Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 3:19 PM
30 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, edge, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,646 Year: 6,683/19,786 Month: 1,224/1,581 Week: 46/393 Day: 29/17 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   The fate of Ms. Schiavo
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3955 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 82 (195413)
03-30-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
03-30-2005 7:44 AM


Let her go.

Did you hear there was actually someone asking Congress to subpeona Mrs Schiavo to appear before it, just to get the tube placed back in?

It didn't make it to the floor, and I am wondering how many rejected it because they knew what it would mean for their pandering case. After all Mrs Schiavo's "testimony" before congress might have made her case obvious to much of the country.

I suppose that goes along with Jeb and George turning down invitations from Mr Schiavo to come and visit her themselves.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 03-30-2005 7:44 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by kjsimons, posted 03-30-2005 11:05 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 28 by nator, posted 03-30-2005 11:22 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 17 of 82 (195414)
03-30-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
03-30-2005 10:52 AM


Actually on March 18th

A House of Representatives panel issues subpoenas for Terri Schiavo, her husband and others to appear at a hearing, but the trial judge blocks the move. The woman's feeding tube is removed. The U.S. Supreme Court rejects an emergency appeal by the House asking the justices to intervene.

The above quote was from CNN

Oops! Nevermind, this was before the tube was taken out!

This message has been edited by kjsimons, 03-30-2005 11:06 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 10:52 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 82 (195418)
03-30-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kjn
03-29-2005 9:13 PM


remaining married to her so as to cash in on a nice inheritance

According to her parents' website:

quote:
In October, 1998, Schiavo's attorney proposed that, if Terri's parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity.

quote:
In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today.

And this from the people who have the most highly vested interest in keeping her alive.

Ten seconds on google dispels the idea that the man is greedily slobbering over a million-buck payoff. Do your research before making an accusation like that.


"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kjn, posted 03-29-2005 9:13 PM kjn has not yet responded

  
kjn
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 82 (195493)
03-30-2005 3:28 PM


Crashfrog,

You stae that "who has the right to make this decision for her is the easiest thing about this case. It's open-and-shut; cut and dried. The law is specific and unambiguous." This is not the case. This is what the whole issue boils down to. That their is dispute shows that it is far from ambiguous.
As you ask for a legal lesson here goes: Under florida law, the husband is the proper guardian. Having said that there are also situations where the law takes into account the application of "equitable principles." The judge is not bound by rigid laws, but is able to take these principles which include "changing circumstances which fulfill the purpose of these explicit laws, namely, to have a guardian who can fulfill his fiduciary relationaship without being conflisted to his ward."
Given that Mr. Schiavo has decided to move on in his life and start a new family he should have transferred the guardian status back to the parents.
That he did not, that he has not filed for divorce, is what fuels some suspicions. Some of them are absurd, but what you label as "personal unprovalbe, and generally false suspicions about the character..." that I give are actually no such thing. They are researched questions that I have not provided the answers to, because in the end all that we can offer is speculation.
The questions are certainly not contradictory. Your interpretation of the 'Do not resuscitate,' is yours do make, but it is very seperate from his recollection many years later that she had desired not to be placed on life support.
It was a miniscule piece of communion that was refused, not an entire wafer or a substantial portion of food.

Holmes

I do not see how a question based on a proven historical situation can be considered a blatant character assassination?

RAZD
Ms. Schiavo's desires are by no means invalid. But as we cannot objectively determine them, as we could if she left a will, we must speculate. Alleged comments that are attributed to Ms. Schiavo, remembered eight whole years after she went into cardiac arrest, does not constitute as clear and convincing evidence.

kjn


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 3:36 PM kjn has not yet responded
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2005 9:48 PM kjn has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Thor, posted 03-30-2005 10:30 PM kjn has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 82 (195495)
03-30-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by kjn
03-30-2005 3:28 PM


The judge is not bound by rigid laws, but is able to take these principles which include "changing circumstances which fulfill the purpose of these explicit laws, namely, to have a guardian who can fulfill his fiduciary relationaship without being conflisted to his ward."

And there's been no convincing legal argument put forth that this isn't the case; that Michael has failed his fiduciary relationship with his ward.

Given that Mr. Schiavo has decided to move on in his life and start a new family he should have transferred the guardian status back to the parents.

He's under no moral or legal obligation to do so. He's under considerable moral obligation to not hand over guardianship to individuals who do not have his wife's wishes in mind.

That he did not, that he has not filed for divorce, is what fuels some suspicions.

He's under a moral obligation not to hand over guardianship of Terri to individuals who are not going to follow her wishes. That's not obvious?

It was a miniscule piece of communion that was refused, not an entire wafer or a substantial portion of food.

And it might still be dangerous. At any rate, is Terri Catholic? Is this a sacrament that she would have wanted? The clear indication is that it would not be. So, medically risky, against the Terri's wishes. Answers that question.

But as we cannot objectively determine them

You say that, but in fact, they were objectively determined by 19 judges and six courts of law. Michael's claim is credible; it has been objectively comfirmed.

Alleged comments that are attributed to Ms. Schiavo, remembered eight whole years after she went into cardiac arrest, does not constitute as clear and convincing evidence.

Oh? Maybe you could post an image of your law degree and give references to cases you've argued, briefs you've written. Until then I'm much more likely to go with the finding of six courts of law than your personal, uneducated opinion of what constitutes "clear and convining evidence." Clearly, 19 judges were convinced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by kjn, posted 03-30-2005 3:28 PM kjn has not yet responded

  
Citizzzen
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 82 (195564)
03-30-2005 9:18 PM


Were missing the big picture...
A more important point in this debate is whether ANYBODY'S end of life wishes need to be upheld...

Teri's husband says that his wife did not want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state, and did not want to live on life support. Because this claim cannot be refuted (at least well enough to sway a court...) social conservatives are now arguing that she is NOT in a PVS, and that a feeding/hydration tube does NOT constitute life support. This means that even if she had stated in a living will what her husband says were her wishes, we could still be having this debate...

The people fighting to keep Terri alive are arguing that if even one Dr. says she is not in a PVS, then the overwhelming medical opinion of the other doctors should be thrown out. This could greatly complicate ANYBODY'S end of life experience, if even one family member wants to dispute the medical findings...

For the sake of everyone's right to die when and how they see fit, we had all better hope that the hard right doesn't win this one...

Citizzzen


The message is ended, go in peace.
  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 22 of 82 (195570)
03-30-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by kjn
03-30-2005 3:28 PM


Seems you just don't want to understand.

try this:

U.S. Court Again Rejects Schiavo Appeal (click)

"Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper," the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."

And in a scathing attack on politicians who got involved in the case, the court added that the White House and lawmakers "have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."

That is one more court saying that you are wrong.

To say that "Alleged comments that are attributed to Ms. Schiavo, remembered eight whole years after she went into cardiac arrest, does not constitute as clear and convincing evidence." is just evidence that YOU don't want to believe it.

The courts have believed them because they are (1) substantiated by several parties and (2) consistent.

It is also disrespectful and insulting that you don't believe that is what terri wants, because it seems that you cannot believe that she would say that, that she needs to be protected from herself or some other twisted illogical self-deluding concept. what she needs to be protected from are people like you that would take away her wishes.

AND compare this with the parents admitted desire to turn her body into a mechanical borg regardless of how little brain there is and what other medical issues ensue. Talk about morbid denial of reality.

AND YOU cannot speculate either because YOU didn't know terri: that is best left to the people who did know her ... gosh that would be her husband and friends that have testified repeatedly and consistently that she did not want to become a vegetable.

Again: your position is untenable, insulting, degrading and ultimately irrelevant to reality. I expect you to be too closed minded to understand just how bad your position is.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by kjn, posted 03-30-2005 3:28 PM kjn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by IANAT, posted 03-30-2005 10:29 PM RAZD has responded

  
IANAT
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 82 (195580)
03-30-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
03-30-2005 9:48 PM


So, in America, the great protector of individual freedom, a judge can prevent a father and mother from giving food or water to their starving daughter.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2005 9:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by vossy, posted 03-30-2005 10:49 PM IANAT has not yet responded
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2005 10:56 PM IANAT has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Citizzzen, posted 03-31-2005 8:37 PM IANAT has not yet responded

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 4046 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 24 of 82 (195582)
03-30-2005 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by kjn
03-30-2005 3:28 PM


...what RAZD said. And...

Ms. Schiavo's desires are by no means invalid. But as we cannot objectively determine them, as we could if she left a will, we must speculate.

But you make them invalid when you ignore the best authority on what those wishes were, ie. her husband. Learned legal authorities have examined this and made an informed decision. End of story.

But shall we speculate? Maybe ask yourself, would YOU like the idea of being kept alive to spend the rest of your days in a hospital bed as a vegetable fed through a tube, nothing more than a mass of random bodily functions with your higher brain competely gone and no chance of recovery? Well, I wouldn't, and I find it difficult to imagine that any reasonable person would.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by kjn, posted 03-30-2005 3:28 PM kjn has not yet responded

  
vossy
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 82 (195587)
03-30-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by IANAT
03-30-2005 10:29 PM


IANAT writes:

So, in America, the great protector of individual freedom, a judge can prevent a father and mother from giving food or water to their starving daughter.

If that's what their daughter wanted, then YES!! If that isn't protecting Terri's individual freedom, I don't know what is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by IANAT, posted 03-30-2005 10:29 PM IANAT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19839
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 26 of 82 (195589)
03-30-2005 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by IANAT
03-30-2005 10:29 PM


No. In the america that is still based on the principles of freedom, justice, equality and liberty, as espoused by the founding fathers, a judge can review the case and decide that the daughter wanted the tube removed from her vegetative body after the mind had died, that she had the right to make that choice and that she shares that right equally with every other person living in the US regardless of race or age or gender or religious or sexual orientation. and the judge can decide that nobody can interfere with that choice IN ORDER to protect that individuals rights.

Is a body that does not feed itself starving?

What you seem to fail to understand is that forcing that body to live on and on and on with no hope of conscious thought (there is no {place} for it to occur) is infringing on the rights of the individual in this case. rather than "protecting individual freedom" this is a trampling sham.

get a life.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by IANAT, posted 03-30-2005 10:29 PM IANAT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 82 (195592)
03-30-2005 11:07 PM


Of all the people in this sad situation ...
the one who probably cares the least about the outcome is Terri Schiavo. It's been years, maybe longer since she cared at all what happened. This farce is being played around the egos of those still aware, her husband, her parents and the ghouls that surround them.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
nator
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 82 (195597)
03-30-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
03-30-2005 10:52 AM


quote:
Did you hear there was actually someone asking Congress to subpeona Mrs Schiavo to appear before it, just to get the tube placed back in?

Are you shitting me?

Goddamnit, what a bunch of disgusting freaks.

quote:
It didn't make it to the floor, and I am wondering how many rejected it because they knew what it would mean for their pandering case. After all Mrs Schiavo's "testimony" before congress might have made her case obvious to much of the country.

I suppose that goes along with Jeb and George turning down invitations from Mr Schiavo to come and visit her themselves.


Ha.

Did you also hear that years ago Tom DeLay's father was in a coma and Tom and his mom decided to pull the plug whaen his kidneys began to fail instead of providing him with life-prolonging dialysis?

I was going to write some kind of expletive like "bastard" or "fucker" here, but none of those words seem adequately damning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-30-2005 10:52 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 11:45 PM nator has not yet responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2063 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 29 of 82 (195602)
03-30-2005 11:43 PM


who is paying for her medical bills?

that individual should have more say. my bet is it isn't her parents who are delusional enough to call a 41 year old vegetable their "little girl".


  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2063 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 30 of 82 (195604)
03-30-2005 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
03-30-2005 11:22 PM


haha delay. mmmmmmm hypocrisy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 03-30-2005 11:22 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by IANAT, posted 03-31-2005 12:40 AM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019