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

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:48 am

Sometimes the simple seems to confound the wise. It's so simple, in fact, that I can't believe I feel the need to say it. But, here it goes anyway...

YOU DO NOT STARVE A PERSON TO DEATH. Just in case the "elites" out there missed it, let me state it again- YOU DO NOT STARVE A PERSON TO DEATH. If we were in the barbaric business of starvation and death by thirst, then the shitheads we have on death row should be the primary recipients, not an innocent woman in Florida. Good God, what kind of insanity is this? Are these damn judges SERIOUS?!

The bastard who wants this done so badly has been offered a cool million, been pleaded with by the woman's family, and has been SHACKING UP WITH SOME BROAD for years....but he wants what's best for Terri. Right. Bullshit.

I'm not engaging in debate about what Congress is doing right at this moment, except to say that someone has to exercise common sense here, so thank God for them, Dems ,Repubs, Indies...all of them. This woman has been connected to nothing but food and water. No life support, no breathing machine...nothing. She has seen zero effort in years to try and find out any more about her condition, to try and rehabilitate her in any way. For Pete's sake, they've never so much as done ONE MRI one the woman, and yet her loser husband(the man's hiding something-mark it down) court appointed doctors(appointed by the same dumbasses that are trying to kill this woman), and talking heads who've never even seen the woman except on CNN are determining her right to life.

Look, I know the woman's incapacitated. But she can breathe just fine on her own, is NOT in a persistent vegitative state (what a load of horseshit THAT is), and only needs help with feeding. What would they do if I decided to stop feeding my infant boy? He needs our help. Oh, but screw him...I don't feel like doing it anymore. I'm tired of it. So I think I'll move to Florida, where I can kill him all legal like...

Of course, I'd never do that, because I care about and love my kid. This d*****bag and the courts don't give three shits about Shiavo.

I...I'm just beside myself. Does anyone not see the insanity in all of this?

I just pray that this unbelievable series of events stops...before it's too late. This innocent woman needs not die...

Post by **Jared** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:48 am

Sorry Teal, but there's a lot of misinformation in the post here. It's a shame, because this is a sad issue...but it's been politicized by people trying to make this seem like a different issue than it actually is.

She has seen zero effort in years to try and find out any more about her condition, to try and rehabilitate her in any way.

That's completely wrong. In May 1990 she was brought to a rehab center for aggressive therapy. In November 1990 she was sent out to California for experimental surgical rehabilitation (more on that in a moment). In July 1991 she was transferred to a nursing facility where she was given treatment and rehabilitation, and stayed there until 1994. That's at least four years of rehabilitation.

Here's a link to a good timeline and information about the case:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

For Pete's sake, they've never so much as done ONE MRI one the woman, and yet her loser husband(the man's hiding something-mark it down) court appointed doctors(appointed by the same dumbasses that are trying to kill this woman), and talking heads who've never even seen the woman except on CNN are determining her right to life.

The reason they've never done an MRI on her is because one of the treatments done in 1991 involved putting electrodes in her brain. If you have metal in your body, you can't have an MRI, unless you want the metal to be violently ripped from your brain. Taking the metal out would require brain surgery...and since the implants are thalamic (deep inside the brain), this would involve going through whatever brain tissue is left, and this involves destroying some brain tissue.

And she has had a CT scan, which has revealed massive cerebral damage. The only debate is whether there is NO cortex or very little cortex. She's basically surviving based on basic autonomic functions. If you're missing all of your cortex, then you're not conscious. If you're missing most of your cortex, it's pretty doubtful that you are conscious.

Look, I know the woman's incapacitated. But she can breathe just fine on her own, is NOT in a persistent vegitative state (what a load of horses*** THAT is), and only needs help with feeding. What would they do if I decided to stop feeding my infant boy? He needs our help. Oh, but screw him...I don't feel like doing it anymore. I'm tired of it. So I think I'll move to Florida, where I can kill him all legal like...

And you know that she's not in a persistent vegetative state how? People can breathe while missing tons of their brain, as long as areas for autonomic function (brainstem, for example) are intact, as they are with Schiavo. But just because someone can breathe doesn't mean that they're conscious.

Of course, I'd never do that, because I care about and love my kid. This d*****bag and the courts don't give three s***s about Shiavo.

I...I'm just beside myself. Does anyone not see the insanity in all of this?

I just pray that this unbelievable series of events stops...before it's too late. This innocent woman needs not die...

Well, the courts ruled that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that Schiavo would have wanted to have the plug pulled. It's likely that this is what she would have wanted...unfortunately, she didn't write a living will, so we'll never be certain of this.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

It's really horrible how political this has become.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=595905

ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Seems like these politicians are concerned about this as a political issue, not as an actual life or death matter. Spread lies and mistruths about the situation (painting the courts as callous, saying the husband was abusive, saying the husband never treated her, etc.) and then trying to score political points on this tragic situation.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 am

Oooohhh burn...

It is sad none the less.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:01 am

Her husband is weird.

I don't see why they can't let her keep living, and starving someone to death doesn't seem right to me. Why not just kill her outright?

mobiggins · Post by **mobiggins** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:22 am

I fail to see the logic in Bush and congress getting involved in this when they themselves sent thousands of our soldiers to die in Iraq. Can we have lives be of equal worth, please? DON'T pull her feeding tube, but DON'T go sending young men and women to their death to remove governments we don't like in wars of convenience.

maddoc1979 · Post by **maddoc1979** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:47 am

The other issue is that there's a number of good medical studies that indicate that for those people about to die, removing fluids and feeding and providing only pain medicine actually reduces the pain they feel as opposed to giving drugs and food/water. So in fact, it is LESS "barbaric" to remove food and water.

The biggest problem I have with this whole thing is that it's not a federal issue and these "laws" have done nothing but undermine our judicial system. Frankly, the only reason this latest bill has been created and signed is because people don't agree with the decision of the court. Had the courts decided to leave the tube in place, we'd NEVER see a law or anything about how awful an existence this woman has.

Doc

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:52 am

I'm very torn on this issue, as it has become politicized to a sickening amount. There are compelling arguments on either side.

The only thing of which I'm certain is that I don't trust Schiavo's husband one bit. Questions abound:

1. If he's so devoted to Terri, then why did he shack up with another woman without divorcing Terri and have children out of wedlock?

2. Why doesn't he just divorce Terri, get along with his life with his mistress and their children, and let Terri's family get their wish? Why is he so insistent on letting Terri "die with dignity" when he's committed adultery for the last how many years?

3. Where is Terri's will in all of this? No legal, binding will? So it's his word vs. the family's word?

4. How much insurance money does Schiavo stand to gain after letting his wife die?

I'm really torn, because we're really not "playing God" here, as many advocates say. We're actually "playing God" by artificially keeping Terri alive with a feeding tube when persistent medical evaluation and research has shown that nothing short of a miracle will cure this woman.

And I also find it ironic that those who are hardcore supporters of keeping the feeding tube tend to be evangelicals. Doesn't the tube constitute "playing God?" Shouldn't nature play its course? And won't this woman have a much better life in peace and with complete cognitive function in heaven than she does here on Earth?

On the other hand, there should be a basic right to life, especially since we have no binding legal document stating this woman's intentions. And I also don't trust Schiavo's husband one bit.

I'm really, really torn over what the right thing to do is in this situation.

I guess my bottom line in this sad story is two-fold: One, the Federal government should stay the f*ck out of this stuff because those assholes will just turn it into another grandstanding appearance for CNN, CSPAN and the Nightly News. The politicians could care less about Terri Schiavo; they just care about the votes they can court through this. Two, you're never too young to have a legal will. I haven't drawn one up yet, and this tragic affair is causing me to think about getting one done soon.

Take care,
PK

maddoc1979 · Post by **maddoc1979** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:38 am

pk500 wrote: Two, you're never too young to have a legal will. I haven't drawn one up yet, and this tragic affair is causing me to think about getting one done soon.

Take care,
PK

Thanks for bringing this up, PK. Those of us in the medical profession advocate that everyone have a legal will or durable power of attorney drawn up for them to address what their wishes are in these scenarios. You truly are never too young for one and it can make things a LOT easier when a situation arises.

Doc

DChaps · Post by **DChaps** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:37 am

pk500 wrote:And I also find it ironic that those who are hardcore supporters of keeping the feeding tube tend to be evangelicals. Doesn't the tube constitute "playing God?" Shouldn't nature play its course?

Yes, but that same argument can be used in completely the opposite direction as well. Using that logic then you may as well rule out heart, liver, and kidney transplants, as well as any kind of chemotherapy for cancer or neo-natal care for premature babies. None of that is letting nature play its course either if you really want to use that arguement. Of course there are extreme religions that consider all medical treatment "playing God" or not keeping faith.

Point is that the "playing God" arguement gets used both ways, and neither way is correct. If you actually do believe in a higher power, then it is only logical that none of us can "play God".

Ten years ago my Father-In-Law had a stroke, three days into it the doctors said he would be completely brain dead and he was only surviving on machines. A month later he awoke from his coma and now ten years after he has seen both his daughters married and the birth of grandchildren. He has been confined to a wheelchair and has had a very difficult life at times, but we are all glad those machines kept him alive when he needed them and he is too.

I don't know what the right answer is here either, but I completely agree the Feds should say out of it and everyone needs a living will. It's a sad situation no matter how you look at it.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:07 pm

Jared:

That's all fine and good. I wasn't basing my opinion, and really haven't, on any politics and hearsay, and maybe shouldn't have posted all that right after watching the vote in Congress. You may freely take all of my original post away except this:

YOU DO NOT STARVE A PERSON TO DEATH. Hell, just hit her in the head with a sledgehammer, pump her full of Clorox...make it easier on her. As long as the woman is breathing and semi alert (which is why I said she's not a vegetable, only incapacitated) she has a right to live.

I have some experience with this firsthand, in a related sort of way. When our would be second son, Austin, was diagnosed in the womb with trisomy something-or-other, the doc urged us to abort him. Neither of us blinked twice. No way. If my son dies, it will be after giving him every chance I can. He did die, but on his and God's terms. Terri Shindler (she deserves better than Shiavo) is alive. The only help she needs is to eat. She deserves every chance to live she can get. There is absolutely nothing from her hand or her mouth that would prove she wants to die, so I fail to see how it can be "proven" in a court. And besides:

...if you tell me you want to die, does that make it ok for me to kill you?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:15 pm

Jared wrote:
ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue -- this is a tough issue for Democrats."
Seems like these politicians are concerned about this as a political issue, not as an actual life or death matter. Spread lies and mistruths about the situation (painting the courts as callous, saying the husband was abusive, saying the husband never treated her, etc.) and then trying to score political points on this tragic situation.

This doesn't surprise you, does it? It's just politicians being politicians. There's no big surprise there. It's also ABC News-'nuff said about that.
I don't care about their motivations. I care about this woman's life and the fact that against all sound reason, her "husband" wants to snuff her out. Divorce her already-you're already dinging another woman. But, if he divorces her, he's out of the money. The same amount that the good samaritan offered him to go away and let her live. He doesn't want her to live...

Spooky · Post by **Spooky** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:24 pm

I'm really torn, because we're really not "playing God" here, as many advocates say. We're actually "playing God" by artificially keeping Terri alive with a feeding tube when persistent medical evaluation and research has shown that nothing short of a miracle will cure this woman.

PK,

This is a GREAT point and helps me justify my position on this matter even more clearly. Nice description.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:24 pm

Teal.....you cannot make this a balck and white issue. When you state "you cannot starve someone to death", of course it sounds right, but it's not as simple as that. It's just like the people that say "Choose Life"...like if you are pro "choice" you would rather choose "death".
It all depends on the circumstances. You cannot make a "blanket" law that will take care of some issues.

The bottom line is that who the heck wants the government getting this personal in our lives? Where does it end? This is a personal matter that should be decided by the family, like it has always been. If you had a mother that was kept alive by a feeding tube for years and years and you knew in your heart she just wanted to die in peace and with dignity and then some government bill said that you have to keep her alive, how would you feel?

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:30 pm

[quote="pk500"]I'm very torn on this issue, as it has become politicized to a sickening amount. There are compelling arguments on either side.

I'm really, really torn over what the right thing to do is in this situation.

PK - you are torn because it is a complex issue that connot be solved by governement passing a new law. PK - At least you see the big picture here that others choose to ignore. You think the government personally cares about Terri? Give me a break. They see this as an opportunity to seize the moment and write another law that puts another personal issue under their control. LIke I said before....Where does it
end?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:31 pm

tealboy03 wrote:I care about this woman's life and the fact that against all sound reason, her "husband" wants to snuff her out. Divorce her already-you're already dinging another woman. But, if he divorces her, he's out of the money. The same amount that the good samaritan offered him to go away and let her live. He doesn't want her to live...

Exactly. And that's what complicates this matter so much. I don't believe Terri's husband one bit when he claims that Terri told him she never wanted to live in a vegetative state.

After all, he's banged another woman, impregnated her and lived with her and their children all this time while still married to Terri. Plus he wants the insurance money. He wants the financial windfall of being Terri Schiavo's husband even though he hasn't fulfilled the role of husband for her for years, as he has committed adultery and spawned children out of wedlock.

So while I respect a husband's right to make decisions like this, as he is the closest legal companion, Schiavo certainly isn't fulfilling the husband role in any fashion except for wanting to be the legal beneficiary of any insurance payment.

In other words, he's a scumbag. My heart sides with the Schindler family and their desire to see Terri live; my head sides with Schiavo and the law in the <b>state courts</b>, not the Federal government, even though my head is uncomfortable since he's a complete dirtbag. But dirtbag or not, the law states a husband makes these decisions, even if he's a husband on paper only, which appears to be the case with Schiavo.

That's why I'm very torn. Plus the continued intrusion by the Federal government into every aspect of our lives continues to nauseate me to no end. Bush cutting short a vacation to fly to Washington to sign the bill? Talk about grandstanding and pandering to his strongest voting bloc -- as if Bush gives a flying f*ck about Terri Schiavo.

Take care,
PK

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:31 pm

Teal,

You've set new records for the most goddamned uninformed, idiotic assertions on this board - and that takes some doing.

I suppose you've had legal and medical training, spent 10+ years reviewing this case, as well as had an ongoing personal acquaintanceship with Mr. Shiavo?

NO??!!! - well then why don't you STFU regarding Mr. Shiavo's rationale for wanting to withdraw the feeding tube, and spare us the endless moralizing. You don't have a godamn clue about the subject you're raving about. Your the PARKER of politics, except at least he's only writing about the relatively unimportant subject of sports teams. You're dragging a man's name through the muck based on nothing more than your own prejudices and the demented rantings of the right wing holier than holies.

Doug

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:34 pm

Wow...that was sure hateful.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:46 pm

Damn, Doug, that was a bit harsh. Especially coming from you, a metered voice of reason on this board.

I can see where you're coming from, but how can you trust Schiavo's intentions when he has lived with another woman for years and had children with her without divorcing Terri?

Why stay married to Terri if his life is now with this new woman and their children together? Is he worried about bad PR from divorcing a severely handicapped woman simply because he wants to get laid again and have the companionship of a person with all of their cognitive functions? I doubt it.

It makes no sense other than the logical conclusion that this guy wants some sort of financial windfall from staying legally bound to Terri. I hesitate to even use the verb "married" because Schiavo has turned his marriage to Terri into a sham.

That said, the law indicates they are still married, and Schiavo has the right to make the decision about his wife under law.

That's what makes this such a tricky issue for me. I guess the only thing that's sorted in my mind is the reprehensible way this Schiavo-Schindler family tragedy has been used for political purposes by Congress and the White House and also used as a further intrusion into our daily lives by the Federal government.

As one Democratic member of Congress pointed out Sunday, the Republicans are total hypocrites because they constantly preach about the sanctity of marriage yet they are interfering with a married couple's legal rights in this case.

Take care,
PK

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:32 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:Wow...that was sure hateful.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:38 pm

pk500 wrote: I can see where you're coming from, but how can you trust Schiavo's intentions when he has lived with another woman for years and had children with her without divorcing Terri?

Why stay married to Terri if his life is now with this new woman and their children together? Is he worried about bad PR from divorcing a severely handicapped woman simply because he wants to get laid again and have the companionship of a person with all of their cognitive functions? I doubt it.

It makes no sense other than the logical conclusion that this guy wants some sort of financial windfall from staying legally bound to Terri. I hesitate to even use the verb "married" because Schiavo has turned his marriage to Terri into a sham.

That said, the law indicates they are still married, and Schiavo has the right to make the decision about his wife under law.

That's what makes this such a tricky issue for me. I guess the only thing that's sorted in my mind is the reprehensible way this Schiavo-Schindler family tragedy has been used for political purposes by Congress and the White House and also used as a further intrusion into our daily lives by the Federal government.

As one Democratic member of Congress pointed out Sunday, the Republicans are total hypocrites because they constantly preach about the sanctity of marriage yet they are interfering with a married couple's legal rights in this case.

Take care,
PK

PK,

I tell you this whole issue just makes my blood boil. It's one thing to talk about the merits of the case re: end of life policies, separation of powers, the legitimacy of congress stepping in. I have no problem with that and I have my opinions on the subjects. My point is that we (Teal, you, Me, politicians) are not in a position to assume anything about the motives of her husband. Perhaps he feels obligated to ensure that she doesn't linger on in a twilight existence until god knows when. At this point that's as plausible an explanation as anything else - and based on no more speculation than any other explanation. The court's have spent 10+ years reviewing the case and reached its decision based on a careful consideration of the facts. That doesn't mean the court's decision was right but it should give us pause before jumping to conclusions based on - well based on what other than idle speculation? Until we've walked in this guy's footsteps or heard him out we really should not make any assumptions about his feelings or the reasons for his actions. It's just not decent!

The media, politicans (Democrats and Republicans), and interest groups have already turned the case into a three ring circus. For CNN and the cable networks its more 'entertainment' to fill programming time to feed to a ravenous public that would rather watch other people's lives than live their own. I for one would rather not assist these f*cking vultures. If my wife or myself - god forbid - find ourselves in a similar position I would hope that we would be left alone in privacy to make the best decision possible under the circumstances - and not have our decisions or motives second-guessed or impugned by those who know nothing about the situation other than what they've heard or read (3rd or 4th hand).

I absolutely agree with you that the issue of whether to stop feeding Mrs. Shiavo is tricky. I don't particularly like that way of ending life and would think it would be much more humane to simply give her a large dose of morphine. The law prevents that and there are probably good reasons to think carefully before permitting doctor's to directly assist patients with dying. But we don't have to drag the guy or his reputation through the mud while debating the case.

Best wishes,

Doug

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:39 pm

dougb wrote:Teal,

You've set new records for the most goddamned uninformed, idiotic assertions on this board - and that takes some doing.

I suppose you've had legal and medical training, spent 10+ years reviewing this case, as well as had an ongoing personal acquaintanceship with Mr. Shiavo?

NO??!!! - well then why don't you STFU regarding Mr. Shiavo's rationale for wanting to withdraw the feeding tube, and spare us the endless moralizing. You don't have a godamn clue about the subject you're raving about. Your the PARKER of politics, except at least he's only writing about the relatively unimportant subject of sports teams. You're dragging a man's name through the muck based on nothing more than your own prejudices and the demented rantings of the right wing holier than holies.

Doug

Hey Doug-

Grow up...

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:47 pm

Doug:

I'm sorry, but your stance almost makes it sound like Robert Schiavo is either a peripheral figure in this case or a devoted husband. He is neither.

I would agree with you except for the fact that this guy has committed adultery and fathered children out of wedlock while still married to Terri, which makes him a less-than-savory character in my eyes.

I would feel a lot more empathy with Mr. Schiavo if he was faithful to his wife, regardless of her condition. But he hasn't been, which leads me to believe that he is more than capable of showing similar lack of scruples regarding her right to live or die.

In other words, I think this guy is a dirtbag who's looking for an insurance payday. And this dirtbag with possibly unscrupulous motives is the guy who holds the decision legally as to whether a woman lives or dies. The law says it's his right, and we have to follow the law. But that doesn't make me comfortable with it one bit because I question this guy's motives 100 percent with a perfectly logical base for that suspicion: He's an adulterer who has fathered children out of wedlock. I also would like to know the dollar figure of the insurance premium he stands to collect if she dies.

Denying the role that his adultery and a possible insurance windfall play in the decision is almost as unrealistic as denying the political motives of everyone in Washington regarding this tragic case.

If Robert Schiavo was devoted to Terri and what's best for her, he wouldn't have committed adultery and fathered kids out of wedlock. And I'm sorry, I can't separate that breach of my personal moral code with the legalities of this case.

My opinion, of course.

Take care,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:48 pm

JackB1 wrote:Teal.....you cannot make this a balck and white issue. When you state "you cannot starve someone to death", of course it sounds right, but it's not as simple as that. It's just like the people that say "Choose Life"...like if you are pro "choice" you would rather choose "death".
It all depends on the circumstances. You cannot make a "blanket" law that will take care of some issues.

The bottom line is that who the heck wants the government getting this personal in our lives? Where does it end? This is a personal matter that should be decided by the family, like it has always been. If you had a mother that was kept alive by a feeding tube for years and years and you knew in your heart she just wanted to die in peace and with dignity and then some government bill said that you have to keep her alive, how would you feel?

Jack:

I understand what you mean, but to me it is black and white. It's hearbreaking to see this woman in this state, no doubt. And despite the rantings of one idiot in here, I care very much about this woman's plight. She has no way of speaking for herself, and she is the only arbiter of her life.

I don't like the feds getting involved in this any more than anyone else, but in an act of desperation to save this woman's life, I'll take it. The family is split between her real family, who wants to let her live and take care of her, and the prick that wants to starve her to death. If they will put a murderer to sleep before lethal injection, then the least they could do, if they insist on killing her after all this, is to make it quick, for goodness sake...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:56 pm

dougb wrote:
pk500 wrote: I can see where you're coming from, but how can you trust Schiavo's intentions when he has lived with another woman for years and had children with her without divorcing Terri?

Why stay married to Terri if his life is now with this new woman and their children together? Is he worried about bad PR from divorcing a severely handicapped woman simply because he wants to get laid again and have the companionship of a person with all of their cognitive functions? I doubt it.

It makes no sense other than the logical conclusion that this guy wants some sort of financial windfall from staying legally bound to Terri. I hesitate to even use the verb "married" because Schiavo has turned his marriage to Terri into a sham.

That said, the law indicates they are still married, and Schiavo has the right to make the decision about his wife under law.

That's what makes this such a tricky issue for me. I guess the only thing that's sorted in my mind is the reprehensible way this Schiavo-Schindler family tragedy has been used for political purposes by Congress and the White House and also used as a further intrusion into our daily lives by the Federal government.

As one Democratic member of Congress pointed out Sunday, the Republicans are total hypocrites because they constantly preach about the sanctity of marriage yet they are interfering with a married couple's legal rights in this case.

Take care,
PK
PK,

I tell you this whole issue just makes my blood boil. It's one thing to talk about the merits of the case re: end of life policies, separation of powers, the legitimacy of congress stepping in. I have no problem with that and I have my opinions on the subjects. My point is that we (Teal, you, Me, politicians) are not in a position to assume anything about the motives of her husband. Perhaps he feels obligated to ensure that she doesn't linger on in a twilight existence until god knows when. At this point that's as plausible an explanation as anything else - and based on no more speculation than any other explanation. The court's have spent 10+ years reviewing the case and reached its decision based on a careful consideration of the facts. That doesn't mean the court's decision was right but it should give us pause before jumping to conclusions based on - well based on what other than idle speculation? Until we've walked in this guy's footsteps or heard him out we really should not make any assumptions about his feelings or the reasons for his actions. It's just not decent!

The media, politicans (Democrats and Republicans), and interest groups have already turned the case into a three ring circus. For CNN and the cable networks its more 'entertainment' to fill programming time to feed to a ravenous public that would rather watch other people's lives than live their own. I for one would rather not assist these f*cking vultures. If my wife or myself - god forbid - find ourselves in a similar position I would hope that we would be left alone in privacy to make the best decision possible under the circumstances - and not have our decisions or motives second-guessed or impugned by those who know nothing about the situation other than what they've heard or read (3rd or 4th hand).

I absolutely agree with you that the issue of whether to stop feeding Mrs. Shiavo is tricky. I don't particularly like that way of ending life and would think it would be much more humane to simply give her a large dose of morphine. The law prevents that and there are probably good reasons to think carefully before permitting doctor's to directly assist patients with dying. But we don't have to drag the guy or his reputation through the mud while debating the case.

Best wishes,

Doug

Now, couldn't you have just responded to me in that fashion rather than foaming at the mouth? Good grief, doug...it was really uncalled for...

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:12 pm

tealboy03 wrote:

This doesn't surprise you, does it? It's just politicians being politicians. There's no big surprise there. It's also ABC News-'nuff said about that.
I don't care about their motivations. I care about this woman's life and the fact that against all sound reason, her "husband" wants to snuff her out. Divorce her already-you're already dinging another woman. But, if he divorces her, he's out of the money. The same amount that the good samaritan offered him to go away and let her live. He doesn't want her to live...

Of course he doesn't want her to live, because she is not living. She is breathing. She is eating. But she has spinal fluid in her brain and isn't ever, ever, EVER going to get any better.

If you look at the timeline Jared posted, the husband obviously tried for several years to seek treatment for his wife. Once it became clear that she was essentially all but dead save for being able to breathe, he tried to have her tube removed. That's when her parents stepped in. The case went to court, and the courts ruled that the evidence suggested she would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state with no chance to come out of it. She isn't responding to stimulation on a regular, persistent basis. But here is the kicker:

"Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer."

If he really was in it just for the money, why the hell would turn down an offer? I don't like that he's committed adultery, but to him, his wife clearly died years ago.

It is a very sad story. I am torn about the feeding tube myself. But if it was me, I would want my wife to pull the plug and move on. I would be enraged if some jackass with no business in my business tried to intervene on my behalf. We're talking come back and haunt them angry. My wife and I talked about this the other day, and I told her that if the doctors said I wouldn't come out, give me six months, then get on with living and bury me.

Whether her husband is an asshole is meaningless. He hasn't made this decision. This has spent 10 years working its way through our legal machinery. After a decade of thought, argument, and consideration, a decision was made. And now our Congress has decided that it is also the supreme judicial authority in America in addition to being our legislature.

So what we have here is the party for less government stepping in to prevent a state court from exercising its rights. Like Jon Stewart said, judges are activist judges when they do things you don't agree with.

Digital Sportspage

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

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

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

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

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

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