OT- I'm just amazed it ever had to come to this...

[dbdynsty25]

I never in a million years thought the La Brea Tar Pits would come up in conversation on a sports gaming message board. I guess I was wrong.

[Brando70]

Great post Rob. There are some issues that naturally drive people toward extreme positions. Judging from this thread, this is one of those issues for some.

For me, Schiavo's case just reinforces how much we don't know about life, death, consciousness, etc. It's impossible for me to persuade others how to think about this issue when I'm not sure myself.

I agree, sf. It is not easy at all. Like I said earlier, I think in most cases you should give the incapacitated person the benefit of the doubt that they want to stay alive, unless they've specifically stated otherwise. But I feel like multiple courts have reviewed all the evidence, and they felt she would want to not be kept on support. I'm willing to trust their judgment -- as I would if they ruled she should stay alive.

All I know is, I'm going to have the durable power of attorney provision drawn up for my wife and myself so there will be no doubt if something happened to us.

[dougb]

For those who'd like a little information about Mr. Shiavo and some additional background on the case, here's a good link. For those who continue to question his motives and his morals...

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

It's a document submitted to the Florida court and to Governor Bush in 2003 concerning the history of the case as well as possible courses of action. It was written by her Guardian ad Litem. It quite clearly indicates that the husband has more than done his best to see that his wife was given the best care and that all options for rehabilitation were persued. I should also point out that it doesn't come to a conclusion as to whether feeding should be terminated barring additional testing, which may have occurred subsequent to the report.


Best wishes,

Doug

[/b]

[kicko]

This is such an easy case that should have never been allowed to go this far.

Kicko, please don't take this personally. I beg you. But that sort of ignorance on both sides is what I find most astonishing.

I can't understand how any remotely intelligent person can fail to see the credibility that each side of this issue brings to the table.

Say that your mind is made up. Say that you think the government or family acted correctly or incorrectly. But do not say that it's an easy case!!

I'm always amazed at the extent to which zealotry destroys rational thought, and this is a prime example.

To use a tired but unfortunately apt metaphor, this is a "perfect storm" situation which drives a stake right into the confluence of medicine, law, ethics and religion. Thousands of people a year deal with the horrifying dilemna of a loved one in a vegetative state, and manage to resolve it without involving religious, medical or political zealots. Unfortunately, the unusual circumstances of this particular case have let those people right in the front door.

But that doesn't change the fact that there are powerful, well-reasoned and persuasive arguments on both sides of this issue. How anyone can let their passion for one side or the other so thoroughly distort reality is simply beyond me, and frankly, a bit scary.

People on both sides need to spend a little less time chanting, holding placards and writing inflammatory posts, and a little more thinking, reading and, especially, LISTENING.

Rob, try this...your wife that you love dearly is in an almost lifeless state, she had said before that happened she would not want to life like a house plant (water me, feed me etc.) you want to do what you feel is right. what do you do? ______________________________

once your married your spouse is your next of kin, legally the parents would have no say, why do you think 30+ judges looked at this case and won't rule in thier favor, no one should be allowed to judge shop but thats another problem for another thread, even if the husband wanted her dead just to be an ass, he has the ball in his court. and a republician government should be conservative, fooling in cases like this is not conservative actions, just an abuse of power.

[RobVarak]

Rob, try this...your wife that you love dearly is in an almost lifeless state, she had said before that happened she would not want to life like a house plant (water me, feed me etc.) you want to do what you feel is right. what do you do? ______________________________

once your married your spouse is your next of kin, legally the parents would have no say, why do you think 30+ judges looked at this case and won't rule in thier favor, no one should be allowed to judge shop but thats another problem for another thread, even if the husband wanted her dead just to be an ass, he has the ball in his court. and a republician government should be conservative, fooling in cases like this is not conservative actions, just an abuse of power.

Your suggestion that I project myself into that situation is duly noted. Might I suggest that not only have I done so already, but that damn near every sentient being in America who is aware of this case has done the same. Thanks, though.

My personal viewpoint is not relevant to the point I am trying to make. For all you know, I may agree with you 100%. That doesn't mean that there are not compelling, powerful arguments on the other side of the issue.

As for the role of government in this, you remind me of another interesting point. Can we not get past the ad hominem attacks on government when they support a position that we disagree with? I personally don't think that Congress should have a role in this process. However, I am objective enough to know that in assuming one, they are acting in a manner that they fell will please their constituency (albeit through the necessary evil of the lobbying machinery). Checks and balances are not something that just exist on 8th grade civics exams. They are real, and they work (albein imperfectly at times). If Congress oversteps its bounds, you can bet there is a battalion of judges out there only too happy to put them back in their place.

Government has to go through a process of learning its place in the 21st century bio-ethics landscape. The only way for it to do so, much like a child learning its place in the world, is to go out and try things. It might try to go some places that it doesn't belong, but there are mechanisms in place to teach the requisite lessons. There's a fine line between abuse of power and the full and rightful exercise of power, and that line only becomes apparent slowly and often through the use of the courts.

Kicko, some of us are just not blessed with your apparently infinite capacity for knowing what is right. Man's imperfect attempts to govern himself in a fair manner are ample example of that. All the rest of us can do is rely on the institutions which have proven to be the most effective means of government, and be aware of the fact that individual rights and government power exist on a constantly-evolving playing field.

Finally, might I suggest that the best means of establishing appropriate limits on governmental power, clarifying family rights and giving appropriate guidance to legal and medical professionals might involve sensible, open-minded discussion and substantial dialogue, rather than close-minded, summary dismissal, hyperbole and sloganeering?

[Teal]

And with Schiavo, she's not "simply handicapped". She's virtually brain-dead...the only thing left of any use is her brain stem and some subcortical function. Vegetable, as sad as it is, is a correct term for her condition. The neurologists that have examined her and testified that say that she can be rehabilitated are quacks (I can write tons of posts about this alone...this Hammesfahr guy is a joke).

Using any terminology that includes "brain dead" is a farce. She isn't brain dead. Or virtually brain dead. Or akin to being brain dead. It isn't a matter of whether she can be rehabilitated or not. Does the idea that she can't be make it ok to kill her? She can never be normal again,so lets make a dried fruit out of her? The Nazis used to do this to handicapped children, Jared.

I had a friend in high school named Pat. Pat was totally incapacitated. He could not feed himself, walk, talk, move. But he was aware, as Shiavo is, of his surroundings. He was a great guy. I never knew him outside of his state. There was no way to make him "normal" again. He couldn't feed himself, and would die of starvation and dehydration without assistance. So does he need to die? Even if he said he did, do we have the right to kill them? Hell, I'd die without food and water. What kind of case can one really make there? Take away my ability to receive food and drink, and I'd die in the same time frame she would. This is just ludicrous.

And arresting a person for trying to give her water? It's just surreal.

All Shiavo had to do is divorce her. Turn her over to her parents, and let them do what they've been begging to do for years. I don't care if, at some point earlier in her life, she said she wouldn't want to live in that state. No one has the right to end her life. She would NOT die if she could have food and water.

Neither would I...

[kicko]

[Kicko, some of us are just not blessed with your apparently infinite capacity for knowing what is right. ]

Not sure if i should thank you or send you to bed without dinner tonight for that comment. I was not making up an answer based upon my "infinite knowledge" but rather the Constitution and the laws that are usually followed in these times we call 2005. I'm sure as you can see with the news updates today, it is not possible for the parents to get one single judge to hear their requests. and is it not funny that a doctor comes out the smoke and says she was misdiagnosed after all these years (you don't say....), if that is true it can change everthing, but i doubt that she was, its just a way to abuse power and work the laws (loopholes

[Inuyasha]

It looks like the courts are not going to change their tune and uphold the law. Which makes the whole politicizing of this issue more sickening. The politicians knew how this would play out, but couldn't resist preying on Terry until her last breath for their own gains.

[Teal]

Why is it unfortunate that he has obviously done research on the history of marriage and knows the truth? Just because he knows there really is no "correct" way to be married to someone doesn't mean he can't also want a marriage of his own. But that's besides the point. The point Sean is trying to make is that your faith and your cultural practices shouldn't be used as a meter to judge the husband of this women. Marriage has changed quite a bit over history and it hasn't always been used as a way join to people who love eachother. Throughout most of history it had a lot more to do with money and property than anything else. People are labeling him as an adulterer and a bad husband when they have no idea what HIS or HER views on marriage were to begin with. Just because one religion claims that marriage has to be a certain way does not mean that some other religion or any other person has to follow that way. You have to remember one thing, not a single religion has any kind of proof that their beliefs in god and all that are real. It's a LEAP OF FAITH! Notice the word "leap"? Kind of sounds like jumping off a cliff doesn't it? You're guessing (usually because your parents said so) that the cliff you're jumping off of is the right one.
How does anyone know that this married couple didn't agree at some point that if something like this were to ever happen then it was OK for them to move on with their life and start a new family, as long as they carried out their wishes of ending their suffering. If that was their agreement then you can't say it's right or wrong. It's THEIR version of marriage, not YOURS, and until you can give ANY proof that your version is the "right" version than you can quit judging others for not adhering to your religious beliefs. I have no problem with people having their own religions and faiths. It's not a bad thing by any means. However I do have a problem when people don't understand what the word "faith" means.

Doing research on marriage makes you informed on it's validity and function?! That's news to me. No one who has never been married has one damn clue about marriage. Not one.


In any case, this post reeks of moral relativism, which is just another way of saying there are no absolutes. That make you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that there are absolutes in life. That you don't believe that doesn't really matter.
Marriage has it's absolute origins in Biblical history, therefore it's parameters are set by God-it makes no difference whether you believe that or not. It also doesn't matter that people through history have bastardized marriage...it doesn't change the rules just because somebody breaks them.
I'd bet a years wages that I know a little better than you the meaning of faith. I live by it out of necessity...you ridicule it out of ignorance. Talk about something you know about next time...

[Teal]

It looks like the courts are not going to change their tune and uphold the law. Which makes the whole politicizing of this issue more sickening. The politicians knew how this would play out, but couldn't resist preying on Terry until her last breath for their own gains.

This is a view borne out of ignorance,Weaver. The congress did nothing but assert the right to assess jurisdiction according to Article III of the constitution. They only got involved inasmuch as the Constitution allows them to...

So it might make you "sick", weav, but it isn't because they did anything outside the bounds...

[Inuyasha]

It looks like the courts are not going to change their tune and uphold the law. Which makes the whole politicizing of this issue more sickening. The politicians knew how this would play out, but couldn't resist preying on Terry until her last breath for their own gains.

This is a view borne out of ignorance,Weaver. The congress did nothing but assert the right to assess jurisdiction according to Article III of the constitution. They only got involved inasmuch as the Constitution allows them to...

So it might make you "sick", weav, but it isn't because they did anything outside the bounds...

They all knew the end-game. This was just a digusting political ploy they played. You know it too.

[Teal]

It looks like the courts are not going to change their tune and uphold the law. Which makes the whole politicizing of this issue more sickening. The politicians knew how this would play out, but couldn't resist preying on Terry until her last breath for their own gains.

This is a view borne out of ignorance,Weaver. The congress did nothing but assert the right to assess jurisdiction according to Article III of the constitution. They only got involved inasmuch as the Constitution allows them to...

So it might make you "sick", weav, but it isn't because they did anything outside the bounds...

They all knew the end-game. This was just a digusting political ploy they played. You know it too.

It may have been political, but it wasn't partisan, and it wasn't outside Consitutional confines. That's all I'm saying. They didn't do anything they weren't supposed to. Their motives may or may not be a different story...

[pk500]

and is it not funny that a doctor comes out the smoke and says she was misdiagnosed after all these years (you don't say....), if that is true it can change everthing, but i doubt that she was, its just a way to abuse power and work the laws (loopholes

I was incredibly suspicious of this doctor's claim, too. Oh, and of course, Jeb Bush took lessons from his brother and used this claim for a grandstanding political PR opportunity.

This whole affair is really sad, from so many angles. But as this situation gets more and more politicized and legalized, many of the peripheral parties -- i.e., politicians, media, pundits and Internet forum posters -- forget that a woman's life is literally hanging in the balance, and that life probably will end, for better or worse.

That's the saddest part of all. The Schindler family probably is going to bury their daughter in the next week or so, and that's sad -- for whatever reason her death occurred. I'm not sure whether she should be allowed to die or not -- still torn -- but many in the pro-law, pro-court, pro-Schiavo camp seem to be missing out on the tragedy of a family losing a daughter.

This is not a legal, moral or religious exercise at its core, boys: It's a family tragedy. People on both sides should never forget the human angle of this sad story.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

a woman's life is literally hanging in the balance, and that life probably will end, for better or worse.

That's the saddest part of all. The Schindler family probably is going to bury their daughter in the next week or so, and that's sad -- for whatever reason her death occurred. I'm not sure whether she should be allowed to die or not -- still torn -- but many in the pro-law, pro-court, pro-Schiavo camp seem to be missing out on the tragedy of a family losing a daughter.

Take care,
PK

So true, PK. It's just tragic, and I believe unnecessary...

[pk500]

a woman's life is literally hanging in the balance, and that life probably will end, for better or worse.

That's the saddest part of all. The Schindler family probably is going to bury their daughter in the next week or so, and that's sad -- for whatever reason her death occurred. I'm not sure whether she should be allowed to die or not -- still torn -- but many in the pro-law, pro-court, pro-Schiavo camp seem to be missing out on the tragedy of a family losing a daughter.

Take care,
PK

So true, PK. It's just tragic, and I believe unnecessary...

Again, I'm torn. If Terri Schiavo really did tell her husband that she didn't want to live in such a state, then legally he has the right to have the tube removed.

But did Terri really say that? We'll never know without a living will.

This is just a pissing match that has destroyed an extended family, divided a nation and further balkanized an already f*cked-up political and legal system in the U.S. And at the eye of this hurricane? A defenseless, mute, incapacitated young woman.

I'm really getting bummed out now. Time to leave this thread.

Take care,
PK

[Badger_Fan]

Marriage has it's absolute origins in Biblical history, therefore it's parameters are set by God-it makes no difference whether you believe that or not. It also doesn't matter that people through history have bastardized marriage...it doesn't change the rules just because somebody breaks them.

I generally try to stay out of threads like this but I had to respond. There are a few problems that I have with this paragraph in particular:

1. Creationism has it's absolute origins in Biblical history too, but I would say that the majority of western society believes otherwise. Using the Bible as a basis for absolute fact is, in my mind, questionable thinking. It is no different than using Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology and using it to explain things.

2. For you to say that marriages parameters are set by God is based on your faith and your beliefs. Someone who doesn't have the same beliefs as you will have a totally different set of rules for marriage...and that's ok.

3. To say that it doesn't change the rules because someone breaks them is again based on your beliefs. It is possible that, just as in nature, things like this can evolve. Marriage in the year 2005 doesn't need to be the same thing as it was in 1600 or even 1950.

Personally I would like to think of marriage as a bond between two people (gender be damned) to devote their lives to each other. At least that's the meaning it had to my wife an I when we were married by a judge in November of 2000. I don't think it makes me wrong, it just makes me me.

[Teal]

Marriage has it's absolute origins in Biblical history, therefore it's parameters are set by God-it makes no difference whether you believe that or not. It also doesn't matter that people through history have bastardized marriage...it doesn't change the rules just because somebody breaks them.

I generally try to stay out of threads like this but I had to respond. There are a few problems that I have with this paragraph in particular:

1. Creationism has it's absolute origins in Biblical history too, but I would say that the majority of western society believes otherwise. Using the Bible as a basis for absolute fact is, in my mind, questionable thinking. It is no different than using Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology and using it to explain things.

2. For you to say that marriages parameters are set by God is based on your faith and your beliefs. Someone who doesn't have the same beliefs as you will have a totally different set of rules for marriage...and that's ok.

3. To say that it doesn't change the rules because someone breaks them is again based on your beliefs. It is possible that, just as in nature, things like this can evolve. Marriage in the year 2005 doesn't need to be the same thing as it was in 1600 or even 1950.

Personally I would like to think of marriage as a bond between two people (gender be damned) to devote their lives to each other. At least that's the meaning it had to my wife an I when we were married by a judge in November of 2000. I don't think it makes me wrong, it just makes me me.

That's fine, badger. Believe how you will. But like it or not, believe it or not, the absolutes don't change. Creationism doesn't have it's origins necessarily in the Bible. To simply say that everything had to come from an Intelligent Design doesn't automatically assign the Designer as Jehovah. I do believe it was Jehovah, but that's beside the point. It just says that something has to originate from something, and the original something had to have a creator.

But l don't want this thread to dive into another Creationism/Evolution thread. The sanctity, design, and purpose of marriage is not up for interpetation, whether you agree with it or not. No matter where goofballs wind up taking it, marriage is now, and has always been, defined by God.

So, think of it what you want. It doesn't change it...

[Teal]

Update: Death wins...here's hoping that the docs know what they're talking about, and that she hasn't suffered. They're not going to let her eat, drink, and live, no matter what. Insanity has prevailed...

God rest her soul...

[Jared]

And with Schiavo, she's not "simply handicapped". She's virtually brain-dead...the only thing left of any use is her brain stem and some subcortical function. Vegetable, as sad as it is, is a correct term for her condition. The neurologists that have examined her and testified that say that she can be rehabilitated are quacks (I can write tons of posts about this alone...this Hammesfahr guy is a joke).

Using any terminology that includes "brain dead" is a farce. She isn't brain dead. Or virtually brain dead. Or akin to being brain dead. It isn't a matter of whether she can be rehabilitated or not. Does the idea that she can't be make it ok to kill her? She can never be normal again,so lets make a dried fruit out of her? The Nazis used to do this to handicapped children, Jared.

You know that things have gone way past rationality when Nazis are invoked. But I'll still respond...

Using terminology that includes "brain dead" is NOT a farce. Did you see the picture of Schiavo's CT scan that I put up earlier? She has virtually NO CEREBRAL CORTEX. That is where everything is carried out, language, vision, thought, etc. She's got an intact brain stem (and maybe cerebellum...I don't know), so she has basic autonomic functions and some reflexive responses. THAT'S IT. And she's been this way for 15 years.

Legitimate doctor after doctor have testified that this is the state she's in. From everything we know about the brain, it's highly unlikely that anyone is in there or that anyone can ever be in there. She's just a shell, despite all the misinformation going on about her actual condition.

I had a friend in high school named Pat. Pat was totally incapacitated. He could not feed himself, walk, talk, move. But he was aware, as Shiavo is, of his surroundings. He was a great guy. I never knew him outside of his state. There was no way to make him "normal" again. He couldn't feed himself, and would die of starvation and dehydration without assistance. So does he need to die? Even if he said he did, do we have the right to kill them? Hell, I'd die without food and water. What kind of case can one really make there? Take away my ability to receive food and drink, and I'd die in the same time frame she would. This is just ludicrous.

Wow. You're comparing apples to....zebras. Was Pat missing nearly all of his cerebral cortex? Were his responses to the environment only simple reflexes? Was he in Schiavo's condition, or something different? If you said that he's aware of his surroundings and is a great guy, I'm guessing that he's in a much better condition than Schiavo, who (despite what you say) is not "aware" of her surroundings (unless you have evidence for this...but all of the "evidence" I've read about is cherry-picked).

And arresting a person for trying to give her water? It's just surreal.

She can't swallow on her own. So if someone gave her water, she'd die. I think an arrest would be a good thing here.

All Shiavo had to do is divorce her. Turn her over to her parents, and let them do what they've been begging to do for years. I don't care if, at some point earlier in her life, she said she wouldn't want to live in that state. No one has the right to end her life. She would NOT die if she could have food and water.

So her desire not to live like this doesn't matter? Even if that's explicitly what she wanted (say she had a living will), that wouldn't matter? Schiavo has said that he's not divorcing her because her express will was to not continue living like this, and he wants to see this through. If this is true (and others have testified to this), then she has that right to die. It's completely legal, and in no way immoral in her state.

[kicko]

the more i think about it the more this something that should never had happend. if you can't breath or eat on your own then you will die. that's what should have happend here. living on a machine and may not even know your living at all is not a quality life. So now everyone that doesn't even know this woman from paco the sweatshop boy working for 3 cents a day, 16 hour shift, wants to make a decision on her behalf. That's the real issue. she is a real human being not darth vader who lives depending on a machine. the only thing that gets me is she was 29? when this happened and before that she had talked about if somehitng happens to her? i'm about the same age and never discussed anything like this, as i think most younger people don't.
we could all use somehitng like this................

HEALTH CARE PROXY

TO: My family, physicians and all
those concerned with my care

I, (YOUR NAME), presently residing at _______Street,(City or Town), (zipcode), and being an adult of sound mind, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 201D, hereby appoint and authorize (NAME OF YOUR HEALTH CARE AGENT), presently residing at (Health Agents Address), tel. no.:_______ , as my agent to act for me and in my name to make and communicate any and all decisions about or relating to my receipt or refusal to accept medical treatment, hospitalization, health care or personal care, in any situation in which, as the result of illness, disease, mental deterioration or injury, I am incapable of making or communicating a decision with respect to my treatment or care. This authorization includes the right to refuse and direct the withdrawal of medical treatment which would prolong my life, and to communicate health care decisions to all persons including without limitation my physicians, health care providers and family.

NOTE: In the space provided below, insert any specific desires, special provisions or limitations which you desire: kiss fom a hot nurse and one dose of sleep forever.

[fsquid]

Insanity has prevailed? Over 12 years of courts, over 30 something judges have heard this case. I don't see how insanity is prevailing.

[Inuyasha]

Jeb Bush grandstanding that he will take custody of her is the absolute lowest. IF he really cares that much, why just Terry? Why not take custody for all the others in Florida in her same situation?

[Inuyasha]

Insanity has prevailed? Over 12 years of courts, over 30 something judges have heard this case. I don't see how insanity is prevailing.

I can see where teal would describe it as insanity because this case has been shoved into our faces by the politicians who are taking advantage of her. I read about her situation about 2 years ago, but since it wasn't glorified ad nausem by the media and politicans until now, many people are new to this case.

[pk500]

Jeb Bush grandstanding that he will take custody of her is the absolute lowest. IF he really cares that much, why just Terry? Why not take custody for all the others in Florida in her same situation?

As I said earlier in this thread, Jeb learned from a master -- his older brother. After all, what other guy could be so passionate on a Federal level about Terri Schiavo's life yet start a war in Iraq that has caused an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties?

Dubya, of course.

It's just ironic that the party and President that supposedly "respects all human life" have been the masterminds behind a conflict that has claimed thousands of civilian lives in Iraq.

Rant off.

Take care,
PK