Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
196 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,503 Year: 20,539/19,786 Month: 936/2,023 Week: 444/392 Day: 60/74 Hour: 11/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fate of Ms. Schiavo
nator
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 61 of 82 (196005)
04-01-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Chad_Hilse1
03-31-2005 11:23 PM


Re: it's a little late now, but...
quote:
either the money is going to be spent keeping Terri alive, or buying Michael a new car. If the money is just going to be selfishly squandered in the USA, why not let it be used to keep a few old people happy?

Years ago, Michael offered to donate all of the life insurance money to charity if her parents pulled Terri's feeding tube.

It's not about the money for him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Chad_Hilse1, posted 03-31-2005 11:23 PM Chad_Hilse1 has not yet responded

  
Spencer
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 82 (196112)
04-01-2005 6:46 PM


Crashfrog wrote
quote:
Do you think maybe that was Terri's parents' plan all along, when they suggested to Michael that he should date other women?

If I am understand this correctly. Terri Schiavo's parents told Michael to start dating other people? Can this be confirmed (a link or something)? How long had it been since Terri was in a vegitative state when Michael began dating?


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by berberry, posted 04-01-2005 7:33 PM Spencer has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 82 (196133)
04-01-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Spencer
04-01-2005 6:46 PM


off-topic admonishment
Spencer, there are a few conventions we adhere to at evc that you apparently are not aware of. If you will notice, each post within a thread will have a number of buttons along the bottom, one of which is labelled "reply". If you will use that button it will automatically provide a link from your post back to the message you're responding to.

You've apparently been using the "Gen Reply" button which is found at the bottom of each page of a thread. At many message boards that is exactly what is expected, but here we consider it bad form - unless of course you are making a general reply rather than a reply directed at one particular post.


Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Spencer, posted 04-01-2005 6:46 PM Spencer has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 64 of 82 (196144)
04-01-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by kjsimons
04-01-2005 8:23 AM


Re: Posting this link is against my better judgement, but here goes nothing.
in my best Al Jolson immitation ...

except that I seem to have a frog in my throat ... :laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kjsimons, posted 04-01-2005 8:23 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
satrekker
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 82 (196156)
04-02-2005 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
03-29-2005 9:22 PM


Re: Moral right
Yes, the judiciary did a fine job in this particular case. How dare those brain dead, right-wing, religious zealots try and impose their morality on this situation? Claiming to err on the side of life in the face of so much unbiased testimony and overwhelming scientific evidence as to Mrs. Schiavo's condition is absurd! What were they thinking? Why they weren't, and they don't! They believe in God!

Let's look under a few rocks shall we?

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover033105.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pfeiffer200503301030.asp

Of course all of this was widely reported by the majority press in the interest of discovering the truth. After all, that's what everybody was really after wasn't it - the truth?

Morally and intellectually bankrupt. (

This message has been edited by satrekker, 04-02-2005 02:14 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 03-29-2005 9:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2005 9:28 AM satrekker has responded
 Message 72 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 9:00 AM satrekker has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 66 of 82 (196203)
04-02-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by satrekker
04-02-2005 1:52 AM


Re: Moral right
sarcasm and argument from incredulity aside, you have presented no evidence that terri was not in fact so brain dead that massive parts had dissolved into spinal fluid.

yes the truth, and the truth is that indeed terri was not only brain dead but brain {{{{gone}}}}.

and sarcasm and argument from incredulity aside, nothing you have said in any way justifies taking away the individual rights of terri to die in the manner of her choosing and of the individual rights of her husband to exercise and act on those wishes of hers.

and finally, sarcasm and argument from incredulity aside, nothing you have said has any bearing on this issue of real morallity and rational behavior. unless you saying that those who have tried to interfere in the private lives of a certain family are morally and intellectually bankrupt. that I would agree with.

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 65 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 1:52 AM satrekker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 1:09 PM RAZD has responded

  
satrekker
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 82 (196224)
04-02-2005 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
04-02-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Moral right
sarcasm and argument from incredulity aside, you have presented no evidence that terri was not in fact so brain dead that massive parts had dissolved into spinal fluid.

Argument from ignorance aside...

yes the truth, and the truth is that indeed terri was not only brain dead but brain {{{{gone}}}}.

What exactly is your evidence of this "truth?"

I can just imagine the response to somebody displaying an artifact that purportedly "proved" the assertion that men and dinosaurs lived together several thousand years ago, yet only let his hand picked experts examine, test and give testimony as to the authenticity and significance of the artifact AND excluded other known contrary testimony. There definitely wouldn't be any "doubt" in his assertion (sarcasm intended).

Doubt as to medical condition was only part of the argument presented by those wanting to err on the side of life.

This message has been edited by satrekker, 04-02-2005 01:14 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2005 9:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2005 3:55 PM satrekker has not yet responded
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 04-02-2005 4:03 PM satrekker has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2005 8:27 PM satrekker has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 82 (196247)
04-02-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by satrekker
04-02-2005 1:09 PM


Re: Moral right
What exactly is your evidence of this "truth?"

Conclusive EEG and CT tests; the consensus of all reputable medical professionals familiar with the entire case; and, most likely, the information from the autopsy which we'll eventually get to know about.

AND excluded other known contrary testimony.

There were no reputable contradictions of the medical consensus. The only doctor I'm aware of who disagreed was man who had been repeatedly sanctioned by the Florida medical board and who repeatedly made the false claim to be a "Nobel Prize nominee."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 1:09 PM satrekker has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 69 of 82 (196249)
04-02-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by satrekker
04-02-2005 1:09 PM


Re: Moral "right" and rationality
satrekker erroneously writes:

Argument from ignorance aside...

except you make no presentation of information to justify that claim. or are you refering to your ignorance, that is apparent: you seem to be ignorant of the real ethical and legal issues here.

the evidence I have seen includes the cat scans and the doctors testimony, but this issue does not rely on my opinion but on the opinion of the judges that reviewed the facts ... how many courts? and every one unanimously made the same decision?

that is also to say that your opinion is not worth the time you take to issue it either: it is not your life, your family, your issue.

I give you the right to decide your own course of action as long as it does no harm to others, in return for you giving me that same right: that is how america works. I respect your wishes as they relate to your life. I totally disrespect your insistance on infringing on and imposing your wishes on anyone else's life, whether it is the shiavo family or anyone else.

people who are charged with determining the truth have all concluded (1) terri would not want to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state and (b) that she was in a persistent vegetative state and (III) that legally and ethically the correct thing was to pull the plug on the flesh that remained.

your sarcasm falls flat. perhaps if you had a valid point?

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 67 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 1:09 PM satrekker has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 70 of 82 (196294)
04-02-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by satrekker
04-02-2005 1:09 PM


Re: Moral right
satekker responds to RAZD:

quote:
quote:
yes the truth, and the truth is that indeed terri was not only brain dead but brain {{{{gone}}}}.

What exactly is your evidence of this "truth?"


The CAT scan. Haven't you seen it? It's been online for quite some time now. You did actually do some research on this case, didn't you? And by "research," I mean go over the actual court transcripts, review the medical evidence as recorded by the court, etc. and not just what the talking heads on TV are telling you.

Here's a picture of Terri's CAT scan:

Does that appear normal to you? Do you see that large, vaguely butterfly-shaped area taking up most of the center of the picture? That's cerebrospinal fluid. It should be lightly grey if there were cortical matter there. Here, let me show you the image of a normal 25-year-old with that of Schiavo's:

Do those two scans look anything alike? Do you not see the big, gaping hole where her brain ought to be?

And actually, that hole is a bit misleading because it isn't quite as big as it ought to be. That is, brain matter is somewhat compressed. Schiavo's cortex disintegrated, leaving the hole in the center, and the thin layer on the outside has now expanded since it is no longer pressed against the side of the skull. That's what that C-shaped area on the right side of the CAT scan is: More cerebrospinal fluid.

Her brain was literally gone.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 1:09 PM satrekker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Ben!, posted 04-02-2005 8:38 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1937 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 71 of 82 (196300)
04-02-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rrhain
04-02-2005 8:27 PM


Re: Moral right
That is a freaky scan. I've worked with MRI scans of "normal" people, and seeing this scan is freaky. Thanks for the pics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2005 8:27 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 82 (196371)
04-03-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by satrekker
04-02-2005 1:52 AM


Re: Moral right
Are you aware that George W. Bush, when he was Governor of Texas, signed into law a bill called the "Futile Care Law" which allows hospitals the right to remove life support if a patient could not pay and there was no hope of recovery, regardless of the patient's family's wishes?

Was he "erring on the side of life" at that time?

quote:
How dare those brain dead, right-wing, religious zealots try and impose their morality on this situation?

I don't think DeLay is brain dead at all. I think he is very, very cunning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by satrekker, posted 04-02-2005 1:52 AM satrekker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 2:44 PM nator has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20250
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 73 of 82 (196472)
04-03-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by nator
04-03-2005 9:00 AM


Re: Moral right
are you away that Delay pulled the plug on his dad when he was comatose due to complications with cancer?


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 72 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 9:00 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 4:03 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 484 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 82 (196492)
04-03-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
04-03-2005 2:44 PM


Re: Moral right
yep!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 2:44 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
StormWolfx2x
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 82 (196610)
04-04-2005 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by kjn
03-31-2005 11:08 PM


Re: it's a little late now, but...
one of your main arguments is that because he has another relationship, he cannot still love Terri and therefore is not capable of making a decision in her best interest.
What then do you say to the scores of people who have lost their spouse, and then after a reasonable or even prolonged period of mourning begin once again to date and eventually marry someone they love?
Why does the church even allow widows and widowers to remarry if it violates the sanctity of their first marriage? More likely than not, it is because they agree that you can find love a second time without violating the love you can still hold for those that have passed on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by kjn, posted 03-31-2005 11:08 PM kjn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 04-04-2005 4:05 AM StormWolfx2x has not yet responded
 Message 77 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2005 11:11 AM StormWolfx2x has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019