Terri Schiavo: More Grandstanding

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:

The girl’s body is alive. Her brain is mush. Grab a syringe full of morphine and stop this friggin’ lunacy, folks. We are nicer to our cats, for cryin’ out loud.

Yes. And if you willingly starved/dehydrated your cat, you’d be arrested, fined and possibly face few days in jail. Especially under Florida law which is quite strict about it.
Also under Florida law is something about how a disabled person shouldn’t be denied food or water. So much for the law, huh?

So you’re agreeing with me, right? I say take the feeding tube out, give the concerned folks time to say their goodbyes, and then put the girl’s body down. Morphine OD = good.

Why are we being so monstrous about this? Starving people to death? What the hell? If you’re gonna kill somebody, then friggin’ do it!

Give me the syringe, I’ll do it if y’all don’t have the stomach for it. Bunch of pussies. I will say that I am ashamed of my home state right now. We should be better than this crap.

[/quote]

Well, I’ll tell you. I don’t know as we have the right ourselves to simply decide when the quality of life is over etc.
However, if we are going to decide it, we certainly shouldn’t be starving her to death, so yes, your morphine OD is the way to go.

342

Depriving someone of food and water is a barbaric way to kill them. (I am for assisted suicide.)

Michael gave up the moral right to call himself Terri’s husband when he started having kids with another woman.

I don’t blame him for wanting to get on with his life.

NOBODY knows what Terri’s wishes were.

Terri’s real family wants her to live.

All of these are FACTS.

To me the conclusion is straightforward.

343

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:58 a.m. EST

Terri’s Family Banned from Death Bed

Terri Schiavo’s family was prevented from being at her bedside when she died this morning shortly after 9 am ET at a Pinellas Park, Florida hospice, a family spokesman said.

"Unfortunately, just 10 or so minutes before she died we were told we had to leave the room because there would be an assessment of her condition and because her husband Michael wanted to be in the room," said Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, in quotes first reported by Fox News.



Michael Schiavo flatly rejected the Schindlers' request to be with their daughter in her final moments, Pavone said, adding, "His heartless cruelty continued until the end."
344

Banning her parents from the room illustrates my point that the “husband” cannot be trusted to make the decisions.

345

Mainstream media unreported conflicts of interest in Schiavo tragedy

by Judi McLeod, Editor,
Thursday, March 31, 2005

Every time a rock is lifted in the Terri Schiavo tragedy, another conflict of interest comes slithering out.

The conflict-of-interest potential in the right-to-die connections among current figures involved in the case are only outdone by the Woodside Hospice board of director?s conflict of interest reality.

There?s the death-is-beautiful, right-to-die activist Michael Schiavo attorney George Felos.

Don?t make eye contact with Felos, who claims he can ascertain a person?s desire to die by “looking into their eyes” and letting their spirits speak directly to him.

A jumped-up volunteer at Woodside Hospice, Felos became chairman of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which runs Woodside, and only came off the board about a year after Michael Schiavo placed his estranged wife there.

Then there?s Dr. Ronald Cranford, handpicked by Michael Schiavo to examine Terri and on whose say-so Terri was categorized in “persistent vegetative state”. Cranford is the MD who officially ordered Terri?s feeding tube removed on March 18. A neurologist, Cranford testifies in cases such as Terri?s around the country, always pumping the dehydration and starvation side. He was 1992?s featured speaker for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society, which was renamed The Choice in Dying Society. (WorldNetDaily).

Cranford nicknamed himself, “Dr. Humane Death”.

A bioethicist, and a pioneer in euthanasia and right-to-die issues, Dr. Humane Death is a fully-fledged member of The Choice in Dying Society.

At least Cranford is not a board member of the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast.

Mary Labyak, CEO of Woodside Hospice has direct ties to the Euthanasia Society of America and Hemlock for Hospice, described by Hyscience.com as “an organization that seeks to accelerate the dying process.”

Everett Rice, former Pinellas County Sheriff (1988-204) endorsed Judge George Greer for reelection in campaign ads. Rice, a former board member for the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, hired Michael Schiavo while Schiavo?s guardianship proceedings were being heard in the courtroom of his longtime friend, Judge George Greer.

Senator Jim King, who originally upheld the passage of “Terri?s Law”, was a board member of Woodside.

Then there?s Gus Michael Bilirikis, Florida State representative 1998-2000 and between 2001-2003, who was on the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast board of directors.

As a county commissioner, Judge Greer was a working colleague of Barbara Sheen Todd (county commissioner) for eight consecutive years. Sheen Todd is also on the board of the hospice where Terri lingers.

Judge Greer?s fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, on the same board.

The mainline media has not reported on the myriad conflicts of interest connected to the Terri Schiavo tragedy, although any one interested can read about them on the Internet.

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the media. A former Toronto Sun and Kingston Whig Standard columnist, she has also appeared on Newsmax.com, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and World Net Daily.

346

being associated with pro-right-to-die organizations is NOT a conflict of interest.

by that logic, terri’s parents identify themselves as catholics, isn’t THAT a conflict of interest? obviously not.

don’t look for this magical degree of objectivity that can never be achieved.

347

[quote]joe weider wrote:

Yes. And if you willingly starved/dehydrated your cat, you’d be arrested, fined and possibly face few days in jail. Especially under Florida law which is quite strict about it.
Also under Florida law is something about how a disabled person shouldn’t be denied food or water. So much for the law, huh? [/quote]

Well, comparing someone dehydrating and starving their own cat is another confusion tactic of those opposed to the right to die.

You intentionally ignore important differences between the hypothetical cat scenario and the schiavo case.

  1. terri let her wishes be known to her husband. as for him ‘magically’ remembering that these were here wishes ‘years after’ her accident, this is another misinformation tactic of those opposed to mr. schiavo. clearly mr. schiavo wanted to exhaust all reasonable options for terri to achieve a meaningful recovery. this takes years of differing therapies and many different doctors’ evaluations. he moved her to many different hospitals and became a nurse following her accident partly to care for her in her injured state. he then decided there was no reasonable chance for her to have a meaningful recovery, and on her behalf lawfuly denied her life-sustaining treatment <food + water>.

  2. terri is in a vegetative state and there is no reasonable chance that she can obtain a meaningul recovery. the cat in your situation is healthy and can live as fulfilling a life as any cat would want to live. terri, on the other, cannot live a meaningful life. the things that are important to life: communication with others, personal growth, learning, self-actualization, are all denied to her by her condition.

348

[quote]makkun wrote:
I’ve abstained from posting here, as I essentially think this case should not be discussed in the public domain, as it is highly personal. So I will not comment on the case at hand.

But I have read a lot of comments about the “whore” and “bastards” the husband is now living with. Shame on you, who says that - especially in the case of the children. It shows utter disregard for people whom you don’t know and have been born into a situation over which they have no control. Where is your sense for justice in this case? I’m disgusted.

Makkun[/quote]

Agreed 100%. This is a smear tactic used by the right in order to demonize Mr. Schiavo. It is so underhanded, so disguting. As if anyone expects him to not move on romantically when his wife was put into such a state after he injury. It is also a twist of words when the right attempts to say that he has ‘abandoned’ his wife when he has moved on romantically. Very underhanded, very sick, and very predictable.

I bet the christians would be happy is Michael was still having sex with Terri, too.

349

Joe Weider quote:

[quote]According to the foundation?s press release, on Tuesday and Wednesday Greer issued three orders that the foundation said all but assures Schiavo?s death. First, Greer ordered that the family may not introduce oral nutrition and hydration following the removal of Terri?s gastric feeding tube.

The foundation pointed out that Florida Statute 744.3215 (Rights of Persons Determined Incapacitated) requires that incapacitated people cannot be deprived of food and water.[/quote]

They are also conveniently ignoring another law that allows patients to refuse life-saving treatment. But who cares about laws that you don’t like? And if a patient chooses to refuse life-saving treatment in the form of sustenance, then the family has no right to feed Terri.

[quote]Second, according to the foundation, Greer ruled that no further neurological tests may be conducted on Terri, using functional MRI to determine if she is in a “persistent vegetative state,” as Greer found in 2002, or if Terri is “minimally conscious.”

The foundation pointed out that Florida Statute 765.404, which defines persistent vegetative state, requires that the condition be determined and diagnosed as permanent prior to the withdrawal of life-prolonging means. Also, Florida Statute 765.309 prevents mercy killing and assisted suicide. [/quote]

Where is the dillema here? There were several tests conducted on her, and the law does not indicate WHICH tests must be used in order to determine if someone is in a PVS. The foundation claims that the VS must be demonstrated as permanentm which has been made clear from many professionals who have examined her. Also, this is not mercy killing or assisted suicide, rather, Terri’s own lawful refusal of life-saving treatment.

Well, the ‘true neurological condition’ of Terri has already been determined. Nothing new here. She is in a PVS.

[quote]And third, “Greer denied an order from a judgment based on his error in dismissing pertinent testimony in 2000 that would assist the court in determining Terri Schiavo?s true end of life wishes,” the foundation added.

It pointed to Florida Statute 765.404, which says that clear and convincing evidence of the ward?s intent for medical treatment must be established.

“The only evidence in support of removing Terri?s feeding tube was the self-serving hearsay testimony of her guardian (which is not admissible under FS 90.602) and hearsay from two members of his immediate family,” the foundation said. [/quote]

Again, demonization of Michael fromm the family. There is nothing self-serving about his choice to follow his wife’s wishes. There is no monetary benefit for him upon Terri’s death. He was awarded money in a malpractice suit 10 years ago.

Highly subjective. Regardless, the judge determined that the husband <surprise surprise!> knew his wife’s wishes BEST. And taking into account his highly compassionate behavior regarding Terri’s circumstances for years following her accident, I agree with his judgement.

350

[quote]So you’re agreeing with me, right? I say take the feeding tube out, give the concerned folks time to say their goodbyes, and then put the girl’s body down. Morphine OD = good.

Why are we being so monstrous about this? Starving people to death? What the hell? If you’re gonna kill somebody, then friggin’ do it!

Give me the syringe, I’ll do it if y’all don’t have the stomach for it. Bunch of pussies. I will say that I am ashamed of my home state right now. We should be better than this crap. [/quote]

This is a legal issue. Terri cannot legally be assisted in her own suicide through a lethal injection. She can, however, lawfully refuse life-saving treatment.

351

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Nothing in your quote qualifies Falwell as a nut. Then again, you are a liberal so hating Falwell is part of what you are supposed to do.

[/quote]

Well, you don’t have to be a liberal to dislike Falwell. And he is a nut.

Here are some Jerry quotes from another website I post in:

“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.”
– Rev. Jerry Falwell

“God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”
– Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F. Harris, “God Gave U.S. ‘What We Deserve,’ Falwell Says,” The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
– Jerry Falwell

352

I don’t agree with those that say that she deserved to die in dignity.

Those that said that the feeding tube should be reinserted to save her life are wrong.

That woman has been dead for 15 years.

You have to understand that tracking objects, or responding to primal outside stimulus, like a pinching the skin, does not require consciousness.

She didn’t die today at the hospital.

That woman has been dead for 15 years.

353

i agree with you, ramses.

and she wasn’t even able to track objects for more than few seconds. the family is being selfish is trying to keep her alive just so they can spend time with the shell of terri that is her body.

let her go. remember her as she was.

354

R I P

355

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
To be honest with you Moriarty, I dont’ even read your posts. So I haven’t been ducking you. You’ve basically set up a bunch of half truth scenarios, and I don’t really want to play that game. [/quote]

How can I have set up half-truth scenarios when I’ve accepted everything you’ve said as true? This is very simple: let’s take everything you’ve said as true.

Current protocol = Attending Physician determines vegetative state → Legal Guardian gives informed consent.

Is that not the current protocol? Is that not what happened in this case? What would you like to see changed?

Again, I’m accepting everything you’ve said as true, what’s your alternative to the existing protocol?

Stop ducking.

356

huey:
Wow. I don’t have to respond do I? You’ve pretty much said it all.

Listen: going out and specifically hiring a doctor who is a little on the wacky side of “right to die” is suspect, isn’t it?
I mean, why not get one who’s staunchly the other way?
Why not get one with no perceived bias either way?

Moriarty:
Dude…according to the AP, in figures that Dr. Death there didn’t fight, there were 7 docs who examined her. 4 said she was PVS and 3 said she wasn’t.
Sounds like a split decision, huh?
And since the only thing we have is the “finding of fact” from Mikey-boy, I think we could’ve erred on the side of patience.

and for the cat death argument: it wouldn’t matter. If I starved a sick cat, it would still get a charge of animal cruelty on me. Florida law.
But I didn’t even bring that up, someone else did.

357

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
To get totally off on a tangent, to me the difference is between punishing someone who has been found guilty of a crime that society has assigned a death penalty and making a theoretical decision of what would be better for a person.

In the punishment instance, the convicted person has chosen a course of action that he knew could end in a death-penalty punishment, no matter how remote that reality seemed at the time. So in essence, that convicted person made the choice.

In the other case, we are in essence “playing God” by making the choice for the person who cannot communicate.[/quote]

This doesn’t make any sense to me BB. The death penalty isn’t “playing God” because society agrees that it is an acceptable punishment? Huh? Isn’t that still people deciding who lives and dies?

Or is it that the guilty party made the choice to kill his or her self (when he or she committed the crime), so he or she is “playing god”, and thus we as a society are obligated to “give’em what he asked for”?

Neither of these makes complete sense to me, as you’ve explained it here.

On a related note, seeing as how we know as fact that some percentage of individuals that are executed are actually innocent of the crime they are being killed for, is the death penalty a “slippery slope”?

358

…

I thought we were having a good discussion. Funny how things change once the questions get a little harder.

359

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:

Moriarty:
Dude…according to the AP, in figures that Dr. Death there didn’t fight, there were 7 docs who examined her. 4 said she was PVS and 3 said she wasn’t.
Sounds like a split decision, huh?
And since the only thing we have is the “finding of fact” from Mikey-boy, I think we could’ve erred on the side of patience.

[/quote]

You still haven’t really given an alternative to the existing protocol. The caring physician did diagonse this case as PVS, right? As for the 7 doctors, I was under the impression that those were doctors appointed by the court in order to verify the determination of the caring physician. This was doone after the CARING PHYSICIAN had already made his diagnosis of PVS. I am wrong on those facts?

Is your alternative that in cases where PVS is diagnosed, that other doctors be brought in and the decision must be unanimous in order for the legal guardian to give consent? That doesn’t really seem like a workable solution.

What exactly do you want to change? I don’t know why you’re so frustrated with that question, I’m just asking you to tell us exactly how you would change the system.

Let’s forget the facts of this case. A patient comes into a hospital with possible PVS. In your opinion what should be the exact steps to go from that point to the patient being removed from machines that are keeping him or her alive?

360

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
To get totally off on a tangent, to me the difference is between punishing someone who has been found guilty of a crime that society has assigned a death penalty and making a theoretical decision of what would be better for a person.

In the punishment instance, the convicted person has chosen a course of action that he knew could end in a death-penalty punishment, no matter how remote that reality seemed at the time. So in essence, that convicted person made the choice.

In the other case, we are in essence “playing God” by making the choice for the person who cannot communicate.

This doesn’t make any sense to me BB. The death penalty isn’t “playing God” because society agrees that it is an acceptable punishment? Huh? Isn’t that still people deciding who lives and dies?

Or is it that the guilty party made the choice to kill his or her self (when he or she committed the crime), so he or she is “playing god”, and thus we as a society are obligated to “give’em what he asked for”?

Neither of these makes complete sense to me, as you’ve explained it here.

On a related note, seeing as how we know as fact that some percentage of individuals that are executed are actually innocent of the crime they are being killed for, is the death penalty a “slippery slope”?

[/quote]

No, because one is a punishment and one is done for expediency.

We accept punishments – the death penalty is just a severe form. We generally don’t accept enforcing the same thing on others who have not been found guilty of a crime.

We can get into the various theories of punishment, but the idea of cutting off food to someone who would not otherwise die and who has not been found guilty of anything wouldn’t satisfy any of them.