Terry Shiavo Poll

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

Here's the problem with his position:

His own conviction aside, he has no evidence that Teri actually wanted this!  There is no living will, no note scribbled on a cocktail napkin, no witnesses to the conversation, and she never relayed these feelings to another single human being at any point in her life.  We are supposed to believe that the wishes of the entire family, with the exception of this husband, should be discarded and an irrevocable decision to end Teri's life made should be made solely on Micahel Schaivo's word that Teri told him she wanted to die (And never suggested any such thing even to her parents or closest friends at any point in her entire life!).  This is a bridge too far for me.

Michael Schaivo's whole case is based on hearsay, and would be dismissed by any competent  judge.  Instead, this goofball judge has made it the centerpiece of his ruling in favor of Michael Schaivo!  This is the same judge who is ignoring a Congressional request for testimony from Teri Schaivo (Even if it is grandstanding, that doesn't affect the legal merits of the request), a Federal crime called Contempt of Congress.  This judge is either wholly ignorant of the law, or entirely willing to flout it to advance personal ideology.  It can't get any clearer than Contempt of Congress, pal.

Do not make a rash decision to end Teri's life on hearsay evidence against the wishes of her actual family.  I say actual family because Michael Schaivo is now living with another woman and has sired two children with her, so to me he is no longer part of her family in any real sense although he retains legal standing as her husband.

[The Duke]

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

With all due respect John,

Here's the problem with your point. From what I understand $1 million is exactly what he gets if she dies. If he accepts, sure he gets $1M but what kind of a man does he look like then? His reputation would forever be shattered.

What is he, running for office?  If those who say its all about the money are right, then why does he care about image?  Since he already looks like scum to most people, he seems to me to have two options to get his $1 million.

Take the $1 million, walk away, look like a jerk.
Fight on, take the $1 million when she dies, look like a jerk.

Either way, he'd get paid, and either way, he looks like a douchebag.

The route he's taken though he risks not getting one dime.  If he loses the case he gets no money.  There are only two reasons he'd keep fighting the case then, the first reason he'd continue the case is that he's more than 100% sure that he'll win the case, since the alternative gives him a 100% chance at $1 million and only a greater than 100% chance could convince him to keep the case going over taking the sure $1 million.  Or, the second reason could be that it isn't about the money, and that he really thinks this is what Teri wants.

[The Duke]

What kind of precendent would this case set if she is allowed to die? Could husbands who beat their wives into comas lie to courts and say, "She wanted to be pulled off life support"? This whole case is based on hearsay and this judge is completely out of bounds. But that's not a suprise with the judges in this country anymore.

I am really undecided on this, but I do not understand why it matters whether he beat her or not to the decision. Either way, the argument is whether she could return to normal or not. Her husband having beaten her is not going to change whether she can or not.

I thin kState's point is that it sets a bad precedent and gives wife beaters an easy way out of such situations.

The other element of the decision is who should be allowed to make the choice of whether she lives or dies.

[The Duke]

the thing is, no one likes to see anyone starve.  but no one likes to see Tom Delay lording over every little issue that pops up either.  also, there must be other news out there.  every channel I surfed on last night was playing this thing to the hilt.  My own feeling is that her husband wants out of the spotlight and off the hook, so why not let the bastard have an anullment, and let her parents take care of her?  Also, I haven't voted either.  It's none of my business.

He's been given many offers to just walk away, ncldgn requests for an annullment/dovirce from the family.

[The Duke]

I just realized how badly I butchered the word "including" in my last post.  Now that was a typo.

[The Duke]

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 Duke]

One point about legal guardians, if (as has been suggested here) there is reason to believe that the husband has financial gain motivating his decision, then his status as guardian can be revoked and the court itself can make the decision on her treatment, or (I think) can appoint the parents as legal guardians.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.

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.

[The Duke]

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.

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.

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.

[The Duke]

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!

[The Duke]

You know those science movies where some scientist is trying to warn everyone that the world is about to suffer a new ice age/volcanic eruption/asteroid hit/aggressive martian invaders?  And some General comes up with a series of flat excuses why everything is fine, and some political advisor tells some barely believable President that the world is safe and he should make more TV appearances?  Just a series of preposterous excuses why the scientist is wrong.

That's sort of how this is.  Except they are preposterous excuses why a woman must be starved to death.

[The Duke]

You know those science movies where some scientist is trying to warn everyone that the world is about to suffer a new ice age/volcanic eruption/asteroid hit/aggressive martian invaders?  And some General comes up with a series of flat excuses why everything is fine, and some political advisor tells some barely believable President that the world is safe and he should make more TV appearances?  Just a series of preposterous excuses why the scientist is wrong.

That's sort of how this is.  Except they are preposterous excuses why a woman must be starved to death.

This more like the "scientist" saying, "Gravity is failing and will be one half of it what it was in 10 seconds."  The "President" drops a pen and then drops it 20 seconds later and it still falls at the same rate.

Some of this you can verify fairly easily, though simple experiments.  The parents haven't done it. 

If the parents conducted your "experiment", it would not be admissible in court under the standards the judges have set up.

Here's an experiment that would be admissible in court that Schiavo has refused to allow take place:  A PETS scan.  A PETS scan is a scan of the brain that will allow us to determine accurately what Terri Schiavo's brain function is.  Instead of doctors who haven't actually examined her brain and concluded on little or no actual evidence that she has no mental capacity, we'd actually have scientific data!  Of course, not one person on the kill Terri side, including you (Who linked to a site explaining knee reflexes when he couldn't find something on eye reflexes that supported his position) has suggested any medical examination, you just expect us to take your word for it, and any time we present evidence that contradicts you, you cover your eyes and ears and mutter somethng about 19 Judges and 600 Doctors and 300,000 state certified fortune tellers have said she won't make it.

JJ, you've been every Democrat's favorite Republican for some time.  You're always the first one to ask a left wing judge for a metaphorical curb job.  Its no surprise to me that you've sat here insisting that Terri Schiavo has to die.

[The Duke]

This was the actual poll question in the ABC poll that showed a 70-29% result in whether Terri Schiavo should live or die.

"As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible."

Talk about a leading poll question, geez...

The question is slanted, but everything in it is true.

Except that she is not on life support and is not unconscious, nor has her condition been determined irreversible.

[The Duke]

Except that she is not on life support.

For the purpose of the law, gastric feeding tubes are classified as a medical intervention that is a form of life support.

Now, if you want to argue that the legal definition of life support and the like should be changed, fine do that, but under current law unless the parents succeed in their attempt to shop around for an activist judge who doesn't bother to follow law and precedent, this phase of this discussion will be over in a week or so as her body finally catches up with what her mind did 15 years ago.

I keep hearing the opposite.

[The Duke]

Except that she is not on life support.

For the purpose of the law, gastric feeding tubes are classified as a medical intervention that is a form of life support.

Now, if you want to argue that the legal definition of life support and the like should be changed, fine do that, but under current law unless the parents succeed in their attempt to shop around for an activist judge who doesn't bother to follow law and precedent, this phase of this discussion will be over in a week or so as her body finally catches up with what her mind did 15 years ago.

The medical definition I found says that only those things that restore organ function.  Feeding tubes would not be included.

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/life_support.jsp

If the parents conducted your "experiment", it would not be admissible in court under the standards the judges have set up.

Here's an experiment that would be admissible in court that Schiavo has refused to allow take place:  A PETS scan.  A PETS scan is a scan of the brain that will allow us to determine accurately what Terri Schiavo's brain function is.  Instead of doctors who haven't actually examined her brain and concluded on little or no actual evidence that she has no mental capacity, we'd actually have scientific data!  Of course, not one person on the kill Terri side, including you (Who linked to a site explaining knee reflexes when he couldn't find something on eye reflexes that supported his position) has suggested any medical examination, you just expect us to take your word for it, and any time we present evidence that contradicts you, you cover your eyes and ears and mutter somethng about 19 Judges and 600 Doctors and 300,000 state certified fortune tellers have said she won't make it.

The doctors can and would be looking for certain things.  Now, I was addressing the fact that reflex actions are not controlled by brian function.  Here are some sites that address eye reflex in coma cases, specifically:



Centres for eye movement control are adjacent to the brain stem areas responsible for arousal; thus, evaluation is a valuable guide to the presence and level of brain stem disease causing coma. Ocular pathways run from the mid brain to the pons, thus normal reflex eye movements imply that the pontomedullary junction to the level of the ocular motor nucleus in the mid brain is intact. In addition the oculomotor nerve is susceptible to compression in tentorial herniation.

http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/71/suppl_1/i13


Signs of vegetative state
Some of the characteristics of a vegetative state include:

The person looks like they're asleep
They can't wake up, talk or respond to commands
The eyes may open in response to stimuli
The person is able to move their body
Heart rate, blood pressure and respiration continue
The person can randomly laugh, cry or pull faces.
The brain stem is undamaged
A person in a persistent vegetative state has damage to the cerebral hemispheres - the areas of the brain that govern sophisticated functions like consciousness, self-awareness and personality. However, the brain stem is intact, so the person retains motor reflexes, sleep-wake cycles and the activity of their autonomic nervous system. This includes the regulation of many functions essential to life such as heart rate, respiration and blood pressure.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Coma_vegetative_state?open

In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/coma.shtml

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

See also
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7213/841

These things occure in PVS cases.  So far there is no evidence that has been presented that she has any cognative function.

I don't feel that Mrs. Shiavo should die.  I feel that whatever she ever was died nearly fifteen years ago.  Keeping her alive is only a little bit more than abuse of a corpse.  It is a ghoulish exercise that only makes a mockery of who she really was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for this, I do not see how my party affiliation has any bearing on the matter, though I point out Federal intervention is a violation of states rights.  I would suspect that jFRAUD, Popeepo, BRTD, and FreeDUMBburnout might disagree with your assessment.

Stop pretending the medicine is open and shut.  She has not even received a full examination, as I said before, and it’s the husband’s camp that is preventing it.  Medical experts disagree with each other over her condition.

Neuropsychologist Dr. Alexander Gimon argued that her responses "are completely inconsistent with a diagnosis of vegetative state."

Neurologist Dr. William Hammesfahr, Terri "is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best."  Dr. William Hammesfahr, who has aided people with chronic brain injuries, said: "There are many approaches that would help Terri Schiavo. I know, because I had the opportunity to personally examine her, her medical records, and her X-rays."

An affidavit from 17 other doctors shows that Terri is not in PVS.

http://www.terrisfight.org/press/030405medaff.html

Its not a violation of states rights if rights defined in the Federal Constitution are violated.  The right to life is itself a due process right, a substantive due process right, and a complaint that it has been threatened is alone enough for the Federal Courts to hear the case.

This last part is the stuff I’m talking about when I say you’re every Democrat’s favorite Republican.  You say you don’t think Schiavo should die, but then you leap to the defense of some hack judge who can’t even avoid committing contempt of Congress.

[The Duke]

I haven't said he's doing it solely for the money, if you read the earlier part of the thread I argued against Wildcard on this very point.  The more the case has gone on, the more I do wonder about the money issue, but I have never argued he's doing it just for the money.  I do think the courts have repeatedly ruled that beneficiaries of insurance claims should not be legal guardians, and that Schiavo should be removed as legal guardian because of the insurance claim.

Terri Schiavo's behaviors do in fact suggest she is not in PVS, and you have chosen to not respond to the evidence peresented which includes expert medical opinions.  The case that she is in PVS is based on the idea that her cerebral cortex has been liquified.  As I have already shown, the cerebral cortex cannot be liquified if she follows the balloon, because the liquification of the cortex results in total blindness.  She could not see the balloon if her cortex was liquified.  Your defense against both me and cswelch is that her reaction does not display cognition, which does not even address the issue at hand.

I do belive she has been denied due process, and its not enough that x number of judges have reviewed the case.  The 14th Amendment has a substantive due process component, which includes the rights enumerated in the Constitution.  If rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are violated without cause, than due process is violated.  These rights are life, liberty, and property.

Your pattern seems to be, ignore evidence, then claim no evidence was presented, and when you can't ignore the evidence you put forward desperate and contradictory arguments against them.

[The Duke]

JJ, you're so dishonest its not even funny.  You said I claimed that Micahel's only reasn for denying Terri her life was his financial interest.  This is not what I say in that quote!  I said there were reasons he should not be guardian anymore, one of them being a fnancial conflict of interest.  If you want to deny that the life insurance policy exists, go ahead (Nothing you do would surprise me at this pont), but don't pretend I said it was the sole problem, and don't pretend I said it was in and of itself a reason to suspect that money is his motivation.  The quote speaks for itself, when i actually list three specific reasons he should not be guardian, not one.

There are people who are sole heir and gurdian, but the courts retain the power to remove you as guardian at any time, and case law supports this.  If you want to suggest otherwise, it will only be because you are ignorant of the law.

If you want to hide ebhind judges decisions, you can.  But expect that I can find court ruling with which you disagreed in history.  If we ever debate one, I'll keep in mind that all I need is a court ruling, and I should expect you to submit before me, eh?  I think the stupidity of your argument to authority is exposed.  In fact, your whole line of argument is contradictory.  You keep using the argument to authority, yet when authorities who contradict your view are produced, you dismiss them without addressing their claims.

It makes a huge difference whther or not she's in PVS because you have based your entire argument on the idea that she is in PVS, and anyone who disagrees is wrong prima facie.  If it can be demonstrated that she is not in PVS, and you have just been forced to back off of the position that he must be, a position that before your last post you refused to compromise on, then your argument collapses.

[The Duke]

This is like arguing with a four year old.  Any time some one disagrees with you, you invent a clever name for them.  How persuasive!

You may nto have been removed as guardian, you amy not need to be removed as guardian, but others have and the courts retain the power to do so.

The fact that you won't even explicitly admit that the insurance policy exists is proof enough that you have no case on this next point.

He may be trying to carry out his wife's wishes, but isn't it interesting that these weren't her wishes, according to Micahel Schiavo, until 1997, seven years after the incident.

The Constitution gave the courts the power to interpret law, and guess what, asshole!  It gave me the right to disagree with them, and to support my opinion with both legal and medical facts!  You should try it some time.  Under your interpretation, segregation actually was Consitutional.  how dare MLK claim otherwise, the courts have ruled!  You're an idiiot if you didn't see that one coming.

My evidence, including expert testimony and observable behaviors by Terri, does prove she is not in PVS.  Whether she is or is not in PVS matters a great deal because 1) It shows you are unable to judge her medical condition 2) The florida courts retain the legal right to stop the behaviors of Michael if she's not in PVS.

Since you have repeatedly claimed that I have no eividence for my claims ( A hard thing to do, since there's now 11 pages of it), I'd like you to substantiate with one piece of evidence that Terri Schiavo ever claimed that if in this state, she'd want to die.  No one else, in this thread or elsewhere, has ever before disputed the fact that we have only Michael's word that she'd want to die.  I'm waiting.

[The Duke]

So you found some typos, too bad you can't find your ass with both hands.  Once again, you refuse to answer the questions presented, responding to other issues that no one has questioned!

I never said it wasn't custoary for guardians and heir to be one in the same.  I never said it was sufficient grounds on its own for guardians to be removed because they are heirs.  I have said this repeatedly, and you have repeatedly lied about my position.  This is why I called you a liar: You are one.  My position is that there is a confluence of factors, which together mean that Micahel Schiavo should be removed, one of those factors being financial conflict.  Other factors, which I have repeatedly mentioned and you have repeatedly ignored, are his incompetence in discharging his duties (and I have provided several examples of this), his lifestyle irregularites (by now well known), and his refusal to agree to enough medical examination to make a full diagnosis (and I have provided several examples of this).  To present my position as being as simple as guardians should not be heirs is wrong.  This is not and has not been my position.  You lied about what my position was because you thought it would be easier to argue against a straw man than me.

There is a dollar life insurance policy on Terri Schaivo worth an estimated $1 million (Some estimates go to $1.2 million).  This has been mentioned repeatedly on the internet, radio, television, and it is accepted fact on these boards.  Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit.  I'm not going to produce a link, because all I get are blog hits, since the blogs ar eproducing most of the Terri Schaivo material.  I don't think blogs are reputable, and I don't intend to sift through 50 pages of gogle hits to find an AP wore story.  I would normally, but since you're an asshole to everyone who doesn't bow down before you, you can pretty much screw off on this point.

It is simply not credible to say that Michael Schiavo kept Terri's true wishes a secret even though he knew them, not even mentioning the conversation to the family and to doctors, for seven years.  It just doesn't happen, it doesn't pass the smell test.  In fact, Michael Schiavo can't really substantiate most of the things he says.  No wonder you like him so much.

I know the courts ruled segregatin was constitutional in 1896, I'm the one who brought it up.  In 1955, they overturned that ruling (Proving that the composition of the Court is more important tan the text of the Consitution).  Much of your position is based on the idea of an impartial and infallible court system, but the fact that the court ruled wrongly on segregation proves that this is not the case.  There are many bad rulings in the history of jurisprudence and to hide behind courts without a willingness to address the facts of each case is moral and intellectual cowardice on your part.  The declaring war analogy is false.  I cannot declare war because I do nto have the power to make it so, I can however say that Terri Schiavo's substantive due process rights have been violated, because it is a descriptive statement of what has happenned, not a decree of what must happen.  Therefore the analogy is false, and you have still not respnded to the legal logic behind Terri Schiavo's claim that substantive due process rights have been violated, and by your repeated attempts to nullify this claim you show no evidence that you even know what a substantive due process right is.  This would not surprise me, as you seem not to haev a firm grasp of legal tradition, and you keep presenting Michael Schiavo's tstimony as evidence, when in fact it is hearsay, and therefore not admissible in court.

Again, the testimony of the experts I provided does not siply show that her automatic neurological system works, it shows she is not in PVS.  The neurologists directly address this question, and directly say she is not in PVS based on their observations of Terri.  To say that somehow the testimony of 20 experts should be dismissed out of hand without even an attempt on your part to refute one single claim they've made is a joke.

Do you even realize the hit you've taken this week?

[The Duke]

Again, you persist in the argument to authority.  You keep hiding behind judges, afraid to defend your views on the merits.  I say Michael Schiavo's testimony is hearsay, and should not be admitted.  You say the judge disagrees, end of story.  This is an example of the argument to authority, a logical fallacy.

Again, you persist in demanding proof of a negative.  I say Chiavo's testimony that his wife did want the feeding tube removed is hearsay, you say I must produce evidence for a negative thesis (technically impossible, as you know, which is why you made the demand in the first place).

Again, you persist in the straw man.  I repeatedly say that there are many reasons that, when taken together, mean that Michael Schiavo should not be the guardian.  You are only willing to acknowledge or address the financial one.

Again you persist in outright lies about ym position.  I say that bloggers are not credible sources, you imply I said the opposite.

We go around in circles, you presenting the same fallacies, refusing to address key questions as if they had not been asked, demanding proof of unprovable negative claims, pretending that hearsay is evidence, and hiding behind blanket claims of judges without a willingness to defend the details of their rulings.

[The Duke]

here's the problem.  You keep demanding evidence that Terri Schiavo wanted to be kept alive, yet you have no evidence that she wanted to be killed except statements from Micahel Schiavo and his attorney, Geroge Felos.  Even these calims were not made until 1997, 7 years after her accident.  This is, for all intents and purposes, not evidence.

You keep demanding evidence to support my claims about her medical condition.  When I produce it, you dismiss it saying "The court said otherwise.".  This is not an argument, it is intelelctual weakness to be unable to defend your position without saying, "But the judge said this."  Its the old saying from mom, "If the judge told you to jump off a cliff...".  This is like debating Josh22.  I make a point, Josh goes, "But the Bible says..." feeling no need to make a coherent statement.  Go ahead, hide behind court rulings.  The rest of us will be thankful that you weren't around to defend Plessy because you think judges are infallible.