Typical.
Very typical - you must brook no differences of opinion.
Tell me, when do you start handing out the brown shirts?
I prefer Newman’s own Italian.
http://www.wpherald.com/print.php?StoryID=20050331-013845-9226r
My batting average is still better at remembering things, **wonderwench ** has Zero so far, save your time folks, and Lifetime TV is better at getting info than the ass were **wonderwench ** is getting his/her info from.
Firstly, you didn’t answer my question.
Second, your cite refers to a request to preform a swallow test in 2000. In 2000, she wasn’t dehydrated. She still had the feeding tube.
Thirdly, because she has no swallow reflex (as shown conclusively by the seven years of previous swallow tests) she would likely have inhaled the ice cube and choked to death, or aspirated the water as it melted and increased her chances of developing respirtory illnesses. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of the medical personnel who were responsible for her care.
Lastly, she had no cerebral cortex, and was no more capable of suffering than a stalk of celery. Again, this is not my opinion, but the opinion of every single doctor who actually examined her in person. The only doctors who have disputed this based their diagnosis on a heavily edited video tape provided by Terri’s parents.
But, back to my original question: how do you reconcile your cite with the previous cite provided by holmes?
It’s true. We have a hard time celebrating the diversity of thought that comes from repeating talking points over and over again. You have much to teach us.
Ick. But to each his own.
What did you just wrote?
It is barely English as a Second Language.
I recall a time in this country when the Progressive Left actually stood for protecting those who are too weak to speak for themselves. I do not get my values from TV - perhaps you would be better of finding another source as well.
I was able to contact Mrs Schiavo and she told me that she could not care less about what happened to the meatbag she used to inhabit. She said that she was waaay to busy enjoying her new found sense of wonder and enlightenment.
If you don’t believe me I can ask her again right in front of you.
And how is that any different than the Plug Puller talking points which are referenced ad nauseum by the Greek Chorus of State Euthanasians?
Cool.
Are you using a Ouija board or a crystal ball.
Or are you just doing pure, unassisted channelling?
Which previous cite by Holmes?
But you do raise an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, some have said that Terri’s right to die should be honored because she wouldn’t want to live like that. If she was a stalk of celery, then what suffering was there to alieve?
Again, all you are doing is showing that opinions in the case were deeply divided based upon core values.
I saw a bio-ethicist on TV claim that Terri was not human. That is a sad commentary on our society, and highly indicative of the disregard for life that pervades our culture.
Three points:
–Terri did not have the capacity to suffer.
–Proper mouth care is a routine part of terminal care situations like this one. Studies indicate that in terminal patients who are not eating/drinking but are aware, mouth care like this alleviates the discomfort that accompanies thirst. There is no indication that this was not done for Terri.
–I addressed both the PET scan and the swallowing study on the previous page.
Okay, wonderwench, if I understand correctly, this seems to be the core of the issue for you, so let’s examine this statement closely and see what we can make of it – in the spirit of “testing moral boundaries.”
Let us say that we agree that the state has no business euthanizing its citizens. (Actually, I do wholeheartedly agree with that. While I deplore capital punishment for this very reason, I will grant that you may add a caveat to the effect that the state can morally euthanize citizens convicted of a certain class or classes of crime without compromising your position on this). Did the state, in fact, euthanize Terry Schiavo? And was she, in fact, a defenseless disabled woman?
Was Terry Schiavo disabled? Well, a lot of clinicians and specialists have made some pretty compelling arguments that Mrs. Schiavo’s condition went well beyond what could be considered disability – even severe disability. You may disagree with their judgment of course, and we will all respect your right to do so, but we may not actually respect the disagreement itself, unless you can provide us with proof that your judgment is better than theirs for some reason.
Was Terry Schiavo defenseless? Physically she was incapable of defending herself, yes, but in every other sense she seems to have been provided with, if anything, a superfluity of defenders. Her husband, her parents, the Florida Governor and legislature, the US Congress and President, and the appeals courts (all the way up to the Supremes), all got into the act of defending Terry Schiavo. Yes, wonderwench, I include Michael Schiavo on that list, and here’s why: if your spouse were in a PVS and you believed, based on his prior statements to you and others, that he would wish to have life support withdrawn, and his parents were inclined to fight you on this, even to the point of denying that he ever made such statements, how would you proceed? Would you really be willing to drop the matter, let them take over his care and sustain his existence against what you believed to be his wishes? Would you fail to keep faith with your partner? Or would your course of action with respect to your spouse’s medical care look a lot like Mr. Schiavo’s?
Was she euthanized? Although Merriam-Webster’s is willing to include “permitting the death of” in its definition of euthanasia, popularly and legally, as I understand it, withdrawing life support is not considered euthanasia, and I have a difficult time considering it such. You say you are content to be in the minority, even a minority of one, so it is there that I will leave you.
Well, a court-appointed guardian found, based on expert medical testimony, that she had no hope of recovery and, according to the testimony of multiple witnesses, that she had expressed a wish not to be sustained on life support should she ever be in such a condition. Accordingly, this guardian recommended that life-support be withdrawn. A judge ruled in favor of this recommendation, and many appeals court judges agreed and upheld this ruling.
I do not consider a court-appointed guardian to be “the state,” and I believe you are stretching the definition of “the state” if you do. And if it’s the judiciary that you are considering “the state,” riddle me this (as you like to say). If Mrs. Schiavo had left a living will and her parents had contested it in court (as they said they would have if she had), and the courts had ruled to sustain Mrs. Schiavo’s written directives, how would this not qualify as euthanasia by the state, in your opinion?
In conclusion, let me ask you this: if you wish to defend your position that the removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube was morally wrong, why can’t you simply state your moral objections to the removal of feeding tubes from the breathing bodies of human beings and have done with it? Why must you attempt to shore your position up with unfounded accusations against Mr. Schiavo, distortions of the facts of the case, and wild mischaracterizations of the positions of people who disagree with you? What’s with all this “Plug Pullers” and “State Euthanasists” stuff?
You could say, for example: “I believe that Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube should have remained in place until she died of natural causes, because I believe a breathing human being should not be permitted to starve to death if the means exist to prevent starvation.” You could add exceptions and clarifications to this position, as needed, like: “except in the case where the person has left written instructions stating under what conditions the person would wish the feeding tube to be removed, and those conditions have been met.”
We could all say okay to that. Some might agree with your position and others disagree with it. An interesting moral debate might ensue. But it wouldn’t have be all hideous and fraught and nobody would rake you over the coals because you wouldn’t be misrepresenting anybody else, and you wouldn’t be arguing over the facts of the case.
That point is the basis of the dispute. You claim she did not. Others of us believe she did. On what side do we err, the side of mercy or not?
Actually, the reports are that Michael did not allow such treatment.
Yes you did. And other doctors dispute you.
What are your thoughts about the comments made by John Ford of Harvard?
Inaccurate. Terri’s friends also testified that she stated repeatedly, in a variety of circumstances, that she would not want to be kept alive artificially when there was no chance of recovery. Those who claimed she would want to be kept alive artificially were her mother and a childhood friend, both of whom were relying upon statements made when Terri was no more than 11 or 12 years old. It is not merely a question of credibility. A person may believe one thing as a child, and quite another as an adult. Furthermore, Terri’s parents have stated on record that even if they knew that Terri’s wish were to be removed from life support, they would not be able to do it.
You did, however, state that there was doubt among the doctors as to Terri’s being in a Persistent Vegetative State, and questioned whether adequate tests had been done. From those statements, I assumed that you would logically question how damaged she truly was. If I was in error, I apologize.
I suppose this comes back to the question of whether a soul can exist without a brain. Assuming that it can, and the the soul remains tied to the body after the brain is gone, would it necessarily be a kindness to keep the soul imprisoned in the body, without the ability to communicate with others, unable to fully live and yet unable to fully die? This is a matter of opinion, and one we can certainly disagree on, but I’d be interested in hearing your side.
Not so. Medical terms have very specific meanings, and there is a difference between a person who is vegetative and a person who is severely disabled, just as there is a difference between a person who is truly antisocial and a person who is shy. When you refer to Terri Schiavo as “disabled,” you are implying a specific condition, with specific symptoms and a specific diagnosis. It is inaccurate at best, and dishonest at worst.
[quoteYou violated your agreement before I even posted via your condescending attitude.[/quote]
It was not my intent to be condescending; if I was, I’m very sorry. My writing style does get a little bit stilted in matters of debate, but I find it’s better to be very formal, even at the risk of coming across like a pedantic blowhard, than to risk lapsing into sarcasm, which is sort of my default mode.
There are issues of belief involved, but there are also factual issues, which can be proven and disproven. And that’s really what we’re arguing about here - the factual issues. It doesn’t bother me if you believe that Terri should have been kept alive for her parents’ sake, or if you believe sincerely that her soul was in her body, responsive to her family members, and content to be in that situation. But it does bother me when you imply that Michael Schiavo is somehow a criminal, or that the doctors who made incredibly spurious claims about her treatment were worth listening to, or that the legal system failed Terri Schiavo. Those are not matters of opinion. They are factual. I can’t agree to disagree on those, and I won’t.
You have stated over and over again that we cannot tolerate your right to free expression. Frankly, that’s untrue. I’m not telling you to keep your mouth shut. I’m not sending the suede-denim Secret Police out to silence you before you bring down the liberal propaganda machine. You’re expressing yourself. That’s fine. I’m expressing myself, which is my right. And as long as you continue to make assertations without evidence, to proclaim things that contradict all that I have read about the case, I will continue to express myself. You have a right to say whatever you want to. But unless you can convince me that I’m wrong, I will continue to argue with you.
wonderwench you’re going to hurt my feelings, ignoring my post like that. Riddle me this: Should I (in your opinion) ask to have my username changed to Chopped Liver?
wonderwench
What reports? Who made them? Please be specific.
Your only one of a dozen posters who are resoundingly ignored by wonderwench. By and large, it is because they debunk her misinformation or contain actual facts of the case. As such, they are of absolutely no interest to wonderwench. I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting a coherent, cited response.
The expression is “toe the line.” Cite.
Apropos of nothing, I think he stole the election in 2000 with the help of his brother Jeb. But when the Supreme court upheld it, I accepted it as the law of the land. Which is more than you and your culture of the living dead are willing do in Schiavo case.
If they are murderers, they are, by definition, guilty.
Not when there is no reasonable evidence to the contrary.
His acquittal doesn’t keep me awake at night.
What frightens me is zealots like you who think their warped morality is greater than the law. Terri expressed a well documented desire to decline medical intervention, and you and your culture of the living dead will do anything to deny her the right to exercise that desire.
First, thanky you for engaging in a civil discussion. The determination as to whether or not Terri was severely disabled is the crux of the debate. Many disabled rights advocates have taken the side that she was. Given the inability of some disabled people to communicate or make there wishes known, they believe there is enough doubt about her condition that we should err on the side of life.
My judgement is no better than yours or anyone elses (nor is Michael Schiavo’s). If medical treatment is to be withheld, we must be confident that it is the individual’s desire - not someone elses. I do not believe this was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If Terri had left a Living Will specifying such treatment, then we would not be having this discussion. I would respect her wishes.
My spouse and I have Living Wills in order to prevent the nightmare scenario you are describing. Again, I have to ask, in a highly disputed version of a silent patient’s wishes, on which side do we err.
I consider that Michael failed to keep fiath with his partner when he formed a new nuclear family with another woman.
I consider withdrawing life support as passive euthanasia. You may not, but that is a semantic argument. If we are to have euthanasia, I would prefer that the option of a more merciful lethal injection be available. Even if Terri could not suffer (which is indispute), the prolonged agony of her family witnessing her whither away is incredibly inhumane.
The original judge stated in his decision that the removal of life support was also for the convenience of the family. I believe that this consideration “took over” the agenda for subsequent decisions. As the case was bandied about for additional judicial review, all that was considered was whether or not proper legal procedures had been followed (ie, if the original decision was lawful). The merits of the evidence itself was never re-reviewed.
I accept that the decision to remove her tube was legal. I just have issue with the law as it is written.
[quote[I do not consider a court-appointed guardian to be “the state,” and I believe you are stretching the definition of “the state” if you do. [/quote]
I do. Many here have claimed that once Michael engaged with the court system, all of the decisions were then the responsibility of that system. The guardian was an agent of the state and would have had no role in Terri’s care (or lack thereof) without such appointment by the state.
Well it sure as hell isn’t the local DAR chapter, now is it?
If Terri had left a Living Will in which she specified that she wished to refuse assisted nutrition as a medical treatment, then the state would be complying with her wishes. That is a far different matter than someone saying, in the absence of clear unrefutable evidence, that her life was not worth living and that she should be put out of her misery. The latter is euthanasia, imo.
What I have said, ad nauseum at this point, is that the wishes of the patient should be respected. In the absence of proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt, we should err on the side of life. I have stated this several times.
To me, parents and siblings claiming that she never expressed a wish to refuse medical treatment is compelling enough to cause doubt. A few off hand comments while watching a made for TV movie about Karen Ann Quinlan is a bit thin. If that is enough for you, then so be it. Sadly, it was enough for Judge Greer.
It really sucks that we do not have an EDIT option.
Meh.
And now, mes amis, as much fun as this has been. Adieu. I have dinner plans.