|
|
|
|
#2
06-15-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Terry Shiavo Back in the News...
[ 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. 
|
|
#3
06-15-2005, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Terry Shiavo Back in the News...
[ 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.
|
|
#4
06-15-2005, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I Didn\'t Bring it Up You Did
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."
|
|
#5
06-16-2005, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Didn\'t Bring it Up You Did
[ 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.
|
|
#6
06-16-2005, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Didn\'t Bring it Up You Did
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.
|
|
#7
06-15-2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Remove-the-Tube Crowd Prove to Be More Right.....
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.
|
|
#9
06-15-2005, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Remove-the-Tube Crowd Prove to Be More Right.....
[ 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.
|
|
#10
06-16-2005, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good call
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
