| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/22/2005 09:58:50 PM · #151 |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:00:25 PM · #152 |
David Ey, since you didnt see this before (dosnt seem anyone else either).
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A pretty large amount of information about Terri and this case Wikipedia, Terri Schiavo
From that, to answer questions posted by others:
"Most of Schiavo's cerebral cortex has been completely destroyed, replaced by spinal fluid; Dr. Ron Cranford, a neurologist at the University of Minnesota assessed Schiavo's brain function in 2001 as part of a court-ordered assessment. He was quoted in Florida Today as saying "[Schiavo] has no electrical activity in her cerebral cortex on an EEG (electroencephalogram), and a CT (computerized tomography) scan showed massive atrophy in that region."
Emphesis mine. |
Also I'll add this as I think its pertinant:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
In continuing to read from the Wikipedia entry, I found this:
"On March 11, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that embryonic stem cell research could cause Schiavo's condition to be curable in the future) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to waive his guardianship to his wife's parents. He rejected the offer, as he had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million. The offer expired on March 14, 2005, four days before her feeding tube was removed. Schiavo's attorney, George J. Felos, said his client found the offer "offensive"."
This should calm the calls that he is "in it for the money". |
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:06:55 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
you up to killing her? |
Sorry, thought you were going to bed. I thought you were going to address the question, why are you pushing this back onto me? Why should "she" (hypothetical infant) be kept alive in a persistant vegetative state for 72 years? Never uttering a word, never thinking a thought, and, at her death, never noticing, in a sentient sense, "she" ever existed.
Why? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:23:03 PM · #154 |
Hmmmm seems that this has gotten very messy... but I'd like to add a little to my previous posts after some more thought and reading what others have had to say regarding this heart wrenching situation.
To those that wonder why he (the husband) is still around, why not divorce and be done with it... Here's my thinking on this. I for one would hope that my husband would take up for me the way Micheal Schiavo has for his wife. If he didn't care so much of her wishes I'm sure he would've walked away a long time ago. It would've been so much easier than dealing with what he's going through now, don't you think? I would be thankful that he has found a woman that lets him fight for me and my wishes, as I'm sure she's thankful to have that kind of man in her life. I find it hard that his main motivation here is money... no amount of money is worth the public scrutiny that he is going through and probably will have to go through for quite ahile to come.
Now, after watching some of the video clips in the second post of this thread, I can see how it would be very hard as a parent to give up this fight. I for one, would find it extremely hard to watch my child starve to death. Here lies the problem. There's got to be a more humane way out of this situation. One side of me says let the parents take her and take care of her and let the husband walk away. On the other hand, he's fighting for what he says she wanted. It's a hard situation to deal with and all the politcal aspects being thrown around in this thread should really have no bearing. Honestly this is a very personal issue and we should respect it as such. Again, I wish nothing but peace to all the family members involved. May they find solace in whatever the outcome is.
just my 2cents and thoughts on the situation. And I respect all others that have been posted. I don't agree with some but I do respect them.
Message edited by author 2005-03-22 22:23:28.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:24:39 PM · #155 |
My goodness Mad, who you think struck her that hard?
Oh, I almost forgot. Adolf Hitler (oh no, some think mention of Adolf brings an end to all meaningful dialogue. Sorry!) anyways, Adolf had a plan for these unfortunate "lessor" individuals. That was a bit before the Jew thing you know. Maybe he wasn't all bad after all...in youse opinion of the way things ought to be. Yes? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:33:32 PM · #156 |
DavidEy,
What are you trying to say? How does any of what you wrote make any sense?
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:34:43 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
My goodness Mad, who you think struck her that hard?
Oh, I almost forgot. Adolf Hitler (oh no, some think mention of Adolf brings an end to all meaningful dialogue. Sorry!) anyways, Adolf had a plan for these unfortunate "lessor" individuals. That was a bit before the Jew thing you know. Maybe he wasn't all bad after all...in youse opinion of the way things ought to be. Yes? |
Why are you avoiding my question? Why are you suddenly equivocating and bringing up Hitler? They are not the same thing. We were talking about one hypothetical "infant" growing into an adult in a persistant vegetative state for 72 years. Never knowing love, never knowing her parents, never bearing children (hopefully), never reading a book, watching a movie or listening to music in an appreciative sense and never tasting food.
Again, why? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:39:00 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by David Ey:
My goodness Mad, who you think struck her that hard?
Oh, I almost forgot. Adolf Hitler (oh no, some think mention of Adolf brings an end to all meaningful dialogue. Sorry!) anyways, Adolf had a plan for these unfortunate "lessor" individuals. That was a bit before the Jew thing you know. Maybe he wasn't all bad after all...in youse opinion of the way things ought to be. Yes? |
Why are you avoiding my question? Why are you suddenly equivocating and bringing up Hitler? They are not the same thing. We were talking about one hypothetical "infant" growing into an adult in a persistant vegetative state for 72 years. Never knowing love, never knowing her parents, never bearing children (hopefully), never reading a book, watching a movie or listening to music in an appreciative sense and never tasting food.
Again, why? |
Do trees? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:41:00 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Do trees? |
Are you suggesting that trees experience the world the same way humans do? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:42:59 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Do trees? |
Are you suggesting that trees experience the world the same way humans do? |
I only know they are alive. And deserve to be so. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:44:10 PM · #161 |
| This thread blew off course. Go back up to post #2 on this page. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:49:46 PM · #162 |
Yeah ... sorry. Back on topic, jmritz!
Originally posted by jmritz:
I only know they are alive. And deserve to be so. |
psst... even ones with a bad case of Dutch Elm Disease? |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 10:50:40 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Do trees? |
Are you suggesting that trees experience the world the same way humans do? |
I only know they are alive. And deserve to be so. |
Damnit I was going to resist but I canĂ¢€™t.
By this logic, since we cut down trees constantly, thousands of acres a day, especially in the rainforest of Brazil, its going to require an act of congress before anymore can be killed right?
I canĂ¢€™t wait to see this legislation start. |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:03:27 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by jmritz:
Do trees? |
Are you suggesting that trees experience the world the same way humans do? |
I only know they are alive. And deserve to be so. |
Damnit I was going to resist but I canĂ¢€™t.
By this logic, since we cut down trees constantly, thousands of acres a day, especially in the rainforest of Brazil, its going to require an act of congress before anymore can be killed right?
I canĂ¢€™t wait to see this legislation start. |
There is more to life than politics. And death. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 12:34:16 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Why are you avoiding my question? Why are you suddenly equivocating and bringing up Hitler? They are not the same thing. We were talking about one hypothetical "infant" growing into an adult in a persistant vegetative state for 72 years. Never knowing love, never knowing her parents, never bearing children (hopefully), never reading a book, watching a movie or listening to music in an appreciative sense and never tasting food.
Again, why? |
"Why are you avoiding my question? "
Milo, these may be some of the things YOU hold dear but there just might be a greater plan. Could it be 'man' wants to destroy life for 'man's' own selfish reasons? There's your answer Milo. Plain and simple. Now
"Why are you avoiding my questions? " |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 12:51:56 AM · #166 |
| David: Are you in favor of capital punishment? |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 02:04:15 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
David: Are you in favor of capital punishment? |
I know I am... It completely eradicates any form of recidivism.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 03:08:44 AM · #168 |
the court denied the appeal to reinsert the tube.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 08:08:01 AM · #169 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
David: Are you in favor of capital punishment? |
Yes, many of the people in both the state and federal capitols need severe punishment. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 08:50:31 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
RonB,
Why do you find it so essential to smear and disparage the husband by spreading such unfounded and inflammatory accusations?
This tragic situation is about euthanasia (ethics and legality) and about individual/private rights (i.e., letting a husband/family -- a long with trained medical professionals; and, tragically, in this case, legal council -- determine what is "best" for them, without intervention by a government entity). What agenda, I wonder, is advanced by seeking to attack any individual associated with this case? As others have noted, it's been 15 years, and if any irregularities were, in fact, there, they would've been unearthed long ago. It is curious that a campaign against the husband has been mounted at all; and that, I suspect, such a campaign is being carried out via the usual suspect channels: FoxNews, right-wing talk radio and their accompanying vehicles -- blogs, spoke-persons, etc. |
William,
I do not find it essential at all. And I have neither smeared nor disparaged Michael Schiavo in my posts. I have posted excerpts and links to what OTHERS have said, and have made an introductory comment or two about those posts. If you look at the name of this thread it is "The Terri Shiavo Controvesy". Controversy, get it? Michael Schiavo's involvement, motives, etc. are part of what makes it a controversy. I know that you would like to focus only on euthanasia, but others might actually be interested in some of the background in this case - and Michael is a part of that background.
As for "unfounded and inflammatory accusations", it seems inconsistent that this presents a problem in this thread, but never has in rants against President Bush.
As for the "irregularities" not having been unearthed "long ago", I can only offer this - this web site lists the names of 119 people who were sentenced to death for crimes they allegedly committed - and were subsequently found to be innocent, 25 of them after MORE than 15 years on death row. The LAW, judges, and juries DO make mistakes ( hopefully not with MY life ).
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 08:52:04. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 08:57:33 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Milo, these may be some of the things YOU hold dear but there just might be a greater plan. Could it be 'man' wants to destroy life for 'man's' own selfish reasons? There's your answer Milo. Plain and simple. Now
"Why are you avoiding my questions? " |
Good morning and thank you for the reply. Now we've gotten somewhere. The hypothetical persistent vegetative state infant should live a life of practical non-existance for 72 years because it offends your religious sensibilities that it should be otherwise.
I see the that the appeal has been turned down the Schindlers' appeal. Since we've now gotten to the point to included metaphysicals realms, let me ask you this. If Terri Shiavo should die by starvation in the next two weeks, would you not agree that her death must be part of God's plan?
I know, I know, we're about to enter into the territory of free will, pre-determination and the problem of evil which is a whole nother huge topic, but it seems that is what our current discussion (between you and me) is boiling down to when we're getting into discussing fulfilling the will of divine beings and that concepts' place in the realm of human rights.
Note: I'm off to manufacture widgets for the next 8-10 hours, so my ability to respond will be limited.
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 08:57:51. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 09:15:19 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
David: Are you in favor of capital punishment? |
Yes, many of the people in both the state and federal capitols need severe punishment. |
It's been clearly proven that innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes. What will be your answer to the family of someone who is executed for a crime they didn't commit -- "Oops"? As long as there is any possibility the person is innocent, shouldn't we "err on the side of life"?
For that matter, why is it any more unlikely that a convicted criminal could regain "normal brain function" than this woman, and therefore be worthy of life and rehabilitation?
I'm sorry, but the concepts of "only God can take a life" and capital punishment" really seem mutually exclusive.
The use of millions of TAXPAYER dollars to interfere with this case only adds salt to the wound as far as I'm concerned -- I'm sure most of the supporters of this action are also in favor of cutting school lunch programs for poor kids and Food Stamps for their families. Maybe if they thought everyone had a right to eat and "live normally" I'd be more impressed, but I think for most of the legislators, this case has far more to do with political opportunism than medical ethics. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 09:36:13 AM · #173 |
Actually I support your right and mine to choose what sort of efforts will or will not be made regarding "heroic" efforts at continuing life. It is an individual choice and one that should be respected when the person making the choice is incapable of further communication. Both my in-laws recently died and they made known verbally that no "heroic" efforts were to be made to prolong life. Without all the "who struck John" about thier decisions, we all respected what they wished and realized that it might mean difficult stances when it came to food, water etc, but we had our instructions regarding care from the ones we loved and were honor bound to fulfill thier wishes. It's not a matter of each of our own personal philosophies regarding the care of another person, it is a matter of thier own and instructions they have left and we do not have the right to contravene health care instructions after a person cannot speak for themselves. This has passed being an issue about an individual woman and comes to bear upon whether or not a group can impose thier values on others regarding health care. Courts hold that you have no business in speaking for me if I have already made my wish known. It is a right we should hold in high esteem and not trample just because we disagree with another persons stance regarding a difficult decision.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 09:39:17 AM · #174 |
God has taken her life. Man and machine keep her alive.
Can she feed herself? Can she chew if you put food in her mounth, or would she choke on it? Could she swallow if you poured water in her mouth, or would she drown?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 10:07:33 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
David: Are you in favor of capital punishment? |
Yes, many of the people in both the state and federal capitols need severe punishment. |
It's been clearly proven that innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes. What will be your answer to the family of someone who is executed for a crime they didn't commit -- "Oops"? As long as there is any possibility the person is innocent, shouldn't we "err on the side of life"?
For that matter, why is it any more unlikely that a convicted criminal could regain "normal brain function" than this woman, and therefore be worthy of life and rehabilitation?
I'm sorry, but the concepts of "only God can take a life" and capital punishment" really seem mutually exclusive. |
Not meaning to offend by offering a biblical perspective on the death penalty, Paul, but this is how the Bible treated the death penalty:
From Deuteronomy 17
Verses 6-7 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.
And from Deuteronomy 19
Verses 15-19 One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.
So, according to the biblical view, 1) a person could never be sentenced to death on the basis of circumstantial evidence, 2) never on the testimony of only one witness ( i.e. neither a single eye-witness nor a single piece of forensic evidence ). 3) eye-witnesses who testify against a man/woman resulting in a sentence of death must be personally involved in carrying out the execution, 4) persons giving testimony against a person must, themselves, be investigated, and 5) if a person commits perjury in a court case resulting in the death penalty, then that person would be sentenced to death for that perjury.
Given those conditions, I believe that the death penalty would be very rare. |
|
