Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lasersailor184 on March 18, 2005, 05:24:18 PM
-
I say **** it. We need to try Michael Schiavo, Greer and any hospital staff who pulled the plug on Terry for murder.
-
why?
-
She is not dead yet is she? Can they not put the tube back in?
-
Fine. Attempted murder. 3 counts. This is the third time they've tried to murder her.
-
It's not murder if it's not illegal.
-
Thrawn, how would you define the premeditated killing of someone?
-
Hmmm. So you're saying that it's murder to not impose care on people who are unable to survive without extreme external measures?
What if Terry's heart gave out, but they had a blood pump handy? Would it be murder to not hook that up? What if she quit breathing on her own? Would it be murder if we didn't hook up the iron lung? What if her kidneys gave out? Would it be murder to not hook her up to a dialysis machine? What if she got pneumonia and lost most of her lung function? Would it be murder if we didn't give her a lung transplant?
Do you see the problem here? Where do you draw the line when you're dealing with a human being who not only will die if care is not systematically provided, but who also does not even show classical survival instincts to even attempt to care for themselves? When no brain function is present beyond that you would expect from a houseplant? Does it become murder to stop watering a houseplant?
How about the homeless man on the street outside the hospital? Does it become murder to not provide food and shelter to that person, free of charge? Better yet, should you charge the relatives of a homeless man who dies on the street with murder, because they did not provide life support?
It's a pretty complicated issue. My Grandfather died last year after he went into a coma following a decade of declining health. He HAD provided clear, legal guidance that he was not to be forcefed in that event this happened, and he died a week or two later. If he hadn't given that guidance, should the hospital have been charged with murder if they had simply let an old man die when it was his time to go? Or should society have forced the hospital to keep my grandfather plugged into every machine possible? I am very certain that my grandfather would have "lived" (ie kept breathing) for another couple of years if he'd been kept alive by extreme artificial means. Although he had multiple serious health problems, they were nothing that a completely sterile environment, forced breathing and feeding, blood filtering, and another couple of million bucks of treatment per year couldn't have overcome if the goal were to simply keep his heart beating.
Murder? There's a pretty wide gray line between society's obligation to care for the indigent and murder, and people need to really think through their position when they draw their line in that gray area, because it opens up liability in areas we simply can't or don't want to go to. Am I a murderer for not giving more money to unicef? At some point we have to realize we can't always fight nature, and we need to smartly decide when it makes sense to allocate scarce resources in the fight against natural mortality.
-
she's not on LIFE SUPPORT, it's just a IV feeding tube.
i agree, it's pre-med murder.
-
There is no living will in this case, no written instructions either. There is only the word of her husband, who has everything to gain by her death. In a criminal case, it would be called hearsay and not admissable.
The husband who is demanding the denial of food and water has every reason to want the patient dead. He gets a lot of money, and he gets to marry another woman.
We are not talking about an unbiased party here. We are not talking about a husband who has acted in the best interest of the patient here. The patient has NEVER received the care promised from the beginning.
We are not talking about a comatose patient either. She is awake, at least somewhat aware, needs no help breathing. Having seen video tapes of the patient, I have a very hard time buying the persistent vegitative state declaration. She responds to stimuli.
This is not a case of turning a switch and having a comatose patient die within seconds or minutes. This is a case of deliberate starvation of a patient who is at least somewhat awake and aware, and a lingering painful death for that patient. A convicted criminal would not be allowed to suffer that way. Neither should this patient, especially without DIRECT evidence of her wishes.
-
We should just start pulling the plug on anyone who can't take care of themselves.... no sense wasting MONEY on the needy.
-
It is bewildering to me all this talk of the husband manipulating the situation so that he can get rid of his wife and marry some girlfriend. The language used by folks here and out there is suggesting exactly that.
But his wife has been in this state for FIFTEEN YEARS.
Yes... her husband has everything to gain. Like, perhaps, refashioning some semblance of his life back before he too dies? Moving on?
Oh, what a monster.
For all the talk about havin' people/government not meddle in your life, there sure seems to be a demand for it.
-
I weep when I think of all the starving children who could have been saved with one weeks worth of whatever ooze they were pumping into that egg plant.
:rolleyes:
-Sik
-
nash, he can get a divorce anytime, but he would lose all the money.
-
All Michael Schiavo needs to do to get on with his life is sign divorce papers.
I doubt any children went hungry because of what Terry Schiavo has been fed through her tube.
-
What difference does that make...
Do you want her to live for her? Or for you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What difference does that make...
Do you want her to live for her? Or for you?
you liberals are so cold hearted.
-
What do you have against respecting other peoples wishes?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
What do you have against respecting other peoples wishes?
Are we respecting Terry Schiavo's wishes or Michael Schiavo's wishes? That's issue number one. Terry's wishes are not written anywhere. We have only Michael's assertion of Terry's wishes. That seem to have changed to suit his specific wants and needs.
The thing is, where do you draw the line? Who can speak for those who cannot? The best you can do is err on the side of keeping people alive unless there is written verified evidence of their wishes to the contrary.
-
yeah seems like the libs are all about death.
Death to unborn children.
Death to suposed vegitables. (though the husband will not allow other docs to examine)
hmm seems like the only people libs dont want killed are child molesters and other criminals.
Nash, the guy could give gaurdian ship to her family and walk away.
No one knows if what her wishes are just the word of her husband who has every reason to want her dead.
-
what reason does he have to want her dead?
-
he has a new women and kids.
The money.
And many speculate he put her in that state. If she can speak again in the future he may face some criminal charges.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you liberals are so cold hearted.
yup it's pretty sad when the party that supposed to care about the "little guy/gal" want's somone to die because they can't speak for themselves. I agree all this guy needs to do is sign divorce papers and move on with his life. I don't think this is all about money either.
The sad part is this case is taken to the courts. The courts decide and set precidence. That precidence is used in other cases through out the country in effect setting law.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I doubt any children went hungry because of what Terry Schiavo has been fed through her tube.
True. It's too hard to hold em down when you try to shove the tube in.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Nash
What difference does that make...
Do you want her to live for her? Or for you?
Well, I at least would like her to live for her parents... and we DON'T know what her wishes were.
-
To be honest, I don't care enough about this exact situation to get into it so much. The broader questions interest me, but in pursuing them I'd have to be kind of troll-like... and some of ya's may care deeply about this particular situation and I don't want to offend anyone if that's the case... so...
To each his own. God bless and all that.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
True. It's too hard to hold em down when you try to shove the tube in.
-Sik
:rolleyes:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/236_1095266731_troll2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
:rolleyes:
ya think?
-
Tough choice with no easy answers
All I can say is what Im saying publically right now.
If Im ever in that situation.
Give me a year. If im not out of it by then and being back to be able to function normally again
Pull the plug, cut the tube and hit me in the head with a hammer if you need to.
Then tell my wife to get me the cheapest funeral possible. bury me in a garbage bag and have me tossed in the city dump if they will let her. (once Im dead I'll never know the difference. Nor will I care)
Then take all the money she can and make a better life for herself.
I'd rather be dead then be alive like that.
that aint live'n
-
Damn... okay I gotta ask.... Pure curiousity...
"If Im ever in that situation. Give me a year. [Then pull the plug]"
Has anyone here ever heard anyone NOT say some version of that?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Damn... okay I gotta ask.... Pure curiousity...
"If Im ever in that situation. Give me a year. [Then pull the plug]"
Has anyone here ever heard anyone NOT say some version of that?
Nash you are talking about a liveing will
she did not have one
-
Well I dunno what that is, but what I'm asking is if anyone has actually told ya "If I become a vegetable, leave me the hell alone 'cuz I wanna ride it out."
-
Part of the problem with this is, her parents think if she is giving proper care she can come out of it.
She was in therapy and one time I believe and was responding slowly.. (I think, I am going to have to look now).
that why they wont give up on her, they and her brother think she has a chance of living a normal life again.
-
Is religion involved in any of this? Like, was she religious? Her parents?
Or is it purely about the chances of her coming out of it?
The reason I ask is... If she was religious (who cares about her parents) and this whole thing went against her faith, then I would find this whole episode/result incredibly wrong.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well I dunno what that is, but what I'm asking is if anyone has actually told ya "If I become a vegetable, leave me the hell alone 'cuz I wanna ride it out."
LoL, that's bad, but I couldn't help but laugh! BAD DUD BAD! Questions I have, how long did the guy wait before getting his g/f? And how long did he wait before trying to pull the plug the 1st time? Facts please, not speculation.
-
I have never heard anything religious being mentioned in the interviews etc.
But I am not an expert on the case.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Part of the problem with this is, her parents think if she is giving proper care she can come out of it.
She was in therapy and one time I believe and was responding slowly.. (I think, I am going to have to look now).
that why they wont give up on her, they and her brother think she has a chance of living a normal life again.
I looked into it some awhile back. The information available has been so diluted by agenda it's nearly impossible to figure out exactly what's going on. Some say the husband is in this for the money, other's say all the money he "would" get has already been used up in legal fee's. Court "appointed" experts say there's no chance she'll recover. Some other Doc who's a supposed expert say's she can recover. I did find myself leaning toward believing she was never treated properly.
I just don't get the rush to "let her die", given there is absolutely no way of knowing what her true wishes were and there's someone willing to take on the responsibility of care. It makes no sense. Worse, starvation and dehydration? Give me a freeking break. If you HAVE to get her dead, why not lethal injection? Really? How humane is that?
....maybe some good will come of this. MAYBE we can start starving murderer's and child molesters. I'm ALL for that.
-
MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.
The family page. Interesting stuff. (http://www.terrisfight.org/)
-
Well if it aint about religion, then it's about some people not wanting to let go. A sad sort of denial situation. Selfish even?
I can't help but think that while this was a smallish, tragic episode in a few people's lives, the masses of every stripe and agenda right on up to the freaking Congress grabbed ahold of it and twisted it for their own ends.
Selfish, selfish, selfish, on all fronts.
-
Tumor
I agree, I just dont see why he insist she die when the family is willing to take her off his hands and let him walk.
You could not starve a dog to death. Not you or the SPCA, but somehow its ok to do it to a human?
Sound like Nazi germany to me.
-
No it is not about not letting go nash, Read the page I linked.
The family and some docs beleive she can recover maybe not 100% but enough to live a decent life.
-
What if your in-laws started meddling in your family?
It's been a long time since she was 18.
Within the bounds of the law, let the man decide what happens with his family.
-
I think this goes beyond the husband being able to decide if she lives or dies. I don't think anyone has a right just let a human being starve to death like they are trying to do.
-
yeah wonderfull, let a guy who may be reponsible for her condition kill her off.
Great plan Nash.
Are you ignoring the fact she MAY NOT BE A VEGTABLE? Try looking into the case just a little bit.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"I don't think anyone has a right to just let...."
There is no right to let.... ?
There is no right to let something happen which would otherwise happen without outside intervention?
That's certainly not any law that I know of... but it is borne of decency, and reverence for humanity. Universal law, or something...
I like it... but it does come with strings attached. Are we to say that we, being able to provide for the starving in Africa, must provide for them and not "let" them die?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
yeah wonderfull, let a guy who may be reponsible for her condition kill her off. Are you ignoring the fact she MAY NOT BE A VEGTABLE?
Too UFO for me.
-
let me simplify then.
She MAY NOT BE A VEGTABLE.
Still willing to let her die without confirmation?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You could not starve a dog to death. Not you or the SPCA, but somehow its ok to do it to a human?
For that matter you can get into trouble and be called inhumane for not putting an animal out of its misery but you go to jail if you do it to a human. Even if the human wants it
This world is more twisted then a plate of spagetti
-
Tube feedings are lifesupport.
Great example of why you should make advanced directives.
I know if I was in her place, I would want somebody to let me die.
I just hope when the time comes I'll still have the mental faculty and the motor ability in my trigger finger to check myself out.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
She is awake, at least somewhat aware, needs no help breathing. Having seen video tapes of the patient, I have a very hard time buying the persistent vegitative state declaration. She responds to stimuli.
That’s entirely consistent with a vegetative state. Such patients exhibit reflex motor response to certain stimuli, including pain, touch, and sound. They may even vocalize or cry. She has sleep-wake cycles. But she is not aware. At all. That’s what a persistent vegetative state is – wakefulness without awareness.
And numerous neurologists who have examined her agree with this diagnosis.
It would have been much better if the patient had a living will spelling out her wishes. But she didn’t. And in Florida, as in most states, the spouse is presumed to have priority over the parents to speak to the patient’s wishes unless it can be shown the parents were more aware of her wishes.
There have been numerous hearings and trials and all have come to the same conclusion -- she is in a persistent vegetative state and the husband is the best person to carry out her wishes.
Situations like this happen all the time and the spouse is allowed to make these decisions. The only reason this one become such a circus is because the parents have disagreed with the husbands decision and gotten the courts and lawyers involved, closely followed by grandstanding politicians.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Still willing to let her die without confirmation?
It's her husband's doctors vs her parent's doctors, if I had my guess. I've seen some vid and I'm gonna go with his.
We could get into the definition of vegetable... and all sorts of symantics would follow. And it would not do this chick one lick of good no matter what we landed on. She'll still be lying prone in another 10 years. Oblivious to our own personal, internal moral struggles.
"I know if I was in her place, I would want somebody to let me die." - Suave
I have yet to hear anybody (and we've all had this conversation with our buds at some point or other) say differently.
"Ijust hope when the time comes I'll still have the mental faculty and the motor ability in my trigger finger to check myself out." - Suave
But then lazs would call you a wimp. :D
-
And "If" she comes out of this, say 10 years from now, is she going to be Pissed that someone didn't pull the plug?
It should be simple, there is a choice, her family wants her alive, her husband wants the plug pulled.
Tie goes to life.
It stuns me that we negotiate the value of life every day, then wonder why kids go out and kill people for shoes. I mean, why not, shoes are worth a few hundred bucks, and apparently life is negotiable.
It's so common place that in here, just another chat room, it's being negotiated over. It should be nothing less than appaling to consider anything short of Whatever It Takes to keep a life going, and whatever it takes to reverse any damage. We have the resourses, but apparently lack the desire.
Odd, really. The ability of the human race to overcome any obstacle it is faced with, yet still burdended by stupidity.
-
Originally posted by Nash
There is no right to let.... ?
There is no right to let something happen which would otherwise happen without outside intervention?
yeah, like if you decide not to feed a baby, it will die.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
yeah, like if you decide not to feed a baby, it will die.
Yeah... but babies aren't eggplants. ;)
-
And if you just stood by and watched (let) someone get beat to death without doing a thing... that too is a crime.
I guess it depends on what the situation is. Under normal circumstances, if she was able she could feed herself. A baby couldn't. A starving African could, and a bleeding man on the street couldn't.
ps... I'm not real big on the example I used... so go ahead and press it but it's gonna wind up somewhere else fer sure.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"I know if I was in her place, I would want somebody to let me die." - Suave
I have yet to hear anybody (and we've all had this conversation with our buds at some point or other) say differently.
[HORSHACK STYLE HAND WAVING] I'm doing it right now! Don't wanna die ever! I'm too damn curious about whats around the next bend in the road. If there's a chance I might come back from a coma or whatever, damn straight you better keep me hooked up... so long as it's possible and there's willing parties to do so. Hell, pickle my brain and keep it around for some scientific regeneration later when I do die... freeze my corps and frankenstien my bellybutton back later... WHATEVER.
So I'm a wimp... Life is better than Death (at least till some omnipotent being comes along and SHOWs me different). :D
-
The dead only know one thing. It is better to be alive.
SGT Joker.
-
She can't eat or drink on her own and her mental capacity is that of a household pet?
-SW
-
IMHO there are far too many questions about the husband's motives to not be suspicious about why he wants her dead so badly. And to the question of moving on... he has a live in girlfriend with a couple kids with her and he won't divorce Terry so her parents can take care of her... like I said, way too many questions and too many horrible possibilities. Life is a gift, and rare, don't piss it away.
-
Originally posted by Stang
far too many questions.... husband's motives... suspicious... too many questions...
It's none of your business.
(picture me saying that in the nicest possible way, because that's how I mean it.)
Originally posted by Stang
Life is a gift, and rare, don't piss it away.
Absolutely...
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The dead only know one thing. It is better to be alive.
SGT Joker.
You got a source to back that claim up?:eek:
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's none of your business.
If she had a living will or anything in writing saying she wished to die in such a state I would have no objection at all to her tube being removed, and it wouldn't be any of my buisness. However, this is far from the case.
-
Is it safe to assume by that, that you have no living will and are worried about the legal ramifications this case presents, and the possibility of a battle between your wife, your parents, the courts, and the Congress because of it?
-
I'm saying that removing her feeding tube is the same as taking food from a baby.
-
For the third time, Nuke.
And I get it.
-
Wow, what a storm I started. I have no problem morally or religiously if someone wants to off themselves for whatever reason, or just let themselves die in that situation.
But until it is CLEARLY spelled out in a LEGAL DOCUMENT, removing the feeding tube is MURDER.
Btw, Many doctors believe that Terry Schiavo didn't have to be hooked up to a food tube. They believe that she easily could have learned how to swallow and eat. But Murdering Michael has decided that she WILL NOT learn how.
btw:
That’s entirely consistent with a vegetative state. Such patients exhibit reflex motor response to certain stimuli, including pain, touch, and sound. They may even vocalize or cry. She has sleep-wake cycles. But she is not aware. At all. That’s what a persistent vegetative state is – wakefulness without awareness.
WRONG!!
Terry Schiavo has an amazing sense of awarefulness for a "Vegetable." She responds to family members. She smiles when happy things happen, she cries when sad things happen. SHE IS AWARE ENOUGH TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
Just a final note for me. I'd seriously laugh for 3 days straight if they did prosecute all those involved in killing Terry (especially those Golly-geen lawyers).
-
You would be right in assuming I do not have a living will. You are right I am concerned about what precedent this case sets. A government founded upon the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness has a duty to protect those principles for every one of its citizens. In this case, I fail to see how the courts have ruled in favor of the husband to let her die when one of our founding principles is in direct contrast to this. Again, what evidence is there that she wished to die? To let her die opens up a pandoras box on what is functional and should be allowed to live or die. It just smacks of a brave new world to me.
-
Originally posted by Stang
It just smacks of a brave new world to me.
...as if to say, going to incredible lengths to keep someone alive by means of brave new technology hearkens back to a frightened old world that we should remember fondly, but for brave new technology.
It's funny how morality changes with the times, isn't it? Sincerely... it's something.
-
I can hardly say that a feeding tube is brave new technology. If she needed more assistance than that to stay alive we would be in agreement Nash.
-
Somehow I think her care involved more than just jamming cans of Campbells soup down a tube in her neck.
Nevertheless...
It's best for everyone involved to just let it go. To move on. I think, anyways.
I think her parents are gonna get a real shot at starting to live again, however grudgingly. They were prolly as dead as her.
If I could venture a guess... This chick would not have wanted to see all this pain. My guess is that she is happy with this outcome.
Whatever floats your boat, but my version works for me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Whatever floats your boat, but my version works for me.
Hopefully this issue isn't decided by what "our version" is, but what is best for Terry.
-
That's already been decided.
It's your turn to decide how you'll let it affect you.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm saying that removing her feeding tube is the same as taking food from a baby.
Nope , comparaison don't work.
You don't feed a baby with a feeding bottle past the 1st year and she's intubed since 15 year.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Terry Schiavo has an amazing sense of awarefulness for a "Vegetable." She responds to family members. She smiles when happy things happen, she cries when sad things happen. SHE IS AWARE ENOUGH TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
Oh I’m sorry doctor, I didn’t’ realize you were a neurologist who has examined the patient. You should pass on your findings to the dozen or so of your colleagues who have also examined her and yet disagree with your diagnosis. I had mistakenly assumed you got your information from the somewhere like her parent’s web page that GtoRA2 posted.
Which reminds me, I’m need to check out OJ’s web page to find out if he really did it.
-
In the natural world, a person in that condition would have died 15 years ago.
The sustaining of a person in such a state is therefore unnatural. Death isn't always a curse. Why should it be a crime to let the critically ill die when there is no hope for recovery?
Some of you have voiced horror over the fact that this girl will starve to death. You must live very sheltered lives. Do you not know that most of the elderly who die after a long critical illness have starved to death? Long illnesses often rob them of the ability, and the desire, to eat. So they simply waste away.
Do you truly have her best interests in mind...or are you simply attempting to seize the moral high-ground so you can feel good about yourself?
-
Originally posted by Stang
Hopefully this issue isn't decided by what "our version" is, but what is best for Terry.
And I think the court's finally did that when they allowed the feeding tubes to be removed. Let her die with as much grace and dignity as she can. She's been denied that for too many years, time to let her die and rest in peace.
ack-ack
-
btw Nash.......I don't ever want to live like she has....ever....
Please come and finish me off if anything retarded like this happens to me. (There....living will! )
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Let her die with as much grace and dignity as she can.
ack-ack
By starving her?
So who among the death dealers would be willing to...hmmmm?
Throw the switch?
Pull the trigger?
Inject the poison?
-
Tumor just planted his flag on the moral high-ground.
-
"death dealers".... heh.
Life is full of contradictions, isn't it...
-
Originally posted by Nash
"death dealers".... heh.
Life is full of contradictions, isn't it...
Well not really. I mean, if we absolutely have to kill this person, why starvation? In the end she's being handed a death sentence, she has no say whatsoever in the matter. I don't see her crime.
Good grief, doesn't she, a defensless person who relies on others care, deserve the dignity of a quick painless death? I figure she deserves at the very least the same consideration we give murderous criminals.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
By starving her?
So who among the death dealers would be willing to...hmmmm?
Throw the switch?
Pull the trigger?
Inject the poison?
Death is far more humane and merciful compared to the "life" she's been force to endure. Too bad her parents and the likes of you have forgotten that.
ack-ack
-
It's about dignity? Is that really so very important? Is her existence a dignified one?
Dignity... hmm...
It reminds me of how we project human characteristics onto animals. To make us feel better about an animal's behaviour, or to help us relate to them.
If you have a problem with her natural death, you have a problem with death itself. It is ego driven, and without realizing it you are probably putting yourself into her shoes, bringing with you all of your hang-ups, insecurities, doubts, fears.
Insisting that your issues must be hers.
Either that, or this is some morality play.... once again bringing your own personal baggage into her situation.
That's cool.... we're human, it happens.
But don't call people with a different point of view "murderers" or "dealers of death". That's just lashing out.
And it don't mean a thing to folks like me.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Death is far more humane and merciful compared to the "life" she's been force to endure. Too bad her parents and the likes of you have forgotten that.
ack-ack
The likes of me don't know what she thinks any more than the likes of you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's about dignity? Is that really so very important? Is her existence a dignified one?
Dignity... hmm...
It reminds me of how we project human characteristics onto animals. To make us feel better about an animal's behaviour, or to help us relate to them.
If you have a problem with her natural death, you have a problem with death itself. It is ego driven, and without realizing it you are probably putting yourself into her shoes, bringing with you all of your hang-ups, insecurities, doubts, fears.
Insisting that your issues must be hers.
Either that, or this is some morality play.... once again bringing your own personal baggage into her situation.
That's cool.... we're human, it happens.
But don't call people with a different point of view "murderers" or "dealers of death". That's just lashing out.
And it don't mean a thing to folks like me.
Don't change the subject to me and my faults. I simply don't understand the callous attitude some people are taking towards a defensless life.
She might want to die... or does she know the difference?
She might want to live... or does she know the difference?
She may feel "undignified"... or does she know the difference?
She may be glad someone is willing to let her live... ???
So, apparently we've established the fact she has no idea what she wants... therefore we should all just happily say "Screw it, she can't take care of herself, she deserves to be allowed to die".
I've never heard a more F*ed up attitude or twisted sense of "for the best".
and yes, it's a human being we're talking about. I do believe she deserves a certain amount of dignity. Granted if we were talking about a DOG starving to death, I'm SURE there'd be plenty of public "lashing out".
-
wow... sure is alot of ultra conservative people here.
Wake up, she's lived for fifteen years only because of the tube.
*IF* that can be called living.
Sounds more like living dead.
In the future the human kind will be even more capable of sustaining critically injured people's life.
Whether or not they are concious.
It simply cannot be humane to keep people alive for years, who are nearly braindead, but enough to have very very very limited chances of regaining concious.
The system cannot sustain this in the future, with more and more advanced ways of sustaining life.
I guess the technology will be soon so advanced that we could keep headless bodies alive for several years.
Would it be worth it? It'd be still alive, but also dead. In a way it'd be still a murder to let it die by unplugging.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I've never heard a more F*ed up attitude or twisted sense of "for the best".
How luscious for you.... But what difference does that make? You've never heard something... well okay.
" I simply don't understand the callous attitude some people are taking towards a defensless life.
Awareness of one's own shortcomings is evidence of humility, so kudos for that. You don't understand it. That's alright too. That's good.
-
Originally posted by Nash
How luscious for you.... But what difference does that make? You've never heard something... well okay.
" I simply don't understand the callous attitude some people are taking towards a defensless life.
Awareness of one's own shortcomings is evidence of humility, so kudos for that. You don't understand it. That's alright too. That's good.
Nice one Sik.
-
Why thank you, Fred.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Nice one Sik.
Me? What do I have to do with that?
I'm amazed at the amount this is generating, though I suppose that, considering it's a close question it shouldn't be suprising.
A lot of major arguments in the O-Club are more systemic in nature. I mean, the drug debate, Foreign policy, adultery... these are all things that have a constant and/or lasting effect.
This case though, seems so fact dependant, that I don't see the over-arching impact that it will have.
Which is why I had (have) nothing worth while to say on the topic.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Fishu
wow... sure is alot of ultra conservative people here.
Wake up, she's lived for fifteen years only because of the tube.
*IF* that can be called living.
Sounds more like living dead.
In the future the human kind will be even more capable of sustaining critically injured people's life.
Whether or not they are concious.
It simply cannot be humane to keep people alive for years, who are nearly braindead, but enough to have very very very limited chances of regaining concious.
The system cannot sustain this in the future, with more and more advanced ways of sustaining life.
I guess the technology will be soon so advanced that we could keep headless bodies alive for several years.
Would it be worth it? It'd be still alive, but also dead. In a way it'd be still a murder to let it die by unplugging.
A simple document stating your wishes (just like in this case) would be all it takes to settle the whole thing. Which is my entire point... "we" don't know. The support system for this woman is in place, and there's a standing offer for it to continue. Why are people so adamant she be killed off? Money?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Me? What do I have to do with that?
I'm amazed at the amount this is generating, though I suppose that, considering it's a close question it shouldn't be suprising.
A lot of major arguments in the O-Club are more systemic in nature. I mean, the drug debate, Foreign policy, adultery... these are all things that have a constant and/or lasting effect.
This case though, seems so fact dependant, that I don't see the over-arching impact that it will have.
Which is why I had (have) nothing worth while to say on the topic.
-Sik
... I meant "Troll", dangit. :D
-
I ain't trollin'.
Quit with the "dealer of death" outrage, and I'll quit probing into the psychology of one who would say such a thing.
Lets start over. Hello, my name is Nash. :)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
A simple document stating your wishes (just like in this case) would be all it takes to settle the whole thing.
Most people do not do this as they dont consider it an important issue.
It is one of those things along the many other stuff you should/could do.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I ain't trollin'.
Quit with the "dealer of death" outrage, and I'll quit probing into the psychology of one who would say such a thing.
Lets start over. Hello, my name is Nash. :)
I couldn't think of a nice way to say it.
How bout "Advocate(s) of Terminal Solutions"?
-
I am sorry to say but I think the parents are 100% in the wrong here. I see no reason why the husband would be doing this. The alledged money windfall he would get I have seen no evidence on this.
From the Families own website...
If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?
Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.***
---No therapy since 1991? What has the family been doing all this time then? Why do they all of a sudden think they can make her better?
Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?
Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.
Again her family wants to give her therapy? Where have they been the last 14 years?These two statements by them are in direct contradiction and seems to me to be about the parents not letting go. It's really sad.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I couldn't think of a nice way to say it.
How bout "Advocate(s) of Terminal Solutions"?
How about "Live and let die?"
-
Everyone in their right mind will state without hesitating that he or she prefers death over literally vegetating on and on. Isn't it ironic that everybody gets extremely agitated when the exact thing DOES happen to someone else and after years and years of fruitless therapy no progress whatsoever is made. An unbiased bystander would objectively label all these people as hypocrits.
The husband has been trying for years to preserve her dignity by letting her pass away peacefully since she has nothing to gain from life itself anymore. And once again the usual suspects butt in, the religious extremists, the conservatives and the rest of the stereotypical 'everyone's life is our business' crowd.
Once again the world looks with disgust upon how certain elements within American society behave themselves when not everybody conforms to their narrowminded, backward beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Nash
How about "Live and let die?"
I'm all for it! Prove to me that's what she wants, wanted, or would want, and I'll stand behind any decsion to let her die of starvation and dehydration. Personally... I'd like to know that all available options for treatment and rehabilitation be exhuasted (which clearly has not been done in Schaivo's case) before anyone "allows" me the agony of starvation/dehydration. As a matter of fact.. please, just put a bullet in my brain if it comes to that. Further, if it is established that I cannot be rehabilitated, and have lost all cognitive thought, if my parents want to pour their life savings into taking care of my useless but living body, go right ahead and let them.. it's not like I know any different anyway.
-
Originally posted by Thud [/B]
Everyone in their right mind will state without hesitating that he or she prefers death over literally vegetating on and on.
Faulty Logic and Presumed Authority... sorry, just sayin.
Isn't it ironic that everybody gets extremely agitated when the exact thing DOES happen to someone else and after years and years of fruitless therapy no progress whatsoever is made.
Apr 1991 - Terri's husband advised to move her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy to continue Terri's recovery.
Jul 1991 - Terri moved to Sable Palms Nursing Home.
Feb 1993 - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.
Once again the world looks with disgust upon how certain elements within American society behave themselves when not everybody conforms to their narrowminded, backward beliefs.
Oh THAT game, ok back to proper AHBB form.... STFU eurotrash goober, if we want your opinion we'll give it to you. :D
-
If you treat every situation as a life-and-death matter, you’ll die a lot of times. - Dean Smith
-
Nash, it's like taking food from a baby.
-
Who'd wanna eat that crap?
-
shoot....I thought I was going to get you to react to me posting that again :D
I can't get one by you.
-
Well, I was gonna post a pic of sesame street's count dracula doing "Four!" but I couldn't be arsed. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Who'd wanna eat that crap?
You try and tell me you think Gerber Plum Pudding is crap and I'll call you a big fat liar!