Talk Elections

General Politics => Individual Politics => Topic started by: danwxman on March 18, 2005, 12:48:16 PM



Title: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 18, 2005, 12:48:16 PM
Let her go....


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 18, 2005, 02:49:23 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: bullmoose88 on March 18, 2005, 03:08:15 PM
Undecided.

Normally I'd say let her die, but theres something really fishy about this one.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: DanielX on March 18, 2005, 03:26:04 PM
I agree with John Ford. Also, the precedent if she is killed by court order is horrific... makes me think of the Netherlands... <shudder>.

EDIT: Or Oregon, for that matter.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Sam Spade on March 18, 2005, 04:07:03 PM
I say keep her alive.  Primarily a combination of what John Ford and bullmoose said.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Blue Rectangle on March 18, 2005, 04:08:24 PM
The more I hear about this, the more it disturbs me.  One thing that irritates me most is the repeated use of inaccurate terms and euphemisms that the media insists on using.  For example:
Life Support:  Terri is not on life support.  Life support, such as a respirator, functions in place of a damaged autonomic nervous system.  Terri’s ANS works just fine; unlike, for example, Chris Reeve’s.
Right to Die:  The media repeatedly refers to this as a “right to die” case.  This is false.  Right to die concerns the right of a person to end their own life.  Terri’s wishes are not known.  The “right” in this case is therefore the right of others to kill Terri.
Let Her Die:  Starving someone to death is not “letting” them die any more than straggling someone is letting them die.  Many people are unable to feed themselves: infants, many elderly, Chris Reeve, Stephen Hawking, prisoners, intensive care patients, etc.  Withholding food from any one of these people would be murder and would be prosecuted as such.
Keep Her Alive:  How is feeding someone “keeping” them alive?  This makes it sound like something extraordinary must be done to prevent her from dying.

Like Daniel, I am also horrified that the state is going to kill her.  Is the alternative, that her parents continue to care for her, really so awful that the state is compelled to step in?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Hitchabrut on March 18, 2005, 05:03:07 PM
There seems to be no hope, so it would be moral to let her die. If the state can come up with a way to prove that she could be functional once more, I would give them a chance.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 18, 2005, 05:11:01 PM
The courts have ruled against the parents time and time again. There is no basis for keeping her alive -- it is the husbands will.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Rob on March 18, 2005, 05:26:49 PM
Let her die. She's a vegetable.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Cashcow on March 18, 2005, 05:34:49 PM
Let the poor woman go already.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Moooooo on March 18, 2005, 05:47:49 PM
The prick husband should let her parents decide.  He doesnt seem to give a crap.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: TheWildCard on March 18, 2005, 06:28:16 PM
The prick husband should let her parents decide.  He doesnt seem to give a crap.

Oh he gives a crap alright... She dies he gets insurance money.

From what I've heard the way she even got into this state is suspicous.

I say keep her alive she is still responding to the world around her in certain ways.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Dave from Michigan on March 18, 2005, 06:48:18 PM
I say kept her alive


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 18, 2005, 06:50:40 PM
Her husband wants her gone for money, and so he can live with his girlfriend in the house he bought with the money she won in a lawsuit.  He is a terrible person, and really shouldn't get to decide whether his wife, and I use that term losely.  

Disregarding everything, the women is being STARVED to death.  If the women should die, why not inject her with cyanide or something and kill her immediately.  This is a Pro-life/pro-euthanasia issue, but also an issue of starving a women to death for no crime other than having a bastard for a husband and getting hurt.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 18, 2005, 07:06:52 PM
By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 18, 2005, 07:09:07 PM
By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?

You could just remove her from life support, then you wouldn't be doing any action to specifically kill her.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Gabu on March 18, 2005, 07:11:52 PM
By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?

Not necessarily.  If someone, with no external assistance whatsoever, would die naturally, and is being kept alive solely through external intervention, and if that person has very little chance to ever be able to live without that assistance, it could scarcely be counted as murder to simply not give that intervention.

That said, I hardly think that letting someone starve to death is a humane way to let someone die.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 18, 2005, 07:12:12 PM
By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?

You could just remove her from life support, then you wouldn't be doing any action to specifically kill her.

Except starve her to death

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006442

Article by Peggy Noonan on this issue.  She raises an excellent point about the husband.  He seems to be quite set on killing his wife, but to what end?  He doesn't seem like the kind of person that is prepared to make a unbiased decision, especially when all he wants is money and to no longer be married to her.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: 7,052,770 on March 18, 2005, 08:27:46 PM
No reason not to let her live.  Weird stuff can happen in coma cases.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: angus on March 18, 2005, 08:49:14 PM
DONTGIVEAFLYING

youze really ought to remember to add that option in the future.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Cashcow on March 18, 2005, 08:49:40 PM
DONTGIVEAFLYING

youze really ought to remember to add that option in the future.

THE LANGUAGE IS BURNING MY EYES!!!!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: angus on March 18, 2005, 08:53:09 PM
DONTGIVEAFLYINGFUKK

youze really ought to remember to add that option in the future.

THE LANGUAGE IS BURNING MY EYES!!!!

maybe you got a little cum in it or something.

just kidding.  that's not a stab, just trying to see if his royal highness is paying attention.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: dazzleman on March 18, 2005, 09:14:06 PM
I have stated my views earlier.

I don't think extraordinary means should be used to keep people alive when they are functioning in a vegetative state, and there is no hope of reversal of that state.

However, I don't consider feeding somebody to be extraordinary means.  We have no right to starve her to death.  I would turn off respirators, discontinue medication if it were being used to keep her alive, etc., but cutting off food is in a different league.  That I would consider murder.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 18, 2005, 09:58:46 PM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: dazzleman on March 18, 2005, 10:50:56 PM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

So you'd just flat-out kill her, without even the pretense of calling the feeding tube extraordinary life support?

Unfortunately, our propensity to take life and death decisions into our own hands greatly exceeds our wisdom on how to handle these matters.

I also find it funny that people who are willing to flat-out kill Terry Schiavo would fight tooth and nail to prevent vicious murderers from receiving the death penalty.  Very strange political philosophy, this thing we call "liberalism."


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 18, 2005, 11:06:46 PM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 19, 2005, 12:07:21 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

So you'd just flat-out kill her, without even the pretense of calling the feeding tube extraordinary life support?

Unfortunately, our propensity to take life and death decisions into our own hands greatly exceeds our wisdom on how to handle these matters.

I also find it funny that people who are willing to flat-out kill Terry Schiavo would fight tooth and nail to prevent vicious murderers from receiving the death penalty.  Very strange political philosophy, this thing we call "liberalism."

I think you totally misunderstood me, as usual.

Either way, I am pro-death penalty.

Ooops, guess your endless liberal stereotyping doesn't always work.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 19, 2005, 12:09:54 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

Her cerebral cortex is full of spinal fluid....she's done, she's gone, it's over. She has no hope of recovery. Her brain will never fully function again.

Just like some on the left used Christopher Reeve's death for political purposes, you guys on the right are using this vegetable to advance your agenda.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 19, 2005, 12:13:34 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 19, 2005, 12:17:27 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 19, 2005, 12:21:26 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 19, 2005, 12:22:32 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 19, 2005, 12:25:26 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.

Once again, whatever state they are saying she is in, that has nothing to do with what you call her. I know you having difficulty understanding things I point out but this is not hard to comprehend.

I'm not using anyone for my political agenda, pal. Some of us actually do care.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: phk on March 19, 2005, 12:37:27 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.

Once again, whatever state they are saying she is in, that has nothing to do with what you call her. I know you having difficulty understanding things I point out but this is not hard to comprehend.

Okay, can you comprehend the the fact that medical professionals use the term vegetable for people in a vegetative state?

For example,  when a person is no longer considered as human but as a vegetable, then that person could be euthanized, like a sick animal or a diseased plant. The same is true when we think of the unborn child as a "embryo" or "the product of conception" rather than as a "baby".

Wasn't too tough was it?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 19, 2005, 12:42:22 AM
Quote

Okay, can you comprehend the the fact that medical professionals use the term vegetable for people in a vegetative state?

For example,  when a person is no longer considered as human but as a vegetable, then that person could be euthanized, like a sick animal or a diseased plant. The same is true when we think of the unborn child as a "fetus" or "the product of conception" rather than as a "baby".

It was not a respectful use of the term. I know people will refer to others as "vegetables" but I don't think dan used it in an appropriate way. This could also stem from dan's insensitive comments about the Pope's health when he said that he really didn't care and didn't want to hear about the man basically because it didn't concern him.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 19, 2005, 12:43:38 AM
Quote

Okay, can you comprehend the the fact that medical professionals use the term vegetable for people in a vegetative state?

For example,  when a person is no longer considered as human but as a vegetable, then that person could be euthanized, like a sick animal or a diseased plant. The same is true when we think of the unborn child as a "fetus" or "the product of conception" rather than as a "baby".

It was not a respectful use of the term. I know people will refer to others as "vegetables" but I don't think dan used it in an appropriate way. This could also stem from dan's insensitive comments about the Pope's health when he said that he really didn't care and didn't want to hear about the man basically because it didn't concern him.

This is how you derail debate. Semantics. Who gives a damn?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 19, 2005, 12:46:20 AM
Quote

Okay, can you comprehend the the fact that medical professionals use the term vegetable for people in a vegetative state?

For example,  when a person is no longer considered as human but as a vegetable, then that person could be euthanized, like a sick animal or a diseased plant. The same is true when we think of the unborn child as a "fetus" or "the product of conception" rather than as a "baby".

It was not a respectful use of the term. I know people will refer to others as "vegetables" but I don't think dan used it in an appropriate way. This could also stem from dan's insensitive comments about the Pope's health when he said that he really didn't care and didn't want to hear about the man basically because it didn't concern him.

This is how you derail debate. Semantics. Who gives a damn?

Debating (if you can even call it that) with you is always a good time. It consists mainly of me making a point and then you running away from it, always insisting that I am the one changing the discussion. But whatever. Continue the discussion. My position is clear: Let her live. She will be kept in my prayers.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Rob on March 19, 2005, 01:43:43 AM
I don't know what the big deal is. Dan just used the medically correct term, which in this case happens to be "vegetable", and you flipped out, Phil.

Political correctness is a growing problem on this forum.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 19, 2005, 01:45:23 AM
I'm glad to see that in America a dog is afforded a better death then a human being. Sick Sick world we live in.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 19, 2005, 01:57:59 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Sam Spade on March 19, 2005, 02:06:49 AM
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!  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.

What John Ford just said here.  Hits the nail on the head and describes the case to a tee.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: TheWildCard on March 19, 2005, 02:12:43 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 19, 2005, 02:27:15 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 19, 2005, 02:30:04 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Alcon on March 19, 2005, 02:32:26 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 19, 2005, 02:45:03 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Sam Spade on March 19, 2005, 02:58:35 AM
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.

Well to me the key thing is that Michael Schiavo testified that Terri Schiavo told her that she would want to die in that situation.  No written proof, no records, no nothing.

And the judge ruled that Terri Schiavo wanted to die based on what her husband said.  No written proof, no records, no nothing.

Simply ridiculous.  In any court of law, in anything.  I don't have to be a lawyer to recognize the craziness of that ruling.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Gabu on March 19, 2005, 03:23:51 AM
I should note that my response to Supersoulty wasn't an indication that I'm in favor of letting Teri (Terri?  Terry?  I've seen three different spellings...) die.

I've always been in favor of allowing euthenasia if the patient directly requests it, and my position does not change in this case.  Since Teri can't request it, I don't believe we should be pulling the proverbial plug.  We can speculate all we want, but in the end we don't know, and if it somehow comes to light that she did not, in fact, want to die, there is no going back if we do make the mistake of having her die.  We should wait until we know for sure.

As an aside, this is also the reason I'm against the death penalty, but that's another story that is probably not appropriate for this debate.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Smash255 on March 19, 2005, 04:15:31 AM
The prick husband should let her parents decide.  He doesnt seem to give a crap.

Oh he gives a crap alright... She dies he gets insurance money.

From what I've heard the way she even got into this state is suspicous.

I say keep her alive she is still responding to the world around her in certain ways.

The whole thing about the insurance $$ is a bunch of crap.  He was actually offered more $$$ to let her stay alive then he would ge if she dies and he turned it down


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: opebo on March 19, 2005, 05:19:20 AM
By "Let her die" you mean "Kill her", right?

You could just remove her from life support, then you wouldn't be doing any action to specifically kill her.

I think it would be much kinder to kill her using some sort of painless drugs than to let her die by removing life support or feeding tubes, whatever it is.  I think we all need to be a bit more honest about our mortality - we're all going to be dead soon enough, and 'life after death' is a nonsensical and psychologically self-serving fairy tale.  So lets just try to minimize pain and suffering.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: dazzleman on March 19, 2005, 05:47:31 AM
Terri Schiavo is not on life support.  She's only on a feeding tube, as I understand it, and I don't consider feeding somebody to be extraordinary means of life support.  We all eat.

If she had a living will that said she didn't want a feeding tube, then it would be different.  But she doesn't.

If she were in a position to request that the feeding tube be removed, then it would be a different situation.  But she isn't.

I don't think any of us has the right to take it upon ourselves to take proactive measure to kill her, and removing the feeding tube is tantamount to that.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: dazzleman on March 19, 2005, 05:55:09 AM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

So you'd just flat-out kill her, without even the pretense of calling the feeding tube extraordinary life support?

Unfortunately, our propensity to take life and death decisions into our own hands greatly exceeds our wisdom on how to handle these matters.

I also find it funny that people who are willing to flat-out kill Terry Schiavo would fight tooth and nail to prevent vicious murderers from receiving the death penalty.  Very strange political philosophy, this thing we call "liberalism."

I think you totally misunderstood me, as usual.

Either way, I am pro-death penalty.

Ooops, guess your endless liberal stereotyping doesn't always work.

As usual?  In case you haven't noticed, I don't respond to your posts that often, because you seem to know a lot that isn't true, and it isn't worth my energy to argue with a closed mind.

I read your words again, and it still seems to me that you favor administering a lethal injection to Terry Schiavo over taking out her feeding tube.  I don't favor either option.  And your rude response to me didn't explain your position.  You simply used your usual arrogant posturing to say I was wrong, without pointing out exactly where.

As far my death penalty goes, I was making a general comment, not talking about your own politics.  I only know that you hate white southerners.  And it's perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned to talk about general liberal positions.  I don't think I have to make sure that every single liberal on God's green earth agrees with this position before I state it. 

The fact is that liberals in general favor killing Terri Schiavo, however you want to phrase it, and liberals in general are likely to oppose doing the same thing to vicious killers.  Your arrogant tone cannot obfuscate this basic fact.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 19, 2005, 06:40:11 AM
I haven't voted but I will say that I would never want to live like that

Dave


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: dazzleman on March 19, 2005, 07:04:18 AM
I haven't voted but I will say that I would never want to live like that

Dave
Neither would I.  But does that mean we have the right to take active measures to kill her?  There are lots of people living in ways I wouldn't want to live, but I don't favor active measures to kill them.

I think there's a line between withholding extraordinary life support (which I have personally done), which is a passive way of allowing somebody to die without prolonging it more than necessary, and taking active measures to kill somebody.  I think that effectively starving a person to death, who is surviving without any life support other than food, is tantamount to taking active measures to kill her.

I think we have to be very careful about taking life decisions into our own hands.  As I said earlier, I could accept it if she were able to state a preference, but she is not.

She deserves to be made as comfortable as possible, and then let nature take its course.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 19, 2005, 07:18:05 AM
Don't know to be honest. Starving someone to death is immoral though. As is playing politics with it.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: YRABNNRM on March 19, 2005, 08:27:40 AM
Just keep it out of congress.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 19, 2005, 11:42:00 AM
Someone should have the guts to just take the husband out of the picture. If he can't make the decision, her parents would be able to.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: senatortombstone on March 19, 2005, 11:45:47 AM
From what I ahve heard, there is virtually no money left for the husband to enjoy, it was all spent on her care.

I have heard that the husband may havehad something to do with her condition and that is why he so eagerly wants to pull the plug.  I don't see him as the loving type.

This girl definately has some level of choerent thought. HEr responses to various stimuli are proof of that.  There have been people who have
been in her same condition and have come out of it.  There is still hope.

Don't get me wrong at first  I wthought that she should just be put out of her misery and that she was a vegetable.  I realize now that that isn't the case.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: angus on March 19, 2005, 12:08:22 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 19, 2005, 02:33:29 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 19, 2005, 02:57:47 PM
Well, the religious right viciously attacked Kevorkian too. I agree that letting her starve to death is a little inhumane -- although she probably won't feel it. But the radical right feels that it's a more natural process then simply injecting her with something and letting her go quietly.

This woman is not brain dead or in a coma.  I'm 100% sure that if you stuck a hot iron against her skin, she would feel and react to pain.  If a dog was starved, it would feel and react to the pain and agony of getting starved.  I can't do this kind of crap to my pets, or any animal or I'd go to jail. Why is it now alright to do this to a human being.

And dazzleman, I agree about extroidinary measures.  Feeding tube is ok, but if they're on a respirator, it's time to give it up and let natural death take its course. 

are using this vegetable

How respectful, you piece of trash.

Umm....her official condition is a "persistent vegetative state"!

The trash in this situation is the radical right who are using Shiavo to advance their political agenda. It was wrong when the left did it with Reeves, and it's wrong here.



I don't care what her condition is. Don't refer to her as 'this vegetable."

"Persistent vegetative state"

Don't use her to advance your political agenda, which is far worse.

So we aren't allowed to use real life examples to support what we believe in theory?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: MAS117 on March 19, 2005, 02:59:10 PM
Undecided.

Normally I'd say let her die, but theres something really fishy about this one.
DITTO


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: angus on March 19, 2005, 03:03:14 PM
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.

yeah, I think that's what bothers folks.  makes him look like he's in for the money.  I'm suggesting that he may not be eligible for the anullment under normal considerations, and if a judge offered a "special" circumstance anullment, and he took it, it'd settle that question once and for all.

When we were kids we'd all say, Hey man if I ever get so decrepit I can't wipe my own ass I want somebody to pull the plug.  That's a very easy thing to say when you're running in the fields in good health and without a care in the world. 


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 19, 2005, 03:49:49 PM
I just realized how badly I butchered the word "including" in my last post.  Now that was a typo.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: angus on March 19, 2005, 03:51:39 PM
LOL.  I thought that was some fancy lawyer acronym.  figured I'd think about it for a while.  I'm glad you posted, as I'd have been preoccupied with this all day.  Sad, but true.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WalterMitty on March 19, 2005, 05:47:18 PM
what a horrible issue for the republicans to play politics with.

i personally dont care one way or the other.  if it were me, id just want to die.

by the way, when did republicans become such big fans of judicial activism? 


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 19, 2005, 06:43:07 PM
what a horrible issue for the republicans to play politics with.

i personally dont care one way or the other.  if it were me, id just want to die.

by the way, when did republicans become such big fans of judicial activism? 

So to you a dog deserves a painless death yet a HUMAN BEING should dehydrate to death? Do you see something wrong with this? Or are you just a heartless bastard?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 19, 2005, 06:45:04 PM
what a horrible issue for the republicans to play politics with.

i personally dont care one way or the other.  if it were me, id just want to die.

by the way, when did republicans become such big fans of judicial activism? 

So to you a dog deserves a painless death yet a HUMAN BEING should dehydrate to death? Do you see something wrong with this? Or are you just a heartless bastard?

Walter's proved himself to be a heartless bastard recently.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 19, 2005, 06:47:55 PM
by the way, when did republicans become such big fans of judicial activism? 

Oh and the REPUBLICANS are big fans of judicial activism? As I recall the judge based his whole judgement on HEARSAY. That judge is absolutely useless in my opinion.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: MN--Troy on March 19, 2005, 07:16:04 PM
From what I ahve heard, there is virtually no money left for the husband to enjoy, it was all spent on her care.

Actually very little was spent on her care. According to court records, only $50,000 of the $700,000 trust fund has been used for her care. The majority of the trust money has been used to pay Michael's lawyers, over $350,000, to end her life.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: PBrunsel on March 19, 2005, 07:22:05 PM
I believe that the women deserves to live. It is not in the hand of doctors or judges to see who may live and who may die.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: opebo on March 20, 2005, 07:18:39 AM
What does 'deserving' have to do with it?  Plenty of people starve to death in the streets all the time, or die of lack of medical care, and no one worries about what they 'deserve'.

The only reason the Right is interested in this woman is it suits their ratings (FOX) and popularity due to outrage (GOP).  If she didn't have insurance they'd want her disconnected ASAP.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: George W. Bush on March 20, 2005, 09:48:05 AM

She is going to be Starving to death! She will not go in peace.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: dazzleman on March 20, 2005, 10:05:31 AM
I believe that the women deserves to live. It is not in the hand of doctors or judges to see who may live and who may die.

It's not an issue of whether she deserves to live.  She is not on life support, and I think it absolutely wrong to take active measures, such as denying food, to kill somebody who is surviving without life support.  So in that sense, she deserves to live, because she has lived without anything more than the rest of us need - food and water.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Cashcow on March 20, 2005, 01:30:18 PM

She is going to be Starving to death! She will not go in peace.

Well, they obviously shouldn't do that.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: George W. Bush on March 20, 2005, 06:06:42 PM

She is going to be Starving to death! She will not go in peace.

Well, they obviously shouldn't do that.

Well, Do you know anything about the case? That is what they are doing..


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Cashcow on March 20, 2005, 06:08:04 PM
Yes, I understand the case, and I don't think they should be doing that. There's really no reason to keep her alive, in my opinion, but if she's going to die she should die quickly and peacefully.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ian on March 21, 2005, 01:23:59 AM
Keep her alive/D


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Ebowed on March 21, 2005, 01:26:46 AM
Same.

No human being is a vegetable!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 21, 2005, 01:27:26 AM

Where in the heck is your version of the Democratic party I can join?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Ebowed on March 21, 2005, 01:30:02 AM

Where in the heck is your version of the Democratic party I can join?
Since around 1980 or so my version of the Democratic party hasn't existed.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 21, 2005, 01:32:30 AM

Where in the heck is your version of the Democratic party I can join?
Since around 1980 or so my version of the Democratic party hasn't existed.

Yes, I know I'm just kidding. It's sad really that the hippies took over your party or I could very well have been a Democrat today.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2005, 06:03:37 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Tory on March 21, 2005, 11:22:32 AM
(I) Keep her alive.

Why not let her parents care for her? It doesn't hurt anyone. The only people who need to be "let go" are those advocating her death.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Wakie on March 21, 2005, 12:01:29 PM
This is really a tough call.  I hope we can all agree that if she were conscious that we would follow whatever decision she wanted (whether it was to live or die).

But since she isn't and probably will never be, then who is guardian of a disabled adult?  Who gets the say?  While I believe we should do whatever possible to save a person's life I also believe that a spouse's authority on such matters supercedes the authority of a parent.

Unfortunately we're never going to know what Ms Schiavo wanted.  If her parents have some new evidence then I'm in favor of keeping her alive until such time as said evidence can be reviewed before a court to determine its validity.  But if not then I believe we should let Ms Schiavo go unto the kingdom of God.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2005, 12:05:55 PM
This is really a tough call.  I hope we can all agree that if she were conscious that we would follow whatever decision she wanted (whether it was to live or die).

But since she isn't and probably will never be, then who is guardian of a disabled adult?  Who gets the say?  While I believe we should do whatever possible to save a person's life I also believe that a spouse's authority on such matters supercedes the authority of a parent.

Unfortunately we're never going to know what Ms Schiavo wanted.  If her parents have some new evidence then I'm in favor of keeping her alive until such time as said evidence can be reviewed before a court to determine its validity.  But if not then I believe we should let Ms Schiavo go unto the kingdom of God.

I am forced to reluctantly agree with Wakie; the spouse's rights (rightly or wrongly) supersede the parent's rights.  It might be reasonable because she chose the spouse and didn't choose her parents.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Inverted Things on March 21, 2005, 01:32:52 PM
I have to say that this is an interesting discussion. The options are basically LET her live and LET her die. In other words, we are playing god.

As for me, I have no opinion. I simply don't wish to play god.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 21, 2005, 04:35:36 PM
In our society, we get to play God occasionally.  It's generally called "medical advancements."


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Platypus on March 21, 2005, 05:49:48 PM
Alive. Its the husbands' word versus the families, how can we make a judgement on that?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 21, 2005, 05:52:25 PM
The House vote last night was absolutely hilarious.  With Hastert completely ignoring Barney Frank when Frank wanted a aye/nay vote instead of the voice vote.  He got it anyway though.  Steny Hoyer also made an excellent speech, and Tom DeLay got up and spoke for about 15 seconds and all he said was that the bickering in the house had already cost Ms. Schiavo 2 meals that day.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Ebowed on March 21, 2005, 06:03:10 PM
Anyone know how Dennis Kucinich voted?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 21, 2005, 06:05:56 PM
Anyone know how Dennis Kucinich voted?

He didn't


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 21, 2005, 09:35:46 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 21, 2005, 09:36:58 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jake on March 21, 2005, 09:37:39 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 21, 2005, 09:40:13 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 22, 2005, 01:02:36 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!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 22, 2005, 01:05:51 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 22, 2005, 01:15:57 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: A18 on March 22, 2005, 01:20:59 AM
Name one violation of states' rights I support.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: A18 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: A18 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ 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?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: A18 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 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


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Wakie 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?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Bono 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Bono 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: 7,052,770 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Brandon H 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. 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
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.


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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke 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
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.


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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Blerpiez 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. 


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan 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


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Wakie 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
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.

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
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.

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!?!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Redefeatbush04 on March 22, 2005, 04:09:34 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke 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
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.

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
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.

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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Wakie 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke 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!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Wakie on March 22, 2005, 06:24:12 PM
Wakie, she's aware and has repeatedly responded to multiple various stimuli.

So says you.  But there are several physicians who say otherwise!

Quote
US laws do not allow physicians to allow patients to die with dignity.

That is exactly what I said.  Go back and read my post.

Quote
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 man said Terry wouldn't want to be kept alive this way.  He's been fighting for years to let her die.  He's been told that she isn't going to recover.  That she isn't coming back.  But you criticize him for finding a new life but still fighting to honor her wish to die with dignity.  His situation is not ideal.  But imagine your wife had told you she wouldn't want to be kept alive.  Now you're fighting with her parents and the federal govt over the issue.  And you're being criticized for having found a new life!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: danwxman on March 22, 2005, 08:14:07 PM
Wakie, she's aware and has repeatedly responded to multiple various stimuli.

Not really. Did you see the video where she supposedly follows the Mickey Mouse balloon? Well, the father actually moved it over her face six times. Her eyes only followed it one of those times (and you can barely notice)...but they use that one time as evidence that she responds to stimuli and ignore the other five times she didn't flinch.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 22, 2005, 08:39:43 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 22, 2005, 09:23:02 PM
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. 


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 22, 2005, 10:43:08 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Sam Spade on March 23, 2005, 12:37:41 AM
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...


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Rob on March 23, 2005, 01:32:51 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 23, 2005, 01:34:38 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Rob on March 23, 2005, 01:38:13 AM
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.

*Shrug* I don't care either way. Hopefully once she dies, the whole thing will be forgotten.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 23, 2005, 01:57:52 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 23, 2005, 01:59:14 AM
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.

Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Sam Spade on March 23, 2005, 02:01:54 AM
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.

Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.

What changed that?  I honestly don't know much Florida law.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 23, 2005, 02:03:04 AM
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.

Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.

What changed that?  I honestly don't know much Florida law.

I'm not sure. I caught it on the radio.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 23, 2005, 02:06:37 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 02:11:17 AM

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.

Quote
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.

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.





Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 23, 2005, 02:14:44 AM
Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.
What changed that?  I honestly don't know much Florida law.
It was another right-to-die case that determined that particular issue about 10 years ago.  Before them, it was an undefined issue.  A similar ruling is effect in the UK but I don't know which side of the pond decided the issue first.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 02:18:34 AM
Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.
What changed that?  I honestly don't know much Florida law.
It was another right-to-die case that determined that particular issue about 10 years ago.  Before them, it was an undefined issue.  A similar ruling is effect in the UK but I don't know which side of the pond decided the issue first.

The determination was decided by the House of Lords in 1993, but the feeding tubes were not ordered removed until 1998.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 23, 2005, 03:20:26 AM
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.

Quote
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.

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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 08:45:34 AM

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.

I'm far from pretending that is "open and shut," but I do note that "evidence" presented so far that Mrs. Shaivo is cognative does not prove that.  Everything presented is consistant with a PVS.  The conclusion that it is is not merely supported by her current doctors, who are being paid by Mr. Shaivo, but by those independent doctors appointed by the court.  No, not "open and shut," but the preponderance of expert evidence is in that it is a PVS.

This is a single judge, but a series of judges.  The case was appealed, ultimately to the FL Supreme Court, and upheld.  Now, we are at a point where a Federal Judge has said that this does not violate due process and a panel of the Appeals Court saying the same thing.

You've made several interesting arguments:

1.  Mr. Shaivo is doing this solely for money for so that he can marry someone else.  False, as he could get more money, or end the relationship more quickly though other means.

2.  Mrs. Shaivo reactions are evidence that she isn't in a PVS.  False, as these are common in PVS cases.

3.  Mrs. Shaivo was deprived of due process.  False, as she went through an appeals process through the appeal process to the FL Supreme Court and now in Federal Courts.  The unanimity of the courts, to date, has been suprising.

You need evidence to support these cllaims, but it's not there.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 23, 2005, 03:48:36 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: migrendel on March 23, 2005, 04:33:22 PM
I must say, this particular Punch and Judy show would be very amusing in its own ridiculousness if it were not for the things at stake.

The issue of whether or not Ms. Schiavo can have her tube withdrawn is not an unresolved controversy. That issue was resolved in the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Public Health. Nor is the issue of the primacy of her spouse over her parents one that needs attention. It has been established at common law for centuries. The only remaining issue is whether her consent is adequate to withdraw the tube. That matter is clearly within the jurisdiction of state court, and it appalls me that the Congress sees fit to involve itself in such a matter of familial privacy and personal liberty.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: opebo on March 23, 2005, 04:43:18 PM
Welcome back midgrendell.  I think we can all agree this congress is an appalling thing.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 05:04:24 PM
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.

Totally false, because I am both sole heir and beneficiary of someone I have guardianship over.

Here the reference you made, yesterday regarding Mr. Shaivo's financial situation:

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.

Now, if he wished the money, there are quicker and cheaper methods of getting it.

Quote
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.

False again from the descriptions on the sites cited.  The possibility also exists that Mrs. Shiavo may not wish to live in a state of profound mental disability, so even though there is no real evidence against a PVS, it might not be necessary to show the disability is that great to trigger removal.  My own living will actually uses the term "irreversible brain damage or brain disease with no realistic hope of significant recovery," which would include this situation.  Assuming, as the courts have, that Mrs. Shiavo did not want to exist in this type of condition, whether or not it is PVS or a lesser condition, really makes no difference.

Quote
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 courts, the Florida trial court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court, and now the Federal District and Appeals Courts, have looked at the due process arguments and determined that she did; under our system of government, it is their call.  They are the ones that get to make the 14th Amendment call, and they have, repeatedly.

You so far have ignored the descriptions of the medical conditions and the role of the courts in making your arguments.  You have also ignored your own previous posts.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: migrendel on March 23, 2005, 05:07:40 PM
One would be hard-pressed to deny that Ms. Schiavo had her day in court. Actually, she had quite a few of them, all reaching the same obvious conclusion.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J.R. Brown on March 23, 2005, 05:11:00 PM
I think this whole debate is horrendous. It should be up to her mother and father, who conceived her, not her husband and certainly not the United States Government on what should be done pertaining to the situation she's in rights now. I can't believe the government is deciding who should live and die now. What's next?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 05:26:22 PM
I think this whole debate is horrendous. It should be up to her mother and father, who conceived her, not her husband and certainly not the United States Government on what should be done pertaining to the situation she's in rights now. I can't believe the government is deciding who should live and die now. What's next?

I believe that the spouse takes precedent in all states, followed by adult children, then parents. 

One very good reason is that, we choose our spouses and we, at some level, choose to have children, at least we choose to commit an act that produces them.  I had absolutely no choice in who my parents were; except in adoption, in some cases, no one ever chose their parents.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 23, 2005, 06:31:22 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Wakie on March 23, 2005, 07:29:56 PM
I think this whole debate is horrendous. It should be up to her mother and father, who conceived her, not her husband and certainly not the United States Government on what should be done pertaining to the situation she's in rights now. I can't believe the government is deciding who should live and die now. What's next?

I agree with you that the government should not be making the decision.  But I disagree that the parents' authority supercedes the spouse's.  Just because you conceived a child doesn't mean you own it.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 07:43:30 PM
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.

Well, John FALSE, there you go again.  

You've made the argument that there is a "conflict of interest," and that the courts don't permit this.  Wrong, and I'm aware of this because I've been through this process.  The people with the greatest stand to sue a gruardian are the heirs, claiming that the money was mispent.  Unless Mrs. Shiavo has a will naming another heir(s), Mr. Shiavo is the heir and would have standing to sue anyone else appointed guardian (basically for failing conserve estate assets).

You've claimed that the is some sort "conflict," involving an insurance policy.  Assuming it exists, Mr. Shiavo is in a position where he could sue for divorce and claim at least part of the policy in the settlement.  He could also sell the rights to policy, even without divorce, and get part of the policy.  He would not need court action and could probably get $300-400 K very quickly.  Instead, he's spent something in that range and delayed any payment for ten years.  

Unless Mr. Shiavo can't do math, he'd have to know that this is a more expensive and time consuming way.  He could just just walk away with the money, but he hasn't.  The reason is most probably is that he wants to carry out his wife's wishes.

I don't hide behind the courts, but the courts are constitutional branch of government that determines any violations of due process, not John D. FALSE.  The Article III of the Constitution does not grant judicial power to John D. FALSE.  It gives this authority to the judiciary; why don't you support the US Consititution, upon which each judge, member of the Florida Legislature, Member of Congress and the President take an oath to preserve potect and defend?

I have demostrated that the "evidence" you claim shows that she is not in a PVS, is consistent with someone in a PVS.  That does not prove that she is in a PVS, but it isn't evidence, as you've claimed John D. FALSE, that she isn't in a PVS.  We also do not have a claim, so far as I know, that she ever said, "Only stop my body function if I'm in an  irreversible coma or a PVS."  It tends to be more general than that, like "I don't want to live with severe brain damage."  That would be inclusive, but not limited to, a PVS.  The key is to determine if this condition is within the zone of conditions in which she wanted her body to stop functioning.

Why do feel a need to advocate violating the only wishes that there is any evidence that  Mrs. Shiavo expressed?  He parents are not stepping up and testifying that they had conversations with her where she favored these extreme means.  Other people, who were closer to her, are testifying that she didn't.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 23, 2005, 08:43:51 PM
According MSNBC:

76% of Conservatives, 72% of Republicans, and 68% of Evangelical Christians oppose the Congressional intervention.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6873319/

I wonder how many Democrats and others are; we see a rallying point?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 12:47:52 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 01:55:18 AM
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 started it with this quote:

JJ, you're so dishonest its not even funny. 

Now, I've accused you of being incorrect, false, but not that you had been dishonest, John D. FALSE.  If you start it, I will finish it John D. FALSE.

Quote

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.


You have said that this is a ground for being removed, not that the courts have the power to do so.  In the few cases where I have seen legal guardianship, they guardian is usually either an heir or a financial institution controlling the assets of the incompetent person.  My durable power of attorney is held by my principle heir (guardianship would not be needed).  There is  nothing uncommon about it nor is it a conflict of interest; it is customary.

Quote

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.


Your claim does not costitute evidence.  I have seen blogs suggesting it, but nothing in court records or disclosed as of this point.  The blogs state a "few hundred thousand" in insurance, not the "million" that you claim.  I've seen references to his attorney denying it and I heard the court appointed guardian (appointed under the unconstitutional statute) who said that there wasn't any.  Abran's was the show, I believe.

If it exists, post the amount and the company with some evidence.  It may exist and it may not; I would like to see evidence that it does.

Quote
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.

Or he was trying all options until he reached the final decision.  Mr. Shiavo agressively pushed for therapy for  years, and even took nursing courses to help her recovery (according to the guardian again); that isn't exactly the actions of someone trying to kill his wife.

Quote
The Constitution gave the courts the power to interpret law, and guess what, [John D. FALSE's tasteless comment, indicating his ignorance, and mental degeneracy deleted]! 

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[emphasis added] if you didn't see that one coming.

And you are an idiot you can't type "idiiot." (couldn't resist)  In case you don't remember, the Court did rule segreation in 1896. 

You are entitled to you opion and you are free to say, "The courts errored."  You are not free to claim as fact, something that isn't fact, at least with me around.  The Courts determine this, not you.  You can no more claim that due process was being violated than you can claim that you can declare war.  To claim that you can do either would lead to serious questions about your sanity.


Quote
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.

No, you've proved that her automatic neurologic system is working.  The information has been posted, by myself and others.  That is relevent to a PVS, because, people in a PVS react like that.  It a bit like saying, "Her heart is beating, so she's not in a PVS."

Quote

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 claim of Mr. Shiavo is the one piece of evidence of any intent on Mrs Shiavo's part; there is no evidence, however, to contradict that piece of evidence.  There may be more, and I'll look.
Quote


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 24, 2005, 01:58:36 AM
Why do some resort to idiotic bolded names once they have lost a debate?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 02:39:25 AM

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.

Here it is:

As a result, Greer ruled that the statement that she "would not want to be kept alive artificially" -- which Terri allegedly made in the presence of her husband, brother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife -- was Terri's only adult comment on the matter.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qFsz7jSYDUgJ:www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200503/NAT20050321a.html+%22Schiavo%22+%22brother-in-law%22+testified&hl=en

Felos also said Terri Schiavo told her best friend, brother-in-law and uncle that she would never want to be kept alive in this type of scenario.

Outside court, Felos told reporters that Terri Schiavo long ago made clear her wishes: "She said, 'I don't want to be kept alive artificially -- no tubes for me. I want to go when my time comes. Take the tubes and everything out.'"


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/

There is some additional evidence that she made these statements.  Now, when she was 12, she made a different statement, but these are her's as an adult.

Now, there is some evidence that these were her wish; there is no evidence to the contrary.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Beet on March 24, 2005, 02:42:52 AM
Who cares? IMHO, this is a private matter for the family and preferably the least amount of government/public intervention as possible.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 02:43:08 AM
Why do some resort to idiotic bolded names once they have lost a debate?

Because when people deliberately make false statements and accuse other people of dishonesty, they should be called on it.

You will note that I'm bipartisan when I do it.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 04:48:12 AM
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?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 24, 2005, 04:56:19 AM
What I oppose the most about the Congressional intervention is the giant waste of time on a woman who is a compete vegtable, rather than focusing on skyrocketing deficits, health care costs, war for the wrong reasons in Iraq, genocide in the Sudan, the environment, or any number of other important issues. Instead they are wasting time on this crap to distract people from the real issues, and to keep the right-wing "pro-life" (does not apply to the death penalty, Iraqis, or those with no health care coverage) base happy.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Akno21 on March 24, 2005, 06:51:20 AM
This is not the current argument, but can she feel the pain that a healthy human being would if they were being starved to death? Or is not painful for her.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 11:25:23 AM

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.

First, you have claim here that he should be removed because of, among other things, "financial conflict."  As you have just admited, that is not grounds, on it own, for removal.  I have pointed out, and you seem to agree, that it is customary to be heirs to the person that they are guardians of. 

Further, you have assumed that there would be great financial gain for Mr Shiavo, whem Mrs. Shiavo dies.  It doesn't appear so.  Certainly, the legal costs of doing this for him would less than those than in divorcing Mrs. Shiavo.  Further, people have offered him money to walk away, which he has rejected.  These are not the actions of someone who wants money.

Quote
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.

That some blogger accepts it as fact does not make it as fact.  Certainly that you claim it, does not make it fact (and might even make more dubious). Even the blogger sources that I've seen list it as as "hundreds of thousands," not a million or $1.2 million.

What credible evidence do you have that this policy exists?  Is there a legitimate news source that reported it, not a blogger or someone who "thinks" it "may" exist.

I did look and I couldn't find it.

Quote
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.

As just posted, there is evidence of it.  I will ask again, where is the evidence that she didn't wish this.  If she was close to her parents, why didn't she ever discuss this with them.  There is evidence that she


Quote
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. 

You didn't, in your post claim it was you opinion that the courts errored.  You claimed that she wasn't.  The group that makes that decision, constutionally, is the judiciary.  The judiciary, now including SCOTUS, has determined that there was little chance to find in favor of a due process argument.  No Justice of that Court filed a dissent.

Now, who should I believe as to if due process has been been denied.  John D. FALSE or the the Federal District Court, 11th Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court.  The former had given me reasons to question his credibility in this matter.

Quote
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.

It is in certain cases, at least according to Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition, p. 722).  The judge found it admissible and his decision was upheld in the state courts.

Now, I would like to see counter evidence.  Where are the witnesses to Mrs. Shiavo statements, as an adult, that she wanted to be kept alive by these measures?  Cite it please, if it exists.

Quote
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.

The testimony of the twelve doctors that were independently appointed by the court do not agree with this.  They examined her; these others didn't.  I must admit to being  suspicious of experts hired by either side; people do go "expert" shopping, and may tend to hire someone that would share their views*.  In the case of the court appointed doctors, these were not "bought" by either side.  I also have the opinion of the court appointed guardian under "Terri's Law," who said that he observed nothing that wasn't reflex.  He was with her for 30 days.

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

I'm not very much concerned with any "hit" taken here.  I am ultimately more concerned with holding truth and justice above party ideology.  I'm saddened by those posters that choose not to do the same thing (and I'm saddened by those people in the other party who attempt to do this as well). 

I will again ask, though I don't expect an answer:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

I'm looking for evidence, not speculation.  I will look at the evidence, when presented.

*Just as a note, I do not believe that experts are "bought."  I do believe that any side will tend to hire those expects that support that side's opinion.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 24, 2005, 12:14:47 PM
Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit.

On the NBC Nighty News either last night or the night before they mentioned that reward in their coverage.  $300,000 went directly to him for the mental anguish of being deprived of his wife’s companionship (or some similar psychobabble) and the other $700,000 was for Terri's medical care.  NBC indicated that is believed that of that $700,000, roughly $40,000 is left, so even if that money went to him, that’s hardly a significant sum of money compared to $1,000,000 I’ve heard he was offered if he would step aside and left her parents keep the body.  Between $40,000 or $1,000,000, if he were motivated by money which one should he have picked?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 12:29:09 PM
Also in question is a malpractice award worth $1 million a sum Michael Schaivo stands to inherit.

On the NBC Nighty News either last night or the night before they mentioned that reward in their coverage.  $300,000 went directly to him for the mental anguish of being deprived of his wife’s companionship (or some similar psychobabble) and the other $700,000 was for Terri's medical care.  NBC indicated that is believed that of that $700,000, roughly $40,000 is left, so even if that money went to him, that’s hardly a significant sum of money compared to $1,000,000 I’ve heard he was offered if he would step aside and left her parents keep the body.  Between $40,000 or $1,000,000, if he were motivated by money which one should he have picked?

That's a lot of the motivation problem.  I heard blogger claims that there is an insurance policy on Mrs. Shiavo, range from between "a few hundred thousand" to "$1.2 million."  I have not been able to find proof.

The problem is, there were ways for Mr. Shiavo to "sell" the rights to any policy, get the cash, and divorce her.  He could have walked away more quickly and without spending the money that he has on lawsuits.

It's very hard to legitimately claim the motive is financial.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: © tweed on March 24, 2005, 12:53:30 PM
Who is currently paying for her feeding tube?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 01:17:25 PM
Who is currently paying for her feeding tube?

She is, in a manner of speaking.  It's commining out of the settlement funds.  Now, Mr. Shiavo is the person administrating that money.

Quite possibly, he is sole heir to that money, so ultimately, he is spending his inheritance.  Ah, if someone else would be the heir, they could possibly sue to remove the tube, claiming it was a waste of assets.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 04:02:55 PM
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.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 05:45:00 PM
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.

What I've said is that Hearsay is admissible in some cases, as a matter of law; you have a quote from Black's Law as well.  Appearently, this is one of those cases.  I do consider the judge, and those other judges reviewing the case, to be substantially able to make that determination; they are certainly more capable of either one of us.

Quote
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).

No, I ask you to prodce some evidence that Mrs. Shiavo wanted to be kept alive in this situation.  I am not asking you to  prove that didn't mean what she said, or that she didn't say this.  I am asking for some evidence or statement, as an adult, that would serve as a counterweight to this testimony.  I have not seen any evidence to that effect.  Would you produce some?  Did you speak with her prior to her illness; are you "channeling" her?

Quote
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.

I requested that you produce evidence of the "life insurance policy."  The only thing that I could find were comments from bloggers, but no actual press reports nor court filings.  Here is what you've said:


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. 


Here are two things that I have found. the first is from CNN:

Google cache (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:4NxKBqg1WD0J:www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/C71187/+schiavo+%22life+insurance%22&hl=en)

"It's not about the money," said Schiavo, who said he will not receive any life insurance money upon Terri's death. "This is about Terry. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about the legislators, it's not about me, it's about what Terry Schiavo wanted."

Schiavo, now a father in another relationship, said he would not give guardianship to the Schindlers because of her father's earlier testimony.

"Mr. Schindler testified in court ... to keep Terri alive he would cut her arms and legs off and put her on a ventilator just to keep her alive. So why would I give her to a man that would do that to you?" Schiavo said.



This is from a Court TV interview with an appelate attorney in FL, with no connection to the case, and someone not taking sides, but who has followed the case, named Matt Conigliaro:

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2005/0321schiavo-conigliaro.html

Question from daleeff: Does Terri's husband have a large life insurance policy on Terri?

Matt Conigliaro: It appears there is no money to be inherited. The money from the malpractice suit was down to about $50,000 as of 2003. It's believed now that there's nothing left. I've never heard anyone involved in the case suggest that there is a life insurance policy.



This is far different from your claim that, "There is a dollar life insurance policy on Terri Schaivo worth an estimated $1 million (Some estimates go to $1.2 million)."  While I have seen bloggers mention it, including yourself, I could not find any news story that supports this claim.  Were is the evidence, other than in the mind of bloggers?  I have been unable to find it; could you produce it? 

That you believe it isn't evidence of the existence of the policy, only perhaps evidence of your ideology, gullibility, and/or honesty

Now, I'll ask the questions again:

1.  Do you have any evidence that Mrs. Shiavo ever expressed, as an adult to be kept alive in a diminished mental state that would require feeding?
(Note that I am asking for evidence that she did something, not for evidence that she not do something)

2.  Do you have any evidence that Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy on Mrs. Shiavo, from some credible source, like a news story or a court filing, not from bloggers' comments?  If so, how much?  (Note that I am asking you to produce evidence of that policy, not prove that this policy does not exist).

There can be no question; these are both questions of sources and it possible to prove in the affirmative.  Please provide the evidence.

Fixed the link to avoid a horizontal scroll bar. -Alcon


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 06:31:21 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 07:00:32 PM
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.

Well, as pointed out, we also have evidence from two other people; her brother-in-law and sister-in-law also testifed.  On the side arguing against it, from Terri Shaivo's adult life, we have:

Quote








We are looking at evidence as to her wishes, and all of that, as an adult, is in favor of removing the feeding and hydration tubes.  That's it.  All the eviidence points to it.

Quote
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.

Here the rule for hearsay evidence: 

Quote
Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803


Now, whatever her medical state, no one is claiming that she can testify.  He parents' argument is one of "We don't think she would want this."  That isn't hearsay; that's the parents expressing their opinion.  It is just as valid as me saying, "I'm from the same generation Terri and she would want the tubes pulled."

The law is clear and the courts have, 21 times, not interpreted differently; they have the constitutional authority to interpret it.  Now, if there was some evidence, as an adult, that Mrs. Shiavo said something differently, I might give a different answer.  There is not a shread of evidence to that effect, so far as I can tell.  We don't even have a word, much less sworn testimony, that casts any the statements made by Mr. Shaivo, et al.

I will ask you the same questions as before:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 07:54:46 PM
Aha!  We have found the explaination for Michael Schiavo's sudden change of heart!

Schiavo never mentioned Terri's supposed desire to die until 1997, and now we know why no such claim was made.  He filed a lawsuit, malpractice, against her gynecologist in 1995.  He demanded $20 million, claiming that this is what would be needed to care for Terri based on estimates that assumed that a woman in he condition had a life expectancy of living until 51.  Of course, Michael has made sure she doesn't reach that age.  He did not recieve $20 million, but somewhere between $1 and $2 million.

Later that year, Michael became engaged to his new girlfriend.

Shortly after basing his demand for relief on Terri's natural life expectancy, he got a new lawyer, George Felos, who has made his name litigating right to die cases.  Michael suddenly began telling the story of how his wife wanted to die if in a situation like this.

Cash in, get out, marry the new broad.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 08:26:35 PM
Aha!  We have found the explaination for Michael Schiavo's sudden change of heart!

Schiavo never mentioned Terri's supposed desire to die until 1997, and now we know why no such claim was made.  He filed a lawsuit, malpractice, against her gynecologist in 1995.  He demanded $20 million, claiming that this is what would be needed to care for Terri based on estimates that assumed that a woman in he condition had a life expectancy of living until 51.  Of course, Michael has made sure she doesn't reach that age.  He did not recieve $20 million, but somewhere between $1 and $2 million.

Later that year, Michael became engaged to his new girlfriend.

Shortly after basing his demand for relief on Terri's natural life expectancy, he got a new lawyer, George Felos, who has made his name litigating right to die cases.  Michael suddenly began telling the story of how his wife wanted to die if in a situation like this.

Cash in, get out, marry the new broad.

Well, considering it that a divorce would be cheaper and quicker, why not hire a divorce lawyer?  Where is your source, or are just making it up like the rest of the stuff?

Interestingly, a marriage can be terminated for mental incompetency in FL:

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/florida/florida_grounds_for_divorce

And while you are looking for the answers, why don't you try answering these:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 08:39:56 PM
I have repeatedly made it clear that I am under no onus to rpovide evidence that Schaivo wanted to live.  No credible evidence has been produced that she wants to die, and no, the magically appearing hearsay does not qualify.

From Thwe Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/027bcfsv.asp)

Quote
Michael's behavior toward Terri has been utterly despicable for the last decade. After she collapsed in 1990, he sued for medical malpractice on her behalf. During the trial, he presented himself to the jury as a dedicated and loving husband--even though he had been romancing other women since shortly after the time of Terri's collapse and brain injury. He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide 
her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.

From National Review[url=http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050316235609990012&ncid=NWS00010000000001]Inclsion Daily Express]

 (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith090503.asp)
Quote
Michael filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit, during which he said he would care for her for the rest of her life, which, assuming proper care, would be a normal lifespan. He also presented at trial a medical-rehabilitation expert who had developed a plan to provide support for Terri to maximize her ability to respond to her environment.

From Inclsion Daily Express (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050316235609990012&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Quote
In April of 1991, about a year after her collapse, therapists at Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center determined that Terri's condition was improving and recommended Michael have her transferred to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy so she could continue her recovery.

But by July, Michael had instead moved her to Sable Palms Nursing Home, with no such therapy.

Later, he refused to allow therapies that her parents believed might have allowed her to swallow, so she would not have to rely on a feeding tube.

2. Why did he not mention his wife's wishes during one of two malpractice cases?

In late 1992, one of Terri's doctors settled a malpractice suit out of court for $250,000. The following January, a Pinellas jury awarded about $1.4 to Terri and $600,000 to Michael in a suit filed because her gynecologist failed to ask about her medical history while treating her.

Michael had asked the jury to grant $20 million to pay for Terri's future medical and neurological requirements, based on her life expectancy, which he and his attorneys estimated at 51 years. Michael also told the court he wanted to become a nurse so he could help his wife for as long as she lived.

His attorney told the court about Terri: "She can't respond much but she can respond, and she does respond a little bit, not much. But enough to give him hope."

The following month, February 1993, Terri's parents had a 'falling out' with their son-in-law, because, they claim, he refused the therapies that professionals had recommended.

3. If Michael expected Terri to live to at least age 51, why did he order her caregivers not to treat her for a potentially life-threatening infection in August of 1993, and another in late 1995?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 08:53:31 PM
Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

I'll ask the questions again, though I doubt that you can answer them factually at this point:


1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 09:02:25 PM
I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably.  The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 09:10:37 PM
Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 09:56:07 PM
Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

If you don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, you have my condolences.  I will be availible to testify at your compentency hearing.

I'll ask again:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?


Why don't you answer them?  Are you afraid you've told some lies and have been caught in it?  Would that be sinful?



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 10:50:03 PM
Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

If you don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, you have my condolences. I will be availible to testify at your compentency hearing.

I'll ask again:

1. Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2. Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?


Why don't you answer them? Are you afraid you've told some lies and have been caught in it? Would that be sinful?

I'm going to post this again, and then I'm not going to post it anymore.

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 24, 2005, 11:09:42 PM
I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.
Quote

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

Okay, as has been noted, that has been spent, so we can rule out the financial issue.  There have been bloggers who claimed a life insurance policy existed.

You answer to my second question seems to be that there is absolutely no evidence wanted her body to keep functioning in this case.  There is evidence that that she did not wish to be kept alive in this condition.

Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like.  Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 24, 2005, 11:12:05 PM
I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.
Quote

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

This is what I'm talking about, YOU'RE 43 YEARS OLD!  You know that was a typo, everyone else knows it was a typo.  Yet you insist on insulting people.

You're 43, its past time to get beyond this nonsense and have a real debate.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.
[/Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like. Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

Just quitting while I'm ahead.

Took a look at your posting history and saw that you started your time here defending James Zogby and AAI.  Typical of the firts Republican to volunteer to be shot by firing squad.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 24, 2005, 11:29:22 PM
I have repeatedly made it clear that I am under no onus to rpovide evidence that Schaivo wanted to live.  No credible evidence has been produced that she wants to die, and no, the magically appearing hearsay does not qualify.

From Thwe Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/027bcfsv.asp)
[emphasis is mine - WMS]
Quote
Michael's behavior toward Terri has been utterly despicable for the last decade. After she collapsed in 1990, he sued for medical malpractice on her behalf. During the trial, he presented himself to the jury as a dedicated and loving husband--even though he had been romancing other women since shortly after the time of Terri's collapse and brain injury. He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide 
her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.


Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 25, 2005, 12:47:37 AM
John, considering that the in the older of the two articles by Wesley J. Smith you cited, there is either a factual error or a deliberate stretching of the truth, I’m not inclined to give the author any weight whatsoever in this case.  He states baldly that “Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990” when every other source I’ve seen that coverred the collapse indicated that it had been determined she suffered her brain damage as a result of a heart attack due to a potassium deficiency brought about by an eating disorder.  Granted, what caused the eating disorder is AFAIK unkown, but that’s an awfully long stretch to make, especially without mentioning the other stuff.  In short, I find the author to be clearly biased and not credible.


Under the existing standards for end-of-life legal cases, all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s have been crossed in the case of Terri.  Changing what will happen in her case will require changing those standards, which the Florida Senate has declined to do.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 01:33:08 AM

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 02:12:57 AM
John, considering that the in the older of the two articles by Wesley J. Smith you cited, there is either a factual error or a deliberate stretching of the truth, I’m not inclined to give the author any weight whatsoever in this case.  He states baldly that “Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990” when every other source I’ve seen that coverred the collapse indicated that it had been determined she suffered her brain damage as a result of a heart attack due to a potassium deficiency brought about by an eating disorder.  Granted, what caused the eating disorder is AFAIK unkown, but that’s an awfully long stretch to make, especially without mentioning the other stuff.  In short, I find the author to be clearly biased and not credible.


Under the existing standards for end-of-life legal cases, all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s have been crossed in the case of Terri.  Changing what will happen in her case will require changing those standards, which the Florida Senate has declined to do.

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself).  Since she never was diagnosed, even after the incident, with serious heart trouble, nor was treated for serious heart trouble, nor has she had a recurrence of this arrythmia that was supposedly severe enough to cut of circulation to the brain, its fair to say that the cause is not really known.

We know she had a heart arrythmia, since the paramedics treated her for it on the scene, but there has been speculation that this was not the root cause of the brain injury, though no counter thesis has been presented.  In any case, it hardly central to the story now, or to the article.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 02:28:27 AM

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

This is what I'm talking about, YOU'RE 43 YEARS OLD!  You know that was a typo, everyone else knows it was a typo.  Yet you insist on insulting people.

You're 43, its past time to get beyond this nonsense and have a real debate.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.
[/Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like. Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

Just quitting while I'm ahead.

Took a look at your posting history and saw that you started your time here defending James Zogby and AAI.  Typical of the firts Republican to volunteer to be shot by firing squad.

I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.

BTW, this is what I said in my first post:

I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

That was quite prophetic.

You'll also note that I didn't, John D FALSE until you said I was dishostest.  If you are going to complain, be civil. 

I disagree, civilly, with numerous posters, but if you decide to make it personal, or post factually incorrect statements, expect it.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 02:47:33 AM
This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

I am typing on a laptop, and the buttons are not very large.  I am also typing faster than should, for whatever reason.  This computer has no word program installed, so the place where I usually type long posts is not here.  If I want to edit a sentence, i find it harder to do so in the post space, but that's what I'm stuck doing.  This is the reason there are so many typos and mixed sentences.  During the week there are no such things, because I'm on my desktop.  "sued" should be "used".


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 02:54:41 AM

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself). 

Actually, it's believed to have been related to bulemia.  Dr. Michael Baden raised the issue of cause a few years ago.  Last month he was interviewed by FOX:

BADEN: Greta?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Baden.

BADEN: Yes. No. What's interesting about what Mr. Fox [represented the Schiavos in the malpractice suit] is saying, there were lots of diets, especially many years ago, that had bizarre dietary eating habits and got electrolytes mixed up, as Mr. Fox said, mostly the potassium. If you got too high potassium or too low potassium, then the heart stops...

VAN SUSTEREN: And that's what happened.

BADEN: But it's not from a hardening of the arteries. It stops the heart. If there's not enough blood going to the brain for five minutes because of the heart stoppage, then it causes permanent brain damage.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gary, Dr. Baden, thank you both very much.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148756,00.html

She had some damage from her collapse, a spinal fracture, bruised ribs.  

The jury in the malpractice case actually ruled that she was 70% responsible for her condition because she induced vomiting.




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 03:00:32 AM
This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?



Yes, and I do it now; as you indicated, the Secretary of State was meeting with them.  I've also referred to this post at other times.  I don't have a problem with Arabs or any other ethnic or national group.  Do you, or are just trying to hide you the fact that most of what you've posted on this thread is fiction?  That is typical of you you, make false charges and then try to avoid the truth.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 04:12:47 AM

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself). 

Actually, it's believed to have been related to bulemia.  Dr. Michael Baden raised the issue of cause a few years ago.  Last month he was interviewed by FOX:

BADEN: Greta?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Baden.

BADEN: Yes. No. What's interesting about what Mr. Fox [represented the Schiavos in the malpractice suit] is saying, there were lots of diets, especially many years ago, that had bizarre dietary eating habits and got electrolytes mixed up, as Mr. Fox said, mostly the potassium. If you got too high potassium or too low potassium, then the heart stops...

VAN SUSTEREN: And that's what happened.

BADEN: But it's not from a hardening of the arteries. It stops the heart. If there's not enough blood going to the brain for five minutes because of the heart stoppage, then it causes permanent brain damage.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gary, Dr. Baden, thank you both very much.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148756,00.html

She had some damage from her collapse, a spinal fracture, bruised ribs.  

The jury in the malpractice case actually ruled that she was 70% responsible for her condition because she induced vomiting.

This does not address what I said.

I said the two main causes of heart arrythmia that cna do this to a patient are coronary artery disease and heart damage.  Pottassium deficiency causes heart damage.  To correct this, a pacemaker is typically installed.

However, both the coronary artery disease and the heart damage would require significant medical treatment, but none was recieved.  The condition has never recurred.  This is a bit unusual and suggests that the loss of oxygen to the brain may have been caused by something else, as her arrythmia may not have been serious enough to cause this damage.

This is not to say she did not have a potassium deficiency, or that the deficiency did not cause the arrythmia.  It is not to say that arrythmia did not cause the damage to her brain.  It does however substantiate the idea that the author cans ay that there is dispute about the cause of the brain damage.

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?



Yes, and I do it now; as you indicated, the Secretary of State was meeting with them. I've also referred to this post at other times. I don't have a problem with Arabs or any other ethnic or national group. Do you, or are just trying to hide you the fact that most of what you've posted on this thread is fiction? That is typical of you you, make false charges and then try to avoid the truth.

But you didn't admit to this until I psosted it, in fact you intentionally and directly lied about the rest of the content of your post.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 04:44:28 AM
This does not address what I said.

I said the two main causes of heart arrythmia that cna do this to a patient are coronary artery disease and heart damage.  Pottassium deficiency causes heart damage.  To correct this, a pacemaker is typically installed.

However, both the coronary artery disease and the heart damage would require significant medical treatment, but none was recieved.  The condition has never recurred.  This is a bit unusual and suggests that the loss of oxygen to the brain may have been caused by something else, as her arrythmia may not have been serious enough to cause this damage.

Well considering I do of a case, an MI, where there was no additional surgery and medication wasn't prescribed for eight years, it doesn't strike as unusual in the least.  This is especially true in the case of temporarily changed electolyte "mix up."

Quote

This is not to say she did not have a potassium deficiency, or that the deficiency did not cause the arrythmia.  It is not to say that arrythmia did not cause the damage to her brain.  It does however substantiate the idea that the author cans ay that there is dispute about the cause of the brain damage.

No, it is to say that this was likely the cause.  There was no evidence of any other cause.

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!


But you didn't admit to this until I psosted it, in fact you intentionally and directly lied about the rest of the content of your post.

No, I've said the same thing that I'm saying now.  I would not chharaterize AAI as "radical."  I will say tha Zogby is not a particulary good pollster, but I've that opinion for a long time.  Shira, or perhaps Mypalfish, can attest to that.

It seems irrelevant to the question at hand.  Why don't you answer the question I've asked:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Jorge Estrada on March 25, 2005, 10:30:25 AM
John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 10:44:10 AM
John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

Who ever said I was trying to confince him.  Someone who is willing to post deliberately false information on this subject, like John D. FALSE, probably cannot be convinced.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Snowe08 on March 25, 2005, 11:04:12 AM
I like Charles Krauthammer's suggestion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58464-2005Mar22.html"), which won't save Terri, but may prevent having to choose beetween tragedy and legal travesty in the future.

A blogger I frequently read, Little Miss Attila, commented (http://littlemissattila.mu.nu/archives/072827.php#comments") that "Is God testing us? Are we afraid we will have failed that test if this one woman is allowed to die in peace?"

And in seeking a genuinely Christian perspective, that's a very reasonable question to pose. But I also think that a very reasonable corollary to that point is, "maybe the opposite could be true - that we perhaps fail the test when we forget that the body is just a vessel, and focus myopically on our ability to preserve that vessel, even at cost of trapping the soul from returning home to Him".

Throughout this issue, I've mainly focussed on the legal question - can Congress intervene, legally. Because that's an easier question, and the conclusion I drew was, no it can't. In terms of wider policy, yes; in terms of the original House bill, maybe - but not in a specific case, and not in the way that it tried to do so. I don't think that the legal question is irrelevant, I don't even think it's less important. But it is dodging a bullet, because in this case, I think everyone feels a strong imperative tugging at their heart to reach a conclusion on the issue at hand, I just don't know what mine is.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 04:00:30 PM
John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

I call sword and spear.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 04:11:14 PM
John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

I call sword and spear.

AK-47, the matchup then would give me the same advantage that I have this debate.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 25, 2005, 04:28:55 PM
I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.
More likely, John is just a bad typist like myself.  For all am I disagreeing with John on the main point, I have to also agree with him that quibbling about spelling typos is childish.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 05:41:45 PM
I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.
More likely, John is just a bad typist like myself.  For all am I disagreeing with John on the main point, I have to also agree with him that quibbling about spelling typos is childish.

I'm not complaining.  I didn't realize that when he typed "sued" he meant "used," expecially when he was referring to a lawsuit settlement

I seroiusly thought this guy was dyslexic, from the inverting of letters. 

There is nothing "wrong" with being dyslexic, and both Nelson Rockefeller and Gen. George S. Patton were.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 06:33:03 PM
Here is an interesting story that shows why JJs interpretation f the hearsay exemption statutes is wrong, and dangerous.

A friend of Terri Schiavo (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/25/102508.shtml) says Terri was beaten and abused by Michael, and she wanted a divorce.  Now, under JJs interpretation of the statute, this not only can be, but in fact must be admitted since Terri herself cannot be in court to refute or confirm these facts.

Under my interpretation fo the statute, a narrower (and correct, and precedent supported) view, this could never be allowed in court.  Unde rJJs view, anyone who knew Terri can come forward and make something up without needing to substantiate it.  This makes it very easy for his case to be undermined, and for the trial itself to become a kangaroo court.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: TomC on March 25, 2005, 06:37:59 PM
Newsmax is not a reputable news source. What other news media are covering this claim???


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 06:57:01 PM
You haven't seen it anywhere else because its not a credible claim.  This is why it should not be admitted in court.  Yet, under JJs standard for hearsay admission, if the claim was made, credible or not, it must be admitted.

The point is not that the testimony is valid, or that Michael is a bad person, its to say that JJs mind numbing insistence that Michael's hearsay be admitted in court is plain wrong.

EDIT: MSNBC has a story that abuse has been alleged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7012932/


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 07:23:12 PM
Here is an interesting story that shows why JJs interpretation f the hearsay exemption statutes is wrong, and dangerous.

A friend of Terri Schiavo (http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/25/102508.shtml) says Terri was beaten and abused by Michael, and she wanted a divorce.  Now, under JJs interpretation of the statute, this not only can be, but in fact must be admitted since Terri herself cannot be in court to refute or confirm these facts.

Under my interpretation fo the statute, a narrower (and correct, and precedent supported) view, this could never be allowed in court.  Unde rJJs view, anyone who knew Terri can come forward and make something up without needing to substantiate it.  This makes it very easy for his case to be undermined, and for the trial itself to become a kangaroo court.

No, I just question the relevence of any of this.  Did they have arguments?  I'm pretty sure they did.  Does this have anything to do with her wishes, or her medical condition?  No.

Here is the account of the argument:

The last time she spoke to Terri, Rhodes says, she had just gone to get her hair done. Terri was toying with going back to her natural color, so Rhodes called that Saturday to ask what she had decided. Terri, Rhodes says, was in tears; she and Michael had had a fight over the cost of the salon visit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7290818/page/3/

Big deal, a married couple has fights over a spouse spending money.  I'm not exactly seeing this something unusual.

That a friend thinks they were headed down the road to divorce isn't really evidence of what Mrs. Shiavo was planning to do.

You'll note that contrary to your statement, this is up on MSNBC site and it's from the Washington Post.  It would be admissible under the hearsay rule, if it was relevent and repeated under oath, and the story on Newsmax differs in material detail from the one in the WP.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 07:33:48 PM
The stories may differ, but the fact that there are stories of abuse is very relevant, and they are admissible.

If it could be shown that Michael Schiavo was abusive, he could be removed as guardian.  If he is removed as guardian, then Terri lives.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 07:42:45 PM
The stories may differ, but the fact that there are stories of abuse is very relevant, and they are admissible.

If it could be shown that Michael Schiavo was abusive, he could be removed as guardian.  If he is removed as guardian, then Terri lives.

To married people having an argument over spending money is not abuse.  At worst, it's every fourth episode of I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Flintstones or The Simpsons

You have access to the court appoint guardians finding as Mr. Shiavo's and they have said repeatedly that his conduct was exceptionally proper.  Repeated attempt by the Schindlers on this ground for over a decade, including prior to request to remove the tube, has been rejected.

It is very interesting that the Schindlers enocouraged Mr. Shiavo to date other women and had no complaints about his treatment of their daughter, prior to Mr. Shiavo declining to give them any money from the malpractice settlement.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 25, 2005, 08:07:34 PM
When you're "on the road to divorce", its a bit more than  a Honeymooners episode.  To potray this as very normal in a happy marriage is wrong.

The testimony is not refuted by the Court appointed guardian saying Michael is fine, since the Court appointed guardian was not charged with investigating the Schiavo's marriage.

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Alcon on March 25, 2005, 08:34:52 PM
This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 08:43:40 PM
When you're "on the road to divorce", its a bit more than  a Honeymooners episode.  To potray this as very normal in a happy marriage is wrong.

The testimony is not refuted by the Court appointed guardian saying Michael is fine, since the Court appointed guardian was not charged with investigating the Schiavo's marriage.

This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

A third party claiming that to two other people are "on the road to divorce" isn't hearsay or evidence.  It's non expert opinion.  

There is another problem; they were trying to have a baby.  It is kind of hard to say the marriage was in trouble if they were trying to start a family.  That kinda indicates longer term commitment.

Ironically, there is evidence that Mrs. Schiavo was never beaten.  She worked and her co-worker was her friend.  She just describe in detail aspects of that relationship and didn't indicate any marks indicating beatings nor any conversations where Mrs. Schiavo indicated that she was ever abused.  

Further, as part of her attemps to conceive, Mrs. Shiavo had medical treatmemt, where she was examined.  There was no indication of a beating.  

Further, her injuries at the time of the collapse were to her lower back, ribs and legs, and not consistent with her being hit.  While that doesn't prove a negative, it does show that there is a preponderance that was not involved in any altercation.

Other that showing how desparate you are, illustrating you continued attempts at an ad hominim attack against Mr. Schiavo, without evidence, and illustrating you pitiful attempts at logic, what is the point of your question?

Now, here is a question in the affirmative:

2. Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

There is credible evidence that she did not.  Hearsay, as to a comment from her, stating that she wanted to be kept alive with tubes in her, would count.  If she discussed this with her parents, siblings, or friends, where is the evidence?  Why don't they come forward?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 25, 2005, 10:06:08 PM

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

Okay, let's get back to the point I was emphasizing. Especially note what I bolded, please::
From Thwe Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/027bcfsv.asp)
[emphasis is mine - WMS]
Quote
Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.

He killed her cats and melted down their rings so he could have one for himself? And didn't have her teeth cleaned, thus causing the extraction of five teeth? What you posted didn't respond to those issues...

*edit*
Something Interesting From Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2115208/)


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 11:14:58 PM

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

Okay, let's get back to the point I was emphasizing. Especially note what I bolded, please::
From Thwe Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/027bcfsv.asp)
[emphasis is mine - WMS]
Quote
Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.

He killed her cats and melted down their rings so he could have one for himself? And didn't have her teeth cleaned, thus causing the extraction of five teeth? What you posted didn't respond to those issues...

*edit*
Something Interesting From Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2115208/)

First of all, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the cats (or their age/health).  I also cannot determine if the rings were melted; if so, he might have wanted something as a symbol of them being together.  Not that it is not claimed that he sold the rings.

As for his not providing for her care, the court appointed guardian evaluated her at the time:

As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. His report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to Theresa. After two more years of legal contention, the Schindlers action against Michael was dismissed with prejudice. Efforts to remove Michael as Guardian were attempted in subsequent years, without success.


http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Now, I have a hard time equating "no inapproiate action" and "Michael had been very attentive to Theresa" with "he wanted his wife dead."  Note that the Schindler's suit claiming this was dismissed by the court.

Teeth due decay and cleaning someone elses teeth is difficult.  It should also be noted that Mrs. Schiavo has not been in the physical care of Mr. Schiavo, but (except for two weeks) in the care of health facilities.  The guardian appointed under "Terri's Law" noted:

After the malpractice case judgment, evidence of disaffection between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo openly emerged for the first time. The Schindlers petitioned the court to remove Michael as Guardian. They made allegations that he was not caring for Theresa, and that his behavior was disruptive to Theresa's treatment and condition.

Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore.


(same source)

Now, none of this sounds like any abuse, quite the opposite.  The report also noted:

Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.

Now, these are the opinions of the guardian, Jay Wolfson, who was appointed under "Terri's Law," a law enacted to support Mrs. Schiavo.  These are also the opinions of the other guardian appointed by the court as well.  It should be noted that as guardian, Wolfson, spent 30 days observing her.  Now, neither of these was employed by either party and, in Wolfson case, was accepted by both parties.

The commentator's claim here that, "Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned," is false.  Here is what happened:

By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.


http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

There was no suit by the Schindler's and Mr. Shiavo withdrew the DNR order, voluntarily.  Here the commentator misstated facts.  Speaking as someone who has guardianship, in a different state, I am routinely asked to sign DNR orders for my ward at every hospital visit.  There is nothing particularly unusual in this.

The commentator, who is not a reporter covering the story, and did not cite the souces for his claims, infers that Mr. Schiavo has control of the $700,000 received in the settlement, by saying, "As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank.... " Again, this inference is false.  The report says:

The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

As had been noted, the fund has dwindled to $40-50 K.

I cannot claim that the claims to the cats or rings are accurate, and if accurate, what if any relevence they have to the case.  The commentator's comments and inferences that can be verified are either mistatements or false.

I would suggest you read the report in full.  It is neutral and detailed as to her treatment.




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 25, 2005, 11:44:20 PM
I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 25, 2005, 11:46:38 PM
You haven't seen it anywhere else because its not a credible claim.  This is why it should not be admitted in court.  Yet, under JJs standard for hearsay admission, if the claim was made, credible or not, it must be admitted.

The point is not that the testimony is valid, or that Michael is a bad person, its to say that JJs mind numbing insistence that Michael's hearsay be admitted in court is plain wrong.

EDIT: MSNBC has a story that abuse has been alleged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7012932/

Well, here is what the story really says:

Those allegations, which have been raised before, are based partly on bone scans showing Terri Schiavo suffered fractures and statements she made to family and friends that she was unhappy in her marriage. Michael Schiavo has denied harming his wife.

You are trying to claim that being "unhappy" is "abuse."  Not even her parents or her friends are claiming that she ever said she was abused or that they saw any evidence of her being abused.

Actually, if she had made such a statement, it would have been admissible under the rules of hearsay.  The Schindlers don't even have hearsay evidence to support their claims.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 12:22:35 AM
I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 01:55:56 AM
This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

Its a shot at JJ, who spent half this thread asking me exactly this type of question, knowing full well it had no legal merit.  This is why I said I hope JJ appreciates the irony of the exchange.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 01:58:25 AM
JJ has reverted to quantity over quality, as if extracting voluminous quotes from the Wolfson report makes up for the lack of quantity of sources.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 02:09:04 AM
JJ has reverted to quantity over quality, as if extracting voluminous quotes from the Wolfson report makes up for the lack of quantity of sources.

Hardly.  I just prefer to use an objective source, agreed to by both parties, the court (and Jeb Bush, in this case), with good credentials, who has actually been present.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 02:17:06 AM
Since its obvious that Terri Schiavo is going to die by court order, I don't see much point to continuing in this thread (I'm like a boxer, I've already retired from the thread once, so if people assume I'll be back, I don't totally blame them ;) ) but I want to raise a point that has not been raised in this discussion.

The congressional resolution passed by the House (and I'm almost certain the joint version contains this as well) demands a de novo hearing.  This means that a new full hearing is held, and that the factual findings of the original courts are not accepted, be re-examined.

Do you who are so eager to kill Terri Schiavo, and so adamant that her due process rights have been followed (though not one person here has addressed the SUBSTANTIVE due process claims, or even acknowledged their existence) how do you defend the fact that the de novo proceeding to which Terri Schaivo's parents were entitled to never happenned?

I also hope that this incident will finally expose Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia for what they are.  They are not Federlists, but Confederalists, and their Constitutional theories are the Confederate theory of the Constiution.  They simply do not accept Federal supremacy, and all have at varying points authored insane opinions, thankfully in dissent more often than not, radicaly restraining the commerce caluse to limit that Federal govenrment and ruling against the supremacy doctrine every time they thought they could get away with it.  They are not Federalists, and neither are their supporters, they are Confederalists, and henceforth should not be treated as descendants of Hamilton and marshall, nor even conservatives in the trdition of Webster and Lincoln.  Their ancestors are John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, who never were comfortable with Federal supremacy and like the Confederate trio always thought the Union was a compact of states before it was a unified nation (Despite the fact that only Texas, Florida, and California have any actual history as independent states.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 02:30:51 AM
This next part should be fun:

1. Do you have any evidence that Terri wasn't beaten?

Have fun with the irony of this exchange.

In the American legal system, guilt is assumed before innocence as a matter of course. What relevance does this have?

Its a shot at JJ, who spent half this thread asking me exactly this type of question, knowing full well it had no legal merit.  This is why I said I hope JJ appreciates the irony of the exchange.

You obviously don't understand the question.

This is it, with word added:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

I am not asking you to prove anything.  I am asking, if at any point her adult life, prior to her collapse, did she ever talk to anyone about this subject? 

Because of the hearsay rule, that would be admissible.  If she talked to her parents, siblings, friends or co-workers and said something like, "I don't believe people should removed from life support," that would be enough (provided it was credible).  There isn't even that to day.  If there was credible evidence, I'd reverse my opinion.

Right now, there are three statements that she has expressed her opinion, hearsay, but admissible.  These three are all indicate that her wishes were to be removed.  Where is the evidence that she said something else?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 02:34:35 AM
This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 03:13:41 AM
Since its obvious that Terri Schiavo is going to die by court order, I don't see much point to continuing in this thread (I'm like a boxer, I've already retired from the thread once, so if people assume I'll be back, I don't totally blame them ;) ) but I want to raise a point that has not been raised in this discussion.

The congressional resolution passed by the House (and I'm almost certain the joint version contains this as well) demands a de novo hearing.  This means that a new full hearing is held, and that the factual findings of the original courts are not accepted, be re-examined.

Do you who are so eager to kill Terri Schiavo, and so adamant that her due process rights have been followed (though not one person here has addressed the SUBSTANTIVE due process claims, or even acknowledged their existence) how do you defend the fact that the de novo proceeding to which Terri Schaivo's parents were entitled to never happenned?

Wrong again!  Here is what the text really says:

Quote

Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo pending the determination of the suit.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109HkdiwM::


Note the word may.  While the suit will be heard de novo, that is not grounds for issuing a stay.  The courts, Federal District, 11 Circuit, and Supreme, after looking at the case, determined that there was not enough likelihood of success to issue the stay.


Quote
Their ancestors are John Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, who never were comfortable with Federal supremacy and like the Confederate trio always thought the Union was a compact of states before it was a unified nation (Despite the fact that only Texas, Florida, and California have any actual history as independent states.

It is interesting that you should cite the Calhoun and especially Davis, as the Legislature of one of the states governed by Davis voted against changing the law to require written intent to permit this type of action.  They chose not to (probably because of so many elderly people in that state only have verbal expression of their wishes).  The FL Supreme Court, in overturning "Terri's Law," cited the involvement of the Governor in the process as being unconstitutional; the proposed change had none of that.

Now, we don't have Federal supremacy, or judicial supremacy, or Congressional supremacy, or state supremecy.  We have a constitutional form of government, which all of the parties have taken an oath (as I have, BTW) to preserve and protect.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 03:22:02 AM
This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

The evidence rules regarding hearsay (which would cut both ways) has been addressed; the rule has been cited and posted indicating where it can be admitted.

Even here you have again failed to answer it.

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 03:28:14 AM
Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).

The invokation of Jefferson Davis was not meant to be issue specific, but philosophical.  Philosophically, he believed the states were coequals to the Federal government.  This is essentially what Rehnquist et al believe, and its wrong.  It appears to be what you believe.  The Federal government is in fact the superior to the states, and its Constitution is superior over them.  Jefferson Davis did not believe this, the Conferderate trio do not believe in this, and it appears that you don't much believe in it either.  Thats fine, but don't call yourself a Federalist.  You are a Confederalist, who believes that the US is a compact of the states, not a nation with provincial divisions.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 03:39:18 AM
This question has already been addressed (addressing both whether the hearsay is admissible and whether I need to produce contrary evidence), and I am no longer in this thread.  Repeating it in bold face doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

The evidence rules regarding hearsay (which would cut both ways) has been addressed; the rule has been cited and posted indicating where it can be admitted.

Even here you have again failed to answer it.

I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

I alrerady have answered the question.  Many times, actually.  my answer is that I do not intend to provide any evidence that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to live because I am under no obligation to given the law.  The assumption is that she wanted to live going into the case under our laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the state's protection of the life interest outweighs the liberty interest of the right to die (Cruzan).  The burden is not on me to prove anything, so I didn't.

I have also addressed your interpretation fo the hearsay exceptions, which I believe are dangerously broad and that your interpretation breaks with both the intent of the statute, its previous uses, and endangers the entire judicial process in cases like this.  Its a reckless interpretation, and I have provided examples from this case as to why a universal application of the statute to all hearsay testimony therin would turn the case into a kangaroo court.

I think its also worth pointing out that Michael Schiavo's version of events which was played in a 2003 interview with Larry King (rerun this week on CNN) are completely different from his brother's account of the story told this week on MSNBC (Countdown?  I can't remember exactly).  The stories are completely different, taking place in different ways at different times, and different ways, in front of different people.  And again, if Michael knew Terri wanted to die, why did the story not appear until AFTER the malpractice hearing in 1995, the verdict of which was based on the notion that Terri would live out her natural life span?  I do not accpet your intepretation fo the hearsay statute.  Boldface it all you want.

If you really demand some indication that Terri wanted to live, there is the now famous story that she moaned "I waaa" when her family's lawyer tolf her that if she said she wanted to live, this would all be over.  I'm sure it was just coincidental that she made that noise at that exact moment, though.  Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

Since I'm not a Christian, I don't accept the idea of sin per se.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 03:56:12 AM
Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).


No, this for issuing the stay.  Here is the text again:

Quote

Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo pending the determination of the suit.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109HkdiwM::


The law gave the Schindler's the right to raise the issue in Federal Court.  They went to the District Court, filed suit, and applied for the stay.  They were denied that stay.  They then appealed, the judge's decision not to grant the stay to the 11 Ciruit, and up to the Supreme Court.  All courts, after looking at the case, said that the judge was correct in not issuing the stay.  The case is still out there and could possibly be heard, and appealed.  The trial will have be considered de novo; this proceding was not the trial.


Quote
The invokation of Jefferson Davis was not meant to be issue specific, but philosophical.  Philosophically, he believed the states were coequals to the Federal government.  This is essentially what Rehnquist et al believe, and its wrong.  It appears to be what you believe.  The Federal government is in fact the superior to the states, and its Constitution is superior over them.  Jefferson Davis did not believe this, the Conferderate trio do not believe in this, and it appears that you don't much believe in it either.  Thats fine, but don't call yourself a Federalist.  You are a Confederalist, who believes that the US is a compact of the states, not a nation with provincial divisions.

I believe that the states do have rights under our system, but I also believe that the Federal government, under that 14th Amendment that you seem to be so interested in, can create laws protecting groups (and possibly an individual, as in this case).  

They did, and the courts followed the law.  They made a correct determination that, under the rules under which they function, a stay was not required.  The courts have not ruled the statute unconstitutional, at this point, only said that the stay, or court order requiring the feeding tube to be re-inserted, should not be issued prior to the trial.  


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 26, 2005, 04:26:54 AM
Temporary links don't work. Here's the full text of the bill. What a joke. It applies only to Theresa Marie Schiavo.

Quote
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)

S 653 ES

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 653

AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

      The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

      Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

      After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

      Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. STAY.

      Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo pending the determination of the suit.

SEC. 6. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

      Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 7. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

      Nothing is this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

            (1) to assisting suicide, or

            (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 8. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

      Nothing is this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation.

SEC. 9. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

      Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.

Passed the Senate March 17, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 653

AN ACT

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 04:32:58 AM
Sigh.  I said I'd stay out, and again I'm back in.

You linked (again) to a partial text (again) that (again) distorts the information contained in the document.  The bill says the courts amy act (they did) and if they did, it would be a de novo hearing (it was not).


No, this for issuing the stay.  Here is the text again:

Quote

Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo pending the determination of the suit.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109HkdiwM::


The law gave the Schindler's the right to raise the issue in Federal Court.  They went to the District Court, filed suit, and applied for the stay.  They were denied that stay.  They then appealed, the judge's decision not to grant the stay to the 11 Ciruit, and up to the Supreme Court.  All courts, after looking at the case, said that the judge was correct in not issuing the stay.  The case is still out there and could possibly be heard, and appealed.  The trial will have be considered de novo; this proceding was not the trial.


Quote
The invokation of Jefferson Davis was not meant to be issue specific, but philosophical.  Philosophically, he believed the states were coequals to the Federal government.  This is essentially what Rehnquist et al believe, and its wrong.  It appears to be what you believe.  The Federal government is in fact the superior to the states, and its Constitution is superior over them.  Jefferson Davis did not believe this, the Conferderate trio do not believe in this, and it appears that you don't much believe in it either.  Thats fine, but don't call yourself a Federalist.  You are a Confederalist, who believes that the US is a compact of the states, not a nation with provincial divisions.

I believe that the states do have rights under our system, but I also believe that the Federal government, under that 14th Amendment that you seem to be so interested in, can create laws protecting groups (and possibly an individual, as in this case).  

They did, and the courts followed the law.  They made a correct determination that, under the rules under which they function, a stay was not required.  The courts have not ruled the statute unconstitutional, at this point, only said that the stay, or court order requiring the feeding tube to be re-inserted, should not be issued prior to the trial.  

You're dodging the issue.  You're the only one who's arguing about whether a stay should be given, I'm saying a de novo hearing should be given.  There is neither textual or non-textual basis for believing that a de novo hearing was not the intended result.  It is logical that a stay would be issued until the de novo hearing is complete, but that's not a central point.  The central point, which you did not address, is that Congress asked for a de novo hearing and one was not held.

I am interested in the 14th Amendment because it is the basis for nearly all Federal intervention in state affairs today.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 05:04:27 AM
I will ask it again:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as a competent adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Let me ask this one:

Why are you avoiding answering the question?  Is it because you know that there isn't any evidence?  Is it because it would indicate that your ideology isn't what governs.

And finally, this one.

Is a lie by omission a sin?

I alrerady have answered the question.  Many times, actually.  my answer is that I do not intend to provide any evidence that Terri Schiavo said she wanted to live because I am under no obligation to given the law.  The assumption is that she wanted to live going into the case under our laws, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the state's protection of the life interest outweighs the liberty interest of the right to die (Cruzan).  The burden is not on me to prove anything, so I didn't.


Here is the text from Crusan:

In our view, Missouri has permissibly sought to advance these interests through the adoption of a "clear and convincing" standard of proof to govern such proceedings. "The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to 'instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.'"

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/cruzan.html


You'll note that the SCOTUS states that the states, MO in that instance, can establish a standard.  The Florida Legislature did and then, as per their constitution, gave the courts the responsibility of applying the standard.  If they don't like how those standards are applied by the courts, guess what, they can change them.  They had the chance to do so last week, and they said "No!"  They are permitted to keep the same standard too.

Quote
I have also addressed your interpretation fo the hearsay exceptions, which I believe are dangerously broad and that your interpretation breaks with both the intent of the statute, its previous uses, and endangers the entire judicial process in cases like this.  Its a reckless interpretation, and I have provided examples from this case as to why a universal application of the statute to all hearsay testimony therin would turn the case into a kangaroo court.

Here is the "hearsay exception rule' with some bolding:
Quote

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

(a) Definition of unavailability.

"Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant--

(1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or

(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; or

(3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or

(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or

(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.

A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

(b) Hearsay exceptions.

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

(4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

(5) [Other exceptions.][Transferred to Rule 807]

(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

Rule 807. Residual Exception

A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803

That's the rule and there are exceptions.  The statements admitted in trial were probative and, if you assume that it is against Mrs. Schiavo to be "disconnected,"it is against interest.  Hearsay evidence about a comment from Mrs. Schiavo that, "I don't agree with euthanasia," or "I believe that sick people shouldn't be unplugged," could be admitted under this rule.  The problem is, nobody has ever stated that she made such statements.

Quote
I do not accpet your intepretation fo the hearsay statute.  Boldface it all you want.

It has been posted and people reading it are free to make up their own minds.  It's not my interpretation.

You've raised points about what happend that night.  I would ask this:
If Mr. Schiavo wanted his wife to die that night, why call 911, quickly.  Why not just wait an hour or so and claim that he was asleep and didn't hear her fall?  Her weight at the time was 110 pounds; there wouldn't have been a loud thud.

Quote
If you really demand some indication that Terri wanted to live, there is the now famous story that she moaned "I waaa" when her family's lawyer tolf her that if she said she wanted to live, this would all be over.  I'm sure it was just coincidental that she made that noise at that exact moment, though. 

Even if you claim it was speech, and not a randon vocalization, this could be "I waaa to die."  Of course, you might actually be right that it was a coincidence.

Quote
Since I'm not a Christian, I don't accept the idea of sin per se.

I did not ask (or express) any Christian idea, but merely if you considered something to be a sin.  I will note that you don't believe in sin.  It gives me a prospective to your posts.  


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 05:21:07 AM


You're dodging the issue.  You're the only one who's arguing about whether a stay should be given, I'm saying a de novo hearing should be given.  There is neither textual or non-textual basis for believing that a de novo hearing was not the intended result.  It is logical that a stay would be issued until the de novo hearing is complete, but that's not a central point.  The central point, which you did not address, is that Congress asked for a de novo hearing and one was not held.

I am interested in the 14th Amendment because it is the basis for nearly all Federal intervention in state affairs today.

If the statute is constitutional, a de novo hearing should be give on the suit filed.  That has nothing to do with if the stay, a temporary restraining order (TRO), requires a de novo hearing. 

The result of the hearing (after appeals) would be the final determination under the statute.  That requires a de novo hearing.  The issuence of a TRO, does not.

The issuence of a TRO is based on the judgment of the trier as it if there is a likihood of the case being successful.  Congress did not, in the statute, say to the court, in effect, "If there is a suit under this statute, you must issue a TRO until the case is finally resolved."  Congress gave the courts permission to issue a TRO, but did not require the courts to grant a TRO.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Beet on March 26, 2005, 04:25:08 PM
I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 04:39:25 PM
I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.

The question is not and should not be is Mrs. Schiavo experiencing anything.  That's a complete red herring.

I thing most sides argree that Mrs. Schiavo is not, at this point, a compentent adult; this is why both sides want a guardian appointed; both sides agree that she is brain damaged and cannot make the decision herself.  The question is, in this condition, did Mrs. Schiavo, when she was competent, wish to kept on a feeding tube, in this condition?  That is the sole question.

Many people say that, even though they might be aware, they would not want treatment in certain circumstances.  Awareness has nothing to do with it.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Beet on March 26, 2005, 04:49:37 PM
I'm uncomfortable with this case as a whole, but the bombardment is inevitable, and it seems completely wrong to let her die at this point. I would side with the protestors here. I do not believe it can be said with reasonable certainty that she is not experiencing anything. In this case, the GOP Congress is actually doing the right thing, though it may be political. Given that, the behavior of the courts is up to Ford and JJ to try and explain. But even more inexplicable is public opinion here. I don't see how the public can be "conservative" enough on so many other issues but not this one. It seems that the politics of convenience has permeated too much of our society.

The question is not and should not be is Mrs. Schiavo experiencing anything.  That's a complete red herring.

I thing most sides argree that Mrs. Schiavo is not, at this point, a compentent adult; this is why both sides want a guardian appointed; both sides agree that she is brain damaged and cannot make the decision herself.  The question is, in this condition, did Mrs. Schiavo, when she was competent, wish to kept on a feeding tube, in this condition?  That is the sole question.

Many people say that, even though they might be aware, they would not want treatment in certain circumstances.  Awareness has nothing to do with it.

We have no way of knowing what she wants though. She could not really have known 15+ years ago what it would be like now (given that it is like something), so its hard to hold someone to what they said then. If the person is currently aware and denying treatment, then that is akin to euthanasia in my view, which is something else altogteher. But this is not even that...


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 26, 2005, 06:02:54 PM
I didn't say the congress demanded a stay.  I said a stay would logically be issued in order for a de novo hearing to be conducted under circumstances where we could avoid irreperable harm to Mrs. Schiavo (her dying, for example).

I didn't think i said that Michael Schiavo wanted to have Terri die that night, and I'm not sure where you got that.  I think its beyond dispute he wants to kill her now though.  My question about that night was very simple.  It is my view that while a heart arrythmia could have caused Terri Schiavo's injuries, it is not my view that its very likely that her specific type of heart arrythmia was the cause of her brain injury (since the arrythmia was not all that serious, and never recurred).  I think, therefore, that when Wesley J. Smith says the cause of her injury is undetermined that he retains credibility, something Ernest had questioned.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Brandon H on March 26, 2005, 07:47:57 PM
Here is the whole story, all 15 years of it.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

There is evidence to suggest that Michael may have physical assaulted Terri, but this was never followed up on. And the tube should be re-inserted while an investigation takes place as once she dies, it can not be undone.

I think Terri will be dead by Tuesday. Someone put a bounty on Michael's life. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried something earlier. Judge Greer has been run out of his church. Not sure what will happen once Terri is dead. I think this will also help Jeb Bush in future elections.

Unlike Scott Peterson, with the exception of taking 15 years, Michael Schiavo may have committed the perfect crime, and actually had the courts help him out.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 26, 2005, 07:54:04 PM
I think this will also help Jeb Bush in future elections.

Quite the reverse, I think the fact that Jeb has refused to engage in extra-legal shenanigans in this case will cause him to lose support among the extreme right-to-lifers despite his legal shenanigans.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 10:44:53 PM
I didn't say the congress demanded a stay.  I said a stay would logically be issued in order for a de novo hearing to be conducted under circumstances where we could avoid irreperable harm to Mrs. Schiavo (her dying, for example).


No, it wouldn't.  The criteria for issuing the stay has to meet a four point criteria.  The first one is if it has, "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits." 

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ZjJFSutNHj8J:www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf+%22likelihood+of+success%22+appeal&hl=en



This has been the stumbling block.  In the first hearing before the 11th Ciruit panel, two of the three judges said that it wouldn't meat that test.  Congress didn't require, as you've noted that the stay was required.  The rules relating to granting the stay, or temporary restraining order, were the same.  Even in other "life or death" cases, the court has established that the rule applies.

When the Schindlers appealed again, the remaining judge on the panel (the same three) reversed and and agreed with the other two that the appeal would unlikely to suceed on the merits.

On the possibility that their was some sort of an assault, the injuries were all "compression fractures" which are usually not caused as the result of an assault.  They can be caused by a fall, or, in the case of osteoporosis, occur natually. 

Further these occured in lumbar region of the spine (the lower region), the lower ribs, thigh, and knees.  Where there was no damage was the cervical region, the neck.  It is exceptionally hard to cut the oxygen supply below the neck. 

Futher, it would be very unlikely that, assuming these are not caused in a fall (such as a collapse during her heart attack) or naturally occuring, that injuries basically below the chest could be caused by personal assault, like a fight or beating.  About the only way would be if he were sitting or laying on her what she was prone; even that would not cause a disruption of oxygen to the brain.

So we have injuries that are not normally the result of an assault and in the wrong places for an assault.

Interestingly, the charges have been raised by the Schindlers; by their statements yesterday, Mrs. Shiavo had only "hours to live" as of the afternoon on Friday.  Their claim was false, as it has been more than hours.  We should consider the overall accuracy of the Schindlers' claims to date in judging this one.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 26, 2005, 11:24:31 PM
Here is the whole story, all 15 years of it.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463

There is evidence to suggest that Michael may have physical assaulted Terri, but this was never followed up on. And the tube should be re-inserted while an investigation takes place as once she dies, it can not be undone.



Here are some extracts from the report of the doctor cited in the article:

In May 2002, access to the patient was allowed for two physicians appointed by the family.  At that time, my observation of Terri Schiavo in person occurred, having previously viewed videotape that was first shown at her first trial.

The doctor who claimed a problem with the neck, William M. Hammesfahr, examined Mrs. Schiavo after she had been bedridden for 12 years.  This may be the cause of the problem.



The neck exam was abnormal. She had severe limitation of range of motion in the flexion, and to a lesser degree in extension.  Indeed, I was able to pick up her entire torso and head and neck area with pressure on the back of her neck in the suboccipital region.  These findings of cervical spasm and limitation of range of motion are consistent with a neck injury.  No bruits were identified.

Lung exam showed scattered wheezes in the right lung fields.  No rhonchi or rales were identified.  Cardiac exam was normal to my exam.  Interestingly, the significant arrhythmias identified by the electronic cuff, as well as my palpation of her wrist exam was not identified during this cardiac portion of the exam, suggesting the arrhythmia is intermittent.


http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Ironically, Dr. Hammesfahr noted in his report that the arrhythmia is still present, refuting those claims that there is no continued evidence or a heart problem.  It should be added that he is the doctor hired by the Schindlers.  In short, while her neck is currently in bad condition (according to him) there is evidence of a heart problem (again, according to him).

He also said, suprisingly:



ENT:  The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow.  It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Emphasis not added.  http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

Based on what he claims in this, which isn't particularly consistent with the other physicians and even those of the Schindlers, expecially that Mrs. Schiavo doesn't need the need the feeding tube,  perhaps his conclusions should be treated as questionable.




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Brandon H on March 26, 2005, 11:33:19 PM
I think this will also help Jeb Bush in future elections.

Quite the reverse, I think the fact that Jeb has refused to engage in extra-legal shenanigans in this case will cause him to lose support among the extreme right-to-lifers despite his legal shenanigans.

Did I type help? Doh. I meant hurt. And yes, the right-to-lifers are the key reason I was referring to.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 27, 2005, 01:04:35 AM

We have no way of knowing what she wants though. She could not really have known 15+ years ago what it would be like now (given that it is like something), so its hard to hold someone to what they said then. If the person is currently aware and denying treatment, then that is akin to euthanasia in my view, which is something else altogteher. But this is not even that...

Well, that there is some question of what she wanted is the reason for the trial.

We recognize, in the country, that competent adults can refused medical treatment, though they might be public health excepts (which are not applicable here).  In some states, like FL and my state of PA, we recognize that people can designate their wishes on this subject in advance.  I personally have done so.

Now, and this is important, a competent adult has a right to refuse treatment, including the insertion or maintaining of a feeding tube.  An adult, with no legal bar to them making a decision, such as incompetence, that requires a feeding tube to exist, can turn to the doctor and say, "Remove the tube."  That is their right.  I have refused suggested medical treatment several times, and my mother refused it in at least one case.

States also recognize that people can become incompetent and provide for guardianship of these incompetents; further they note that the wishes of the incompetent person, given while competent, can be followed and normally should be followed.  This comes down to several questions.

1.  Is Terri Schiavo competent?  Both sides, by declaring that they wish to be declared guardian, have conceded that she is not.  If either side declares that Mrs. Schiavo expresses current wishes, one way or the other, they are in effect saying that she is competent.

2.  What, if any, wishes has Terri Schiavo expressed in this matter, while a competent adult.  This is basically the issue.

We do have some evidence, which is hearsay but also is admissible in this case.  We have statements from her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law that if she did not wish to be attached to a tube.  Now is that evidence credible?   Is there any reason for these people to lie under oath?

Two that have been suggested are:

1.  Mr. Shiavo stands to inherit.  Well there is very little money left in the estate for him to inherit.  He does not have control of her assets at this point, though the do, legimately, pay his legal expenses.  He further has declined offers to "buy out" his right to maintain his guardianship.  Money cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

2.  Mr. Shiavo wishes to marry someone else.  Well, he can, under FL law, both cheaply and quickly, divorce Mrs. Schiavo on the ground of her current state of incompetence.  This action may have had the advantage of leaving Mr. Schiavo in a better financial condition, and he could have concluded the marriage by this time.  Marriage cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

Now, we are left with three witnesses to Mrs. Schiavo's statements on this matter.  There is no motivation for them to give false statements.

Is their any evidence that Mrs. Schiavo has expressed other wishes, as a competent adult?  This evidence, while not proving Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, would serve as a counterweight to the previous statements, and call those into question.  As of this point, no counter evidence has been presented.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 27, 2005, 03:32:08 AM
You're overlooking the fact that in 1997, when Michael Schiavo began his mission to get the feeding tube removed, the money in the malpractice trust fund was not exhausted.  he can't well stop now, it would seem a bit odd if he suddenly quit when the money was gone.

The fact that Congress mandated a de novo hearing demonstrates that there is sufficient chance of success to issue a stay.  Remember, in a de novo hearing the judge has to start over on all fact finding.  How can he say there isn't chance of success if he is starting over on fact finding?  There's no legal basis for doing so.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 27, 2005, 07:54:22 AM
You're overlooking the fact that in 1997, when Michael Schiavo began his mission to get the feeding tube removed, the money in the malpractice trust fund was not exhausted.  he can't well stop now, it would seem a bit odd if he suddenly quit when the money was gone.

The fact that Congress mandated a de novo hearing demonstrates that there is sufficient chance of success to issue a stay.  Remember, in a de novo hearing the judge has to start over on all fact finding.  How can he say there isn't chance of success if he is starting over on fact finding?  There's no legal basis for doing so.

Wrong on both counts.  Why couldn't he stop the procedure.  He could have very said that it was too costly to pursue, because of the Schindler's suits.  You will note that he voluntarily withdrew his request for the DNR order, 7 years before.

Congress, in the legislation, changed two factor; it  it gave the Schindler's the right to sue, in Federal Courts and said that, if they do, the hearing will be de novo.  It did not change any legal standard for the case, and might not be to constitutionally able to do that.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 27, 2005, 08:24:07 PM
I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.

Interesting, the report is. Neutral, I would say not - there is a bias against the parents which crops up from time to time. And yes, Michael started trying to have Terry killed after the malpractice lawsuit - the timing is just too much for coincidence, personally.

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?! Because her soon-to-be-remarrying husband - and may I note that the parents acceptance of Michael's dating again came before Michael started trying to kill their daughter - says so? 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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Beet on March 27, 2005, 09:41:42 PM

We have no way of knowing what she wants though. She could not really have known 15+ years ago what it would be like now (given that it is like something), so its hard to hold someone to what they said then. If the person is currently aware and denying treatment, then that is akin to euthanasia in my view, which is something else altogteher. But this is not even that...

Well, that there is some question of what she wanted is the reason for the trial.

We recognize, in the country, that competent adults can refused medical treatment, though they might be public health excepts (which are not applicable here).  In some states, like FL and my state of PA, we recognize that people can designate their wishes on this subject in advance.  I personally have done so.

Now, and this is important, a competent adult has a right to refuse treatment, including the insertion or maintaining of a feeding tube.  An adult, with no legal bar to them making a decision, such as incompetence, that requires a feeding tube to exist, can turn to the doctor and say, "Remove the tube."  That is their right.  I have refused suggested medical treatment several times, and my mother refused it in at least one case.

States also recognize that people can become incompetent and provide for guardianship of these incompetents; further they note that the wishes of the incompetent person, given while competent, can be followed and normally should be followed.  This comes down to several questions.

1.  Is Terri Schiavo competent?  Both sides, by declaring that they wish to be declared guardian, have conceded that she is not.  If either side declares that Mrs. Schiavo expresses current wishes, one way or the other, they are in effect saying that she is competent.

2.  What, if any, wishes has Terri Schiavo expressed in this matter, while a competent adult.  This is basically the issue.

We do have some evidence, which is hearsay but also is admissible in this case.  We have statements from her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law that if she did not wish to be attached to a tube.  Now is that evidence credible?   Is there any reason for these people to lie under oath?

Two that have been suggested are:

1.  Mr. Shiavo stands to inherit.  Well there is very little money left in the estate for him to inherit.  He does not have control of her assets at this point, though the do, legimately, pay his legal expenses.  He further has declined offers to "buy out" his right to maintain his guardianship.  Money cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

2.  Mr. Shiavo wishes to marry someone else.  Well, he can, under FL law, both cheaply and quickly, divorce Mrs. Schiavo on the ground of her current state of incompetence.  This action may have had the advantage of leaving Mr. Schiavo in a better financial condition, and he could have concluded the marriage by this time.  Marriage cannot legitimately be said to be the issue.

Now, we are left with three witnesses to Mrs. Schiavo's statements on this matter.  There is no motivation for them to give false statements.

Is their any evidence that Mrs. Schiavo has expressed other wishes, as a competent adult?  This evidence, while not proving Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, would serve as a counterweight to the previous statements, and call those into question.  As of this point, no counter evidence has been presented.



Ok, I see what your saying. In that case I wont delve into this further because it would require too complicated analysis which really does not matter to the public, and should not be political at all, it matters only to the family who knows more than we ever will.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 27, 2005, 10:12:39 PM
I'll get back to you, J.J., when I've read the report...

Please do, and read a few of the press interviews with Dr. Wolfson.

Just a note, while he does have an extensive background in rehabilitation, he is a Ph D, not an MD.

Interesting, the report is. Neutral, I would say not - there is a bias against the parents which crops up from time to time. And yes, Michael started trying to have Terry killed after the malpractice lawsuit - the timing is just too much for coincidence, personally.

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?! Because her soon-to-be-remarrying husband - and may I note that the parents acceptance of Michael's dating again came before Michael started trying to kill their daughter - says so? 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 27, 2005, 10:35:29 PM

Ok, I see what your saying. In that case I wont delve into this further because it would require too complicated analysis which really does not matter to the public, and should not be political at all, it matters only to the family who knows more than we ever will.

I didn't quite say that.  Nearly any poster might be facing this situation involving a parent, spouse, child, or sibling.  You might even be on a jury that is asked to determine this, or be an attorney or judge involved in this case.  Welcome to the real world, folks.

The first question that we should ask is, what are the wishes of the patient in this?  Now, that answer is going to be different in each case, and how it will be determined will be different.

Don't get me wrong, if there was evidence to the contrary, my answer would change.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 12:05:16 AM
Terri did not have a heart attack, she had a heart arrythmia.

JJ has contradicted himself.  He claims that Michael Schiavo only wants what his wife wanted, yet he has repeatedly defended Michael by saying two contradictory things.

The first is that Michael is a good husband because he tried to get Terri al the treatment he could.  The second is that Terri's wishes were to no be treated, and Michael is good for carrying out those wishes.

Both cannot be true.

Either he is a bad person for treating his wife and a good one for killing her, or he is good for treating her and bad for killing her.  You can't have it both ways.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 12:26:06 AM
The New York Times has published the abuse allegations.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 12:42:32 AM
Terri did not have a heart attack, she had a heart arrythmia.

JJ has contradicted himself.  He claims that Michael Schiavo only wants what his wife wanted, yet he has repeatedly defended Michael by saying two contradictory things.

The first is that Michael is a good husband because he tried to get Terri al the treatment he could.  The second is that Terri's wishes were to no be treated, and Michael is good for carrying out those wishes.

Both cannot be true.

Either he is a bad person for treating his wife and a good one for killing her, or he is good for treating her and bad for killing her.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm using heart attack, which isn't a true medical term, generically.  Technically, she suffered from hypoxia, which has caused mental impairment.

Yes, both could.  After four years of continious attempts at therapy and even experimental treatment, it became clear that there was no chance of improvement.  Any hope that Mr. Shiavo had of seeing his wife improved vanished. 

BTW, that's the reason the Schindler's claim for their problems with Mr. Schiavo.  Well, at least initially, as they've changed their story soooooo many times, it's hard to know what there story is now. 

Mr. Schiavo claims that it's because the Schindlers wanted money.  Of course, Mrs. Schiavo was still getting therapy when the Schindlers filed their suit, which was 4 months later.  Kinda makes you wonder about the Schindler's motivation in all of this, dosen't it?

What is their allegation of abuse?  Is this another example of the "abuse" that Mr. Schiavo didn't want her to spend money to change her hair color again?





Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 01:40:27 AM
I'm using heart attack, which isn't a true medical term, generically. Technically, she suffered from hypoxia, which has caused mental impairment.

I'll forgive you.  After all, only a complete jackass would make a big deal over someone using a term that was technically inaccurate but whose intended meaning was still obvious to all.  Right?

Yes, both could. After four years of continious attempts at therapy and even experimental treatment, it became clear that there was no chance of improvement. Any hope that Mr. Shiavo had of seeing his wife improved vanished.

BTW, that's the reason the Schindler's claim for their problems with Mr. Schiavo. Well, at least initially, as they've changed their story soooooo many times, it's hard to know what there story is now.

Mr. Schiavo claims that it's because the Schindlers wanted money. Of course, Mrs. Schiavo was still getting therapy when the Schindlers filed their suit, which was 4 months later. Kinda makes you wonder about the Schindler's motivation in all of this, dosen't it?

No no no, you're not getting away with that.

You've spent 17 pages insisting that she is in PVS and has always been universally diagnosed as such, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a quack, and that PVS (Permanent!) is irreversible.

If she was always in an irreversible state, and he always knew what her wishes were if she was ever in such a state, he'd have asked the feeding tube be withdrawn sooner.

What is their allegation of abuse? Is this another example of the "abuse" that Mr. Schiavo didn't want her to spend money to change her hair color again?

You'll have to read the Times article.  I read the print version, so I don't know where the weblink is.  Earlier you asked if there were any credible sources for this or that, well, now there is.

This doesn't mena I endorse the accusation, but its important to bring up that the JJ approved type sources are now reporting the things that your opponents have been saying all along.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 02:45:52 AM
I'm using heart attack, which isn't a true medical term, generically. Technically, she suffered from hypoxia, which has caused mental impairment.

I'll forgive you.  After all, only a complete jackass would make a big deal over someone using a term that was technically inaccurate but whose intended meaning was still obvious to all.  Right?
Quote


No a person using a generic term can be forgive.  If I were to use, improperly, the term "aneurysm" to describe what happened.  It would be like using "inheritance" to describe money from an estate and proceeds from life insurance, but not like calling money in the bank as "life insurance," or vice versa.


No no no, you're not getting away with that.

You've spent 17 pages insisting that she is in PVS and has always been universally diagnosed as such, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a quack, and that PVS (Permanent!) is irreversible.

If she was always in an irreversible state, and he always knew what her wishes were if she was ever in such a state, he'd have asked the feeding tube be withdrawn sooner.

Or very simply that he loved her and didn't want to let her go.  It became clear that he couldn't, even after trying experimental treatment.
The idea that he would try something like experimental treatment, for which he had to transport her to California, is a pretty good indication of that.

I will also note that I have never used the word "quack."  The doctor in question actually said something different in his report than even what the Schindlers have claimed, that the feeding tube can be removed.  They are saying that it can't (and so are all of the other doctors).


You'll have to read the Times article.  I read the print version, so I don't know where the weblink is.  Earlier you asked if there were any credible sources for this or that, well, now there is.

This doesn't mena I endorse the accusation, but its important to bring up that the JJ approved type sources are now reporting the things that your opponents have been saying all along.

Okay, who made the allegation.  I will look.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 02:52:54 AM
I'm not even going to address the first point.  You're one sick person, though.  I'd hate it if you worked for a company that I ran, because you incapable of taking responsibility EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF A MISTAKE WAS MADE!!

It completely exposes your pretension to objectivity when you concoct these convoluted explainations as to why somebody did something, or why such and such doesn't really prove this or that.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 03:05:57 AM
I have to hand it to you; yes there is a mention about abuse.  It refers to the Schindler's abuse of the legal system.

Mrs. Weller told Mrs. Schiavo that this whole matter could end if Mrs. Schiavo could articulate one sentence: 'I want to live.' " The motion continued, saying that Ms. Schiavo "attempted to verbalize the sentence. She managed to articulate the first two vowel sounds, first articulating 'ahhhhhhh' and then virtually screaming 'waaaaaaaa.' She became very agitated, but could not complete the vocalization attempted."

The Schindlers argued that their daughter seemed to be trying to say "I want," and that her feeding tube should be reinserted to determine whether she could communicate.

George Felos, Mr. Schiavo's lawyer, called the motion "outrageous" and "an abuse of the legal system," saying the issue of whether Ms. Schiavo can communicate had been addressed in previous hearings. The sounds were nothing more than a reflex caused by touching her, he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/national/26schiavo.html

You might want to check out the definition of the word "barratry," in the non maritime sense.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 03:17:33 AM
Today's Times (print version, again) had a story where Terri's brother talks about Terri's thoughts to get a divorce and he alleges evidence of abuse.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 03:27:24 AM
Your effusive praise of Michael and his lawyers is becoming more and more untenable.

George Felos, Michaels attorney, said of Terri's condition, "In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I have never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her," and "She looked beautiful".

Well, starvation work on supermodels, why not Terri Schiavo?  I see it now.  Move over Atkins diet, make room for the Schiavo Startion System!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 03:54:10 AM
I'm not even going to address the first point.  You're one sick person, though.  I'd hate it if you worked for a company that I ran, because you incapable of taking responsibility EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF A MISTAKE WAS MADE!!

It completely exposes your pretension to objectivity when you concoct these convoluted explainations as to why somebody did something, or why such and such doesn't really prove this or that.

I can assure that any you would run would fail quickly; accuracy and quality control are what sells and your posts indicate a serious lacking of both.  Of course when it fails, maybe you can get a job with the Schindlers; truth doesn't seem to matter to them.

Here is one example:

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.
Quote


You claimed I was dishonest and said nothing would suprise you.  I guess it did surprise you it really didn't exist.

Here is my first direct question on it.


That some blogger accepts it as fact does not make it as fact.  Certainly that you claim it, does not make it fact (and might even make more dubious). Even the blogger sources that I've seen list it as as "hundreds of thousands," not a million or $1.2 million.

What credible evidence do you have that this policy exists?  Is there a legitimate news source that reported it, not a blogger or someone who "thinks" it "may" exist.

I did look and I couldn't find it.



After repeated asking, you finally admitted that it didn't exist.  That's been the problem with most of your posts; you've claimed all sorts of things, what the rules of evidence are, what the Federal Statute said, that guardians couldn't be heirs, that Mr. Schaivo asted improperly as guardian.  All of these can, and were checked and were found to be wrong.  This isn't one isolated incident, but repeated ones.

As for the abuse, the Schidlers have claimed it since 1993 (and iteresting didn't prior to that); it was checked and determined to be untrue; they certainly didn't see any "abuse" in 1990, when they didn't object to Mr. Schaivo being appointed guardian.   They are even less trustworthy than you are.

I'll add that it wasn't online.

I use to work as a welfare caseworker; part of my job was asking clients questions.  I found that one of the easiest ways to tell if a client was telling the truth was to see how consistent his information was.  Whenever they claimed that that their bills were for $400 a month, and they'd only get a check for $316, I'd ask where they got the extra money to pay their bills.  It's not a hard test to make, but you'd stunned to know how many caseworkers didn't do it.

John, you wouldn't even make it as a welfare client, based on what you've posted on this thread.



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 04:07:30 AM
Your effusive praise of Michael and his lawyers is becoming more and more untenable.

George Felos, Michaels attorney, said of Terri's condition, "In all the years I've seen Mrs. Schiavo, I have never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her," and "She looked beautiful".

Well, starvation work on supermodels, why not Terri Schiavo?  I see it now.  Move over Atkins diet, make room for the Schiavo Startion System!

  He may be right; he didn't know her 15 years ago.

I wouldn't call it praise, but like Mr. Schiavo doing his duty, and being honest.  Here the claim again:

As part of the first challenge to Michael's Guardianship, the court appointed John H. Pecarek as Guardian Ad Litem to determine if there had been any abuse by Michael Schiavo. His report, issued 1 March 1994, found no inappropriate actions and indicated that Michael had been very attentive to Theresa. After two more years of legal contention, the Schindlers action against Michael was dismissed with prejudice. Efforts to remove Michael as Guardian were attempted in subsequent years, without success.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I'm not saying it, the guardian appointed under "Terri's Law" is saying it.
Everytime I check the claims, the answer keeps coming back the same.

We have some evidence that Terri Schiavo would not want to be kept alive in this case.  We have no evidence evidence that she ever uttered an opinion to the contrary.  We have a lot of evidence that what the Schindlers are saying, that we can verify is untrue, though they've pulled nearly every maudlin trick in the book and violated Mrs. Schiavo's right to privacy, in violation of a court order; we don't have that with the Schiovos.

I do have more respect for Mr. Schiavo, at least; he doesn't treat us a gullible.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 04:12:51 AM
I didn't admit the life insurance didn't exist, I  said I used the term life insurance when referring to the malpractice trust fund, and freely admit I used imprecise language that caused confusion.  The malpractice fund did exist and was raided by Michael Schiavo in direct contravention to a court order demanding that it be spent on Terri Schiavo's medical care.

He also lied in that court case, saying he'd allow Terri to live out her natural life expectancy.  He obviously is not doing that.

You keep up these attacks on the Schindlers.  I haven't seen you produce one lie except those that appear to be brought on by extreme distress.  Their view that Terri was in her final hours, for example, turned out to be wrong.  But they can hardly be called liars, for they were under extreme distress and their comments were likewise extreme.  I think its safe to say they probably believed Terri was in her final hourse, if someone says something that turns out ot be wrong, it isn't necessarily a lie.  I haven't seen you produce any actual lies.

We all get it by now, you can quote the Wolfson report.  Its an argument to authority, and not a very good one.  As WMS has demonstrated, simply saying someone is unbiased doesn't make them so.  Simply being court appointed doesn't make someone unbiased.  A lot of your argument rests on the idea that the courts are infallible, which is obviously wrong.

He may be right; he didn't know her 15 years ago.

That's pretty sad that you actually think that.  Its really sick that you'll actually defend anything this guy says no matter how deranged it might be.  THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT WITH EACH DAY, SHE DRAWS NEARER TO DEATH!!!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 28, 2005, 04:49:38 AM
The most reasonable explanation IMO for Michael’s apparent change of position over the years is that at first he clung to the hope, like the Schindlers still do, that Terri was not in a PVS.  As long as he held that hope,  he should have done all he could to help Terri recover, and it appears he did.  Once he became convinced that she was in a PVS, then following Terri’s desires for what she wanted if she ended up in such a state, was what he should have done, and what it appears he has done.

The difficulty here is occassioned by the disparity in both the belief in whether Terri is in a PVS and in what Terri’s wishes were between Michael and the Schindlers.  That made it a legal issue.  The law decided both facets in favor of Michael’s position and so the Schindlers turned from the court of law to the court of public opinion since they couldn’t win in the former.  They have lost in the latter as well.

I can sympathize with the Schindlers inability to accept what happened to Terri, and given their beliefs, I can’t fault them too much for what they did.  After all, ideally, parents should not have the opportunity to attend a funeral for their child.  Rather, what fault exists in my opinion lies with those of their so-called supporters who have distorted facts in the service of their own agendas, which had little or nothing to do with what was best for Terri Schaivo.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 05:14:56 AM
I didn't admit the life insurance didn't exist, I  said I used the term life insurance when referring to the malpractice trust fund, and freely admit I used imprecise language that caused confusion.  The malpractice fund did exist and was raided by Michael Schiavo in direct contravention to a court order demanding that it be spent on Terri Schiavo's medical care.

Wrong again.  It is to be used for her care and is monitored by the court.  this falls under her "care."  It's a bit like paying the income taxes on the interest on money (and it probably is taxable).  That is legitimate use.  Estate assets of this type are not limited for medical care.

Quote
He also lied in that court case, saying he'd allow Terri to live out her natural life expectancy.  He obviously is not doing that.

Where does this claim come from?


Quote
You keep up these attacks on the Schindlers.  I haven't seen you produce one lie except those that appear to be brought on by extreme distress.  Their view that Terri was in her final hours, for example, turned out to be wrong.  But they can hardly be called liars, for they were under extreme distress and their comments were likewise extreme. 

You yourself claimed that she couldn't speak, yet with the last 72 hours, the Shindlers filed a claim (rejected of course) thaty she said, "AAAHH WAAAA," as communication that she wanted to keep the tube in.  They filed that in an affidavit.

Quote

We all get it by now, you can quote the Wolfson report.  Its an argument to authority, and not a very good one.  As WMS has demonstrated, simply saying someone is unbiased doesn't make them so.  Simply being court appointed doesn't make someone unbiased.  A lot of your argument rests on the idea that the courts are infallible, which is obviously wrong.


No. My argument is that the Scheindlers agreed to Wolfson, he isn't paid by either, and, they signed on to the recommendations.  Mr. Schiavo didn't because he was challenging the constitutionality of "Terri's Law."  We have an independent guardian, appointed under "Terri's Law", approved by the Schindlers, and with whose recommendation the Schindlers agreed!  Oh how terribly biased against the Schindlers that must be! (That is sarcasm).

No, my argument is the American one.  In our system, the courts make decisions on what the resentatives of the people wish to enact as laws, inclusive of their constitutions.  They did just that.  Congress passed a law, and the courts applied it properly.  The legislature State of Florida declined to enact a law that said that only previously written statements would be admissible, which the SCOTUS said in Crusan would be permissible.  The people didn't want that law changed; we collectively want the current system, that can produce this result in place.


He may be right; he didn't know her 15 years ago.

That's pretty sad that you actually think that.  Its really sick that you'll actually defend anything this guy says no matter how deranged it might be.  THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT WITH EACH DAY, SHE DRAWS NEARER TO DEATH!!!

That isn't in the least deranged, under two conditions:

1.  Terri Schiavo doesn't know what is happening and it doesn't make any difference.

2. Terri Schiavo knows what is happening, and is happy that her wishes are FINALLY being carried out!

It is frankly perverse to think that death won't be a release for her, on some level.  If she was becoming agitated, that might be a sign that she wants to stay in this condition.  That she isn't just one more sign that this is what she wants.




Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 01:13:53 PM
It actually is deranged to defend Felos for saying Terri looks beautiful while she is being killed by starvation/dehydration.

I think I've made my view clear that most of what the Schindler's are doing now can be chalked up to desperation, and they should be given reprieve from attacks on their honesty for acts of desperation.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 01:22:03 PM
It actually is deranged to defend Felos for saying Terri looks beautiful while she is being killed by starvation/dehydration.

I think I've made my view clear that most of what the Schindler's are doing now can be chalked up to desperation, and they should be given reprieve from attacks on their honesty for acts of desperation.

Gee, nearly everyone that is party to a legal action, criminal or civil, is "desperate."  Under this twisted logic, any party to a suit is given an excuse to lie in court filing because of desperation.  A witness who is 'desperate" to keep his friend out of jail should be able to lie about an alibi.  The doctors in the malpractice suit should have lied so that they didn't have to make the pay out.  Mr. Schiavo should be permitted to lie because he's "desperate" to carry out his wife's wishes.

I guess that it would be okay for someone getting welfare benefits to lie about income because they are "desperate" to get more money.

You've now sunk to a new low in defending the Schindler's dishonesty.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 03:18:26 PM
It actually is deranged to defend Felos for saying Terri looks beautiful while she is being killed by starvation/dehydration.

I think I've made my view clear that most of what the Schindler's are doing now can be chalked up to desperation, and they should be given reprieve from attacks on their honesty for acts of desperation.

Gee, nearly everyone that is party to a legal action, criminal or civil, is "desperate."  Under this twisted logic, any party to a suit is given an excuse to lie in court filing because of desperation.  A witness who is 'desperate" to keep his friend out of jail should be able to lie about an alibi.  The doctors in the malpractice suit should have lied so that they didn't have to make the pay out.  Mr. Schiavo should be permitted to lie because he's "desperate" to carry out his wife's wishes.

I guess that it would be okay for someone getting welfare benefits to lie about income because they are "desperate" to get more money.

You've now sunk to a new low in defending the Schindler's dishonesty.

Your boy Michael is killing their daughter.  That's where their desepration comes from.

What they did wasn't a lie because they believe it to be true.  Its up to the judge to determine if their evaluation of their world at this point in their lives is fit for a court room, and he said no.  Its unnecessary piling on to now say that they're liars.  They believe she said she wants to live.  You can't call someone a liar for saying what they truly believe.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2005, 03:38:01 PM
Why does Michael "the beater" Schiavo want his wife immediately creamated and has a court order not allowing the family to get involved in the burial ceremony? Why did Mikey "the beater" Schiavo not allow his wife to recieve last rights from the family priest. He actually had a COURT ORDER out to stop the family.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 03:47:25 PM

Your boy Michael is killing their daughter.  That's where their desepration comes from.

What they did wasn't a lie because they believe it to be true.  Its up to the judge to determine if their evaluation of their world at this point in their lives is fit for a court room, and he said no.  Its unnecessary piling on to now say that they're liars.  They believe she said she wants to live.  You can't call someone a liar for saying what they truly believe.

Well, the problem is that they were liars before their was their any question of removing the feeding tube.

In 1990, when Mr. Schiavo was first appointed guardian, they had no objection (and technically the could have).

If they thought he was "abusing" his wife, why didn't the object at that time.  They did object three years later, claiming abuse, which was found to be groundless.  Now, in those three years, from 1990 to 1993, what changed?  Mrs. Schiavo was still getting therapy and would until 1994.  Their was no DNR order at the time.

One thing that changed was that Mr. Schiavo, who received a settlement in the malpractice suits, declinded to give some of the money to the Schindlers.

This deals with the Schindler's motives in the early 1990's and their claims today.  There is a pattern of dishonesty with the Schindlers.  The claims they made in 1993 is similar to the claims that they made in the last weeks.

You have defended their dishonesty as being an act of "desperation" now, but in 1993, when they made similar claims.  There was no "desperation" in that time, no suggestion that the feeding tube removed, and no DNR order.

The question is, who throughout this 15 year process has been consistent answers.  It is not the Schindlers.

Now, we see the same pattern.  I would be more sympathetic to the Schindlers if they:

1.  Had made these claims of abuse when Mr. Schiavo first applied to be guardian.  They would have had to said, at that point, "We trust the person abusing our daughter."

2.  The had made the claims first when her treatments changed.  Mrs. Schiavo was still being rehabilitated when they filed suit and would for more than 6 months.  What changed in the case between 1990 and June of 1993?  Mr. Schiavo said no to their request for money and that was it!!!!


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 03:50:24 PM
Why does Michael "the beater" Schiavo want his wife immediately creamated and has a court order not allowing the family to get involved in the burial ceremony? Why did Mikey "the beater" Schiavo not allow his wife to recieve last rights from the family priest. He actually had a COURT ORDER out to stop the family.

She actually has received last rites, when the tube was removed.  She received the Communion yesterday.

I would never want pack of liars at the funeral of my wife, the Schindlers, or perhaps The Swindlers.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2005, 04:08:42 PM
Why does Michael "the beater" Schiavo want his wife immediately creamated and has a court order not allowing the family to get involved in the burial ceremony? Why did Mikey "the beater" Schiavo not allow his wife to recieve last rights from the family priest. He actually had a COURT ORDER out to stop the family.

She actually has received last rites, when the tube was removed.  She received the Communion yesterday.

I would never want pack of liars at the funeral of my wife, the Schindlers, or perhaps The Swindlers.

You'd rather the man that beat his wife be there, right?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 05:25:37 PM
The cause for the falling out was that the Schindler's wanted to use the money for rehabilitation, and Schiavo used it to litigate the end of Terri's life.

There is a very dark place inside you, it seems, as you defend the absurd and outrageous from someone who is trying to kill his wife, and reserve harsh judgement for the parents of a dying girl.  Its a very sad thing to see someone like that, and in a sense I pity you for that.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Cashcow on March 28, 2005, 06:11:01 PM
The protestors are calling Jeb Bush "Pontius Pilate." Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 28, 2005, 06:21:55 PM
The protestors are calling Jeb Bush "Pontius Pilate." Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?
Merely predictable.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: opebo on March 28, 2005, 06:25:26 PM
The protestors are calling Jeb Bush "Pontius Pilate." Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

It is great fun!  Couldn't happen to a nicer guy! 

Maybe this will teach the plutocrats they're playing with fire making use of these religious maniacs.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 06:44:23 PM
The cause for the falling out was that the Schindler's wanted to use the money for rehabilitation, and Schiavo used it to litigate the end of Terri's life.

There is a very dark place inside you, it seems, as you defend the absurd and outrageous from someone who is trying to kill his wife, and reserve harsh judgement for the parents of a dying girl.  Its a very sad thing to see someone like that, and in a sense I pity you for that.

Wrong again!

Here is a chronology from the Ethics department of the University of Miami:

November 1992

The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars.  In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care.



February 14, 1993

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers have a falling-out over the course of therapy for Terri Schiavo; Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers demand that he share the malpractice money with them.



July 29, 1993

Schindlers attempt to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo’s guardian; the court later dismisses the suit.


http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm



Notice the date, July of 1993.



By 1994, Michael's attitude and perspective about Theresa's condition changed. During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care. This was in the face of consistent medical reports indicating that there was little or no likelihood for her improvement.

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.


http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Note the date, early 1994.  There was no attempt at litigation on Mr. Schiavo's part in 1993, none in 1994, 1995, 1996, or 1997.  

When did Mr. Schiavo actually do this?

In 1997, six years after Theresa's tragic collapse, Michael elected to initiate an action to withdraw artificial life support from Theresa. More than a year later, in May of 1998, the first petition to discontinue life support was entered.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Almost five years later, More than eight years after the heart attack,  Mr. Schiavo began the process.  He wasn't rushing to do anything.  There was no attempt, as you claim, that the Schindler's had to block anything; the only thing that changed from November 1992 and July 1993 was Mr. Schiavo won the lawsuit and the Schindler didn't get any money out of it.

We heard from Mr. Schindler on Friday that Mrs. Schiavo had hours to life; we heard from him today that she's hanging on.  Which verision of any story of the Schindlers should we believe?


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 06:51:35 PM
Why does Michael "the beater" Schiavo want his wife immediately creamated and has a court order not allowing the family to get involved in the burial ceremony? Why did Mikey "the beater" Schiavo not allow his wife to recieve last rights from the family priest. He actually had a COURT ORDER out to stop the family.

She actually has received last rites, when the tube was removed.  She received the Communion yesterday.

I would never want pack of liars at the funeral of my wife, the Schindlers, or perhaps The Swindlers.

You'd rather the man that beat his wife be there, right?

You'd rather have the family that pimped out their daughter when they told their son-in-law to start dating?  You have a daughter; would you do that to her?

Just for the record, prior to cremation, Mr. Schiavo is requesting an autopsy.  Just reported on CBS.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 07:15:07 PM
Here is the citation:

Attorney George Felos told reporters late Monday afternoon in Florida that Michael Schiavo has requested that Pinellas County’s chief medical examiner perform on autopsy on his wife once she dies in order to answer questions about the severity of brain damage and to put to rest rumors about her physical condition.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/1411937.html

Now this isn't exactly the action of someone with something to hide.

We will get to the truth even if post mordem.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 07:22:52 PM
Why does Michael "the beater" Schiavo want his wife immediately creamated and has a court order not allowing the family to get involved in the burial ceremony? Why did Mikey "the beater" Schiavo not allow his wife to recieve last rights from the family priest. He actually had a COURT ORDER out to stop the family.

She actually has received last rites, when the tube was removed.  She received the Communion yesterday.

I would never want pack of liars at the funeral of my wife, the Schindlers, or perhaps The Swindlers.

You'd rather the man that beat his wife be there, right?

You'd rather have the family that pimped out their daughter when they told their son-in-law to start dating?  You have a daughter; would you do that to her?

Just for the record, prior to cremation, Mr. Schiavo is requesting an autopsy.  Just reported on CBS.

This is a recent position change for him then, as he had previously petitioned the court to deny such autopsy.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 07:35:39 PM
Why does Michael "the beater" Schiavo want his wife immediately creamated and has a court order not allowing the family to get involved in the burial ceremony? Why did Mikey "the beater" Schiavo not allow his wife to recieve last rights from the family priest. He actually had a COURT ORDER out to stop the family.

She actually has received last rites, when the tube was removed.  She received the Communion yesterday.

I would never want pack of liars at the funeral of my wife, the Schindlers, or perhaps The Swindlers.

You'd rather the man that beat his wife be there, right?

You'd rather have the family that pimped out their daughter when they told their son-in-law to start dating?  You have a daughter; would you do that to her?

Just for the record, prior to cremation, Mr. Schiavo is requesting an autopsy.  Just reported on CBS.

This is a recent position change for him then, as he had previously petitioned the court to deny such autopsy.

Well, here is the link to the report again:

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/1411937.html



Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 28, 2005, 07:42:36 PM
I didn't say that he wasn't allowing an autopsy, I said it was a change from his previous position.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 07:49:27 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 28, 2005, 07:50:28 PM
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


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 28, 2005, 07:56:36 PM
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.  :-)


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 29, 2005, 01:11:07 AM
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...

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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...


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 29, 2005, 07:51:51 AM
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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote
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?
Quote


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 29, 2005, 11:27:30 AM
Not to revive this thread, but here's a pretty disturbing article on bioethics.

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


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 29, 2005, 12:45:13 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 29, 2005, 03:07:40 PM
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


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 29, 2005, 05:29:42 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on March 29, 2005, 06:25:42 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 29, 2005, 06:51:08 PM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 31, 2005, 12:22:54 AM
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?

Quote
[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.

Quote
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. :P

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...


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 31, 2005, 10:57:06 AM
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?

Quote
[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. :P


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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: Platypus on March 31, 2005, 04:33:50 PM
she's died. :blank:


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 31, 2005, 05:45:16 PM
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. :P


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on March 31, 2005, 11:23:16 PM
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. :P

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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: WMS on March 31, 2005, 11:40:10 PM
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. :P

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 (http://www.local6.com/news/4334124/detail.html).
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on April 01, 2005, 01:28:12 AM
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. :P

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 (http://www.local6.com/news/4334124/detail.html).
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?"


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: The Duke on April 01, 2005, 01:32:52 AM
"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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J.R. Brown on April 01, 2005, 01:44:47 AM
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.


Title: Re: Terry Shiavo Poll
Post by: J. J. on April 01, 2005, 02:32:55 AM

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:

Quote
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.