Terri Schiavo: More Grandstanding

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Do you honestly think that this is the way he wants her to die? He wants her to die, YES-because that was her wish. Not for money, not to move on with his life, but becuase it is what she wanted. It is the state that has mandated this procedure, not him. Maybe we could all just go down there and kill her more humanely. I wish it were different as well, but by going throught the system this is the only option available. What do you find offensive about that? Yoo don’t agree with him or the decision, that’s cool, but not everyone who does is wrong either[/quote]

so how come the slip on Larry King where he said “we don’t know what Terri wanted, this is what we want”?

262

[quote]GriffinC wrote:
Her mind is dead, so her soul is lost. Her body may still be hanging on, but she is long gone.[/quote]

If I were you, unless I had a medical degree, a theology degree and had personally checked her over…I’d shut up now.

263

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Do you honestly think that this is the way he wants her to die? He wants her to die, YES-because that was her wish. Not for money, not to move on with his life, but becuase it is what she wanted. It is the state that has mandated this procedure, not him. Maybe we could all just go down there and kill her more humanely. I wish it were different as well, but by going throught the system this is the only option available. What do you find offensive about that? Yoo don’t agree with him or the decision, that’s cool, but not everyone who does is wrong either[/quote]

Sasquatch, how do you figure it’s the state that’s mandated the procedure. If he wasn’t spending over half a million dollars in court to kill her, she’d be eating now and not on the news.
The sate is mandating nothing. They’re just giving a useless gutless person cover.

264

[quote]johnny quick wrote:
miniross wrote:
johnny quick wrote:
Everybody agrees with the dr. of his/her choice. It’s like the roman circus, thumbs up or thumbs down. Life is precious. What if 20 years from now there is a cure for Terri’s condition? With the miraculous scientific discoveries we witness every day, isn’t that a possibility? What do you lose by keeping her around? If there is life, there is hope!

How can such cures be found whilst abortion is being hunted politically (less stem cells) and therefore stem cell research is curtailed?

And what if in twenty years time there is a cure??? what if in 20 years tim there is a cure for diabetes. does this mean i should open the creamy whip and dive into obesity. no, my quality of life RIGHT NOW is non dependant of future.

and what “miraculous” discoveries do we witness every day. you make it seem like they come easy. Parkinsons, for example is a very heavily funded and researched area, yet the mechanisms aren’t understood.

what area of neurscience do you think will extrapolate to this poor ladies predicament that has researchthat will translate to tis condition (ie necrosis of the brain)?

I’ll give you one: CLONING.[/quote]

That is not an area of neuroscience, thats genetics.

265

[quote]lizard king wrote:
She’s not bleeding through the eyes…

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050327/D893DN9O0.html?PG=home&SEC=news[/quote]

That really says it all. if i was in that predicament the last bunch of moron i would want fighting my corner is that lot.

If heaven is so bloody wonderful, lets expediate the poor girls demise and not keep her alive.

266

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
lizard king wrote:
She’s not bleeding through the eyes…

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050327/D893DN9O0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

yeah yeah yeah…Mike’s lawyers say she’s starving beautifully. Her parents lawyers say she’s not.
Right now a friend of the my mother’s mother is full of cancer, diagnosed with weeks/days to live. She’s on a patch to relieve the pain. The patch is making her so spacey she’s not eating or drinking, and her eyes are sunken and her lips and tongue are swollen and cracked/bleeding.
FWIW.[/quote]

Some paliative care specialists prefer that the patitient is a bit out of it, as this dulls the patients sense that they are about to die. it is prefered to the distress in those last few days.

267

[quote]rainjack wrote:
No human being would agree to this kind of death.

I believe in the sanctity of life, and my willingness to do what needs to be done in order to preserve my wife’s happiness in no way contradicts that. Starving a human being to death is neither humane, nor does it respect anything.

Where I come from, you don’t allow animals to suffer. You put them down. You don’t sit there and watch them starve to death. If you can’t understand the difference between showing mercy on someone and torturing them - ‘dead is dead’ - there is really little else to discuss.

If you can’t see that there are folks in Florida STARVING another human being to death - no mercy, and not feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, then you have far deeper problems than being confused over my statements.[/quote]

I agree completely with you, but the concept of the sanctity of life just gets in the way of a logical and rational solution as that.

You would never let an animal suffer to the point she has. the animal woul have been “put down” within weeks of the original problem, and all of this would be moot.

if starving is the only option allowed (with no assisted suicide) the that is what it will have to be. the law is an ass but in yourcountry i will be amazed if there will EVER be such a humane piece of law due to all of the religious zealots that have powerful lobbying.

268

[quote]GriffinC wrote:
Her mind is dead, so her soul is lost. Her body may still be hanging on, but she is long gone.[/quote]

Now the death-mongers are proposing that they know about her soul as well? Those with the blood-lust to force the starvation of a human being have no clue about their own soul, much less the expertise to talk about Terri’s

269

by the way, when you get to the point where Mike refused the family’s request that she get a token Easter Communion…I think maybe that should tell everyone about him.

270

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1111975979316.images-lenin.jpg

[quote]miniross wrote:
johnny quick wrote:
miniross wrote:
johnny quick wrote:
Everybody agrees with the dr. of his/her choice. It’s like the roman circus, thumbs up or thumbs down. Life is precious. What if 20 years from now there is a cure for Terri’s condition? With the miraculous scientific discoveries we witness every day, isn’t that a possibility? What do you lose by keeping her around? If there is life, there is hope!

How can such cures be found whilst abortion is being hunted politically (less stem cells) and therefore stem cell research is curtailed?

And what if in twenty years time there is a cure??? what if in 20 years tim there is a cure for diabetes. does this mean i should open the creamy whip and dive into obesity. no, my quality of life RIGHT NOW is non dependant of future.

and what “miraculous” discoveries do we witness every day. you make it seem like they come easy. Parkinsons, for example is a very heavily funded and researched area, yet the mechanisms aren’t understood.

what area of neurscience do you think will extrapolate to this poor ladies predicament that has researchthat will translate to tis condition (ie necrosis of the brain)?

I’ll give you one: CLONING.

That is not an area of neuroscience, thats genetics.[/quote]

Well, if you want to be more technical, “a potential application of stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.”

Here is a site for you:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp

In the future, address your doubts to this site.

271

JQ

Thanks for the site.

However, if you are suggesting that it is possible to farm a clone (from gen mod stem cells) to replace her encephalon, you would be very wrong, as it would not mimic her brain architecture, just the initial gene led basis for it. The modifications that occured through learning would not be in place. she would appear to have the same/similar traits (maybe) but not the fine detail.

hows the cut and paste?

272

RJ

What the hell is a soul then?

273

[quote]miniross wrote:
RJ

What the hell is a soul then?[/quote]

Bart: Well if your souls real where is it?
Milhouse: It’s kinda in here… and when you sneeze, that’s your soul trying to escape. Saying god bless you crams it back in. And when you die, it squirms out and flies away!
Bart: What if you die in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean.
Milhouse: Oh, it can swim, it’s even got wheels, incase you die in the desert and have to drive to the cemetary.

274

lol!

your recall of the simpsons is scary, i cant remeber which episode that was from.

275

"given the vehemence with which he has been fighting to prolong Terri’s life, it is a little surprising to learn that Robert decided to turn off the life-support system for his mother. She was 79 at the time, and had been ill with pneumonia for a week, when her kidneys gave out. “I can remember like yesterday the doctors said she had a good life. I asked, ‘If you put her on a ventilator does she have a chance of surviving, of coming out of this thing?’” Robert says. “I was very angry with God because I didn’t want to make those decisions.”

276

This is a tough case for me. Before, I always felt that if food and water were the only medical needs then they should not be withheld.

I talked to my wife a lot about this as she is a doctor. I was interested in the degree of brainwashing. She does, by the way work at a hospital that will not preform abortions (which by the way are pretty common).

  1. She says that the cerebral cortex is gone based on the picture. What’s functional in the Peripheral nervous system which can carry out reflexive functions like breathing, digestion, blinking and some hardwired stuff like possibly eating/smiling etc. I would bet she could eat on her own.

  2. She says that the interesting thing is that if she could eat on her own, and it had been agreed to feed her, she probably would have died within a year or two and the most common cause of death in cases like that are respiratory infections, so the husband requiring a feeding tube probably kept her alive for over a decade beyond expectations.

  3. She says that dehydration, not starvation will be the cause of death, and that it would theoretically be painful without pain medicine.

  4. She says that MANY patients in similar states have the choice made by relatives never to start a feeding tube in the first place, or to remove it, and no-one thinks twice.

OK My input, just some fuel here:

  1. Terri is still capable of reproduction-I wonder where NOW is to protect her reproductive rights?

  2. I know at least one student at the highschool where I teach who has been in a state practically like Terri-she can eat but basically no Cerebral Cortex. I am glad she is alive. If all Terri needs is food then I wonder why she is in a hospital in the first place? It should be very practical for her parents to take care of her at home if her husband allowed and she would again probably be dead within a year from infection. Or we can just put her into a bubble so she never dies!

  3. I have had liberal teacher’s union members talk to me very openly that they feel that we should be able to eliminate all kids with serious mental retardation from the population and that that “dream” is just around the corner. Most the Liberals on this site would argue with this assertion, but Eugenics is at the heart of Liberalism. An ancient Roman quote. “That which is good should be set apart from that which is good for nothing.”

  4. All in all, I think that if the parents and “husband” really cared, she would have died of natural causes a long time ago-not dehydration or starvation. I think that if she really is in no pain, why not keep her alive? The mere fact that she made it this long is a miracle that we should be able to learn from. Many LIBERALS want to let her die because politically it pushes precedents in law and in public perception. Conservative politicians are not really pushing an agenda, they are saying "she’s been alive like this for 15 years, lets go slow here. Liberals seem to want to pull the plug when in this case no one would be harmed to keep here alive-except the liberal Eugenics brainwashing that happened in Rome, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia et al. Nevertheless, death is not bad for her. Every now and then we get a case like Terri that is purely the result of a sin stained universe-there is not a clear answer.

277

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Eugenics is at the heart of Liberalism.[/quote]

Extreme assertions such as this one require extremely compelling evidence. I would like to know the sources for your claim that go beyond anecdotal evidence. I take it you are not referring to Classical Liberalism with a big ‘L,’ but modern day liberalism with a little ‘l.’ I would argue that the ‘heart’ or ‘core’ of both modern day liberalism and conservatism is based in Classical Liberal values as embodied in the Constitution and prior Liberal political theory. But I am certainly interested to read your thoughts on eugenics as it relates to (L/l)iberal thought.

278

good stuff, Mertdawg.
To add to your question about NOW and her reproductive rights, what about NOW and the husband being able to make the decison for her?

I would have no problem with her–if she could eat–being fed, and if that killed her then that would be fine with me.

279

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
good stuff, Mertdawg.
To add to your question about NOW and her reproductive rights, what about NOW and the husband being able to make the decison for her?

I would have no problem with her–if she could eat–being fed, and if that killed her then that would be fine with me.

[/quote]

I would hope even the militant feminists of NOW would not fight for the reproductive rights of anyone without a cerebral cortex and the ability to care for the child once it was born.

I’ve coached Special Olympics, and its a similar issue to the parents keeping their adult children on birth control to prevent them from having kids.

I think trying to lump Women’s Rights overall, with issues involving mental incapacitation is kinda ridiculous.

280

Mertdawg wrote: 1) “Terri is still capable of reproduction-I wonder where NOW is to protect her reproductive rights?”

That’s an easy one, NOW only cares about the rights of liberal voting women! They proved that when they would not take a stand in favor of Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick and a host of other women that former President Clinton abused.

Just like liberal black groups who reportedly want to see African Americans grow and prosper. That’s a lot of bull! Where is the great embrace for successful African American politicians: Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas etc. They only want to see liberal Blacks succeed!