<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, if she is already for all intents and purposes dead, why are you making such a fuss if her parents want to keep what's left of her? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state.
A week ago, when I got tired of hearing this crap about her, I was all for letting her die. Though I do not think letting her starve to death is very good, just think if you were the parent watching your child slowly die over a week; and believe me starvation doesnt make it look pretty.
This afternoon I heard a interview with a nurse who had previously been under a gag order from one of the many previous trials. From what they said, I do not think you can say that the husband's testimony is true. She spoke about a lot of shady things he did, she claimed that she found an insulin bottle in the trash after he had been in the room alone with her and she had an attack of some sort. While I don't put my faith in her testimony about that, she did bring some other things to light. She said that the nurses eventually got a restraining order agianst him, and how he turned down all therapy from the get go.
Anyhow is short, I think there is enough doubt that you cannot really determine what she wants. If she had a document saying it, he then pull the plug.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Mar 22 2005, 08:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Mar 22 2005, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 50k is a lot of money.
A week ago, when I got tired of hearing this crap about her, I was all for letting her die. Though I do not think letting her starve to death is very good, just think if you were the parent watching your child slowly die over a week; and believe me starvation doesnt make it look pretty.
This afternoon I heard a interview with a nurse who had previously been under a gag order from one of the many previous trials. From what they said, I do not think you can say that the husband's testimony is true. She spoke about a lot of shady things he did, she claimed that she found an insulin bottle in the trash after he had been in the room alone with her and she had an attack of some sort. While I don't put my faith in her testimony about that, she did bring some other things to light. She said that the nurses eventually got a restraining order agianst him, and how he turned down all therapy from the get go.
Anyhow is short, I think there is enough doubt that you cannot really determine what she wants. If she had a document saying it, he then pull the plug. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is it possible that (shock and gasp!) he was trying to carry out her wish on his own because of all the trouble her parents were causing trying to stop him? I don't know, I never even heard of this until it was dragged in here because I stopped watching the news about 10 years ago when they stopped reporting on things that anybody gave a damn about.
I think its pretty clear, given what I've seen in here, that wasting all this time and money to kill her when he certainly could have taken easier ways out indicates that he is telling the truth.
But like I said, even if he isn't, with the lack of a legal document stating otherwise we have to go on his word. Its not going to be any great loss for anybody thats for sure. The denial is certainly not helpfull.
OK - I admit - I brough religion into this in my first post, but I have attempted to be rational and post good comments.
Now I'm a Zealot - dude, this isn't about religion. This is about a shoddy definition of "for all intents and purposes she is dead".
For one, she is not unconcious. For two, she can laugh, cry, blink - and according to her nurse, say simple words.
Furthermore, just because I happen to have a differing opinion than you doesn't make me a nut (or any other derogatory term you can come up with). Insulting our reading comprehension is not the way to win arguments. Hold yourself to a higher standard than that, please!
As for it being an acutual "wish" to die - I debate that hearsay (like I said). Her husband has claimed it, but I already went through the trouble of pointing out how unscrupulous he is. Yet I see very little evidence to show how strong a man he is (unless you count wanting to kill your wife as a virtue).
Handman, there is a reason why this case irritates me like none other. This is like someone **** down my back and telling me it rains, just like your claim that he refused care from the getgo. Check the links in my post on the first page. That LIE is debunked totally. Those RNs are most likely paid by Terri's parents to spread falsehoods like the one I pointed out.
The pro tube people have NO case to stand on. They are relying on outright LIES to argue.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 22 2005, 08:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 22 2005, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For one, she is not unconcious. For two, she can laugh, cry, blink - and according to her nurse, say simple words. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is suuuuuch propaganda. Yes, she can make all sorts of random motions. Unfortunatey, she has no control over any of them, BECAUSE SHE HAS NO CEREBRAL CORTEX!
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Mar 22 2005, 08:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Mar 22 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, if she is already for all intents and purposes dead, why are you making such a fuss if her parents want to keep what's left of her? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't have it both ways.
You can't both say
A) She's already dead, anyway, and has no self-consciousness. Therefore it's okay to pull the plug.
B) She wouldn't want to be left in this state.
Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells!
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Her body is her property. We honor what the dead wish to do with their property.
For all of you just joining this conversation, here is the relavant content of my link:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RUSH: Lets start with audio sound bite number two, and we'll pick up then at number four. This is Michael Schiavo. He was on Larry King Live last night and Larry King said, "So that feeding tube isn't in, and she's dying by what, starvation?"
MICHAEL SCHIAVO: Larry, she's not dying of starvation. This is a natural, painless death. What happens is when you stop eating, your electrolytes will slowly diminish, you will slowly go into a nice, deep sleep, and then pass away. This happens to people all the time. People with cancer in their last two to three weeks of living, they stop eating. This is how they die.
RUSH: Yeah, but that isn't starvation, now. See, this guy is making the point that I made yesterday. It's easy for him to look at this the way he does. He didn't pull the tube. It's just not there. She's not eating, the electrolytes are going to shut down, it's very peaceful. Nobody is killing anybody here, she's just dying. She's not dying of starvation, even though the feeding tube has been pulled. All right, now, it was yesterday that we read to you some quotes from Carla Sauer Iyer, who was a nurse that treated Terri Schiavo in 1995 and 1996. She was on Fox and Friends this morning on the Fox News Channel. Steve Doocy said, "We've heard so much from Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, that Terri is in persistent vegetative state, she doesn't know what's going on. You have a different story. Tell us."
IYER: I took care of Terri, Palm Garden of Largo in Largo, Florida, from April of 1995 to August of 1996. She would interact with staff, her cognitive abilities included laughing, talking, letting you know she was in pain.
RUSH: E.D. Hill followed up with, "What do you mean by talking? We were discussing this with Dr. Baden earlier, and he said what she suffered was like a type of brain damage where, you know, the lower part of the brain would do things that were instinctive, such as grasping a finger or eyes moving around, but that the higher part of the brain really couldn't function when she talked. When you say that, what do you mean by that?"
IYER: She would say such things as, "Mommy. Help me. Hi." She would say the word "pain", she would not say the letter N very well, but she would let you know that she was having pain regarding her monthly menses. They talked about reflexes. Well, she had accurate reflections on command.
DOOCY: Carla, this story as much different than anything we have heard from anybody else. Why isn't Michael Schiavo telling people this?
IYER: I believe he wants her to die. He doesn't want the truth to be known.
RUSH: And Doocy said, "Well, in fact, Carla, you were at that time at that nursing home for a while and then you got into a disagreement that had to do with Michael, an accusation regarding him injecting her with insulin. Please tell me that story because I'd not heard it before, so important. One day he came to visit, then he left and you went in and saw Terri."
IYER: Yes. Michael was in Terri's room for about 20 minutes with the door shut. After Michael left, Terri was sweating profusely, lethargic, crying hysterically. I did check her sugar on the glucometer, and it was not reading any number, it was reading low.
HILL: And did you find something in the trash can?
IYER: Yes. I saw a vial of regular insulin, concealed, in the trash bin.
HILL: And did you notice any injection marks on her, and if so, did you confront Michael or tell your supervisors?
IYER: Yes. There was needle marks underneath her breast, underneath her arms, and her groin. I did talk to the director of nursing and the administrator, and I did go to the police.
RUSH: She said she was fired when she told of this, and then she says that Michael prevented them from feeding Terri. Doocy said, "Well, what would a shot of insulin do to her?"
IYER: It would put you in a hypoglycemic state, into a coma, and then death. They said they would call the DCF. I told them I had gone to the police. They were very upset about that. They called me into the office the next day and they terminated me.
DOOCY: Carla, I read one other report that another nurse apparently had fed her some food at several points and then he found out about it and, well, it all hit the fan.
IYER: That's correct. We were feeding her with a baby bottle. She was taking thickened liquids, puddings, Jell-Os, and she was not aspirating. She really enjoyed that.
DOOCY: And then when he found out that you were feeding her by mouth and not by a feeding tube, what did he say?
IYER: He was going to get us fired.
RUSH: Later on CNN, the same nurse, Carla Iyer, was on American Morning with Bill Hemmer, who said, "Now, you say in part of this affidavit that Michael at one point would ask the question, 'When is she going to die?' Is that a fact you believe?"
IYER: Yes. In front of all the staff he would say, "When is she going to die? Has that b---- died yet?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Mar 22 2005, 08:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Mar 22 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, if she is already for all intents and purposes dead, why are you making such a fuss if her parents want to keep what's left of her? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't have it both ways.
You can't both say
A) She's already dead, anyway, and has no self-consciousness. Therefore it's okay to pull the plug.
B) She wouldn't want to be left in this state.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can have it both ways. There is no logical reason why A and B are mutually exclusive. Now it is clear that you're just trolling for kicks. You won't listen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there is no point in keeping such a mass of cells alive. Concession accepted.
OK - I admit - I brough religion into this in my first post, but I have attempted to be rational and post good comments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You've failed miserably. Every post since your first one has lead me to believe that you either don't read, or simply ignore, all the other posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now I'm a Zealot - dude, this isn't about religion. This is about a shoddy definition of "for all intents and purposes she is dead".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whats so shoddy about it? She breaths, but thats about it. She will never regain conciousness, ever. Thats about as close to dead as you can get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For one, she is not unconcious. For two, she can laugh, cry, blink - and according to her nurse, say simple words.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which are, at best, only indications that parts of her brain still fucntion in some form. She is still missing far too much brain tissue to even remotely be considered to have a functioning brain. There is no mind at work here, mearly vestigial electrochemical reactions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, just because I happen to have a differing opinion than you doesn't make me a nut (or any other derogatory term you can come up with). Insulting our reading comprehension is not the way to win arguments. Hold yourself to a higher standard than that, please!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is a way to win arguments if it forces your opponent to actually bother to read and comprehend what you've posted. So far neither of you have demonstrated an ability to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for it being an acutual "wish" to die - I debate that hearsay (like I said). Her husband has claimed it, but I already went through the trouble of pointing out how unscrupulous he is. Yet I see very little evidence to show how strong a man he is (unless you count wanting to kill your wife as a virtue).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So? Like I've siad (and you'd know this if you READ MY POSTS!) if he had any nefarious intent then there were much easier ways for him to deal with this situation. Seriously, why stick around and fight all these legal battles just so he can kill his already-pretty-much-dead wife, when he could have walked away with a chariatble donation from her parents? He even could have avoided all this blatent character assasination purpetrated by the more psychotic parts of the right wing.
I strongly advice people to read the GAL report prepared by the impartial investigator assigned by Jeb Bush. It clears up a lot of the myths, falsehoods, and invective flying around.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Mar 22 2005, 08:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Mar 22 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, if she is already for all intents and purposes dead, why are you making such a fuss if her parents want to keep what's left of her? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't have it both ways.
You can't both say
A) She's already dead, anyway, and has no self-consciousness. Therefore it's okay to pull the plug.
B) She wouldn't want to be left in this state.
Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A vegetative mass of cells whose last wishes we must honor. Like the wills of deceased people, as someone has already said.
Now, I really really don't like the fact that the guy's already engaged, but I'm also impressed that he <i>hasn't</i> divorced this woman yet. Would she want him to waste his life caring for her? What about her parents; older citizens in this country have enough to worry about without having to pay for their virtually-dead child. Would she want them to pour their savings into medical bills on her behalf?
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 22 2005, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 22 2005, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the fact that he refuses to divorce should tell you that he is telling the truth. he could easily divorce and leave behind this mess, but he wants to carry out his wife's wishes: to die with dignity rather than live as a vegetable, looking like an idiot all day, with people having to clean up after you urinate and defecate, having to be force fed and bed ridden. i wouldn't want to be kept alive like that and become a burden to my family, the medical system, and society <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Follow the money - who has the multi-million dollar life insurance policy? - who would benefit from this?
I can think of much less noble reasons for someone to want her dead - and read the link, it will give you more to talk about.
Also, being as there is no documentation of her "wish" to be dead - no living will - to me that looks like his opinion to have her dead is being given way to much weight.
He is unscroupulous in his marriage, there is money to be had - heck she is practically dead already (according to him) - why not just claim to be "doing what she wanted" and have her starve to death? - it is the perfect crime, and perfectly legal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you're just assuming the worst. if I had a multimillion dollar life insurance policy and i was in a vegetated state like her, i'd want my spouse to get the money and live a happy life. if you don't want the same thing for your spouse, then you're selfish. but then, all religious people are selfish for your religious beliefs. no one else's beliefs matter but yours. a lot of people believe she should die, including the LAW. no the law hasn't failed here, religion did.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Mar 22 2005, 08:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Mar 22 2005, 08:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can have it both ways. There is no logical reason why A and B are mutually exclusive. Now it is clear that you're just trolling for kicks. You won't listen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there is no point in keeping such a mass of cells alive. Concession accepted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Calling me a troll doesn't help your case at all.
I was trying to point out the fallacy of the emotional appeal "Keeping her alive in a vegetative state".
Dude, I've been <i>agreeing</i> with you this whole thread, learn not to pick opponents where there is none!
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Mar 22 2005, 09:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Mar 22 2005, 09:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I was trying to point out the fallacy of the emotional appeal "Keeping her alive in a vegetative state". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think its a fallacy. Dignity is very important to some people, and I would imagine that some would consider it very important to be remembered primarily as a healthy capable human being rather than as an invalid.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+Mar 22 2005, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ Mar 22 2005, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me make it simple-
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> but according to you guys, there is no woman to do the wanting -_-
and stop labeling us religious freaks. you guys seriously need to reexamine your stance on religion, *edit* it borders on personal attacks.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+Mar 22 2005, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ Mar 22 2005, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me make it simple-
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all, let's not open that can of worms. Inciting religion is generally not a good idea.
Second of all, here's a quick answer: because God chooses not to intervene in our daily lives. If he did, we wouldn't have free will, because everything would be predetermined by God. Hardly what he envisioned when he created us.
Third of all, if I were that woman I'd want someone to pull the plug.
Fourth of all, I'm with Wheee on the "nix the attacks on religion" boat. I guess we're all a little antsy about debating against religious people because of recent experiences with a certain someoneX in evolution threads, but that's no reason to call people freaks, idiots, retarded, etc.
And Wheee, let's just assume that we could go back in time and ask this woman 'would you rather die, or be a vegetable for the rest of your life'. What would she say?
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Mar 22 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Mar 22 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I strongly advice people to read the GAL report prepared by the impartial investigator assigned by Jeb Bush. It clears up a lot of the myths, falsehoods, and invective flying around.
nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very good link. Best information yet. The term "dismissed with predjudice" when refering to the first time her parents tried to challenge his guradianship says alot to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, here's a quick answer: because God chooses not to intervene in our daily lives. If he did, we wouldn't have free will, because everything would be predetermined by God. Hardly what he envisioned when he created us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know I shouldn't, but I cant resist.... Except for all those times in the Old Testiment when God did, in fact, interfere with the daily lives of people.
I could go on, but I'm really going to try to restrain myself and stop there.
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+Mar 22 2005, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ Mar 22 2005, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me make it simple-
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Religious freak - well I'll be... thats a new one!
What would I want done? That is neither here nore there. I would want my wife to work with my parents - not against them (for one). I would like my wife to be faithful to me - through good and bad times.
Beyond that - if someone is getting joy from my life, so much the better. If my death brings joy - please let it not be death by starvation (starving sucks).
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 22 2005, 09:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 22 2005, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> please let it not be death by starvation (starving sucks). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not as bad as you might think, especially if you happen to be brain dead.
Oh, and this really says alot about her relatives and whos needs they care about:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Mar 22 2005, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Mar 22 2005, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, here's a quick answer: because God chooses not to intervene in our daily lives. If he did, we wouldn't have free will, because everything would be predetermined by God. Hardly what he envisioned when he created us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know I shouldn't, but I cant resist.... Except for all those times in the Old Testiment when God did, in fact, interfere with the daily lives of people.
I could go on, but I'm really going to try to restrain myself and stop there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe He decided that it was tainting his image. Or maybe he just decided to change how He treated humans after some big event (called Jesus). It's really not surprising that God's relationship with humanity changed after Jesus came.
But enough of that; I've seen you argue this point quite enough in other threads, and this is not a thread I'd wish derailed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religious freak - well I'll be... thats a new one!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You sure about that Pepe? The religious group in this forum has been called quite a few unsavory things. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Mar 22 2005, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Mar 22 2005, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But enough of that; I've seen you argue this point quite enough in other threads, and this is not a thread I'd wish derailed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed.
sometimes I feel like the dude, right at the beginning of the movie. He gets his head repetedly dunked in a toilet by a couple of thugs while their asking him "where's the money lebowski!?"
His comeback is "I think its down there somewhere" - at which point they dunk his head again...
It is kind of like a "Thank you sir, may I please have another" syndrome. Yeah, the religious right throws a few punches every now and then (as is evident in this case), but I think we take a lot more than we give out.
Back to Terri...
Your all wrong, I'm right - so there.
(that was a joke and a lame attempt at justifying this post - please don't flame to hard)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From <a href='http://nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf' target='_blank'>http://nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf</a>
That part really makes me wonder if the family is doing what's best for Theresa or whats best for them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 23 2005, 01:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 23 2005, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For all of you just joining this conversation, here is the relavant content of my link:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RUSH: Lets start with audio sound bite number two, and we'll pick up then at number four. This is Michael Schiavo. He was on Larry King Live last night and Larry King said, "So that feeding tube isn't in, and she's dying by what, starvation?"
MICHAEL SCHIAVO: Larry, she's not dying of starvation. This is a natural, painless death. What happens is when you stop eating, your electrolytes will slowly diminish, you will slowly go into a nice, deep sleep, and then pass away. This happens to people all the time. People with cancer in their last two to three weeks of living, they stop eating. This is how they die.
RUSH: Yeah, but that isn't starvation, now. See, this guy is making the point that I made yesterday. It's easy for him to look at this the way he does. He didn't pull the tube. It's just not there. She's not eating, the electrolytes are going to shut down, it's very peaceful. Nobody is killing anybody here, she's just dying. She's not dying of starvation, even though the feeding tube has been pulled. All right, now, it was yesterday that we read to you some quotes from Carla Sauer Iyer, who was a nurse that treated Terri Schiavo in 1995 and 1996. She was on Fox and Friends this morning on the Fox News Channel. Steve Doocy said, "We've heard so much from Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, that Terri is in persistent vegetative state, she doesn't know what's going on. You have a different story. Tell us."
IYER: I took care of Terri, Palm Garden of Largo in Largo, Florida, from April of 1995 to August of 1996. She would interact with staff, her cognitive abilities included laughing, talking, letting you know she was in pain.
RUSH: E.D. Hill followed up with, "What do you mean by talking? We were discussing this with Dr. Baden earlier, and he said what she suffered was like a type of brain damage where, you know, the lower part of the brain would do things that were instinctive, such as grasping a finger or eyes moving around, but that the higher part of the brain really couldn't function when she talked. When you say that, what do you mean by that?"
IYER: She would say such things as, "Mommy. Help me. Hi." She would say the word "pain", she would not say the letter N very well, but she would let you know that she was having pain regarding her monthly menses. They talked about reflexes. Well, she had accurate reflections on command.
DOOCY: Carla, this story as much different than anything we have heard from anybody else. Why isn't Michael Schiavo telling people this?
IYER: I believe he wants her to die. He doesn't want the truth to be known.
RUSH: And Doocy said, "Well, in fact, Carla, you were at that time at that nursing home for a while and then you got into a disagreement that had to do with Michael, an accusation regarding him injecting her with insulin. Please tell me that story because I'd not heard it before, so important. One day he came to visit, then he left and you went in and saw Terri."
IYER: Yes. Michael was in Terri's room for about 20 minutes with the door shut. After Michael left, Terri was sweating profusely, lethargic, crying hysterically. I did check her sugar on the glucometer, and it was not reading any number, it was reading low.
HILL: And did you find something in the trash can?
IYER: Yes. I saw a vial of regular insulin, concealed, in the trash bin.
HILL: And did you notice any injection marks on her, and if so, did you confront Michael or tell your supervisors?
IYER: Yes. There was needle marks underneath her breast, underneath her arms, and her groin. I did talk to the director of nursing and the administrator, and I did go to the police.
RUSH: She said she was fired when she told of this, and then she says that Michael prevented them from feeding Terri. Doocy said, "Well, what would a shot of insulin do to her?"
IYER: It would put you in a hypoglycemic state, into a coma, and then death. They said they would call the DCF. I told them I had gone to the police. They were very upset about that. They called me into the office the next day and they terminated me.
DOOCY: Carla, I read one other report that another nurse apparently had fed her some food at several points and then he found out about it and, well, it all hit the fan.
IYER: That's correct. We were feeding her with a baby bottle. She was taking thickened liquids, puddings, Jell-Os, and she was not aspirating. She really enjoyed that.
DOOCY: And then when he found out that you were feeding her by mouth and not by a feeding tube, what did he say?
IYER: He was going to get us fired.
RUSH: Later on CNN, the same nurse, Carla Iyer, was on American Morning with Bill Hemmer, who said, "Now, you say in part of this affidavit that Michael at one point would ask the question, 'When is she going to die?' Is that a fact you believe?"
IYER: Yes. In front of all the staff he would say, "When is she going to die? Has that b---- died yet?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, so hearsay coming from Michael Schiavo is <b>bad</b>, but hearsay from Rush Limbaugh is <b>good</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 22 2005, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 22 2005, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but I think we take a lot more than we give out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hahahahahahahahahhahahahaa! Woa. Seriously. What is it with you guys (you know who I'm talking about) and feeling like you're the underdog all the time? Get over it. You are not the underdog. And you most definatly do not take more then you dish out.
Comments
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state.
A week ago, when I got tired of hearing this crap about her, I was all for letting her die. Though I do not think letting her starve to death is very good, just think if you were the parent watching your child slowly die over a week; and believe me starvation doesnt make it look pretty.
This afternoon I heard a interview with a nurse who had previously been under a gag order from one of the many previous trials. From what they said, I do not think you can say that the husband's testimony is true. She spoke about a lot of shady things he did, she claimed that she found an insulin bottle in the trash after he had been in the room alone with her and she had an attack of some sort. While I don't put my faith in her testimony about that, she did bring some other things to light. She said that the nurses eventually got a restraining order agianst him, and how he turned down all therapy from the get go.
Anyhow is short, I think there is enough doubt that you cannot really determine what she wants. If she had a document saying it, he then pull the plug.
A week ago, when I got tired of hearing this crap about her, I was all for letting her die. Though I do not think letting her starve to death is very good, just think if you were the parent watching your child slowly die over a week; and believe me starvation doesnt make it look pretty.
This afternoon I heard a interview with a nurse who had previously been under a gag order from one of the many previous trials. From what they said, I do not think you can say that the husband's testimony is true. She spoke about a lot of shady things he did, she claimed that she found an insulin bottle in the trash after he had been in the room alone with her and she had an attack of some sort. While I don't put my faith in her testimony about that, she did bring some other things to light. She said that the nurses eventually got a restraining order agianst him, and how he turned down all therapy from the get go.
Anyhow is short, I think there is enough doubt that you cannot really determine what she wants. If she had a document saying it, he then pull the plug. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it possible that (shock and gasp!) he was trying to carry out her wish on his own because of all the trouble her parents were causing trying to stop him?
I don't know, I never even heard of this until it was dragged in here because I stopped watching the news about 10 years ago when they stopped reporting on things that anybody gave a damn about.
I think its pretty clear, given what I've seen in here, that wasting all this time and money to kill her when he certainly could have taken easier ways out indicates that he is telling the truth.
But like I said, even if he isn't, with the lack of a legal document stating otherwise we have to go on his word. Its not going to be any great loss for anybody thats for sure. The denial is certainly not helpfull.
OK - I admit - I brough religion into this in my first post, but I have attempted to be rational and post good comments.
Now I'm a Zealot - dude, this isn't about religion. This is about a shoddy definition of "for all intents and purposes she is dead".
For one, she is not unconcious. For two, she can laugh, cry, blink - and according to her nurse, say simple words.
Furthermore, just because I happen to have a differing opinion than you doesn't make me a nut (or any other derogatory term you can come up with). Insulting our reading comprehension is not the way to win arguments. Hold yourself to a higher standard than that, please!
As for it being an acutual "wish" to die - I debate that hearsay (like I said). Her husband has claimed it, but I already went through the trouble of pointing out how unscrupulous he is. Yet I see very little evidence to show how strong a man he is (unless you count wanting to kill your wife as a virtue).
The pro tube people have NO case to stand on. They are relying on outright LIES to argue.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is suuuuuch propaganda. Yes, she can make all sorts of random motions. Unfortunatey, she has no control over any of them, BECAUSE SHE HAS NO CEREBRAL CORTEX!
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't have it both ways.
You can't both say
A) She's already dead, anyway, and has no self-consciousness. Therefore it's okay to pull the plug.
B) She wouldn't want to be left in this state.
Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells!
Her body is her property. We honor what the dead wish to do with their property.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RUSH: Lets start with audio sound bite number two, and we'll pick up then at number four. This is Michael Schiavo. He was on Larry King Live last night and Larry King said, "So that feeding tube isn't in, and she's dying by what, starvation?"
MICHAEL SCHIAVO: Larry, she's not dying of starvation. This is a natural, painless death. What happens is when you stop eating, your electrolytes will slowly diminish, you will slowly go into a nice, deep sleep, and then pass away. This happens to people all the time. People with cancer in their last two to three weeks of living, they stop eating. This is how they die.
RUSH: Yeah, but that isn't starvation, now. See, this guy is making the point that I made yesterday. It's easy for him to look at this the way he does. He didn't pull the tube. It's just not there. She's not eating, the electrolytes are going to shut down, it's very peaceful. Nobody is killing anybody here, she's just dying. She's not dying of starvation, even though the feeding tube has been pulled. All right, now, it was yesterday that we read to you some quotes from Carla Sauer Iyer, who was a nurse that treated Terri Schiavo in 1995 and 1996. She was on Fox and Friends this morning on the Fox News Channel. Steve Doocy said, "We've heard so much from Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, that Terri is in persistent vegetative state, she doesn't know what's going on. You have a different story. Tell us."
IYER: I took care of Terri, Palm Garden of Largo in Largo, Florida, from April of 1995 to August of 1996. She would interact with staff, her cognitive abilities included laughing, talking, letting you know she was in pain.
RUSH: E.D. Hill followed up with, "What do you mean by talking? We were discussing this with Dr. Baden earlier, and he said what she suffered was like a type of brain damage where, you know, the lower part of the brain would do things that were instinctive, such as grasping a finger or eyes moving around, but that the higher part of the brain really couldn't function when she talked. When you say that, what do you mean by that?"
IYER: She would say such things as, "Mommy. Help me. Hi." She would say the word "pain", she would not say the letter N very well, but she would let you know that she was having pain regarding her monthly menses. They talked about reflexes. Well, she had accurate reflections on command.
DOOCY: Carla, this story as much different than anything we have heard from anybody else. Why isn't Michael Schiavo telling people this?
IYER: I believe he wants her to die. He doesn't want the truth to be known.
RUSH: And Doocy said, "Well, in fact, Carla, you were at that time at that nursing home for a while and then you got into a disagreement that had to do with Michael, an accusation regarding him injecting her with insulin. Please tell me that story because I'd not heard it before, so important. One day he came to visit, then he left and you went in and saw Terri."
IYER: Yes. Michael was in Terri's room for about 20 minutes with the door shut. After Michael left, Terri was sweating profusely, lethargic, crying hysterically. I did check her sugar on the glucometer, and it was not reading any number, it was reading low.
HILL: And did you find something in the trash can?
IYER: Yes. I saw a vial of regular insulin, concealed, in the trash bin.
HILL: And did you notice any injection marks on her, and if so, did you confront Michael or tell your supervisors?
IYER: Yes. There was needle marks underneath her breast, underneath her arms, and her groin. I did talk to the director of nursing and the administrator, and I did go to the police.
RUSH: She said she was fired when she told of this, and then she says that Michael prevented them from feeding Terri. Doocy said, "Well, what would a shot of insulin do to her?"
IYER: It would put you in a hypoglycemic state, into a coma, and then death. They said they would call the DCF. I told them I had gone to the police. They were very upset about that. They called me into the office the next day and they terminated me.
DOOCY: Carla, I read one other report that another nurse apparently had fed her some food at several points and then he found out about it and, well, it all hit the fan.
IYER: That's correct. We were feeding her with a baby bottle. She was taking thickened liquids, puddings, Jell-Os, and she was not aspirating. She really enjoyed that.
DOOCY: And then when he found out that you were feeding her by mouth and not by a feeding tube, what did he say?
IYER: He was going to get us fired.
RUSH: Later on CNN, the same nurse, Carla Iyer, was on American Morning with Bill Hemmer, who said, "Now, you say in part of this affidavit that Michael at one point would ask the question, 'When is she going to die?' Is that a fact you believe?"
IYER: Yes. In front of all the staff he would say, "When is she going to die? Has that b---- died yet?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't have it both ways.
You can't both say
A) She's already dead, anyway, and has no self-consciousness. Therefore it's okay to pull the plug.
B) She wouldn't want to be left in this state.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can have it both ways. There is no logical reason why A and B are mutually exclusive. Now it is clear that you're just trolling for kicks. You won't listen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there is no point in keeping such a mass of cells alive. Concession accepted.
OK - I admit - I brough religion into this in my first post, but I have attempted to be rational and post good comments.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've failed miserably. Every post since your first one has lead me to believe that you either don't read, or simply ignore, all the other posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now I'm a Zealot - dude, this isn't about religion. This is about a shoddy definition of "for all intents and purposes she is dead".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats so shoddy about it? She breaths, but thats about it. She will never regain conciousness, ever. Thats about as close to dead as you can get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For one, she is not unconcious. For two, she can laugh, cry, blink - and according to her nurse, say simple words.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which are, at best, only indications that parts of her brain still fucntion in some form. She is still missing far too much brain tissue to even remotely be considered to have a functioning brain. There is no mind at work here, mearly vestigial electrochemical reactions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, just because I happen to have a differing opinion than you doesn't make me a nut (or any other derogatory term you can come up with). Insulting our reading comprehension is not the way to win arguments. Hold yourself to a higher standard than that, please!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is a way to win arguments if it forces your opponent to actually bother to read and comprehend what you've posted. So far neither of you have demonstrated an ability to do so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for it being an acutual "wish" to die - I debate that hearsay (like I said). Her husband has claimed it, but I already went through the trouble of pointing out how unscrupulous he is. Yet I see very little evidence to show how strong a man he is (unless you count wanting to kill your wife as a virtue).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So? Like I've siad (and you'd know this if you READ MY POSTS!) if he had any nefarious intent then there were much easier ways for him to deal with this situation. Seriously, why stick around and fight all these legal battles just so he can kill his already-pretty-much-dead wife, when he could have walked away with a chariatble donation from her parents? He even could have avoided all this blatent character assasination purpetrated by the more psychotic parts of the right wing.
nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE LEFT IN THIS SORT OF STATE FOR OVER TEN YEARS? It is the husband's decision! The parents do not have a say!
Think about what will happen when her parents no longer have the money to take care of her. She'll be put in hospital care, taking up room for patients that have their brains intact and aren't merely living corpses. It'll rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers. All for a living dead woman. Letting her die is the humane thing to do, even though she's not feeling pain in this state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't have it both ways.
You can't both say
A) She's already dead, anyway, and has no self-consciousness. Therefore it's okay to pull the plug.
B) She wouldn't want to be left in this state.
Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A vegetative mass of cells whose last wishes we must honor. Like the wills of deceased people, as someone has already said.
Now, I really really don't like the fact that the guy's already engaged, but I'm also impressed that he <i>hasn't</i> divorced this woman yet. Would she want him to waste his life caring for her? What about her parents; older citizens in this country have enough to worry about without having to pay for their virtually-dead child. Would she want them to pour their savings into medical bills on her behalf?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Follow the money - who has the multi-million dollar life insurance policy? - who would benefit from this?
I can think of much less noble reasons for someone to want her dead - and read the link, it will give you more to talk about.
Also, being as there is no documentation of her "wish" to be dead - no living will - to me that looks like his opinion to have her dead is being given way to much weight.
He is unscroupulous in his marriage, there is money to be had - heck she is practically dead already (according to him) - why not just claim to be "doing what she wanted" and have her starve to death? - it is the perfect crime, and perfectly legal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you're just assuming the worst. if I had a multimillion dollar life insurance policy and i was in a vegetated state like her, i'd want my spouse to get the money and live a happy life. if you don't want the same thing for your spouse, then you're selfish. but then, all religious people are selfish for your religious beliefs. no one else's beliefs matter but yours. a lot of people believe she should die, including the LAW. no the law hasn't failed here, religion did.
I can have it both ways. There is no logical reason why A and B are mutually exclusive. Now it is clear that you're just trolling for kicks. You won't listen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Guess what, if you say A) then there <i>is</i> no <b>her</b> to be left in that state, it's just a vegetative mass of cells!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there is no point in keeping such a mass of cells alive. Concession accepted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Calling me a troll doesn't help your case at all.
I was trying to point out the fallacy of the emotional appeal "Keeping her alive in a vegetative state".
Dude, I've been <i>agreeing</i> with you this whole thread, learn not to pick opponents where there is none!
Jeebus, some people are so defensive.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think its a fallacy. Dignity is very important to some people, and I would imagine that some would consider it very important to be remembered primarily as a healthy capable human being rather than as an invalid.
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done?
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but according to you guys, there is no woman to do the wanting -_-
and stop labeling us religious freaks. you guys seriously need to reexamine your stance on religion, *edit* it borders on personal attacks.
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, let's not open that can of worms. Inciting religion is generally not a good idea.
Second of all, here's a quick answer: because God chooses not to intervene in our daily lives. If he did, we wouldn't have free will, because everything would be predetermined by God. Hardly what he envisioned when he created us.
Third of all, if I were that woman I'd want someone to pull the plug.
Fourth of all, I'm with Wheee on the "nix the attacks on religion" boat. I guess we're all a little antsy about debating against religious people because of recent experiences with a certain someoneX in evolution threads, but that's no reason to call people freaks, idiots, retarded, etc.
And Wheee, let's just assume that we could go back in time and ask this woman 'would you rather die, or be a vegetable for the rest of your life'. What would she say?
nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very good link. Best information yet. The term "dismissed with predjudice" when refering to the first time her parents tried to challenge his guradianship says alot to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second of all, here's a quick answer: because God chooses not to intervene in our daily lives. If he did, we wouldn't have free will, because everything would be predetermined by God. Hardly what he envisioned when he created us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I shouldn't, but I cant resist.... Except for all those times in the Old Testiment when God did, in fact, interfere with the daily lives of people.
I could go on, but I'm really going to try to restrain myself and stop there.
For all you religious freaks
Why didn't God spare this woman from such a HORRIBLE existance... one without God, without Sin, without even so much as Rational Thought
and for all the others
Put yourself in that womans shoes... what would YOU want done? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Religious freak - well I'll be... thats a new one!
What would I want done? That is neither here nore there. I would want my wife to work with my parents - not against them (for one). I would like my wife to be faithful to me - through good and bad times.
Beyond that - if someone is getting joy from my life, so much the better. If my death brings joy - please let it not be death by starvation (starving sucks).
Its not as bad as you might think, especially if you happen to be brain dead.
Oh, and this really says alot about her relatives and whos needs they care about:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I shouldn't, but I cant resist.... Except for all those times in the Old Testiment when God did, in fact, interfere with the daily lives of people.
I could go on, but I'm really going to try to restrain myself and stop there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe He decided that it was tainting his image. Or maybe he just decided to change how He treated humans after some big event (called Jesus). It's really not surprising that God's relationship with humanity changed after Jesus came.
But enough of that; I've seen you argue this point quite enough in other threads, and this is not a thread I'd wish derailed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religious freak - well I'll be... thats a new one!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sure about that Pepe? The religious group in this forum has been called quite a few unsavory things. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Agreed.
Have you ever seen the big lebowski?
sometimes I feel like the dude, right at the beginning of the movie. He gets his head repetedly dunked in a toilet by a couple of thugs while their asking him "where's the money lebowski!?"
His comeback is "I think its down there somewhere" - at which point they dunk his head again...
It is kind of like a "Thank you sir, may I please have another" syndrome. Yeah, the religious right throws a few punches every now and then (as is evident in this case), but I think we take a lot more than we give out.
Back to Terri...
Your all wrong, I'm right - so there.
(that was a joke and a lame attempt at justifying this post - please don't flame to hard)
From <a href='http://nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf' target='_blank'>http://nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf</a>
That part really makes me wonder if the family is doing what's best for Theresa or whats best for them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->RUSH: Lets start with audio sound bite number two, and we'll pick up then at number four. This is Michael Schiavo. He was on Larry King Live last night and Larry King said, "So that feeding tube isn't in, and she's dying by what, starvation?"
MICHAEL SCHIAVO: Larry, she's not dying of starvation. This is a natural, painless death. What happens is when you stop eating, your electrolytes will slowly diminish, you will slowly go into a nice, deep sleep, and then pass away. This happens to people all the time. People with cancer in their last two to three weeks of living, they stop eating. This is how they die.
RUSH: Yeah, but that isn't starvation, now. See, this guy is making the point that I made yesterday. It's easy for him to look at this the way he does. He didn't pull the tube. It's just not there. She's not eating, the electrolytes are going to shut down, it's very peaceful. Nobody is killing anybody here, she's just dying. She's not dying of starvation, even though the feeding tube has been pulled. All right, now, it was yesterday that we read to you some quotes from Carla Sauer Iyer, who was a nurse that treated Terri Schiavo in 1995 and 1996. She was on Fox and Friends this morning on the Fox News Channel. Steve Doocy said, "We've heard so much from Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, that Terri is in persistent vegetative state, she doesn't know what's going on. You have a different story. Tell us."
IYER: I took care of Terri, Palm Garden of Largo in Largo, Florida, from April of 1995 to August of 1996. She would interact with staff, her cognitive abilities included laughing, talking, letting you know she was in pain.
RUSH: E.D. Hill followed up with, "What do you mean by talking? We were discussing this with Dr. Baden earlier, and he said what she suffered was like a type of brain damage where, you know, the lower part of the brain would do things that were instinctive, such as grasping a finger or eyes moving around, but that the higher part of the brain really couldn't function when she talked. When you say that, what do you mean by that?"
IYER: She would say such things as, "Mommy. Help me. Hi." She would say the word "pain", she would not say the letter N very well, but she would let you know that she was having pain regarding her monthly menses. They talked about reflexes. Well, she had accurate reflections on command.
DOOCY: Carla, this story as much different than anything we have heard from anybody else. Why isn't Michael Schiavo telling people this?
IYER: I believe he wants her to die. He doesn't want the truth to be known.
RUSH: And Doocy said, "Well, in fact, Carla, you were at that time at that nursing home for a while and then you got into a disagreement that had to do with Michael, an accusation regarding him injecting her with insulin. Please tell me that story because I'd not heard it before, so important. One day he came to visit, then he left and you went in and saw Terri."
IYER: Yes. Michael was in Terri's room for about 20 minutes with the door shut. After Michael left, Terri was sweating profusely, lethargic, crying hysterically. I did check her sugar on the glucometer, and it was not reading any number, it was reading low.
HILL: And did you find something in the trash can?
IYER: Yes. I saw a vial of regular insulin, concealed, in the trash bin.
HILL: And did you notice any injection marks on her, and if so, did you confront Michael or tell your supervisors?
IYER: Yes. There was needle marks underneath her breast, underneath her arms, and her groin. I did talk to the director of nursing and the administrator, and I did go to the police.
RUSH: She said she was fired when she told of this, and then she says that Michael prevented them from feeding Terri. Doocy said, "Well, what would a shot of insulin do to her?"
IYER: It would put you in a hypoglycemic state, into a coma, and then death. They said they would call the DCF. I told them I had gone to the police. They were very upset about that. They called me into the office the next day and they terminated me.
DOOCY: Carla, I read one other report that another nurse apparently had fed her some food at several points and then he found out about it and, well, it all hit the fan.
IYER: That's correct. We were feeding her with a baby bottle. She was taking thickened liquids, puddings, Jell-Os, and she was not aspirating. She really enjoyed that.
DOOCY: And then when he found out that you were feeding her by mouth and not by a feeding tube, what did he say?
IYER: He was going to get us fired.
RUSH: Later on CNN, the same nurse, Carla Iyer, was on American Morning with Bill Hemmer, who said, "Now, you say in part of this affidavit that Michael at one point would ask the question, 'When is she going to die?' Is that a fact you believe?"
IYER: Yes. In front of all the staff he would say, "When is she going to die? Has that b---- died yet?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, so hearsay coming from Michael Schiavo is <b>bad</b>, but hearsay from Rush Limbaugh is <b>good</b>.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahaa! Woa. Seriously. What is it with you guys (you know who I'm talking about) and feeling like you're the underdog all the time? Get over it. You are not the underdog. And you most definatly do not take more then you dish out.