The Terri Case - this is ridiculous

[Zakath]

if you've read about the incident, then why aren't you more well-versed on the facts.

I've read a lot published by both sides, most of it opinion and very little fact.

Why were the parents having to fight for the right to see their daughter? Because Michael was keeping them out.

And why would he do that? Perhaps because he felt it was not in Terry's best interest?

It was the testimony from the hospice staff that got Michael's demand over-turned. Their testimony included that he was keeping music and light out when there was no reason to deprive Terri of those things.

Hospital staff includes everyone from janitors to hospital administrators, to which "staff" are you referring...

What do you remember reading about the case?

I've read the AP wire accounts, the Shindlers web site, and what's been posted here on TOL. Why is it important? If you have something else that would be helpful, let's have a link... I've already asked twice...

 

[cattyfan]

I've read a lot published by both sides, most of it opinion and very little fact.

And why would he do that? Perhaps because he felt it was not in Terry's best interest?

Hospital staff includes everyone from janitors to hospital administrators, to which "staff" are you referring...


I've read the AP wire accounts, the Shindlers web site, and what's been posted here on TOL. Why is it important? If you have something else that would be helpful, let's have a link... I've already asked twice...

I don't have time to find a link for you at the moment...I have to go to work, but I'll look for it when I get home. (sorry...gotta pay for groceries for that fellowship week party somehow...) See you after I'm done with 8 hours of being responsible.

The staff who testified were nurses and nursing assistants.

 

[Skeptic]

Hey Skeptic-
Would you want your wife to be engaged to another man and have children with him too?

Why not? If I were in a vegetative state, unlikely to come out of it without severe brain damage, I would want my wife to move on and find happiness with someone.

Would you trust her if she couldn't honor her marriage vows? Remember those? For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health until DEATH DO YOU PART?

A persistent vegetative state IS DEATH!

 

[Zakath]

I don't have time to find a link for you at the moment...I have to go to work, but I'll look for it when I get home. (sorry...gotta pay for groceries for that fellowship week party somehow...)

What, you didn't find the Ben Franklin I left on the counter for you???

:shocked: What is the world coming to!!!!

See you after I'm done with 8 hours of being responsible.

Good luck.

The staff who testified were nurses and nursing assistants.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Zakath]

Another act for the Schindler media circus...

Another act for the Schindler media circus...

It seems as if heroes like Randall Terry and Doug McBurney aren't enough for the circus in Florida... now a new entertainer enters the ring...at the parents' request...

The Rev. Jesse Jackson pleaded on Tuesday for Terri Schiavo to be kept alive...after meeting Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, near the hospice where she is being cared for.

...The Schindler's invited Jackson to visit to boost their effort ...

Jesse Jackson Urges Fla. Woman Be Kept Alive

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[avatar382]

'Coward' hardly describes me.

You won't answer a simple yes/no question in a debate. I wonder why that could be? :chicken:

Oh, and give me all the bad rep you want. Like I care what my rank is on a glorified popularity contest on the Internet. The facts don't change depending on what you think of them...

because your fictional scenario isn't worth addressing.

If you ever pose a query based upon reality, I might bother.

I don't know what reality you are living in, but Terri Schaivo's feeding tube was removed and her body will soon die precisely because over 30 court descisions have ruled that my scenario IS reality beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a fact.

You say emotion is integral in the case. I will remind you that the very reason we have judges and courts is to separate emotion from facts and apply the law fairly and equally to all.

Fact: a neutral, court appointed neurologist (among others) testified that Terri is in a PVS after examining her in person.
Fact: The single neurologist who disagrees has not examined the woman in person.
Fact: Her husband is her legal guardian.
Fact: Wrong or not, her husband's conduct (adultery) has no legal bearing on his rights as her husband.
Fact: Terri's parents have no custodial claims to their daughter.
Fact: The parent's medical witnesses have not been able to back up their facts that Terri can be rehabilitated in a court of law with medical tests/trials/data/case studies.
Fact: A feeding tube qualifies as life support in the state of Florida.
Fact: A patient has the legal right to refuse treatment, including life support.
Fact: As her husband, Micheal has the legal right to make the decision for his wife in the event she is incapacitated.

It was these facts, among others, on which the courts have based their descision. If anyone can refute any of them with evidence, I will reverse my position in this case.

 

[JoyfulRook]

Fact: Her husband is her legal guardian.

And that gives him the right to muder her? I don't think so.

Fact: Wrong or not, her husband's conduct (adultery) has no legal bearing on his rights as her husband.

It should. Just because our Government is broken doesn't mean he still has unalienable rights to her future.

Fact: Terri's parents have no custodial claims to their daughter.

They should, since the one who does have custody supports her murder.

Fact: The parent's medical witnesses have not been able to back up their facts that Terri can be rehabilitated in a court of law with medical tests/trials/data/case studies.

So let's just kill her. They can't PROVE she'll get better.

Fact: A feeding tube qualifies as life support in the state of Florida.

Last I checked the State of Florida was fallible, evil, and perverse. (In honor of fellowship week I will not give the reasons why you'd love it there)

Fact: A patient has the legal right to refuse treatment, including life support.

Legal right from the Government. I don't think that's one of your God given rights....

Fact: As her husband, Micheal has the legal right to make the decision for his wife in the event she is incapacitated.

That's like saying I have the legal right to choose to kill my wife who is incapacitated. In America you have the legal right to shack-up. That doesn't make it right. Amerca is going to Hell with Jet rockets. I wouldn't put my trust in their godless legal system.

 

[wholearmor]

How would everyone feel if you did sign a living will stating you wouldn't want to be kept alive if you found yourself in Terri's condition and then it happened and you changed your mind and couldn't tell anyone?

 

[Zakath]

How would everyone feel if you did sign a living will stating you wouldn't want to be kept alive if you found yourself in Terri's condition and then it happened and you changed your mind and couldn't tell anyone?

In two words: tough luck

If I join the military and get deployed, I can cry and moan about how "I don't wanna go" but, hey. Too bad.

If I get married and father a child, I can whine and gripe about how "I'm too young to have a child" but, so sorry, I've got responsibility.

If I get into the car on that rainy night and some drunk crashes into me head on, I can't call "Redo!".

That's life.

LIfe is full of unrecallable choices. Anytime you sign a document like a living will you are taking the risk that you might sometime be in a position of not being able to change what was represented as your will at a previous date.

You're an adult, live with it (or should I say "die with it.").

 

[avatar382]

And that gives him the right to muder her? I don't think so.

Of course it doesn't. But your personal opinion regarding this matter aside, this case is not about murder.

It should. Just because our Government is broken doesn't mean he still has unalienable rights to her future.

Whether or not you think it should or shouldn't doesn't change the fact that it doesn't.

They should, since the one who does have custody supports her murder.

The fact is that they don't. That's what the law says.

So let's just kill her. They can't PROVE she'll get better.

Well you are leaving out several facts: Neutral court doctors have testified that she is not, and will never be concious or aware, and her husband asserts she would not want to be artifically kept alive in her state. The lawyers for the parents are unable to show in court otherwise.

Last I checked the State of Florida was fallible, evil, and perverse. (In honor of fellowship week I will not give the reasons why you'd love it there)

I live in Florida. *shrug*
But the national courts agreed with the state courts... I don't see any reason why Florida should be singled out as "evil", or what this point has to do with the rule of law, American law...

Legal right from the Government. I don't think that's one of your God given rights....

We do not live in a theocracy. Your personal ideas of "God given right" mean diddly squat in a secular court, as do mine. That is a statement of fact. If you wish to live in a state run by "God", there are a bunch of places in the Middle East / Africa that would suit your needs...

That's like saying I have the legal right to choose to kill my wife who is incapacitated. In America you have the legal right to shack-up. That doesn't make it right. Amerca is going to Hell with Jet rockets. I wouldn't put my trust in their godless legal system.

No, it's saying you have the right to make medical descions for your incapacated spouse, such as disconnecting life support under certain circumstances. Your wife being in a state of permanent unconciousness without hope of recovery would qualify as being under those circumstances...

You people have been saying America is going to hell for years. If it's so bad, why not go somewhere else? Especially if you don't trust the legal system...

 

[Yorzhik]

Fact: a neutral, court appointed neurologist (among others) testified that Terri is in a PVS after examining her in person.

Neutral? And you believe that when he is a proponent of death culture openly?

Fact: The single neurologist who disagrees has not examined the woman in person.

He's not a single neurologist, a host of neurologists agree with him, and he did examine her more thoroughly than the court doctor.

Fact: Her husband is her legal guardian.

Haven't you heard? Terri is being murdered. Do you think she is being murdered because the court is right?

Fact: Wrong or not, her husband's conduct (adultery) has no legal bearing on his rights as her husband.

Wrong or not? It doesn't matter? This is why you are wrong and supporting murder. Now we see how Germany could do what they did.

Fact: Terri's parents have no custodial claims to their daughter.

See above.

Fact: The parent's medical witnesses have not been able to back up their facts that Terri can be rehabilitated in a court of law with medical tests/trials/data/case studies.

Only because the judge is bent on killing Terri regardless of the facts.

Fact: A feeding tube qualifies as life support in the state of Florida.

Why do we say someone is on "life support" when they are on a ventilator? Would you say school children are on life support when they eat lunch? If you can't see how the word means specific things, not food and water to a person who isn't dying, then you are willfully ignorant.

Fact: A patient has the legal right to refuse treatment, including life support.

Notice how you have to redefine "life support" before you can say this.

Fact: As her husband, Micheal has the legal right to make the decision for his wife in the event she is incapacitated.

He doesn't have the legal right to murder her despite a position to make decisions for her, even if he didn't have a vast confilct of interest.

And I'm sure Terri said in casual conversation one day to her husband, "hey if I can't walk or talk, go ahead and start a new life with a new wife and kids. That would show me how much you love me."

 

[avatar382]

In two words: tough luck

If I join the military and get deployed, I can cry and moan about how "I don't wanna go" but, hey. Too bad.

If I get married and father a child, I can whine and gripe about how "I'm too young to have a child" but, so sorry, I've got responsibility.

If I get into the car on that rainy night and some drunk crashes into me head on, I can't call "Redo!".

That's life.

LIfe is full of unrecallable choices. Anytime you sign a document like a living will you are taking the risk that you might sometime be in a position of not being able to change what was represented as your will at a previous date.

You're an adult, live with it (or should I say "die with it.").

Nicely said.

 

[Yorzhik]

In two words: tough luck

If I join the military and get deployed, I can cry and moan about how "I don't wanna go" but, hey. Too bad.

If I get married and father a child, I can whine and gripe about how "I'm too young to have a child" but, so sorry, I've got responsibility.

If I get into the car on that rainy night and some drunk crashes into me head on, I can't call "Redo!".

That's life.

LIfe is full of unrecallable choices. Anytime you sign a document like a living will you are taking the risk that you might sometime be in a position of not being able to change what was represented as your will at a previous date.

You're an adult, live with it (or should I say "die with it.").

And great reasons why living wills are bad things.

 

[Zakath]

And great reasons why living wills are bad things.

For some people, I'd agree.

For me, it's not an issue. I'm at peace with my decision to have one and willing to live with the risk that I'd want to change my mind after the fact but couldn't.

 

[Mr. 5020]

For some people, I'd agree.

For me, it's not an issue. I'm at peace with my decision to have one and willing to live with the risk that I'd want to change my mind after the fact but couldn't.

Out of curiosity, which way does your living will go?

 

[Crow]

And great reasons why living wills are bad things.

I've got to disagree.

Living wills can be good, if used properly. The proper use is to direct care if one is dying of a terminal illness. Used properly, a living will merely is an instrument that directs that medical care providers do not take extrordianary measures to resussitate one who cannot be saved, or use all sorts of fruitless medical treatments to treat an incurable illness.

My father had incurable heart disease caused by damage to the electrical system of his heart when his heart was crushed in an auto accident. Medication helped, and he accepted that help for as long as it was effective. When it was no longer effective, and all means of treating his condition were exhausted, he chose not to have CPR done, not to spend his last days having useless tests and treatments, and instead chose to spend his last days on his farm, with his children visiting him, surrounded by his friends and enjoying all that was left of his life.

The trouble is that living wills, like most other things, can be misused.

 

[avatar382]

And you believe that. He is a proponent of death culture openly.

He is a medical professional under oath in a court of law. *shrug* Did you read the Florida court descision? Apparently the judge expressed suprise regarding how weak the testimony of the parents' doctors where, and how they provided virtually no evidence of their claims. *shrug*

He's not a single neurologist, a host of neurologists agree with him, and he did examine her more thoroughly than the court doctor.

Did they testify in court? It doesn't seem so... From http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Haven't you heard? Terri is being murdered. Do you think she is being murdered because the court is right?

Lets assume for a moment she's in a vegetative state and would not want to live in her condition. Would you consider the courts descision to be murder then?

Only because the judge is bent on killing Terri regardless of the facts.

In all 30 or so of the judgments in favor of the husband the judge was bent on killing an innocent woman? Do you really believe this?

Also, what facts? Please list out these supposed "facts".

Why do we say someone is on "life support" when they are on a ventilator? Would you say school children are on life support when they eat lunch? If you can't see how the word means specific things, not food and water to a person who isn't dying, then you are willfully ignorant.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's Florida law:

§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

He doesn't have the legal right to murder her despite a position to make decisions for her, even if he didn't have a vast confilct of interest.

Nobody has a legal right to murder anybody. Murder by definition is illegal. Your alledged "conflict of interest" means squat in a courtroom. That is fact.

And I'm sure Terri said in casual conversation one day to her husband, "hey if I can't walk or talk, go ahead and start a new life with a new wife and kids. That would show me how much you love me."

How do you know? Personally, if I was permanently unconcious without hope of recovery, I would hope that my spouse would one day recover from grief and move on and find happiness elsewere in this very short life....

 

[avatar382]

How would everyone feel if you did sign a living will stating you wouldn't want to be kept alive if you found yourself in Terri's condition and then it happened and you changed your mind and couldn't tell anyone?

One thing not mentioned - if Terri is indeed permanantly unconsious, she is not capable of changing her mind or any other sort of concious thought.

 

[Zakath]

Out of curiosity, which way does your living will go?

I'm not sure I understand your question... "which way"?

 

[avatar382]

The proper use is to direct care if one is dying of a terminal illness.

Crow, question for you:

What in your eyes, is the difference between having a terminal illness and being in a permanantly unconcious state without any hope of recovery?