crap - can't find peace with starving Terri Schavio.

[whiskeytown]

let me preface this by simply saying....[censored] [censored] hell goddamn it all and back again.

ok...now on to the red meat.

I'm pro-life - I don't believe in Republicans anymore - they're corporate whores and crony politicians, but I am against the death penalty, and I am morally opposed to abortion. (though I think the best way to decrease abortions is to let kids know about safe sex, which the religious right disallows, of course) Francais Schaffer once talked about the slippery slope that euthanasia can become as well. We condemn old people to nursing homes already against their will, and if euthanasia becomes law, the same pressures will be inflicted on the aged to "ease the burden of their family by moving on out of sight and mind"

When the Bushies/Religious Right came out demanding Terri's feeding tube be put back in, I treated it with the healthy dose of bullshit it deserves. Hypocrites. Liars. Bullshitters. - And fortunately, it seems like they overstepped their bounds and it'll backfire on their ass.

But Al Sharpton made a good point arguing with Republicans. How come they want to err on the side of life here, but not in cases like the death penalty? -

This isn't about living wills (if you want one, go for it - she doesn't have one) - It's obvious the husband has moved on at this point - the parents haven't. - Why he didn't just divorce her and let the parents have her is beyond my understanding, but it is irrelevant to this stance.

but something in me is just saying "nope...shouldn't be starving her to death" - and esp. if she could be spoon-fed, which it sounds like is possible. A stance on the sanctity of life should be across the board as much as possible - including in matters of war, death penalty, the unborn, and those too weak to keep living unassisted.

We do not make dependance on others a condition for life. We don't do it with the newly born, who are as helpless as Terri for several months, and we can't morally do it here.

Will she ever rehabilitate? - Nah...probably not. Will my moral stance with the Republicans who use her as a political tool be repaid with a revised look at the death penalty? - Nope.... - Am I scared that if I am in this condition, idiots will consider it their God Given right to keep me stuck on this miserable ball with people like them for 20 more years? - Yah, not happy about that.

Is it what she wants? - I don't know. Like I say, a living will is one thing....hearsay is another.

But I can't take a pro life stance on so many things and not here. We're not talking about assisted breathing, or heart beats - just the strength to put food in her body. Hell, if she's a veggie, it won't matter if she's around for 20 more yrs. anyways... we waste a lot of other stuff on healthcare.

So, it is with great thought that I have to disagree with what's happening in Florida. I can't change it, and only God knows what the outcome will be, but I have to believe in the sanctity of life across the board, and not just when it's politically expedient or when it is a stance a political party agrees with.

Having said that.... [censored] the Republicans to hell for using her as a pawn to get more votes. - assholes.

but I gotta side with life on this one. Took me a few days to come to that conclusion, but that's the way it goes.

RB

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Why he didn't just divorce her and let the parents have her is beyond my understanding, but it is irrelevant to this stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are only two somewhat rational reasons
1) he believes he is carrying out her wishes
2) he was in it for the money, now because the money is gone he is doing it to save face.

[BCPVP]

I'm a little confused. You don't like what's being done to Terri, yet you blast those that are attempting to do something about it? Some very well might have ulterior motives, but I doubt that all or even most do.

[ QUOTE ]
But Al Sharpton made a good point arguing with Republicans. How come they want to err on the side of life here, but not in cases like the death penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]
There's already a thread about this but I'll quickly post my answer. Terri is innocent. People on death row are beyond a reasonable doubt guilty. We have erred on the side of life by providing death row convicts with a trial by 12, a sentencing hearing, decades of appeals, and groups designed to release innocent inmates. Terri's recieved no such treatment and she hasn't even been accused of a crime worthy of the DP.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't about living wills (if you want one, go for it - she doesn't have one)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say this is a fairly important part, at least within the confines of what Terri would have wanted. The person making the decision as to what Terri would have wanted is her husband in name only. He has another "wife" and has fathered kids with her. Can we be sure that he really does have her interests at heart? Then there's testimony by many that say this either isn't what Terri would have wanted or that they've heard Michael say he didn't know what she would have wanted.

[ QUOTE ]
Why he didn't just divorce her and let the parents have her is beyond my understanding, but it is irrelevant to this stance.

[/ QUOTE ]
He might then be guilty of perjury if he backs off of his claim that this is what Terri would have wanted.

[ QUOTE ]
Will she ever rehabilitate? - Nah...probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Maybe not. But there have been physicians who've signed affidavits that have said she could benefit from rehabilition therapy. And she has been refused any form of what the husband considers therapy. That's just adds to the suspiciousness of it all. I find it hard to side with those that think she's in a PVS when there have been physicians on record saying she's not.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that.... [censored] the Republicans to hell for using her as a pawn to get more votes. - assholes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, having said that, what do you believe Republicans, who feel the same way you do, should have done?

[dr_venkman]

By and large, the world around us is decidedly not pro-life. Certainly no more than it is pro-death. It has adapted an equilibrium. Can you imagine the world if there was a God who was pro-life? Nothing would ever die. In ten years there would be billions of every species covering every inch of land.

To emphasize one over the other is throw the balance of nature off.

When a life ceases to be productive in it's living state, or lose the capacity to be so, then death should follow. It is the way of things. We live, then we die. All things follow this pattern.

Does anyone go around propping dying trees up, or performing CPR on roadkill? We seem to have no problem accepting their deaths as natural course.

What is the real question here? Is life precious and must be saved at all costs, or human life?

If it's the latter then I think you're ego-tripping. But the mindset that humanity somehow exists outside the natural equilibrium of the world is a major collective problem, in my opinion.

PS:
I an not at peace with starving her either. She deserves to die much more mercifully than that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
When a life ceases to be productive in it's living state, or lose the capacity to be so, then death should follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define productive.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone go around propping dying trees up, or performing CPR on roadkill? We seem to have no problem accepting their deaths as natural course.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't really the case here. Terri Schiavo was not dying until she was deprived of food.

[ QUOTE ]
I an not at peace with starving her either. She deserves to die much more mercifully than that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree to an extent. If Terri must die, why must she die in a manner that would cause the utmost outrage if applied to death row inmates? What kind of topsy turvy world is that?

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Define productive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy. To compose, create, or bring out by intellectual or physical effort.

Stephen Hawking is a great example of someone incapable of producing any meaningful physical labor, but still produces great intellectual contributions.


[ QUOTE ]
This isn't really the case here. Terri Schiavo was not dying until she was deprived of food.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but she was dying about 60 seconds after her brain stopped getting oxygen. Then her brain died. The question now is... do you keep the body alive?

Well is it productive?

Right.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy. To compose, create, or bring out by intellectual or physical effort.

Stephen Hawking is a great example of someone incapable of producing any meaningful physical labor, but still produces great intellectual contributions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, now explain how an infant is productive under your definition. They aren't capable of any meaningful labor or intellectual contributions. Should they be "allowed" to die?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but she was dying about 60 seconds after her brain stopped getting oxygen. Then her brain died. The question now is... do you keep the body alive?

[/ QUOTE ]
She's not brain dead. If she were, she'd need a respirator to breathe. She does have severe brain damage, but does that mean we should off people with brain damage?

[andyfox]

Hard not to agree with Jessie Jackson here:

"I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips," he said. "This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes."

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]

She's not brain dead. If she were, she'd need a respirator to breathe. She does have severe brain damage, but does that mean we should off people with brain damage?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. The body of Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex, and therefore has no cognitive abilities. "She" cannot think, nor feel, and never will because brains do not just grow back.

"She" does have the part at the base of the brain that controls breathing, which is why "she" does not need a respirator. But "she" is no more alive than someone who has just shoots himself in the head.

There is a world of difference between "brain-damaged" and the state in which the breathing, dancing corpse of Terri Schiavo exists, controlled by the random electrical impulses of what's left of her brain. Even severely brain-damaged people retain cognition at some level; those without a cerebral cortex do not.

[MMMMMM]

But that determination is debatable; not all doctors are in agreement that she has ZERO feeling or cognition, or that she has ZERO cerebral cortex.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
but something in me is just saying "nope...shouldn't be starving her to death" - and esp. if she could be spoon-fed, which it sounds like is possible. A stance on the sanctity of life should be across the board as much as possible - including in matters of war, death penalty, the unborn, and those too weak to keep living unassisted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.


What is happening in FL is very unfortunate, just as what hppens in any Death Penalty case is unfortunate. The only (sort of) comfort that I can take here is that the system we have put inplace, including from those without a vested interest in the outcome have looked at the case and have agreed that the woman has no sentient life left.

Another really unfortunate aspect here is that the death is by starvation. We would not do that to a brain dead pet. Kevorkian's "death machine" is a far more humane (specially, in this case, for the living who are still feeling) way to die -- if die we (or she) must at this point. The death by starvation may or may not be agony for her, but it sure is for the living who are on this death watch.

[bernie]

I don't know the whole story on this, just the general gist. One thing about these situations where someone else is telling someone else to do something is the financial aspect of it. I don't know the financial part of this story, but there are many stories where people are destitute because they exhausted all finances on a lost cause.

I think if anyone (outsider) forces someone to 'stay alive', why not let them take over the financial responsibility of it?

Just another angle I've seen in other cases resembling this.

That said, I think there are better ways to euthanize than starvation. However, it may be more painful to watch and hear about than for her to actually go through it. She likely won't even know or feel anything that is happening because of her condition.

b

[vulturesrow]

AC,

What the hell is going on in this forum? I am in agreement with you, Whiskeytown, and Jesse JAckson!!

PS Coming to Virginia Beach any time soon so I can pummel you in person and then buy you a cold one ? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Whiskey,

Awesome post. And Im not just saying that because you did well articulating my own thoughts. I recently came to a similar conclusion in regards to the death penalty, Dead and I had a little debate which was strange as he was arguing for the death penalty and I against it. Still its been fairly recently that I have finally been able to settle on opposition to the death penalty. So kudos to you. Just dont be so quick to assign Republicans in general some sort of shady motive here, most people honestly feel she deserves to live and dont care about any other part of it.

[BCPVP]

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,hentoff,62489,6.html)
From the Village Voice, which definitely isn't a conservative mouthpiece. I believe the author is also a liberal, but I could be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Consistent with this CT scan her EEG (which measures the electrical activity generated from her brain) has been reported to be “flatline.” This does not mean she is “brain dead” (a provocative and medically useless term). She is clearly not “brain dead” because the “lower” regions of her brain that control her breathing and heart beat are definitely functioning.

...It is difficult for any physician to determine whether this poor woman is feeling any pain. The regions of the brain which are largely responsible for processing pain stimuli are approximately midway between the upper and lower brain regions and no type of brain scan or EEG can be helpful in determining her level of pain. Some physicians who have examined her have suggested that Terri Schiavo is in an “intermittently conscious” rather than a “persistently vegetative” state and that she shows signs of being intermittently in pain. Unfortunately, if there is any pain, then she likely has great difficulty in communicating to others that she is in pain/distress, which for all we know might be severe and excruciating.

[/ QUOTE ]
From an oncologist, Dr. Steve Collins (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_27_05_DSC.html)

When certified physicians are unsure of Terri's state, I find it remarkable that people here can be so sure...

[adios]

A new standard for the courts to deal with, individual productivity. If a person isn't "productive" they should die. Let's have laws delineating what constitutes productive life and what doesn't. For those that don't meet the standards of being productive the best course is to kill 'em. Then some idiot in another post wants to abolish the jury system in the U.S. Welcome to Nazi Germany.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
Terri is innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is this relevant? Nobody is seriously advocating that we punish her for some transgression, so her guilt or innocence is moot. IMO, there is not a vestige left of what was once Terri. Her brain is so badly damaged that it is accurate to say that Terri no longer exists.

Without a cerebral cortex, she is now nothing more than a cell culture. This is not a case of choosing life over death. Face the fact that Terri died many years ago.


GG

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, now explain how an infant is productive under your definition. They aren't capable of any meaningful labor or intellectual contributions. Should they be "allowed" to die?

[/ QUOTE ]


As I mentioned, to be productive, or have the CAPACITY to be so. Infants have the capacity, they just havn't realized it yet. Brain dead comatose woman who have spent the last 15 years in bed won't ever have the capacity. Now repeat after me: I WILL READ BEFORE I RESPOND.


[ QUOTE ]
A new standard for the courts to deal with, individual productivity. If a person isn't "productive" they should die. Let's have laws delineating what constitutes productive life and what doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay now you're missing the point because you're a bunch of tiny brained reptiles. When I said "death should follow", it does not mean a command. It means that when a "life" is over, death should follow. Not more meaningless life of detachment, isolation, and complete retardation of emotions, movement and thought.

And we already have laws like that... it's called common sense. Plenty of people have mercifully let their relatives go onto death when their bodies and minds are incapable of living life in any meaningful way. What do you think that prolonging the life of her body "gives her"?

The only excuses to keep Terry alive are selfish. She'll never communicate any of her thoughts and with that in mind knowing that she MIGHT be capable of thinking is a horrible concept. How would you like to be locked in a room alone with your thoughts forever, with no way of expressing them? Sounds like hell to me. Because as HUMANS, we NEED interaction. Being a spectator is not enough, it doesn't fulfill the need to share emotions.

Now I know all of you bleeding heart religious nuts think that a life of total inactivity and paralysis of the mind and body is worth saving but I don't. It's just a body and a heartbeat. Why not give that heart to someone who can actually use it?

Have you given thought to the hours, days, weeks, months and years Terry would spend alone in a hospital bed with no way to reach out to the world around her? She can't compose any poems, write a card or read anything. She can't get up and scream for help if she's lonely. She's going to be sentenced to a life of almost absolute seperation from everything around her. Why, she'll never even taste food again.

And you bastards want to keep her in her little prison. You Christians, you do-gooders carrying your crucifixes, you want to deny her the right to sit in heaven with Jesus surrounded by eternal grace.

It's no wonder this world is a horrible place to share with you monsters. You can't even play by your own rules.

[tolbiny]

"Terri is innocent"

This is a judement call- to believe in the "santity of life" only as it applies to people who act and behave in a way you agree with is total BS. To define ways in which a person no longer "Deserves" to live means that you don't believe in the sanctity of life, just your definition of who is derserving of life.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
ot all doctors are in agreement that she has ZERO feeling or cognition

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep insisting that there be 100% consensus from the doctors? We wouldn't require that in, for example, a criminal jury trial. Let's say there is a criminal trial and 100 experts say bullet x came from gun y. 1 expert says it didn't. We still allow a conviction. We still allow a conviction if there are an equal number of experts on both sides. We still allow a conviction if there are more experts who disagree. We do this because it is the fact finder's job to weigh the evidence. It is there job to determine which story is more credible. It isn't a question about number of experts.

Duelling experts is very common. It is the fact finder's job to determine who is right.

[MMMMMM]

I am just saying it is WRONG to assert there is no doubt in the matter.

[MMMMMM]

venkman,

She isn't "brain-dead", and she hasn't been comatose. No doctors have even claimed that. Instead, doctors have disputed whwether or not she is in PVS.

[ QUOTE ]
The only excuses to keep Terry alive are selfish. She'll never communicate any of her thoughts and with that in mind knowing that she MIGHT be capable of thinking is a horrible concept. How would you like to be locked in a room alone with your thoughts forever, with no way of expressing them? Sounds like hell to me. Because as HUMANS, we NEED interaction. Being a spectator is not enough, it doesn't fulfill the need to share emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, there are many anecdotal reports of her interacting with others, albeit on a low level. Some doctors have disputed these reports. Still we cannot know for sure that shge cannot or does not.

Secondly, I personally would much prefer to be alive in even the scenario you outline, than be dead.

Just goes to show that you can't accurately project your personal feelings onto another.

However at least I realize that I have no moral right to make a choice for others and consign them to death merely because I might not want to live if I were in their shoes. Simply put, if you cannot know if they would want to live or not under strange conditions, the only moral and ethical thing to do is to err on the side of life.

As for Michael Schiavo's testimony, note that FIRST he won an award of $700,000 to care for Terri for the rest of her life (plus $300,000 for himself for loss of companionship). AFTER he got the money, and AFTER he was living with another woman who for all intents and purposes became his new wife, he then "remembered" that Terri said she would not want to live in such a condition...so, he tried to have Terri put to death.

Wanna buy a Brooklyn Bridge? Cheap, too.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
you want to deny her the right to sit in heaven with Jesus surrounded by eternal grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

This prety accurately paraphrases my entire viewpoint on this topic.

Her parents, somewhat understandably, are unable to let go of Terri the body, the physical entity. 15 years later, this seems incredibly selfish, and almost to the point of self-delusion (if they actually believe "Aaaaah waaaaah" means "I want to live"). However, they also claim to be Catholics, and say that allowing her to die is violating her religious rights.

Well, plenty of people of the Catholic faith have allowed their loved ones to pass on to the Promised Land when it is clear that their earthly existence is over for all intents and purposes. The fact of the matter is, as many others have put it, that Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago. And when it gets down to it, it shouldn't be a political thing at all. Enough doctors have said that tests show no cerebral cortex = no feeling, awareness, etc. Keeping her "alive" in only the most technical definition of the term is not beneficial to anybody. Her parents need to come to grips with the fact that, sadly, their daughter is not coming back. Once this happens, maybe this whole idiotic fiasco can end.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I am just saying it is WRONG to assert there is no doubt in the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who is making that assertion? You are doing more than that, you are saying that because there might be some doubt then the decision should be reversed. That isn't the standard ANYWHERE in our system.

[dr_venkman]

MMMMMM,

[ QUOTE ]
if you cannot know if they would want to live or not under strange conditions,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well apparently we do know, but you just won't acknowledge it because you're still all bent out of shape because Terry married an [censored], and therefore he must be lying for his own gain.

If he said she didn't to live like this then I believe him.

Case closed, end of story, move on.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM,

[ QUOTE ]
if you cannot know if they would want to live or not under strange conditions,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well apparently we do know, but you just won't acknowledge it because you're still all bent out of shape because Terry married an [censored], and therefore he must be lying for his own gain.

If he said she didn't to live like this then I believe him.

Case closed, end of story, move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a little more than that. As her husband, technically Michael's her legal guardian, and as such, the decision is between him and the doctors. The parents, in their inability to let their all-but-officially dead child go, have turned this into the legal and media fiasco that it is today.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
AFTER he got the money, and AFTER he was living with another woman who for all intents and purposes became his new wife, he then "remembered" that Terri said she would not want to live in such a condition...

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the findings of the guardian ad litem. His take on Michael's change is much different than yours and makes so much more sense. His take on it is that in 1994 Michael finally began to accept that Theresa was gone. From 1990 - 1994 he held on to the belief that she could recover. After 4 years of fighting, he was able to finally come to the realization that the fight was lost. At that point he didn't "remember" the conversation, rather the conversation actually became relevant (it wouldn't be relevant prior to believing the fight was lost if there was a good faith belief in recovery.)

To me, this analysis of the facts makes so much more sense than the "Michael the murderer" scenario you suggest. A spouse fights and fights and fights, then one day realize that the fight has been lost and there is not chance for recovery. When they realize there is no chance for recovery, they know (based on prior conversations) that there spouse would not want to live in that state.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is making that assertion? You are doing more than that, you are saying that because there might be some doubt then the decision should be reversed. That isn't the standard ANYWHERE in our system.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" SHOULD be the standard in all capital cases, and Terri's case in effect is a capital case.

The sort of thinking that places the letter of the law above the spirit of the law generally causes me to lack much faith in process. We have countless bureaucratic-minded persons more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit of the law.

Allowing a judge to "find" things, on which someone's life hinges, without benefit of a jury trial, and without a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, is deplorable and UNJUST.

Do you care more about justice or about the letter of the law?

I think that system should be altered straightway and Terri should retroactively receive the benefit immediately.

[MMMMMM]

venkman,

I fear you have scant sense of real justice, and you'd believe a wolf in sheep's clothing if the judge suggested that he believed him too.

I acknowledge doubt on both sides, so my mind is open; whereas you think that the judge's original decision must be right, so your mind is closed.

[MMMMMM]

Elwood,

I think the take you describe is feasible too, perhaps even more likely. My point is that Terri's life should not be taken from her merely on the basis of "more likely".

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" SHOULD be the standard in all capital cases, and Terri's case in effect is a capital case.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a capital case (nor like one in any real way), but I'll assume it is for the rest of this post...


There is a WORLD of difference between Reasonable Doubt and All Doubt. You have assumed countless times that just counting experts means something. Just because an expert claims the counter doesn't mean that a reasonable doubt has been raised.


[ QUOTE ]
The sort of thinking that places the letter of the law above the spirit of the law generally causes me to lack much faith in process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The spirit of the florida law was to allow this exact situation to occur. The spirit of the law was to honor the marital relationship. The spirit of the law was to honor the wishes of the patient. The spirit of the law was to allow evidence other than a living will to express the interests of the patient (this is, in almost all cases, "hearsay")

[ QUOTE ]
Do you care more about justice or about the letter of the law?


[/ QUOTE ]

I care very much about both. There are times when the two do not co-exist. This is not one of them, in my opinion.

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
the judge's original decision must be right

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I feel that it should have never have gone to a judge in the first place. As I have laboriously said again and and again and again.

The decison rests with the legal guardian, M Schiavo.

DEAL WITH IT!

[tolbiny]

"No, I feel that it should have never have gone to a judge in the first place. As I have laboriously said again and and again and again.

The decison rests with the legal guardian, M Schiavo."

Schiavo was the one who choose to take this before the judge. From what i can gather he had made up his mind, but had reservations about it because of the way her parents felt. Not wanting to "kill" their daughter without giving them the oppotunity to express thier feelings he decided to put the matter in front of a judge.

[dr_venkman]

Putting it in front of a judge was a mistake. He clearly knew which path he wanted to take, and trying to assuage the grief of the parent's was indeed noble, but ultimately counterproductive.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The spirit of the florida law was to allow this exact situation to occur. The spirit of the law was to honor the marital relationship. The spirit of the law was to honor the wishes of the patient. The spirit of the law was to allow evidence other than a living will to express the interests of the patient (this is, in almost all cases, "hearsay")

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous to:

1) consider Michael Schiavo as a full spouse, when he had already essentially married someone else but for the legal papers.

Heck if I'm not now nistaken the girlfriend has become his common-law wife. So he has two wives now? Shouldn't he step aside and acknowledge that he is NOT, except on paper, Terri's husband? Give her guardiansahip to her true next-of-kin?

2) Michael Schiavo had conflicts of interest, both financial and living conflicts

3) received a financial award for the purpose of caring for Terri for the rest of her life, THEN after receiving the award, suddenly "remembered" that her wishes were to die. Why couldn't he have "remembered" that BEFORE being awarded control of Terri's $700,000, ostensibly "to care for her"? He had to remember it after he got the money??? Awfully convenient for him to say the least.

Also, there are reports he did not care for her very well; he denied her therapeutic treatments and did not let her teeth be properly cared for.

By the way, I think I misspoke earlier. I believe the standard of proof should be "beyond ANY doubt" in all capital cases; capital cases should bear a higher burden of proof than other cases. Yet even the normal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in capital cases was not met in Terri's case. Rather, the standard used was typical for civil cases, "a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and conincing evidence". But that should NOT be the standard when someone may lose their life, regardless of whatever the current law might have it. That law should be changed forthwith.

Finally, a judge got to decide all this. Not even a jury trial. What an abhorrent miscarriage of justice--in spirit, even if not in letter.

[MMMMMM]

Michael Schiavo's credibility is under severe doubt, and I find it rather amazing that you are not acknowledging this.

[tolbiny]

"Michael Schiavo's credibility is under severe doubt"

By whom? You apparently. The judges who have spent their lives studying and practicing law- and a court ordered arbitrator who you have no reason to believe is biased, have not voiced concerns after weighing the evidence.

[dr_venkman]

Credibility? What is he applying for a job as an airline pilot? The law here is pretty clear. If you don't like it I'm sure there are avenues open to you to voice your opinion to your local representative.

And at risk of offending you, his lack of credibility is in your imagination. He's not a convicted felon, he's not mentally incapacitated, he's not under indictment for any crimes. There aren't witnesses who have evidence, anecdotes, legal precedents or sob stories to support any other status other than his as Terry Schiavo's legal guardian.

I'm amazed that you're still stuck on this point. The system is working as designed. You might not like the man, but there's not a shred of proof to deny him his legal rights.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Heck if I'm not now nistaken the girlfriend has become his common-law wife

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken.

[MMMMMM]

Many others, not just I, feel that this is a gross miscarriage of justice. Among them are: President Bush, Jesse Jackson, and Ralph Nader, to name just a few.

The judges in this case are strong right-to-die advocates--as is the doctor Michael chose for Terri. One might even call them fanatics of a sort.

Anyway, there is much public information regarding Michael Schiavo which should cause anyone to at least DOUBT that he has Terri's best interests in mind. Aside from the money matters which look awfully peculiar (Michael only remembered Terri's wishes to die AFTER receiving a lot of money for her care), there are things like the following.

Here's a sampling:

(excerpt)Among the neglect and abuse complaints of the Schindlers is that Michael Schiavo:

* Has not allowed therapy or rehabilitation since late 1992, despite medical records indicating Terri is responsive.

* Has prevented swallowing tests or swallowing therapy since 1993, despite medical testimony Terri can be taught to eat.

* Ordered caretakers not to clean Terri's teeth since 1995, resulting in removal of five teeth in April 2004.

* Placed Terri in hospice in 2000, despite the fact she is not terminally ill.

* Refuses to allow Terri to leave her room. She has not been outside since 2000.

* Has refused to fix her wheelchair since 2000.

* Refuses to allow Terri to practice her Catholic faith by attending weekly mass.

* Ordered Terri's shades down at all times.

* Ordered doctors not to treat Terri when she had a life threatening infection in 1993 and 1995.

* Removes family pictures from Terri's room, denies flowers from family and friends, denies certain CDs to be played for Terri, and refuses to allow her to listen to music with headphones.

* Refuses to release medical information to her parents since 1993, despite a court order requiring him to do so.

* Has limited the visitors list, requiring they must first be approved by him and removes visitors at his own discretion. Schiavo removed the Schindlers from the visitors list a total of eight months between 2001 and 2004.

* Denies all requests for Terri to attend nursing home functions and refuses to allow therapeutic animals to visit with her, knowing that she is an animal lover.

...Another component of the Schindlers' contention of Schiavo's conflict of interest as Terri's guardian is medical evidence suggesting Terri may have been the victim of physical abuse. The report of a total-body bone scan done on Terri Schiavo while she was in a rehabilitation facility in March 1991 – 13 months after her collapse – describes what are known as "hot spots" suggestive of multiple fractures in her ribs, first lumbar vertebra, several thoracic vertebrae, both sacroiliac joints, and both knees and ankles, all deemed "presumably traumatic."

The report states, "the patient has a history of trauma" and "the presumption is that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity ["hot spots"] also relate to previous trauma." It speculates an alternative explanation to trauma would be "neoplastic bone disease."

Unnamed physicians who reviewed the report at the request of Anderson concluded Terri was the victim of severe physical abuse. They noted the presence of "heterotrophic ossification," or bone matter formed around the fractures, suggesting the fractures were not fresh. One physician commented: "Somebody worked her over real good."

Felos called the report, and its associated allegations of abuse "garbage." Citing medical records, he told WND the ossification was due to osteoporosis, which he said could be explained by the combination of Terri's paralysis and the anti-seizure medication she was given.

Felos also said a follow-up X-ray done to verify the cause of the "hot spots" showed "degenerative bone disease, not multiple fractures ... and only showed a minor fracture in the femur."

Medical records show Terri has never been evaluated or treated by an orthopedic surgeon for the injuries revealed in the bone scan, which the Schindlers believe may have a profound bearing on her current medical condition. Greer rejected the Schindlers' motion to investigate the matter, echoing Felos' position the bone-scan report was "irrelevant."

"A possible 'minor' compression fraction of the femur occurring over twelve years ago has no relevance to the issue now before this court," Felos argued in his counter motion.

Terri's mysterious collapse

To the Schindlers, the bone scan speaks to their long-held suspicions over the cause of Terri's mysterious collapse in 1990.

After studying the bone scan, world-renowned forensic pathologist Michael Baden posed an explosive theory on Fox News Channel's "On the Record" hosted by Greta van Susteren. WorldNetDaily reported Baden, who is co-director of the Investigative Unit of New York State Police in Albany and former chief medical examiner for New York City, ruled out potassium imbalance and a heart attack as factors in Terri's mysterious collapse and pointed to head trauma and bone injuries as a more likely cause.

Neurologist Hammesfahr testified in the 2002 evidentiary hearing that Terri was admitted to the hospital after her collapse with a "suspiciously rigid neck" and that he'd only seen "this peculiar constellation of injuries," referencing her rigid neck and cardiac arrest, in a case of attempted strangulation.

In testimony given during the 2000 trial, Terri's girlfriend and co-worker, Jackie Rhodes, said Terri had discussed getting a divorce and moving in with her. She testified the couple had a violent argument on the day of Terri's collapse, which prompted her to urge Terri to not stay at home that night – a suggestion Terri disregarded.


Terri Schiavo pre-tragedy.

"There are only two people who know what happened the night that she collapsed. And one of them is trying to kill the other who is too disabled to speak," Anderson told WND. (end excerpt)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463


(excerpt) The key issue is consent. If it were clear that Terri Schiavo truly wanted to perish, her right to die should be inviolable, in my opinion. But absent consent, an individual's right to die swiftly devolves into another person's right to kill.

The notion that Terri's slow dehydration and starvation are what she wants rests on hearsay evidence, at best.

"She never expressed anything like that to our family or friends," Terri's mother said last May. "The only people who heard that were her husband, and his brother, and sister-in-law."

"First of all, it was a series of casual remarks that her husband and her husband's siblings alleged they heard — so they are parties and interested," attorney, consumer activist, and Green-party presidential nominee Ralph Nader recently said. "We have no way of knowing that she wants this done at all, or might have changed her mind from the position that she may — or may not — have articulated as a young woman."

Nader adds: "It's one thing to have consent when the patient is overwhelmed with ventilators, and dialysis, and heart pumps, but it's quite another when there are non-heroic ministrations — in this case simply a feeding and water tube — and not having explicit consent or even credible consent — in ending her life."

Nader calls this situation "court-imposed homicide." He continues: "There are police in her room 24 hours a day, and if her mother would come and dab her parched lips with a moist sponge, her mother would be arrested and taken away. That's how barbaric the local scene has become. And that introduces a coarseness throughout our society that is totally preventable, uncalled for, and inappropriate under the rule of law."

Second, it is a travesty that Michael Schiavo remains Terri's guardian. Unlike, say, Nancy Reagan who faithfully and lovingly stood beside Ronald Reagan as he plunged deeper into the abyss of Alzheimer's Syndrome before dying last June 5, Michael Schiavo found another woman. He adulterously moved in and fathered two children with her. He now is in a common-law marriage with her. In essense, he's a bigamist. This is a four-alarm conflict of interest. Schiavo should have lost his legal standing in this case the second his common-law marriage commenced.

Despite his wedding vows to stay with Terri "in sickness and in health," as couples routinely promise, it is not shocking that he eventually grew lonely and sought the companionship of another able-bodied human being. What is unforgivable is that Michael Schiavo did not release his grip on Terri's life and let her parents assume her care, something for which they have begged for over a decade.

Third, this raises the question of why Michael Schiavo so vigorously insists on putting his wife down like a dog at the pound. He claims, of course, that this is what she wants. His detractors suspect, however, that he may bear at least some responsibility for her current condition. Perhaps to dispel those thoughts, Mr. Schiavo agreed Monday to allow an autopsy on Terri whenever she passes away.

Terri Schiavo's friends lately have detailed what they call Michael Schiavo's abuse of her while they lived together. The day before the February 25, 1990, collapse that prompted her present state, one friend recalls speaking with what she described as a very worried Terri who, in turn, became terrified when Michael exploded after she spent $80 on hair treatment.

In a September 2003 deposition, Carla Iyer, one of Terri's nurses, claims she heard Michael Schiavo ask: "Can't you do anything to accelerate her death?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" After Terri's health waned, Iyer said that he exclaimed, "I'm going to be rich!" then discussed plans to buy a car, boat, and a European vacation with a trust fund dedicated to her medical care. Much of that money never went to Terri's care. Denied proper dental attention by Michael, for instance, she has had to have several decayed teeth extracted.

Then there is the troubling matter of a bone scan Dr. W. Campbell Walker conducted on Terri on March 5, 1991. Dr. Michael Baden, former New York City medical examiner, reviewed it and discussed it with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Sustern on October 24, 2003. As Dr. Baden said, "the bone scan describes her having a head injury...and head injury can lead to the 'vegetative state' that Mrs. Schiavo is in now." The 1991 scan "does show evidence that there are other injuries, other bone fractures that are in a healing stage [in 1991]." Baden believed those wounds could have resulted from "some kind of trauma. The trauma could be from an auto accident, the trauma could be from a fall, or the trauma could be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere." He added: "It's something that should have been investigated in 1991."

"This whole claim that Michael somehow abused Terri is totally false," Mr. Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, said last May. "It was considered by the court at a hearing and rejected."

So who tells the truth here? If federal judges had obeyed the law Congress passed and President Bush signed on March 21, a de novo review might have explored these allegations, as well as medical questions, such as the fact that Terri never was given an MRI and has not been re-diagnosed with modern equipment. (Michael Schiavo repeatedly has blocked this, too). Instead, in an institutional Bronx cheer, federal courts from Tampa to Washington, D.C. defied the explicit intent of the legislative and executive branches, refused to examine these matters, and green-lighted Terri's ongoing starvation.(end excerpt)

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503300801.asp

[MMMMMM]

So you'd rather pick on a minor detail than answer the bulk of the post.

[elwoodblues]

No, I chose to correct something you have been saying over and over again as if it were the truth.

[adios]

If your referring to the Guardian Ad Litem, that person is not a court appointed arbitrator. The Guardian Ad Litem was a court appointed attorney that was tasked with representing the interests of Terri Schiavo in Court. Making that person even more credible in my mind than an arbitrator. Terri had three Guardian Ad Litem's during the course of the legal proceedings. In all fairness, Guardian Ad Litem number 2 did point to Michael's conflicts of interest as being problematic as documented in Guardian Ad Litem number 3's report.

[elwoodblues]

To respond to the substance of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
1) consider Michael Schiavo as a full spouse, when he had already essentially married someone else but for the legal papers

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said before, I don't want the government judging the quality of marriages.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Michael Schiavo had conflicts of interest, both financial and living conflicts

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said before (a point to which you have never responded) EVERY spouse would have financial conflicts.

[ QUOTE ]
3) received a financial award for the purpose of caring for Terri for the rest of her life, THEN after receiving the award, suddenly "remembered" that her wishes were to die. Why couldn't he have "remembered" that BEFORE being awarded control of Terri's $700,000, ostensibly "to care for her"? He had to remember it after he got the money??? Awfully convenient for him to say the least.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said before, the more likely story is the one held by the guardian ad litem appointed by Bush.

[ QUOTE ]
believe the standard of proof should be "beyond ANY doubt" in all capital cases

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against the death penalty in principle, but a standard of beyond any doubt is an unworkable one. For example, assume that every doctor in the world say she is in a PVS and one say no. There's your doubt.

10,000 people heard her express her will to die, 1 says "no, I believe she wanted to live." There's your doubt.


[ QUOTE ]
Finally, a judge got to decide all this. Not even a jury trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if the legislature decided that or if the parties did. Either way, judges are competent fact finders.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said before, I don't want the government judging the quality of marriages.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nor do I, in a general sense, but the quality of their marriage is relevant in this particular case, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said before (a point to which you have never responded) EVERY spouse would have financial conflicts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you can see why Michael might have more of a conflict than most spouses...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm against the death penalty in principle, but a standard of beyond any doubt is an unworkable one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this statement, but I disagree that it has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) Terri said she wanted this and 2) she is in PVS. It's not like there's only one quack docter saying she's not in PVS...

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, judges are competent fact finders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you could explain why all cases, criminal or civil aren't determined by a judge?

[MMMMMM]

OK let's not waste time arguing in this thread about whether the standard should be raised to "beyond any doubt" in capital murder cases, since that was an ancillary point anyway.

The main point was that the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" should at least be the minimum standard in capital cases whether criminal or civil. Terri's case was decided initially by the lower standards typically used in civil cases. I'm saying that is morally insufficient in capital cases; therefore the standard should be raised to at least the minimum of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil cases IF SOMEONE'S LIFE HANGS IN THE BALANCE.

The idea of allowing a judge such power as sole arbiter of life and death, and moreover only requiring him to use a "preponderance of the evidence" as standard, instead of "beyond a reasobale doubt", is both repugnant and dangerous--and unjust as well, as this case should show.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, judges are competent fact finders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily competent enough when someone's life hangs in the balance. You wouldn't want a capital murder case decided by one judge/no jury, would you? And he doesn't even need to meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" before imposing the death sentence? So why should an innocent life be given such laughably weak protection then? It simply shouldn't be so: the law should be changed posthaste to protect innocent life.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is making that assertion? You are doing more than that, you are saying that because there might be some doubt then the decision should be reversed. That isn't the standard ANYWHERE in our system.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" SHOULD be the standard in all capital cases, and Terri's case in effect is a capital case.

The sort of thinking that places the letter of the law above the spirit of the law generally causes me to lack much faith in process. We have countless bureaucratic-minded persons more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit of the law.

Allowing a judge to "find" things, on which someone's life hinges, without benefit of a jury trial, and without a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, is deplorable and UNJUST.

Do you care more about justice or about the letter of the law?

I think that system should be altered straightway and Terri should retroactively receive the benefit immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, MMMMMM...just post links to your old posts. You really don't say anything new.

"Err on the side of life"...check
"Beyond reasonable doubt"...check
Michael/conflict of interest...check
Ex Post Facto law...check.

Yep, got all of 'em.

Oh...what would you have the law say?