DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Terri Shiavo Controversy
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 376 - 400 of 578, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/28/2005 12:26:52 AM · #376
Judith,

This says it quite well, I think:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[W]e don't want to face the possibility that we'd have to make such a choice for a loved one, and doing so I'm sure, for most of us, would be fraught with guilt and conflicting feelings.


What you've written is what's at the heart of the case: in such tragic circumstances it is up to the individual, along with their kin and family, to decide for themselves. We, the public, through an ill advised and ill conceived federal intervention, should've never played a role in what is such a PRIVATE/PERSONAL matter. I think that by now most of the public understands that this unfortunate circumstance, including the families, were exploited and played in the name of a narrow agenda -- which is unfortunate.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 00:34:48.
 03/28/2005 12:41:59 AM · #377
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
no condescension meant. Ill continue later.


Continue what??? If indeed you had any legitimate question, comment or point of view then your utterance would have merit, but as things currently stand, there is nothing to discuss.


03/28/2005 12:46:44 AM · #378
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
bdobe, what̢۪s with the hostility and belittling?


I've responded to a caricaturist scenario/question in kind.


lol, no spine.


dsmboostaholic,

Your strongarm tactics are not appreciated, nor are your repeated demands for answers to a loaded question.

If you wish to debate this issue in a fair "give and take" manner, you may do so, otherwise please exit the thread.

-Terry
 03/28/2005 12:59:52 AM · #379
Originally posted by bdobe:
Judith,

This says it quite well, I think:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[W]e don't want to face the possibility that we'd have to make such a choice for a loved one, and doing so I'm sure, for most of us, would be fraught with guilt and conflicting feelings.


What you've written is what's at the heart of the case: in such tragic circumstances it is up to the individual, along with their kin and family, to decide for themselves. We, the public, through an ill advised and ill conceived federal intervention, should've never played a role in what is such a PRIVATE/PERSONAL matter. I think that by now most of the public understands that this unfortunate circumstance, including the families, were exploited and played in the name of a narrow agenda -- which is unfortunate.


Yes, and I earnestly hope that the opportunists who dreamt up this scheme and participated in it will have to face some negative consequences. Honestly, I don't know how some people sleep at night.
 03/28/2005 01:33:36 AM · #380
The entire problem with this case is the current laws as they apply to Florida. All that is required is one single witness. Here the judge has followed the law. However, this begs many questions because the evidence is mainly from the husband's side. Is there a conflict of interest? Well, many people believe there is simply because Michael involvement with the other woman in his life and the children born unto them.

According to the law, it does not matter what Michael has done outside of his marriage. So while, the judge is correct the question will persist, is Michael indeed the true guardian. Certainly he is the legal guardian, but the case has risen to betray a weakness in the legal system. What if there are circumstances that negate Michael his legal guardianship status.

You must remember that the Florida's court had ruled in the Gonsalez case yet Clinton stormed in and negated the final court decisions and had the child taken out of the grip of the courts and the Governor. So, there is a check and balance and no one branch is above the other.

Where there may exist the mere possibility of possible foul play, even if properly adjucated, the most the judge can do is issue his judgemnent, however, those that execute it rest in the power of the governor. He therefore, can call the same showdown that Clinton did in the Gonsalez case. Yes, it gets tacky here because Judge Greer did decide to issue a restraining order and nobody really knows if this binding as it is being refuted here and there by some legal heads , because then this order over rides the powers of the Governor and we will see the fall out of this as time goes by. The world is watching and sometimes convictions fails some of the key players.

You can argue for either side and while the strength of the law rests with Michael's side but not the very spirit because of the swirl of controversy wherein many of accusations have again risen. It may be that Michael is innocent, but to proceed to steam roller the scales of justice whith just the testimony of one side of the family, and in realizing that this original info was simply rolled over to all later hearings, leaves a doubt hanging.

Also, this case has given rise to the right to life culture accusing the religious right. This is an absurd statement. You do not have to be on the religious right to extend mercy and understanding to what may be a mis carriage of justice.

The Congress has the right. They represent us, the people and they can rightfully interfere in these matters. One must remember that a life is at stake here with parents who are willing to take their child in what ever condition she is in.

Some have equated this as a political struggle. Now, I play chess and I appreciate strategy. Let us assume that the case creates a divide between two parties: Well, if you persist in seeking her death, then the timing is so wrong and so bad that the side that wants to win at all cost is giving the other a Christ-like figure to expire close in conjunction to the christian's remembrance of the crufixion of Christ. This will have a reverberation which will ring and ring and create a bigger divide and force the laymen to take sides. Considering the facts in this case, while they are legal they may also be faulty and herein lies the kicker: Who will most people agree with, the side of death or the side of life?

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 01:37:08.
 03/28/2005 01:50:01 AM · #381
A very well reasoned argument Graphicfunk.

Having had the opportunity to review a great deal of documentation in this regard, and having witnessed the fervor of the contervailing forces, I remain convinced that most people do not wish to see government intervention in matters of this nature.

While I have no doubts that you will see attempts by both sides to sway the courts... the biggest shift will be with the way individuals prepare for such tragic events. As I previously posted, both my spouse and I have taken all requisite actions to ensure that the state does not interfere with our wishes, and I am convinced that a host of other people are now undertaking similar courses of action.

In response to your final question.... I do believe most folks will strive to ensure that decisions of this ilk remains exclusively theirs, regardless of which path they opt for.

Ray

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 01:50:24.
 03/28/2005 07:41:58 AM · #382
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The entire problem with this case is the current laws as they apply to Florida. All that is required is one single witness. Here the judge has followed the law. However, this begs many questions because the evidence is mainly from the husband's side. Is there a conflict of interest? Well, many people believe there is simply because Michael involvement with the other woman in his life and the children born unto them.

According to the law, it does not matter what Michael has done outside of his marriage. So while, the judge is correct the question will persist, is Michael indeed the true guardian. Certainly he is the legal guardian, but the case has risen to betray a weakness in the legal system. What if there are circumstances that negate Michael his legal guardianship status.


So far in this thread, no one has pointed out that the Schindler family encouraged Michael to begin dating.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate order" should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.

Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accomodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in a non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider getting on with his life -- something that he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to the women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending. (Wolfon, Jay, DrPH, JD, Guardian Ad Litem for Theresa Marie Schiavo. A Report to Governor Jeb Bush and the 6th Judicial Circuit in the Matter of Theresa Marie Schiavo. //news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf, pp. 10-11. 1 December 2003).

In my opinion, if the fact that Michael has gone on to date, and then to have children with, another woman, undermines his credibility as Guardian in this case, I believe it undermines the credibility of the Schindlers as well. It suggests that either the Schindlers were actively plotting to undermine Michael's credibility or that the Schindlers believed at the time that there was no hope for Theresa's recovery. Since the animosity between the Schindlers and Michael had not yet developed, the most likely conclusion in my mind is that the Schindlers did not believe there was hope for Theresa's recovery.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
You can argue for either side and while the strength of the law rests with Michael's side but not the very spirit because of the swirl of controversy wherein many of accusations have again risen. It may be that Michael is innocent, but to proceed to steam roller the scales of justice whith just the testimony of one side of the family, and in realizing that this original info was simply rolled over to all later hearings, leaves a doubt hanging.


I disagree. "The June 2003 appeal the the 2nd DCA was Schiavo IV. The 2nd DCA panel of judges engaged in what approximated a de novo review of all the facts, testimony and video tapes presented at trial. The appelate court affirmed the trial court's ruling and its conclusions, and in addition, ordered the trial court to set a hearing date for removal of the artificial life support." (Ibid., pg. 17)

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Also, this case has given rise to the right to life culture accusing the religious right. This is an absurd statement. You do not have to be on the religious right to extend mercy and understanding to what may be a mis carriage of justice.


I think we agree here. I believe that most people on both sides of this argument are acting out of a sense of mercy and compassion for Theresa. The question is whether Theresa would have wanted to live under these conditions, and in finding the answer to that one will find what is the merciful and compassionate thing to do.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The Congress has the right. They represent us, the people and they can rightfully interfere in these matters. One must remember that a life is at stake here with parents who are willing to take their child in what ever condition she is in.


I agree... but if Theresa is cognitive as a few on that side of the issue argue, the repeated removal and reinsertion of her feedin tube constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Congress should have acted on a more proactive manner to prevent that, or if they felt as most doctors do that Theresa is non-cognitive, have left the issue alone entirely.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Some have equated this as a political struggle. Now, I play chess and I appreciate strategy. Let us assume that the case creates a divide between two parties: Well, if you persist in seeking her death, then the timing is so wrong and so bad that the side that wants to win at all cost is giving the other a Christ-like figure to expire close in conjunction to the christian's remembrance of the crufixion of Christ. This will have a reverberation which will ring and ring and create a bigger divide and force the laymen to take sides. Considering the facts in this case, while they are legal they may also be faulty and herein lies the kicker: Who will most people agree with, the side of death or the side of life?


I disagree about the timing. This proceeding was started years ago -- there's no way the ending date could have been planned. Circumstance and coincidence, or fate if you prefer, have resulted in the culmination of this issue close to Easter.

-Terry

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 00:25:05.
 03/28/2005 08:48:18 AM · #383
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
bdobe, what̢۪s with the hostility and belittling?


I've responded to a caricaturist scenario/question in kind.


lol, no spine.


I responded to your question, what else do you want? Now, why don't you respond to my question?


I don't know what else dsmboostaholic wants, but I know what I want - an answer to MY question - namely: What evidence is there that Dr. Hammesfahr had "close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations" and "close ties to Republican party activists"?
It's been 3 and a half days now, and you still haven't provided ANY evidence to substantiate those charges - not even with help from your friends.
If you cannot provide the evidence, yet refuse to admit that you posted false charges, then perhaps the assessment above is correct.
 03/28/2005 10:41:41 AM · #384
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
[
Your strongarm tactics are not appreciated, nor are your repeated demands for answers to a loaded question.

If you wish to debate this issue in a fair "give and take" manner, you may do so, otherwise please exit the thread.

-Terry


Tactics, demands, loaded question??? wow, someone must have had their feelings hurt. Knowone HAD to answer the question in the first place. It is a simple Yes or No scenario. How hard is it to stand black or white? How about you Terry? Could you do it? There are no tactics, no demands and no pressure. Just a question from one photographer to another. If you can not answer it then dont. If people can not handle a simple question then delete my posts. I never thought you could take it this far...

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 10:42:50.
 03/28/2005 10:46:35 AM · #385
Originally posted by bdobe:
I think Ray (okay, AND Milo) made his point abundantly clear: that your initial question was loaded and dishonest because it did not deal with the circumstances in their full context.


oh come on, give me a break. It was a simple question no matter how everyone took it.

My answer is: NO, I wouldn't let me spouse starve to death.
 03/28/2005 10:50:34 AM · #386
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
How about you Terry? Could you do it? There are no tactics, no demands and no pressure.

These sentences constitute an oxymoron -- the statement disproves itself.
 03/28/2005 10:57:45 AM · #387
DSM, you still haven't stated the purpose of your question. What's the point in hearing what each of us individually would do in a similar situation?
 03/28/2005 11:38:15 AM · #388
It seems that Rep. Tom DeLay, who earlier stated that removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was an act of barbarism, has also gone through a similar situation with his own father in which he allowed life support to be removed, and in which he did not allow a kidney dialysis machine to be connected after his father's kidneys had failed. This after a freak accident back in 1988. Article here.

Tom Delay is congressman who has openly endorsed blurring the lines of seperation of church and state. Randall Terry, also involved closely with this case has been an aggressive Right-to-Life advocate and who is also against living wills. My opinion is that the underlying issue in this case is denial of choice.
 03/28/2005 11:41:21 AM · #389
Originally posted by SirBiggsALot:

My intent wasn't to attack the husband, but instead to question the integrity of the knowledge we have at hand. It would seem that there is a lot of information we don't know about the night she got sick, the exact words she used when referencing her spoken "living will", and the possible neglect of proper medical attention.
I do not fault him for seeking a new life, he just seemed quite calloused and very disingenuous when on the news speaking of this woman he loves/loved.


To blame him for her condition is absurd in my opinion. Her condition was self inflicted. She was in effect already starving herself to death before her initial hospitalization. That is how she got there.
 03/28/2005 11:46:26 AM · #390
Originally posted by nsbca7:

To blame him for her condition is absurd in my opinion. Her condition was self inflicted. She was in effect already starving herself to death before her initial hospitalization. That is how she got there.


I never read a single post blaming the husband for her condition. SirBiggs's certainly didn't. You can question the information without questioning the motives. And like I posted before, Michael Schiavo received a settlement of $1.5million for malpractice on the part of the hospital a long time before he ever mentioned her request to not be kept alive. Interesting, no?
 03/28/2005 11:47:36 AM · #391
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dsmboostaholic:
How about you Terry? Could you do it? There are no tactics, no demands and no pressure.

These sentences constitute an oxymoron -- the statement disproves itself.


hahah thats funny.
 03/28/2005 11:48:09 AM · #392
DSM, I for one answered your question, as did many others. Mind you, it is rather sad that you would resort to such an underhanded approach to elicit a response that puts individuals in a no win situation.

You are no better at answering similar types of question, as witnessed by your response to the question posed: "Do you still beat your wife?".
There are several questions I could ask you, stipulating that you answer either YES or NO, that regardless of the way you answered would make you vulnerable to ridicule, but I won't.... because I know you would never answer them.

You may wish to reconsider your approach in this regard.

Ray
03/28/2005 11:54:49 AM · #393
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
oh come on, give me a break. It was a simple question no matter how everyone took it.


This is NOT a simple question by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know if you have ever experienced an issue of this magnitude Ms. Goldberry, but I know I have.... and there is nothing simple about it trust me.

I am positive that every thinking person could address this issue, but certainly not ask asked. Some things in life cannot be answered by a simple YES or NO response.

Ray
 03/28/2005 11:58:29 AM · #394
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by nsbca7:

To blame him for her condition is absurd in my opinion. Her condition was self inflicted. She was in effect already starving herself to death before her initial hospitalization. That is how she got there.


I never read a single post blaming the husband for her condition. SirBiggs's certainly didn't. You can question the information without questioning the motives. And like I posted before, Michael Schiavo received a settlement of $1.5million for malpractice on the part of the hospital a long time before he ever mentioned her request to not be kept alive. Interesting, no?


I'm thinking he definatly implied that when he mentions the possible neglect of proper medical attention. As far as the malpractice suit I fail to see how it relates to Terri's wishes at all. Why would her wishes not to be kept alive, if indeed they were her wishes, be brought up at a malpractice hearing?
 03/28/2005 12:07:07 PM · #395
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It seems that Rep. Tom DeLay, who earlier stated that removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was an act of barbarism, has also gone through a similar situation with his own father in which he allowed life support to be removed, and in which he did not allow a kidney dialysis machine to be connected after his father's kidneys had failed. This after a freak accident back in 1988. Article here.

Tom Delay is congressman who has openly endorsed blurring the lines of seperation of church and state. Randall Terry, also involved closely with this case has been an aggressive Right-to-Life advocate and who is also against living wills. My opinion is that the underlying issue in this case is denial of choice.


That is an interesting find Olyuzi. It does seem the hypocrisy never runs short in American politics and so called "moral" representatives.

I'll also add, Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay is also currently under investigation for misconduct in Texas fundraising and several counts of ethics violations.
 03/28/2005 12:12:24 PM · #396
I just read a report on CNN's website that the arguments between the husband and her parents are continuing over what happens to Terri's body after she dies. A judge has sided with the husband who wants her cremated and returned to Pennsylvania, against her parent's wish to have her body buried intact in Florida. The husband has also refused the parent's requests to take a photo of Terri before she dies.

Whatever side folks are on, whomever you choose to agree with, it is certain that this is a a sad, horrible way to round out this whole sad, horrible ordeal. I don't think there will be any resting in peace for a long time.
 03/28/2005 12:17:18 PM · #397
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I just read a report on CNN's website that the arguments between the husband and her parents are continuing over what happens to Terri's body after she dies. A judge has sided with the husband who wants her cremated and returned to Pennsylvania, against her parent's wish to have her body buried intact in Florida. The husband has also refused the parent's requests to take a photo of Terri before she dies.

Whatever side folks are on, whomever you choose to agree with, it is certain that this is a a sad, horrible way to round out this whole sad, horrible ordeal. I don't think there will be any resting in peace for a long time.


All the more reason we should all fill out a living will today if we don't already have one. To possibly put this kind of guilt and burden on our families knowing what we now know could happen would be unexcusable.
 03/28/2005 12:18:19 PM · #398
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by nsbca7:

To blame him for her condition is absurd in my opinion. Her condition was self inflicted. She was in effect already starving herself to death before her initial hospitalization. That is how she got there.


I never read a single post blaming the husband for her condition. SirBiggs's certainly didn't. You can question the information without questioning the motives. And like I posted before, Michael Schiavo received a settlement of $1.5million for malpractice on the part of the hospital a long time before he ever mentioned her request to not be kept alive. Interesting, no?


I'm thinking he definatly implied that when he mentions the possible neglect of proper medical attention. As far as the malpractice suit I fail to see how it relates to Terri's wishes at all. Why would her wishes not to be kept alive, if indeed they were her wishes, be brought up at a malpractice hearing?

I don't know why they WOULD have, but I can think of why they might NOT have been. Because if they had, the amount of the award would have been a fraction of what it was - since the majority of the award was for future care, which would NOT have been an issue of she either was dead, or would be soon ( as would have happened if not for the legal wranglings of the Schindlers ).
I'm not opining on the controversy itself, just stating an answer to the question of why her wishes might not have been brought up at the malpractice hearing.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 12:22:46.
 03/28/2005 12:19:44 PM · #399
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I never read a single post blaming the husband for her condition. SirBiggs's certainly didn't. You can question the information without questioning the motives. And like I posted before, Michael Schiavo received a settlement of $1.5million for malpractice on the part of the hospital a long time before he ever mentioned her request to not be kept alive. Interesting, no?


Goldberry,

For whatever reason many people working against Mrs. Shiavo's wishes have blamed the husband for her condition, a charge has been repeated often in this thread. Note that we've also read how Mr. Shiavo has REFUSED $10 million that's been offered to him if he would only sign over guardianship and refuse to press for Mrs. Shiavo's wishes to be carried out. Personally, I think it's shameful and tiresome that some continue to pursue the tact of suggesting that the husband has sinister motives in this matter. As I've posted earlier, such accusations and suggestions give people license to act irresponsibly, for example we've seen a North Carolina man arrested for placing a bounty of $250,000 to have Mr. Shiavo killed, and another $50,000 to have the judged on the case killed.

Now, since it seems that you're into intrigue and into the personal lives of the people involved in this tragic story, you might find the following interesting, from USA Today:

Some of the protesters gathered outside Woodside Hospice here have demonized Michael Schiavo, accusing him of everything from murder to adultery because he lives with a woman and has two toddlers, a daughter and a son, by her.

It wasn't always this way, according to a USA TODAY review of voluminous records in the Probate Division of Pinellas County Circuit Court in nearby Clearwater.

Those records show that Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers jointly supervised care for Terri after she collapsed. For the first 16 days and nights that she was hospitalized, Schiavo never left the hospital. Over the next few years, as she was moved from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility, to a nursing home, to Schiavo's home and finally back to a nursing home, Schiavo visited Terri daily.

[...]

John Pecarek, a court-appointed guardian for Terri, described her husband as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare," adding, "I believe that the ward (Terri) gets care and attention from the staff of Sabal Palms (nursing home) as a result of Mr. Schiavo's advocacy and defending on her behalf."

Mary Schindler testified that, while her daughter was at one nursing home, her relationship with her son-in-law was "very good. We did everything together. Wherever he went, I went."

Schiavo and the Schindlers even sold pretzels and hot dogs on St. Pete Beach to raise money for Terri's care. But everything seemed to change on Valentine's Day 1993 in a nursing home near here.

[...]

Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.

[...]

Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years ago, he says.

-----------------------------

This USA Today article tells the story, not in the blacks and whites that many insist on, but in all the murky and grey tones that none of us find settling.

03/28/2005 12:23:00 PM · #400
Originally posted by RayEthier:

I don't know if you have ever experienced an issue of this magnitude Ms. Goldberry, but I know I have....


I'm not a pornstar or dominatrix so please keep the "Miss" to a minimum mmkay? And yea, I got the implication but I'm choosing to ignore your tone.


Message edited by author 2005-03-28 12:25:13.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 02:46:30 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 02:46:30 PM EDT.