| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2005 03:17:01 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by karmat:
bdobe, just out of curiousity, did you go to the very first link in this thread that laurelblack posted?
Also, someone, don't remember who and computer is too slow to go find it, mentioned that terry is not feeling anything -- don't count on it. Everything I've read and seen (from mainstream to fringe) admits that she is partially responsive to stimuli. And, from my own personal experience with this type of situation, it is very possible that she is more aware of what is going on around her, but the channels that would let her respond aren't there anymore. |
I read laurelblack's post, and I think the theory that the husband would gain financially from Terri's death has been thoroughly disproven. I even heard Terri's parents say in an interview a few days ago that he will not gain monetarily when Terri passes. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:23:31 PM · #102 |
| I think the issue with the husband is not denying that he's suffered or that he deserves to move on, but the fact that it's clear he's moved on and in that state, should no longer have a say as to what happens to her. And also should've divorced her long ago. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:26:06 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
bdobe, just out of curiousity, did you go to the very first link in this thread that laurelblack posted?
Also, someone, don't remember who and computer is too slow to go find it, mentioned that terry is not feeling anything -- don't count on it. Everything I've read and seen (from mainstream to fringe) admits that she is partially responsive to stimuli. And, from my own personal experience with this type of situation, it is very possible that she is more aware of what is going on around her, but the channels that would let her respond aren't there anymore. |
I read laurelblack's post, and I think the theory that the husband would gain financially from Terri's death has been thoroughly disproven. I even heard Terri's parents say in an interview a few days ago that he will not gain monetarily when Terri passes. |
I didn't ask about laurel's post, I asked about hte link in the post.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:35:00 PM · #104 |
Bear_Music,
The issue at hand, as you noted, is euthanasia: its ethics and legality. This is what we, as a nation (and here at DPC) should be discussing. Attacking the husband, questioning his motives, and trying to get into his head, is a distraction and misses the point of the larger issue at hand. As Judith wrote above, and did so very well:
I've tried to imagine why in the world her husband would endure being villified and demonized when it would be so easy for him to divorce her and turn her care over to her parents, and the only reason I can find is that he does truly care about honoring what he believes is her wish to not exist in her present condition with no hope of recovery. I also believe if there were any reason to have stripped her husband of his guardian status, it would have been discovered by now and acted upon. Isn't it the case that this man's motives have been scrutinized from every possible angle and no court has yet found sufficient grounds upon which to terminate his rights as guardian?
I'm reluctant to expound on this, as I -- just like everyone else here -- don't know the individuals involved. However, I'd add just one point: Sometimes our spouses/lovers, know us better than our parents, as we tend to be more honest, generous and share more personal moments with them. Given this, perhaps, it is completely out of love and respect for the union that Terri and her husband shared at one point that the husband has chosen to see this case adjudicated for so long -- as he may in fact see it as defending and upholding his wife's wishes.
Accordingly, I find it offensive and ill-willed to go after the husband. Moreover, as regards my point on the media, it is doubly offensive for anyone with a public forum (TV program, radio, etc.) to turn their megaphones against a private individual -- specially when such tragic circumstances surround the case. It is not inconceivable that the husband has received death threats, and that he may fear for his life for its remainder. This mob mentality -- going after the husband -- is created by irresponsible public voices during such inflammatory periods. Therefore, as consumers of information, I think that we should be mindful of the influences that such public voices have on our perception of events, and that we should question them when the larger issues/consequences are not discussed in those public forums. Again, the issue here is euthanasia: its ethics and legality, and not the husband.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 15:48:05.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 03:44:59 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
bdobe, just out of curiousity, did you go to the very first link in this thread that laurelblack posted?
Also, someone, don't remember who and computer is too slow to go find it, mentioned that terry is not feeling anything -- don't count on it. Everything I've read and seen (from mainstream to fringe) admits that she is partially responsive to stimuli. And, from my own personal experience with this type of situation, it is very possible that she is more aware of what is going on around her, but the channels that would let her respond aren't there anymore. |
I read laurelblack's post, and I think the theory that the husband would gain financially from Terri's death has been thoroughly disproven. I even heard Terri's parents say in an interview a few days ago that he will not gain monetarily when Terri passes. |
I didn't ask about laurel's post, I asked about hte link in the post. |
Okay, I misunderstood. What was your question, then, about the link? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 04:02:00 PM · #106 |
Just if he clicked on it and read that perspective of the case.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 04:04:10 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Just if he clicked on it and read that perspective of the case. |
Yes, I have.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 04:32:31 PM · #108 |
15 years!
Since the husband has moved on and thus the marrage thing should be overlooked (although since neither side of the marrage has filed for divorce, the marrage still stands, even if you don't like it), what was the excuse for not removing the feeding tube the first few years before he moved on?
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 04:39:59 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by louddog:
15 years!
... what was the excuse for not removing the feeding tube the first few years before he moved on? |
He's been in court trying to do that for years, blocked by the legal shenanigans of the parents and the Bush family (first Jeb, and now W.), even though he has won every legal decision along the way.
They seem to be determined to continue up the ladder of justice until they can find some judge, somewhere, willing to support their position.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 16:42:21. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:04:20 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Since the husband has moved on and thus the marrage thing should be overlooked |
The marriage thing?...If a marriage just ceased to exist everytime one partner screwed around on the other there'd be a whole lot more single people in the world. lol Again, dude, it's the issue of why not just divorce her. I wonder how his new woman feels..... |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:37:34 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by louddog:
Since the husband has moved on and thus the marrage thing should be overlooked |
The marriage thing?...If a marriage just ceased to exist everytime one partner screwed around on the other there'd be a whole lot more single people in the world. lol Again, dude, it's the issue of why not just divorce her. I wonder how his new woman feels..... |
Nonsense, GoldBerry. Adultery does not legally dissolve a marriage under US law. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:42:47 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by louddog:
Since the husband has moved on and thus the marrage thing should be overlooked |
The marriage thing?...If a marriage just ceased to exist everytime one partner screwed around on the other there'd be a whole lot more single people in the world. lol Again, dude, it's the issue of why not just divorce her. I wonder how his new woman feels..... |
Nonsense, GoldBerry. Adultery does not legally dissolve a marriage under US law. |
That's what I just said. :-) |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 05:57:09 PM · #113 |
| Oops. I read what I thought you said, not what you actually said. My bad. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:04:47 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by karmat:
bdobe, just out of curiousity, did you go to the very first link in this thread that laurelblack posted?
Also, someone, don't remember who and computer is too slow to go find it, mentioned that terry is not feeling anything -- don't count on it. Everything I've read and seen (from mainstream to fringe) admits that she is partially responsive to stimuli. And, from my own personal experience with this type of situation, it is very possible that she is more aware of what is going on around her, but the channels that would let her respond aren't there anymore. |
I read laurelblack's post, and I think the theory that the husband would gain financially from Terri's death has been thoroughly disproven. I even heard Terri's parents say in an interview a few days ago that he will not gain monetarily when Terri passes. |
What Terri's father has also said is that he thinks that Michael's real motive "might" be his fear that Terri would someday regain enough consciousness to blink or tap in response to questions - and by so doing, implicate him ( Michael ) in what transpired that night 15 years ago when she ended up in the emergency room. If that's true, then he would certainly gain from her death. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:09:36 PM · #115 |
| What actually caused her brain damage? If someone posted it, I missed it. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:13:32 PM · #116 |
| Heart failure cause by a potassium imbalance from an eating disorder. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:15:14 PM · #117 |
Well it seems this is a private tragedy compounded by a media eager to ride it to ratings and politicians who wish to ride it to whatever benfit they may glean from it. The public and politicians are not qualified to take part in this as they do not know by any means what the wishes of the woman affected are. Passionate family members, no matter the side now play it out both pleading her side. Solomon's wisdom fails here other than what the law of the land states that a legal mate is caregive and may state what the will of that spouse is/was. We are a people who submit to the rule of law, and by that our society has it's measure of stability. It seems a law that attempts fairness and justice while falling short of perfection in many ways. It is for the families to resolve this without a cheering/jeering audience. In the end, I hope they are able, as well as Terri to find peace.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:16:19 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
What actually caused her brain damage? If someone posted it, I missed it. |
Here's the REAL explanation:
Originally posted by mk:
Heart failure cause by a potassium imbalance from an eating disorder. |
Unfortunately (and irresponsibly), some, for whatever reason, seek to inject a darker more sinister explanation:
Originally posted by RonB:
What Terri's father has also said is that he thinks that Michael's real motive "might" be his fear that Terri would someday regain enough consciousness to blink or tap in response to questions - and by so doing, implicate him ( Michael ) in what transpired that night 15 years ago when she ended up in the emergency room. If that's true, then he would certainly gain from her death. |
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 18:16:47.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 06:37:07 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by RonB:
What Terri's father has also said is that he thinks that Michael's real motive "might" be his fear that Terri would someday regain enough consciousness to blink or tap in response to questions - and by so doing, implicate him ( Michael ) in what transpired that night 15 years ago when she ended up in the emergency room. If that's true, then he would certainly gain from her death. |
Good Lord... and years ago people thought the moon was made up of green cheese and the earth was flat...and, and, and..... but that doesn't make it so.
... and just exactly is it that he would gain... surely even if you do believe that he committed some nefarious act, the statute of limitations would have long come and gone, or are things that different in the USA???
Just a thought...
Ray |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 07:01:47 PM · #120 |
I really wish this wasn't such a heated political issue that the far right and the far left can use as a symbol for their causes. I find it almost sickening to listen to the news (It's all over the Canadian news) and hear this group or that group going on with their own agenda, whatever that may be. I think the politicians and activists forget these are real people with real lives and the law on the matter should be settled so the people involved can be at peace with whatever is decided. Obviously, this is a heated battle. It's a shame when religious groups and political organizations use things like this to advance their own cause. It's almost unreal and definitely inhuman the ways the spin-doctors are spinning this whole thing. Very 1984.
I agree that this argument should go no further than the legal issues at hand. Leave all the real people out of it.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 19:05:31. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 07:11:14 PM · #121 |
You know what is really sad about all this? It's none of our damn business! We and the government need to stay the hell out of other people's personal affairs.
This is not something that just happened yesterday, it's been in the courts for years. Several courts have ruled. Let it go, it's none of our business.
This whole debate is about ideologies, not about what is best for this woman. None of us know what this lady wants (unless you spoke with her, bfore 15 years ago) and should stop assuming you do so. That's why we need to stay the hell out of this.
And for those so quick on vilanizing the husband. Maybe he is really the one that is trying to follow through with his wife's wishes. Maybe he is trying to keep the family from selfishly keeping this woman alive, because they can't deal with the fact that she is basically gone now. Maybe this is an example of true love, by going through all the crap he has gone through to fulfill his wife's wishes.
Maybe...maybe not, we don't, nor will we probably ever know. Once again, it's none of our business anyway.
I'm going to watch Napoleon Dynamite! :-)
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 07:30:04 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... surely even if you do believe that he committed some nefarious act, the statute of limitations would have long come and gone, or are things that different in the USA???
Just a thought...
Ray |
Laws vary from state to state, but I do not believe there is a statute of limitations for first-degree murder.
However, this case has been investigated, analyzed, and litigated to a sufficient extent that if there was a question of a crime having been committed, the evidence should have surfaced by now, and charges filed. That there have been none would seem to speak to the nature and motivation of any such accusations ... |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:03:54 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by mk:
Heart failure cause by a potassium imbalance from an eating disorder. |
Not necessarily. That is but one opinion being widely broadcast. While there is consensus that heart failure did occur, there has been no such wide consensus on the cause of that heart failure. Dr. William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who examined Terri and her medical record in 2002 was interviewed by Alan Colmes ( of Hannity & Colmes ) in October of 2003, ( transcript [url=//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101458,00.html]here[/quote] ) and the following conversation took place:
"COLMES: We heard a lot about low potassium, but this neck injury stuff is very interesting. Would that kind of a situation be consistent with the possibility of foul play?
HAMMESFAHR: I'd like to go back to the potassium for a second, because he talked about the potassium and about the diet pills issue or some other drugs.
COLMES: Sure. Sure.
HAMMESFAHR: But the medical record clearly shows that there has never been a heart attack. Potassium causes damage by causing heart attacks, so we know the potassium is not an issue." |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:11:49 PM · #124 |
The Vatican has responded.
From this CNN article:
"While church officials say they are opposed to keeping a person alive at all costs -- especially if medical intervention prolongs the patient's agony -- the Vatican insists that artificially feeding and hydrating a person in a vegetative state does not constitute aggressive therapy.
A year ago, Pope John Paul II wrote that doctors have a moral duty to preserve life. "The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural way of preserving life... not a medical procedure."
But because the 41-year-old Schiavo has been pronounced brain damaged, not brain dead, Vatican officials say she must be kept alive." |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 08:15:21 PM · #125 |
As an observation, being that the republicans are almost unanimously in favor of "saving" Terri's life, doesnt this go against the whole "republicans are for less government involved in peoples lives" thing?
A funny news clip on the issue |
|
