The Terri Shiavo Controversy - DPChallenge Forums

03/24/2005 10:56:54 PM · #276

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by RonB:
I don't believe that if Dr. Hammesfahr was Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist that you would mention his religious belief as an automatic reason for dismissal of his professional opinion.
I also don't think that if he were a Democrat, a Socialist, a Communist, or of any other political persuasion that you would mention it as an automatic reason for dismissal of his professional opinion.
It is only when one has conservative, or republican, or Christian ties that you feel it worthy of mention.
No, it is only worthy of mention if they have Christian ties or Republican ties. As if possession of either of those characteristics automatically paint their other credentials as immaterial.
The folks on this site wouldn't stand for it if you were to paint such discredit on someone for being Jewish, or Muslim and you know it. I do not know why they tolerate such anti-Christian rhetoric.

bdobe's post did not seek to dismiss his professional opinion, but it does (as he stated) seek to place his comments in context of factors which might shape his opinion. What bdobe pointed out what not Dr. Hammesfahr's faith, but his close association with religious and other organizations and individuals who have an agenda on this issue.

Let's say, for example, that a doctor arguing the other side of this issue were closely affiliated with the Union for Reform Judaism, which supports the right to passive euthanasia (the right of the patient, or in the case of incapacity, the patient's surrogate, to refuse or discontinue life support). Let's further suppose that in addition to this, our hypothetical doctor had documented ties to other right-to-die organizations. Would it not be understandable and indeed proper to point out that doctor's potential bias in a discussion on the issue?

-Terry

Fine. Then let William provide evidence that a) Dr. Hammesfahr DOES have "close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations" by naming them, then providing evidence that those organizations are actively involved in anti-euthanasia or pro-life agendas, and b) Dr. Hammesfahr DOES have "close ties to Republican Party activists" by naming them, and providing evidence that those individuals are actively involved in anti-euthanasia or pro-life agendas.
THEN I will consider them to be relevant qualities. He made the charges, let him make the connections.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/24/2005 11:01:18 PM · #277

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

My opinion is that the president is not so much a moral believer in fundamentalist Christian values and beliefs but that in repayment for campaign contributions the president is used by the fundamentalists to obtain laws in their favor and political clout. The Bush administration also uses fundamentalist values as a way of controlling the masses.

The Terri Shiavo case is really a test case to see how much the Christian fundamentalists can get away with and to get the public used to big government interfering with the private lives of its citizens.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

General, a few days ago I would have been in complete agreement with your statement: "Most of Mr. Shiavo's opponents appear to be more concerned with overturning those principles of tolerance and freedom, in favor of imposing a Fundamentalist Christian ethos on the entire population, regardless of whether that conflicts with others' principles and beliefs." I do agree with you that that's precisely what the Fundamentalist Christians would like to accomplish. However, I now would have to exempt our president and his political accomplices from even the definition of a fundamentalist or a christian. He and his circle stand on no principle whatsoever! I have just viewed an interview with a mother in Texas whose infant was taken off life support, over this mother's objections, pursuant to a statute signed into Texas law under then-governor Bush that allows the DOCTOR to make the decision based on the "futility" of the medical prognosis, AND the patient's ABILITY TO PAY!!! Talk about there being "nothing behind the eyes"!! As much as my worldview differs from that of the fundamentalist christian, at least I recognize that the fundamentalist christian stands on principle sometimes. Our president believes in NOTHING except POWER and WEALTH and is about as morally bankrupt as an EEL!!!

Attacking any religious group is not permitted on this site.

The people on both sides of this issue believe they are doing what is morally right, and there are strong moral arguments on both sides of the passive euthanasia issue.

Let's please be respectful of each other.

Thanks,
Terry

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/25/2005 12:26:14 AM · #278

Terry, are you directing that admonition to me, GeneralE, Olyuzi, or all of us? I'm a bit confused as I have not attacked Christians or Christianity per se in this discussion or in the particular post you cited, nor do I believe anyone else has in this thread. If you'll re-read my post I think you'll see that I was commenting on the hypocrisy and lack of integrity of president Bush, as well as stating my disagreement with the political agenda of the christian right, which in no way was meant as commentary on or criticism of the religious beliefs of that group. And I'd defend the remarks of GeneralE, Olyuzi and bdobe on the same grounds.

Message edited by author 2005-03-25 01:50:51.

MadMordegon

03/25/2005 12:44:28 AM · #279

Originally posted by GeneralE:

My friend, Dr. Lonny Shavelson, is an emergency room physician and published photojournalist. He has addressed some of these and related issues in his book, A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide. You might want to hear what some actually dying people have to say about the experience. He's also a really good photographer ... check out some of his other stuff too while you're there.

Thanks for posting this GeneralE. I just finished reading this article which brought a tear to my eye.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/25/2005 02:19:43 AM · #280

Made me cry too.

Robt.

03/25/2005 02:47:25 AM · #281

I have to weigh in on ClubJuggle's admonition to those of us that have candidly spoken on the politics and the players involved in what SHOULD'VE ALWAYS BEEN A PRIVATE/PERSONAL MATTER in which the federal government, at the behest of OUTSIDERS, never should've interfered in.

As I posted earlier, most us have a strong inclination to not be "confrontational" and to "respect the religious beliefs" of our fellow citizens; that's why, in cases such as Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy, most people are reflexively reluctant to speak candidly, truthfully and forcefully on what we know to be true about what we're witnessing. Most of us, if one is following the news and seeing the images, know and recognize the major players and themes being raised by Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy. However, for whatever reason (some of which I've broadly hinted at here), our national discourse fails to address the major policy/governmental/theological implications being raised by this issue. (As an aside, I, once again, must vent my EXTREME frustration at the mainstream media -- specially broadcast/TV -- for so utterly failing to do their job. But anyway, once more, that's another conversation.) Consequently, when some of the concerns raised in this thread are put forward, some reflexively recoil when the issue of "fundamentalism" is broached. But one shouldn't recoil; afterall, "fundamentalism" and its advocates are important factors in this tragic saga.

Sorry, back to ClubJuggle's admonition. I think it was unnecessary, given that the comments on "fundamentalism" have been fairly narrow in their criticism of the apparent hypocrisy of certain politicians and their supporters, have pointed out the pitfalls of "fundamentalism" run amok, and have merely shed an honest light on the forces that foisted Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy onto the national arena. Again, if one is following this tragedy with even a slight critical eye, we -- as adults -- ought to know that what has been posted in this thread contains -- at a minimum -- a grain of truth... So, why, as citizens and adults, should we not discuss things candidly about such matters?

All right, I know that as a site council member ClubJuggle must feel some urge and pressure to appear/BE fair and impartial, and -- we can agree -- ClubJuggle does do a great job in that role; however, I think that in this case that urge for impartiality may have been misapplied as no one has disrespected anyone's religion -- we've just aired our objection to the imposition of any sort of "fundamentalist" beliefs on our nation at-large.

Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed complaints about specific user.

03/25/2005 05:53:46 AM · #282

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I'm directing the admonition at anyone making sweeping generalizations about the followers of any faith. I understand you may not have meant your post that way, but statements such as "I do agree with you that that's precisely what the Fundamentalist Christians would like to accomplish" and Olyuzi's "The Terri Shiavo case is really a test case to see how much the Christian fundamentalists can get away with" do cross that line. While I'm sure it is not your intention to stereotype all Fundamentalist Christians, your post does read that way, as do several others, so I felt a gentle reminder was appropriate.

To be fair, I am not singling out either side here. If you scroll back three posts you will note that at 8:46 and 9:16, I twice defended bdobe's right to claim Dr. Hammesfahr's had ties to certain religious organizations. That is very different that making a sweeping claim about all the followers of that faith.

-Terry

03/25/2005 06:33:31 AM · #283

Originally posted by bdobe:

All right, I know that as a site council member ClubJuggle must feel some urge and pressure to appear/BE fair and impartial, and -- we can agree -- ClubJuggle does do a great job in that role; however, I think that in this case that urge for impartiality may have been misapplied as no one has disrespected anyone's religion -- we've just aired our objection to the imposition of any sort of "fundamentalist" beliefs on our nation at-large.

First of all, thanks for the kind words, I do appreciate them.

You will note that in 2 posts shortly prior to my admonition, I did defend you when you claimed Dr. Hammesfahr's affiliation with certain Fundamentalist Christian and other organizations, stating that those affiliations were important for placing his comments in context. At the heart of this controversy is the very real moral and ethical dilemma of passive euthanasia, and strong arguments are being made on both sides of the issue. As a moral/ethical issue, I agree it would be ridiculous to exclude all religious discussion from the issue, as religious is an important part of the moral compass of many of us. It is important, however, that in doing so we do not overgeneralize our statements in a way that applies them to people they should not.

A couple posts since have (probably inadvertently) crossed the line into stereotyping all Fundamentalist Christians, and it is specifically those parts of those posts which my admonition addresses. It is important that when addressing these types of issues, that we are extra-careful not to paintall followers of any faith with one unflattering brush.

As to your comments about a specific users, they have been noted. As I do not wish this thread to degrade into a meta-discussion of the behavior of the participants, I have removed them from your post (I've saved them to a hidden post for Site Council reference). In the future, should you have concerns about a specific post or a specific user, the "Report Post" feature is the appropriate way to address them.

Thanks,
Terry

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/25/2005 08:08:00 AM · #284

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

bdobe's post did not seek to dismiss his professional opinion, but it does (as he stated) seek to place his comments in context of factors which might shape his opinion. What bdobe pointed out what not Dr. Hammesfahr's faith, but his close association with religious and other organizations and individuals who have an agenda on this issue.
-Terry

First, the only organizations and individuals bdobe mentioned in his post were Fundamentalist Evangelical organizations and Republican Party activist individuals. There were no other organizations and individuals mentioned who have an agenda on this issue.

Second, if your assesment of his post were correct, William would have provided the evidence I requested showing that Dr. Hammesfahr DOES, as he stated, have close ties to Fundamentalist Evangelical organizations and Republican Party activists. But I notice that he has not.

Lacking such evidence, I wonder if perhaps your assement may have been incorrect. But then, given a little more time, perhaps William can provide the evidence to justify his charges.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

03/25/2005 12:46:08 PM · #285

Terry, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will elaborate and be more specific. My comment refers to the politicians who have involved themselves in this case in one way or another who are Christian fundamentalists, such as, Tom De Lay, Roy Blount, Denis Hastert, President Bush. My comment also applies to Randall Terry and Jeb Bush, whom I believe is pandering to the Christian fundamentalist voter base. I believe these are some of the politicians who want to blur the line of seperation of church and state.

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

...and Olyuzi's "The Terri Shiavo case is really a test case to see how much the Christian fundamentalists can get away with" do cross that line. While I'm sure it is not your intention to stereotype all Fundamentalist Christians, your post does read that way, as do several others, so I felt a gentle reminder was appropriate.
-Terry

Message edited by author 2005-03-25 12:49:55.

jadin

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

03/25/2005 01:10:59 PM · #286

Part of the right to live, is the right to die. - I find it ironic that when people are "able" to decide they want to die, they are not allowed. Yet when someone is unable this is when they are allowed to die.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/25/2005 01:17:58 PM · #287

Dr. William M. Hammesfahr:

* He is often introduced as a Nobel Prize nominated doctor. That invalid nomination was made by Congressman Mike Bilirakis (Republican of Florida). The nomination is invalid because Congressman Mike Bilirakis is not qualified to submit a valid nomination to the Nobel Prize committee -- see the Nobel Prize nominating qualifications. In spite of the nomination being invalid, Dr. Hammesfahr presents himself as a Nobel Prize nominee in his own website -- see the first sentence, just below his picture. Accordingly, one can only conclude that the nomination -- even though invalid -- was submitted by a sympathetic supporter in an attempt to bolster the doctor's stature and credentials.

* Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Clearwater neurologist who examined Schiavo for her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and testified that Schiavo tried to follow simple commands and that her eyes fixed on her family. A judge called him "a self-promoter" in a court order. [St. Petersburg, Fla.: Mar 23, 2005]

* Dr. Hammesfahr is listed at QuackWatch.org, operated by the vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, as a "promoter of questionable methods."

* Mrs. Shiavo's family "gave carte blanche" to fundamentalist advocate and activist Randall Terry, founder of "Operation Rescue" (an anti-choice organization), to "coordinate" intervention in Mrs. Shiavo's case. Please note that Dr. Hammesfahr was retained by Mrs. Shiavo's family to provide "expert testimony" on their behalf, and that Randall Terry often cites "Nobel Prize nominated" Dr. Hammesfahr to attempt to bolster their claims on this unfortunate situation.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

03/25/2005 01:43:36 PM · #288

A USA Today/CNN/Gallop poll has shown a drop in President Bush's approval rating down to an all time low of 45% for him. The largest drop came from churchgoing, conservative men. Maybe in response to their disagreement with the federal government getting involved with the Terri Schiavo case?

MadMordegon

03/25/2005 04:09:16 PM · #289

Originally posted by jadin:

And why does it seem Christians are so scared of death? Isnâ��t that when they meet God and reunite with their deceased family and other good things?

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

03/25/2005 04:11:08 PM · #290

What gives you the idea Christians are afraid to die? I'm sure not afraid of death.

MadMordegon

03/25/2005 04:14:24 PM · #291

Originally posted by David Ey:

What gives you the idea Christians are afraid to die? I'm sure not afraid of death.

How about this whole situation?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/25/2005 04:35:01 PM · #292

Conservatives Invoke Case in Fund-Raising Campaigns

03/25/2005 05:16:43 PM · #293

Originally posted by bdobe:

Dr. William M. Hammesfahr:
...

I am sorely disappointed if you intended for this post to be a valid response to my request for evidence that Dr. Hammesfahr has "close ties to Fundamentalis Evangelical organizations" and "Republican Party activists". But assuming that you meant it as such, let's have a look at the "evidence" bit by bit.

Originally posted by bdobe:

He is often introduced as a Nobel Prize nominated doctor.

Hardly evidence of any "close ties" to anything

Originally posted by bdobe:

That invalid nomination was made by Congressman Mike Bilirakis (Republican of Florida).

Not evidence - you have neither shown "close ties" to Bilirakis, nor evidence that Bilirakis is an "activist". The only tie I found was that they are from the same state

Originally posted by bdobe:

The nomination is invalid because Congressman Mike Bilirakis is not qualified to submit a valid nomination to the Nobel Prize committee -- see the Nobel Prize nominating qualifications.

Well, shame on Bilirakis then. But how does HIS improper act become evidence of the "close ties" you chargee Hammesfahr with?

Originally posted by bdobe:

In spite of the nomination being invalid, Dr. Hammesfahr presents himself as a Nobel Prize nominee in his own website -- see the first sentence, just below his picture.

A valid charge, but again,certainly NOT evidence of the "close ties" you charged

Originally posted by bdobe:

Accordingly, one can only conclude that the nomination -- even though invalid -- was submitted by a sympathetic supporter in an attempt to bolster the doctor's stature and credentials.

OK, let's say that it was, but does the fact that Hammesfahr has a sympathetic supporter qualify as the "close ties" you charged him as having? I don't think so. No more so than saying that Mel Gibson had "close ties" to the man who was stalking him.

And I say again, EVEN if you could show that Hammesfahr had "close ties" to Bilirakis, you have not demonstrated that Bilirakis is a "Republican activist".

Originally posted by bdobe:

Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Clearwater neurologist who examined Schiavo for her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and testified that Schiavo tried to follow simple commands and that her eyes fixed on her family. A judge called him "a self-promoter" in a court order. [St. Petersburg, Fla.: Mar 23, 2005]

So Terri's parents asked him to examine Terri. What "close ties" is that? So a judge called him "a self promoter". Was the judge a Republican activist? If not, then how does this post qualify as evidence of Hammesfahr's "close ties"?

Originally posted by bdobe:

Dr. Hammesfahr is listed at QuackWatch.org, operated by the vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, as a "promoter of questionable methods."

Ahhh. A most interesting link. It seems that one of the board members of Quackwatch.Org, in fact the very one who wrote the Quackwatch article deriding Dr. Hammesfahr, is one Dr. Steven Novella, who just happens to be the president of yet another organization,the New England Skeptical Society ( NESS ). As president of that organization, he often delivers speeches, like the one he gave at the Central Connecticut Humanist Society, outlining his views against the practice of Alternative Medicine ( which he claims is what Dr. Hammesfahr practices ). Dr. Novella testified against Dr. Hammesfahr concerning his ( Hammesfahr's ) treatment methods for stroke victims in May of 2002 - the same treatment method that he derides in his Quackwatch article. Now, nearly three years later, having already established an anti-Hammesfahr stance, he is clearly bound to defend it.
Anyway, all that being said, the charge certainly does not qualify as evidence of Hammesfahr having "close ties" to anything you have charged him with

Originally posted by bdobe:

Mrs. Shiavo's family "gave carte blanche" to
fundamentalist advocate and activist Randall Terry, founder of "Operation Rescue" (an anti-choice organization), to "coordinate" intervention in Mrs. Shiavo's case.

Yes, and Michael Schiavo engaged the services of Attorney George Felos, a nationally recognized expert in right-to-die cases. It is common to retain the assistance of those who are sympathetic to your causes.
BUT, the question remains, how is the Schindler's engagement of Randall Terry evidence of "close ties" on the part of Dr. Hammesfahr, other than by common engagement by a third party?

Originally posted by bdobe:

Dr. Hammesfahr was retained by Mrs. Shiavo's family to provide "expert testimony" on their behalf, and that Randall Terry often cites "Nobel Prize nominated" Dr. Hammesfahr to attempt to bolster their claims on this unfortunate situation.

And yet again I ask, how is that evidence of "close ties" between Dr. Hammesfahr and either "fundamentalist evangelical organizations" or "republican party activists"?

William, this post may put forth some interesting links in support of your position in the Schiavo case, but it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to answer my request for evidence. You haven't shown ANY "close ties" between Dr. Hammesfahr and either 'Fundamentalist Evangelical organizations" nor "Republican Party activists".

In that light, I am forced to conclude that your use of those charges was meant to elicit a gut reaction in your readers against fundamental evangelicals and republicans, not to mention Dr. Hammesfahr, by the intentional use of false associations and emotion laden mistruths. If I'm wrong, then please try again to show me the error of my interpretation.

Message edited by author 2005-03-25 17:32:42.

03/25/2005 05:38:07 PM · #294

RonB,

Your position and tact are very apparent to all reading this thread, and I very much doubt that anyone is surprised at the conclusion you've reached -- I'm certainly not surprised. In fact, I think we ALL would've been surprised if you had had anything substantive to add and/or had reached another conclusion. I mean, come on, let's be candid, you didn't actually expect anyone to belive the sincerity of your challenge, right?

As I stated in a previous post, Dr. William M. Hammesfahr statement's need to be placed in context. Here's what I wrote:

Originally posted by bdobe:

Well, back to this Dr. William M. Hammesfahr. First, he's often cited in right wing radio, and has recently made the rounds on Fox News and right wing radio, as an authority on this case. We, though, as consumers of information, should know more about the context of his role in this case.

And here's the context of his role in Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy:

Dr. William M. Hammesfahr:

* He is often introduced as a Nobel Prize nominated doctor. That invalid nomination was made by Congressman Mike Bilirakis (Republican of Florida). The nomination is invalid because Congressman Mike Bilirakis is not qualified to submit a valid nomination to the Nobel Prize committee -- see the Nobel Prize nominating qualifications. In spite of the nomination being invalid, Dr. Hammesfahr presents himself as a Nobel Prize nominee in his own website -- see the first sentence, just below his picture. Accordingly, one can only conclude that the nomination -- even though invalid -- was submitted by a sympathetic supporter in an attempt to bolster the doctor's stature and credentials.

* Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Clearwater neurologist who examined Schiavo for her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and testified that Schiavo tried to follow simple commands and that her eyes fixed on her family. A judge called him "a self-promoter" in a court order. [St. Petersburg, Fla.: Mar 23, 2005]

* Dr. Hammesfahr is listed at QuackWatch.org, operated by the vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, as a "promoter of questionable methods."

* Mrs. Shiavo's family "gave carte blanche" to fundamentalist advocate and activist Randall Terry, founder of "Operation Rescue" (an anti-choice organization), to "coordinate" intervention in Mrs. Shiavo's case. Please note that Dr. Hammesfahr was retained by Mrs. Shiavo's family to provide "expert testimony" on their behalf, and that Randall Terry often cites "Nobel Prize nominated" Dr. Hammesfahr to attempt to bolster their claims on this unfortunate situation.

Now, reasonable people can draw their own conclusions on the credibility and impariality of Dr. Hammesfahr's statements.

Message edited by author 2005-03-25 17:45:50.

03/25/2005 06:34:21 PM · #295

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by jadin:
Part of the right to live, is the right to die. - I find it ironic that when people are "able" to decide they want to die, they are not allowed. Yet when someone is unable this is when they are allowed to die.

And why does it seem Christians are so scared of death? Isnâ��t that when they meet God and reunite with their deceased family and other good things?

Once again, stop the broad generalizations.

-Terry

03/25/2005 06:37:17 PM · #296

Yes, Let's be VERY clear. What you SAID is ( verbatim quote, emphasis mine ):

Originally posted by bdobe:

Well, back to this Dr. William M. Hammesfahr. First, he's often cited in right wing radio, and has recently made the rounds on Fox News and right wing radio, as an authority on this case. We, though, as consumers of information, should know more about the context of his role in this case.

* Close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations.
* Close ties to Republican party activists.

When I challenged your use of the religious and political charges, ClubJuggle valiantly, though erroneously it would appear, attempted to come to your defense by saying ( verbatim quote, emphasis mine ):

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

bdobe's post did not seek to dismiss his professional opinion, but it does (as he stated) seek to place his comments in context of factors which might shape his opinion. What bdobe pointed out what not Dr. Hammesfahr's faith, but his close association with religious and other organizations and individuals who have an agenda on this issue.

I responded to Terry, and you, by granting the possibility that I "may" have jumped to conclusions, but that, if so, then you needed to show evidence of those close religious and political ties in order to validate his assumption and disprove my assumption that you are merely posting those charges in an attempt to discredit Dr. Hammesfahr through false accusations using religious and political innuendo.

You did not show such evidence. Clear and simple. You haven't shown ANY evidence of "close ties" between Dr. Hammesfahr and either fundamental evangelical organizations or republican party activists. My original response to your original post seems to have been validated by your failure to document the charges you made.