Terry Shiavo Poll
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:23:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Terry Shiavo Poll
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
Poll
Question: Should Terry Shiavo be kept alive or let die?
#1
(D) Keep her alive
 
#2
(D) Let her die
 
#3
(R) Keep her alive
 
#4
(R) Let her die
 
#5
(I/O) Keep her alive
 
#6
(I/O) Let her die
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 89

Author Topic: Terry Shiavo Poll  (Read 21241 times)
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: March 22, 2005, 01:33:59 AM »

If it were me, I would not want to be kept alive in that state.  I do have a living will and I think the phrase, "Terminate with extreme prejudice," is in it.

But this isn't me and I can't determine how accurate the husband's words are.  It's going to be a judgment call.

I yield to the judiciary on this one.  I do feel that this isn't the proper role of Congress.

Why did the husband wait seven years before he started all this, "She wanted to not live like this". And why when he FINALLY 'admitted' this is what she wanted it was in front of his Brother! Of all witnesses. Plus he has a common law wife in waiting to marry and already has two children with her. His being an adulteror is sick enough.

Ernest,

Yes, after several cases I have seen around here I do strongly believe the Florida courts are totally inept for any competent decision.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: March 22, 2005, 01:46:05 AM »



The pot law violated Federal statutes on narcotics!

So a simple federal law is all that it takes to ignore state's rights? I say we pass a simple federal law so that every state has to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

Yes, Federal statute is superior to state statute.  Its called the Supremecy Doctrine.  The opposing doctrine is the Doctrine of Nullification, which has been rejected and discredited for almost 200 years.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: March 22, 2005, 02:24:26 AM »

I have been reading all of your posts and want to make several observations.

1.  Mrs. Shiavo chose to be married to Mr. Shiavo.  She made a choice to associate herself with him.  As far as I can determine, she was in this relationship, and it was an unimpared one, at the time of her disability.  It was a voluntary one.

2.  Her relationship with her parents is based on genetics, not on mutual views.  She did not choose to associate with them.  This relationship was an involuntary one.

3.  The medical evidence is that she has no self awareness, due to her medical condition.  This determination was made by qualified doctors who examined her and reported their results to the court, under oath.

4.  At no point have Mrs Shiavo parents, the Schindlers claimed, so far as I can tell, that they ever discussed this with her.  This the claim has been that because they believe it.  Their belief is solely based on their own desires and on their involuntary genetic relationship.

Speaking from experience, I am far more likely to discuss something like this with a voluntary partner, as opposed to someone with which I have an involuntary relationship.  I do, and did not, share have the same views, on matters as fundamental as religion and politics, with my nearing living relative, my father.  I could not state that my father represents my views on this matter.  I cannot state that the Schindlers have special and superior knowledge based on this involuntary genetic relationship.

5.  While Mr. Shiavo's evidence* is far from the strongest possible, it is evidence of Mrs. Shiavo's wishes.  It must be balanced against the lack of evidence for Mrs. Shiavo wishes to the contrary.

The evidence of Mr. Shiavo wanting to lie about this is virtually non existent.  He has turned down substantial amounts of money to waive his right.  Any "girl friend" relationship could be continued and divorce would be an option (which would have substantially easier than his current tactics in this matter).

Based on those points, I see no reason to disbelieve Mr. Shiavo.  

I must conclude that the tubes should be removed.

I must conclude that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by meddling in an affair not a federal issue.

*There is a possibility that other friends of Mrs. Shiavo also heard her say this.  This would support Mr. Shaivo's claim.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: March 22, 2005, 02:26:11 AM »



The pot law violated Federal statutes on narcotics!

So a simple federal law is all that it takes to ignore state's rights? I say we pass a simple federal law so that every state has to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

Yes, Federal statute is superior to state statute.  Its called the Supremecy Doctrine.  The opposing doctrine is the Doctrine of Nullification, which has been rejected and discredited for almost 200 years.

Except it is not a constitutional statute, and even if it was, shouldn't have existed.

States' rights can just be a call for repeal of federal law, which conservatives are not doing.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: March 22, 2005, 02:34:43 AM »



The pot law violated Federal statutes on narcotics!

So a simple federal law is all that it takes to ignore state's rights? I say we pass a simple federal law so that every state has to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

Yes, Federal statute is superior to state statute. Its called the Supremecy Doctrine. The opposing doctrine is the Doctrine of Nullification, which has been rejected and discredited for almost 200 years.

Except it is not a constitutional statute, and even if it was, shouldn't have existed.

States' rights can just be a call for repeal of federal law, which conservatives are not doing.

The regulation of the narcotics trde is a regulation of interstate commerce, and therfore in the enumerated powers of Congress.

I have been reading all of your posts and want to make several observations.

1.  Mrs. Shiavo chose to be married to Mr. Shiavo.  She made a choice to associate herself with him.  As far as I can determine, she was in this relationship, and it was an unimpared one, at the time of her disability.  It was a voluntary one.

2.  Her relationship with her parents is based on genetics, not on mutual views.  She did not choose to associate with them.  This relationship was an involuntary one.

3.  The medical evidence is that she has no self awareness, due to her medical condition.  This determination was made by qualified doctors who examined her and reported their results to the court, under oath.

4.  At no point have Mrs Shiavo parents, the Schindlers claimed, so far as I can tell, that they ever discussed this with her.  This the claim has been that because they believe it.  Their belief is solely based on their own desires and on their involuntary genetic relationship.

Speaking from experience, I am far more likely to discuss something like this with a voluntary partner, as opposed to someone with which I have an involuntary relationship.  I do, and did not, share have the same views, on matters as fundamental as religion and politics, with my nearing living relative, my father.  I could not state that my father represents my views on this matter.  I cannot state that the Schindlers have special and superior knowledge based on this involuntary genetic relationship.

5.  While Mr. Shiavo's evidence* is far from the strongest possible, it is evidence of Mrs. Shiavo's wishes.  It must be balanced against the lack of evidence for Mrs. Shiavo wishes to the contrary.

The evidence of Mr. Shiavo wanting to lie about this is virtually non existent.  He has turned down substantial amounts of money to waive his right. Any "girl friend" relationship could be continued and divorce would be an option (which would have substantially easier than his current tactics in this matter).

Based on those points, I see no reason to disbelieve Mr. Shiavo. 

I must conclude that the tubes should be removed.

I must conclude that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by meddling in an affair not a federal issue.

*There is a possibility that other friends of Mrs. Shiavo also heard her say this.  This would support Mr. Shaivo's claim.

The medical evidence is NOT that she has no awareness.  She is aware, and this is clearly demostrated by the balloon video.  She responds to both stimulus and commands, is aware of herself and her surruondings, and functions normally in terms of involuntary functions.  For every doctor who says she is not going to recover, another doctor has been produced to say the opposite.

The case for remocing Micahel as guardian is not dependent upon whether or not he did or did not hear a statement from Terri declaring her wishes.  It is based on his either not having her best interest at heart and/or being incapable of carrying out his role as guardian.  Since he has at various ponts denied Terri basic medical care (At one point she contrcted a urinary tract infection, for example, and he overrode doctor's wishes to use antibiotics.  It was only by court order that she was finally allowed basic antibiotics) has a financial conflict of interest (A $1 million life insurance policy) and an extramarital lover.  The parents have never demonstrated gross incompetence, nor do they seem to have conflicts of interest.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: March 22, 2005, 02:36:51 AM »

No, it is a regulation of intrastate commerce.

Under your interpretation, there's no need for any of the provisions of the Constitution allowing for federal bankruptcy laws, and currency.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: March 22, 2005, 02:42:31 AM »

Actually, its interstate and for that matter international commerce.  I make sme Cocaine in Colombia, bring it across the border in California, and sell it at a strip club in Nevada.  It sis absolutely interstate commerce, and the only way you could think this makes bankruptcy or currency provisions of the Constitution irrelevant is if you don't understand 1) My position 2) The nature of commerce.
Logged
○∙◄☻„tπ[╪AV┼cVź└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: March 22, 2005, 04:42:28 AM »



The pot law violated Federal statutes on narcotics!

So a simple federal law is all that it takes to ignore state's rights? I say we pass a simple federal law so that every state has to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

Yes, Federal statute is superior to state statute.  Its called the Supremecy Doctrine.  The opposing doctrine is the Doctrine of Nullification, which has been rejected and discredited for almost 200 years.

So you oppose state's rights as an issue?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: March 22, 2005, 04:47:14 AM »

Actually, its interstate and for that matter international commerce.  I make sme Cocaine in Colombia, bring it across the border in California, and sell it at a strip club in Nevada.  It sis absolutely interstate commerce, and the only way you could think this makes bankruptcy or currency provisions of the Constitution irrelevant is if you don't understand 1) My position 2) The nature of commerce.

So bankruptcy does not affect interstate commerce? Coining money does not have a substantial affect on interstate commerce?

The "trade among the states" clause was intended to allow Congress to circumvent partial measures put in place by state legislatures, and provide for the general health of the economy. It was not until FDR that the Supreme Court started ruling anything that remotely affects commerce can be controlled by the federal government.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: March 22, 2005, 08:55:59 AM »

There is a dispute about what her wishes were and the family is divided on what to do.  So keep her alive, since that way if you end up being wrong, you can change your mind.  If you kill her and you turn out to be wrong, you can't go back.

agreed
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: March 22, 2005, 10:29:50 AM »

I find it horribly ironic that Republicans, who love to scream and yell about the government interfering with people's lives, are more than willing to interfere here.

Who should be the one making decisions for you when you cannot make them for yourself?  Your spouse or your closest biological relative?
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: March 22, 2005, 10:49:36 AM »

The GOP has certainly shown that just like the Democrats, they pay lip service to the concept of Federalism only when it suits them.  The only possible justification for what they've done is to assume that the courts of the State of Florida are incompetent. Given what happened in the 2000 elections, I can understand why the GOP might be tempted to think that about Florida courts, but I can’t agree with that assessment.

State's rights is a phony issue. It only seems to exist when it helps conservatives.

Nice work jfraud.  This is truly the Republican belief.

Funny how state's rights doesn't apply to California environmental or medical pot laws.

The pot law violated Federal statutes on narcotics!

the federal government can't regulate state commerce.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: March 22, 2005, 10:53:07 AM »



The pot law violated Federal statutes on narcotics!

So a simple federal law is all that it takes to ignore state's rights? I say we pass a simple federal law so that every state has to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

Yes, Federal statute is superior to state statute.  Its called the Supremecy Doctrine.  The opposing doctrine is the Doctrine of Nullification, which has been rejected and discredited for almost 200 years.

Nullification of unconstitutional laws was used by states regulary, both North and South, in the 19th century, at least until the civil War.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,166
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: March 22, 2005, 11:09:57 AM »

OK, if conservatives say that she can in fact respond to stimuli and commands, then why doesn't someone attempt to ask her, or say one blink for die, two for live, or something?  If she isn't able to be aware to the question, then she's probably not aware at all, and the point it moot.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: March 22, 2005, 11:27:54 AM »

I would just like to know how a court can believe the husband should still have legal custody as a guardian when he lives with and has two kids with a another woman. In that case, yes, the Florida courts are incompetent.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: March 22, 2005, 02:52:38 PM »


The case for remocing Micahel as guardian is not dependent upon whether or not he did or did not hear a statement from Terri declaring her wishes.  It is based on his either not having her best interest at heart and/or being incapable of carrying out his role as guardian.  Since he has at various ponts denied Terri basic medical care (At one point she contrcted a urinary tract infection, for example, and he overrode doctor's wishes to use antibiotics.  It was only by court order that she was finally allowed basic antibiotics) has a financial conflict of interest (A $1 million life insurance policy) and an extramarital lover.  The parents have never demonstrated gross incompetence, nor do they seem to have conflicts of interest.


I want to address the financial issue first.  If Mr. Shiavo would pursue a divorce, he could maintain have been in better financial shape than attempting to fight the issue out in court.  There would have been minimal court costs and much of the resources could have reverted to him.  He could have stayed as beneficiary on the life insurance policy, or, it might have been possible to "sell" the policy to someone who would collect on Mrs. Shiavo's demise.  Such has been done by people suffering from AIDS.  It is very possible that Mr. Shiavo could have received more money sooner, had he walked away years ago.

Further, as had been pointed out, Mr. Shiavo has refused offers to relinquish his rights as guardian for a substantial consideration, which would equal his receipts from Mrs. Shiavo's death.

The divorce, aside from netting him substancial wealth, would have freed him to marry again.  I have to conclude that by not attempting these things in the easier and quicker manner, Mr. Shiavo prime motivation is neither money nor marriage.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Responding to stimuli is not a demonstration of awareness.  The spine can trigger reflex actions independent of the brain:  http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0033685.html

From what I saw of the videotape, Mrs. Shaivo's eyes were not even focusing in the same direction when she was "responding."

I'm forced to agree with Harry; there would be fairly easy ways to determine if the these were true "responses."  Those tests have been in the negative.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: March 22, 2005, 03:21:52 PM »


The case for remocing Micahel as guardian is not dependent upon whether or not he did or did not hear a statement from Terri declaring her wishes.  It is based on his either not having her best interest at heart and/or being incapable of carrying out his role as guardian.  Since he has at various ponts denied Terri basic medical care (At one point she contrcted a urinary tract infection, for example, and he overrode doctor's wishes to use antibiotics.  It was only by court order that she was finally allowed basic antibiotics) has a financial conflict of interest (A $1 million life insurance policy) and an extramarital lover.  The parents have never demonstrated gross incompetence, nor do they seem to have conflicts of interest.


I want to address the financial issue first.  If Mr. Shiavo would pursue a divorce, he could maintain have been in better financial shape than attempting to fight the issue out in court.  There would have been minimal court costs and much of the resources could have reverted to him.  He could have stayed as beneficiary on the life insurance policy, or, it might have been possible to "sell" the policy to someone who would collect on Mrs. Shiavo's demise.  Such has been done by people suffering from AIDS.  It is very possible that Mr. Shiavo could have received more money sooner, had he walked away years ago.

Further, as had been pointed out, Mr. Shiavo has refused offers to relinquish his rights as guardian for a substantial consideration, which would equal his receipts from Mrs. Shiavo's death.

The divorce, aside from netting him substancial wealth, would have freed him to marry again.  I have to conclude that by not attempting these things in the easier and quicker manner, Mr. Shiavo prime motivation is neither money nor marriage.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Responding to stimuli is not a demonstration of awareness.  The spine can trigger reflex actions independent of the brain:  http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0033685.html

From what I saw of the videotape, Mrs. Shaivo's eyes were not even focusing in the same direction when she was "responding."

I'm forced to agree with Harry; there would be fairly easy ways to determine if the these were true "responses."  Those tests have been in the negative.

She has responded to commands, not just stimulus.

A visitor told her that if she turned to face the opposite direction from the one she was turned she could see squirrels out the window.  She turned.  A lawyer told her that if she could only say "I want to live" it would all be over, she moaned "I waaaaa".

The anti-life people keep dismissing these kind of events as people just believing what they want to believe, but they keep happenning and the anti-life people just cover their eyes and ears and pretend it isn't happenning.

I see nothing in you link to even suggest that following the ballon is not a response to stimulus, but perhaps I missed it.  Whether reflex arcs exist is not in question here, what's in question is whether vision is connected to reflex in the manner you suggest.  Its also worth noting that some of her doctors have claimed she's blind, which rules our even the reflex explaination.  One has to wonder about their competence as medical professionals, as well as the competence of a jdge who flouts Congressional directives and a husband who has repeatedly denied her medical treatment.
Logged
Blerpiez
blerpiez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,017


Political Matrix
E: -0.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: March 22, 2005, 03:47:09 PM »

There is a dispute about what her wishes were and the family is divided on what to do.  So keep her alive, since that way if you end up being wrong, you can change your mind.  If you kill her and you turn out to be wrong, you can't go back.

agreed

definately. 
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: March 22, 2005, 03:49:32 PM »

There is a dispute about what her wishes were and the family is divided on what to do.  So keep her alive, since that way if you end up being wrong, you can change your mind.  If you kill her and you turn out to be wrong, you can't go back.

agreed

definately. 

Also agreed
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: March 22, 2005, 03:53:02 PM »

She has responded to commands, not just stimulus.

A visitor told her that if she turned to face the opposite direction from the one she was turned she could see squirrels out the window.  She turned.  A lawyer told her that if she could only say "I want to live" it would all be over, she moaned "I waaaaa".

"I waa" is not "I want to live".  It could also be "I want to die".  We simply do not know what her wishes are/were.  But here's a wild f'ing idea.  If, as you claim, she is capable of responding to commands and "turning her face" then why haven't we (courts, doctors, etc.) done the simple thing of saying "if you want to live turn your face to the right, if you want to die turn your face to the left"?  Seems a pretty simple solution to me.  I find it extremely hard to believe that no one has thought of this.  Which leads me to believe that she doesn't respond to commands.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Calling someone "anti-life" is an ignorant cheapshot.  One could very easily argue that your side is so controlling that you are willing to make someone suffer just to win political points.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) What kind of medical training do you have that you can judge the competence of a licensed physician?

2) Congress doesn't have to authority to issue "directives" to the judiciary.  The Congressional ruling only allowed a higher court to hear the case.

3) Have you ever watched a loved one suffering?  Not just for a short while but for years?  Imagine it was your wife.  And the decision making process is removed from your hands and placed into her parents and the govt's hands.  Are you comfortable with THAT!?!
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: March 22, 2005, 04:09:34 PM »
« Edited: March 22, 2005, 04:12:03 PM by Redefeatbush04 »

By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?

There is a difference between killing someone and not saving them. If I was in her condition I'd want them to stop delaying death. This case is weird and I don't know why the government is even involved. It would be so much easier if she had written something that said you know "if i am braindead you can end my suffering". Unfortunately she didn't and it comes down to the husbands wishes vs the parents wishes. This one is in a stalemate. Perhaps they should settle this over rock paper scissors.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: March 22, 2005, 04:41:58 PM »

She has responded to commands, not just stimulus.

A visitor told her that if she turned to face the opposite direction from the one she was turned she could see squirrels out the window.  She turned.  A lawyer told her that if she could only say "I want to live" it would all be over, she moaned "I waaaaa".

"I waa" is not "I want to live".  It could also be "I want to die".  We simply do not know what her wishes are/were.  But here's a wild f'ing idea.  If, as you claim, she is capable of responding to commands and "turning her face" then why haven't we (courts, doctors, etc.) done the simple thing of saying "if you want to live turn your face to the right, if you want to die turn your face to the left"?  Seems a pretty simple solution to me.  I find it extremely hard to believe that no one has thought of this.  Which leads me to believe that she doesn't respond to commands.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Calling someone "anti-life" is an ignorant cheapshot.  One could very easily argue that your side is so controlling that you are willing to make someone suffer just to win political points.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) What kind of medical training do you have that you can judge the competence of a licensed physician?

2) Congress doesn't have to authority to issue "directives" to the judiciary.  The Congressional ruling only allowed a higher court to hear the case.

3) Have you ever watched a loved one suffering?  Not just for a short while but for years?  Imagine it was your wife.  And the decision making process is removed from your hands and placed into her parents and the govt's hands.  Are you comfortable with THAT!?!

Your position on "I waaa" is a non sequiter, it does not address the issue.  She could also be saying "I want some ice cream", but thats neither here nor there.  What is relevant is that she responds to commands, and regardless of what her response is, the fact that there is a response totally destroys the medical argument that the anti-life side has put forward, when they erroneously claim that she is a vegetable who doesn't have awareness.

Its a bit unnerving that you want to starve someone to death and think its an act of mercy, but think its a cheap shot to call someone a name.

I am not a medical physician, and I was responding to the medical opinion of someone who is not a medical physician.  I never claimed to have medical expertise, I simply presented the facts as I understood them.  If you find those facts inconvenient and can't come up with a better response than "You're not a doctor!" then perhaps you should rethink your position.

The Congress is specifically delegated the authority to set the jurisdiction of Federal Court.  They hae the authrity, as is stated many times in the Constution.

I have watched a loved one suffering, and eventually dying.  It was hard, to be sure.  However, I would not deny that person medical care, as Michael Schiavo has done multiple times (The urniary tract infection when he denied her antibiotics being the most egregious).  I also think its hard to claim at this point that Michael Schiavo "loves" terri in any meaningful sense of the word given his life decisions since the accident.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: March 22, 2005, 05:21:14 PM »

Ford, you completely ignore the issue on "I waaa".  Either (A) she lacks awareness and it was a random noise or (B) she is aware but we do not know her wishes.  In either case, we do not know what her wishes are.  All we have is her husband saying she told him she didn't want to live that way and her parents saying otherwise.  The question quite simply becomes "who has authority to speak for you when you can't speak for yourself?"  You clearly feel that the govt or biological relatives have greater rights to speak for an individual than a spouse.

I do not believe that starvation is an act of mercy.  But US laws do not allow physicians to help an individual to die with dignity.  So ... in a perfect world a quick, painless method would be used to help a person die with dignity.  Starvation is cruel, but it is less cruel than prolonging a life which wishes to be ended.

You passed judgement on the physicians involved in this case.  That is why I criticize you.  I don't think you can watch a video on the internet and use that to make a diagnosis ... especially when you have no medical training.

Setting jurisdiction and issuing "directives" are 2 seperate things.  Check it out, m-w.com.

You attack Schiavo for entering into a new relationship.  He's been fighting this battle for years.  If Terry had died outright would you criticize Michael for entering into a new relationship?  If so then you certainly have A LOT of growing up to do.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: March 22, 2005, 06:07:16 PM »

Wakie, she's aware and has repeatedly responded to multiple various stimuli.

US laws do not allow physicians to allow patients to die with dignity.  If that's what was allowed, she'd be euthanized.  instead she is being starved precisely because she has no right to die with dignity (Oregon exempted), only the right to refuse medical treatment (Vacco v. Quill).  I think the fact that you don't even know what our medical laws are is good enough recommendation for the udnecided to accept my version of the jurisdiction clauses of the Constitution over your rather unusual (and unprecedented) views.

I'm not criticizing Michael Schiavo for finding a new life, I'm criticizing him for doing while HE'S STILL MARRIED TO TERRI SCHAIVO AND PRETENDING TO HAVE HER BEST INTERESTS AT HEART!
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: March 22, 2005, 06:18:31 PM »


She has responded to commands, not just stimulus.

A visitor told her that if she turned to face the opposite direction from the one she was turned she could see squirrels out the window.  She turned.  A lawyer told her that if she could only say "I want to live" it would all be over, she moaned "I waaaaa".

The anti-life people keep dismissing these kind of events as people just believing what they want to believe, but they keep happenning and the anti-life people just cover their eyes and ears and pretend it isn't happenning.

I see nothing in you link to even suggest that following the ballon is not a response to stimulus, but perhaps I missed it.  Whether reflex arcs exist is not in question here, what's in question is whether vision is connected to reflex in the manner you suggest.  Its also worth noting that some of her doctors have claimed she's blind, which rules our even the reflex explaination.  One has to wonder about their competence as medical professionals, as well as the competence of a jdge who flouts Congressional directives and a husband who has repeatedly denied her medical treatment.

So far, you have something that is nothing more than random sounds and eye movement; these are not even acting simultaniously.

This should fairly easy to test.  Have two strangers walk into her room and stand appart.  Tell her to look at the one who says her name.  Have both speak, one saying "Terri" and the other saying "Rover." Repeat the test 40-50 times.  If she doesn't to "Terri" most of the time, that should show it is nothing but random action.

If she has the level of sentience you claim, this should be easily determined.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.