Thanks for the snide remark.
I wouldn’t allow an animal to die from lack of food and water.
I’m done with this thread. We are all at the point of repetition. You do not wish to respect that rational people can view the Terri Schiavo tragedy differently than you do.
Peace.
And what we’re trying to explain is that if you took a rational view of the facts you’d see where you were wrong.
I believed as you did once. “This man wants to starve his comatose wife to death? How horrible!” Then I educated myself on the facts of the case, which it does not seem you wish to do.
Peace.
Of course not-you’d take him to the vet and have the vet give him a lethal injection.
Unfortunately, we’re not allowed to do that with suffering or dying humans.
You have repeatedly crossed the line between having your own private interpretation (legitimate) and having your own private facts (not legitimate).
I find this rather insulting that you insist on equating TS with all severely disabled people. I worked with a child who is classified as “severely disabled”. She had motor issues that prevented her from learning to walk until she was three (and then only with a great deal of help for another year) which was the age she was when I worked with her, could not speak more than 3 or 4 words due to severe developmental apraxia, and had to wear eye patches for months to try to improve a lazy eye. However, she could drink from a sippy cup with no help whatsover, eat finger foods on her own and messier stuff with some help manipulating silverware, follow verbal and signed commands, could communicate with aproximated signs that she loved to learn and a electronic board with phrases for her to push to say things allowed (moreover, it only took her a couple of hours to figure out what symbol said what thing), could count, identify her name in writing, do puzzles, dress herself, pick out and listen to stories, and play with the other kids. She was even mostly potty trained, and just needed some help getting on the toilet. And god was she a stubborn little thing when you wanted her to do something when she didn’t. (“all done” were her favorite signs, and she’d pout if I’d sign “do more work” back).
She had thoughts, wishes, likes and dislikes. As did the two little boys I also worked with who had Autism (one loved monsters and dinosaurs, the other Spiderman and The Ninja Turtles), and the little boy in the class with Downs as well. Even a severly retarded child has the limited capablity for the same thoughts and preferences; then kids who are severely disabled to the point of being in a wheel chair their entire lives but not mentally disabled - they think and feel like any “normals” do. How can you compare TS to people who are involved in their own lives in so many more ways than she was??
I find this rather insulting that you insist on equating TS with all severely disabled people. I worked with a child who is classified as “severely disabled”. She had motor issues that prevented her from learning to walk until she was three (and then only with a great deal of help for another year) which was the age she was when I worked with her, could not speak more than 3 or 4 words due to severe developmental apraxia, and had to wear eye patches for months to try to improve a lazy eye. However, she could drink from a sippy cup with no help whatsover, eat finger foods on her own and messier stuff with some help manipulating silverware, follow verbal and signed commands, could communicate with aproximated signs that she loved to learn and a electronic board with phrases for her to push to say things allowed (moreover, it only took her a couple of hours to figure out what symbol said what thing), could count, identify her name in writing, do puzzles, dress herself, pick out and listen to stories, and play with the other kids. She was even mostly potty trained, and just needed some help getting on the toilet. And god was she a stubborn little thing when you wanted her to do something when she didn’t. (“all done” were her favorite signs, and she’d pout if I’d sign “do more work” back).
She had thoughts, wishes, likes and dislikes. As did the two little boys I also worked with who had Autism (one loved monsters and dinosaurs, the other Spiderman and The Ninja Turtles), and the little boy in the class with Downs as well. Even a severly retarded child has the limited capablity for the same thoughts and preferences; then kids who are severely disabled to the point of being in a wheel chair their entire lives but not mentally disabled - they think and feel like any “normals” do. How can you compare TS to people who are involved in their own lives in so many more ways than she was??
What if Terri were trapped in a body that could not respond physically, but was totally aware mentally? What if she knew everything that was going on? We should always err on the side of life.
She could not respond mentally either. She had no cerebral cortex. She had no higher brain function. She had a flat EEG. There was no possibility that she was mentally aware of anything. The doctors were not guessing. The part of the brain that is responsible for awareness, thought, feelings and memory was gone in Terri Schiavo…not just damaged, gone. Replaced by spinal fluid. Suggesting that somebody might be aware without a cerebral cortex is like suggesting they could see without eyes. Human consciousness is a physiological phenomenon. It’s not magic. It’s not mysterious. We know where it resides in the brain. If you think Terri might have had awareness, perhaps you have a suggestion as to where her consciousness was located? Her knees? Her hair? Her shinbones?
You also miss the point that the tube was not pulled because she was in a PVS but because she wanted it to be pulled.
But hey, just to play along…what if dead people are really still aware of everything? Maybe we shouldn’t bury them or cremate them.
My question is just as medically valid as yours is.
Please don’t hold your breath.
How does one educate one’s self to the facts. We have the husband, and friends of the husband, saying one thing. We have the Mother, Father, and siblings saying another thing. The only one that knows for sure is Terri.
Now, we know her family stood by her all the time, while her husband broke his wedding vows and took another “wife” having children.
Who gains the most out of her death? Pretty easy question. Do you believe someone who has cheated on Terri or someone who has been true.
Seems Michael was the only one not upset at the starving death of his wife.
He rushed her body to the incinerator, and has not even announced a funeral for her. If he was to have a funeral the court ordered he make it known.
Sorry, but I would need some hard proof before I believed the husband.
We now await the autopsy.
Well, I’m not speaking for TERRI, but if I were in that state, and aware but totally unable to respond, my wish would be KILL ME NOW. PUSH THE BUTTON, PULL THE PLUG, INJECT THE POISON.
That would literally be a living hell.
Either way, it moot, because it wasn’t about the fact that she was in a PVS, it was that she didn’t WANT to be in that state and be kept on life support. (And yes, a feeding tube that must be surgically implanted into one’s abdomen counts as life support).
lekatt, once again, you are ignoring the facts. She had a GUARDIAN AD LITEM, numerous people who testified as to her wishes, and how many judges who backed up Michael’s side. It wasn’t just him. And for godsakes, the man’s wife had been gone for about seven years before he started seeing his current fiance. And while I don’t think it was a good idea to start having children (if only because they shouldn’t be in the middle of this whole thing), I haven’t seen anything to suggest that he no longer cares for Terri’s wishes. He AND Jodi were there, every week, helping out with Terri, doing what they could. They were there all the time when she was in her final stage, while her parents and siblings were out running to the courts and mugging for the cameras.
I’ll try to follow the example of others and reply to this. I’m not sure I can for my first instinct is to drag this off to the Pit.
Please tell us, lekatt, what in your estimation Michael Schiavo had to gain out of Terri’s death?
regards,
widdley
Where would you expect to find hard proof, lekatt? What constitutes “hard proof” in your mind?
regards,
widdley
Why am I doing this to myself? :smack:
They err on the side of life. That is why courts must find by clear and convincing evidence (a much higher burden than in most civil cases) that there was an wsh to have the tube removed.
And they did. Repeatedly.
Welfare Reform?
Amen to that.
I honestly cannot imagine a worse fate.
No matter what is said, no matter if they’re shown a mountain of evidence the woman was a vegetable and would always remain that way, some people will never agree that allowing Terri to die was the right thing to do.
A few years ago, my grandfather’s sister took her husband off of life support. He’d had a massive stroke and was brain-dead. My grandfather never forgave her for “killing” her husband, even though I explained to him again and again that brain-death was not a coma from which one has a chance of waking. He still insists to this day that “he might have come out of it if she gave him more time.”
I wonder if the autopsy results will actually be of use to the argument at this point. People haven’t bothered to consider the available facts before - particularly the part about the liquefied cerebral cortex. Will an official medical report actually be read and considered by the “err on the side of life” people?
If the “breaking” of the wedding vows are an indication of dubious motives, as you seem to believe, then how do you rationalize the fact that the Schindler’s encouraged Michael to date other women during the period that they were still amicable?
Please answer me directly.
Please state, specifically, what Michael had to gain out of all of this.
It’s a good thing I am wearing my irony galoshes, because it is getting pretty deep in your posts. Every time we demand “hard proof” from you on any of your outlandish claims about NDE, you brush it off like so much dandruff. Yet when three witnesses give testimony about seven different conversations to the satisfaction of 19+ judges, there isn’t enough “hard proof” . **lekatt **, it is clear you see only what you want to see, and won’t hesitate to change the rules to fit your conclusions. That’s not an argument, it’s just denial.
Yes it is. Your turn.
First off, the Schindlers encouraged Michael to date again, and even met Jody. It’s hard to have a marriage when one spouse is incapable. He stayed by her side for five years.
Utter nonsense. He had to sneak in over the wall of the hospice to be with her after the tube was pulled. He was there when she died. He did not “rush her body to the incinerator.” An autopsy was performed, and Michael had a private memorial service where he had Terri’s ashes buried in Pennsylvania. After all the media hype, do you blame him?
You’ve been give links to the other side of the story, but you prefer to dismiss them out of hand.
In case you’re interested, none of the abuse allegations has been substantiated.