Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TweetyBird on March 24, 2005, 10:23:41 PM
-
"It is frustrating for people to think that I have power that I don't, and not be able to act," Bush said. "I don't have embedded special powers. I wish I did in this particular case."
I think this is the beginning of yet another division in this country.
There are those who who step back from the sanctity of life, and those who believe they are quite capable of deciding what is life and what isn't. These two types of humans will never get along.
"Thou shall not kill" has no footnotes.
Gallup polls show 60+% don't care.
This is one time I'm glad to be a minority. To those of you who have explained away a life, I give you a wholehearted middle finger thumbs up. We will never be friends or allies.
Another divide.
You have decided imposed starvation is dignity. Well *WE* disagree.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
"Thou shall not kill" has no footnotes.
You have decided imposed starvation is dignity. Well *WE* disagree.
My grandfather died a few years ago, 97 years old.
He was bedridden for at least a year prior to his death. My uncle, who by geography was the brother who took immediate care of him, visited him daily, and for the last few months of conciousness, Grandfather did not recognize his own son.
When Grandfather went into a coma, Dad and my Uncle had some serious heart to hearts, and they decided it was time, and petitioned to have the tube pulled out.
The bastard doctor at the VA hospital had the gall to call my uncle a murderer. Dad was furious and got on the next plane.
My grandfather passed by the very same way Schiavo is going. There was no murderous intent on the part of my Uncle and Father. It was the most heart wrenching decision they ever made, but it was made with knowledge of inevitability and with the love of sons for a father.
We humanely put animals out of their misery but unfortunately we do not have the same regard for humans. If Schivo was a dog or a horse, she would have been put down long ago, and removal of a tube would not be an alternative.
-
You are like the wind.
"60+ don't care".
Nice choice of words there, pal.
In fact, that stat is low.....
You are definitely in the minority, and I bet you are a cat owner.
-
The difference is that Terry is not in a coma. Nor is she unresponsive. Nor is she a vegetable.
-
>>If Schivo was a dog or a horse, she would have been put down long ago, and removal of a tube would not be an alternative.<<
But because there is no prescribed humane euthanasia, we have decided its quite alright to have barbaric euthanasia by killing a human with a tenique that could get you jail time if you used it on an animal. And no judge has sensed the absurdity. If we let her die of bed sores or infection, would it be less barbaric? Perhaps instead of denying the the food and water, we deny her thew shelter and put her on a curb? Would that be less barbaric?
Millions of Americans are just sitting in their personal cages watching this idiocy and saying nothing. We're letting a woman waste away over a week or two while we have methods to kill her in a few minutes. But - KILLING her sounds harsh - so lets let her starve over two weeks?
We have a lead poisoning problem in this country, because I detect widespread insanity.
-
You would not treat a dog that way, you would put her down.
My last dog was not in a coma when I had her put down. I was still a basket case for a few days when I made that decision. I did not make that decision with malice.
-
>>I bet you are a cat owner.
<<
Nope - toy poodle.
But while we're guessing - I bet you have a sun dress you wear when your parents aren't home - close?
:D
-
You are a rambling, lunatic, bimbo.
The feeding tubes thang has been happening forever. I can't recall ever hearing you speak-up about this before Schiavo.
Either you are ignorant about the situation, or you are letting yerself get spun outta control about one case out of thousands and thousands of identical cases.
God bless the media swine. And God bless the opportunists.
Tuck yer tampon back in, have a good cry about it, and move on.
-
I guess I should respond to that...
-
And I bet it will be a doozy.
-
If it means that much to you, get off this board and get to her bedside. Do something or can it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The difference is that Terry is not in a coma. Nor is she unresponsive. Nor is she a vegetable.
Hmmm... what exactly do they mean when they say, "persistive vegetative state" there Doc?
-
>>My last dog was not in a coma when I had her put down. I was still a basket case for a few days when I made that decision. I did not make that decision with malice.<<
I have no doubt. It's a lot different with an animal. They don't have logic, they don't understand. They DO have conciousness and may be in pure misery when sick, not only because of pain, but because they feel vulnerable. I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure an animal's sense of well being is directly influenced by their sense of being up for any task they may be confronted with. If a animal feels wounded, I'm fairly sure it lives in a state of anxiety.
I think the only thing worse than that would be for the animal to feel it was dieing. I wouldn't have an animal feeling it was dieing over 2 weeks. But here we are doing it to a woman in front of the world and few people care. Barbarism is in now - I'm glad I'm out.
-
>> Do something or can it.<<
No.
You don't hear that a lot I bet.
-
Schiavo's parents, and you, have heard "no" from 26 different judges now. All in a row. All saying the same thing. Yet you still rant. It is you who can't accept "no".
-
It's a big deal because someone noticed it going on. A lot of people are taken off feeding tubes or life support daily.
After 15 years of being just a body, rising hospital costs, and the idea that your daughter is sitting there in a bed unable to pretty much do any form of basic movement or thought, what would you do?
I can understand the feeling that her parents and family are going through, but that is because they're family. What if she comes to with no memory or possible such a severely damaged brain that she can't function completely?
For 15 years, think about it. That's hospital bed space, staff, supplies, doctor hours, etc. Thats a lot of time and money spent.
Everyone has a right to die, and she didn't leave a will, so no one knows what she wanted? I personally would have wished to be put out of my misery if I were a vegetable.
Suck it up and face it, people die or become nothing but a body.
-
If she still can feel anything, it's the most inhumane way possible to make her starve to death. Basically they're ensuring she'll suffer as long as possible.
-
Yeah, IF. IF she can feel anything, I'm sure her brain would respond to that kind of stimuli to ensure her survival.
What would be humane? Putting cyanide in her system?
-
Ok, I'm entering into this discussion with a certain amount of fear and trembling and with one hand poised to slap myself in the forehead... As always, I am speaking as someone absolutely committed to historic biblically derived ethics. I offer no apologies for that, as Luther said "My conscience is captive to the word of God, here I stand, I can do no other."
I don't know about you, but I have grown tired of listening to discussions of whether this woman should or should not be starved to death based on utility, quality of life, potential outcomes, or even whether or not her husband really loves her. None of these are relevant to whether or not she should be caused to die for as David prayed so well in Psalm 31 "My times are in your hands" If the bible teaches anything at all, it teaches that as creatures created in His image, only God has power over human life and when it is to be ended, and our authority in this area is delegated in the strictest possible sense. If we terminate a life without his sanction we commit murder, pure and simple.
This issue has never been hypothetical to me having personally been confronted with several cases where Euthanasia was counseled or carried out by medical authorities, perhaps the most poignant to me being the case of one of the families in our church with a son who was born prematurely, and as an infant suffered severe brain damage from a hemorrhage. His doctors initially did not think he would live, and advised his parents to "allow him to die." They refused and since that time, for the last 12 years he has been fed through a tube every day of his life. Through intensive therapy, he has been brought to the point where he can crawl and make rudimentary sounds. However he still requires round the clock care, and barring a miracle will never, ever, be able to take care of himself. Had he not received therapy and constant care, I and his parents have no doubt that today he would be no better off than Terry. The question of course is, should he have been caused to die as well? Is this ultimate decision vested solely in the hands of his parents? Could they change their minds today and stop feeding him? Is it merely that his abilities have been improved at great financial and personal cost that makes him somehow worthy of continuing to live. If he could somehow express a desire to "not live in this incredibly handicapped condition" should his parents stop feeding him?
I will be preaching on this subject and Euthanasia and the culture of death generally this Sunday evening, and to tell the truth I'm still working through the biblical witness on this subject for my sermon. By the time I have completed it, I fully expect that Terry Schiavo will have been starved to death. I am not preaching on this as a matter of politics - I despise political sermons - but because issues of medical ethics particularly one as pressing as Euthanasia need to be understood not via the "shifting sand perspective"of a fickle culture, but from a solid and eternal viewpoint and because Christians have a mandate to " Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die." (Prov. 31:8)
Anyway, for those who want something more substantive than "I feel this is wrong" or soundbites to chew on, you might want to read this:
I'm not dead yet... (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/euthanasia/imnotdea.htm)
or
This (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/euthanasia/thenazid.htm)
- SEAGOON
-
God created us in his image and anything he does not sanction is murder? Why were we created and given free thought? Why would he give us the power and the actual idea of thought to inspire euthanasia?
Or better yet, has God said anything about this? Perhaps it is God's will to allow this continue as part of his plan?
-
Lets do a quick rehash.
Removing the feeding tube is not "the most inhumane way possible."
People who are terminal but fully aware remove their own proverbial feeding tube every day. Multitudes, everyday. They stop eating, they fade away. It's natural. The only thing unnatural would be to plug a feeding tube into these people's gut.
Nevrmind the people who choose to stop eating, those who are unable to even make that choice have their feeding tubes removed all the time.
"If she can still feel anything..."
She can't feel squat. Her brain has been eaten away. The void that was once filled with brain has been replaced by spinal fluid. Visualize a coconut. There is no brain there.
"Suffering" is almost a subjective term when applied to Schiavo. Tweety and his ilk are suffering more than this woman is remotely capable of.
-
I would not starve her, But I would have her killed particularly if she had asked for that, I would not over rule her parents on the issue however.
The people that wrote the bible would have stoned someone who kept a brainless body alive with a machine and a tube. So the "shifting sands of morality" is an interesting take on those who see mercy in some kinds of killing.
-
Seagoon,
Words give us away.
However he still requires round the clock care, and barring a miracle will never, ever, be able to take care of himself. Had he not received therapy and constant care, I and his parents have no doubt that today he would be no better off than Terry. The question of course is, should he have been caused to die as well?
You tell the story of a premature birth... And despite all odds, and with every technology and therapy at his disposal he now grows to twelve years old, needs around the clock care and will need it for the rest of his life.
In considering the alternative, you say: "caused to die."
That's a very peculiar choice of words.
A lot of people would say, "caused to live."
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>My last dog was not in a coma when I had her put down. I was still a basket case for a few days when I made that decision. I did not make that decision with malice.<<
I have no doubt. It's a lot different with an animal. They don't have logic, they don't understand. They DO have conciousness and may be in pure misery when sick, not only because of pain, but because they feel vulnerable. I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure an animal's sense of well being is directly influenced by their sense of being up for any task they may be confronted with. If a animal feels wounded, I'm fairly sure it lives in a state of anxiety.
I think the only thing worse than that would be for the animal to feel it was dieing. I wouldn't have an animal feeling it was dieing over 2 weeks. But here we are doing it to a woman in front of the world and few people care. Barbarism is in now - I'm glad I'm out.
The emotion surrounding this issue is just that emotion. It is not logic.
Gracie, (my dog) could feel pain, fear, elation, and could respond to stimuli, arguably to a greater extent than Terri Schiavo can presently. Yet I still had to choose euthanasia rather than go through an extensive, painful and ultimately questionable life prolonging (but not enhancing) treatment.
My Dad and Uncle had to put emotion aside and choose the logical choice.
If you are argueing that we should have euthanasia as a medical option in the USA, then I will agree with you. If you are saying we should keep people alive regardless of the situation, then I would have to disagree.
-
If I had to choose between being killed by starvation and cyanide, I'd take a heavy dose of the latter.
If I had the option to choose between starvation and a leathal dose of opium, it would be even clearer.
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
What would be humane? Putting cyanide in her system?
Yes, that would be much more humane. This starvation thing is insane, I'm pretty sure she has a very low metabolism so that prolly means she will take a while to die.
-
Speaking in general...
Those that want to allow her to pass away would welcome a more humane (for us) option.
Those that want her to be kept alive would never accept a more humane method.
It becomes a situation where the folks that are screaming about the inhumane way she is dying would never allow her to die more humanely.
-
Hi again Nash,
A few thoughts before I turn in, I probably wont be able to post anything again till Monday, so please don't think I'm ignoring any reply you make.
Originally posted by Nash
Seagoon,
Words give us away.
You tell the story of a premature birth... And despite all odds, and with every technology and therapy at his disposal he now grows to twelve years old, needs around the clock care and will need it for the rest of his life.
In considering the alternative, you say: "caused to die."
That's a very peculiar choice of words.
A lot of people would say, "caused to live."
You are quite right of course, words do give away our worldview. I will freely admit that I believe that Human life has inherent rather than merely instrumental value and that life is a good and precious gift, and that death is a bad thing, and not something that was intended to be or remain the norm - hence my being called to be about the business of eternal life rather than annihilation or death.
Funny, I too was "caused to live," I don't just mean that in the sense of being brought into existence or regenerated, I mean it literally. My life was saved as an infant only because I was given a long regimen of antibiotics. Had I been born into an uncaring family, I'd be dead.
Now, what justified that application of antibiotics? The thought that with them I might eventually become a productive member of society? Ok then, what happens when I eventually cease to be a productive member, and become nothing but a drain, do I lose the right to continue to live? What if my parents could have somehow known that I'd grow up to be a career criminal, would that have justified a decision not to give me the antibiotics that "caused me to live"? The child in my congregation, does his right to be kept alive hinge on being able to make progress? To meet and continue some sort of arbitrary minimum standards for cognition? Do we "cause a newborn to live" only because we hope that while it currently is non-cognitive, and totally dependent we hope that it will eventually meet our minimum standards for life?
Nash, I hope you'll give this article (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/euthanasia/thenazid.htm) a read, if only so we can discuss the issue of inherent or instrumental value to life, and the consequences of our decisions in this regard further.
One thing I find interesting. Many are hesitant to plunge straight in to the "Euthanasia good when quality of life unacceptably low" equation, because they see where the mathematics leads and instead cleave to the more popular "Euthansia to end suffering" argument. However in Terry's case, no one is arguing that she is suffering in being kept alive, in fact those arguing for the removal of the feeding tube maintain that she is incapable of really feeling anything. Therefore, the only suffering that is potentially being ended is the "suffering" of her husband, and Euthanasia to end someone elses anguish has an even worse trajectory than the quality of life equation...
BTW - food for thought - I was interested to find that that the term or practice of Euthanasia (a compound Greek word meaning literally "Good Death") didn't show up in any of my commentaries or works on Ethics prior to the second half of the 20th century. It isn't even listed in my Webster's 1913 edition. This is because the term was first coined and widely used by the Nazis in connection with the T4 "Euthanasia" program. Speaking of the T4 program which euthanized mainly senile adults and handicapped or retarded children, it is an interesting historical note that: "Sometimes they were put to death by injection, occasionally by carbon monoxide gas but usually they were killed by starvation."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
in Terry's case, no one is arguing that she is suffering in being kept alive, in fact those arguing for the removal of the feeding tube maintain that she is incapable of really feeling anything. Therefore, the only suffering that is potentially being ended is the "suffering" of her husband, and Euthanasia to end someone elses anguish has an even worse trajectory than the quality of life equation...[/i]
- SEAGOON
We were "euthanizing" horses long before the term was coined.
Looking at a more spiritual facet of the argument, if you deprive someone of the opportunity to enter paradise, with no hope of a relatively normal life here in the meantime, are you showing a hungry man a steak but not letting him eat?
Is that not a form of cruelty?
-
This has been happening to people for years guys,nothing new.
Just bush's ploy to turn your eyes away from the war.
The only reason why Fox news and Cnn even cover this.
"look over here...look over here"
Sheep. :rolleyes:
-
So GW (Not Jeb, or was Jeb in on it too?) paid off Micheal Schaivo to ask the judge for permission to pull the tubes so that they could fight it in the courts for a coupla weeks so that the news networks would lay off Iraq news coverage...
You know that makes perfect sense, especially when you realize the connection of GW's Scull and Bones Yaleys with the Freemasons, Tri-Lateral Commision and the Bildergerger Group.
-
Nice one Holden.
But you don't need to manufacture a "crisis" to take advantage of one.
-
Seems like Bush made a few statements and signed a piece of legislation at 2:30 in the morning.
He did not get a lot of political milage from this one.
-
I agree that starving to death a human being is a good idea, as long as we are consistant.
Don't feed the poor, the homeless or anyone else that can't take care of or feed themselves. It's a cruel world.....only the strong shall survive.
We could save a lot of money too. Just let people die unless they can save themselves.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Seems like Bush made a few statements and signed a piece of legislation at 2:30 in the morning.
He did not get a lot of political milage from this one.
And you would be right. Not much mileage whatsoever.
No.... He didn't manufacture this situation. But unlike, say, the Tsunami situation, it was decided that it was best for all involved that he turn his plane around and miss out on even more vacation time in order to deal with this particular.... whatever it is.
Well, I'll call it an ungodly personal intrusion. Scholars will no doubt have a better name for the type of intrusion it was.
There is a difference between taking advantage of situations, and creating situations.
When was the last time that Homeland Security issued an alert? October? You remember what those are, right? The "Someone might get blown the shreck up" announcements? They were piled on thick. Now suddenly... it's like it never happened. They stopped.
See... That's an example of creating situations to take advantage of. This one here, that's an example of taking advantage of situations that already exist, exist daily, have existed for years and will continue to exist for years.
Certainly you can grasp the difference.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
"Thou shall not kill" has no footnotes.
"Thou shall not commit murder" is what the bible says.
-
Good eye (if indeed you are right about the bible).
Murder is different than killing.
Ya gotta love how people pick and choose words.
"It's not a persistent vegitative state! It's minimally aware!"
It's dishonesty plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by Nash
...Certainly you can grasp the difference.
Easily. I think however that this was pushed by congress, not GW he was as you have pointed out, in Crawford, and had to go back to DC to sign the legislation.
And somehow, he was on 'vacation' but talking to Presidente de México Fox and Prime Minister/Premire Ministre du Canada Martin while all this happened.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"Thou shall not commit murder" is what the bible says.
No it's not.
-
She can't feel squat. Her brain has been eaten away. The void that was once filled with brain has been replaced by spinal fluid. Visualize a coconut. There is no brain there.
"Suffering" is almost a subjective term when applied to Schiavo. Tweety and his ilk are suffering more than this woman is remotely capable of.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! If I have to start saying wrong in other languages, I'm going to be very pissed.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
No it's not.
Yes it is.
New International Version
New American Standard Bible
New Living Translation
Contemporary English Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
Exodus 20:13
Thou shall not murder.
The King James and the Darby translations agree with you however.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You are like the wind.
"60+ don't care".
Nice choice of words there, pal.
In fact, that stat is low.....
You are definitely in the minority, and I bet you are a cat owner.
An insult to cat owners everywhere....
-
Cats can't be owned. You may feed them and let them stay at your house. But you can't own them.
-
Placing someone like this on a feeding tube takes the matter out of God's hands and places it in the hands of medical science.
In this case, science is standing in the way of God's natural law, which is far more compassionate.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yes it is.
The King James and the Darby translations agree with you however.
So your modern revisionist versions say "murder"; and not the original text; which is "kill".
Let me get this straight; the second ammendment; a document written by and for men; and ammended by men; is inviolate and not open to interpratation.
The Bible however; the literal word of God; IS open to revision; interpretation and review. Any body can make their own authorative version; and every version is valid.
Is that about it? Or do we first define what "is" is?
Just trying to find out the moral basis for the outrage shown in this thread....; after all; logic isn't getting us far; is it?
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
This has been happening to people for years guys,nothing new.
Just bush's ploy to turn your eyes away from the war.
The only reason why Fox news and Cnn even cover this.
"look over here...look over here"
Sheep. :rolleyes:
Nonsense. The peoples eyes have been turned away from the war increasingly for months for various reasons.
Mainly by what the media itself decides to report on not and government entity.
Or are you saying Bush had something to do with the coverage of The Scott Peterson, Michael Jackson trials or any of a number of other headlines.
The War as far as the media is concerned just isnt big news anymore
-
Originally posted by Seeker
So your modern revisionist versions say "murder"; and not the original text; which is "kill".
Actually I think Seagoon will confirm the original text is "Murder" not kill.
It was mistranslated when it was translated from anchient to greek, or the King James version (which is what most current bibles are based on) I forget which.
But in the original anchient Hebrew(which is the only one that matters) its "Murder"
Unfortunatey since he wont be back till monday and after tomorrow morning I wont be back for two weeks.
I wont be able to see which it is untill I get back.
If I even remember to look.
-
Actually he does confirm this in another thread.
Just looked it up
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Drediock,
Now, popping up to the higher level question, i.e. Christians and War. The 6th Commandment in the Decalogue is not "Thou Shalt not Kill" in the Hebrew it is "Lo Ratsach" - no murder. This is an important difference, for it allows for the slaughtering of animals for food, and gives the magistrate the power to wage war against evil doers and to use capital punishment (particularly in the case or murder). This is explicitly spelled out in Gen 9:6, and Romans 13:4.
SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! If I have to start saying wrong in other languages, I'm going to be very pissed.
You're wrong no matter which language you use Lasorsailor- she has no brain function other than that function of involuntary movement controlled by the brain stem. She is, indeed, brain dead.
I'm curious what effect this will have on organ donations- by the logic of those "pro life" people who think she will magically awaken then there is no such thing as "brain dead." By thier logic we should use whatever means available to keep people physically alive in the belief they'll awaken.
-
Its nice to see an outpouring of fake morality over this issue. Brings a tear to my eye.
She's dead, her body is just barely alive.
-SW
-
As Governor of Texas GWB signed a bill into law allowing hospitals the option of removing feeding tubes regardless of the wishes of the patients' family. Amazing he's so adamant about keeping this peticular feeding tube in, eh?
-
Tweety, you're right and we're wrong. Bask in your victory, you crusader.
-
This one vastly publicised situation has brought out not one but multiple situations that are related.
In no particular order (other than the one that they popped into my head)
Does a person have a right to die?
If no, then end of discussion and medical people / family MUST expend everything to maintain any life no matter how low functioning it is.
If a person HAS a right to die, what method should be allowed?
We currently hold it is a blessing or mercy to cause an animal to die when they are in pain and there is no "reasonable" (slippery I know) hope of any comfortable or quality life.
Do Doctors have an obligation to "do no harm" that supercedes any desires on the part of the patient? Does forcing a patient to continue to exist constitute "harm"?
When does a patient REQUIRE a guardian? Is this a purely medical call or mental facility call?
Seagoon, carrying on one of your points. It is the will of God that life is granted. I accept that at face value. Does using exteme medical advances to proplong a life that would naturally cease mean that the medical community and family are acting in contravention of "God's will"? If God set the situation for a life that would certainly end had it happened in the time of Christ, are we acting against Gods wishes by using modern medical practices to force that life to continue?
I realise the above situation is extremely slippery not only based on the examination of it but also on the basis of the article (Doctor Nazi's, albeit an editorial or opinion piece) Seagoon provided but also in the fight against disease. Example, if a patient contracts Cancer is it against "God's will" to treat it?
Does God recognise or condone ending ones life in any case? I'm not talking about taking anothers life, I mean deciding to end your own. I know that it is considered wrong in general Christian terms and certainly the Catholic church considers it a "mortal sin" (the most grievous kind) to commit suicide under any circumstances.
If medical assistance IS allowed for euthanasia on the part of a patient requesting it (or guardian) what is the basis for making that possible? Is there a legally (morally / ethical) definable and defendable as well as medical basis that can be made to authorize it? Who gets the final say?
There is more to the situation I know but these were the main points that kept coming up in my own mind.
For myself and my wife, we have "living wills" that spell out our wishes. We have discussed this issue and neither one of us wishes to continue to merely "exist" when there is no hope of having anything resembling what we feel is a true life experiance. That may be a bad situation for our "here after" but that is the decision that we feel is correct.
Feel free to comment but please try to be adult about it and not merely flame.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
[B KILLING her sounds harsh - so lets let her starve over two weeks?
. [/B]
First, define life.
Second, whats your position on the death penalty?
Third. where's the money coming from to keep her alive?
I agree that the whole situation is unfortunate, but pulling the tube is no different than turning off a respirator and having the patient suffocate.
There are countless people in hospitals who have the plug, or any equivalent, pulled on a daily basis. Will you champion for them as well, or will your passion fade as soon as the story moves off the front page?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I would not starve her, But I would have her killed particularly if she had asked for that
Call Lazs2 in to shoot her, I'm sure he'd jump at the opportunity...:lol
Originally posted by Nash
When was the last time that Homeland Security issued an alert? October? You remember what those are, right? The "Someone might get blown the shreck up" announcements?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Airhead
As Governor of Texas GWB signed a bill into law allowing hospitals the option of removing feeding tubes regardless of the wishes of the patients' family. Amazing he's so adamant about keeping this peticular feeding tube in, eh?
Dare we say it?
FLIP FLOP
-
Brain Damaged, not brain dead.
Retards mostly have brain damage. That doesn't mean that we should go around euthanizing them.
-
Here is another side of the story. I don't know if this link has been posted or not...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43427
And search for info on how it feels to die of thirst.
>>It's hard to imagine the suffering of an experience like that. We are told that death by thirst is one of the most excruciating experiences the human body can undergo. The reason it is so painful is that water is a basic physical need. We cannot live without water. Thirst is the one thing too dreadful to bear. Hunger is more tolerable than thirst. We can live longer without food than without drink. Hunger is due to a privation of the flesh, but thirst is due to a privation of the blood. That's why thirst is so painful, and why it leads so quickly to death. (1)
<<
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>That's why thirst is so painful, and why it leads so quickly to death. (1)
<<
Hey, it leads quickly to death doesn't it? Any kind of a death is painful, I'd take quick personally.
-
I think it means to say, "Quicker" death. But how many people prufreed these days?
-
What time is it in NeverlLand When the kids go to bed ?
When the Big Hand Touches the Little Hand....Posting picture of Mjs MickeyMouse Wall Clock
btw..I heard Terrys not suffering more becuase of morphine..?
But im a real life person.Seems to me she should of been givn to God a long time ago
Millions of people on earth are kept artificially alive...meaning ...We fight the idea of "Survival of the Fitest"
Hell..just think..if the middel east didnt have oil..there wouldnt be a 1/4 of them alive..or atleast living out there...Would be nice to pull the plug on that1
-
Lets just put food and water in the room with her.
if she can eat it on her own fine. if not wel then its gods will that she dies.
Actually if it werent for human interference God would have taken her 16 years ago. so in a sence by helping her we are going against gods will.
By letting her die she is not being killed or murdered.
We will be letting her die Which is something that would have naturally happed 16 years ago if it werent for human intervention. We would be letting nature take its course. Letting God take her.
While not Brain dead she is in a vegitative state with a large portion of her brain essentially turned into jello.
Barring a true miracle, a true act of god she will never get any better.
So whats the point?
I can only speak for myself in saying I would never want o be left that way and I've never known anyone who would.
-
My wife just told me that in a similar situation I should "pull the plug".
Unless some right wing group of idiots offers me 10 mill. to keep her alive. At which time I am to take the money and laugh all the way to the bank....
I love her.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Seeker
So your modern revisionist versions say "murder"; and not the original text; which is "kill".
Rashach, "to murder," occurs primarily in the legal material of the Old Testament. This is not a surprise, as God's law included regulations on life and provisions for dealing with the murderer.
"Rashach" is translated 23 times in the King James Edition.
It is translated as 'murderer' 14 times, 'murder' 3, 'murderers' 1, and 'kill' 5 times.
Sorry Seeker, the Hebrew text, which predates the King James version, and is the root of all modern versions says 'murder' . Which version do you believe?
-
Holden,
Not being sarcastic here but I'd like a definition of murder as it is applied in the bible. Is there a definition in there? Without a definition of what constitutes murder it is way open to interpretation. That could be a whole nother bag o' worms.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Holden,
Not being sarcastic here but I'd like a definition of murder as it is applied in the bible. Is there a definition in there? Without a definition of what constitutes murder it is way open to interpretation. That could be a whole nother bag o' worms.
Hi Maverick,
Don't know if this is what you are looking for, but last year I preached a series of sermons expositing and applying the 6th commandment from scripture. I just uploaded 3 of them - sorry for any bad formatting, I just did a quick and dirty save to HTML on all of them.
The Sixth Commandment, Part 1 (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/6thpt1.htm)
The Sixth Commandment, Part 2 (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/6thpt2.htm)
The Sixth Commandment, Part 3 (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/6thpt3.htm)
Hope this is of some use....
- SEAGOON
-
Here's some more Maverick...
stuff on what you wanted (http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry Seeker, the Hebrew text, which predates the King James version, and is the root of all modern versions says 'murder' . Which version do you believe?
The authorised; literal word of God.
Any thing else would be heresy; wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
The authorised; literal word of God.
Any thing else would be heresy; wouldn't it?
Who authorised it??
The literal word of God?
Tell Him I said howdy next time you talk to him.
-
Here's (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/nb20050324.shtml) yet another take on the feeding tube frenzy.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
The authorised; literal word of God.
Any thing else would be heresy; wouldn't it?
Me and you,
and a whole slew
of people noticed you didn't answer the question.
I'm curious of your source.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Me and you,
and a whole slew
of people noticed you didn't answer the question.
I'm curious of your source.
I've answered the question; and I'll do it again just for you:
The authorised version.
Or are you saying that each and every version of the Christian bible is valid? And let's just underline the point here: it's the Christian word of God America's moral values are based on; not some mediterranian recedivist folklore.
You may pick your superstitous belive system from a Walmart of spiritual comfort for the sensitive man; but I prefer the original.
-
Wasn't Jesus Christ Mediterranian?
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Who authorised it??
The literal word of God?
Tell Him I said howdy next time you talk to him.
Like I said, WHO authorised it?
Did God whisper in your ear and tell you it was the right version??
-
Originally posted by Seeker
You may pick your superstitous belive system from a Walmart of spiritual comfort for the sensitive man; but I prefer the original.
So you read Hebrew??
Wow, that's pretty impressive man.
I'm impressed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Wasn't Jesus Christ Mediterranian?
Ya gotta be from the southern euro-peein coast to be Mediterranian. Everybody knows that the rest of the coastline don't count.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Like I said, WHO authorised it?
Did God whisper in your ear and tell you it was the right version??
"Me and you,
and a whole slew
of people noticed you didn't answer the question. "
"Or are you saying that each and every version of the Christian bible is valid?"
"Did God whisper in your ear and tell you it was the right version??"
Well did he?
This a dialogue or a rhetorical monologue?
Your turn to answer a question.
-
Seeker, the old testament was (is) a holy book of the Jews.
The original version was written in a language so that the Hebrews could read it. Probably then it was written in Hebrew. Jesus was schooled in it, as He was a rabbi.
Is that then your "authorized" version?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
The authorised literal word of God.
I asked you first. You can't say what version it is that you hold to be the authorised version of the word of God?
Are you ashamed of your faith?
Are you talking out of yer prettythang?
Can you answer a simple question??
I wait in shivering anticipation for your next witty attempt to evade a simple and straightforward question. Don't keep me waiting too long.
-
They showed a picture of her brain, next to a normal brain on tv the other day. The majority of her head is now fluid. Doctor called it the worst case of hydrocehpla he had ever seen. Schiavos brain has almost totally disentegrated. It was in two parts, narrowly joined in the middle. Each segment was about the size of a very small strawberry. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she is only surviving on the very primitive parts of the brain. The parts that control the heartbeat and the breathing. She will never recover, and its totally amazing she is even alive.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
They showed a picture of her brain, next to a normal brain on tv the other day. The majority of her head is now fluid. Doctor called it the worst case of hydrocehpla he had ever seen. Schiavos brain has almost totally disentegrated. It was in two parts, narrowly joined in the middle. Each segment was about the size of a very small strawberry. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she is only surviving on the very primitive parts of the brain. The parts that control the heartbeat and the breathing. She will never recover, and its totally amazing she is even alive.
So... is this what this all about? All of the money, the time, the arguing... because Shiavo's parents cannot accept the fact that their daughter is already gone? The body that remains is nothing but an empty shell that with the miracle of modern medicine manages to breathe, pump blood, and digest food.
Hell... if they know her brain is gone, it's time to use medicine to simply stop the heart.
-
HOW DARE YOU SANDMAN? THERE'S STILL A CHANCE FOR HER!
"Hey honey, let's keep the pitiful remains of our daughter alive for 15 years to torment the man she loved enough to marry!"
-
Seagoon and Holden,
Thank you very much. Yep that was the type of info I was hoping to get interjected into the thread here and in a non emotionally charged manner.
Going back to my earlier and lengthy post. Can you address some of the questions I postulated?
Example: I understand fully the concept that murder is a state of mind as well as law and the law is in fact worded to incorporate the state of mind. (intent)
How does the situation of the doctors in this case come into play. There is the oath they took (Hypocratic oath) to dono harm. Does the prolonging of life in a body constitute "harm".
If in the case of a person who cannot live without exceptional medical steps, without any reasonable hope of returning to a "functioning" human being, a doctor maintains that life, are they "interferring with God's will"? I ask this as it is rather pertinant to the discussion. If in fact, the braqin of this woman has degenerated as described in an earlier post, is prolonging a life of an "empty body" really God's will" or the will of man?
It would seem to me that if the "intent" of the doctor involved to stop exceptional life support is to end suffering it is not murder. On the other hand if the "intent" of the husband is one of monetary gain, then that would be obviously a "murder" as described in the writings that Seagoon provided based on the state of mind.
How say you?
-
... This starvation thing is insane, I'm pretty sure she has a very low metabolism so that prolly means she will take a while to die.
Not true. If you stopp the fluid supply it will be over in a matter of days no matter how low her metabolism is.
Again, I've talked to specialists in palliative care. We discussed the issue of terminal hydration. Many doctors fear if they pull the infusion (or feeding tube for that matter) in terminally ill people they suffer a slow death. But as I said in the other thread it's not to compare to the situation a healthy individual would face if left stranded in the desert. Even if her brain was fully functional, e.g. in terminal tumor patients (without brain metastasis), she will not suffer "thirst" as healthy individuals do. Nature has developed mechanisms to make death less stressfull. Falling into a delirium is one of it. Keeping fluid supply up will just prolong death and suffering (in said tumor patients).
Conclusion is that terminal hydration is applied in patients who can express their will do so; or in patients that are in a reversible state that make food/fluid intake impossible (e.g. obstruction of the gastro-intestinal tract), which can be treated by surgery, radiation, drugs etc.
Apallic patients (e.g. with no higher brain function) are usually seen without chance of return after 1 year. Sure there are stories about people that came back after years but those are very, very few exceptions and those cases have to be examined throughoutly for cause of coma and come-back.
---
Maverick has done a nice sum-up of the oath of Hippocrates (which literally includes very impractical stuff like feeding through your mentors family). We are here not to HARM patients, which not always means prolongin life.
What I learned during med school is that those end-of-life situations are not a matter of laws (gods or states) but are always a very private issue between the doctor and his patient (family). The will of the patient is what have to respect to the outtermost. And if he fails to express it the "presumed" will. Of course always in agreement with their surroundings.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
They showed a picture of her brain, next to a normal brain on tv the other day. The majority of her head is now fluid. Doctor called it the worst case of hydrocehpla he had ever seen. Schiavos brain has almost totally disentegrated. It was in two parts, narrowly joined in the middle. Each segment was about the size of a very small strawberry. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she is only surviving on the very primitive parts of the brain. The parts that control the heartbeat and the breathing. She will never recover, and its totally amazing she is even alive.
Suntracker,
My objections to the starvation of Terri Schiavo (incidentally, eyewitnesses who just visited her indicates that she is bleeding from the eyes and tongue, her skin is flaking off and she looks like an "Auschwitz Victim") don't center on the medical testing that has or has not been done, but despite that the assertion that "her brain is jelly" that is being made again and again by Michael Schiavo's lawyers needs to be answered.
The following is from a commentary on the subject written by Rev. Robert Johansen indicating beyond a shadow of a doubt that she hasn't received even the most rudimentary health care (for instance court records indicate that several of her teeth had to be extracted due to advanced tooth decay - she hasn't even had basic dental hygiene) and that none of the tests that could firmly support the "Brain Jelly" thesis have been ordered or performed, which is odd considering that presumably it would have damaged the parents case (the fact is that Michael has spent far more on lawyers than even rudimentary medical care) :
"Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.
In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.
There was a moment of dead silence.
“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”
Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.”
Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’” to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?”
But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.
So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so.
The most obvious possible explanation for what would otherwise be inexplicable behavior is that Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer don’t want to admit any information that would upset the diagnosis they already have. Dr. Morin, when told that Michael had refused an MRI, and that Judge Greer had confirmed the decision, said: “He refused a non-invasive test? People trying to do the right thing want the best and most complete information available. We don't have that in Terri’s case.” Dr. Bell agreed with this assessment, saying, “It seems as though they’re fearful of any additional information.”
[from: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/162/story_16292_1.html]
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Going back to my earlier and lengthy post. Can you address some of the questions I postulated?
Example: I understand fully the concept that murder is a state of mind as well as law and the law is in fact worded to incorporate the state of mind. (intent)
How does the situation of the doctors in this case come into play. There is the oath they took (Hypocratic oath) to dono harm. Does the prolonging of life in a body constitute "harm".
The short answer is no. All medicine, rightly understood is geared towards extending life. Medicine is not simply aimed at killing germs as an end in and of itself, the doctor prescribes the medicine that kills the germs in order to acheieve the end of keeping the patient alive.
Following the Second World War, Europe had to step back and reassess the state of ethics in medicine, particularly in light of the fact that Nazi doctors had created the idea of "Therapeutic Killing." They particularly wanted to create a code that would prevent the recurrence of eugenics and euthanasia as acceptable practices within the medical community. The result was the Geneva Code (1948) of the World Medical Association:
I solemnly pledge myself to conconsecrate my life to the service of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patients will be my first consideration.
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me; I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race or party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life even under threat.
I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.
The WMA was for many years absolutely opposed to any reintroduction of discussions of doctors terminating the lives of their patients regardless of their condition. They maintained that the role of a doctor must always be to preserve life, never to take it. This was especially the case, because when states begin to insist that the lives of patients be "terminated" under certain conditions, questions of utility inevitably creep in, and after a while you are firmly on the ski slope to medical murder.
If in the case of a person who cannot live without exceptional medical steps, without any reasonable hope of returning to a "functioning" human being, a doctor maintains that life, are they "interferring with God's will"? I ask this as it is rather pertinant to the discussion. If in fact, the braqin of this woman has degenerated as described in an earlier post, is prolonging a life of an "empty body" really God's will" or the will of man?
It would seem to me that if the "intent" of the doctor involved to stop exceptional life support is to end suffering it is not murder. On the other hand if the "intent" of the husband is one of monetary gain, then that would be obviously a "murder" as described in the writings that Seagoon provided based on the state of mind.
How say you?
Maverick, I'm not going to begin to argue that if at some point we can keep a body whose head has been entirely severed "alive" that we must do so. Such an existence could not meet even the vaguest definition of "a life."
However it is clearly God's revealed will that we protect the defenseless and weakest members of our society. The clear witness of scripture is that we must feed and care for the handicapped, retarded, and brain damaged to the best of our ability. This includes feeding them and taking care of their medical needs. In doing so, no matter how inconvenient it is to us, we are serving God and obeying his will. Contrary to the belief of the Nazis the Imago Dei is present even in the retarded and brain damaged and we are just as obligated to them as we are to newborns.
That is what we are talking about at root with Terri, we had a moral obligation to feed her and provide for her medical needs. She did not require a machine to breathe for her, or pump her blood, her body simply needed sustenance, and she could have been taught to eat (several nurses fed her orally without aspiration until Michael forbade it) and perhaps to perform other basic functions. Instead all steps have been aimed from the get-go at causing her to die out of "quality of life" concerns. Her parents have throughout been willing to care for her but have been legally prevented from doing so. This is an involuntary Euthanasia case, pure and simple, but we have reached the point societally where we have left the concerns of the Geneva code behind us and seem ready to resume the practice of "Therapeutic Killing."
If we are indeed just grown up Germs ourselves, and the philosophy of Nietzche is true, then there is no reason not to embrace the practice of state authorized therapeutic killing as the Dutch and Scandanavians already have. Of course, you'd better hope you are and continue to be one of the fit and healthy Ubermensch and not some subhuman unworthy of life.
- SEAGOON
-
>>Tweety, you're right and we're wrong. Bask in your victory, you crusader.<<
How about this, VOR. You read an affidavit given by a neurologist who visited Terri Shiavo.
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf
-
Seagoon,
Thanks very much for the answer.
Here is my take on the situation. I have an opinion on it but it is not soley based on this (Terri) particular situation but a bit more general.
I understood what you quoted about having the utmost concern and consideration for human life on the part of medical personell. I fully agree there but I am not sure prolonging it is really demonstrating that concern.
It is my opinion that if the life has degenerated to the point of a vegitative state that the option should be available to the patient to release the patient from an existance that is worse than permanent solitary confinement in perpetual restraints. I understand there is a concern about the "slipery slope" of taking a step back towards the elimination of a people that you raised. I don't see that as necessarily following that path. To me, maintaining a life, no matter how low functioning it is, particularly of a once vibrant and fully functioning human being is not a sign of care for THAT life. If that is the wish of the patient then certainly the medical folks should be required to follow through as best they can. If it is not then they are not respecting the life that actually belongs to the patient.
To me this is an example of free will granted to us by the Creator (however a person may be given the light to see Him) that we exercise our abilities and choices. Of course, if I am wrong I suppose I shall be called to task shortly after shuffling off this mortal coil. I can only hope that my choicew will be judged in the context they were made and the intent used to make them. We are a fallible life form and me most of all.
The counterpoint of it would be the state removing all choices from us and I find that equally abhorant. I fervently believe the state is here to serve it's constituants and not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
You read an affidavit given by a neurologist who visited Terri Shiavo.
Ok, I read it. I see the very heartfelt words of a professional, expert witness. It was as clinically heartwarming as I'm sure his book will be.
I heard earlier today of an emergency appeal.
-
>>Ok, I read it. I see the very heartfelt words of a professional, expert witness. It was as clinically heartwarming as I'm sure his book will be<<
Yup, thats about what I expected. Discredit anyone that presents facts that don't fit in nicely with your random opinion based on voodoo and acedotal evidence.
-
Random opinion = 30 judges?
You are detached from reality.
-
You know what Nash, if you are comfortable with it, I'm glad for you. I really am.
Now perhaps you can list the 30 individual justices that have ruled on this case and exactly what part of the case or procedure/motions they ruled on. You give the perception that 30 individual justices have ruled Terry Schiavo is in a PVS. Thats just an outright lie. But I guess lies are easy after you accept euthanasia.
-
Still waiting, Nash. I think you are perhaps the one detached from reality.
-
Hey man cut me some slack I just got done hangin' out in another thread. Are you my girlfriend or something?
Uhm...
Are you not satisfied that this case has been adequately litigated?
If not, what have the courts missed? They did hear from your quack doctor. Should they hear from him again... saying the same thing... just because?
-
No Nash, I want YOU to explain this statement.
>>Random opinion = 30 judges?
<<
-
Oooh you've caught me in an egregious lie!
It has been judged 30 times.
State and Federal.
Not once has anything gone your way. Out of all of it....
What do you know that these people don't?
-
Random opinion, voodoo and acedotal evidence? The woman he's describing in that report is hardly the zuccini they've been showing on tv, and quite frankly the sensationalism over this case is enough to make me sick. Mr. Schiavo should have been allowed to bury his wife years ago, peacefully, privately and without contest.
Hopefully, this will all be over in a couple of days and we can move on to the talkshow appearances and book signings of all the crusaders fighting the good and righteous fight.
Maybe they'll sell t-shirts.
-
>>If not, what have the courts missed? <<
Well according to Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, **DUE PROCESS**
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503250823.asp
But don't you dare start investigating anything away from CBS and NBC. Its just so much fun to be comfortable and right to look at this case with more scrutiny, eh Nash?
-
You read some pretty messed up websites Tweet. I'm not going to sit here and have you throw garbage at me from doofuses like Andy McCarthy and be expected to mindlesly refute the lameness.
-
McCarthy is getting some pretty good mileage out of this case.
Does one have to be a politician before pandering or can one pander to become a politician?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Does one have to be a politician before pandering or can one pander to become a politician?
If you're going to make it in the bigs, you have to be able to dribble AND shoot.
-
>>You read some pretty messed up websites Tweet. I'm not going to sit here and have you throw garbage at me from doofuses like Andy McCarthy<<
Yea, especially when there are AW experts like yourself to consult...:rolleyes:
And he says *I'm* detached from reality...
So lets tally this up ...
Dr. Cheshire is a quack
and McCarthy is a dufus..
But, gosh darn we have the expertise of Nash!
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
But don't you dare start investigating anything away from CBS and NBC. Its just so much fun to be comfortable and right to look at this case with more scrutiny, eh Nash?
I don't watch that stuff, Tweet.
You think you got it all goin' on just because you discovered some whacked-up blogs?
You are play-do.
I love this... because everytime you say something... An image goes POW! into my brain. Like nothing else. Be it play-do, a tampon, a puppy dog, the wind. Something is wrong with you.
-
Wot is an "AW expert?"
-
>>Something is wrong with you<<
:) Yea but you are just perfect, Nash:)
-
its not about due process, its not about pvs, its about letting Terri choose what she wanted....
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 all want her dead too.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html
I remember seeing her husband invite president bush and Jeb to come visit her but I guess they were too busy to do anything other than grab some free press.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Something is wrong with you<<
:) Yea but you are just perfect, Nash:)
Far from it.
Difference is, I know my lunatic boundries.
-
Just a footnote. Terri's husband denied a request that Terri be given communion. Apparently she could choke on it and die.
If this is sanity, I am so glad I am insane.
-
I read the entire afadavit. Frankly it seems that the entire observation on his part was a review of the files, a 90 minute personal observation (where he states he didn't see anything he could identify as cognitive activity) and the video clips. I don't see a strong statement that she is not in a vegetative state, just that he would like to see more tests using the equipment that is available now. He certainly feels more testing would indicate if there is ANY higher brain functions as oposed to random indications that may or may not be an indication of functioning above a vegetative state.
I see that as a reasonable observation on his part as he has no real long term time with her and he wants to use technology to test more things. Specifically he wants to look at brain activity during specific stimuli presentations. Even at that he didn't get specific as to whether or not that would prove actual cognition just a relationship of electrical activity in the areas associated with that stimuli.
As to the litigation angle, there certainly has been considerable reporting of both sides using various courts and state / Federal avenues to get satisfaction for their particular side. Offhand I'd doubt that an legal option has been left undone. Certainly the courts have been exercised. What I have heard from the brief time I spent listening to the news is that the parents are out of legal options to challenge.
-
See?
You are SUCH the moron!
No.. She wasn't denied communion.
In point of fact, she had communion when the tube was pulled, and will have it again at the discretion of her husband, to be administered by the Hospice priest.
What WAS denied was some fransican drone friar tuck spokesman of the parents wanting to perform communion when.... well, when he felt like it.
You are like the sponge.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>You read some pretty messed up websites Tweet. I'm not going to sit here and have you throw garbage at me from doofuses like Andy McCarthy<<
Yea, especially when there are AW experts like yourself to consult...:rolleyes:
And he says *I'm* detached from reality...
So lets tally this up ...
Dr. Cheshire is a quack
and McCarthy is a dufus..
But, gosh darn we have the expertise of Nash!
I enjoyed "Weekend at Bernie's" but didn't realize McCarthy was a terrorism expert too.
-
The answer lies not so much within Schiavo's brain as in the minds of those who observe her. As social beings, humans are hard-wired to examine another's face for clues to what the person behind it is thinking. They naturally associate vocal tones with specific moods. They detect meaningful words in nonsense utterances.
"I can understand that, because I have examined scores if not hundreds of people with this condition," says Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor of neurology at the University of South Florida, who has reviewed the brain-damaged woman's CAT scans.
At first, he says, his "natural emotional desire to be optimistic and hopeful" made him interpret movements and facial expressions as purposeful. But after long experience, Prockop says, "I came to realize that my emotional reaction was understandable as a human being, but was not an intellectual assessment."
During testimony in a 2002 hearing, court-appointed neurologist Peter Bambakidis acknowledged that seeing the videotapes of Schiavo's mother kissing and speaking with her gave him pause at first.
But Bambakidis noted that such visual tracking "commonly occurs spontaneously in people in a persistent vegetative state." After reviewing her brain scans and visiting with her, he came to the conclusion that she had no hope of recovery.
Dr. James Barnhill, a neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo, the husband who has fought through the courts to honor what he says would have been his wife's wishes, reviewed the videotapes and came to a similar conclusion.
Barnhill has said Terri Schiavo engaged in "pathological laughter, pathological crying … consistent with the vocalizations that are seen in people with persistent vegetative states. I see nothing on that tape that indicates an awareness there or consciousness
"The mere noise of walking will make the eyes flicker," said Lawrence J. Schneiderman, a professor at the University of California, San Diego medical school who specializes in the bioethics of medical futility and end-of-life care. "And there may be a grimace, so the relatives will say, 'Oh, she's happy to see me.'"
But all of those apparent signs of awareness are the product of a brain so damaged that by medical definition it has no capability of thought, no sensory awareness, no sense of its own existence in the world.
In Schiavo's condition, only the most primitive part of the brain survives. That region, known as the brain stem, merely sustains the vital functions of breathing, heart rate, sleep-wake cycles and primitive reflexes such as coughing and blinking.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=616805&page=3
Seems like the Court-appointed Doctor(Among others) disagrees with your affadavit Dr.'s opinion.
-
>>You are SUCH the moron!
<<
:) Of course, Nash, you are the only god here:)
-
Don't get weird on me babe.
Use yer noggin.
-
I'm trying but the list is getting long...
Quack Dr. Cheshire
dufus prosecutor McCarthy
and now fransican drone friar
...
-
Yeah...
National story.
Life & Death.
3 Nutjobs.
Suprised?
-
Why hasn't Dr. James Barnhill did a PET scan or fMRI?
-
As far as I know, the only place that can do PET is NYC.
Why hasn't that been done? Because people in the biz looked at eachother, and said... "Why even?"
It's a smokescreen.
-
>>Yeah...
National story.
Life & Death.
3 Nutjobs.
Suprised?
<<
Well Raymond's wife Patricia Heaton thinks it barbaric also, but I don't want you trashing her as well, so I didn't bring it up. On the other hand, I hear Micheal Jackson agrees with it and is doing his best to have an old style CT scan run on his accuser..
-
That doesn't make sense to me and I aint reading it twice.
-
Nash said it. That is not going to reveal anything they dont really already know.
"In Schiavo's condition, only the most primitive part of the brain survives. That region, known as the brain stem, merely sustains the vital functions of breathing, heart rate, sleep-wake cycles and primitive reflexes such as coughing and blinking. "
-
>>As far as I know, the only place that can do PET is NYC<<
Well you "know" wrong - but don't trash me again. PET scanners are in a most major cities now.
-
Get outta here.
-
>>Nash said it. That is not going to reveal anything they dont really already know<<
Ah, thats it - absolutely no need to confirm something with new technology if we already know someone should die. I think we should do the same thing with trials - why wast money on a trial if we know they're guilty?:rolleyes:
-
"The results of the PET scan may not be accurate if you are unable to cooperate and remain still throughout the procedure. "
"For a brain study, you will lie on a bed. During the scan, you may be given earplugs and a blindfold to wear to reduce external distractions. You may be asked to read, perform letter recognition activities, or recite a familiar quotation or passage, depending on whether speech, reasoning, or memory is being tested. You may be asked to perform deep breathing exercises to help reduce your anxiety. "
http://my.webmd.com/hw/health_guide_atoz/aa80345.asp
Can she do any of that?
-
I must be thinking about some different kind of scanner...Because the type of brain scan that the parents want revolved around flying Terri's body up to NYC.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I must be thinking about some different kind of scanner...Because the type of brain scan that the parents want revolved around flying Terri's body up to NYC.
MRS, magnetic resonance spectroscopic?
-
Mebbe... I dunno.
What I do know is that the medical world (the sane portion of it) agree that:
1) It is tantamount to sticking a stethoscope into my steak lookin' for a heartbeat.... and....
2) Even if the mush were confirmed by this MRS, it wouldn't mean jack to the right to lifers anyway.
It wouldn't change a damn thing.
-
>>Can she do any of that?
<<
I dunno - what happened when they tried? Oh wait thats right - THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO TRY.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Can she do any of that?
<<
I dunno - what happened when they tried? Oh wait thats right - THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO TRY.
None of this even matters. She said she didnt want to be like that. It's been 17 years and she has not improved. You and people that think like you want her to live like that, SHE did not. Here I will post this again for you incase you missed it.
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, uncle and brother-in-law all want her dead too.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html
I would say that this is probably why the parents have never won 1 trial/appeal. Hard to rebuke the testimony of people who care about her and have nothing to gain.
-
>>None of this even matters. She said she didnt want to be like that. It's been 17 years and she has not improved. You and people that think like you want her to live like that, SHE did not. <<
All of this matters! Twenty years ago, I might have said "shoot me in the head if I ever lose control of my bowels or bladder" but I would hate to think such an emotional utterance could seal my fate. Thankfully, I still have control of both, and today I would say the same. But today I know its an emotional kneejerk reaction. Yes it would be devestating to lose independence, but would I really want to die? After a time adjusting, would I really believe life held nothing for me?
The question is not what was or wasn't said 15 years ago, but whether or not the woman is responding (and if so, how?)to her environment now. The question is does she experience pain, in which case this starvation is absolutely inexcusable. We can objectively determine more now because of technology. It is just so weird that someone acting in her best interest wouldn't take advantage of this technology.
We are so used to matter of factly stating things like "it doesn't matter" or "she wouldn't want to live like this" that it is quite possible to kill some accidently in front of 250 million blind people. When we say those things, we had better make damn sure they are true and are not just repeating the easy solution.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>None of this even matters. She said she didnt want to be like that. It's been 17 years and she has not improved. You and people that think like you want her to live like that, SHE did not. <<
All of this matters! Twenty years ago, I might have said "shoot me in the head if I ever lose control of my bowels or bladder" but I would hate to think such an emotional utterance could seal my fate. Thankfully, I still have control of both, and today I would say the same. But today I know its an emotional kneejerk reaction. Yes it would be devestating to lose independence, but would I really want to die? After a time adjusting, would I really believe life held nothing for me?
The question is not what was or wasn't said 15 years ago, but whether or not the woman is responding (and if so, how?)to her environment now. The question is does she experience pain, in which case this starvation is absolutely inexcusable. We can objectively determine more now because of technology. It is just so weird that someone acting in her best interest wouldn't take advantage of this technology.
We are so used to matter of factly stating things like "it doesn't matter" or "she wouldn't want to live like this" that it is quite possible to kill some accidently in front of 250 million blind people. When we say those things, we had better make damn sure they are true and are not just repeating the easy solution.
Blah blah blah.
She told her husband, relatives, and friends that she wouldn't want to live like this. That very expression has been tried and ruled upon many times in many courts.
She didn't want to live like this.
Butt out.
-
>>Blah blah blah. <<
Can Nash legaly audition for American Idol?
-
Har.
I did you a favour by laughing at yer joke.
Do this whole thing a favour and quit sticking your nose where it has no business being.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>None of this even matters. She said she didnt want to be like that. It's been 17 years and she has not improved. You and people that think like you want her to live like that, SHE did not. <<
All of this matters! Twenty years ago, I might have said "shoot me in the head if I ever lose control of my bowels or bladder" but I would hate to think such an emotional utterance could seal my fate. Thankfully, I still have control of both, and today I would say the same. But today I know its an emotional kneejerk reaction. Yes it would be devestating to lose independence, but would I really want to die? After a time adjusting, would I really believe life held nothing for me?
The question is not what was or wasn't said 15 years ago, but whether or not the woman is responding (and if so, how?)to her environment now. The question is does she experience pain, in which case this starvation is absolutely inexcusable. We can objectively determine more now because of technology. It is just so weird that someone acting in her best interest wouldn't take advantage of this technology.
We are so used to matter of factly stating things like "it doesn't matter" or "she wouldn't want to live like this" that it is quite possible to kill some accidently in front of 250 million blind people. When we say those things, we had better make damn sure they are true and are not just repeating the easy solution.
1) You analogy is pointless. Losing control of the bladder has nothing to do with Not having anything left inside your head but a brain stem.
2)If she is responding? thats the question? Its already been stated that people in PVS have reflexes. maybe you missed this part. Remember from the court appointed doctor...Unless you think he wants her dead too.
During testimony in a 2002 hearing, court-appointed neurologist Peter Bambakidis acknowledged that seeing the videotapes of Schiavo's mother kissing and speaking with her gave him pause at first.
But Bambakidis noted that such visual tracking "commonly occurs spontaneously in people in a persistent vegetative state." After reviewing her brain scans and visiting with her, he came to the conclusion that she had no hope of recovery.
3)The technology PET would be worthless in this situation since she lacks a brain and has only the stem still.
"In Schiavo's condition, only the most primitive part of the brain survives. That region, known as the brain stem, merely sustains the vital functions of breathing, heart rate, sleep-wake cycles and primitive reflexes such as coughing and blinking. "
4) So her best friend and uncle are just repeating the easiest solution? Those were court facts so deal with it. I gave you the link earlier guess you didnt read it.
I have heard all the excuses and reasons for keeping her alive but None override her desire to not be kept alive like that.
-
I read your link. You'll notice the CNN story gave about 3 lines to the the neurologist who examined Terri Schiavo and found she interacted with her mother, before going off on a tangent about robots.
But its pretty much over for Terri. And I hear death is becomming...
>>Felos said that he had visited Terri Schiavo for 20 minutes earlier in the day at her hospice in Pinellas Park.
"Frankly, when I saw her...she looked beautiful. In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I've never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her."
<<
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/27/schiavo/index.html
Euthanasia - the newest makeover.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I read your link. You'll notice the CNN story gave about 3 lines to the the neurologist who examined Terri Schiavo and found she interacted with her mother, before going off on a tangent about robots.
Actually that was the ABC news link. The CNN link was the one where it says her best friend, uncle and brother in law all heard her say she wouldnt want to live with tubes in her.
And there was a lot more in there than 3 lines. And the only mention of robots is Kismet.
None of which I quoted.
-
Oh - here it is...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=616805&page=1
"William Hammesfahr, a neurologist hired by Terri Schiavo's parents, looks at the same tape and sees a woman who is clearly reacting to her mother, turning toward her voice, smiling and appearing to sing when she hears familiar piano music.
"She is absolutely responding to her mother," he testified. "There's no doubt."
"
To be specific I count TWO lines before going off on kismet.
What was left out of this story - OH I KNOW - new functional imaging technology like PET and fMRI. But we did get kismet..
Its a 4 page story and two lines are given to what the neurologist hired by Terri's parents says.
Anyway, if you're comforatable with your position - God bless you. I know I am comfortable with mine. I still think commenting on her beauty was a bizarre thing for Shiavo's attorney, Felos, to do.
I also find it bizarre that Felos is a campaign contributor to Judge Greer. But in our times, I'm used to bizarre.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Oh - here it is...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=616805&page=1
"William Hammesfahr, a neurologist hired by Terri Schiavo's parents, looks at the same tape and sees a woman who is clearly reacting to her mother, turning toward her voice, smiling and appearing to sing when she hears familiar piano music.
"She is absolutely responding to her mother," he testified. "There's no doubt."
"
To be specific I count TWO lines before going off on kismet.
What was left out of this story - OH I KNOW - new functional imaging technology like PET and fMRI. But we did get kismet..
Its a 4 page story and two lines are given to what the neurologist hired by Terri's parents says.
Anyway, if you're comforatable with your position - God bless you. I know I am comfortable with mine. I still think commenting on her beauty was a bizarre thing for Shiavo's attorney, Felos, to do.
I also find it bizarre that Felos is a campaign contributor to Judge Greer. But in our times, I'm used to bizarre.
Really ? The Schindlers says she is responding? WOW breaking news. lol Come on he has all to gain by saying that just as The husbands dr. did. The only one that matters to me is this one.
"During testimony in a 2002 hearing, court-appointed neurologist Peter Bambakidis acknowledged that seeing the videotapes of Schiavo's mother kissing and speaking with her gave him pause at first.
But Bambakidis noted that such visual tracking "commonly occurs spontaneously in people in a persistent vegetative state." After reviewing her brain scans and visiting with her, he came to the conclusion that she had no hope of recovery. "
Court appointed means no bias to either side.
Also just so you know, William hammesfahr only looked at tapes. He has no first hand knowledge. But I guess he is saying what you want to hear so he must be right.
Which prompted this statement but I guess you didnt make it past the Kismet analogy.
Prockop says the video clips he's seen are consistent with a diagnosis of coma vigil. But he cautions that he would not use them to make a diagnosis.
says Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor of neurology at the University of South Florida, who has reviewed the brain-damaged woman's CAT scans.
As for the PET scans you never responded to the reasons such a scan would be worthless.
Greer wasnt the only person who made decisions on this case he was just the end of the line.
-
>>And there was a lot more in there than 3 lines.<<
Did you forget you posted this? You said the Schindlers *neurologist* was given more than 3 lines. That was a lie, and I posted the source, and anyone who can count can see it was a lie. As is the lie, when you say "oh breaking new, the Schindlers think their daughter responds to them" The fact is the neutologist they hired thought she responded to them as well. Dr. Cheshire thought she responded to them as well, and the discussion could benefit from functional imaging. Even the primitive CT scan showed SOME cerebral cortex. Functional imaging would have shown if there was activity in that cerebral cortex. But convieniently, the slices of the CT scan widely published, show little cortex. Anyone who has ever had a CT scan KNOWS individual slices of a CT scan can be very misleading. The doctors you site think she didn't respond but conspicuously ignore breakthrough technology (PET or fMRI) and the fact there is no current neurological evaluation.
I don't care anyomore - its over. She is past the point of no return and I've heard all this rhetoric before, particularly when it comes to justifying killing babies. So spare me. You feel comfortable taking away life. I don't. We will never agree. I will always be a kook to you, and you will always be decadent to me.
There's no possible way of reconciling the two views of life, and Terri's hope for survival has evaporated.
The only thing I feel compelled to respond to are blatant misrepresentations as you did in your last post.
-
You know, after a number of arrogant doctors decided Karen Quinlan's fate apart from their "devine" efforts giving her life, she gave them the middle finger thumbs up. She lived for about 10 years without their arrogant "devine" medical expertise. Without uttering a word she revealed them as imbeciles. Yea they defended themselves by claiming the respirator taught her to breath, but I suspect most with a cerebral cortex are confident they were trying to hide the fact they were imbeciles.
Neurological breakthroughs are ongoing. I suspect Terri will reveal a few imbeciles even after she is dead, cremated or not - the records are still here. But being imbeciles I doubt we will learn anything.
I just hope I'm living when they prove cognitive thought exists outside of the cerebral cortex.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>And there was a lot more in there than 3 lines.<<
Did you forget you posted this? You said the Schindlers *neurologist* was given more than 3 lines. That was a lie, and I posted the source, and anyone who can count can see it was a lie. As is the lie, when you say "oh breaking new, the Schindlers think their daughter responds to them" The fact is the neutologist they hired thought she responded to them as well. Dr. Cheshire thought she responded to them as well, and the discussion could benefit from functional imaging. Even the primitive CT scan showed SOME cerebral cortex. Functional imaging would have shown if there was activity in that cerebral cortex. But convieniently, the slices of the CT scan widely published, show little cortex. Anyone who has ever had a CT scan KNOWS individual slices of a CT scan can be very misleading. The doctors you site think she didn't respond but conspicuously ignore breakthrough technology (PET or fMRI) and the fact there is no current neurological evaluation.
I don't care anyomore - its over. She is past the point of no return and I've heard all this rhetoric before, particularly when it comes to justifying killing babies. So spare me. You feel comfortable taking away life. I don't. We will never agree. I will always be a kook to you, and you will always be decadent to me.
There's no possible way of reconciling the two views of life, and Terri's hope for survival has evaporated.
The only thing I feel compelled to respond to are blatant misrepresentations as you did in your last post.
1)Ok first I misunderstood you . Its a common thing when all we have is type. I was talking about your making a big deal out of the robot thing not her parents dr. only getting 3 lines. I meant there was a lot more in that article than the robot thing.
2)He only got 3 lines because he never examined her. he just viewed tapes.Heck of a way to make a diaganosis.
3)LoL you posted the source? Umm I linked that in my quote so congrats on your "research".
4)Try not to go around calling people liars. It wasnt a lie it was a misunderstanding.
5)I for one I will never grasp why "religous" people are so scared of death. Save this person and save that and do anything to keep people alive. Why? Arent they all going to heaven? Terri will get in heaven what she cant here.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
You know, after a number of arrogant doctors decided Karen Quinlan's fate apart from their "devine" efforts giving her life, she gave them the middle finger thumbs up. She lived for about 10 years without their arrogant "devine" medical expertise. Without uttering a word she revealed them as imbeciles. Yea they defended themselves by claiming the respirator taught her to breath, but I suspect most with a cerebral cortex are confident they were trying to hide the fact they were imbeciles.
Neurological breakthroughs are ongoing. I suspect Terri will reveal a few imbeciles even after she is dead, cremated or not - the records are still here. But being imbeciles I doubt we will learn anything.
I just hope I'm living when they prove cognitive thought exists outside of the cerebral cortex.
Now this is just crazy. She lived for 10 years in a COMA and THEN DIED. That is a miracle? That is a finger to the doctors? Seems to me like they called it right. She didnt recover.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The difference is that Terry is not in a coma. Nor is she unresponsive. Nor is she a vegetable.
When almost 80% of your brain is liquid and you do not have the ability for abstract though, you're a vegetable.
ack-ack
-
>>Now this is just crazy. She lived for 10 years in a COMA and THEN DIED. That is a miracle? That is a finger to the doctors? Seems to me like they called it right. She didnt recover.<<
ER no, the doctors said she didn't have primitive brain function, and could not breath on her own. They called it right????? They were *entirely* wrong, because she did breath on her own. After they were proven *entirely* wrong (by the fact Quinlan was breathing on her own so had primitive brain function) they came up with a quick scenario where a respirator could teach a person to breath. Unfortunately they could never duplicate that phenomena or use it in therapy. But when one is grasping at straws to hide their idiocy, fairy tales are as good as anything. The point was, Quinlan proved the doctors had misdiagnosed her capabilities. They did - plain and simple.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
ER no, the doctors said she didn't have primitive brain function, and could not breath on her own. They were entirely wrong, because she did breath on her own. After they were proven entirely wrong (by the fact Quinlan was breathing on her own) they came up with a quick scenario where a respirator could teach a person to breath. Unfortunately they could never duplicate that phenomena or use it in therapy. But when one is grasping at straws to hide their idiocy, fairy tales are as good as anything. The point was, Quinlan proved the doctors had misdiagnosed her capabilities. They did - plain and simple.
So what does this mean? She still didnt have conciousness? Did she ever get up and sing a song, or read a book, or hell have a conversation with someone? No, No and No.
If you are only trying to show doctors get it wrong sometimes, just say it. You don't need to proof for that. Happens all the time in America. It's called Malpractice. But acting like she was some sort of miracle is really strange.
-
>>I for one I will never grasp why "religous" people are so scared of death.<<
You confuse aversion of murder with fear of death - silly you :)
-
>>So what does this mean? <<
This means they diagnosed her wrong. They did not know what her brain fuction was.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I for one I will never grasp why "religous" people are so scared of death.<<
You confuse aversion of murder with fear of death - silly you :)
No I confuse compassion with imposing your views on someone else.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>So what does this mean? <<
This means they diagnosed her wrong. They did not know what her brain fuction was.
so does that mean every neurological case is mis-diagnosed? I don't see your point on this sorry. Terri is missing 80% of her brain. That is not like the case you stated where the woman was just in a coma.
-
I read about a chicken that survived for several months after it's head was cut off. I wouldn't really call that living.
Mere existance of a body without any cognitive functions,or ability to do anything other than lay there and breath is not anything I would want to experiance. Certainly not for 17 months much less years.
-
And you confuse compassion with not having the courtesy to run a functional imaging test on someone before you allow them to die of thirst? Compassion? Where? When you don't have empathy for parents watching a child die of thirst?
I'll give you this. Schiavo may have the law on his side, but I think compassion is a stranger in this scenario.
-
>>I read about a chicken that survived for several months after it's head was cut off. I wouldn't really call that living.
<<
Oh please post a link. This is the idiocy that accounts for the poll results.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
And you confuse compassion with not having the courtesy to run a functional imaging test on someone before you allow them to die of thirst? Compassion? Where? When you don't have empathy for parents watching a child die of thirst?
I'll give you this. Schiavo may have the law on his side, but I think compassion is a stranger in this scenario.
You are so off track on this now I might have to let you go.
This is about HER right to NOT be kept alive by tubes. SHE said she didnt want to. A functioning image test tells us nothing. SHE Choose to not be kept alive artificially. She said it, deal with it. Those tests could read off the scale for brain activity and it wouldn't mean jack. She didnt want to live like that. I don't understand what you don't see about this being HER choice. Not her parents, not her husbands and least of all the friggin governements. I for one would rather die of thirst in 2 weeks than be like she is for 50 years.
I have empathy for them, but I also feel they are selfish for not respecting their daughter's wishes. I have seen several people say that she did not want to be hooked up to tubes what's her parents counter to that? Oh yeah, her religion wouldnt have allowed for it so she must not have said it. Give me a break.
-
Here it is. It took all of 10 seconds of google. Now this is just the first link, you look it over if you want.
http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org
-
Now I'm really confused. Why emphaticaly state there is no brain activity in the cerebral cortex and then decline an objective test that would show if there was activity in the cerebral cortex?
-
>>Here it is. It took all of 10 seconds of google. Now this is just the first link, you look it over if you want.
http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org
<<
Put it on my "favorites" list
:aok
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Now I'm really confused. Why emphaticaly state there is no brain activity in the cerebral cortex and then decline an objective test that would show if there was activity in the cerebral cortex?
cough cough Brain Stem, Like I said earlier nothing to test...but we go around again and you just avoid the whole its her choice argument. Shows what really matters to you. Not her choice but what you want. really sad.
" In Schiavo's condition, only the most primitive part of the brain survives. That region, known as the brain stem, merely sustains the vital functions of breathing, heart rate, sleep-wake cycles and primitive reflexes such as coughing and blinking. "
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
And you confuse compassion with not having the courtesy to run a functional imaging test on someone before you allow them to die of thirst? Compassion? Where? When you don't have empathy for parents watching a child die of thirst?
I'll give you this. Schiavo may have the law on his side, but I think compassion is a stranger in this scenario.
I don't confuse anything about this. You are on the crusade on this subject. :rolleyes:
It has been litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court. If this was her wish then forcing her to continue to exist to make her parents happy is the height of selfishness on their part. I know I sure as h*ll wouldn't want to exist like that. Anyone FORCING me to live like that is hardly compassionate as far as I am concerned.
If you want to exist like that then more power to ya. At least have the sense not to speak for anyone else.
-
Yea Raider, you're absolutely right, what was I thinking?
-
"I'm not going to begin to argue that if at some point we can keep a body whose head has been entirely severed "alive" that we must do so. Such an existence could not meet even the vaguest definition of "a life."
However it is clearly God's revealed will that we protect the defenseless and weakest members of our society. The clear witness of scripture is that we must feed and care for the handicapped, retarded, and brain damaged to the best of our ability. This includes feeding them and taking care of their medical needs. In doing so, no matter how inconvenient it is to us, we are serving God and obeying his will. Contrary to the belief of the Nazis the Imago Dei is present even in the retarded and brain damaged and we are just as obligated to them as we are to newborns.
That is what we are talking about at root with Terri, we had a moral obligation to feed her and provide for her medical needs. She did not require a machine to breathe for her, or pump her blood, her body simply needed sustenance, and she could have been taught to eat (several nurses fed her orally without aspiration until Michael forbade it) and perhaps to perform other basic functions. Instead all steps have been aimed from the get-go at causing her to die out of "quality of life" concerns. Her parents have throughout been willing to care for her but have been legally prevented from doing so. This is an involuntary Euthanasia case, pure and simple, but we have reached the point societally where we have left the concerns of the Geneva code behind us and seem ready to resume the practice of "Therapeutic Killing."
If we are indeed just grown up Germs ourselves, and the philosophy of Nietzche is true, then there is no reason not to embrace the practice of state authorized therapeutic killing as the Dutch and Scandanavians already have. Of course, you'd better hope you are and continue to be one of the fit and healthy Ubermensch and not some subhuman unworthy of life."
- SEAGOON
Seagoon, you're making me think, at least. I'm glad you're posting here and I read what you post. Thanks for doing so.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea Raider, you're absolutely right, what was I thinking?
You were confusing the cerebral cortex which is mush, with her brain stem.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"I'm not going to begin to argue that if at some point we can keep a body whose head has been entirely severed "alive" that we must do so. Such an existence could not meet even the vaguest definition of "a life."
However it is clearly God's revealed will that we protect the defenseless and weakest members of our society. The clear witness of scripture is that we must feed and care for the handicapped, retarded, and brain damaged to the best of our ability. This includes feeding them and taking care of their medical needs. In doing so, no matter how inconvenient it is to us, we are serving God and obeying his will. Contrary to the belief of the Nazis the Imago Dei is present even in the retarded and brain damaged and we are just as obligated to them as we are to newborns.
That is what we are talking about at root with Terri, we had a moral obligation to feed her and provide for her medical needs. She did not require a machine to breathe for her, or pump her blood, her body simply needed sustenance, and she could have been taught to eat (several nurses fed her orally without aspiration until Michael forbade it) and perhaps to perform other basic functions. Instead all steps have been aimed from the get-go at causing her to die out of "quality of life" concerns. Her parents have throughout been willing to care for her but have been legally prevented from doing so. This is an involuntary Euthanasia case, pure and simple, but we have reached the point societally where we have left the concerns of the Geneva code behind us and seem ready to resume the practice of "Therapeutic Killing."
If we are indeed just grown up Germs ourselves, and the philosophy of Nietzche is true, then there is no reason not to embrace the practice of state authorized therapeutic killing as the Dutch and Scandanavians already have. Of course, you'd better hope you are and continue to be one of the fit and healthy Ubermensch and not some subhuman unworthy of life."
- SEAGOON
Seagoon, you're making me think, at least. I'm glad you're posting here and I read what you post. Thanks for doing so.
So we have moral obligation to disregard Terri's choice to not live as she does? Not in my book. See this is what it is really all about. Religion. Organized Religion has no respect for an individual's choice. Someone wants to checkout of their life, who the hell are we to tell them no?
-
>>Seagoon, you're making me think, at least. I'm glad you're posting here and I read what you post. Thanks for doing so.
<<
Same here. I'd take a Sunday dinner at regular people's house over a banquet full of sophisticated great thinkers, anyday.
There's no sustenance in rhetoric.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
So we have moral obligation to disregard Terri's choice to not live as she does? Not in my book. See this is what it is really all about. Religion. Organized Religion has no respect for an individual's choice. Someone wants to checkout of their life, who the hell are we to tell them no?
Ah...You believe in the right to assisted suicide too I bet. ;)
I don't know Raider, I feel funny about deliberately starving someone to death who only needs to be fed, regardless of what her long term prognosis is.
I had a cousin born blind and severely mentally retarded and there was never a question that he'd be taken care of- it was never an issue. He ended up institunionalized and, ultimately, kept alive by a feeding tube, until he died in his mid 40s of natural causes. We all knew he'd never get "better," but we all knew he deserved our love and campassion and, most of all, our help to eat.
I don't feel comfortable having state sanctioned euthenasia, especially when that euthenasia involves starving someone to death. I'm not sure I want my Government rubberstamping that, regardless of the wishes of anyone- I'd prefer my Government err on the sanctity of life rather than the finality of death.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Ah...You believe in the right to assisted suicide too I bet. ;)
I don't know Raider, I feel funny about deliberately starving someone to death who only needs to be fed, regardless of what her long term prognosis is.
I had a cousin born blind and severely mentally retarded and there was never a question that he'd be taken care of- it was never an issue. He ended up institunionalized and, ultimately, kept alive by a feeding tube, until he died in his mid 40s of natural causes. We all knew he'd never get "better," but we all knew he deserved our love and campassion and, most of all, our help to eat.
I don't feel comfortable having state sanctioned euthenasia, especially when that euthenasia involves starving someone to death. I'm not sure I want my Government rubberstamping that, regardless of the wishes of anyone- I'd prefer my Government err on the sanctity of life rather than the finality of death.
Yep I have no problem with someone taking the easy way out.
Your cousin never had a chance to say he wouldn't want to live that way. Therefore your right life is the right choice. With Terri on the other hand she voiced her opinion to not be kept alive in those circumstances. Honoring her wishes its the least we can do. I understand what you are saying but disagree fundamentally about an individual's right to decide to when they have lived long enough and the government coming in and saying nope your gonna suffer longer.
-
In her later years my grandmother, (married for over 65 years), was plagued by strokes and a weak heart. Her quality of life was horrible, she couldn't walk, barely talked. Finally she told my grandfather that the next time she had an "attack" that he should wait 10 minutes before calling an ambulance.
She died in his arms, at home, not connected to tubes or machines, the way she wanted. She ended a 65 year old marriage and an awesome life with dignity and grace.
Sometimes you have to let go. Thankfully, no religious zealots got in the way of her dignity nor made her suffer.
This whole case reinforced my beliefs about Christians, their zealotry, and hypocracy.
-
Vulcan, the only "tube and machine" we're talking about here is a feeding tube. She's not being kept alive by extraordinary means; she is simply being fed.
I don't know, man. I read Seagoon's take on this and the part that comes through to me is that we have an obligation to honor the sancity of life regardless of the quality of that life.
Somehow it doesn't seem right we are basically ordering her execution by starvation, especially in light of this being a tug of war between those who feel she should, at the least, continue to be fed and those who are insisting she die.
I just feel funny about this. It just doesn't seem like we should starve people to death, no matter how much of a burden they are. Just sayin....and I agree she'll never get better and all, but,,,sheeesh.... this is over the top. At least as far as an edict goes.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
"...the part that comes through to me is that we have an obligation to honor the sancity of life regardless of the quality of that life.
Hows about honoring her wishes wrt her life?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hows about honoring her wishes wrt her life?
Unless she has written those wishes down while properly witnessed by a notary public, we can't know what they were, nor can we reasonably expect that she would have made such wishes known to her husband, because he afterall, just wants her to die. He never loved her. He's just a horn dog looking for another piece of tail and an insurance settlement. Her parents would know what she wants as an adult, because they sat with her during bed-time story and had long lengthy discussions with her about heroic lifesaving measures, and eggplants.
-
Heh...
-
I don't know if this means anything, but I've tried to connect with her telepathically and all I get is white noise.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I don't know if this means anything, but I've tried to connect with her telepathically and all I get is white noise.
Hmmm... me too, but all I seem to get is black or white noise. ;)
-
It just occurred to me...
Lets for a second ponder the "she's there" side of the story.
You are there.
In fact, you are her.
You breath, and you sleep, and you awake, and your eyes open, and you see your family in the room.
But you cannot move. Your facial muscles stretch themselves into a hideous grin. Your hands are seized.
These people speak to you, but you cannot speak back.
Like clockwork, strangers will come in, pry your legs open and take care of your gynecological needs...
You're lying there. Unable to move. Unable to speak.
"I'm HERE" you scream. In your mind.
Because you are seized up. And they are not telepathic.
One year passes like this. Then another. Then another and another.
In that bed... watching. Unable to do anything. Just lying there.
Frozen.
Another year passes.
Then another.
It does not dawn on you that you will have to spend yet another ten years like this.
Aware, but unable to speak. Unable to move. You just lie there. Every day... Three hundred and sixty-five days.... with another 9 more of these years to go.
But that's what happens.
You have been lying there, for 6 years, watching. These days of insane boredom are intermittently broken up by every one of your teeth getting pulled out due to decay. But, at least that's something different.
By this point, it is far worse than any Vietnamese torture. You go insane. You have been lying here for 9 years, watching...
Little do you know that you have another 6 years left of this.
Until your husband finally breaks through all the legal restraints and everyone says "enough is enough."
So........................... ...
To those (Tweety?) who are getting all worked up about the outcome... it's because you see a glimmer of consciousness inside of her.
If she does indeed possess that consciousness... Then this truly has been a living hell.
You really wanna prolong it? For her?
-
and after your husband pulls the tube, then the real terror begins. Starving to death.
Nash, I was thinking of "One" reading some parts of your description. ;)
-
Lieberman put into words almost exactly my feelings about this:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/213955.shtml
"And I think as a matter of law, if you go - particularly to the 14th Amendment, [you] can't be denied due process, have your life or liberty taken without due process of law, that though the Congress' involvement here was awkward, unconventional, it was justified to give this woman, more than her parents or husband, the opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated by an act which was sanctioned by a court, by the state."
Lieberman added, "These are very difficult decisions, but - of course, if you ask me what I would do if I was the Florida Legislature or any state legislature, I'd say that if somebody doesn't have a living will and the next of kin disagree on whether the person should be kept alive or that is whether food and water should be taken away and her life ended - that really the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to life."
In conclusion, Lieberman said, "The family member who wants to sustain her life ought to have that right because the judge really doesn't know, though he heard the facts, one judge, what Terri Schiavo wanted. He made a best guess based on the evidence before him. That's not enough when you're talking about aggressively removing food and water to end someone's life."
"You would have kept the tube in?" asked NBC's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert.
Lieberman replied, "I would have kept the tube in.
-
Hey, we all agree this woman has zero chance of recovery, so that's not the issue. What IS the issue is if we have the right to stop feeding people who, by accident, birth or whatever, are a burden to us.
We're talking simple substinance here, not someone on a ventilator or a heart machine. What we are sanctioning as a society is the starvation of a person who, given food, would otherwise survive. It's not pulling a plug, it is starving a human being to death. And I'm not sure I want my judicial system saying it's OK to do that... in fact I'd want my judicial system saying that's NOT OK.
-
BS, and Lieberman needs to go.
"One more...."
Hell, it was ran through the courts 25 times before those idiots got their smarmy hands on it and, based on no fact finding whatsoever, said "re-do".
Because... what?
It was an egregious intrusion by the highest political body into the smallest, saddest of personal affairs.
The entire thing is wrong on so many levels.
-
Airhead, I'm not sure why you and others see a distinction between removing air and removing food.
But it doesn't matter.
Because this chick didn't want ANY of it.
All this turmoil about the pain of starvation means squat. She wanted starvation.
-
Oh yeah Nash, well you're view is BS. See how easy that is to say?
And personal affair for who? I'd think that her own life is her own personal affair and nobody can prove she would have wanted to be starved to death.
I'm saying you protect life unless there is proof that she would have wanted to be left to die. What harm is it to feed her?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Oh yeah Nash, well you're view is BS. See how easy that is to say?
And personal affair for who? I'd think that her own life is her own personal affair and nobody can prove she would have wanted to be starved to death.
I'm saying you protect life unless there is proof that she would have wanted to be left to die. What harm is it to feed her?
Nuke... It was proven. Constantly, and consistently.
(unless courts and the rule of law doesn't mean anything to you)
Her wish was proven. Constantly, and consistently.
POOF goes your entire post.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke... It was proven. Constantly, and consistently.
(unless courts and the rule of law doesn't mean anything to you)
Her wish was proven. Constantly, and consistently.
POOF goes your entire post.
You're wrong, as usual. Her wishes have never been proven.
-
Is this the point when you become unhinged?
-
lol, not at all.
-
Originally posted by Nash
BS, and Lieberman needs to go.
"One more...."
Hell, it was ran through the courts 25 times before those idiots got their smarmy hands on it and, based on no fact finding whatsoever, said "re-do".
Because... what?
It was an egregious intrusion by the highest political body into the smallest, saddest of personal affairs.
The entire thing is wrong on so many levels.
Yeah yeah yeah Nash, the Courts said this and the Courts said that, but do you know what? The bottom line is that we have sanctioned starving to death a human being... and I can't feel good about it. It makes us less as a society somehow.
-
Courts said she would want the tubes yanked.
BANG goes the gavel. Repeatedly. Done.
Her wishes have never been proven?
-
The courts made a ruling without any proof, because there is no proof.
There is the word of her husband against the word of her family and friends.
The court didn't prove squat, they issued a ruling that the husband had the right to decide.
-
Airhead...
Over a MILLION people got their tubes yanked in '04.
Less of a society?
I'd say if this is the cause of a lessening of society, then there is a hell of a lotta work to be done.
-
Ok Nuke... All 30 rulings are in error.
Because the judges.... are wrong.
The courts are wrong.
The entire legal system is wrong.
Because you are right.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Courts said she would want the tubes yanked.
BANG goes the gavel. Repeatedly. Done.
Her wishes have never been proven?
No, the courts said her husband is the sole determinater rather she lives or dies and he has decided she should die by starvation.
And the Courts have backed him up.
Nash, how can you just slam bang the fact we're starving to death a human being and, at the same time, feel trepedation and regret because you have to shoot gophers or look less manly in the eyes of your printer budddy?
-
Fer one, that gopher guy is a goof. The idea of proving anything to him is laughable.
For two, the courts not only considered guardianship, they considered her wishes.
They ruled on both of these.
So... Where does that leave your argument?
-
Airhead, it's because his moral compass is spining like it's in the Burmuda Triangle.
-
All of our moral compasses are spinning.
I think it's perpetual. Terri or otherwise.
Trick is to dial it in.
-
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/27/74045.shtml
Sunday, March 27, 2005 7:34 a.m. EST
Schiavo: 'We Didn't Know What Terri Wanted'
In a bizarre statement on the day Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected, Michael Schiavo seemed to inadvertently admit that he had no idea what his wife would have wanted if she became incapacitated.
During an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live," Michael was asked if he could appreciate the distress of Terri's parents:
"Yes, I do," he replied, according to a CNN transcript. "But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want."
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The courts made a ruling without any proof, because there is no proof.
There is the word of her husband against the word of her family and friends.
The court didn't prove squat, they issued a ruling that the husband had the right to decide.
Actually if the word of her husband, best friend, uncle, and brother in law against no one.
The family's only comback to them all saying she said she didn't want to live on tubes was that she was catholic and it goes against catholic religion.
I've posted the quote a couple times in this thread but yet it still goes right by people. Here it is again...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo/index.html
Schiavo's parents point to the absence of a living will, or written document, clearly spelling out her wishes. They argue that their daughter's due process rights have been violated and that she would not have wanted to die this way due to her faith as a Roman Catholic.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html
George Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, pointed out that the husband is Terri Schiavo's 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.
Outside court, Felos told reporters that Terri Schiavo long ago made clear her wishes: "She said, 'I don't want to be kept alive artificially -- no tubes for me. I want to go when my time comes. Take the tubes and everything out
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
[B The fact is the neutologist they hired thought she responded to them as well. Dr. Cheshire thought she responded to them as well, and the discussion could benefit from functional imaging.
[/B]
Looks like Dr. Chesire is a quack.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/25/schiavo.doctors.ap/index.html
"Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her," Cheshire said in the affidavit.
But the first part of that sentence, in fact, "starts to meet the criteria for vegetative state," said Dr. Gene Sung, director of the neurocritical care and stroke section of the University of Southern California.
Sung, who has not been involved with the case, said of Cheshire that "unfortunately his feelings, and possibly his religious beliefs, are affecting his medical decision." Cheshire is listed as director of biotech ethics for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, which notes on its Web site that it was founded by Christian bioethicists.
Sung said the original diagnosis was based on repeated examinations by "very distinguished neurologists" and he said he is as comfortable with that diagnosis as he can be without examining Schiavo himself.
Dr. Roger Albin, a professor of neurology at the University of Michigan who also was not involved in the Schiavo case, agreed. "I don't think there's any reason to doubt the diagnosis. ...I don't think her evaluation could have been done better."
He also said he's not aware of any evidence that a person could emerge from years in a persistent vegetative state and enter a minimally conscious state, especially in a case such as Schiavo's, where blood flow to the brain had been temporarily cut off in 1990.
-
Sympathy is one thing.
Empathy is simular, but different. Because with empathy, you dive into someone else's shoes.
But maybe you don't really know the owner of the shoes. And maybe the shoes don't fit.
Arrogance, piety and righteousness is something else. It is saying "Those shoes must be uncomfortable because they would be uncomfortable on me."
You jokers wanna get in her face, and presume to tell her that what she wanted really isn't what she wanted. Because... well damn, I wouldn't want that.
Tough cookies.
She did.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sympathy is one thing.
Empathy is simular, but different. Because with empathy, you dive into someone else's shoes.
But maybe you don't really know the owner of the shoes. And maybe the shoes don't fit.
Arrogance, piety and righteousness is something else. It is saying "Those shoes must be uncomfortable because they would be uncomfortable on me."
You jokers wanna get in her face, and presume to tell her that what she wanted really isn't what she wanted. Because... well damn, I wouldn't want that.
Tough cookies.
She did.
You jokers? "get in her face" ?? What are you talking about?
You have no idea what she would have wanted and neither does anyone else, so get off YOUR righteousness and arrogance.
My stance is simple: No one knows what she would have wanted.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My stance is simple: No one knows what she would have wanted.
Then you would be wrong.
This very thing has been ruled on.
Over and over.
Unless you were hiding under a bed when husband and wife talked about it. Unless you were perched in a tree when sister and sister talked about it.
People know.
Not me... I don't know. I don't know these people. I wasn't there.
But the people that were around... They knew. Testafied to it. The Judge took it all in, and went with them.
Then another judge did.
Then another Judge did.
Ad nausium.
But... you don't buy it?
Life aint fair, Nuke.
-
This case has been in the courts for years. The courts have ruled that this poor woman did not want to live as a vegetable with no hope ( on this planet ) of recovery. All Drs appointed by the courts over the last 7 to 15 years have found that there is no hope of her brain growing back.
It is about her wishes being honored and nothing more.
We are a country of laws.
We are a country where control of our own bodies is still ours. Well at least for the time being it is. Many in this country want to take that right away from us.
It is a sad sad situation. But it is only one sad situation in a world of many.
-
Airhead,
Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. There are many posters here who I enjoy reading as well and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to interact in this forum. Because of my schedule, I don't get as much opportunity as I once did to debate and discuss with people who hold radically different worldviews.
This may sound odd, but as I was preparing to preach on the subject of the Christian response to Euthanasia (which was a decision that discussion on this board helped me to firm up, rather than putting it off) I was greatly assisted in thinking through the issues by some of the discussion here. Anyway, here is one of the less blatantly Christian clips from what I preached. I post it because we don't seem to really appreciate the roots of the modern euthanasia movement or understand the critical ethical difference between turning off a lifesupport machine and starving someone to death. [some of this has already appeared here in different formats, my apologies for that]
"What is Euthanasia anyway? That as I found out is an interesting question to ask. Because as I was doing research for this sermon, I noticed that neither the word nor the practice of Euthanasia occurred in any of my ethical commentaries published prior to the mid-20th century, it wasn't even listed in Webster's massive 1913 dictionary, the first place I found it listed was a Merriam Webster's dictionary from the 50's. The word Euthanasia is a greek compound word – Eu meaning "good" and Thanatos meaning "death" – therefore "the good death." The term was first coined and widely used by the Nazis in the late 30's in connection with the T4 "Euthanasia" program. Now what the T4 program initially did was take senile adults, handicapped children and infants, the retarded, the brain damaged, the incurably insane and put them to death entirely disregarding the wishes of the patients or the family. Sometimes this was done by injection, occasionally by carbon monoxide gas but usually they were simply starved. The program was run and administered not by the SS, but by Doctors. They justified their actions at the time, by describing it as "Therapeutic Killing." They acknowledged that they were killing, but held that they were keeping their hippocratic oaths because this was killing as healing.
Now they did that on two different levels: The first was by saying that they were healing because the people they were killing were in essence a sickness in the body of humanity – let me give you an example of that. Robert J. Lifton in his book the Nazi Doctors wrote of the following recollection of survivor physician Dr. Ella Lingens-Reiner, who pointed to the chimneys of a death camp and asked a Nazi doctor, Fritz Klein, "How can you reconcile that with your Hippocratic Oath as a doctor?" He answered, "Of course, I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind." According to their philosophy a healthy and vigorous humanity had no place for these people, they simply weakened society, drained its resources, therefore they had to be removed.
The second level was by saying that by doing so they were healing by ending suffering, in fact their original orders as given by Hitler were to "provide "final medical assistance" to those judged "incurable" by physicians who were authorized to end their suffering" They also often appealed to the "quality of life" argument, i.e. that the quality of life of the people they were putting to death was unacceptably low.
So the three main arguments advanced for therapeutic killing by these physicians were: that it served the greater good of humanity, that it ended suffering, and that it was the only solution to an unacceptably low quality of life.
Surprisingly the allies didn't buy any of these rationalizations and after the War, a "doctors trial" was held at Nuremberg for 23 Nazi doctors involved with the T4 program. Six of these doctors, including Karl Brandt, Hitler's Doctor and the head of the T4 program, were hanged and five given life sentences.
Because of all this following the Second World War, Europe had to step back and reassess the state of ethics in medicine, they particularly wanted to create a code that would prevent the recurrence of eugenics and euthanasia as acceptable practices within the medical community. The result was the Geneva Code (1948) of the World Medical Association which was written specifically to guard against the "ethics" of the Nazi doctors.
The WMA was for many years absolutely opposed to any reintroduction of discussions of doctors terminating the lives of their patients regardless of their condition. They maintained that the role of a doctor must always be to preserve life, never to take it. However, as time moved on, those safeguards were progressively weakened:
Tthe first domino to fall was doctors not artificially sustaining life, in other words if a person's body was only being kept alive through the functioning of a life support system, and there was "no hope" of recovery, it was acceptable to pull the plug with the permission of the next of kin. Strictly speaking that is not yet Euthanasia.
The next domino to fall was allowing someone to choose not to continue medical treatment if there was no hope of recovery and thus allowing them to die of natural causes instead of prolonging the process. This is still not yet Euthanasia.
The next step however, was in allowing doctors to assist patients deemed to be terminal to die, either by ceasing to feed them or by administering a lethal dose of drugs. This is Euthanasia: Therapeutic Killing to end suffering.
After that the floodgates literally opened in Europe: physicians killing those in pain, but not necessarily terminal if the patient so desired, Physicians killing the mentally incompetent with degenerative diseases with the permission of their next of kin, and Physicians killing infants with serious birth defects including severe retardation with the parents permission.
The current high water marks are in Scandanavia and Holland, where Physicians after conferring together may now elect to terminate cognitive patients with degenerative diseases and infants with severe birth defects without the permission of the patient or the next of kin. This is Involuntary Euthanasia, and is exactly what we put those Nazi doctors to death for in 1945. So either we were wrong then or we are wrong now. If we were wrong then, we owe the families of those doctors an apology.
Incidentally the current battle in Europe is over whether doctors may terminate the depressed, but otherwise healthy, if the patient so requests. If the current trajectory holds true, this will be approved and has the potential to progress to doctors terminating the depressed without their permission on quality of life grounds."
- Seagoon
-
Just a couple of random thoughts before beddy-byes:
1) If we attempted to put convicted killers to death via a two week long process of starvation and dehydration we would have the ACLU in a furor over such horrendously "cruel and inhuman punishment." Let's face it, we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss it as an option.
2) In all the accounts I've read of men starving to death or dying of dehydration, I've read of them being maddened by thirst, so desperate to eat that they'll resort to canibalism, every description I can think of or recall speaks of hideous pain and suffering.
If I had any abilities as an artist whatsoeve I'd illustrate the above point with a cartoon of 8 obviously starving men in a lifeboat. The captain asks, "how are you doing lads" and the answers vary between "Euphoric!" and "I've never been so at peace, sir!" and "I no longer feel any hunger or thirst!" and "We ought to have done this sooner!"
- SEAGOON
-
How ironic... Tom Delay refuses to talk about pulling the plug on his dad in 1988.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB02JH1U6E.html
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just a couple of random thoughts before beddy-byes:
Good thoughts.
But the issue here is whether someone has the right to decide there own fate. You must read all the court papers in the timeline of this case to see that Terri didnt want to "live" like this.
Deciding who lives (And I do believe it is a womans choice to decide what to do about life inside her skin ) and dies is solely the right of the individual.
Nazi Drs who killed and maimed innocents, whom had the ability to choose, were criminals according to all the standards of modern civilization.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just a couple of random thoughts before beddy-byes:
1) If we attempted to put convicted killers to death via a two week long process of starvation and dehydration we would have the ACLU in a furor over such horrendously "cruel and inhuman punishment." Let's face it, we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss it as an option.
2) In all the accounts I've read of men starving to death or dying of dehydration, I've read of them being maddened by thirst, so desperate to eat that they'll resort to canibalism, every description I can think of or recall speaks of hideous pain and suffering.
If I had any abilities as an artist whatsoeve I'd illustrate the above point with a cartoon of 8 obviously starving men in a lifeboat. The captain asks, "how are you doing lads" and the answers vary between "Euphoric!" and "I've never been so at peace, sir!" and "I no longer feel any hunger or thirst!" and "We ought to have done this sooner!"
- SEAGOON
Dont forget to give them 50 mg of morphine. Tends to ease the pain and make you sleep a lot.
-
Hello Raider,
Ah yes, as reported by the AP:
"Family supporters said Schiavo's breathing became increasingly labored during the day. An attorney for the Schindlers, Barbara Weller, said hospice workers began giving morphine to Schiavo to ease pain brought on by her body's failure."
Curiousier and curiousier, because USA Today glibly reported on the 23rd that "...neurologists on Wednesday said that based on court findings of her condition, her body gradually will shut down in a painless process that will lead to death." because, as Neurologists note patients in a PVS are totally non-responsive and feel neither hunger, thirst, or pain and as George Felos has told us repeatedly Terri "cannot feel pain."
Why the Morphine then? The Hospice staff and even our own esteemed Raider have conceded this is "to ease the pain" but those in a coma or a full PVS do not require it. The fact is that the pathetic court findings (which consisted of the one CT test and "expert testimony" that Michael's legal team managed to get entered, all findings to the contrary being suppressed) do not reflect her true condition, and when even Jesse Jackson is able to comprehend that we have something seriously wrong.
This is a Therapeutic Killing due to an assessment of an unacceptably low standard of life, and even those in favor of it have noted how painful it is. Even assisted suicide advocates, usually make the point that the means of death should be "quick and painless." One could almost wish that the Euthanasia culture, which claims to believe that being in pain is in and of itself a terrible evil, had insisted that she receive 500mg of Morphine rather than simply 50. To do otherwise merely adds torture to the scenario.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Raider,
Ah yes, as reported by the AP:
"Family supporters said Schiavo's breathing became increasingly labored during the day. An attorney for the Schindlers, Barbara Weller, said hospice workers began giving morphine to Schiavo to ease pain brought on by her body's failure."
Curiousier and curiousier, because USA Today glibly reported on the 23rd that "...neurologists on Wednesday said that based on court findings of her condition, her body gradually will shut down in a painless process that will lead to death." because, as Neurologists note patients in a PVS are totally non-responsive and feel neither hunger, thirst, or pain and as George Felos has told us repeatedly Terri "cannot feel pain."
Why the Morphine then? The Hospice staff and even our own esteemed Raider have conceded this is "to ease the pain" but those in a coma or a full PVS do not require it. The fact is that the pathetic court findings (which consisted of the one CT test and "expert testimony" that Michael's legal team managed to get entered, all findings to the contrary being suppressed) do not reflect her true condition, and when even Jesse Jackson is able to comprehend that we have something seriously wrong.
This is a Therapeutic Killing due to an assessment of an unacceptably low standard of life, and even those in favor of it have noted how painful it is. Even assisted suicide advocates, usually make the point that the means of death should be "quick and painless." One could almost wish that the Euthanasia culture, which claims to believe that being in pain is in and of itself a terrible evil, had insisted that she receive 500mg of Morphine rather than simply 50. To do otherwise merely adds torture to the scenario.
- SEAGOON
first I guess I should say I believe she can feel pain/discomfort. I believe that is one of the primary feelings the body can have.
Those are physical responses not mental. But that being said, none of that has anything to do with this.
Seagoon she didnt want to be like that. And I agree with your low standard of life comment. That is exactly the kind of life she choose to not have if it came down to it. She didn't want to be fed through a tube. Is it really a killing if that is what she wanted? Isn't it really merciful if those are her wishes?
She made a concious decision to be "let go" if it ever came to it. There have been several witnesses that have nothing to gain from saying she said it and everything to lose. Her best friend and uncle are why I believe she said it. They testified or swore or whatever that she told them. That is good enough for me.