Terri Shaivo thread

[JUGGERNAUT]

There's a great diary on dailykos about this. Say what you will about it being a flaming liberal blog, but this entry was particularly compelling.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/23/155051/329

 

Here's a highlight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well you can argue another angle that would make her life more important than the money. If Michael is the cause of the initital injury (I agree it's a BIG IF) would he not fear Terri regaining consciousness? The question was posed to Bobby Schindler last night as to whether he will pursue a wrongful death suit? He seemed very open to that possibility. I think most of us would agree fear of the death penalty is going to be make the money seem insignificant.

 

All of his actions up to the time he filed for her r-t-d would fit that picture. He was in total control of her life. What did he have to fear? He had used up most of the settlement $ up to that time.

 

I'm not saying this is plausible. I'm just offering it as an explanation why the money might be insignificant. Now money earned after her death off book & movie rights is entirely different.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Not to shift the debate here, but something I thought of:

 

If Bush is so pro-life then why did he execute so many people in Texas without even reading the sentencing reports? And why did he sign the 1999 law that says that people on Medicaid -- the hospitals get to choose to remove feeding tubes etc. and not doctors/family members if they can't afford to keep the help going? Let's not forget the hotly contested WMD claims in Iraq where many people didn't believe but he went with his leap of faith anyway...But suddenly he wants to "err on the side of caution"?

 

And a bit more cynical -- why don't all the conservative Christians want to see Terri Schiavo in Heaven?

[southsider2k5]

Not to shift the debate here, but something I thought of:

 

If Bush is so pro-life then why did he execute so many people in Texas without even reading the sentencing reports?  And why did he sign the 1999 law that says that people on Medicaid -- the hospitals get to choose to remove feeding tubes etc. and not doctors/family members if they can't afford to keep the help going?  Let's not forget the hotly contested WMD claims in Iraq where many people didn't believe but he went with his leap of faith anyway...But suddenly he wants to "err on the side of caution"?

 

And a bit more cynical -- why don't all the conservative Christians want to see Terri Schiavo in Heaven?

 

I would tend to agree that this case falls in line with Christian beliefs more than any death penalty case. I talked to Wino a little about this, but I believe that 4 types of cases are all basically the same idea.

 

Death Penalty

Abortion

Right to Die

Euthinesia

 

They are all instances where one human has to make a judgement for the worth of the life of another human, based on mitigating circumstances. My view of Christianity is that all of these should be something that a Christian would be against, as Christ makes it very clear that we do not posess the authority to judge another human beings life.

[JUGGERNAUT]

My next question is why is no one questioning the parents motives?  With the links to bullemia, there might be some stuff to go off.  There could very well have been abuse, and wanting to keep her alive could be an appeasement of their guilt.  Why are we only questioning the husband here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe that an extensive review of the facts by the court would include that. Especially given the claims that Michael may have had involvement. Since that is what the parents appeals seek I think that rules them out. Either that or the parents believe they had no involvement in that so they have no sense of that fear.

 

LCR, Bush is a moderate conservative. That means he can ride the fence politically pro-death on one side, pro-life on the other.

 

As for Chrstians, heaven is the final destination & when you reach it you reside there for all eternity. Our time on Earth is temporal & therefore very rare. You should cheerish every moment.

 

Scarborough brings up a good point. Why did FLDCFS go to Greer & ask him to allow them to enforce the statute? The executive branch does not have to ask the judiciary to enforce a statute. After enforcing the statute someone can challenge it in the courts but they can't prevent the enforcement of it.

 

What I'm thinking is that they asked Greer because Terri's established r-t-d trumps the statute. Either that or Gov Bush is trying to exhaust every means prior to enforcing the statute on his own or the FLDCFS lawyers are clueless.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I would tend to agree that this case falls in line with Christian beliefs more than any death penalty case.  I talked to Wino a little about this, but I believe that 4 types of cases are all basically the same idea.

 

Death Penalty

Abortion

Right to Die

Euthinesia

 

They are all instances where one human has to make a judgement for the worth of the life of another human, based on mitigating circumstances.  My view of Christianity is that all of these should be something that a Christian would be against, as Christ makes it very clear that we do not posess the authority to judge another human beings life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Based on what I know, Yes & No.

It's really a mercy factor based on a person's goodness. Terri is personified as an angelic person right now with emblemished goodness. That drives the mercy factor thru the roof. That would apply to both euthanasia & r-t-d. The greater the assumption of goodness in the person the greater the mercy factor.

 

With abortion there is no person. There is an unborn. There is no unique personhood when it comes to the mercy factor. So the mercy factor is split. There are those Christians who can't see goodness in something as general as unborn children. There are those Christians who see even greater goodness in unborn children. That's why even though there is a split those who see the goodness are far more zealous than those who don't.

 

The death-penalty without question has the lowest mercy factor. Few Christians can see the goodness in these persons. The Vatican basically shows unconditional goodness for all persons & unborn regardless of circumstances. That's a hard thing for the average Christian. There are those who have to search for goodness here. I'm against the d-p because I find the goodness in the innocent. The process at which someone faces the d-p is not infailable. It's wrought with error.

I read reports about d-p inmates being cleared all the time. The goodness of the wrongfully accused is what drives me against the d-p.

Edited March 24, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Is she dead yet?

[AngelasDaddy0427]

IMO shes been dead for quite awhile now. Lets a matter of her family letting her go.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

IMO shes been dead for quite awhile now. Lets a matter of her family letting her go.

 

 

Call me a cynic, call me heartless, call me whatever you want but I would like to see her kick the bucket cause she obviously cant get better and the media is doing what they do best here. They're taking someones suffering and using it to score ratings.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Call me a cynic, call me heartless, call me whatever you want but I would like to see her kick the bucket cause she obviously cant get better and the media is doing what they do best here.  They're taking someones suffering and using it to score ratings.

 

And hypocritical assholes looking to pander to their voting blocs, lets not forget about that. Feeding tubes are removed every day from people...why such giving a damn about this specific one?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And hypocritical assholes looking to pander to their voting blocs, lets not forget about that.  Feeding tubes are removed every day from people...why such giving a damn about this specific one?

 

 

For once we agree. Why can't people just stay out of other peoples damn business for once?

[AngelasDaddy0427]

All I know is i'm calling my mom and making sure she knows to pull the plug on me if anything like this happened.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Scarborough brings up a good point that maybe which should debate.

Should we consider a person who's only dependancy is a feeding & hydration tube on life support? The need for these tubes is predicated on the basis she is to a greater extent paralyzed. I have known people in my life who have been paralyzed & did require feeding tubes for several yrs before rehab brought back there ability to chew.

 

I believe Terri is brain damaged to an extent that she has lost some degree of cognizant function & to a larger degree motor function. That's evident in her paralysis. But no one on this planet can say with certainty that a specific area of the brain controls a certain motor function or cognizant function. We don't possess that knowledge. We possess knowledge of generalizations. But all brains are unique.

 

From what I know our general knowledge of the brain is that it is resilient in that it will compensate for damages. Exactly how it does that or to what extent it does that we don't know. In the year 2005 we still don't know how our brain formulates words or drives us to speak & think. We have a general sense of what area of the brain controls that but we don't know anything for sure. Most brain surgery today deals strictly with the physical

nature of the brain. It's not dealing with restoring brain functions but rather obvious brain impairments. We use tech to see that which is threatening & we attempt to correct it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Have any of you read any books by futurists? I have. The potential for AI nanotech is limitless.

1- Viritual Worlds: See the Matrix. Live in the Matrix. Nanotech AI interfaces will get us there some time in the next 20 yrs. In is world you whole body is the controller & your thoughts are the special functions.

 

2- Memory augmentation & emulation. If you lose this portion of your brain don't sweat it. As long as enough people who know you stick around they can fill in the blanks. Everyone will have the chance to own a photograpic memory that will be as easy to use as today's seach engine.

Expect these NAI interfaces in the next 20 yrs as well.

 

3-Taste augmentation & emulation. If you lose this portion of your brain again don't sweat it. People who know you can fill in the blanks. What they don't know science can choose for you randomly or you can choose on your on. Newly acquired tastes will be impossible. That's a natural God given thing. Once that capacity is lost it can't be restored. Your emotions are linked to these so any non-natural tastes might feel state to you.

 

4-Motor functions. If you lose this portion don't sweat it at all. These are the most generalized functions in the brain. NAI interfaces will start creeping up on us in this area in as early as 10 yrs. Think of all the spinal cord injury patients this will help. This won't just be available for the brain but the spinal cord itself. Big promise here.

 

Simply put in the next 20 yrs living wills might mean a whole lot more to the poor than the rich. You're going to need $ to pay for all this. Maybe medicare will evolve to give the poor a Matrix rich life

[jackie hayes]

I believe Terri is brain damaged to an extent that she has lost some degree of cognizant function & to a larger degree motor function.  That's evident in her paralysis.  But no one on this planet can say with certainty that a specific area of the brain controls a certain motor function or cognizant function.  We don't possess that knowledge.  We possess knowledge of generalizations.  But all brains are unique. 

 

From what I know our general knowledge of the brain is that it is resilient in that it will compensate for damages.  Exactly how it does that or to what extent it does that we don't know.  In the year 2005 we still don't know how our brain formulates words or drives us to speak & think.  We have a general sense of what area of the brain controls that but we don't know anything for sure.  Most brain surgery today deals strictly with the physical

nature of the brain.  It's not dealing with restoring brain functions but rather obvious brain impairments.  We use tech to see that which is threatening & we attempt to correct it.

There is so much utter garbage here -- the idea that noone has any idea what part of the brain does what, the suggestion that it may differ from person to person ("all brains are unique"). And then, you claim that all this will be figured out in a few years and we'll be able to replace it with computers. Unbelievable.

 

Key here is "From what I know," which is zero. Doctors (you know, they went to medical school?) have said that much of her brain is filled with fluid, and that she'll never recover memory or thought. But if Jugghead thinks o/w, well...

 

I don't know if you're remarkably ignorant (yet stubborn) or just flat out lying. Either way, you're wrong. So stop spreading this crap under the heading of "I believe" and "From what I know". Although for those who read regularly, it is fair warning. Good God.

[Rex Kickass]

Well you can argue another angle that would make her life more important than the money.  If Michael is the cause of the initital injury (I agree it's a BIG IF) would he not fear Terri regaining consciousness?  The question was posed to Bobby Schindler last night as to whether he will pursue a wrongful death suit?  He seemed very open to that possibility.  I think most of us would agree fear of the death penalty is going to be make the money seem insignificant.

 

All of his actions up to the time he filed for her r-t-d would fit that picture.  He was in total control of her life.  What did he have to fear?  He had used up most of the settlement $ up to that time.

 

I'm not saying this is plausible.  I'm just offering it as an explanation why the money might be insignificant.  Now money earned after her death off book & movie rights is entirely different.

 

Have you seen an MRI scan of Terri's brain? It's half fluid. She'll never remember anything. You're just grasping at straws now.

[Texsox]

Not true, at least in this case.  From webmd, a doctor at the Univ of Rochester:Here's the link.

 

Jackie, I was not commenting on her exact situation, but adressing the quoted comment that brain cells do not grow back. Sorry for the confusion. If you study stroke victims, people with injuries, etc. That is what happens. Of course if there isn't healthy cells available, that would not be possible.

 

But since you seem to want to jump on everything I write, have at it. :banghead

[Texsox]

You think that after 7 years of fighting to grant her her final wish, that he might have run out of sadness?

 

Wino, the only one that seems to be saying it was her final wishes is him. You believe the guy, others don't. At the minimum, his motives should be questioned. Remember this is not a case of Doctors advising her family that there was no hope and they should remove the feeding tube. The husband is requesting the tube be removed.

[Texsox]

Especially since it has been widely reported that her parents are the ones who encouraged him to go out and start seeing other people, even going so far as to set him up with other people.

 

And get a divorce and leave Terri to them. To bad the plan backfired. He has two wives.

[YASNY]

I've skipped this thread for a couple of days, as the BULLs*** got too deep, on both sides of the issue. But, my God, people, why is this a right-wing vs left-wing thing. Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. The parents cannot even conceive of the prospect of letting their daughter die. Sorry, folks, but I cannot condemn them for that. They didn't ask to be in this hornet's nest, but they are sticking beside their daughter. The husband is also sticking by his wife. IF what he said is true about her wishes. I question that to a certain extent, but that's just a personal take on things. Either way, I'm not going to condemn the man because I don't know what he's been through or is going through or what's really in his heart. I'm at the point to where I wish they'd just inject her so that she could die a quick, painless death. Whether hubby's refusal to allow treatment and therapy has led to her current state is a moot point now. Let the poor woman die and rest in piece.

 

The survivors can kick around all the legal bulls*** afterwards.

[Texsox]

YASNY,

 

 

Excellent point, but I haven't seen this as a liberal vs. conservative issue. At least in my corner of the globe, the people I've spoken to don't seem to be split down party lines. Church affiliation and having children are the two biggest divides I could see. This is an admittedly small sample and may or may not reflect society as a whole, I do not wish to generalize or marginalize anyone's opinions because they may or may not belong to any of the groups mentioned (I have to throw that in or Jackie will jump on my ass :banghead )

 

It seems that some people are focused in on the greater good of the patient. I think Steff has done a wonderful service in expressing that point of view against all critics. I believe most people would not wish to survive in that condition and whatever means gets her to that end, is ok. Don't worry about the details, do what is best for Terri.

 

The do what's best for Terri crowd also includes people who believe that any human life is worth living. There is no minimum requirement for IQ, memory, personality, etc. to be kept alive. They are also likely to have strong feelings for the parents and their wishes, recognizing the parent-child bonds as absolute.

 

Others become wrapped up in the moral authority issue of who has the right to decide if she lives or dies, and from what basis is that moral right given. The legal right has been decided and the legally binding contract of marriage allows the husband that omniscient power over his wife's live.This is the same legal system that until a couple decades ago felt it was impossible for one spouse to rape another. Our opinions of marriage are moving towards individual rights. Perhaps this case will spur more examination and reflection on the rights of spouses. With close to half the marriages ending in divorce, maybe the laws need to reflect the temporary nature of marriage vs. the lifelong contract that was more the norm when many of the basic underpinning of our laws were written.

 

I obviously fall in the last category. From what I have seen and heard the parents have stayed dedicated to Terri, while the husband has created a new life for himself. At this point, in this case, I would prefer the parents making the decision. I do not necessarily agree with their decision, but I defend their right to make it.

[YASNY]

Tex,

 

I understand what you are saying. First, I agree with your comments about Steff. She's been consistant throughout this thread in keeping Terri and her benefit in mind. As for the political aspect, it seems that in here and the in the media politics is what is ruling the issue. It's like you can predict who is going to take which side based on their liberal vs. conservative leanings, yet so many points of contention is this debate are being backed by the side you would normally consider the point of view of the other side. Example: The GOP seems to be backing the Federal gov't over states rights. Huh?!? The DEM's are standing up for states rights vs. the Big Bad Feds. Wtf? That's why this all seems so crazy to me. Is this a case of "right to life" (re: abortion) issue posturing on the both sides? If seems like it to me. It seems like this issue has put both parties in a position of sacrificing one issue (fed vs. state) so as not to give the other party ammo to be used later on the abortion issue. In the mean time, Terri, Michael and the Schindlers are being put through some kind of sadistic hell. This whole thing is sick and disgusting.

[Texsox]

For the same reason you mention GOP+Fed, DEM+State, Tex+Hannity I believe this has crossed party lines for us amateurs. Our partisan elected officials have to be concerned about every issue and how it will be perceived. When the President can't grab a quick BJ from an intern in the oval office to relieve stress, you know politics are everywhere. That's just a fact of life for a political professional. It's their livelihood.

[jackie hayes]

Jackie, I was not commenting on her exact situation, but adressing the quoted comment that brain cells do not grow back. Sorry for the confusion. If you study stroke victims, people with injuries, etc. That is what happens. Of course if there isn't healthy cells available, that would not be possible.

 

But since you seem to want to jump on everything I write, have at it. :banghead

Whatever. Steff was clearly referring to her specifically, and her brain:

Brain cells don't grow back.. she is never going to improve.

Your direct response to this was:

What happens is other areas of the brain take over for the damaged areas.

Since Steff was specifically speaking about Schiavo, and you responded to this without any caveat (like, yes you're completely right, but it is an interesting factoid that in totally different cases other parts of the brain take over certain functions), it is at least awfully misleading.

 

I'm hardly jumping on everything. (Look at how many posts you've had in this thread -- I've disagreed with you directly twice iirc.) I dropped out of the whole exchange earlier. But the idea that what remains of her brain can handle somehow the functions that were destroyed is flat wrong -- all I did was point that out in plain language. Sorry if you felt attacked, but I don't honestly see how you get that from my posts.

 

Edit: And, it'll please you to know, I'm out of this thread.

Edited March 24, 2005 by jackie hayes

[southsider2k5]

Based on what I know, Yes & No. 

It's really a mercy factor based on a person's goodness.  Terri is personified as an angelic person right now with emblemished goodness.  That drives the mercy factor thru the roof.  That would apply to both euthanasia & r-t-d.  The greater the assumption of goodness in the person the greater the mercy factor.

 

With abortion there is no person.  There is an unborn.  There is no unique personhood when it comes to the mercy factor.  So the mercy factor is split.  There are those Christians who can't see goodness in something as general as unborn children.  There are those Christians who see even greater goodness in unborn children.  That's why even though there is a split those who see the goodness are far more zealous than those who don't.

 

The death-penalty without question has the lowest mercy factor. Few Christians can see the goodness in these persons.   The Vatican basically shows unconditional goodness for all persons & unborn regardless of circumstances. That's a hard thing for the average Christian.  There are those who have to search for goodness here.  I'm against the d-p because I find the goodness in the innocent.  The process at which someone faces the d-p is not infailable.  It's wrought with error.

I read reports about d-p inmates being cleared all the time.  The goodness of the wrongfully accused is what drives me against the d-p.

 

Jesus taught us pretty Clearly to show love and mercy to all. Whether they are unborn, dying, brain dead, or child murders doesn't matter.

 

"love thine enemy as thyself."

[Texsox]

Whatever.  Steff was clearly referring to her specifically, and her brain:

 

Your direct response to this was:

 

Since Steff was specifically speaking about Schiavo, and you responded to this without any caveat (like, yes you're completely right, but it is an interesting factoid that in totally different cases other parts of the brain take over certain functions), it is at least awfully misleading.

 

I'm hardly jumping on everything.  (Look at how many posts you've had in this thread -- I've disagreed with you directly twice iirc.)  I dropped out of the whole exchange earlier.  But the idea that what remains of her brain can handle somehow the functions that were destroyed is flat wrong -- all I did was point that out in plain language.  Sorry if you felt attacked, but I don't honestly see how you get that from my posts.

 

Edit:  And, it'll please you to know, I'm out of this thread.

 

I thought it was clear, but I guess what seems obvious to one, isn't to another. Thank you for dropping back into the thread to help me clear that up.