Terry Shiavo Poll

[The Duke]

I didn't say that he wasn't allowing an autopsy, I said it was a change from his previous position.

[J. J.]

I didn't say that he wasn't allowing an autopsy, I said it was a change from his previous position.

I've claimed you've said anything about an autopsy.  I merely posted the link.

While States seemed to be worried about cremation, I would suspect cost might be a factor.  As of last summer, to ship a body, without enbalming, the cost was $1,500 (this is about 250 miles).  You could add a factor of 4 or 5 to ship a body that distance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's pretty sad that Jeb Bush actually sent in state police to seize her before realizing that the local police and hospital would resist, so he called them off.

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=163244

[J. J.]

It's pretty sad that Jeb Bush actually sent in state police to seize her before realizing that the local police and hospital would resist, so he called them off.

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=163244

It wasn't the state police, but a welfare agency.  Ironically, I worked for a welfare agency and was known to tell lawyers/law enforcement to get a court order.  :-)

[WMS]

Quite frankly, this has been argued beyond any resolution, but courtesy impells me to reply again.

[dealt with below]

That said, from my reading...it may be legal for Michael to do what he's doing - in Florida - but damn, that is a week reed to kill someone over. Unsupported hearsay testimony is, sadly, enough to starve someone to death over in Florida, due to the way Florida law is written. But I find that rather shockingly immoral. As bullmoose said, way back in this thread, there's something not...quite...right about this case.

If the parents are willing to take upon themselves all the costs and responsibilities of care for Terry, then why the hell can't the State of Florida DO that?! [snip - dealt with below] Bloody hell, StatesRights has a point - how many wife-beaters will get away with murder due to the precedent being set here?

Legal, perhaps. Moral, never.

Except Mr. Schiavo wasn't a wife-beater and Mrs. Schiavo obviously had some problems prior to the heart attack.

I don't think I mentioned that part...

You have to rember that Wolfson was appointed as a neutral and was appointed, ultimately with the consent of the Schindlers.  His plan was agreed to by the Schindlers.  Any bias might have been brought on by the Schindlers behavior during this.  With that said, I saw no real bias against the Schindlers in the report.

Yes, I read the plan at the end, in the appendix, which would've been a good idea. Wolfson still displays some bias here, even to the point of huffing about how, if the Florida Legislature had changed the law so that the hearsay testimony wasn't enough to cease support for Terry, it would somehow be a bad thing. Uh, the Florida Legislature could do that if they pleased - that's how law is supposed to be made, right?

One thing that was the "break" between the two families, which occured on 2/14/03.  There have been two stories.  The Schiavo camp claims it's because Mr. Schindler wanted a share of the malpractice settlement.  The Schindler camp says that it was, not because of Mr. Schiavo was trying to "kill" his daughter, but because they wished continued therapy for her; this was a year before Schaivo suggested the DNR order.

Now, you have to ask if the Schindler story sounds fishy.  There was extensive attempts at therapy and even experimental treatment that Mr. Schiavo tried, but after 4 years they made no difference.  Even if this started as a fight over treatment, it was a pretty weak case and, at the time they made it, Mrs. Schiavo was still receiving therapy (and would until 2004).

Actually, Michael Schiavo's story could equally be fishy - on the subject of why Wolfson's compromise wasn't agreed to, accounts conflict. However, given that the compromise would have kept Terry alive while conclusive tests were done on her...I would say that the party who wants her dead, dead, dead is more suspicious.

Then you have to look at the whole demeanor of the Schindlers thoughout this.  When the suit was still out there, the Schindlers encouraged Mr. Schiavo to date; afterward, they cited this as a problem.  After the settlement, they filed to become guardians, claiming "abuse." This was 9 months before to the DNR order attempt that Mr. Schiavo made (and voluntarily withdrew).

Now we can also look at their demeanor in the recent time period.

1.  The Schindlers released snipits of the video of the daughter, not only in violation of a court order, but in violation of their daughter's privacy rights; when competent, Mrs. Schiavo shunned the limelight, by all accounts. 
2. The have filed numerous suits, all defeated, of dubious legal merit.  We also have, in this, the now famous "AAHHHH WAAAAA" filing.  In this they ultimately claim that someone who they say in incompetent is capable of make a decision.  This one is completely ludicrous.

3.  Then we have Mr. Schindler's maudlin claim that it would be "a matter of hours" two days ago.  His statement obviously was untrue and has been so demonstrated.

Demeanor: the dating was explained, even in Wolfson's report, as not being a problem before 1993. I wonder what happened that year in regards to Terry that caused the split - the record is not clear, although Wolfson takes Michael's side by intimating about the insurance money. As for the rest of it - they're desperate parents trying to keep their daughter alive - certainly understandable in the circumstances.

Looking at these actions, the Schindlers have abused the legal system.  They have also abused Terri Schiavo, at least in spirit if not quite bodily.  They have sullied her memory and have demonstrated, expecially through the release of the video, a disregard of her right to privacy.

I sincerely hope that they will be punished, civilly, for their abuses.

Considering how, first with Judge Greer and then with Judge Baird, judges clearly hostile to the Schindlers were nonetheless allowed to remain in charge of the situation, I don't think the Schindlers were abusing the legal system. If the case against them is so ironclad, then why couldn't they get new judges involved in the rulings? It would've removed one of the causes for complaint if independent, neutral judges ruled the same way as Greer (good luck getting back into your church now, pal) and Baird (who could hardly be said to be neutral after Jeb tried to remove him back on November 19, 2003, yet was allowed to remain on the case!). But hell, Greer was continually kept on this case - something which probably hasn't helped either side (one side gets continually ruled against, and the other side suffers from perceived bias).

I wonder if this will affect Florida state politics...especially the Florida Senate, which voted down (21 to 18 against) an attempt by the State House (78 to 37 for) to change the laws on this. Maybe States will know that one.

I stand by my last two paragraphs, even if they don't reflect the law in this case. I see Michael wanted to cremate Terry and bury her somewhere other than where Terry's parents desired. I guess the little prick is enjoying his power trip...

[J. J.]

Quite frankly, this has been argued beyond any resolution, but courtesy impells me to reply again.

[dealt with below]

That said, from my reading...it may be legal for Michael to do what he's doing - in Florida - but damn, that is a week reed to kill someone over. Unsupported hearsay testimony is, sadly, enough to starve someone to death over in Florida, due to the way Florida law is written. But I find that rather shockingly immoral. As bullmoose said, way back in this thread, there's something not...quite...right about this case.

If the parents are willing to take upon themselves all the costs and responsibilities of care for Terry, then why the hell can't the State of Florida DO that?! [snip - dealt with below] Bloody hell, StatesRights has a point - how many wife-beaters will get away with murder due to the precedent being set here?

Legal, perhaps. Moral, never.

Except Mr. Schiavo wasn't a wife-beater and Mrs. Schiavo obviously had some problems prior to the heart attack.

I am referring to the charaterization of "wife-beater."  There is no evidence that she was ever abused by Mr. Schiavo.  There is evidence she was not.

There is evidence of past health problems with Mrs. Schiavo, especially being morbidly obese in high school.  She was a 5' 3" woman that weighed 250 pounds at that .  She also likely to have fallen during the attack and had CPR, which would account for some "hot spots" on the ribs.

Yes, I read the plan at the end, in the appendix, which would've been a good idea. Wolfson still displays some bias here, even to the point of huffing about how, if the Florida Legislature had changed the law so that the hearsay testimony wasn't enough to cease support for Terry, it would somehow be a bad thing. Uh, the Florida Legislature could do that if they pleased - that's how law is supposed to be made, right?

Considering that there are many people that do discuss end of life issues with family, but don't write anything down, yes, it would be an exceptionally bad idea to say hearsay isn't permitted.  Further, while there are rules really limiting the overall use of hearsay, I would question if the legislature could prohibit it in specific types of cases.  Here you are talking about a 14th Amendment issue.

Actually, Michael Schiavo's story could equally be fishy - on the subject of why Wolfson's compromise wasn't agreed to, accounts conflict. However, given that the compromise would have kept Terry alive while conclusive tests were done on her...I would say that the party who wants her dead, dead, dead is more suspicious.

In an MSNBC interview, Wolfson stated that the reason the Shiavo side objected was the constitutional challenge to the law.  Ironically, if the tests had been conducted, the would have been conducted in 2004, thus potentially shortening the process.  Mrs Schiavo failed the swallow tests previously.

There has been no bias, just an exceptionally weak case from the Schindlers.  They basically lost everything even going back to non-end of life issue going back to 1993.  The one point that did win was access to doctors/medical records.

I stand by my last two paragraphs, even if they don't reflect the law in this case. I see Michael wanted to cremate Terry and bury her somewhere other than where Terry's parents desired. I guess the little prick is enjoying his power trip...

Under the law, it is the husband who makes these determination as to where his wife will be buried.  There is nothing unusual in this. 

I have indicated that in preplanning a funeral, the costs of shipping of body, even 250 miles, was $1,500.  The cost would at least quadruple in transporting the body from Miami to Phila.  In the case where I dealt with this last summer, the funeral director suggested cremation, due to costs.

Though you may have miss it, but Mr. Schiavo has requested an autopsy, prior to cremation; the coroner reportedly agreed.  Now, that is not the actions of a man trying to hide something.

Now, if the autopsy shows no evidence of abuse and that her medical condition was as stated, will you apologize to Mr. Schiavo publically on this board?  Will Ford and StatesRights?

[The Duke]

Not to revive this thread, but here's a pretty disturbing article on bioethics.

http://nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503290755.asp

[J. J.]

Not too distrubing. 

I took at a look at how my church defines personhood and on moral grounds Mrs. Schiavo isn't really human anymore.

Ah, I can pretty sure that when the autopsy results are released there will be more debate.

[The Duke]

I took at a look at how my church defines personhood and on moral grounds Mrs. Schiavo isn't really human anymore.

This doesn't surprise me.

It's unclear whether what I edited out of this post was directed towards J. J. or not, but if it was, please don't do that again. -Alcon

[J. J.]

I took at a look at how my church defines personhood and on moral grounds Mrs. Schiavo isn't really human anymore.

This doesn't surprise me.

It's unclear whether what I edited out of this post was directed towards J. J. or not, but if it was, please don't do that again. -Alcon

It shouldn't be, as a Roman Catholic priest, designated as a theologian by the Schindler's diocese, testified to the morality of the act in court.

I prefer dealing with the legality, and the medical evidence, but the Schindler's moral claims are not consistent with those expressed by a theologian of their church.

[The Duke]

JJ,

The words of a Catholic theologan talking about removing the feeding tube has nothing to do with the article.  Thea rticle talks about bioethicists who call infants, the retarded, and alzheimer's patients "non-persons".  One advocates harvesting people's internal organs while they're still alive.  Another advocates the killing of anyone who does not have a certain level of cognitive ability.  Another advocates an aggressive organ harvesting policy, taking anyone who is a "non-person" and taking their organs in a deranged utilitarian scheme.  Another advocates classifying those with major brain injuries as dead so their organs can be harvested without anyone's permission.

Your response?  "Not too disturbing".

Address the issue presented instead of going off on tangents about Catholic theology.

[J. J.]

JJ,

The words of a Catholic theologan talking about removing the feeding tube has nothing to do with the article.  Thea rticle talks about bioethicists who call infants, the retarded, and alzheimer's patients "non-persons".  One advocates harvesting people's internal organs while they're still alive.  Another advocates the killing of anyone who does not have a certain level of cognitive ability.  Another advocates an aggressive organ harvesting policy, taking anyone who is a "non-person" and taking their organs in a deranged utilitarian scheme.  Another advocates classifying those with major brain injuries as dead so their organs can be harvested without anyone's permission.

Your response?  "Not too disturbing".

Address the issue presented instead of going off on tangents about Catholic theology.

Well, they do harvest organs, and not always from someone who heart has stopped beating. 

I am speaking to the ethical and moral questions of when someone loses his or her "humanity," for lack of a better term.  It isn't necessarily when the heart stops beating.

We have, by permitting extraordinary means to extend life, raised some extraordinary questions about what is life.

In the 1940's, if the heart stopped, that usually was considered the state of death; I'm reasonably sure that some of those "dead" people would not be "dead" today.

[WMS]

Considering that there are many people that do discuss end of life issues with family, but don't write anything down, yes, it would be an exceptionally bad idea to say hearsay isn't permitted.  Further, while there are rules really limiting the overall use of hearsay, I would question if the legislature could prohibit it in specific types of cases.  Here you are talking about a 14th Amendment issue.

Actually, Wolfson's report said there were states which limited hearsay in that fashion, so it's clearly up to the states in setting these rules, right?

[emphasis mine]
In an MSNBC interview, Wolfson stated that the reason the Shiavo side objected was the constitutional challenge to the law. Ironically, if the tests had been conducted, the would have been conducted in 2004, thus potentially shortening the process.  Mrs Schiavo failed the swallow tests previously.

So instead of compromising, the Shiavo side would rather go for the total kill, eh? And yes, the compromise may have ended the dispute earlier - which is pretty much what I said already.

Now, if the autopsy shows no evidence of abuse and that her medical condition was as stated, will you apologize to Mr. Schiavo publically on this board?  Will Ford and StatesRights?

Can't answer for them. I still think the Shiavo side has not acted well, and on worse grounds, than the Schindlers. Yes, the legal side of matters favors the Shiavos. However, I'd need more than the autopsy - initially rejected by the Shiavos, if I recall correctly - to apologize. I need to know what happened to Terry's cats, for one thing. It's still pretty unlikely I'd apologize to Michael - he's acted like a prick, even if he was in the legal right.

And DAMN I'm sick of talking about this depressing case in which everyone goes in circles without convincing each other. I almost didn't respond to this in hopes of finally sinking the topic, but since you responded to me, I figured the argument wasn't - quite - over. It'll be moot soon enough, sadly...

[J. J.]

Considering that there are many people that do discuss end of life issues with family, but don't write anything down, yes, it would be an exceptionally bad idea to say hearsay isn't permitted.  Further, while there are rules really limiting the overall use of hearsay, I would question if the legislature could prohibit it in specific types of cases.  Here you are talking about a 14th Amendment issue.

Actually, Wolfson's report said there were states which limited hearsay in that fashion, so it's clearly up to the states in setting these rules, right?

[emphasis mine]
In an MSNBC interview, Wolfson stated that the reason the Shiavo side objected was the constitutional challenge to the law. Ironically, if the tests had been conducted, the would have been conducted in 2004, thus potentially shortening the process.  Mrs Schiavo failed the swallow tests previously.

So instead of compromising, the Shiavo side would rather go for the total kill, eh? And yes, the compromise may have ended the dispute earlier - which is pretty much what I said already.

You are suggesting that they should compromise on a constitutional issue?  I really wouldn't want Jeb Bush, or Ed Rendell for that matter to be able to make my medical decisions and I'm glad that the constitutionally was challenged.

Still the Florida Legislature had ample opportunity to act, in a constitutional manner, to set a different standard of evidence for determining these cases.  The could have done this in 2003; the could have done this last month.  They chose not to.

Now, if the autopsy shows no evidence of abuse and that her medical condition was as stated, will you apologize to Mr. Schiavo publically on this board?  Will Ford and StatesRights?

Can't answer for them. I still think the Shiavo side has not acted well, and on worse grounds, than the Schindlers. Yes, the legal side of matters favors the Shiavos. However, I'd need more than the autopsy - initially rejected by the Shiavos, if I recall correctly - to apologize. I need to know what happened to Terry's cats, for one thing. It's still pretty unlikely I'd apologize to Michael - he's acted like a prick, even if he was in the legal right.

People do have pets put to sleep, for a number of reasons, including not being able to keep them, but your words speak to your bias.  You are saying that even if legally right, and even with medical evidence that the late Mrs. Schiavo was in a PVS, you won't apologize.  You are saying, in effect, "Even if I was completely wrong, and he was completely right, I still won't appologize." 

That, unfortunately, speaks to the ultimate honesty to many of the Schindler advocates.

[Platypus]

she's died. :blank:

[WMS]

she's died. :blank:

Yep. Which renders the argument moot. But I'll probably reply to BlueJ* tonight anyway.


*couldn't resist the chance to give him one of those bold nicknames first.

[J. J.]

she's died. :blank:

Yep. Which renders the argument moot. But I'll probably reply to BlueJ* tonight anyway.


*couldn't resist the chance to give him one of those bold nicknames first.

You are correct. 

I have several outrages with this case, but it isn't moot.  One claim has been that Mrs. Schiavo wasn't in a PVS.  We should the ultimate evidence to her cognative state after the autopsy.

I expect comment after that.

[WMS]

she's died. :blank:

Yep. Which renders the argument moot. But I'll probably reply to BlueJ* tonight anyway.


*couldn't resist the chance to give him one of those bold nicknames first.

You are correct. 

I have several outrages with this case, but it isn't moot.  One claim has been that Mrs. Schiavo wasn't in a PVS.  We should the ultimate evidence to her cognative state after the autopsy.

I expect comment after that.

For me, the question was what Terry's wishes really were. We won't know now, of course.

And instead of quoting the previous poll, let's summarize instead:
We agree that what Michael did was legal.
We disagree that what Michael did was moral.
And I doubt we are going to convince each other otherwise.

I think Michael is a prick.
You disagree.
And I doubt we are going to convince each other otherwise.

Oh, and lay off the personal attacks - I haven't attacked you personally and would appreciate the same courtesy.

[J. J.]

she's died. :blank:

Yep. Which renders the argument moot. But I'll probably reply to BlueJ* tonight anyway.


*couldn't resist the chance to give him one of those bold nicknames first.

You are correct. 

I have several outrages with this case, but it isn't moot.  One claim has been that Mrs. Schiavo wasn't in a PVS.  We should the ultimate evidence to her cognative state after the autopsy.

I expect comment after that.

For me, the question was what Terry's wishes really were. We won't know now, of course.

And instead of quoting the previous poll, let's summarize instead:
We agree that what Michael did was legal.
We disagree that what Michael did was moral.
And I doubt we are going to convince each other otherwise.

I think Michael is a prick.
You disagree.
And I doubt we are going to convince each other otherwise.

Oh, and lay off the personal attacks - I haven't attacked you personally and would appreciate the same courtesy.

I have not made one personal attack on you.

If it was Terri Schiavo's wishes, while a compentent adult that here wishes were, "If I ever go like that just let me go.  Don't leave me there.  I don't want to be kept alive on a machine," would you call Michael Schiavo a "prick?"

[The Duke]

"If I ever go like that just let me go.  Don't leave me there.  I don't want to be kept alive on a machine,"

Why did you put quotes around that?  That's not a quote from Terri Schiavo.

[J.R. Brown]

I think it's time to get rid of this thread, the women has passed on and debating about whether it was right or wrong for the feeding tube to be pulled out is irrelevant. Terri's with God now.

[J. J.]

Why did you put quotes around that?  That's not a quote from Terri Schiavo.

Where it is or isn't is not part of the question.  Here is the question:

If it was Terri Schiavo's wishes, while a compentent adult that here wishes were, "If I ever go like that just let me go.  Don't leave me there.  I don't want to be kept alive on a machine," would you call Michael Schiavo a "prick?"

If she said this, would the Senator, or you call Michael Shiavo a "prick."  Would you further say that it was not "moral" to remove a feeding tube?  The "moral" argument was raised by WMS.