Terry Shiavo Back in the News...

[Zygote]

article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy.ap/index.html)

Read and discuss.

Does this change anyone's opinion?
Does anyone who claimed she had a chance of recovery feel differently about how they believed the situation should've been handled?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this change anyone's opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

About what? Whether or not the process that determined her feeding tube should be disconnected was fair? Whether or not pulling the feeding tube, thus starving her to death, was a humanitarian gesture? Whether or not there was clear and convincing evidence that Terry would rather have the feeding tube disconnected than live in a permantly vegatative state i.e. Terry had more or less made a "living will" verbally to this effect? Whether or not the law in Florida is a "good" law? Whether or not the law passed by the House was an appropriate excercise in Congressional authority? Whether or not the Court rulings on this law were appropriate? This story seems to have little to no relevance to any of these issues which were the main issues IMO.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the process that determined her feeding tube should be disconnected was fair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, many people advocated that the courts were neglecting the Shindler's "credible" opposing medical opinions that suggested that Terry was not in a vegetative state and that she did have a reasnoble chance of recovery.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not pulling the feeding tube, thus starving her to death, was a humanitarian gesture?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people advocated that she was conscious and would suffer if they starved her.



[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the law passed by the House was an appropriate excercise in Congressional authority? Whether or not the Court rulings on this law were appropriate?


[/ QUOTE ]

We have already had more than enough debate on these issues.

[adios]

I'm just pointing out that the article is irrelevant to the main issues in the situation and thus are unlikely to change anyone's viewpoint. Even if someone who had faith in the almighty wouldn't be dissuaded IMO since presumably the almighty is capable of performing "miracles."

[kurto]

I think there's some relevence to this. If I remember it correctly, most doctors said she was a vegetable. This shows that they were right. I think its good to know this so that one can question the credibility (and motives) of the people who contested this. (I know this isn't the central issues... but it is nevertheless, useful information.)

I think there is value in determining whether a person in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery should be kept alive. When we value life, what do we mean? Are functioning organs without a brain/personality... 'life' that we value. (We don't think of the sanctity of life when we discuss 'ferns' or 'chinchillas'.... at what point does a person change?)

IMO- the person is dead. They are no longer 'that person.'

[MMMMMM]

To me, the primary issue wasn't whether she could recover or not. We don't kill paraplegics who can't recover, after all. So the article does not change my mind much one way or the other.

There was the question of whether she had some form of minimal consciousness. Maybe the autopsy answers that question and maybe it doesn't: I don't know.

Also as Adios pointed out the article does nothing to answer legal questions or whether life should be able to be taken on lesser standards than proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or that those would have been her wishes as her husband claimed). And I don;t see much point in rehashing all that here.

[Felix_Nietsche]

A lot of outlandish claims were being made that Terry was responding to visual stimuli (she was blind), that with therapy she could recover(brain shrank to half its size), that she would suffer if the tube was removed, etc...

When I heard the results of the autopsy it gross me out of how badly her body/brain had deteriated. The autopsy showed Terry Schiavo has been LONG GONE and all that is left of her is an empty shell that deficates and urinates. I don't think you can call a person a human if they can no longer think or feel. I think medical science went way to far to prolong the life of the empty shell that some people called Terry Schiavo.

The parents of TS are disputing the results of the autopsy. I feel badly for them but they need to face facts their daughter died YEARS AGO...

It must have cost a million dollars to have prelonged the life of her shell for all these years. Life is for the living and is was a mistake to have let her shell live this long.

[kurto]

I agree.

The sad thing is the parents are only prolonging their own grief. I know this sounds rude but I want to slap some sense into them.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The parents of TS are disputing the results of the autopsy. I feel badly for them but they need to face facts their daughter died YEARS AGO...

It must have cost a million dollars to have prelonged the life of her shell for all these years. Life is for the living and is was a mistake to have let her shell live this long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response was dead-on felix (no pun intended). I completly aggree.

[TomCollins]

At least she still had half a brain, more than her family has combined.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
LARGO, Florida (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15/schiavo.autopsy.ap/index.html)) -- June 15, 2005 An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused

[/ QUOTE ]

Various conservative or self-described as "pro-life" posters had gotten all hot and indignant at the time.

They were accusing the husband of having abused her, of being a no-good S.O.B., a media-attention seeker and other niceties. They were arguing that Terri Schiavo was not brain dead - the autopsy proved she was even worse than that, she was also blind. Posters were starting new threads with proclamations to the tune of "Terri moved" or "Terri blinked"! We now know that these were mere neurological responses akin to a headless chicken's spasms.

Other posters took the standard conservative line of making this a life-or-death issue. Their president repeatedly made a fool of himself by his opportunistic statements as did several GOPsters from Congress. (Then, upon reading the polls that showed that Americans overwhelmingly resented this heavy handed intrusion of government into a private affair, they all turned tail and dropped the issue altogether. Yes, boys and girls, it's called principles and those people don't have 'em.)


[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (MSN (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/7235267/)) - March 19, 2005 Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a renowned heart surgeon before becoming Senate majority leader, went to the floor late Thursday night for the second time in 12 hours to argue that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state."

<font color="white">. </font>

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, not just congressmen but smart posters (with IQ over 171 !) went all agog at the spectacle of a vicious husband supposedly torturing his wife for fifteen years and then killing her. "The bastard" was the kindest of words used.

And after all this excitement and foolishness, you seriously expect people to learn something, to take into account the latest, incontroverible evidence of the autopsy, to f?cking change their minds??

What are you, some kind of nut? This is the Politics Forum. We play by the MMMMMM rules. Eternal spring-break mentality.

[Cyrus]

. . . More hopeful news (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/patriotact.libraries.ap/index.html)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, not just congressmen but smart posters (with IQ over 171 !) went all agog at the spectacle of a vicious husband supposedly torturing his wife for fifteen years and then killing her. "The bastard" was the kindest of words used.

And after all this excitement and foolishness, you seriously expect people to learn something, to take into account the latest, incontroverible evidence of the autopsy, to f?cking change their minds??

What are you, some kind of nut? This is the Politics Forum. We play by the MMMMMM rules. Eternal spring-break mentality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent job, Cyrus, of twisting words and meanings again.

My point all along was that there were doubts. I never claimed as fact that the husband deliberately was acting against her best interests. There were doubts on many fronts, including his motives, Terri's wishes, and even her condition (according to some doctors).

But go right ahead and mis-portray my serious doubts and concerns as beliefs (which they were not). I did not believe Terri's husband necessarily acted evilly (though I thought there was reason to be highly suspicious); I did not believe she yet had some minimal consciousness, though some doctors said she might: I just was very unsure, and thought she deserved the benefit of the doubt, since her life was at stake. I also thought the court standard of proof in such cases should be set higher than it was, since a life was at stake (it was the same standard as in mere civil cases, not nearly beyond a reasonable doubt).

Cyrus, I'm sure that you aren't misportraying my stance deliberately; you just don't remember very well or sort things out too clearly. Well that's par for the course it would seem: this sort of fogginess has become a familiar refrain. It does at times make for needlessly difficult threads and discussions, though.

[Daliman]

Gotta admit, Felix, I figured you for one of the blind-eye crew that would say she was still able to be rehabilitated, and that it was always about her right to life. Thank you for showing me that even among the most strident of opponents,(which I'm assuming you were; I don;t remember for sure), there can be admission of being wrong. If you never supported her "fight", then bravo for not being pigeonholed into issure stances based on your standard believed beliefs.

If only BGC, adios, MMMMMM and Jaxmike were so enlightened.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this change anyone's opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

About what? Whether or not the process that determined her feeding tube should be disconnected was fair? Whether or not pulling the feeding tube, thus starving her to death, was a humanitarian gesture? Whether or not there was clear and convincing evidence that Terry would rather have the feeding tube disconnected than live in a permantly vegatative state i.e. Terry had more or less made a "living will" verbally to this effect? Whether or not the law in Florida is a "good" law? Whether or not the law passed by the House was an appropriate excercise in Congressional authority? Whether or not the Court rulings on this law were appropriate? This story seems to have little to no relevance to any of these issues which were the main issues IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice you failed to mention whether or not Jeb Bush overstepped his bounds by blocking her tube removal.

Gee, how surprisingly hypocritical of you.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just pointing out that the article is irrelevant to the main issues in the situation and thus are unlikely to change anyone's viewpoint. Even if someone who had faith in the almighty wouldn't be dissuaded IMO since presumably the almighty is capable of performing "miracles."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because the article HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THE BS! Yet another case of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" from adios. You should really talk to Felix more.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the primary issue wasn't whether she could recover or not. We don't kill paraplegics who can't recover, after all. So the article does not change my mind much one way or the other.

There was the question of whether she had some form of minimal consciousness. Maybe the autopsy answers that question and maybe it doesn't: I don't know.

Also as Adios pointed out the article does nothing to answer legal questions or whether life should be able to be taken on lesser standards than proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or that those would have been her wishes as her husband claimed). And I don;t see much point in rehashing all that here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We didn;t "kill" anyone. And paraplegics are almost all completely conscious. Dumb examples. Big surprise.

Like I said before, anyone who disagrees with what was done to Terri, ask your significant other what THEY would like done if they were ever in a state like Schiavo, and act surprised when they tell you pull the plug.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
My point all along was that there were doubts. I never claimed as fact that the husband deliberately was acting against her best interests. There were doubts on many fronts, including his motives, Terri's wishes, and even her condition (according to some doctors).

[/ QUOTE ]

There were no doubts about her condition from any doctors remotely connected to the case. The only serious doubts in my mind are the motives of the politicions who jumped on various bandwagons.

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
There was the question of whether she had some form of minimal consciousness. Maybe the autopsy answers that question and maybe it doesn't: I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why feign ignorance about something you definitely should be able to understand? Clearly your level of ignorance is already quite high. Why add to it? If you really don't know whether someone with half a brain, the remainder of which has been horribly damaged by crazy electorlyte imbalances and years and years of disuse, then you're just an idiot. Maybe we should disconnect your feeding tube. And don't worry, I won't argue this time that you won't suffer. That'd be the whole point /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

superleeds, that is not true as I recall. I remember that I posted statements from at least one doctor and a nurse who held doubts.

[MMMMMM]

If I were in Terri's position, and the facts presented were those presented as they were in her case before they pulled her tube, I would want to LIVE. So of course I think she should have been given every benefit of the doubt.

[MMMMMM]

nokona, you weren't involved in the lengthy multiple threads before on this matter. YOUR ignorance in this case is almost surely greater than mine--or than niss'--or than elwoodblues'--or adios'--or probably than anyone else who read and waded through the hundreds of posts and dozens of linked articles about it.

Suffice to say there WERE doubts by some credible experts, though most claimed otherwise. Bet you didn't know that:-)

[MMMMMM]

I never claimed she could be rehabilitated, Daliman. But I don't see why giving a living person every possible bnenefit of the doubt, when their life is at stake, is "unenlightened".

Seems to me you are being the close-minded one here.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why feign ignorance about something you definitely should be able to understand? Clearly your level of ignorance is already quite high. Why add to it? If you really don't know whether someone with half a brain, the remainder of which has been horribly damaged by crazy electorlyte imbalances and years and years of disuse, then you're just an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should ignore the insults in the above and pay attention to everything else. I get the impression that you are stubborn. (I can sure as hell be too, so I'm not singling you out.)

But they knew half her brain was soup. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the body knew she was gone. This was one of those cases where the majority of the experts... the people most familiar with their case all agreed she was gone. The people who contradicted this were the people with who were more interested in the emotional issue (and the politics) then the science.

She was gone. The autopsy shows that the majority of experts and doctors knew what they were talking about.

She had half a brain.

[superleeds]

I'd like the link, just so I never have that doctor or nurse care for me.

[MMMMMM]

Below is an excerpt from the article:

"In a hearing last month, three doctors testified Mrs. Schiavo is beyond help. They were the two chosen by Schiavo and the one picked by Greer.

The two chosen by the Schindlers, however, said they believed there are untried therapies that could bring her back to life. One, Clearwater neurologist Dr. William Hammesfahr, even predicted a treatment he developed for stroke patients could restore her ability to speak. "

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/23/TampaBay/Judge__Schiavo_can_t_.shtml


Note: if doctors split 3-2 in Greer's court over this, does that mean I should have had NO DOUBT that the three-fifths majority was correct?

Hindsight is always 20-20. But if there is any doubt then I think it is moral and correct to err on the side of life. And there were, in my mind, too many doubts and too much overall doubt in this matter to warrant ending Terri Schiavo's life. That was my point all along.

There have also been other doctors who were barred from testimony by Greer in this case. There was also a doctor more recently who said that there is now a new classification called "minimal awareness" which he thought might apply to Terri. There are other inconsistencies.

My purpose is not to rehash everything or spend all afternoon Googling but rather to show that there was room for some doubt. What you might think the proper relationship between doubt and life should be, reflects your own personal view.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were in Terri's position, and the facts presented were those presented as they were in her case before they pulled her tube, I would want to LIVE. So of course I think she should have been given every benefit of the doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering you want to live as a person who is too fat to wear anything other than sweat, thereby shirking his civic responsibility of jury duty, this does not surprise me.

She WAS given every benfit of the doubt. ANd if you'd like to be a lifeless immobile shell, you sound as if you are almost 1/3rd of the way there already.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
nokona, you weren't involved in the lengthy multiple threads before on this matter. YOUR ignorance in this case is almost surely greater than mine--or than niss'--or than elwoodblues'--or adios'--or probably than anyone else who read and waded through the hundreds of posts and dozens of linked articles about it.

Suffice to say there WERE doubts by some credible experts, though most claimed otherwise. Bet you didn't know that:-)

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, do THOSE "experts" have egg on their face now. Quite credible indeed. "She reacts to seeing her parents." Oops, no, sorry, she was completely blind.

Seriously, just admit you were wrong, and move on.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I were in Terri's position, and the facts presented were those presented as they were in her case before they pulled her tube, I would want to LIVE. So of course I think she should have been given every benefit of the doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering you want to live as a person who is too fat to wear anything other than sweat, thereby shirking his civic responsibility of jury duty, this does not surprise me.

She WAS given every benfit of the doubt. ANd if you'd like to be a lifeless immobile shell, you sound as if you are almost 1/3rd of the way there already.

[/ QUOTE ]



Daliman I am happy to say I fulfilled my civic duty as a jurist, and found the experience eductaional and worthwhile. And thanks for showing your real colors with your needless ad hominem attacks.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed she could be rehabilitated, Daliman. But I don't see why giving a living person every possible bnenefit of the doubt, when their life is at stake, is "unenlightened".

Seems to me you are being the close-minded one here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see, how can I disprove your statement without even leaving this thread?

[ QUOTE ]
. I remember that I posted statements from at least one doctor and a nurse who held doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done.

[MMMMMM]

Daliman, now you aren't even making sense.

[MMMMMM]

You need to calm down, Daliman. And, as posted below regarding the 3-2 doctors split in Greer's 2000 court decision, it wasn't wrong to entertain doubts.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I were in Terri's position, and the facts presented were those presented as they were in her case before they pulled her tube, I would want to LIVE. So of course I think she should have been given every benefit of the doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering you want to live as a person who is too fat to wear anything other than sweat, thereby shirking his civic responsibility of jury duty, this does not surprise me.

She WAS given every benfit of the doubt. ANd if you'd like to be a lifeless immobile shell, you sound as if you are almost 1/3rd of the way there already.

[/ QUOTE ]



Daliman I am happy to say I fulfilled my civic duty as a jurist, and found the experience eductaional and worthwhile. And thanks for showing your real colors with your needless ad hominem attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not before you tried to get out of them because you are too fat to wear proper attire, which is BS in the first place. Gives me a LOT of context as to where you get your ideas from. If I were in your situation, I'd likely feel the same as you.

Thankfully, I'm not.

P.S. Where are yer buddies Jaxmike and BGC? I took a break from this place, did they leave us? Or are they hiding from the ignominity of being proved wrong yet again? At least you're present in this thread, arguing for your silly beliefs.

[MMMMMM]

No I did not try to get out of jurist duty because I was too fat to wear other clothes. I was just wondering what to do about the situation.

Misconstruing is now your specialty, eh?

[Daliman]

Funny thing, I was watching Penn &amp; Teller's show Bullshit last night, and it was talking about conspiracy theorists, and they were at a bar where this radio guy host's a night of conspiracy discussion. Now, I don't specifically remember you entering into grand-scheme conspiracy threads, but I'll be damned if I didn't envision you there, clapping along with the people applauding the guy who said out Gov't sent those planes into the World Trade Center.

(before you say it, I know you'd never agree with that, der kommisar being president and all.)

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
No I did not try to get out of jurist duty because I was too fat to wear other clothes. I was just wondering what to do about the situation.

Misconstruing is now your specialty, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well;
[ QUOTE ]

OK here's the deal.

I must to appear to serve on jury duty ("petit juror") in the near future, but I can foresee a potential problem.

My friend, who has served previously, tells me that in his experience the judge instructs everyone that they must show respect for the court by wearing business-suit-type of attire.

Here's the problem: I have gained so much weight from playing almost exclusively online for almost two years, that all I can fit into now is my sweatpants. Also, I am at a particular girth where the next size up in slacks or real pants would be a HUGE leap in terms of fit, and any dress pants I would wear at that size would look like balloons in the legs and hip areas. Yet at the next size down (my old pants) I can't even begin to fasten the waist button, so wearing a belt and a tucked in dress shirt would be out of the question.

So..what the heck can I do? I have to appear for jury duty in less than two weeks. Should I show up for the preliminary day in sweats and just hope they don't select me for further service?

I think jury service would be interesting (as long it was a trial of moderately short length, not weeks or anything like that) and I don't mind doing my civic duty. But I just don't know what to do if the judge instructs everyone to show up in business attire (could I possibly be held in contempt of court for dressing like a bum if I don't?).

Needless to say, I cannot lose the necessary blubber in time to fit into my old pants before jury duty. I do not want to look like a goofball with super-baggy pants either, which is what I would look like if I went out now and bought pants that I could fasten at the waist. Seriously the next size up on me would look like those kids wearing hip-hop style pants or something. Nor do I think it makes any financial sense to purchase up to several pairs of such pants just for the jury duty, since I will be losing this weight as I am going to start swimming again soon (walking a few times a week just isn't cutting it).

Any advice will be appreciated! Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ] .


Yeah, you were balls out to serve.

[superleeds]

Yeah thanks for the link, I liked this bit

In Greer's order, the Pinellas probate judge labeled Hammesfahr a "self-promoter," who testified that he had treated patients worse off than Mrs. Schiavo yet "offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim."

In short, the judge wrote in the nine-page order, he needed "something more than a belief" that some new treatment could restore Mrs. Schiavo's faculties "so as to significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of evidence to that effect."

I shall inform all of my family never to let Dr William Hammesfahr perform as much as a blood pressure test on me. But I do appreciate your time to find the link, altho it does not convince me that the Drs who were for prolonging TS's life had adequate accessiability to the patient to make a proper informed decision.

[kevyk]

A jurist is a judge, not a juror.

Webster's Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&amp;va=Jurist)

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for proving that you misconstrued my words, Daliman.

You claimed I was shirking my civic duty as a juror--which even the posted words did not indicate--and which I did not do, either (as I fulfilled my duty).

Why are you so hostile? What is your problem, exactly?

Wait, don't answer that. Take a while to think it over, please.

[MMMMMM]

thank you

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to calm down, Daliman. And, as posted below regarding the 3-2 doctors split in Greer's 2000 court decision, it wasn't wrong to entertain doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing, I was watching Penn &amp; Teller's show Bullshit last night, and it was talking about conspiracy theorists, and they were at a bar where this radio guy host's a night of conspiracy discussion. Now, I don't specifically remember you entering into grand-scheme conspiracy threads, but I'll be damned if I didn't envision you there, clapping along with the people applauding the guy who said out Gov't sent those planes into the World Trade Center.

(before you say it, I know you'd never agree with that, der kommisar being president and all.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It was in Judge Greer's Court that two out of five doctors stated a contrary opinion.

Anyway, fine job of staying on topic, Daliman.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
yet "offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, many WANT to believe this guy... so they ask for no names, case studies, videos or test results.

There was an interesting documentary recently on HBO on demand examining faith healers.

It was showing how many people believed in the faith healers even though the people supposedly healing were still dying as expected, their conditions were worsening, etc.

so many so-called experts with a minimal amount of research are found to be quacks.

[MMMMMM]

And that in your mind removes all doubt? Heh; you'd make quite the scientist.

The court found "clear and comvincing evidence", which is a far lesser standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I believe in cases where a human life is at stake, that the lesser standard (which is a civil rather than criminal standard) should be considered inadequate. Many will disagree with me on that.

I don't see how, though, you can claim that one should have had NO DOUBTS at the time in question, though. Are you an expert? Are you a doctor? Did you examine Terri? Can you say for certain that the three doctors were top doctors and the other two dissenting doctors had no business practicing medicine? Are you sure Michael Schiavbo wasn't in it for the greed factor? And how about other doubts? Do you know that there is no state such as "minimal awareness?

No--I think it is safe to say you don't. So, while you may have been pretty sure that the Greer court decisions were fair, you can't be entirely sure.

There was some room for doubt. Therefore nobody can rightly take the attitude that Cyrus, Daliman--or perhaps you, to a much lesser extent--have taken in this thread. It may have been for the best and completely correct in 20-20 hindsight. But that doesn't mean it was all clear-cut all along the way.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
And that in your mind removes all doubt? Heh; you'd make quite the scientist.

The court found "clear and comvincing evidence", which is a far lesser standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I believe in cases where a human life is at stake, that the lesser standard (which is a civil rather than criminal standard) should be considered inadequate. Many will disagree with me on that.

I don't see how, though, you can claim that one should have had NO DOUBTS at the time in question, though. Are you an expert? Are you a doctor? Did you examine Terri? Can you say for certain that the three doctors were top doctors and the other two dissenting doctors had no business practicing medicine? Are you sure Michael Schiavbo wasn't in it for the greed factor? And how about other doubts? Do you know that there is no state such as "minimal awareness?

No--I think it is safe to say you don't. So, while you may have been pretty sure that the Greer court decisions were fair, you can't be entirely sure.

There was some room for doubt. Therefore nobody can rightly take the attitude that Cyrus, Daliman--or perhaps you, to a much lesser extent--have taken in this thread. It may have been for the best and completely correct in 20-20 hindsight. But that doesn't mean it was all clear-cut all along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]


But it DOES mean it was the right decision.

Funny how erring on the side of humanity is only applicable for mastly brain-dead american women, and not for detainees of our government.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how erring on the side of humanity is only applicable for mastly brain-dead american women, and not for detainees of our government.


[/ QUOTE ]


That made me laugh.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was some room for doubt. Therefore nobody can rightly take the attitude that Cyrus, Daliman--or perhaps you, to a much lesser extent--have taken in this thread. It may have been for the best and completely correct in 20-20 hindsight. But that doesn't mean it was all clear-cut all along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]




But it DOES mean it was the right decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

In hindsight it may be easy to see that. At the time however it was not so clear, and therefore could have been the wrong decision.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how erring on the side of humanity is only applicable for mastly brain-dead american women, and not for detainees of our government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's another thread.

If they had just been shot on the battlefield I don't think it would have been such an issue. And for those that were of no formal army, and were shooting at/taking hostilities against our troops, it's rather a pity they weren't.

See what a godawful mess it has made capturing them alive? (heh I'm half-kidding here. See you in the other thread;-)).

[adios]

Original poster posed the following open ended question:

Does this change anyone's opinion?


To which I responeded:

About what? Whether or not the process that determined her feeding tube should be disconnected was fair? Whether or not pulling the feeding tube, thus starving her to death, was a humanitarian gesture? Whether or not there was clear and convincing evidence that Terry would rather have the feeding tube disconnected than live in a permantly vegatative state i.e. Terry had more or less made a "living will" verbally to this effect? Whether or not the law in Florida is a "good" law? Whether or not the law passed by the House was an appropriate excercise in Congressional authority? Whether or not the Court rulings on this law were appropriate? This story seems to have little to no relevance to any of these issues which were the main issues IMO.

As you may note I opined that these were the main issues in the Schiavo situation. My presumption was and still is that the original poster was posing the open ended question to solicit takes on whether or not the autopsy changed anyone's mind about the main issues. Perhaps the original question was posed to solicit opinions about minor and irrelevant issues but I doubt that. As you can see in my response I stated that IMO the autopsy was irrelevent to the main issues in the case.

The poster responed to my post in part:

We have already had more than enough debate on these issues.

The original poster posed an open ended question, I sought further elucidation and clarification on what issues the posters question addressed, and then the original stated that we've discussed the relevant issues enough already. My impression was that the original poster was implying that I was bringing up issues that had been discussed ad nauseum. To which I replied:

I'm just pointing out that the article is irrelevant to the main issues in the situation and thus are unlikely to change anyone's viewpoint. Even if someone who had faith in the almighty wouldn't be dissuaded IMO since presumably the almighty is capable of performing "miracles."


I reminded the poster that it was not I that made the original post and posed the open ended question but rather it was him. I tried to further explain why his open ended question was unlikely to change anyone's point of view about the relevant issues in the Schiavo situation. I further opined that for those of faith that hold out hope for a "miracle of life" and believe that taking any life is wrong, their opinions were not likely to be swayed either. Remember the original poster posed the open ended question:

Does this change anyone's opinion?

I think it's perfectly legitimate to try and ascertain what opinion's the autopsy results were likely to change since the poster posed this question. Can you see why? Furthermore it's squarly on topic to point out that regarding the relevant issues in the Schiavo situation where people held opinions about them that they're not likely to change due to the autopsy results. What do you think were the relevant issues in the Schiavo situation? If you feel that the main issue was whether or not she was in a permanently vegatative state and that issue was totally dominant, I would totally disagree. I think it's completely consistent to accept the notion that Schiavo was in a permantly vegatative state but question whether or not the process that determined her feeding tube should be disconnected was fair; question whether or not pulling the feeding tube, thus starving her to death, was a humanitarian gesture; question whether or not there was clear and convincing evidence that Terry would rather have the feeding tube disconnected than live in a permantly vegatative state i.e. Terry had more or less made a "living will" verbally to this effect; question whether or not the law in Florida is a "good" law; question hether or not the law passed by the House was an appropriate excercise in Congressional authority and finally question whether or not the Court rulings on this law were appropriate.

When the original poster asks if my opinion changed about any of these relevant issues as a result of the autopsy I have to wonder why should they and I also have to wonder if the original poster really understands the relevant issues in the case when he more or less expects peoples opinions to have changed as a result of the autopsy. No it's not me that isn't paying attention to the case or as you put it, "paying no attention to the man behind the curatain." Why ask a question about something that most people believed to be true IMO i.e. that Schiavo was in a PVS. Again I point out that if the trial judge had determined that there wasn't "clear and convincing evidence that Schiavo had verbally expressed a living will indicating she did not want to live in a PVS, the feeding tube would be in place today almost certainly.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice you failed to mention whether or not Jeb Bush overstepped his bounds by blocking her tube removal.

Gee, how surprisingly hypocritical of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overstepped his bounds? Apparently you didn't realize that the Florida legislature passed a law allowing him to do this. Apparently doing what the law allowed him to do is overstepping his bounds to you. Not to me and I don't think it is to most people. The law was challenged in Court and declared unconstitutional. It's a moot issue. After the Florida law was declared unconstitional he didn't intervene. I thought you were capable of citing facts and discussing the issues rather than flaming.

FYI here's a link to one story about the law being declared unconstitutional. Notice that this had been settled for nearly a year before Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the last time:

'Terri's Law' ruled unconstitutional (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38373)

I don't understand why not mentioning an issue settled for nearly a year represents hypocrisy on my part. Please explain.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, anyone who disagrees with what was done to Terri, ask your significant other what THEY would like done if they were ever in a state like Schiavo, and act surprised when they tell you pull the plug.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is basically what I figured, you don't understand the issues in the case. The Florida law allows people in Terri's situation to have their feeding tube removed. There's no issue as to whether or not one disagrees with such a decision, the Florida law permits this choice. The question that M raises is whether or not the trial judges decision was correct in that it met the legal standard of "clear and convincing" evidence Terri had expressed a living will which stated that she wanted her feeding tube removed if and when she was in a PVS. As I stated at the time, I was skeptical but after looking at the case in it's entirety I have to defer to the trial judge. Again, as I mentioned in another post, if the trial judge doesn't find the evidence "clear and convincing" that Terri had a living will expressing her desire to have the tube removed, it's in place as long as she's alive.

I have a problem with putting someone to death by starvation and dehydration. Many doctors stated that she wasn't in pain but I think it's fair to say that knowledge of the human brain is not all encompassing. Wouldn't a lethal injection of some sort have been more humane than starvation and dehydration? In my mind that's certainly the case. I mentioned other issues but I'll leave this where it is. To reiterate, Terri Schiavo had the right to have her feeding tube removed in Florida when she's in a PVS. There's no dispute about that so disagreeing with what was done is not the issue that M is referring to.

What I perceive in your response is make the issue whether or not someone in a PVS should be allowed to have their feeding tube removed. The issue was settled when, the Florida legislature passed the law allowing people to do this.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Doctors Split 3-2 On Schiavo In 2000 Greer Court Decision

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a 3-2 split any time.

'slong 's I'm the 3.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Doctors Split 3-2 On Schiavo In 2000 Greer Court Decision

[/ QUOTE ]



I'll take a 3-2 split any time.

'slong 's I'm the 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the court took the 3-2 split also--and I probably would too. But that is a whole lot different than claiming that that should have left no room for doubt.

[ACPlayer]

The results of the autopsy are irrelevant to the court decisions. Even if the autopsy had come the other way, I would still say that the courts appear to have acted according to the law, with due process. I would still say that Congress was wrong in trying to meddle and the courts were right the reject the political meddling.

I would still say, as I did in the original discussion, that a review of guardianship laws may be worth considering in a calm and rational manner.

Following the results of the autopsy (if it showed an error, perhaps if not as well), I would want a medical review of the decision making process to see why the original diagnosis was wrong. There may be civil cases that the family could now bring against the doctors and, perhaps, the husband. I dont support any significant medical malpractice reforms -- this case is an example of why.

[MMMMMM]

^

[MMMMMM]

"June 17, 2005, 7:50 a.m.
The Schiavo Post-Mortem

The results of the autopsy of Terri Schiavo are being taken as a vindication for the successful campaign to dehydrate her to death and a rebuke to those who unsuccessfully resisted this campaign. They should not be.

A great many claims and counter-claims were made in the course of the contentious debate over Mrs. Schiavo’s fate, and the autopsy sheds light on some of them. No evidence was found that Schiavo’s 1990 collapse was caused by abuse at the hands of her husband. Her brain damage was found to be irreversible. And she was found to have been blind. (News accounts of the autopsy leave it unclear whether it was determined when blindness set in and when the brain damage became irreversible.)

These are the three main findings that are held to retrospectively validate one side of the argument. But no responsible critic of Mrs. Schiavo’s dehydration rested his case on an allegation of abuse. (NR explicitly urged opponents of the dehydration not to make such reckless allegations.) While many people held out the hope that treatment might improve Schiavo’s condition, very few people thought it at all likely that she would recover to the point, for example, of being able to hold a conversation.

About the main arguments against killing Terri Schiavo, the autopsy had nothing to say. Many people believed that it is wrong deliberately to bring about the death of innocent human beings, whatever their condition; that it is especially wrong when there is doubt about what that person wanted, and when her family members are willing to provide care for her; that Mr. Schiavo was too compromised to make this decision; that a law enabling the killing of people in a “persistent vegetative state” should not be stretched to cover people who might be “minimally conscious”; and that the Supreme Court should not have established the current lax standards for denying incapacitated people food and water. Nobody who believed these things has any reason to change his mind based on this week’s evidence. — The Editors"

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200506170750.asp

[lastchance]

And you should have tried to make the argument on those points instead of relying upon incorrect, emotionally involved, and biased diagnosises, which were after reading the opposition, were quite suspect.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
And you should have tried to make the argument on those points instead of relying upon incorrect, emotionally involved, and biased diagnosises, which were after reading the opposition, were quite suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? Those were approximately the points I made all along going back to the old threads.

My main points early in this thread hinged on the fact that there were some doubts back then--and since someone essentially claimed there were not doubts, even back then, I had to find a link to prove that some doubts existed. Which I did, although I wasn't willing to Google enough to prove that each doubt existed.

I thought it entirely wrong that there were posters in this thread essentially ridiculing the notion that anyone could have harbored legitimate doubts back then (doubts about quite an assortment of issues).

And since you refer to those diagnoses as "suspect", that means there WAS some doubt---right? And that is just one of many areas where some degree of doubts existed while the tragic saga was unfolding.

As I responded to another poster, what you think the relationsh
between doubt and life should be, reflects your own personal view. But that is another matter from whether any legitimate doubts existed, or not.

[lastchance]

There were legitimate doubts. They got shot down, each and every one of them. That's what I was saying. There was good evidence on the other side, and the evidence you were presenting was weaker, much weaker.

"Reasonable doubt" may have been a very lofty word, but I think that every argument against the vegetative state was answered. Of course, I could be wrong, but if you don't mind digging back there for places where your arguments held up, I wouldn't argue.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
There were legitimate doubts. They got shot down, each and every one of them. That's what I was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those doubts were not disproved.

[ QUOTE ]
There was good evidence on the other side, and the evidence you were presenting was weaker, much weaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That fits in perfectly with what I've been saying. Some doubt, not certainty (either way). If something is, say, 93% certain, then there's doubt...right?

[ QUOTE ]
"Reasonable doubt" may have been a very lofty word, but I think that every argument against the vegetative state was answered. Of course, I could be wrong, but if you don't mind digging back there for places where your arguments held up, I wouldn't argue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm afraid I'm not going back to dig; those threads were numerous and very lengthy.

It isn't a matter of my "arguments holding up". It's a question of how readily or easily our society and laws can end the life of the incapacitated, especially when doubts remain regarding various matters, including even her wishes.

Yes I know it was all determined in court and likely properly so. But as I said I think the laws should probably be changed to afford at least some higher level of legal protection for the impaired. I can easily conjure or envision a scenario where an heir could utilize the system to have an elder terminated in this manner against their wishes. Heck it came VERY close to happening to Mae Magouirk who had even left a will saying she would want to live. I posted on this before and I'm not dredging it up again; I just wanted to use it to illustrate a point. The incapacitated are being killed by dehydration and they AREN'T all brain dead or comatose, and our court system does not offer them a whole lot of protection.