wonderwench, I asked you the question here in Great Debates and I’ll ask it again now. What standard of proof, other than a living will, would satisfy you? I’m over 40 and I don’t have a living will, yet. One reason is it would never occur to me that my family would deliberately defy my wishes, even out of grief. Must all of a person’s family and closest friends agree on what degree of life support a person should be given? Would that also apply to a friend of mine whose brother converted from Judaism to some form of Fundamentalist-style Christianity who tries to convert his family every time he sees them?
Oh, and just to clear up a couple of things, I’m a long way from being a secularist. I’m a devout Episcopalian whose been arguing religion for over 4 years around here. I’ve sung in the choir, taught Sunday school and, when the rubber hits the road, my faith is the most important thing in my life. It’s one of the things that’s driving my argument: why should the body be required to linger over a decade after the soul has departed it? I am assuming that a disintegrated cerebral cortex, the part of the mind which thinks, is evidence that the soul has departed and a long time ago, at that.
I also don’t have the views you seem to think I have about the disabled. I have a cousin who became severely disabled when her heart stopped deriving her brain of oxygen for several minutes when she was 27 and my childhood best friend was mentally retarded and had a stroke this past October. See the post I linked to for more information, but for now I’ll just say that I’m glad they’re alive, enjoying life, and participating in the world around them and I hope they do so for many years to come. Their recoveries are doing nicely.
Unfortunately, for Terri Schiavo, according to all reliable medical testimony, there was no hope of recovery. Cerebral cortexes don’t regenerate.
So wonderwench is an idiot. Interesting. Didn’t know that until I read this thread. Didn’t even know she existed. So that’s some ignorance fought right there.
But now, on to the real issue which, I feel, has not been given the attention it deserves: lekatt is back? Has been back for almost a month? Why am I always the last to know?
Michael was ordered by the court to tell the Schindlers where Terri’s memorial service was going to be held.
Last I heard, Terri’s brother said they hadn’t received any information. Does anyone know how that shook out?
There was also a USA Today article that the falling out between Michael and his in-laws happened after the malpractice suit, when Bob Schindler asked Michael how much he and Mary were going to get from the settlement.
I mentioned that in GD, too, but wonderwench chose to overlook it. The Schindler’s asked for half the money, but Michael Schiavo wanted it all to go for his wife’s care. Still, it’s Michael Schiavo who some seem to be trying to vilify as evil incarnate. :rolleyes:
Funny how the Schindlers attituyde towards Michael changed so dramatically once they found out they weren’t going to get any money. They gave testimony in the malpractice suit that Michael was a loving and caring spouse and they said nothing of any suspicions of abuse. So either they’re lying now or they were committing perjury then.
I always found it telling that the familial fallout didn’t occur until the day and time of the monetary award.
If abuse was an issue, doesn’t everyone agree that it would have come up during the malpractice trial?
MS sued for much more money that he actually received. The million dollars was a settlement to avoid a full out trial. Had the Doctors being sued thought TS was abused, they certainly would have defended themselves with that infomation at the time.
No matter how you look at it, the Schindlers have to be lying. Either they suspected “abuse” and hid it, so Schiavo could win the malpractice suit OR they’re lying about the abuse now.
During the malpractice trial, the Schindlers said THEN, what the DCF is saying now, that Schiavo was a loving, attentive husband.
This is bullshit and greatest thing about these discussions, is that finally people are starting to see past their personal opinions and view this case in the light of reason.
An quote often heard in an SCA context seems really appropriate for this thread:
Arguing with [someone] is like mudwrestling a pig - all you get is dirty, and after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it.
I need to perform more caffeine loading before reading the additional posts in this thread since my last visit.
(Meh, late night.)
But I will say: the basis of disagreement lies the definition of life and the (non)existence of a human soul. The secular side views life as being brain function; the spiritual side views the body as the vessel of the soul. (Simplistic - but pre-caffeine). The latter believe that none of us have the right to decide when someone else’s soul is ready to leave its body.
I have acknowledged the right of tghe former to hold their secular beliefs. For some reason, many of them cannot handle that the existence of people who have spiritual beliefs that are contrary to theirs - and have to label such people as ignorant, stupid, liars…
Neither side is going to convince the other to change their core beliefs.
You have one way of seeing the disposition of the soul and people who aren’t dogmatic robots with a willingness to parrot lies believe another.
Some of us are spiritual without having to hold on to a level of dogma that causes utter stupidity and the slandering of a man because he followed his wife’s wishes.
Not at all. If Schiavo’s soul was trapped in that damaged vessel, the “culture of life” was fighting to keep her separated from God. That’s not very nice, as separation from God is one of the prime torments of Hell.
Once again, you completely misstate the issue. And you do so in such a way that you appear to be morally superior to everyone else. It’s really annoying, especially coming from someone who refuses over and over and over, to back up her assertions. You just hide behind this kind of morally superior bullshit to explain away your stupidity.
Look, I believe in the soul. I think the soul is the most important thing in the world. I also pray to God that Ms. Schiavo’s soul was not trapped in that hunk of inoperative flesh for 15 years. I could scarely imagine my soul having to be trapped in a body that could not function, with a brain that could not function. That’s pretty close to my idea of hell. Your spiritual arrogance betrays your small-mindedness.
I also believe in a personal right to autonomy. I decide what happens to my body and soul on this earth. Not my parents. Not Jeb Bush. Not some idiot on a message board who knows next to nothing about my case. And if I do not have a living will, I want the court to decide what my wishes are. THAT is what this case is about.
So take your deliberate lies, your willing ignorance, and your sanctimonious, holier-than-thou bullshit and stick 'em. You are a sad, pathetic, contemptible poster and here’s hoping I never have to deal with you again. And that ain’t fear or misunderstanding talking. It’s frustration.
Neither do you have the right to decide that a soul must remain in a gravely damaged body, which in Terri Schiavo’s case, expressed a desire to decline medical intervention. It is her right, it was established by the court that she said it, and you, her parents or any other “culture of living death” zealot have no right to prevent her will from being carried out.
Actually, the majority of the comments that Ihave seen that referred to ignoarance or lies had to do with actual facts presented by the medical community (those who examined Ms. Schiavo rather than those who expressed opinions from several hundred miles away) and the rest of the caregiving staff as presented in court. (This would also include the calumny launched against Michael Schiavo that is in direct conflict with the evidence–including evidence sworn to by the Schindlers prior to their attempt to get a cut of the medical malpractice judgement.)
Your “secular” vs “religious” dichotomy is also a false one as several persons who have expressed support for the decision for the removal of the feeding tube actually believe in the concept of the soul. That there is strong disagreement in this case is true. However, you have attempted to draw the lines dividing the groups in a way that does not actually (or accurately) describe the groups who are in contention.
You are misinterpretting the position of the Pro-Life side.
If we take what you say literally, we should all just get it over with and commit suicide.
The anti-assisted-nutrition-removal folks were a mixed gruop. Some definitely fall into the extreme Fundy end of the spectrum (these are the ones who who fight to keep Terri alive even if she had specified in a Living Will she would not wish such medical intervention).
Others are in the “respect an individual’s autonomy” camp (this is my area). I do not believe that Terri’s wishes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When in doubt, I think we should err on the side of life. It is not for me to judge whether or not Terri would want to be dead.
What has happened, imo, is that the perspective of what she would have wanted has morphed into what she Should Have Wanted. None of us have the right to decide for another the point at which life is not worth living.
This is also the viewpoint of the many disabled rights organizations which protested how Terri was treated.