Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TweetyBird on March 20, 2005, 09:23:20 PM
-
I am having a very big problem with this. I've seen a few videos of this woman and to me there seems awareness present. Also it is a fact her parents and imediate family love her and sense this awareness, I have no idea how this has gotten so crazy with her husband so steadfast in wanting to kill her. This has nothing to do with the right to die with dignity - this woman is aware and her parents are a big part of her life. Her husband wants to kill her by letting her dehydrate??? Why not give her the same humane lethal injection a murderer get?? Is letting her die by withholding the basic needs of life any less of an execution or in this case, flat out murder?
This is insane that it has come this far - there are some wacko judges that need to removed for letting it get this far. This is not heroic measures and how some idiot judges in Florida have seen it as heroic measures is beyond me. The woman is thriving considering her condition. The fact that Florida's judicial system is broken is absolutely no excuse for the federal government to stand idle while this woman is murdered. I think they should think about arresting dear hubby for conspiracy to commit murder.
-
Tweety, I'm also worried about this case where the person (no matter how brain-damaged she is)
is going to die from state approved starvation.
You also say that the parents feel her alertness.
I vaguely remember that long ago I read about a woman who in somewhat likely situation gave birth to a healthy child. I'll search the web, but if you have any information about such things, do let me know. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
her husband so steadfast in wanting to kill her.
He is ensuring the same thing that would of happened to her 15 years ago... I have seen this type of thing quite often, and I can sympathize with the man. I am a little concerned he wants closure at the cost of her life and I'd like to see a trio of MDs discuss the issue and her ability to reason.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
This has nothing to do with the right to die with dignity - this woman is aware and her parents are a big part of her life. Her husband wants to kill her by letting her dehydrate???
Again, he may be doing this for the wrong reason, but how can you make a judgement in a situation where you neither know her or the family? Better yet, how can Congress? From what I was told, in Europe they can do this sort of thing by having 3 independent MDs agree and co-sign the process. Again, how can you call it 'killing' when you don't know what she has for higher brain function?
Originally posted by TweetyBird
[BI think they should think about arresting dear hubby for conspiracy to commit murder. [/B]
I've seen 95 year old people refuse a G-tube (feeding tube) but they were still placed at the family's request because the geriatric patient couldn't swallow following a stroke. Very quickly they become depressed and will themselves to die, often (I would have to say) quicker than the numerous pneumonias would have claimed their life.
Bottom line, not a single one of us can really make decisions or opinions (INCLUDING Congress) until we know the family, the patient, and all the circumstances surrounding the issue. This belongs in the realm of the States' Medical Boards, not in the Supreme Court.
-
I've found the information I was talking about.
It was a rape case of a Catholic woman who had been in coma for ten years. She gave birth to a boy who was adopted by her parents.
Irrespective of its criminal twist, this case proves that even a comatose woman deserves full respect because she is able to give a miracle of life to her potential children, and to carry the spark of life further.
I am really disgusted when I read about these outrageous decisions to starve a human being to death.
-
Do me a favor... spend a month volunteering for a Hospice program. I can give you information how to go about finding a local participant in your area. I guarantee it will change your outlook...
This type of decision happens everyday, gentlemen.
Originally posted by genozaur
Tweety, I'm also worried about this case where the person (no matter how brain-damaged she is)is going to die from state approved starvation.
-
What disturbs me so much is this case has been obviously twisted to fit into the "death with dignity" mold but it is anything but. You don't starve or dehydrate someone to death to let them "die with dignity" - thats frigging insane. We don't even starve animals to death, we're gonna starve people?? Incompetence is all over this case, and I suspect malice is also.
There are MANY individuals FULLY aware that lose the swallowing reflex and must be fed with tubes. This woman may not be fully aware but I defy ANYONE to guarantee there is no awareness. If this woman did tell her husband she would not like to live severly handicapped, that means NOTHING. We don't kill severly handicapped people no matter what they wish, we are civilized. What if she remarked she'd rather be dead than poor??? We'd kill after she went under the poverty level?
This woman is not being kept alive by machines. She is being fed differently just as many aware people who have lost their ability to swallow are fed. The fact that some would like to twist this into something else (e.g.. a person with no brain function being kept alive by artificial means), calls for a criminal investigation, starting with hubby who seems to want to get on with his life.
-
Really? I've seen no less than 5 patients this month, so far, die because a G-tube wasn't placed. A 'feeding tube' could of given them more time but at the cost of their dignity.
Again, this happens everyday.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
You don't starve or dehydrate someone to death to let them "die with dignity" - thats frigging insane.
-
If you starve people to death, you should be in prison.
-
This has already been decided by the courts.
Three doctors have already testified that her prognosis is futile.
Bush himself signed a law which allows Texas hospitals to withdraw life support if the following combination applies: The prognosis from the hospital's physicians is terminal, and the patient is unable to pay for further care.
What's happening here is that some members of Congress didn't like the outcome of a court's ruling, and wants to send it back under a diferent set of rules. Seperation of powers, anyone? I believe this is unprecedented.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
If you starve people to death, you should be in prison.
And you should work in a hospital so you can take your head out of the sand.
-
No Nash, we're talking about STARVING someone to death. If she was transported to the local SPCA she would get more humane treatment. The idiocy of this isn't sriking you yet?
-
I guess some people don't understand that some of us would rather starve to death than live in that condition.I completely understand the husband wanting to end it for her. My family and myself have all discussed this issue before and all agreed that none of us would want to live in that diminished capacity. That is not life to me. That is called being a burden and that is the last thing any of us would want to be to someone else. That would straight up suck to be in that mental/physical state.
My final question to you all who think the husband is doing the wrong thing is this...If you were in her position/state would you want to be kept alive or allowed to die?
-
Originally posted by CPorky
Do me a favor... spend a month volunteering for a Hospice program. I can give you information how to go about finding a local participant in your area. I guarantee it will change your outlook...
This type of decision happens everyday, gentlemen.
I absolutely believe your gruesome impressions on Hospice program. But my point is the specific case in Florida and the consequances of its outcome for the whole world.
My thought in this case is such that maybe some other husbands would prefer to have their wife dead in some other way than starvation.
And what would you say when there is a fact that the "vegetative" women can carry childred and give birth. Why the husband should be denied the right to have "in vitro" child with his wife ?
-
>>And you should work in a hospital so you can take your head out of the sand.<<
So you are telling me hospitals aren't absolutely full of incompetence , and everyone there is enlightened, and my chance of dieing to incompetence (staff, septis) doesn't increase exponentialy with the length of my stay in a hospital?
Sell it somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
The idiocy of this isn't sriking you yet?
The idiocy certainly IS striking me Tweety, just a different variety of idiocy entirely than you are talking about.
-
Well please explain Nash. We don't starve DOGS to death because it is cruel. But we do starve humans to death?
-
That's right.
What's to explain?
-
What I'm trying to tell you is that type of thing happens every day; families dealing with the decision, the consequences, and the outcome. How can you or anyone else make a firm ruling on a death of an individual when all of us are unique? It belongs in the State Medical Board, not on the floor of public opinion.
As far as incompetence, I forgive you for the attempted insult.
Originally posted by TweetyBird
[BSo you are telling me hospitals aren't absolutely full of incompetence , and everyone there is enlightened, and my chance of dieing to incompetence (staff, septis) doesn't increase exponentialy with the length of my stay in a hospital?
Sell it somewhere else. [/B]
-
We put incapacitated dogs to sleep, yes? Yes.
-SW
-
With Tweety on this.
-
again I will ask who here would want to be kept alive if you were in the same state as she is???
-
Can she eat on her own?
What do we do with pets that can't eat on their own?
You want to compare it, then there it is.
-SW
-
I think the whole point is that they are starving her to death.
That is inhumane. And its being done 'for mercy' .. the irony of it!
If she has no higher brain functions and they want to allow her to die...even if it was her choice, then let it be a merciful death.. lethal injection, cyanide... a bullet in the head even.. but making the person suffer from starvation (dehydration really) is just horrible.
The husband himself is a bag of contradictions. From what I can tell he first fought to keep her alive... long enough to get lots of money from legal stuff... and now that he is involved with another woman (while still married) he wants the wife dead (after like a decade of her being in that state) so he can move and enjoy his money with his new flame.
BRRRR.
-
This thing has already went through due process in the courts, with testimony from experts and consideration of that testimony by same.
It's now being tried in Congress, by baffoons, without the benefit of experts nor any testimony whatsoever. Watch as your state rights erode... and erode...
But I personally could care less about that. Removing her feeding tube is not inhumane. I've heard from enough people who actually deal with this stuff on a daily basis to be comfortable with that.
-
>>again I will ask who here would want to be kept alive if you were in the same state as she is???
<<
You know what. That doesn't matter. She's being fed with a feeding tube as many many others in this country are being fed. We don't kill people because they lose their swallowing reflex. Hell - why don't we just kill everyone when they lose their immunity capabilites eh? I'm sure that would get a rise eh?
This is not an heroic measures case. The fact it is being twisted into one suggests malice and suggests a criminal investigation is in order.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>again I will ask who here would want to be kept alive if you were in the same state as she is???
<<
You know what. That doesn't matter. She's being fed with a feeding tube as many many others in this country are being fed. We don't kill people because they lose their swallowing reflex. Hell - why don't we just kill everyone when they lose their immunity capabilites eh? I'm sure that would get a rise eh?
This is not an heroic measures case. The fact it is being twisted into one suggests malice and suggests a criminal investigation is in order.
but that is exactly what matters. HER WISHES. Not yours or congress or lawyers. What she would want. I find it hard to believe anyone would want to live like that. Starving in 2 weeks versus 20 years of that, no thanks. Take my tube out and let me get some sleep.
on another note you are comparing people who are functioning mentally with her. That is not the case. She does not have cognitive ability. Do I think anyone without cognitive ability should be allowed to starve? If that was their wish you bet I do.
-
>>on another note you are comparing people who are functioning mentally with her. That is not the case. She does not have cognitive ability. Do I think anyone without cognitive ability should be allowed to starve? If that was their wish you bet I do.<<
That is EXACTLY the case. She responds to noises, lights, and voices. And you know what? The only voice saying she doesn't want to live like that is a husband with another woman who kept her alive for law suits.
Her wishes were't high on the list when he was seeking compensation. Now he's done with her so wants to kill her? You don't think this deserves a criminal investigation?
-
nash, even if she has no higher brain functions she still feels pain. She feels PERIOD.
I bet that if you go into her room and punch her in the face she wont just stand there black-eyed with a 'lost in space' smile on her face. she'll be on the floor crying.
she's like a newborn baby really.
if it was her living will to be allowed to die then so be it. Im sure she would also agree that starving to death is NOT the way she'd want to go... im sure she'd ask for a quick death via lethal injection or something like that.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
That is EXACTLY the case. She responds to noises, lights, and voices. And you know what? The only voice saying she doesn't want to live like that is a husband with another woman who kept her alive for law suits.
Her wishes were't high on the list when he was seeking compensation. Now he's done with her so wants to kill her? You don't think this deserves a criminal investigation?
You're being hysterical.
-
>>You're being hysterical.
<<
Yes and you're posting without an argument ...
If you say it again maybe you can pass it off as an argument..
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>on another note you are comparing people who are functioning mentally with her. That is not the case. She does not have cognitive ability. Do I think anyone without cognitive ability should be allowed to starve? If that was their wish you bet I do.<<
That is EXACTLY the case. She responds to noises, lights, and voices. And you know what? The only voice saying she doesn't want to live like that is a husband with another woman who kept her alive for law suits.
Her wishes were't high on the list when he was seeking compensation. Now he's done with her so wants to kill her? You don't think this deserves a criminal investigation?
She does not have a functioning brain. She is brain damaged. You do know her husband said if the family quit fighting he would donate the letover money to a charity of their choice. So please don't give me its about the money bs. As for she responds to lights and balloons and what not like I said that kind of life would suck and I would rather starve, would you?
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity.
Straight off the families website
-
Do you nimrods believe she is "living with dignity?"
-
I'm trusting the arguments already made by people much smarter than me, and the conclusion they reached.
I'm trusting a husband, who in some private moment has probably had this conversation with his wife, as we all have had.
I don't have any reason to doubt him, and I respect his privacy, and his wishes, and the court's conclusion.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I guess some people don't understand that some of us would rather starve to death than live in that condition.I completely understand the husband wanting to end it for her. My family and myself have all discussed this issue before and all agreed that none of us would want to live in that diminished capacity. That is not life to me. That is called being a burden and that is the last thing any of us would want to be to someone else. That would straight up suck to be in that mental/physical state.
My final question to you all who think the husband is doing the wrong thing is this...If you were in her position/state would you want to be kept alive or allowed to die?
Raider, if the prognosis is 100% negative, give her the painless lethal injection, but do not starve her to death !
The thing is that Dr Gevorkian (the so-labelled "Dr Death"who was put in jail) is not innocent and at the same time he is not a criminal. He did what a good doctor should do - to ease the departure of the suffering terminally ill people.
But besides that there are totally different cases
when comatose people retain the essential functions of the human being. For example,
a comatose woman carries and gives birth to a child.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=202
In order to be able to do that her brain must have very important areas still intact. But I fear that the ability to see and speak can become for the doctors more important than the ability to carry children, so it's a rare case that a comatose woman was let to survive for ten years. And there are other questions, of course.
If we don't let good doctors (like Gevorkian) to do their mercyful job, don't let husbands to fulfill their wives' wills, would we let lawyers to starve our loved ones to death ?
The intrusion of state into sacred and most delicate affairs of our personal life becomes overmhelming. But is it right ?
You can't defend yourself with the firearm when you are robbed in the street (because the armed cop around the corner is supposed to defend you). When you are terminally ill and in big pain even the good doctor is not allowed to help you in your last wordly decision.
What's next ?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
again I will ask who here would want to be kept alive if you were in the same state as she is???
Raider, what's her state ? Is she so terminally ill that she will die some day ? Or is she so ill that she could die in a month ? :confused:
-
Hey, it's just a human life...why bother feeding her when she stated that she would love to starve to death?
-
I wasnt defending the method of the way she is gonna go. That is the only "legal" way for it to happen. I would have no qualms about morphine overdose or like you suggest lethal injection.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
but that is exactly what matters. HER WISHES. Not yours or congress or lawyers. What she would want. I find it hard to believe anyone would want to live like that. Starving in 2 weeks versus 20 years of that, no thanks. Take my tube out and let me get some sleep.
on another note you are comparing people who are functioning mentally with her. That is not the case. She does not have cognitive ability. Do I think anyone without cognitive ability should be allowed to starve? If that was their wish you bet I do.
Even when this person without cognitive ability is pregnant with a healthy baby ?
-
All this talk about dogs having more rights than humans, because they get lethal injection...
I don't hear these politicians pushing for any law that would allow lethal injection for humans.
It's not about that, obviously.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I wasnt defending the method of the way she is gonna go. That is the only "legal" way for it to happen. I would have no qualms about morphine overdose or like you suggest lethal injection.
so, just kill her then.
-
See Nash and Raider, you don't learn from history. With all our medical wizardry, we assured Karen Quinlan's parent's that the ONLY thing keeping her alive were machines. Her brain had NO function we said - it can't even breath for her.
Well a funny thing happened on the way to the outlet. She lived for 10 years after the respirator was unplugged just to show how arrogant and stupid we are. But it looks like we never learn. Now what the hell are YOU going to do if this woman mouths "water"?
Would such an incident demand this country stop and reflect on its arrogance? Are you that damn sure she has NO awareness?
-
Originally posted by Nash
All this talk about dogs having more rights than humans, because they get lethal injection...
I don't hear these politicians pushing for any law that would allow lethal injection for humans.
It's not about that, obviously.
but she isn't human anymore, she's just a vegitable. Let the ***** starve to death!
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Raider, what's her state ? Is she so terminally ill that she will die some day ? Or is she so ill that she could die in a month ? :confused:
She was a normal person. Now she is confined in a bed, she has to have muscles massaged and exercised or else she gets infections, she can't communicate, she cant feed herself, she is totally dependent on others for keeping her alive. Its not so much physical illness (from my understanding) its that she has brain damage that severely limits her.
-
Nuke, go easy...
It's already quite inflammitory of an issue. It doesn't require your special brand of nudging.
-
Nash, maybe it does.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
She does not have a functioning brain. She is brain damaged. You do know her husband said if the family quit fighting he would donate the letover money to a charity of their choice. So please don't give me its about the money bs. As for she responds to lights and balloons and what not like I said that kind of life would suck and I would rather starve, would you?
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity.
Straight off the families website
Just one more person starved to death by the lawyers.
I wonder what all this buzz is about. :(
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
See Nash and Raider, you don't learn from history. With all our medical wizardry, we assured Karen Quinlan's parent's that the ONLY thing keeping her alive were machines. Her brain had NO function we said - it can't even breath for her.
Well a funny thing happened on the way to the outlet. She lived for 10 years after the respirator was unplugged just to show how arrogant and stupid we are. But it looks like we never learn. Now what the hell are YOU going to do if this woman mouths "water"?
Would such an incident demand this country stop and reflect on its arrogance? Are you that damn sure she has NO awareness?
http://www.who2.com/karenannquinlan.html
"She remained in a coma for almost 10 years in a New Jersey nursing home until her 1985 death."
She lived another 10 years as a vegetable? wow good job. I hope you didnt think that proved your argument. I still see you wont answer the question of what if you were in her place. Would you want to live like that? Its a simple question.
-
A beloved pet in this condition would have been mercifully allowed to expire, or have been put down, almost immediately. Yet, because of our "compassion" we force this unfortunate woman to linger. For fifteen years.
If the "compassion" exhibited on these boards is any indication, she may well be forced to linger for another 15.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
A beloved pet in this condition would have been mercifully allowed to expire, or have been put down, almost immediately. Yet, because of our "compassion" we force this unfortunate woman to linger. For fifteen years.
yeah, and we shoot horses who get broken legs too.
Maybe we should put down any human with a fatal condition, like AIDS.....just like an animal or pet.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Just one more person starved to death by the lawyers.
I wonder what all this buzz is about. :(
Its turned political. Arent they calling the bill the Palm Sunday Compromise? This is just another issue that will divide the country thanks to our wonderful media and congress. It's turning into your either for life or your against it when that is far from how people feel about it.
-
Left to the laws of nature, Nuke, she would have died long ago. She has no hope of recovery, according to every medical specialist who has physically examined her.
When would you be willing to admit that enough is enough?
-
>>She lived another 10 years as a vegetable? wow good job. I hope you didnt think that proved your argument. I still see you wont answer the question of what if you were in her place. Would you want to live like that? Its a simple question.<<
What part are you missing here? The Doctors said she had NO brain function - not even primitive involuntary functions like breathing. The DOCTORS said she could not breath by herself. THE DOCTORS were WRONG. So what part did you miss? Did you miss the part the doctors weren't as sophisticated as they thought they were or the part that the will to live is stronger and more enigmatic than most know when frivously contemplated on sunny beaches with 5 caronas.
Which part did you miss?
-
Anyone done any real researching of the claims that hubby Mike beat the krap out of her and doesn't want her talking ever again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main evidence comes from a bone scan taken on March 5, 1991. As Terri’s guardian, Michael Schiavo denied her family access to Terri’s records, the results of which were not made available until November, 2002. This scan indicated numerous broken bones in various stages of healing, including compressions fractures, a broken back, pelvis, ankle, bone bruises and ossifications.
Board certified radiologist Dr. Walker read the scan in 1991 and interpreted the results as abnormal, which he attributed to either an accident or earlier trauma. Based on the remodeling process of her bones, Dr. Walker stated in his deposition that a) the injuries indicated by the scan occurred on or around the time that Terri Schiavo collapsed; b) the abnormalities on the bone scan were not typical of someone suffering cardiac arrest and collapsing to the floor, and c) the fractures indicated by the bone scan are not typical of patients bedridden only thirteen months.
As recorded in Dr. Walker’s November 21, 2003 deposition, Terri might have been the victim of foul play via a blow to her body, being thrown into a sharp furniture corner, or assaulted with a blunt object
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently, he also wants the body cremated immediately, no autopsy.
Things that can make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>She lived another 10 years as a vegetable? wow good job. I hope you didnt think that proved your argument. I still see you wont answer the question of what if you were in her place. Would you want to live like that? Its a simple question.<<
What part are you missing here? The Doctors said she had NO brain function - not even primitive involuntary functions like breathing. The DOCTORS said she could not breath by herself. THE DOCTORS were WRONG. So what part did you miss? Did you miss the part the doctors weren't as sophisticated as they thought they were or the part that the will to live is stronger and more enigmatic than most know when frivously contemplated on sunny beaches with 5 caronas.
Which part did you miss?
I missed the part where she recovered and went on and lived anything close to a normal life.
You want to answer the question of whether you would want to live as a vegetable or be allowed to die or just want to bring up other cases?
-
Toad, how did the courts punish the husband for beating his wife?
or...
Isn't it terrible that the word of a single doctor is disregarded like this?
Isn't it funny how this has been overlooked?
And it defies logic how the Pentagon got 'xploded despite no plane hitting it.
-
Tell ya what Nash... they keep those bone scans. They show stuff pretty well; had one myself.
I believe I'd have a panel of Board Certified (BTW, this certification almost always means the guy really knows his chit) radiologists review the scan and see what they say BEFORE I pulled the plug.
If they were clear on lots of broken bones, I'd keep feeding her. I had an uncle that was "vegetative" for several years. He'd made a lot of money over the years and my aunt finally found him a place where they just didn't give up on the rehab. It was pretty intensive. He eventually popped out of it, even though initially "they" said he never would. He spent the last 3 years of his life quite sentient, speaking with his wife, children and grandkids.
So, I have a bit of a different viewpoint, I guess.
If the verdict of the Board Cert Radiologists was "maybe", I sure wouldn't let him cremate her without an autopsy. You can discount Mikey being a mean bassage if you like. Not everyone has to, though.
I mean.. if he beat her into a coma, do you want him to get away with it? All that needs doing is a competent review of the bone scan. Is that such a big deal? What.. a couple of days tops?
-
>>You want to answer the question of whether you would want to live as a vegetable or be allowed to die or just want to bring up other cases?
<<
#1 vegetative state is a medical term - vegetable ISN'T
#2 whether or not I would want to live in a vegetative state or in a slum or in Florida has nothing to do with the fact or whether or not our government allows people to starve other people to death.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Anyone done any real researching of the claims that hubby Mike beat the krap out of her and doesn't want her talking ever again?
Apparently, he also wants the body cremated immediately, no autopsy.
Things that can make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Is that the same Dr. Walker as this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3141058.stm
Cortex 'destroyed'
Mr and Mrs Schindler say their daughter would die slowly and painfully from starvation. Such a death would be a graphic and horrifying thought to most people, but Dr Walker said Mrs Schiavo simply does not feel hunger or thirst.
Terri Schiavo's parents say her husband has "deprived her of her dignity"
Mrs Schiavo's brain scans have not been made public but Dr Walker has followed the case closely through media reports and court records.
"The majority of her cerebral cortex - the part of the brain that thinks and feels - has been destroyed and replaced by fluid," he said.
"She doesn't have any perception, there is no reason to believe she can suffer."
Unlike a patient in a coma, Dr Walker believes there is no hope for recovery for someone in Mrs Schiavo's condition - known as permanent vegetative state - because the cerebral cortex does not regrow once destroyed.
Despite the medical term, however, video of Terri Schiavo on a website run by her parents' supporters shows her more like a baby. But this is misleading as the movements are purely reflexes, Dr Walker says.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Left to the laws of nature, Nuke, she would have died long ago. She has no hope of recovery, according to every medical specialist who has physically examined her.
When would you be willing to admit that enough is enough?
Laws of nature? So you don't believe in medical assistance for anyone?
In nature, people died from smallpox too.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>You want to answer the question of whether you would want to live as a vegetable or be allowed to die or just want to bring up other cases?
<<
you seem to be okay living as a vegitable.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>You want to answer the question of whether you would want to live as a vegetable or be allowed to die or just want to bring up other cases?
<<
#1 vegetative state is a medical term - vegetable ISN'T
#2 whether or not I would want to live in a vegetative state or in a slum or in Florida has nothing to do with the fact or whether or not our government allows people to starve other people to death.
1) I didnt ask you a medical question I asked you a straight question. WOULD YOU WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT?
Guess you won't answer. Fair enough. The government should allow anyone who chooses to depart the earth do so. I think (until shown otherwise) she would not have wanted to live like that. So that being the case that her husband is obeying his wife's wishes and everyone else should back out. What you see as murder I see as a husband doing something out of love of his wife.
-
>> because the cerebral cortex does not regrow once destroyed.
<<
Now you see, even here there is a great debate. Only a quack of a doctor would claim to know for certain functions of the cerebral cortext can not be moved to other areas of the brain. There are many experiment ongoing try to discern that. And this quack of a doctor just knows this? Has he done any studies on hemispherectomies???
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Is that the same Dr. Walker as this one?
Nope. Yours is a Dr. Robert Walker, deals with ethics.
The radiologist was Dr. W. Campbell Walker, who concluded that Terri had "a history of trauma."
Be kinda strange if she just collapsed and as a result the scan showed a healed broken right femur bone and healed fractures in Terri's ribs, pelvis, spine, and ankle about a year later, wouldn't it?
That'd be some forking collapse.
-
Toad,
I do not know how it is possible to beat someone in such a way as to cause an electrolyte imbalance in a bolemic which brings on a heart attack, resulting in a vegetative state.
You know something about dogs, and hunting... but I'm not sure I'm ready to join you on this particular trip.
As to your uncle, it is my understanding that nobody in Schiavo's condition has snapped out of it after one year. It's my understanding that the term "permanent" is applied after the passing of one year, because it has not happened past this point.
Is your using the word "vegetable" between quotations because your uncle was not in fact in the same condition as this woman?
-
.
-
The bottom line is that she is a human being who some people want to allow to starve to death.
Funny that the Dems in our country, who say they are looking out for the helpless and say they value life.......well, they are the one's who want to abort babies and starve people like her.
No human compassion at all.
What is the great harm in allowing her to be treated and to live? If you say she is suffering and needs to die...then wrong answer.
She is a human being and starving her to death is barbaric.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nope. Yours is a Dr. Robert Walker, deals with ethics.
The radiologist was Dr. W. Campbell Walker, who concluded that Terri had "a history of trauma."
Be kinda strange if she just collapsed and as a result the scan showed a healed broken right femur bone and healed fractures in Terri's ribs, pelvis, spine, and ankle about a year later, wouldn't it?
That'd be some forking collapse.
ahh... Yeah I have been trying to find more info on but havent been able to find much. Very troubling indeed. Wish there was more info out on it.
-
No, I use it in quotes because that's what the "experts" called him and I don't think it was true, since it turned out otherwise. ;)
Nonetheless..what's the big deal with getting 3 or 5 Board Cert Radiologists to review it in one work week or less before pulling the plug?
Like I said... if he DID beat the krap out of her, you want him to get away with it? Seems pretty easy to rule out that possibility. Broken bones show up real well on the scans.
-
Funny that the Dems and liberals want to let her starve to death, yet some of these same fools want to protect trees and owls.
-
I guess some people have no moral compass.
-
If she did indeed get beaten into a vegatable, of course I would see it differently.
My gut tells me that her parents would take any avenue to prevent her natural death... and would not turn a blind eye to this one.
Either they too think it's kooky, or they have in fact tried and... well, it went nowehere.
Re. yer uncle... You should call the news 'cuz they are reporting false info if that's the case.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The bottom line is that she is a human being who some people want to allow to starve to death.
Funny that the Dems in our country, who say they are looking out for the helpless and say they value life.......well, they are the one's who want to abort babies and starve people like her.
No human compassion at all.
What is the great harm in allowing her to be treated and to live? If you say she is suffering and needs to die...then wrong answer.
She is a human being and starving her to death is barbaric.
Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Its turned political. Arent they calling the bill the Palm Sunday Compromise? This is just another issue that will divide the country thanks to our wonderful media and congress. It's turning into your either for life or your against it when that is far from how people feel about it.
Raider, if a comatose woman could give birth to a child, had she been dead for the ten previous years ? I think she was not dead.
Her human mind was not very much in sync with us chatting boxes, but one of the major woman's ability to carry children survived well.
I just would like to know the opinions of the brain doctors on this case. Is the childbearing function of the woman's body independant from brain functions ? I doubt it. But such an opinion casts dark shadows on the diagnoses of modern medicine stars who overestimate the "cognitive" aspect of brain functions.
Another link gives us another doubt. The comatose girl was on ventilator for ten years but after the removal of the machine she kept on breazing on her own. This fact definetely tells us about the improvement of her state of health.
Are there any true stories of the "awakening" of the comatose people after several years of "no life" ?
-
>>Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.<<
And we have that in writing, right?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Funny that the Dems and liberals want to let her starve to death, yet some of these same fools want to protect trees and owls.
I knew it was a matter of time before someone turned this political. Please stop jeez.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.
How do you know?
Maybe she stated that she would love to be starved to death too.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Raider, if a comatose woman could give birth to a child, had she been dead for the ten previous years ? I think she was not dead.
Her human mind was not very much in sync with us chatting boxes, but one of the major woman's ability to carry children survived well.
I just would like to know the opinions of the brain doctors on this case. Is the childbearing function of the woman's body independant from brain functions ? I doubt it. But such an opinion casts dark shadows on the diagnoses of modern medicine stars who overestimate the "cognitive" aspect of brain functions.
Another link gives us another doubt. The comatose girl was on ventilator for ten years but after the removal of the machine she kept on breazing on her own. This fact definetely tells us about the improvement of her state of health.
Are there any true stories of the "awakening" of the comatose people after several years of "no life" ?
Genozaur the woman died in a coma after another 10 years. She didnt improve anymore than she could breathe on her own. That is not "improvement". No mental capacity = life sucks = let me die
I think pregnancy is just a bodily function that requires unconcious thought just like breathing when sleeping.
-
Raider, all I can tell you is if someone wants the state to go through with the barbaric task of starving them to death if they become incapacitated, it should be written , witnessed and notorized and the state given the chance to object to such a thing. As far as I know, all we have is dear old hubby's word.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I knew it was a matter of time before someone turned this political. Please stop jeez.
what do you mean?? It is political.....the US House and Senate are deciding it dumb chit.
And the dems/libs want her to starve to death, because they are the compasionate ones.
-
Well, I guess it goes back to the courts for a re-re-redo.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.<<
And we have that in writing, right?
Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me. Unless it is shown otherwise I will take his word.
Like I asked earlier who would want to live like that? Anyone here? Anyone want to say they would rather be like she is than just starve? Again I will say not me and not anyone I know. Starving for 2 weeks seems a pretty small price to pay to end 17 years of what looks to me to be a horrible way to live.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Raider, all I can tell you is if someone wants the state to go through with the barbaric task of starving them to death if they become incapacitated, it should be written , witnessed and notorized and the state given the chance to object to such a thing. As far as I know, all we have is dear old hubby's word.
yeah It should have been, but you know what she was 26 when it happened. I am 27 and I don't have one either. My parents on the other hand in their 60s and 70s do have them. Probably felt like I do that nothing like that could ever happen this early in life.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me.
Kind of like Scott Peters saying he went fishing.....he said it, so it's good enough for you huh?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
what do you mean?? It is political.....the US House and Senate are deciding it dumb chit.
And the dems/libs want her to starve to death, because they are the compasionate ones.
I meant someone on this board. But thanks for your kind words. Wonder if that will fall under the circumventing the language filter?? Try to debate an issue without name calling because as soon as you do your argument goes right out the window.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Kind of like Scott Peters saying he went fishing.....he said it, so it's good enough for you huh?
That case has no bearing on this case. but i see you are upset and being irrational now so I will go to sleep and let you vent.
-
>>Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me. Unless it is shown otherwise I will take his word.
<<
Well its not good enough for me, and I hope it isn't good enough for the majority of this country. We're talking about killing someone, not whether or not they want yellow or pink flowers on their casket. It sure seems they should be some official instrument in place before you take up the task of starving someone to death to comply with their wishes. Was she of sound mind when she requested this? Did she know how dieing of thirst would feel? Were there more humane ways of killing her? Did she consider it suicide?
Seems there would need to be something in writing.
-
I am amazed that people exist that would allow a human to starve to death......yet a lot of the same idiots are against the death penalty and are hugging trees and crying about owls and the environment.
It's a joke and 90% of the intelligent people know it. Too bad only about 2% of the people on this earth can be considered intelligent.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Kind of like Scott Peters saying he went fishing.....he said it, so it's good enough for you huh?
Good enough? No.
But in both cases, folks considered the evidence and came up with a decision.
This fiasco in Congress wasn't the first time people considered her case. In fact, this latest consideration was the most lacking out of all.
Now it'll go back to people reconsidering what they've already reconsidered, and I just wonder what might happen if Congress once again finds that they aren't happy with their conclusion.
-
Nash, there is no excuse for starving a human to death.
If I had a horse and decided not to feed it, I'd go to prison.
-
Nuke, the way I see it, two weeks of starvation will end fifteen years of hell.
I don't think the two are at all comparable.
When we die most of us will starve to death...debilitating illnesses rob people of their appetites through the onset of nausea.
I watched my maternal grandmother die in that fashion. She suffered a stroke one day and collapsed in a nursing home, striking her head on the edge of a coffee table. The immediate effects of the stroke were not too severe...yet she was never again to leave the hospital. She had numerous minor strokes after that first one which steadily eroded her mental functions.
Her family watched her slowly become a mental vegetable. Unable to feed herself, she was placed on life-support. If she hadn't been of old farm-family stock, and as tough as boot leather, her death might have been easier. At the time of her death, three years later, she no longer recognized any of us and physically was a shadow of her former self. Death was a blessing.
The plight of the Shiavo girl is not unfamiliar to me. There are many things worse than death.
So don't dare tell me that I have no moral compass because my viewpoint on this matter is different from yours. That smacks of self-righteousness.
"Libs and Democrats?" That hardly applies to me.
-
Just read Toad's post about his uncle who "returned back" after several years in "vegetative" state.
Do the doctors in these United States keep the statistics on such remarcable cases ?
I bet you, they don't. Because they are not very much intrested in the statistics of their mistakes.
:rolleyes:
-
well I'm through with this argument. I know that the US will not allow her to be starved to death, mark my words.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, there is no excuse for starving a human to death.
Well, there may be no excuse.... but then we'd be talking in existentialistic jargon and we all know where that goes.
However, there IS law... Just ask Bush.
Spare me your poor horsey analogy. We're beyond it.
-
I agree. This one of those cases where I think it will be "I don't care what the hell the letter of the law states, this will not be allowed to happen. It goes against civilized society."
-
Well someone oughta tell the hospitals and insurance companies about it (in case they aren't paying attention), 'cuz this stuff happens every single day.
-
If I'm ever in a like condition may God save me from civilized people.
-
Ditto.
If it happens to me, do a search, print this post, and save me from those who would want to project their own weakness, ideology, sanctimony, politics, disregard, and meddling onto my souless body.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well someone oughta tell the hospitals and insurance companies about it (in case they aren't paying attention), 'cuz this stuff happens every single day.
Yep...
While I do agree I'd like to see her die quickly, it won't happen. Unfortunately, public opinion (aka law makers and the average citizen) has decided that to quickly euthanize anyone is illegal.
You have bone cancer? Too bad, you have to let nature take its course, even if we can't keep you comfortable until then. Have ALS and you want to die, even after a year to think about it? Too bad...
Maybe someday we can be a society that allows voluntary or involuntary euthanasia (family decision) when reviewed by a Medical Board and only in place of a Living Will.
I hope everyone has a Living Will, it would help your loved ones with the horrible decisions no one wants to make.
-
Let's drill for oil in ANWR too!
-
>>While I do agree I'd like to see her die quickly, it won't happen. Unfortunately, public opinion (aka law makers and the average citizen) has decided that to quickly euthanize anyone is illegal.
<<
No we decided starving someone to death over two weeks is barbaric. Which part of that did you miss?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Genozaur the woman died in a coma after another 10 years. She didnt improve anymore than she could breathe on her own. That is not "improvement". No mental capacity = life sucks = let me die
I think pregnancy is just a bodily function that requires unconcious thought just like breathing when sleeping.
Wait, Raider. She died after another ten years, so you can't call her regaining the ability to breath on her own the improvement ? Strange logic.
And BTW, what was the actual cause of her death ? Do you know it ? It could be anything, not necessarily connected to her comatose state, an infection, for instance. But in any case a temporary improvement that lasted for ten years can be called improvement because we compare her state with her previous total dependence on the machine.
And your opinion about pregnancy as just an unconcious bodily function does not seem right to me. But here we only have your opinion against mine, and both of us are the too distant medical stars, I guess.
Anyway, it's strange to me that such interesting problems are not discussed widely enough so that we, common folks, do get at least some information on female reproductive function. Is it really just like sneazing or the girl has to have some brains for that ?
:D
-
Nobody "decided" anything about that tonight, Tweety.
It was decided in this individual case.
But tomorrow, someone's feeding tube will be removed. Within the bounds of law, it will be removed.
This is a circus, what you just saw happen tonight.
If they were against the removal of feeding tubes, there would be a law to that effect. But there is not.
So... it is Congress deciding it wants to be involved in specific legal cases. That's all. And it's retarded. (I know you love that word).
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Her husband said it. Thats good enough for me. Unless it is shown otherwise I will take his word.
Like I asked earlier who would want to live like that? Anyone here? Anyone want to say they would rather be like she is than just starve? Again I will say not me and not anyone I know. Starving for 2 weeks seems a pretty small price to pay to end 17 years of what looks to me to be a horrible way to live.
OK, Raider. Here it comes.
If I were a comatose woman in my reproductive years [ :eek: ] and my husband [:eek: ] wanted to have a heir to the Atamanship of Don Cossack Republic, I wouln't mind.
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I am amazed that people exist that would allow a human to starve to death......yet a lot of the same idiots are against the death penalty and are hugging trees and crying about owls and the environment.
It's a joke and 90% of the intelligent people know it. Too bad only about 2% of the people on this earth can be considered intelligent.
Originally posted by NUKE
I am amazed that people exist that would allow a human to starve to death......yet a lot of the same idiots are against the death penalty and are hugging trees and crying about owls and the environment.
It's a joke and 90% of the intelligent people know it. Too bad only about 2% of the people on this earth can be considered intelligent.
QUOTE]Originally posted by NUKE
I am amazed that people exist that would allow a human to starve to death......yet a lot of the same idiots are against the death penalty and are hugging trees and crying about owls and the environment.
It's a joke and 90% of the intelligent people know it. Too bad only about 2% of the people on this earth can be considered intelligent. [/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, there is no excuse for starving a human to death.
If I had a horse and decided not to feed it, I'd go to prison.
That's a disingenuous argument: the reason they starve them to death is because the "life at any cost" camp - such as yourself - won't let them do it humanely. It has to be done naturally so that everyone can pull a Pilate and wash their hands of the affair.
-
>>Nuke, the way I see it, two weeks of starvation will end fifteen years of hell.<<
This way of thinking concerns me also. If she is, in fact, in "fifteen years of hell." that implies awareness. One cant be in hell if there is no awareness. So if you imply she is aware, you are making an abitrary value judgement of her enjoyment of her life. You are, with absolutely no objective evidence, saying she feels no joy with the sound of her parent's voice or that she feels more pain (or "hell") than joy. You can't know this. Now if in fact there is no awareness, she couldn't possibly be feeling pain or "hell ."
That tells me the only possible hell you could be talking about is not HER hell, but hubby's hell. He doesn't want to be burdened with her being alive anymore. Is that a reason to kill her?
If she is in "hell" she is aware and you better bring objective evidence that she is in constant pain and not some blissful state or a state with up and downs (like most people) before you kill her. If they are killing her because of the husband's "hell", well thats plain murder.
-
I just saw a pic of a cat scan of Sciavo's brain. Where most of us have brain matter, hers is gone. It is 2/3 filled up with spinal fluid which has eaten away that which was once brain matter. It is like a lake inside there. It resembles a coconut.
Through 10 years of litigation that this case has already undergone, every single judge has agreed. And there have been dozens and dozens of them who have heard reams and reams of testimony by dozens and dozens of experts who also all agree.
But Congress doesn't... based on....?
So it'll go back to the courts, where yet more judges and more experts will agree about the same thing they've been agreeing on for the last decade.
What will Congress do then?
-
Pulling the feeding tubes on that woman is not like letting one of us more or less healthy persons starve in the desert. Years of experience in palliative care have shown that dying by dehydration is not horrific as most people think. Terminal hydration (e.g. by infusions) have not proven to give any benefit. If she had higher brain functions they would "turn off" in terminal dehydration. Nature works quite well here. And we speaking about days, not weeks.
-
WTG Bush!!!
Again!!
-
Nash, don't you get it...they're not really arguing about what's right for her. They're demonstrating the classic human psychological trait of refusing to concede their point. I guess we're all doing it to some extent.
Yet, at some stage, we have to say to 'ell with our own beliefs and with what her husband and parents want and decide what's best for her. Refusing to concede the issue will only cause her to linger on endlessly in a mindless purgatory, which would be a position that gives the lie to our protestations of compassion.
A couple of decades ago, a young man and his father stopped their car in a small patch of woods on some property they were thinking about buying. Unwittingly, they stepped from their vehicle into a pool of unseen gas that was leaking from a pipeline nearby.
Something set it off. In the ensuing conflagration, the father burned to death and the son suffered third degree burns over his entire body.
An ambulance eventually arrived and took what had once been a normal human being to the hospital. The hideously burned victim still possessed a fully functioning mind and was able to communicate with his family and doctors. He pleaded with them to let him die.
The physicians and burn specialists refused to listen to his pleas. With fingers melted together, no hair remaining on his body, vestigial ears, and suffering unbelievable torment, he begged to be allowed the relief of death...and he was refused.
Years later, after extensive treatment and plastic surgery, he was released to try to rebuild his life. In an interview on Nightline (Hope my memory hasn't failed me) his physicians acted as if there was nothing else that they could do...as if forcing him to live was somehow more humane and compassionate than simply allowing, or assisting him to die.
The young man has attempted to rebuild his life, but he did it not for himself but for those around him. He has a job, but with horrible burn scars over his entire body, he will probably never be married and is unable to have children.
Asked about the doctor's decisions to move heaven and earth in order to save him, in light of events that happened later, the young man told the interviewer, "They should have let me die."
So you see, I find the reasoning behind some of the arguments against allowing this girl to die to be more about one's own need to dig in and defend a nebulous "principle" than about what's right for her.
-
Even if they starve her, I think the hubby's "instant cremation "idea should be shelved. I think it is common sense that an autopsy be performed to see if she'd been beaten into that coma.
If so, a criminal investigation.
-
ya know i lost my father to enphasema 2 years ago{stop smoking now!!!!cigaretts kill} anyway he could still be with us to this day but he signed a DNR cause he didnt want a machine to breathe for him ,that was HIS choice .
how dose anyone know what a husband and wife tell each other in pivate,i know my wife and i have had the "what if "talk ,and neither of us want to be left in a state where we would have no "life"what is happening here is another case of big brother telling us , is it always right to extend life just cause medical scince can
-
Originally posted by 1redrum
ya know i lost my father to enphasema 2 years ago{stop smoking now!!!!cigaretts kill} anyway he could still be with us to this day but he signed a DNR cause he didnt want a machine to breathe for him ,that was HIS choice .
how dose anyone know what a husband and wife tell each other in pivate,i know my wife and i have had the "what if "talk ,and neither of us want to be left in a state where we would have no "life"what is happening here is another case of big brother telling us , is it always right to extend life just cause medical scince can
then you better get it in writing
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Wait, Raider. She died after another ten years, so you can't call her regaining the ability to breath on her own the improvement ? Strange logic.
And BTW, what was the actual cause of her death ? Do you know it ? It could be anything, not necessarily connected to her comatose state, an infection, for instance. But in any case a temporary improvement that lasted for ten years can be called improvement because we compare her state with her previous total dependence on the machine.
And your opinion about pregnancy as just an unconcious bodily function does not seem right to me. But here we only have your opinion against mine, and both of us are the too distant medical stars, I guess.
Anyway, it's strange to me that such interesting problems are not discussed widely enough so that we, common folks, do get at least some information on female reproductive function. Is it really just like sneazing or the girl has to have some brains for that ?
:D
Sorry but to me if you are in a coma you did not improve. Even if you can breathe on your own. Laying in a bed for 10 years before I die would be pure hell. I don't know how you can say anything different about the pregnancy thing being an unconcious function. She was in a coma right? that means she was unconcious. But I will admit it does bring up another interesting point on the subject.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
OK, Raider. Here it comes.
If I were a comatose woman in my reproductive years [ :eek: ] and my husband [:eek: ] wanted to have a heir to the Atamanship of Don Cossack Republic, I wouln't mind.
:D :D :D
That is no answer to the question. Would you want to be like Terri for 17 years or would you rather starve in 2 weeks? That is the question. No pregnancy stuff, no horses, no dogs. Simple yes or no will work for an answer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Even if they starve her, I think the hubby's "instant cremation "idea should be shelved. I think it is common sense that an autopsy be performed to see if she'd been beaten into that coma.
If so, a criminal investigation.
I agree with this toad just because of the earlier info you brought out.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
That tells me the only possible hell you could be talking about is not HER hell, but hubby's hell. He doesn't want to be burdened with her being alive anymore. Is that a reason to kill her?
If she is in "hell" she is aware and you better bring objective evidence that she is in constant pain and not some blissful state or a state with up and downs (like most people) before you kill her. If they are killing her because of the husband's "hell", well thats plain murder.
Tweety I don't think you get it that some people would rather die than live like she is. Know what "hell" he is talking about? It doesnt neccesarily have to be physical pain, Not being able to talk to people, not being able to feed yourself, not being able to clean yourself, not being able to walk, not being able to read, the list for her goes on and on. And That my friend is truly a living hell.
-
all you proponents of letting her die, answer me this question.
if she was so set on NOT being kept alive, as her husband claims, why did he let her last even 1 month back when this happened?
he let this go on for many years... for what?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I just saw a pic of a cat scan of Sciavo's brain. Where most of us have brain matter, hers is gone. It is 2/3 filled up with spinal fluid which has eaten away that which was once brain matter. It is like a lake inside there. It resembles a coconut.
Through 10 years of litigation that this case has already undergone, every single judge has agreed. And there have been dozens and dozens of them who have heard reams and reams of testimony by dozens and dozens of experts who also all agree.
But Congress doesn't... based on....?
So it'll go back to the courts, where yet more judges and more experts will agree about the same thing they've been agreeing on for the last decade.
What will Congress do then?
Nash, there is no streightforwardly direct correlation between the size of the brain and mental abilities.
Effectively what you are saying is that the elephants are wiser than the humans.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
That is no answer to the question. Would you want to be like Terri for 17 years or would you rather starve in 2 weeks? That is the question. No pregnancy stuff, no horses, no dogs. Simple yes or no will work for an answer.
Sorry, Raider, but the world around you is not a black-and-white picture.
I am glad that you are still in your youthful dualistic state of mind (good - bad, blondes - brunettes, yes - no).
But the world is much more complicated than that - not only different shades of gray matter, but there are also totally different colours that matter in various environments and under the changing curcumstances.
-
Originally posted by JB73
all you proponents of letting her die, answer me this question.
if she was so set on NOT being kept alive, as her husband claims, why did he let her last even 1 month back when this happened?
he let this go on for many years... for what?
I think to give her a chance...Then when she made no progress he started the process.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Sorry, Raider, but the world around you is not a black-and-white picture.
I am glad that you are still in your youthful dualistic state of mind (good - bad, blondes - brunettes, yes - no).
But the world is much more complicated than that - not only different shades of gray matter, but there are also totally different colours that matter in various environments and under the changing curcumstances.
Genz I asked a simple yes or no question. If you were in her place would you want to be kept like that? it is a yes or no. It isn't gray. it isnt anything other than a simple question. See my point being is I think most of us would say No I wouldnt want to be kept like that. So what would make you think she would?
Your analogies although colorful are pointless. I know that everything is not black and white but just answer yes or no. WOULD YOU WANT TO BE KEPT LIKE THAT? no disclaimers, no little clever ways of not answering just say yes I would like to be kept alive if I was in her position or no I would rather starve for 2 weeks. Thanks.
-
Is "Hell NO!" to many words?
I see "quality of life" thrown around from time to time and for me that seems to be one of the most important things to consider.
I understand both sides but I try to look at it as if it was me and there is no way in hell I would want to be kept alive. Regardless of if there was a chance I could make a partial recovery.
If someone was going to have to care for me for the rest of my life then pull the tube now.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Is "Hell NO!" to many words?
I see "quality of life" thrown around from time to time and for me that seems to be one of the most important things to consider.
I understand both sides but I try to look at it as if it was me and there is no way in hell I would want to be kept alive. Regardless of if there was a chance I could make a partial recovery.
If someone was going to have to care for me for the rest of my life then pull the tube now.
ty Mighty1 that is the answer I would expect from 90% of people.
-
Originally posted by genozaur
Nash, there is no streightforwardly direct correlation between the size of the brain and mental abilities.
Which really has nothing to do with this case. As we aren't just talking about a smaller brain, but a brain that is half destroyed.
Why do people think that the husband is the only person that heard her say she didn't want to live like that. Both his brother and sister testifed that they heard her say it also.
-
Not eating or starving ones-self to death is pretty much the only method left to the terminally ill to end their suffering. You want to take this right away? You want to force people to live as a burden when they have expressed to their Spouse's/friends/family that they would not want to live like that? I know you can say "get a living will" but many people don't have one and die unexpectedly. You want the government to make these very personal decisions instead of the persons loved ones?
g00b
-
Originally posted by Toad
...If so, a criminal investigation.
Saw the dude on CNN - Larry King last night. It's being replayed tonight at 9pm EST. I got a huge part of the story that isn't being told. You can check out the guy's character for yourself. Lets just say that a criminal investigation is not gonna happen (kookoo, even?).
-
Nash, that's a bit too cryptic.
What part isn't being told? Is the guy a Saint or something?
-
Perhaps the real thing we should all take away from this is a lesson in the importance of involving your family in knowing what your wishes are. Organ donors have to do this already (make sure their family knows that they want to be organ donors so some hyperanxious relative doesn't derail the process). Arguably, those who would NOT want to be kept alive in a perisistent vegetative state backed up by medical imaging (as is the case here) that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that recovery is not gonna happen, should tell their families.
I have told my wife that I would NOT want to be kept alive on a machine in this situation, and she's told me the same. The next step is to let my parents know, as well as write it down (I believe it's called a 'living will?').
-
Regardless of the morality of starving her verses keeping her alive in her vegetative state, congress doesn't belong anywhere near this case.
If they want to be the morality police, they should be spending their time trying to get inocent people off death row or out of prison.
Why don't they you ask? Because it's not their fricking job!!!!
-
>>If they want to be the morality police, they should be spending their time trying to get inocent people off death row or out of prison.
<<
Yea congress should spend more time getting murderers off of death row and letting others starve disabled people
:rolleyes:
If a dog was in a vegetative state it would not be starved to death. But its ok to starve a human to death? What kind of wacko world are we living in?
The disgusting part is this woman were an animal you'd have every wacky liberal on capital hill carrying posters to save her life.
The Liberals and humanists have positively went over the deep end.
-
(http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg)
The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low. Cranial space that would otherwize have been filled by gray matter is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid. And yes, that’s what the blue space is: cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind by necrotic brain tissue that has been scavenged and removed by the body. The white squiggly things are white matter - connective tracts that have the loose, uncoiled look about them that they do because, again, the grey matter that once compressed them is no longer there, so they “float” loosely in CSF.
She cannot come back because there is no back to come back to.
-
All these people who so greatly respect the cerebral cortex would go nuts if someone stomped a chicken to death. Yet they see no problem starving a human to death. Just when you think we can get no nuttier, something shows we are a country of kneejerk, arogant morons.
-
Give up Nash... this one's about as useless as trying to sell ice to Calgary.
The funny thing is that everyone wants to believe that the Florida courts are all buffoons and have done nothing but blindfold themselves and throw darts at a board over the last 15 years.
-
Oh the poor puppies... or chickens...
Removing the feeding tube has been done for ages. Might I remind you once again that as Governer of Texas, Bush signed into law the removal of feeding tubes if the patient was in a condition like Terri's but couldn't pay for their care.
It goes like this: The hospital can say "hopeless", but will still treat the patient if they'll get paid for it. If they can't get paid for it, the patient is free to find another hospital for their care. Since no other hospital will take the non-paying patient, the tubes/respirator/whatever is removed.
This stuff isn't new. It didn't begin with Terri. Only the hysteria did. Why the hysteria? Why have we found out about this one case in a sea of simular cases? Interesting question....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Give up Nash... this one's about as useless as trying to sell ice to Calgary.
Heh. :)
-
How about this MT, we don't practice euthanasia in this country until we decide on a humane way of doing it. Is that so much to ask? Why should a chicken being slaughtered for KFC be treated more humanely than this woman?
-
The same people who are squawking about the "inhumane" removing of feeding tubes are the 'zact same folks who would never allow any kind of gentler method.
-
Hellya Tweets. It would be much more humane to inject her with whatever. We just lack the scrotalbearings to do it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg)
She cannot come back because there is no back to come back to.
I cracked open a walnut one time that was all jacked up like that. I didn't eat it.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I cracked open a walnut one time that was all jacked up like that. I didn't eat it.
lol.. ...spit coffee you bastard.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea congress should spend more time getting murderers off of death row
:rolleyes:
So we are in agreement that this would not be an appropriate job for congress. It's just as inappropriate for them to try and circumvent the judicial branch in the Shiavo case.
-
>>Hellya Tweets. It would be much more humane to inject her with whatever. We just lack the scrotalbearings to do it.
<<
Well great - we're all on the same page and agree this barbaric method should be halted immediately and work on a constitutional ammedment addresing humane euthanasia.
This woman should NOT be starved to death.
-
Why didn't the Congress spend their time last night making that law, instead of the one that intruded into a single case of it?
They don't give a rats arse about that. In fact the medical and insurance lobyists would be screamin' bloody murder and be yankin' back the campain donations faster than you could blink.
-
>>They don't give a rats arse about that. In fact the medical and insurance lobyists would be screamin' bloody murder and be yankin' back the campain donations faster than you could blink.
<<
So we've stepped back from logic and going to go to psychic readings now? Maybe its YOU who don't give a rats bellybutton about life. Maybe they DO.
-
Right... What you're sayin' is "logic"?
It's been emotional hysteria.
You're gettin' played.
-
No living will = error on the side of life.
I wouldn't want to live like that. My WHOLE family knows this. I have a living will. No DNR. No living on breathing machines. No living if I cant on my own basically.
It's a tough call. Hubby seems a bit nuts IMO. I just cant get behind letting her die (starving or any other way) if nothing is wrote.
Family is willing to help her , and stuff , so I would have to say let them decide. Her Hubby has obviously "Went on with life" and should leve her be.
I think there is more to what is in it for him than we know. Could be a big reason he wants her gone now. Maybe he has exhausted all he can out of it and wants the rest of what is behind the scenes to just go away.
I don't know really. I have tried to sort of watch what has been happening with it. Really a tough call.
-
>>Right... What you're sayin' is "logic"?
It's been emotional hysteria.
You're gettin' played.
<<
No argument again eh Nash? But that wouldn't stop you eh? Just post and post and someone might think its a point.
You are the one claiming to know why conrgess has acted. I think you are wrong and ther is no possible way to inteligently claim its grandstanding. MOST people in this country respect life and *dont* believe doctors are infallible.
-
Oh, I've made arguments in this thread, Tweety. You don't like them I guess.
I posted a pic of what's left of Terri's brain, and your response is "All these people who so greatly respect the cerebral cortex would go nuts if someone stomped a chicken to death."
Wha?
And you want to compare her to puppies. I can respect people's point of view, but yer being such a chick about this. 'Nuff with you.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
All these people who so greatly respect the cerebral cortex would go nuts if someone stomped a chicken to death. Yet they see no problem starving a human to death. Just when you think we can get no nuttier, something shows we are a country of kneejerk, arogant morons.
yeah science breeds ignorance.... You make all these accusations about those of us who think she deserves the right to die it blows my mind where you are coming up with them. Probably rush limbaugh.
edited for bad wording...
-
George Felos, an attorney for her husband, pointed out that Michael Schiavo is her legal guardian and argued that her parents don't have legal standing to make their case.
Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.
I guess her best friend, unlce and brother-in-law want her dead too. Good lord let this woman go with some dignity and not as a friggin political tool.
-
"deserves" to die?? You kiddin me or are you just tryin to feel me?
For all we know her cymbal vortex might grow back some day and she'll suddenly awake and be sharing a cup of tea and a laugh with her nurse.
Stranger things have happened, you know, and America is the land of miracles so I don't think we should write her off quite yet because I believe as long as she's an American she deserves to be fed.
Unless it makes my taxes go up.
-
Well I have changed my mind. The Nash pics did it.
I can not beleive you can recover from that.
Still it would be nice if we had the balls to put her down with true mercy instead of starving her to death.
I also think the injuries Toad mentioned should be investigated and the hubby presecuted if they can come up with enough evidence agaist him.
Shocking that he was not investigated.
-
>>You make all these accusations about those of us who think she deserves to die it blows my mind <<
And why do you think she deserves to die?
Her illness isn't convenient?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>You make all these accusations about those of us who think she deserves to die it blows my mind <<
And why do you think she deserves to die?
Her illness isn't convenient?
lets see....hmmm because its HER CHOICE TO NOT BE IN THAT STATE! She deserves for her wishes to not be like that to be granted.
-
Sorry should have said deserves the right to die.
Bad wording on my part.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Well I have changed my mind. The Nash pics did it.
I can not beleive you can recover from that.
Half the posters here have a smaller cymbal vortex than her. However, I have changed my mind also. I saw a video of her and man, she was doing this disgusting thing with her mouth and she was acting all weird and generally she looked real disgusting... maybe we should starve her to death.
I mean, yecccch.:eek:
-
LOL Airhead!
You are such a sick bastage! Funny. Damn funny even.
But sick.
Half the posters here have a smaller cymbal vortex than her
Besides, thats just the Euros, mostly the Finnish ones.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
again I will ask who here would want to be kept alive if you were in the same state as she is???
Me. Ok, that clears that up.
-
Tumor, now for the real litmus test question-
Would you hit it? ;)
-
>>Me. Ok, that clears that up.<<
Really. The question is so irelevent. If one says yes, what does it mean? If one say's no, it means just as much. It seems like a cutting question (well I guess to the poster) but its meaningless and irelevent.
Unless he's just curious, then hell yea. If I was in no pain but was giving my parents some happiness, hell yea, keep me alive as long as possible. But I guess more of a narcisist would think differently.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Here is the argument as easy as I can put it. SHE didnt want to live like that. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Her life, Her choice.
You didn't happen to get that information from a burning bush didya? :D
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Tumor, now for the real litmus test question-
Would you hit it? ;)
Damn STRAIGHT I would! Hey, beggars can't be choosey.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Me. Ok, that clears that up.<<
Really. The question is so irelevent. If one says yes, what does it mean? If one say's no, it means just as much. It seems like a cutting question (well I guess to the poster) but its meaningless and irelevent.
Unless he's just curious, then hell yea. If I was in no pain but was giving my parents some happiness, hell yea, keep me alive as long as possible. But I guess more of a narcisist would think differently.
Awww.. it's easy. I "used" to do that "don't let me live like that" thing. But (long before I ever heard the name Schaivo) I changed my mind. I mean, screw it.... dead is dead, so I'm hangin on as long as I can.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Me. Ok, that clears that up.<<
Really. The question is so irelevent. If one says yes, what does it mean? If one say's no, it means just as much. It seems like a cutting question (well I guess to the poster) but its meaningless and irelevent.
Unless he's just curious, then hell yea. If I was in no pain but was giving my parents some happiness, hell yea, keep me alive as long as possible. But I guess more of a narcisist would think differently.
I think it shows that most people would not want to be kept in that state but everyone seems to assume she wanted to. But after I saw the info on her bestfriend and uncle saying they heard her say she wouldnt want to live like that your right it is irrelevant. It is now obvious she said she didnt want to live like that. Abide by her wishes.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
You didn't happen to get that information from a burning bush didya? :D
You didnt happen to read this whole thread did ya? Cause you missed this part if you did...
George Felos, an attorney for her husband, pointed out that Michael Schiavo is her legal guardian and argued that her parents don't have legal standing to make their case.
Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.
notice the last part...let it sink in... Still think her husband is a liar? guess so is her unlce and brother in law and best friend. idiots
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I think it shows that most people would not want to be kept in that state but everyone seems to assume she wanted to. But after I saw the info on her bestfriend and uncle saying they heard her say she wouldnt want to live like that your right it is irrelevant. It is now obvious she said she didnt want to live like that. Abide by her wishes.
I have to say that had this been the issue early on in the case, I probably would have agreed she should be "allowed to die". But not now. Too many questions, and IMHO, way too much money involved. Far too much time has lapsed and to be honest, I don't believe anyone, not mom and dad, not hubby, not even uncle and sister. Too much room for agenda, profit... whatever. I'm just siding with life because, well, she's been here this long, and I figure if she's not aware and someone's willing to take responsibility, leave her alone. What I'm disgusted with is the people who've taken this on to push thier agenda, and I'll apologize in advance but given the circumstances... taking the side of death in this case, as an agenda, (again weighing heavily on the FACT that she is "unaware" and the method she will die) is nothing more than vile and rotten.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You didnt happen to read this whole thread did ya? Cause you missed this part if you did...
George Felos, an attorney for her husband, pointed out that Michael Schiavo is her legal guardian and argued that her parents don't have legal standing to make their case.
Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.
notice the last part...let it sink in... Still think her husband is a liar? guess so is her unlce and brother in law and best friend. idiots
If it's not a notorized written statement, signed by Ms Schaivo, then as far as I'm concerned it's validity is questionable.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
If it's not a notorized written statement, signed by Ms Schaivo, then as far as I'm concerned it's validity is questionable.
These folks disagree with you, and disagree consistently:
The Pinellas County Circuit Court, the Second District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court, the Second District Court of Appeal (again), the Florida Supreme Court (again), the Pinellas Country Circuit Court (again and repeatedly), the Second District Court of Appeal (yet again and repeatedly), the Florida Supreme Court (yet again and repeatedly), and the U.S. Supreme Court.
But uh.... No... Not good enough.... lets get Congress to send this back to Court! What a novel shreckin' idea!
-
>>taking the side of death in this case, as an agenda, (again weighing heavily on the FACT that she is "unaware" and the method she will die) is nothing more than vile and rotten.<<
Certainly you can't undo killing her, or can't undo the pain if its discovered 10 years from now that someone in her condition may have felt themselves starving to death but were unable to convey it because of no motor functions.
As Bush said - err on the side of life.
-
Tumor.....
Common sense...wtg
I'll play Judge
"Mr. Schaivo sir you have moved on with your life. You have 2 children out of wedlock with a woman. You sir should divorce this woman and give up the rights you have. Leave her to her family and move on forward and let her be as she will be until she dies."
easy ruling.
125,000.00 dollars please.
-
Originally posted by Nash
These folks disagree with you, and disagree consistently:
The Pinellas County Circuit Court, the Second District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court, the Second District Court of Appeal (again), the Florida Supreme Court (again), the Pinellas Country Circuit Court (again and repeatedly), the Second District Court of Appeal (yet again and repeatedly), the Florida Supreme Court (yet again and repeatedly), and the U.S. Supreme Court.
But uh.... No... Not good enough.... lets get Congress to send this back to Court! What a novel shreckin' idea!
Ya, all them thar Florida courts is always co-rrect.
Actually, I don't give a crap about what congress or the courts did... whats BEEN done to this woman from the get-go is wrong in every way. Now that she doesn't even have the capability to feel let alone think, and family is willing to take on the responsibility... it really doen't make a bit of difference whether she lives or dies. She's a shell.. BIG FREEKIN DEAL EITHER WAY! I will err on the side of life.. you will err on the side of death. It really is as simple as that and I like my side better.
-
This thing has been through more litigation, has had more consideration, by more experts, for more years, than anything you can imagine.
Where is this "err" stuff coming from?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Now that she doesn't even have the capability to feel let alone think, and family is willing to take on the responsibility... it really doen't make a bit of difference whether she lives or dies. She's a shell.. BIG FREEKIN DEAL EITHER WAY! I will err on the side of life.. you will err on the side of death. It really is as simple as that and I like my side better.
She is a shell you say but then you err on the side of life? What kind of life is that again? One of not being able to take care of yourself? One of being a burden financially? One of not being able to read or enjoy any aspect of life other than a room? It's been said but bears repeating, there are things worse in life than death. Or cases where death would be preferable. I love how everyone wants to take away what was her choice, her decision. I see no reason to doubt it. As for the money I have posted before but some new guy to the thread obviously cant be bothered to read the whole thing.
Her husband said he would give the leftover money from her settlement to charity if the family would quit fighting him in court. Yeah He is really in it for the money. sheesh
-
Originally posted by Raider179
She is a shell you say but then you err on the side of life? What kind of life is that again?
One I at least don't think we should promote ending.
We all have opinions. Given she's not even aware of her existence and apparently can feel no pain, I like the life option.
-
We all have opinions. Given she's not even aware of her existence and apparently can feel no pain, I like the life option.
But she didn't like the life option. It has been found so, by more people, with more smarts, and more information on it, who have spent more time considering it by a magnitude of a whole hell of a lot, than you or I.
But you like the life option, for Terri, who didn't like the life option.
It is as if, because she is brain dead, her wishes make no difference only because she won't know the difference.
I could say that the simple fact of her not being able to know the difference speaks volumes about the reality of her situation which some would ignore.
Instead, since you won't know the difference anyways, I will make a court challenge and go against your wish to be buried under an oak tree, and instead sue for the ability to rub your ashes all over my sexed-up nekkid body.
She has rights whether she's alive, dead, or alive in death.
You want to ignore them because she can't tell what happens anyways. That's what your argument boils down to. Like I said, this has already been considered by much smarter people than you and I. Thank God.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But she didn't like the life option. It has been found so, by more people, with more smarts, and more information on it, who have spent more time considering it by a magnitude of a whole hell of a lot, than you or I.
But you like the life option, for Terri, who didn't like the life option.
Therein lies exactly what this is all about Nash. Imposing your views on someone else. Lotta that going on these days.
-
Since when did death become such a horrible thing. Part of life isn't it? I watched my Dad waste away at age 45, the age I am now, to the point he was no longer able to function. His formerly strong body atrophied, and he could no longer talk and went into a coma.
We loved him dearly and miss him more then I can describe, but I would never have wished on him a life like that. We loved him enough to know that it was better for his suffering to be over. And I'd like to believe he's in a better place.
How selfish would it have been of me to hook him to a machine to keep his body alive when he was no longer living? He missed his daughters weddings, he missed his first grandchild, my son, by a month. The pain at the time was unbearable but it was something we had to deal with and a part of life.
But now some of you gents tell me, that mife wife of 22 years and I had better have something written down in some correct style so that if I or she should ever be in the same situation it might get past a court to decide how we live our lives? Neither of us want to have our lives prolonged artificially if in that kind of state.
But should it come to that, my motives or my wife's will be slandered because we love each other enough to pull the plug and that doesn't fit with your belief system? Some of you gents are essentially accusing this husband of murder.
Who are you to decide that for me?
Have any of you worked in a nursing home or a hospital? If not, volunteer, get some time in, find out what it's like. It might change your perceptions
Death is a part of living. It happens every day. deal with it.
Less intrusive government my eye.
Dan