Terry Shiavo Back in the News...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
LARGO, Florida (CNN) -- 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) - 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

[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 [i[]believe[/i] 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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.