The Terri Case - this is ridiculous

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crow

New member
avatar382 said:
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?

You don't kill someone who has a terminal illness--they die of the illness. There is nothing that anyone can do to maintain their condition. It deteriorates of it's own accord.

I had no trouble respecting my father's wishes when he was dying. His heart was shot. He had tried all available treatment, and nothing could help him.

I could not and would not starve my father to death.
 

avatar382

New member
Crow said:
You don't kill someone who has a terminal illness--they die of the illness. There is nothing that anyone can do to maintain their condition. It deteriorates of it's own accord.

I had no trouble respecting my father's wishes when he was dying. His heart was shot. He had tried all available treatment, and nothing could help him.

I could not and would not starve my father to death.

I think the debates we will be having if 10 years out say - medicine able to grow new organs was developed - would be interesting indeed.

Say the technology was advanced enough so that a new heart could be grown for him. Would it be suicide if he rejected it and chose to die anyway, even if doctors could potentially save him and keep him alive?

Or, lets take it even further. A scenario right out of science fiction, but interesting to discuss nonetheless. Say medicine could develop entirely new bodies and it was possible to transplant brains. You could theoretically be terminally ill of countless diseases, but be "cured" by having your brain placed in a brand new body. If you refused this, would it be suicide?
 

Crow

New member
avatar382 said:
I think the debates we will be having if 10 years out say - medicine able to grow new organs was developed - would be interesting indeed.

Say the technology was advanced enough so that a new heart could be grown for him. Would it be suicide if he rejected it and chose to die anyway, even if doctors could potentially save him and keep him alive?

Or, lets take it even further. A scenario right out of science fiction, but interesting to discuss nonetheless. Say medicine could develop entirely new bodies and it was possible to transplant brains. You could theoretically be terminally ill of countless diseases, but be "cured" by having your brain placed in a brand new body. If you refused this, would it be suicide?
In my father's case, a new heart wouldn't have helped--a transplant was rejected as an option because of damage the failing heart had done to other organs.

Had it been possible, I believe he would have gone for it. He was 67, and would have had a shot at several more years of life had it been successful.

Growing anacephalic feti into a body has been discussed in medicine. Still farfetched. So far, it would appear to involve destroying a life to prolong a life. That's not a very moral option, and I would reject it. It's not suicide to refuse to take another's life to prolong yours. Not tossing someone out of a full lifeboat so that you can climb aboard is not suicide.
 

wholearmor

Member
Zakath said:
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. :rolleyes:

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.").

You're so wrong.

You know what you may be in for when you join the military.

You know what you may be in for when you get married and father a child.

You know what you may be in for when you get into the car.

You have no clue what you may be in for when you complete and sign an advanced directive.
 

wholearmor

Member
Crow said:
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.

If they would have truly been useless tests and treatments, why would it take a living will to keep these useless tests and treatments from being performed?
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
wholearmor said:
You're so wrong.
I don't think so...

You have no clue what you may be in for when you complete and sign an advanced directive.
If you are correct, then why would I, and thousands of others, have signed an advanced directive? Not all of us are as clueless as you appear to be, WA.
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
avatar382 said:
You won't answer a simple yes/no question in a debate. I wonder why that could be? :chicken:

There isn't a topic here that I'm afraid to give my opinion about. Instead of answering your dopey question based on a false premise, I choose to wait until the question is properly framed. Perhaps it is YOU who is afraid.....very afraid.....

Here is a short post I wrote a couple days ago.


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...

YOU are the person trying to change the facts by asking a question based on a false premise.

More Negative Points for you!


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.

A court ruling does not suddenly change reality. If a court ruled that OJ Simpson was innocent, does it suddenly make him so?


NewsMax said:
Schindlers Were Outgunned by Lawyers Early

In case you were wondering, with so many facts in dispute about the Terri Schiavo case, the answer is relatively clear: The Schindlers, well-intentioned as they have been, were outgunned in the early legal fight that sealed their daughter's fate.

The early legal maneuvering created "facts" that are now beyond dispute in higher courts. One is the unbelievable claim by Michael Schiavo that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death.

One Florida attorney told the story on Steve Sailer's Web blog (www.isteve.com).

Here's what the lawyer wrote:

"I have been following the case for years. Something that interests me about the Terri Schiavo case, and that doesn't seem to have gotten much media attention: The whole case rests on the fact that the Schindlers (Terri's parents) were totally outlawyered by the husband (Michael Schiavo) at the trial court level.

"This happened because, in addition to getting a $750K judgment for Terri's medical care, Michael Schiavo individually got a $300K award of damages for loss of consortium, which gave him the money to hire a top-notch lawyer to represent him on the right-to-die claim. He hired George Felos, who specializes in this area and litigated one of the landmark right-to-die cases in Florida in the early '90s.

"By contrast, the Schindlers had trouble even finding a lawyer who would take their case since there was no money in it. Finally they found an inexperienced lawyer who agreed to take it partly out of sympathy for them, but she had almost no resources to work with and no experience in this area of the law. She didn't even depose Michael Schiavo's siblings, who were key witnesses at the trial that decided whether Terri would have wanted to be kept alive. Not surprisingly, Felos steamrollered her.

"The parents obviously had no idea what they were up against until it was too late. It was only after the trial that they started going around to religious and right-to-life groups to tell their story. These organizations were very supportive, but by that point their options were already limited because the trial judge had entered a judgment finding that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live.

"This fact is of crucial importance -- and it's one often not fully appreciated by the media, who like to focus on the drama of cases going to the big, powerful appeals courts: Once a trial court enters a judgment into the record, that judgment's findings become THE FACTS of the case, and can only be overturned if the fact finder (in this case, the judge) acted capriciously (i.e., reached a conclusion that had essentially no basis in fact).

"In this case, the trial judge simply chose to believe Michael Schiavo's version of the facts over the Schindlers'. Since there was evidence to support his conclusion (in the form of testimony from Michael Schiavo's siblings), it became nearly impossible for the Schindlers to overturn it. The judges who considered the case after the trial-level proceeding could make decisions only on narrow questions of law. They had no room to ask, "Hey, wait a minute, would she really want to die?" That "fact" had already been decided.

"In essence, the finding that Terri Schiavo would want to die came down to the subjective opinion of one overworked trial judge who was confronted by a very sharp, experienced right-to-die attorney on one side and a young, quasi-pro bono lawyer on the other.

"Nothing unusual about this, of course. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time. But it's an interesting point to keep in mind when you read that the Schiavo case has been litigated for years and has been reviewed by dozens of judges ... yadda yadda yadda.

"By the way, I'm guessing that George Felos is probably quite happy to work the Schiavo case for free at this point since it's making him one of the most famous right-to-kill -- I mean right-to-die -- lawyers in the country. His BlackBerry has probably melted down by now, what with all the messages from the hurry-up-and-die adult children you've been blogging about."
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately that's how the system works: better money gets you better representation. You get what you pay for.
 

Crow

New member
wholearmor said:
If they would have truly been useless tests and treatments, why would it take a living will to keep these useless tests and treatments from being performed?
Because of CYA. MD's ascribe to this, as they have been successfully sued on nurmerous occasions for not using every means at their disposal, even if those means are not going to effect a cure or even maintain life.
 

wholearmor

Member
Zakath said:
I don't think so...

If you are correct, then why would I, and thousands of others, have signed an advanced directive? Not all of us are as clueless as you appear to be, WA.

So you know exactly what conditon you're going to find yourself in to have your advanced directive instructions implemented?
 

wholearmor

Member
Crow said:
Because of CYA. MD's ascribe to this, as they have been successfully sued on nurmerous occasions for not using every means at their disposal, even if those means are not going to effect a cure or even maintain life.

So how was your father's Advanced Directive worded?
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
wholearmor said:
So you know exactly what conditon you're going to find yourself in to have your advanced directive instructions implemented?
Not me... I make no claims of clairvoyance or prophecy. :nono:

But human beings can only die in a finite number of ways. I can make plans based on the most likely occurences... and make general principles for guidance with trust of my loved ones or even the charity of strangers for the odd and unlikely circumstances.
 

elected4ever

New member
8028 Ritchie Highway
Suite # 303
Pasadena, MD 21122
(877) MAP-2004
Contact Us | Unsubscribe




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heritage Foundation Officially AWOL In Major Culture War Battle To Stop The Murder Of Terri Schiavo


Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

The multi-million dollar Heritage Foundation is the 800-pound gorilla of the conservative "think tanks." When this "King Kong" pounds his chest, Republicans --- from the President on down --- pay close attention. But, in what was arguably the most important culture war battle in recent years --- the fight to stop the cold-blooded murder of Terri Schiavo --- the official policy of the Heritage Foundation was silence, no comment. I learned about this cowardly policy when I called the office of Ronald Reagan's former Attorney General Ed Meese III, the Heritage Foundation's Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of their Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. I wanted to speak with Ed about the ongoing attempt to murder Terri Schiavo and what he thought could be done by a President to stop this murder.

Oh, no, I was told by a young lady in his office, Mr. Meese cannot talk about this. She said the Schiavo case was "too controversial" and there was no "consensus" at Heritage on this subject. So, the policy, from on-high, was that no one at Heritage could talk, as a Heritage person, about Terri Schiavo.

I immediately called Ed Feulner, President of Heritage, to ask if what I was told by the young lady in Ed Meese's office was true? My call was returned by a Senior Associate at Heritage, Chris Kennedy. He told me yes, this was, from on-high, the organization's policy regarding Terri Schiavo. He said this was the policy "because, obviously, while our hearts are breaking around here over the tragic nature of this story, it raises some Federalism implications that are very, very difficult to maneuver. So, we're not going on the record here. And that's the last word on the issue."

Me: "But, you didn't have to talk about this issue only in terms of Federalism. You could have ---."

Kennedy (interrupting): "Unfortunately, sir, we do."

Me: "No, you could have talked about this issue in terms of murder, in terms of those attempting to murder Terri Schiavo! Or, you could have talked about what Florida Governor Jeb Bush should be doing within his state. Or, you could have just allowed various Heritage experts to give their views about Terri Schiavo, even if these views differed."

Kennedy: "Sir, I am not really interested in debating this with you."

Me: "I am not debating with you! I am telling you what you could have, and should have, done! Total silence on this literal life-and-death issue is moral cowardice! Pass that along to Ed Feulner. " Kennedy: "Sir, I have been asked by a couple of people in this building to request that you not call us again."

Me: "I will call there whenever I think it is appropriate. And I had every right to inquire about your stupid, gutless, immoral policy of silence on the murder of Terri Schiavo."

A source familiar with the Heritage policy of no comment on the Schiavo murder, tells me that probably the vast majority of people at Heritage, "instinctively, at a basic moral level, think that's what happened to Terri Schiavo is an outrage." But, because there was a difference of opinion among their experts on the Federalism issue --- some opposed Congressional intervention --- silence was the official policy.

This source says that if Heritage was seen as being against such Congressional intervention, the fear was that this might be interpreted as being against the pro-life movement and this movement would be offended. My source says: "This is the best face that can be put on this policy." When I note that if this is true, then this is a very ugly face, my source agrees.

Me: "But, what idiot at Heritage would think that an official policy of silence on the murder of Terri Schiavo would not offend the pro-life movement?!"

No reply.

Finally, this source says something very significant. This source says the Heritage no comment policy on the murder of Terri Schiavo might also be defended because when Heritage was founded decades ago the organization also made a decision not to be involved in the abortion issue.

Me: "I know. And look at the consequences of that kind of policy! Silence on the murder of innocent, unborn babies by abortion has now led to the murder of an innocent, handicapped lady in Florida! This is precisely what pro-lifers predicted would happen!"

Again, no reply.

The official silence of the Heritage Foundation while Terri Schiavo was being murdered makes a mockery of what the organization says it stands for. On its Web pages, the folks at Heritage tell us that yes, America is indeed engaged in a culture war involving, among other things, the "right-to-life." On these pages it is said that the overall direction of American culture is "cause for great alarm." The self-defined mission of this organization is said to be to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on such things as "individual freedom" and "traditional values."

The Heritage Foundation "Mission Statement" says, in part: "We are not afraid to begin our sentences with the words 'We believe' because we do believe: in individual liberty...traditional American values....As conservatives we believe the values and ideas promoted by our Founding Fathers are worth conserving....We believe that ideas have consequences, but that those ideas must be promoted aggressively."

But Heritage was AWOL in the battle to stop the starvation murder of Terri Schiavo.

In March of 1964 --- 41 years before the murder of Terri Schiavo --- 38 residents of a Queens, New York, neighborhood failed to respond, failed to call the police, as they heard the cries of Catherine "Kitty" Genovese, 28, who was being stabbed to death.

In March of 2005, and for many years earlier, easily more than 38 million Americans knew about the attempted murder of Terri Schiavo. And all those who failed to speak out against this murder --- like those at the Heritage Foundation --- have this murdered lady's innocent blood on their hands.



For God, Family, & the Republic,



Michael A. Peroutka
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Heritage Foundation Officially AWOL In Major Culture War Battle To Stop The Murder Of Terri Schiavo...

They probably couldn't figure out how to make any money off of it... 800# gorillas need lots of sustenance.

;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top