Terri Schiavo
CForrester
P0rk(h0p Join Date: 2002-10-05 Member: 1439Members, Constellation
P0rk(h0p Join Date: 2002-10-05 Member: 1439Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Keep it civil, please</div> <b>Just a note before I go on: I got approval from NemZero to post this thread. I don't want any flaming here, please. If you're just going to say "She should have been killed" or "she should have lived" without backing it up with your reasons, or if you're just going to flame, you can go away right now. I don't want to cause a burden on the mods, so I'll personally ask for a lock if the thread is going down in flames. I'd also like to encourage people not to post about something that may offend you. If you feel that someone is trolling, ignore them. If you can't discuss it civily, don't discuss it at all. Thank you.</b>
Okay, Terri Schiavo <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/schiavo/index.html' target='_blank'>died</a> this morning due to starvation because of the removal of her feeding tube. Do you feel that this is right or wrong?
Personally, I feel that it was wrong to kill her by starvation. I would have preferred that she were euthanized. We can't be sure that she wasn't feeling pain from starvation.
Though, since her neocortex was nearly completely wiped out (Can someone post that CT scan again, please?) and she had no chance of recovery, it was best for her to die. The apparently lucid behaviours that she exhibited were inconsistant, as far as I know, though some of them seem pretty normal to me.
What do you feel Michael Schiavo's motives were? Keep in mind that it couldn't have been money: Terri's parents offered Michael a few million (I can't remember the exact amount) to just walk away and leave her in their care. Also keep in mind that it couldnt have been because he wanted to remarry: He could have gotten a divorce any time, and Terri's parents actively encouraged him to move on and date.
I feel that that leaves two possible motives: He wanted her dead to cover something up (Maybe he was beating her, and he was afraid that they might be able to teach her how to speak again, and she would tell them what he did. Has it been confirmed by doctors that the cause of her heart attack was bulimia? Can you show me proof?), or he truly didn't want to see her suffer any more.
Can anyone think of any other possible motives? Also, if anyone has a link to a detailed article or essay that describes what happened from the time that she went in to a coma to the time that she died? I would prefer an impartial article, just one stating the facts.
Remember, keep it civil or just don't discuss it.
Okay, Terri Schiavo <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/schiavo/index.html' target='_blank'>died</a> this morning due to starvation because of the removal of her feeding tube. Do you feel that this is right or wrong?
Personally, I feel that it was wrong to kill her by starvation. I would have preferred that she were euthanized. We can't be sure that she wasn't feeling pain from starvation.
Though, since her neocortex was nearly completely wiped out (Can someone post that CT scan again, please?) and she had no chance of recovery, it was best for her to die. The apparently lucid behaviours that she exhibited were inconsistant, as far as I know, though some of them seem pretty normal to me.
What do you feel Michael Schiavo's motives were? Keep in mind that it couldn't have been money: Terri's parents offered Michael a few million (I can't remember the exact amount) to just walk away and leave her in their care. Also keep in mind that it couldnt have been because he wanted to remarry: He could have gotten a divorce any time, and Terri's parents actively encouraged him to move on and date.
I feel that that leaves two possible motives: He wanted her dead to cover something up (Maybe he was beating her, and he was afraid that they might be able to teach her how to speak again, and she would tell them what he did. Has it been confirmed by doctors that the cause of her heart attack was bulimia? Can you show me proof?), or he truly didn't want to see her suffer any more.
Can anyone think of any other possible motives? Also, if anyone has a link to a detailed article or essay that describes what happened from the time that she went in to a coma to the time that she died? I would prefer an impartial article, just one stating the facts.
Remember, keep it civil or just don't discuss it.
Comments
She was a woman who had extreme eating disorder, in this case bulima. If you aren't famailiar with what bulima is, I would go to wikipedia and look it up.
Basically it comes down to this, she basically destroyed her body by not allowing it to retain the nutrients that it needs to sustain life. Her husband, from what I understand, attempted to remedy this situation, sadly he could not in time, she had a heart attack, and fell into a coma, that was 15 years go.
Today, her brain is literally just spinal fluid, which happens when it doesn't recieve any activity to a certain degree. Rather then allow her to suffer in this manner, her husband choose the most easy method of her death, removing a feeding tube.
Since she was sleeping, she did not really feel anything that may have been considered pain. She also helped speed this process along back in life while she was bulemic(sp).
I think she died the best way that is possible for someone in a coma like that.
A lethal injection is very expensive, and this was probably the most peaceful way to go. You may call it starvation, but she was sleeping (permantely) its like dying in your sleep but slower, and slower still then dying of asphixiation from not opening your garage door with the car running.
I just hope she is happy where she is at.
From Cyndanes description, this was the first thing I thought too.
and no, it wasn't murder, it was death by denial of treatment, which is legal. euthanasia is illegal.
terri suffered from bulimia:
bu·li·mi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lm-, -lm-, by-)
n.
An eating disorder, common especially among young women of normal or nearly normal weight, that is characterized by episodic binge eating and followed by feelings of guilt, depression, and self-condemnation. It is often associated with measures taken to prevent weight gain, such as self-induced vomiting, the use of laxatives, dieting, or fasting
and due to her bulimia, she had a condition called potassium imbalance:
If your potassium levels are too low (hypokalaemia), you may experience:
-Weakness and paralysis;
-Low blood pressure;
-Life threatening rapid, irregular heartbeat. This is more severe than with hyperkalaemia (potassium levels too high).
What causes hypokalaemia, (low potassium levels)?
-The use of diuretic drugs for hypertension or heart failure.
-Prolonged loss of body fluids from vomiting or diarrhoea.
-Chronic kidney disease ...
terri had a heart failure due to low potassium, caused by her bulimic attempts to rid her body of gorged food through vomiting, fasting, irregular diet, and inducing diarrhoea with laxatives. the heart failure led to her brain being deprived of oxygen for ~5 minutes, or enough time for them to shrivel and die. she has minimal brain functions, that allow her to breath on her own, and that's pretty much it.
i think someone in the previous terri thread posted a brainscan of her. a normal brainscan shows activity, in bright artificial colors showing high levels of activity. for normal persons, this is a cirlce of bright activity. terri's brain looks like an elastic band, with some levels of activity in the outer fringes of the circle, and a BIG DARK HOLE where brain activity should be. she was determined to be in a persistent vegetative state, meaning she has no more cognative powers than a vegetable, and will remain that way permanently, since brain cells, and other nerve cells of the body, do not regenerate. you are basically born with as much brain cells as you're ever gonna have, and if you lose them they are gone forever.
From Cyndanes description, this was the first thing I thought too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Why does this get more attention than the people who were <b>blown up</b>(not a very peaceful way to die) in the multitude of suicide bombings?
From Cyndanes description, this was the first thing I thought too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Why does this get more attention than the people who were <b>blown up</b>(not a very peaceful way to die) in the multitude of suicide bombings? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because her family was using the court to try to stop it feeding tube from being removed it was a whole right-wing agenda thingy.
Even I don't understand it.
Now for a dose of real life.
I had a younger brother. He contracted spinal meningitis, and within 2 weeks was dead. However, he was in a state where he would be a vegetable for his entire life. I remember my mother begging them to let him go, instead of letting him be imprisioned in the wasted husk that was his body. Sadly they didn't listen and he died, luckily, after 2 weeks when a fever of 110 degrees literally turned his brain into mush. I don't care if you are a ultra-christian saying that she shouldn't have been "Killed" or The other side saying she should've been put out of her misery sooner. If the super-christians truly valued humanity than they'd understand that peace and freedom from agony is more important than conveluded views.
It saddens me that people think that somehow they should be allowed to decide her fate. I know if I were in her state I would like to be put out of my misery.
and no, it wasn't murder, it was death by denial of treatment, which is legal. euthanasia is illegal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is the entire reason this is interesting in the first place. If it weren't a posterchild for an euthanasia debate, I doubt you'd see much Terri Schiavo on the news.
Anyway, euthanasia laws, while they usually need to be pretty elaborate and cumbersome to not have direct murder loopholes - do help preventing what is essentially just medically sanctioned torture.
I also find it significantly more likely that its rather egotistical emotional attachment that kept her family clinging to her life - essentially for their sake, not hers. Conspiracy theorys with Michael as the culprit of god knows what are silly - there was no way Terri would have ever gone beyond vegetating. Even if, in a wild science-fiction experiment, you were able to transplant or regrow a functional brain into her head - no memorys would remain.
The theory that she simply could not speak, but silently felt and thought and whatnot has also been mostly rebuked - in 15 or more years you have plenty of time to go take a peak at those brainwaves with whatever method you want. If as much as an occasional squirt of blood was flowing through an area capable of higher brain functions, we'd know.
So lay off the paranoia, kthx.
and no, it wasn't murder, it was death by denial of treatment, which is legal. euthanasia is illegal.
terri suffered from bulimia:
bu·li·mi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lm-, -lm-, by-)
n.
An eating disorder, common especially among young women of normal or nearly normal weight, that is characterized by episodic binge eating and followed by feelings of guilt, depression, and self-condemnation. It is often associated with measures taken to prevent weight gain, such as self-induced vomiting, the use of laxatives, dieting, or fasting
and due to her bulimia, she had a condition called potassium imbalance:
If your potassium levels are too low (hypokalaemia), you may experience:
-Weakness and paralysis;
-Low blood pressure;
-Life threatening rapid, irregular heartbeat. This is more severe than with hyperkalaemia (potassium levels too high).
What causes hypokalaemia, (low potassium levels)?
-The use of diuretic drugs for hypertension or heart failure.
-Prolonged loss of body fluids from vomiting or diarrhoea.
-Chronic kidney disease ...
terri had a heart failure due to low potassium, caused by her bulimic attempts to rid her body of gorged food through vomiting, fasting, irregular diet, and inducing diarrhoea with laxatives. the heart failure led to her brain being deprived of oxygen for ~5 minutes, or enough time for them to shrivel and die. she has minimal brain functions, that allow her to breath on her own, and that's pretty much it.
i think someone in the previous terri thread posted a brainscan of her. a normal brainscan shows activity, in bright artificial colors showing high levels of activity. for normal persons, this is a cirlce of bright activity. terri's brain looks like an elastic band, with some levels of activity in the outer fringes of the circle, and a BIG DARK HOLE where brain activity should be. she was determined to be in a persistent vegetative state, meaning she has no more cognative powers than a vegetable, and will remain that way permanently, since brain cells, and other nerve cells of the body, do not regenerate. you are basically born with as much brain cells as you're ever gonna have, and if you lose them they are gone forever. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't think she was plump.. unless those pictures of her on the web are grossly underweight of what she truly did weigh.
It is very possible to die of lack of nutrients in 13 days if you already have severe nutrient deficientcy.
From Cyndanes description, this was the first thing I thought too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a huge deal because the U.S has a much higher percentage of fundamentalist/catholic/whatever they're called Christians, who strongly believe that all life is sacred, and killing is against god (I have to question whether some of these people have ever swatted a fly or squished a spider in their entire lives).
That aside, it's all about religion, it really is. My god says don't kill her, my common sense says she's in pain and should be put out of her misery, as she clearly would have wanted it that way.
If you're going to try and say you're right and someone else is wrong in this debate you might as well try to prove or disprove the existance of god, because that's what this all boils down to.
This is why i'm a firm agnostic; I don't know if there's a god or not, but i'm pretty sure if there is he wouldn't give a damn whether we worship him or not, and would much rather we just tried to be nice to each other.
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos)</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.
<a href='http://nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf' target='_blank'>http://nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From Cyndanes description, this was the first thing I thought too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Why does this get more attention than the people who were <b>blown up</b>(not a very peaceful way to die) in the multitude of suicide bombings? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because her family was using the court to try to stop it feeding tube from being removed it was a whole right-wing agenda thingy.
Even I don't understand it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because a loving family not wanting to lose there daugher/sister is a right wing agenda.
The only reason it is getting all the media coverage is because the story has the elements that appeal to the day time audiance, A struggle between family and an in-law, and family and the state. All this with a life on the line. Its not about a right wing agenda, or diverting our attention. Its about ratings, just like the perterson case, the OJ case, Elian Gonzalus, and all the other cases blown out of proportion.
As for whether Schiavo should have lived or died, I don't really care either way. I just think starvation is the way to go, though it is the common practice with coma victim. The only real problem I have with the husband's actions is that he kicked the family out in her final moments. That is a d*** move.
From Cyndanes description, this was the first thing I thought too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah. Why does this get more attention than the people who were <b>blown up</b>(not a very peaceful way to die) in the multitude of suicide bombings? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because her family was using the court to try to stop it feeding tube from being removed it was a whole right-wing agenda thingy.
Even I don't understand it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes because a loving family not wanting to lose there daugher/sister is a right wing agenda.
The only reason it is getting all the media coverage is because the story has the elements that appeal to the day time audiance, A struggle between family and an in-law, and family and the state. All this with a life on the line. Its not about a right wing agenda, or diverting our attention. Its about ratings, just like the perterson case, the OJ case, Elian Gonzalus, and all the other cases blown out of proportion.
As for whether Schiavo should have lived or died, I don't really care either way. I just think starvation is the way to go, though it is the common practice with coma victim. The only real problem I have with the husband's actions is that he kicked the family out in her final moments. That is a d*** move. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you love a family member you don't want them to suffer. I know first hand.
However, I don't think someone can decide for you. A lot of states have (I believe) a way to euthanize someone only if a number of relatives and some doctors think it be better. I actually think the dying himself should decide, but only under supervision. Suicide/schizophrenia and other mentally deranged should be helped instead of just killed.
It should be a long procedure, not just random killing to appease. It should be allowed, because I'd rather die than agonize. Though it should be controlled because I'd like to thank my doctor to save my life when I thought I'd never make out of it alive.
Yes because a loving family not wanting to lose there daugher/sister is a right wing agenda.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not nessesarily, but so many people in the country (in the medical community specifically) trying to give them the false hope that her daughter could somehow recover is. Not that her parents are blameless, they testified in court that even if terry had told them that she wanted to die if in a vegitative state that they still wouldn't let her.
<!--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 only reason it is getting all the media coverage is because the story has the elements that appeal to the day time audiance, A struggle between family and an in-law, and family and the state. All this with a life on the line. Its not about a right wing agenda, or diverting our attention. Its about ratings, just like the perterson case, the OJ case, Elian Gonzalus, and all the other cases blown out of proportion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason the story is even considered to be a struggle is due to "right-to-life" (what a flipping crock) propoganda. The fact that terri wanted to die in this situation is proven sufficiently in a court of law. The fact that she is in a vegitative state is proven in a court of law. The fact that her husband is looking out for her best interest is proven in a court of law (the case against him was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE!). Only right wing (specifically "right-to-life" bs) propoganda says otherwise.
Which is exactly why I said it was a right-wing agenda. :-)
Thank you skulkbait.
My spider sense has been tingling for weeks telling me there is a much larger story hiding somewhere in Florida and we aren't hearing it. There is 15 years of legal mess and all I keep hearing is "Terri's husband sleeps with another woman" and "she blinks and groans at me which means she wants the US Congress to write new laws that force the Supreme Court to force the doctors to put the feeding tube back in" (that's right, "ugh ugh" <blink blink> means all that).
Medias are asking questions to which the answers are all conjecture rather than researching facts.
Also, Skulkbait quoting Apos quoting National Review means the Earth is now spinning in the opposite direction. Prepare yourselves for the quakes and hellfires because the end is near for certain.
That's all I got right now.
(I originally just had the 'RIP', but it just looked kind of cold)
<a href='http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4374' target='_blank'>ONE</a>
<a href='http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4373' target='_blank'>TWO</a>
But lets say that she was killed, for the sake of argument. So what? If common law says this isn't allowed then the common law needs to be changed in my opinion. It is my opinion that if a person wants to be killed, then they should be alowed to be killed, and their killer allowed to kill them. I see no reason why that right should be restricted.
As for the first one: if you read the document I linked earlier (that apos linked in the other thread) you see that the two physitians her parents selected presented anecdotal evidence for her possibility of recovery, as opposed to the other three who presented factual evidence and resoning for their diagnosis. These were doctors that had examined terri for some period of time. Did the doctor writing this article do the same? Does this doctor even have any experience with PVS?
Also pepe, these don't reflect your opinion at all. I know this because of the way you've handeled yourself in this thread and the other. You have no regard for the facts whatsoever, you are despirately seeking evidence that terri could recover, or that Michael didn't have her best interest at heart (a joke if you've read the GAL) to support a personal belief that euthenasia is wrong.
But lets say that she was killed, for the sake of argument. So what? If common law says this isn't allowed then the common law needs to be changed in my opinion. It is my opinion that if a person wants to be killed, then they should be alowed to be killed, and their killer allowed to kill them. I see no reason why that right should be restricted.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no no no, wanting to be killed should be a crime, because you're ending your life prematurely and unaturally. letting yourself die by refusing treatment should be allowed because you're just refusing to have your life prolonged by artificial means.
the only circumstance i would support euthanasia is if your buddy was wounded in battle and his guts are laying halfway between him and across the street, and you just deliver the coup de grace to end his suffering, since there is no medical attention available within a reasonable time period. if you're just bedridden in a hospital, you can have painkillers like morhpine to reduce your suffering, and just refuse other medical attention.
But lets say that she was killed, for the sake of argument. So what? If common law says this isn't allowed then the common law needs to be changed in my opinion. It is my opinion that if a person wants to be killed, then they should be alowed to be killed, and their killer allowed to kill them. I see no reason why that right should be restricted.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no no no, wanting to be killed should be a crime, because you're ending your life prematurely and unaturally. letting yourself die by refusing treatment should be allowed because you're just refusing to have your life prolonged by artificial means.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree completely. I see no reason why someone who chooses to be killed should have that choice restricted. None whatsoever. But thats a topic for annother thread I suppose.
However my view on the whole thing is, well. Her wishes, lets respect them. Besides, if Michael really loved her (Which I'm assuming he does.) He'd be willing to go to prison because he was helping his wife. Besides, he could have just smothered her while she "slept" and if he loved her he would have killed her anyway regardless of the consequences.
Also while reading this topic Silent Hill 2 comes to mind. Because this was one of the situations addressed in it. (In fact IIRC Theres an interesting period of speech near the end when James says why he killed Mary)
Now I'm not saying it was right or wrong but its over. Shes dead like a load of other people around the world. If you hadn't known about it would you still be as concerned? Probably not. Fact is, this happens all the time everywhere. Yet this one was publicised.
Its time to move on. Seriously, shes dead nothing you do or say will bring her back.
And I apologise if that sounded cold and slightly callous but its how I feel about this whole thing. Theres no need for a woman regardless of medical condition to be regarded as a freakshow for consumption by the masses. Let the famillys sort it out between them.
Also, I wonder how people would act if it was their mother/father/son/daughter/husband/wife/etc/etc
That article wasn't written by the National Review: they just hosted it. It's the report of the indepedant guardian assigned by Jeb Bush to investigate the relevant issues.
<!--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-->If we allow the terminally ill or severely disabled to consent to the ultimate crime, murder, then wouldn't it also be reasonable to allow them to consent to a lesser crime? Suppose that a woman had a living will which stated if she were ever brain dead, she would want her body to be sent to a nearby prison where she could be beaten, raped, and subjected to the wildest desires of the inmates. Since she would be brain dead and could feel no pain, this would be a final way for her to provide some satisfaction to some of our less fortunate members of society. Should this utilitarian disposition of a human body be legal?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
....
Comparing a woman giving her braindead body up for the sexual pleasure of prisoners, to a woman who would rather not live for 14+ years as a vegetable and just wants it to end....I can't even think of anything polite to say about that.
On a side note, my sympathies to you Commie. I don't know how long ago you lost your brother, but I'm certain it couldn't have been pleasant feeling the media rip those emotional scars open again.