instead, I asked where is it that those that are attacking the husband are hearing such information. |
Actually what you posted was "I'd be curious to know of the source of the attacks." You didn't say anything about "hearing". I answered your question accurately - some of them get such information from "fringe web sites".
Originally posted by bdobe:
I noted that I've not followed the case via cable, since I don't subscribe; and that my primary source of information is print media (on and off line). I did not ask for a link to a fringe website |
You didn't specify that there was a qualification as to what type of sites people got their information from.
Originally posted by bdobe:
I merely wondered if people were hearing such attacks on the husband on TV? Radio? Print? And, too, could they list the program. |
These are "new" requirements. None of these were stated in the original post.
Originally posted by bdobe:
I'm still interested in hearing where it is that such attacks on the husband are being heard. (Note: please don't provide a link to a fringe website as RonB had done, thank you.) |
If you insist on such qualifications, then you aren't "really" interested in an answer.
FYI. SOME readers may consider The Village Voice to be "non-fringe". If so, then here's an excerpt of what they said in this article:
"The family believes that after Terri and her husband had a violent argument earlier on the evening she collapsed, Terri might have been strangled later that night. Says Pat Anderson, the lawyer for Terri's parents:
"Governor Jeb Bush should order the state-wide prosecutor of Florida to convene a jury to investigate all of this." And the Advocacy Center for Persons With Disability has that 1991 bone-scan report. Will the courts wait for the investigations—or hurry to send her into eternity? Should Michael Schiavo have the guardianship power to terminate her?"
The story was referenced in The Washington Times in this article which contains this excerpt:
"One report says Michael Schiavo refused to let a priest administer the last rites to his wife in 2003. Roman Catholics, in particular, have championed her parents.
Columnist Nat Hentoff even suggested in The Village Voice that the young woman may have been beaten and strangled in 1990, though no evidence of that has ever been introduced into court."
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 13:27:19. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:35:28 PM · #55 |
I don̢۪t think this should be national news personally. There are many far more important issues being ignored while people focus on this 1 person case.
As far as the case itself goes, what is it the republicans are always saying? Sanctity in marriage? Marriage being the ultimate unity between man and woman in the eyes of god, etc. right? Well then let her husband decided her fate since she cannot. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:40:16 PM · #56 |
It never ceases to amaze me how every new episode of CNN-soaps must always divide people between left and right in the United States.
You must really learn to realize the value of the gray area, and how to live, debate, learn and love within it. It's way too easy to pigeonhole people, rather than listen to and evaluate their opinions on their own merits.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:47:14 PM · #57 |
The big problem with this thread is that it immediately splits into a political divide.
Yes, if we give it that flavor then what would be the up or down side of this issue?
In particular, here you have an interested family members who are pleading for her life.
Well, in the mind's of some people this can not be because to favor life would cast doubt on the topics of abortions, etc.
What ever complications, I think that this is a no brainer if we consider the simple plead of the parents. They want their child, messed up as she is to live. How can anyone stand up and favor death in this case.
We can belittle life all we want and if you want to argue on the side
of death go ahead. Yet all arguments in this bleak streak are sanctioning the husbands will over those of the parents. While this appears to have some bite it does not grant any husband or guardian the right to do as they please. But the court you say, what about them?
Right now we have two parties posturing to affect the legal system. One side feels the courts are turning the values upon which this country was founded on its ear and the other supports common sense being turned upside down, much like we do now to defend the life of criminals.
Is there no way to handle a single issue like this by simply turning to ourselves, our convictions and our beliefs. Sorry, I think life should even trump politics and as in this case, where there is a plead by the parents, are there no ears out there? |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:53:34 PM · #58 |
| Wasn't it the wish of Terri to NOT be kept alive by artificial means, as witnessed by her husband and other family members? |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 12:55:52 PM · #59 |
i think that the parents should have the right to take care of their daughter. the husband has obviously moved on by having children with someone else so i dont understand why he doesnt divorce her. he says he so worried about her suffering but with all that he's done so far (no feeding tubes) thats sick, maybe they should try and starve him for 4 days.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 02:21:59 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
It never ceases to amaze me how every new episode of CNN-soaps must always divide people between left and right in the United States.
You must really learn to realize the value of the gray area, and how to live, debate, learn and love within it. It's way too easy to pigeonhole people, rather than listen to and evaluate their opinions on their own merits. |
Not true, I find myself in 100% agrement on this issue with the people I more often disagree with on political and economic issues.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 02:34:52 PM · #61 |
That's my whole point...
It's as if there are "two types" of people in America...sure, in this case you agree with "the other side" but you're still identifying two sides here.
I honestly couldn't tell you whether many of my friends are "right" or "left" here in Canada. We have opinions on municipal issues, the war in Iraq, abortion, spirituality, the way money is spent by our government...my point is, those things aren't instantly turned into an 'us vs. them'.
Many of us have a typically 'left' view of one thing and a typically 'right' view of another...I honestly have no idea whether I'm 'left' or 'right'. I debate and opine on each issue as it comes up...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 02:37:44 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
i think that the parents should have the right to take care of their daughter. the husband has obviously moved on by having children with someone else so i dont understand why he doesnt divorce her. he says he so worried about her suffering but with all that he's done so far (no feeding tubes) thats sick, maybe they should try and starve him for 4 days. |
How long have you been following this story? The husband has lived it for 15 years now. Don't you think he should be allowed to move on with his life?
In the reverse situation I'd want my wife to pull the plug on me, collect the big life insurance policy I have set up for her for just this reason, find someone that will treat her right and move on. Allowing the woman I love to have closure on the issue and start a happy life again or me being a vegitable laying in bed with her having to change my diaper and getting excited and hopefull when I make sounds fo rthe rest of her life? Easy choice for me.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 02:59:44 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Wasn't it the wish of Terri to NOT be kept alive by artificial means, as witnessed by her husband and other family members? |
I can't answer that question. Can you? In other words, did her husband and other family members really witness it? In an interview on Larry King, Live the following conversation took place transcript here:
"M. SCHIAVO: I don't think the Supreme Court is going to put a stay on it. And I hope and implore that everybody call their legislators. They have to stay out of people's personal lives. There's no place for government. Call them and tell them.
KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.
M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.
KING: No contact at all?
M. SCHIAVO: No.
KING: Do you understand how they feel?
M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...
( emphasis mine ) ( note: I did not cut off Michael's last statement, it is quoted directly that way in the transcript ). |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 03:15:33 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by RonB:
M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...
( emphasis mine ) ( note: I did not cut off Michael's last statement, it is quoted directly that way in the transcript ). |
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 03:15:57 PM · #65 |
The federal government should've never stepped into such a private/personal matter. While the bill that Congress passed on this matter stipulates that the decision will not apply to future cases, I think that Congress's act sets a bad precedent for the federal government to step into similar private/personal matters in the future. Such federal intervention is truly a slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 03:17:46 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
The federal government should've never stepped into such a private/personal matter. While the bill that Congress passed on this matter stipulates that the decision will not apply to future cases, I think that Congress's act sets a bad precedent for the federal government to step into similar private/personal matters in the future. Such federal intervention is truly a slippery slope. |
I believe it is illegal to pass a bill specifically to benefit any particular citizen. Such a provision would probably render that law unconstitutional.
If it's a matter of "principle" why wouldn't they want it to apply to ALL future cases?
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 15:19:02. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 03:47:11 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by bdobe:
The federal government should've never stepped into such a private/personal matter. While the bill that Congress passed on this matter stipulates that the decision will not apply to future cases, I think that Congress's act sets a bad precedent for the federal government to step into similar private/personal matters in the future. Such federal intervention is truly a slippery slope. |
I believe it is illegal to pass a bill specifically to benefit any particular citizen. Such a provision would probably render that law unconstitutional.
If it's a matter of "principle" why wouldn't they want it to apply to ALL future cases? |
Good points.
I watched some of the proceedings today in congress on C-SPAN. Many people brought up similar points and others were asking why this was on the floor of congress anyways. Others stated that its important not to take a life and that her family still loves her, etc.
Afterwards I flipped through the news channels I have access to on cable, about seven 24 hour news channels. ALL of them except 1 were covering either this case or Michael Jackson. Last week it was all about the court killings and church killings, and Michael Jackson.
I think Michael Schiavo said it pretty well:
Originally posted by Michael Schiavo:
"Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years, they should worry about the pedophiles killing young girls," Schiavo said, referring to a local case. "Why doesn't Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let's talk about all the children who don't have homes." |
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 04:04:23 PM · #68 |
| It's hard to listen to her husband talk when he left her for another woman quite some time ago. It's hard to know what his motives truly are, and at the same token, it's probably something he's struggled with as well. Personally, "till death do us part" doesn't mean "but you can screw around if something bad happens". |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 04:26:34 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
It's hard to listen to her husband talk when he left her for another woman quite some time ago. It's hard to know what his motives truly are, and at the same token, it's probably something he's struggled with as well. Personally, "till death do us part" doesn't mean "but you can screw around if something bad happens". |
If she loved him, she would want him to be happy. Maybe I'm strange, but as a married man I put my wife's happiness above mine. If I can no longer be a husband to her I'd rather she be happy with someone else. Expecting her to change my diapers and sit by the side of my bed until one of us dies would be very selfish of me. That's probably not covered in the wedding vows though.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 04:43:21 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Michael Schiavo:
"Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years, they should worry about the pedophiles killing young girls," Schiavo said, referring to a local case. "Why doesn't Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let's talk about all the children who don't have homes." |
|
Is Michael Schiavo a DPChallenge member?! I saw this where it shows a post by him but I'm not seeing him in the 'Community/Photographer Profiles'.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 04:45:27 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
It's hard to listen to her husband talk when he left her for another woman quite some time ago. It's hard to know what his motives truly are, and at the same token, it's probably something he's struggled with as well. Personally, "till death do us part" doesn't mean "but you can screw around if something bad happens". |
If she loved him, she would want him to be happy. Maybe I'm strange, but as a married man I put my wife's happiness above mine. |
Aaahhh, happiness...the ultimate goal.
Doesn't 'for better or for worse' imply a commitment without regard for happiness?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 04:56:40 PM · #72 |
Man, if you don't want to be with someone then divorce them for pity's sake... if it's her best interest he's got at heart, imagine how she'd feel if she could understand that he's been cheating on her? Sorry folks but being married to one person and having kids with another is cheating, no matter the capacity.
How someone who has already abandoned her can have a say in whether or not she lives is beyond my comprehension. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:50:34 PM · #73 |
...for as long as you both shall live?
The real Terri Shiavo died 15 years ago. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:26:49 PM · #74 |
It is obvious her parents are not as repulsed by their daughter being in "a vegetative stupor" as some others are. Search your own soul....Had you rather not have dinner in a resturant with a mongoloid at the next table?
How about a child with MD? A quad amputee?
But by the grace of God are we. If you have learned nothing more from this than to make a Living Will then you have profitted both you and your family. If you haven't, you are foolish.
" How someone who has already abandoned her can have a say in whether or not she lives is beyond my comprehension."
Let her parents make the decision.....someone who really loves her. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:30:09 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Natator:
What I think is disgusting though is if they allow her to die, how it is made to happen, n amely just removing feeding tubes. Surely there has to be a more humane approach. |
If we have decided that she should die then we should go the next step and give her a lethal injection. By letting her die of thirst and hunger we are treating her less humanely than we treat out pet animals. Can you imagine the outroar there would be from all the animal rights group if we decided that all abandoned and sick animals would be let to die by thirst and hunger?? Then why do we treat a human being like that?
|
|
