Drudge is getting ready (in minutes so he says) to play alleged audio of Terri after having her feeding tube removed.

You can probably find him on the AM dial as he is on in almost all states.

Other than that, I know nothing of this audio.

that seems really shameless and disgusting. let her have some dignity.

I'm interested because it may play to her "cognitive abilities".

My wife saw some of the recent video of Terri today and wondered how "out of it" she is. Prior to seeing the video, she was on the side of having the feeding tube removed, now she isn't sure.

It is hard to watch those videos as it really isn't easy to tell if the women is aware or not--some of it looks a little to much to be considered purely reflexive.

I'm not saying to put her tube back in, but we would be remiss to not look at all info available--even if it contradicts our perceived opinions.

Edit: He hasn't played it yet, supposedly he will soon and post it to his website.

For anybody interested, here is a link: AUDIO

Good luck though, the server is getting blasted right now.

I listened to it.

On the outside, it is disturbing.

However, there really isn't anything to back it up or to verify its authenticity.

I am bothered by the father starting it off by giving the day and time. Sounds like a set up, but I am not sure.

What even more shameless and disgusting is the pro-death crowd's refusal to even consider that she's something other than a vegetable.

if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then she must be in a persistant vegitative state with no hope of recovery.

it's shameful and disgusting that you and the others that support her parents don't want her wishes carried out and will even change the law for this specific situation.

Your'e right, it is getting blasted right now. If it is authentic, it's time to send in the federal marshals along with a doctor to get that tube back in.

Over 200 posts?? I don't believe it. Why does this issue stike a nerve with so many people? Tom Delay and his minions let alone the government have no business whatsoever meddling in the lives of one particular family. Why doesn the government get involved with this one particular case and not the thousands of others going throuh the same shit right now? The value of life? Give me a fucking break. Bush is supposed to be for state's rights but he want's to interviene on this issue?

Please.

I wouldn't want to live like that and pretty much the entire population would say the same (if you don't you're kidding yourself) so all those "protesters" trynig to sneak food into her room can just shut their trap.

This whole thing is just...sad.

It really feels like so many people are out to push their own agenda. It's disgusting.

Is there really no hope for recovery? Can they turn her brain back into functioning solid matter from the liquid mush it currently is? Can they do a partial brain transplant? What about stem-cell stuff, anything there? Is is possible to "grow" it back?

Wow that is the ultimate political football - "Stem-cell research can save Terry Shialvo, Congress refuses to pass bill authorizing stem-cell research". Could be ironic.

Another take:

It marriage is sacred and there should be less government in our lives, then her husband should have final say.

It bothers me that politicians (on both sides) only stick to their principles when it is convenient.

Most defenitely agreed

I will really laugh my ass off if it's found that the only way to save her is through stem cell research. What a dlimema that the right wing congress will face then.

"We want to prolong life but we can't do stem cell research but stem cell research prolongs life."

I can see them now shittin' bricks trying to figure out their "morals."

I think that this is the crux of the issue. Is what she is experiencing 'life' at all? Is she conscious of anything at all, and more importantly will she ever be conscious at all? From what I've heard there's no chance of a recovery. Would a life in which we were "instantaneously conscious" but there was no link between these instances of consciousness be a proper life? We aren't even sure what she is exactly feeling.

1.People for the removal of the feeding tube see the situation in which there there is no real life as there is no awareness of what is happening or over a time interval. They see that there is no hope of recovery from such a state.

2.People againts the removal of the feeding tube see a woman who is alive and/or a person who could be aware of her soroundings or could recover. I can understand NCB's point that we should proceed caustiously as he doesn't think that we can be sure of point 1, and therefore should keep the feeding tube. (sorry If I have interpreted your arguments incorrectly, feel free to correct me).

I for one think the medical evidence clearly points to 1. and that the wishes of the woman (in this case what her Husband says she would want), should be followed.

Now it seems GWBush has signed "emergency legislation" to reinsert this woman's food and water tubes...so she will go on being a political pawn for the religious right who violate her wishes to not be kept in a permanent vegetative state. It's moves like this which focus my dissatisfaction with Bush as a leader. At this point Bush is "playing god" just as much as anyone.

from my understanding, what this legislation does is let the case be appealed to the federal courts. i think yahoo's article said that a stay has been submitted, but that they didn't know when the judge would get to it. so she's off the tube for now, and if the stay is not granted, then permanently.

Right-to-Starve Added to Feminism's Victories
by Scott Ott

(2005-03-19) -- The National Organization for Women (NOW) today held a jubilant news conference to celebrate the latest advance in women's rights -- the right to have your estranged husband choose to end your life.

"First, it was women's suffrage -- the right to vote -- then abortion, the right to privacy," said an unnamed NOW spokesman. "Finally, a man has led the way in freeing us from the antiquated bigotry that has kept our former husbands from choosing a slow, painful death for us."

The NOW source said the court-ordered removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, based on the testimony of Michael Schiavo alone has "opened a world of opportunities for women to freely die at the hands of the men they love."

"The next time you tell your husband 'I'd rather die than go to that party,' you can rest assured that your words have legal weight and, if the occasion arises, your wishes will be respected," said the NOW source. "What's more, you're free from the worry that your man will be prosecuted for your murder."

Michael Schiavo lives with another woman and their two children. He developed this "backup family" according to his lawyer, "to assuage his eventual grief over the coming loss of Terri -- the woman he loves to death."

Legal experts at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also praised the "new progressive precedent in contract law."

"The court has affirmed that a verbal contract where the only witness is one of the contracting parties is legally binding even if that witness has already violated a written contract, in this case a marriage license, verbally affirmed before dozens of witnesses," said the ACLU expert. "The bias against known contract-breakers is gone. This also gives a more influential voice before the courts to our nation's incapacitated, comatose and dead citizens. Their wishes can be determined by the words of their beneficiaries without the hassle of documentation or multiple witnesses."

http://www.scrappleface.com/

NOW was so jubiliant about it, they haven't seen fit to update their own website? Interesting... http://www.now.org/ -- as of right now, there's nothing on the website that backs up this story.

But even if it is true, NOW should be appalled, so now it's up to the daddy to make the d decisions for her life, instead of the woman?

NCB, that's the second time you've posted satire without stating it as such (and from the same website, though at least this time you posted the link). This time you fooled a moderator.

This thread was in dire need of some satire. I posted the link, thus the reader beware. BTW, fooling a mod with a satrical piece ain't a rule violation is it? In fact, shouldn't I recieve some kudos for it?!? j/k :p

What we have witnessed is the abuse of power by the federal government. It is sad that all who swore to uphold the constitution abadoned it so quickly.

It's my opinion that this piece of flamebait be deleted.

Yet another reason for me to get off my arse and prepare my Advance Directive. Just so I don't end up, like this woman, as porn for the morally over-conscious.

I'm really pleased to see the general opinion here, that the federal government has no place in this. I read in the paper today that the general concensus in the US regarding Congress' intervention is 60% against, 35% pro, 5% undecided. I sat through these family discussions twice, once regarding my father, who survived and recovered, and once with an older brother, who did not survive, and died at home. Both times were intensely private, and I couldn't imagine accepting that a judge somewhere would, even could, make those kinds of decisions for my family.

I didn't get a chance to read every post in this thread yet. Does anyone else think that all this eleventh-hour Congressional action is just to please the religious right in anticipation of next year's Congressional elections? I can see this case being right-wing mud-slinging ammunition already (Democrats killed Terri!). I usually am not personally offended by politics, but I am this time.

Like you my brother and sisters were in the same kind of situation when my father died. The last thing you need at this time is government intervention.

I cannot see any political advantage for congress to get involved this way. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they believe strongly in what they are doing. Of course I think they are absolutely wrong for doing so.

There was no abuse of power here. What we have witnessed here is the congress exercising power over the federal courts, which is granted in Article 3 of the constitution. All federal courts (with the exception of the supreme court) are creations of congress. Congress can give these courts power and take their power away as it pleases. Like it or not, congress was well within its constitutional rights to act as it has.

Constitutionaly? Ok. But morally, which the religious rights cliams to hold dear?

She's a pawn. That's too bad.

Here's a letter written by the family's attorney last christmas. She wrote another one over the weekend, I'm trying to find it. After reading this how can anyone say her brain is liquid?

As far as I can tell from the reports, her brain is pretty much gone. If, by some miracle, she becomes conscious again, she's still not going to be more than a breathing, drooling piece of flesh. That's the best we can hope for.

So I have some questions for those in favor of keeping her alive:
1) What do you hope will happen? I.e. if we keep feeding her, what end result do you expect or hope for?
2) How long should we keep her on life support? 10 years? 20? 50? We can probably keep her "alive" for a hundred years... when does it end?
3) Who should pay for her medical care? How much are you willing to spend to restore her brain functions (if it were ever possible)?
4) Should this be a one-time situation, or should every person in this condition be kept alive for decades?
5) Should doctors be allowed to let anyone die at all? After all, they can do wonders with modern medical machines. We can probably keep a headless body "alive" with an artificial blood circulation. Should we? Where do you draw the line?

(Speaking from a country where euthanasia is legal, and where this woman would have been put out of her misery years ago. But then again, some US politicians have accused us of being evil for doing that...)

=============
(added after reading Stevo's post:)
=============
Stevo: "After reading this how can anyone say her brain is liquid?"...

After reading that, how can you say it isn't? You'd be amazed what reflexes and a tiny shred of brain tissue can do. Question is: how can you say that her instinctive (automatic) reactions are signs of a thinking, conscious human mind?

Umm stevo... First, if they were granted this power by the constitution, why did the need a bill to accomplish their agenda? Second in your own quote it says FEDERAL COURT not State Court.

I have to disagree with stevo on a couple of points.

Congress has a place in creating those courts, but they can't just "take away" the power. Congress creates law, the courts interpret. Very few governmental powers created or granted ever are taken away, and never voluntarily. The judicial branch (or any other branch) isn't ever likely to reliquish power (which I think is a good thing -- it adds stability to our governmental structure). But in this case, I think the establishment of this particular power (introducing federal courts to end-of-life decisions) is destabilizing. These day-to-day medical and emotional family decisions, made hundreds of times a day in the United States, are not the purvue of the federal government. If a court is needed, a local court should suffice. That system exists, and Terri's case has been through the hands of a dozen judges in 7 years with 150 doctors testifying about Terri's condition. Every judge has upheld Michael Schiavo's decision as Terri's guardian -- as it should be.

This is incorrectly being called a battle of Terri's civil rights, but it is only loosely disguised as another flex of political power of the religious right. Their strength and organization got Bush II re-elected. The congressional race next year, and the stream of federal judges to be appointed, are very much on the mind of Congress, and no one wants to be on the wrong side of the religious right.

As to Congress' right to act -- Congress was also within its rights to establish Prohibition and other stupid legislation and constitutional amendments, but their appropriateness and necessity are what's at question, both then and now. It's ironic that historically the GOP was the party asking for control of government intervention, and the Democrats were labeled the supporters of big government. Those political labels have completely turned around in my lifetime. Republicans are injecting federal judges into hospice rooms with patiens and doctors and families, and that's fucked up.

Thats how congress works. they pass bills to accomplish things. Without a bill you can't accomplish much.

Right. FEDERAL COURT. What the congress did was pass a bill to let the woman's parents ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo's life by reinserting her feeding tube. That would be a FEDERAL JUDGE, in a FEDERAL COURT, under the authority of congress.

Notice who wrote it: Their lawyer. They have been lying their asses off because they are detached with reality. I'm sure tomorrow we'll hear about how Terry was out playing basketball the other day.

This family has zero credibility in my eyes, especially after the sister now claiming Mr Shaivo may have been the one to put her in the PVS. Sure, after 15 years you only figured this out now...

So you weren't there, you don't know these people, but you know they are lying and you know that terri should die. you are so smart.

I didn't have an opinion about this till today when a friend of mine asked me what I would want if I were in this woman's place. I would want to be kept alive until I became a burden on someone. I love life, but I love my family and friends more. If, God forbit, something happened to be that put me in a state like this, I'd want everyone to come and say goodbye and allow me to stop burdening them. If my wife wanted to let me pass, and my parents wanted to let me live (what a terrible situation), I wouldn't want them to battle over me. After I leave, I want them to still be family. So I just told my wife and my parents my wishes on the phone, along with some good news to kinda soften the somber message. Thanks, I appreciate you wanting to fight till the last second, but I'll be fine. My faith will keep me company.

Congress can go and make laws all they want, but they have no buisness in a case by case basis of things like this.

I also think that people shouldn't get mad at people on the other side of this argument. There is no right and wrong answer in this, it comes down to personal choice. If once side chooses one way, that is there right. If the other side chooses the the other way, that is their right as well.

I found the last letter written by Barbara Weller, now tell me this doesn't sound like a woman that knows whats going on and wants to live.

Oh God. I had no idea about that, stevo. Thank you for that. If this is true, how is she a vegetable? Now I'm abit confused.

There is a lot of misinformation floating around. I would just be more inclined to believe something written by someone who was there, and err on the side of life.

There is no right at all for this to enter federal court, that IS the power grab.

So we should believe attorney's over doctors Stevo?
Let's make sure we have the contradiction straight here. Lawyers are bad and ruining America by participating with "Activist Judges" to subvert what is right and good unless they right letters pretendning to be doctors or know how to diagnos a woman in a vegative state?

A lawyer has no place or knowledge to right such a letter. It is an Op/Ed peice. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll file it under "opinion" with the rest. Unless of course you'd like to state that the doctors are part of some evil conspiracy. :rolleyes:

I would say that the subjective opinion of a lawyer about her client's case is not terribly reliable. If Terri is as responsive as these accounts say, I am confident that further court-ordered investigation by court-appointed physicians will find her not to be in a PVS.

However, I also know the power of the (intact) human mind to see/hear what it wants to see/hear. Given the extent of the brain damage I find it beyond the stretch of imagination that she could have the kinds of reactions attributed to her in her family's and her family's lawyers' accounts, and that a dozen trained neurologists could have missed it. The family has previously claimed that Terri is "responsive" and "happy" or "frustrated" or "wants to live," but subsequent medical investigation has shown that she is simply acting reflexively, and that the parts of her brain that process cognition and emotion are GONE.

Again, I would be happy to see another court-ordered physician's report, and I'm pretty confident about what it's going to show. Letters from lawyers or no.

Like I said before, these are desperate people willing to say or do anything to further their fantasy that they will win and force her to stay that way for the next 40 years. Seriously, if Terry was that responsive, don't you think they would have more than a few seconds of video footage that shows her doing anything more than sit there for the last 15 years?

The next revalation from the family will be that Michael Shiavo is actually Scott Peterson and that Terry tried to grab the feeding tube and put it back in as it was removed.

What are you talking about? who said lawyers are bad? Why doesn't barbara weller have any place in writing such a letter? Where is the medical diagnosis you speak of?

Ms. Weller wrote a letter describing her experiences with terri. She has every right to let the world know her interactions with this woman. If this letter is accurate, and instead of writing it she decided to not say anything on terri's behalf, that would make her complicit in her death.

The reverance towards the courts here is what really gets me. To think that they are completely objective is laughable.

Remember, the courts also upheld Dred Scott, Seperate but equal is equal, ect... They weren't right then and they;re not right now

What really gets me is how people believe they know that terri shouldn't live, that any reports/letters/whatever that come out siding with terri to live are only desperate attempts by desperate people to prolong a fantasy. What really gets me is that nothing can be objectionable unless it comes from a doctor or a court. What really gets me is that there are people that would rather this woman starve to death so that they can be right.

Let me guess guy's, the public's opinion on this matter is wrong as well.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/P...=599622&page=1

Now repeat after me;
"63 Percent of the publc is not in suport of federal intervention, but rather allowing the state courts to work this one out."

So are you one to say that 63 percent of the public is wrong in their interpretation of Congress oversteping their authority? You guys know the right answer to this very difficult and heart wrenching issue that pit's family against each other, everyone else is just clueless right?

You don't stand for the rights of family or the sacriment of marriage at all.

Also, neither of you has answered the following;
1) who pays the medical bills?
2) Do we keep her alive indefinatly?
3) Who has more right's, a spouse or a parent? You already implied your choice, your just afraid to voice it.

And Stevo, your just covering your ears if you haven't read through the court breifs that both side submitted. Oh wait, it's a huge left wing conspiracy, right? :rolleyes:

It's because when you rely on what people 'saw' or 'said they saw' the end story is not what was originally said. Additionally, when you are relying solely on representatives for the family you will get what they want you to hear. This is how you end up with obvious lies:

Michael never provided treatment for Terry
Michael put her in this state and has to kill her to cover the evidence
Micheal wants the money for himself
Terry is able to be spoon-fed
Terry smiles and laughs all the time

Who is the reliable source in this? We have plenty of people who consider themselves informed enough to shoot out an opinion, but who is actually qualified? I'm not. I've just started reading articles and opinions about it. I've never spoken to the doctors, the husband, the parents, or those in the legislative or judicial branch involved. If I could actually talk to them, then I could make an informed opinion about it. Until that time, we are not qualified. Anyone here who consideres his or herself totally justified in an opinion either way is kinda lying to him or herself. We can guess at who is lying and who is telling the truth till we're blue in the face, but we can't KNOW. Until we KNOW for sure the facts, it's irresponsible to err on the side of death.

I think if terri was actually a real-life vegetable, in a persistant vegitative state, with a brain turned to liquid, her parents wouldn't be fighting to save her.


arch - If deciding who lives and who dies was a matter of money, those on welfare would have been killed off a long time ago. we don't keep her alive indefinately, we let her eat, so that she can live. I'm not against marriage, or spousal rights, but just becasue her husband said she wants to die, doesn't make it true. I'm for terri's rights, specifically the one to live.

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but it's interesting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...on/whbriefing/

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3084934

"And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes."

Whaddya know, when the media spotlight hits, the politicians run for cover.

I'm still largely undecided on this case. I don't believe Michael Schiavo is the monster the media enjoys making him out to be. He has publicly disavowed all financial gain from her death and has no reason for wanting Terri to die. Were he just trying to be rid of her he could have gotten a divorce. Rather it seems he is trying to carry out her wishes.

I have seen clips of her, and she is neither a vegetable or a severely retarded person(various media sources seem to angle for either extreme). Miracle cases have happened before, but I doubt anything will change for her. I suppose in the end I believe she should be left alive. Not for any real moral reason, but rather because she didn't put her wishes into documentation. A cop out? I suppose so, but one has to make a line somewhere.

Just coming in as a new debater, Terry Schiavo's medical costs are covered by a malpractice settlement related to her current predicament. There is an issue about how long the money will last as it's almost depleted. If that was supposed to a more rhetorical type question I apologize.

Not necessarily. Some people just cannot face reality. Doctor after doctor has said she is in a PVS. Their work falls on deaf ears because it's not what the family wants to believe.

What about the right to die?

Oh, I forgot. We don't have that right. That's why suicide is, in fact, against the law. Not to mention euthanasia.

The Western civilization cannot deal with death, as natural as it may be. I am intrigued by this question: what if this woman was Chinese? How would the Chinese handle it? And would their approach be right or wrong by our standards?

I wouldn't want to sit motionless for decades, whether it was my right or not.

stevo - I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the letter you posted should be considered compelling evidence? She's the lawyer hired by the parents - if she writes down her thoughts, would you expect them to be anything less than that which supports the parents claim? I'm sure Johnny Cochrane would tell you how innocent OJ Simpson was.

will - Who is the reliable source in this? If it's being suggested that we must evaluate either the attorney hired by the parents vs. quite a few judges and court-appointed doctors - it should be obvious who the reliable source is. Obviously none of us can know with perfect 100% certainty - but the same could be said of anything and everything. The courts have erred on the side of life for 5 years now, there has been no sudden, jump-to-death decision making here. It's time to let Terri go.

GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo




http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937

The letter posted by stevo isn't evidence, it's one of many stories of perceptions from non-medical people describing Terri's medical state. I have great sympathy for these people who clearly believe what they see (or think they see). Although every word in those stories may be heartfelt, the stories can't be accepted as medical evidence, because none of the evidence is from the best of our medically trained professionals in the field.

On the other hand, every single doctor that has personally examined Terri Schiavo agrees that she is in PVS. That is the reason Michael Schaivo hads won every court appearance in this matter to date, over a dozen cases in 7 years. There aren't any cracks in the case from this perspective -- not one.

About who is paying the bills -- I read in the Sunday New York Times that Florida and Medicaid are paying the entire costs of Terri's care, which is not an unusual situation for a person in hospice care (which is usually not as long as it is in Terri Schiavo's case). The Schaivos paid for some of the care earlier on, but are no longer responsible for the cost. Michael Schaivo says he won't be receiving a penny.

The talking points that were pointed out in the links above just emphasize the political importance of this event for the mid-term elections next year. Remember when everyone in Washington pledged they would never use 9/11 for political purposes? We know better now about how Terri Schaivo is going to be used in next year's elections.

Again I say unto the masses

"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. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care."

Medicaid does cover her prescription medicine and a hospice takes care of her for free. According the the hospice she requires very little medicine.

I need to set something straight to everyone. In advanced conditions such as advanced stages of cancer, comatose people, and PVC, a chemical shift occurs in the body, and basically kills any feeling for hunger. (I got a much better explantion from both a professor and my uncle (neurologist) and wish I understood more of it)

Personally I don't think she can be saved. From what I've heard, her higher brain is soup. What I have seen in the tapes seems to comfirm that she has no cognative ability whatsoever. I feel that her wishes should be carried out.

ABC just laid it our pretty clearly on the evening news:

1. Doctors who have examined her say Terri's state is permamnent and irreversible.

2. Fifteen judges in 34 court appearance have all ruled in Michael Schaivo's favor.

3. Whatever money was once there from malpractice is virtually all gone. There is no cash.

4. The new federal judge appears very skeptical that there are any new legal considerations in the case, despite the new federal law. The judge also appears to believe that Terri Schaivo has received due process in the court.

5. The Supreme Court has now twice refused to hear the case.

6. An independent court investigator reviewed all the court documents, including sealed documents, and reported to Judge Greer in Florida, who agreed that her state is permannet, and that she has received due process in the courts.

The upshot of the whole thing? It sounded like ABC was trying to get the Shindlers to understand that there is no hope for Terri's recovery, and that she will likely die from starvation/dehydration.

The longer this goes on the less it is about Terry. Instead, it is becoming a case of conflicting ideals.

It seems painfully obvious that most people outside the family are hanging onto this for political motivations only. The case isn't unique. Many people every year have feeding tubes withdrawn. Most people (especially young people) do not have living wills and families do not always agree on whether life support should continue.

The GOP talking points memo demonstrates this clearly. The religious right put the Republicans in power and they want their agenda pushed. This is a great opportunity to further their pro-life agenda.

NCB, you've got some stamina brotherman.

"This is a great opportunity to further their pro-life agenda." I've never been so proud of NOT being a liberal.

Just FYI,

As most people on this board know, I do not identify myself as a liberal, but I think this poor woman should be allowed to die with dignity instead of being made a political pawn of the right-to-life movement.

I mean, if it was someone you loved and they were going to be a turnip the rest of their life what would you do?

If you were the turnip, what would you want?

Pro-life?

Yeah, right. What they have, and what you apparently share, is an anti-choice agenda.

I would say it is irresponsible to err on either side without know the facts. If they have managed to go through the amount of court appearances already, without one judge saying "keep her alive", it makes me think the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion you have made.

Yeah, Terry's a turnip, a vegetable. That's so easy to say. Do you think she's suffering, right now? If she's a "vegetable" than she ceraintly isn't. But if she isn't suffering why are you so hell bent on ending her life?

Define what "vegetable" means, and we can go from there. Convince me that your answers are something more than "I couldn't imagine living like that" when you look at her.

stop being obtuse. this isn't about her suffering. she no longer has the ability to suffer. the suffering that would be ending would that of her loved ones who have to see her kept in a pvs with no hope of recovery.

what this is about is following her wishes for her to not have to 'suffer' the indignity of being kept alive when there is no hope, to not be kept alive artificially (and if she needs a surgical implant in order to ingest food without choking, that's definatly artificial life support).

Who's Dr. Pate?

the suffering that would be ending would that of her loved ones who have to see her kept in a pvs with no hope of recovery.

So it isn't about Terry?

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to point that out, so much for following proper legal procedure. the florida legal system has been completely invalidated. and really, one can't discount their findings with a wave of the hand. furthermore, the legislation said to ignore the rulings of florida in this particular case (how many appelate cases carry this caveat?) and that the "final" ruling would not be treated as precedent for future court ruilngs. now that's pretty weird.

the bush 1999 law...i heard about that yesterday but didn't find many specifics. it also seemed to guaranteee that no one was denied live-saving medical treatment.

and PVS...divisive issue because we can't be sure how "alive" someone is. body can do most things, although swallowing is dangerous, hence the tube. doctors seem to think a person is usually "gone" in this state, but some family members disagree.

so, err on the side of life? or believe the consensus of every professional involved?

sad that it has come to this.

Michael S. Responds to the slander and power grab by Congress.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Ta...e_down__.shtml
BTW, it is not Congress' right to legislate on individuals. Their mandate stops at broad national policy.
Individuals are handled by the courts.

All congress did here was give terri one last appeal in a federal court, which until now she was denied the opportunity. Convicted murderers get a mandatory appeal in federal court, why is it so hard to give her one appeal at the federal level? Does she have less rights than a convicted murderer?

This whole thing is sad; from her condition, to the way this has spun into a pro-life/pro-choice match. The saddest thing is that no matter what her estranged husband says, we will never know what her true wishes actually were. It is possible that terri wanted to stay alive, but she is condemned to die, regardless.

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that other people, including family members, testified in court that this was what she wanted.....its NOT just what her husband said.

What part of that dont those of you that just keep referring to the husband understand?

I referred to her husband becasue he is the one the courts have sided with in this case, not because I take what he says as gospel. Personally, I don't believe a thing he says.

Courts have sided with him 7 times. And not just him, other friends of Terri have testified on her behalf.
Courts also side with him because HE is the legal guardian.

By the way, STOP referring to him as estranged. It conjures up demonizing images of emotional detachment, which is something the anti-dignity people need to do to keep this shell alive.

Terri's parents (Not Terri herself) already had two appeals to federal court and the SCOTUS denied their case twice.
It appears some won't be satisfied until she gets 30-60 hearings in federal court. By law of averages, one may eventually go their way when they find an ideologically similar judge.

i guess the matter was already "over" as far as procedure is concerned. now it's "over" again, same result. it's a strech to say that her parents' case has not been adequately heard or needs to be re-examined yet again. granted, the legal issues are easier to sort out than the bioethics.

just to keep this updated, news on the radio said that the executive branch/justice department is considering getting involved.

how disingenious, only picking a small part of what i wrote somewhat out of context. now let me quote me.

as far as suffering is concerned, this isn't about terri. unless you think someone with no consciouness and no ability to comprend the environment or time, then she's not suffering. the only people suffering are her family and loved ones.

And the republicans called us crybabys when we asked for a recount of a presidential election. You've got to be kidding me.

I should say that the conservative response to this situation causes me actual embarrassment. I don't know how else to put it, really. Supporting this President has been my inclination for many years now. This particular case just did not need to be politicized. I'm confident the precedent of the courts and the position of the medical profession are quite correct.

Some people have mentioned dying with dignity. I would like to see that as well, given from what I've observed, that being she wants to die.

So why not lethal injection? What is the greater of two evils? ( or morals?) Starving someone to death (removal of tube) or murder. ( killing by injection)

People have the plug pulled on them everyday but usually those people die relatively quickly. Is this not inhumane to let someone starve to death? And if she feels nothing, why not the injection.

Could it be a can of worms opening up called state sponsored euthanasia?

This is one pickle in a jar that got in and now can't get out. To bad for those involved.

Death is almost near. Let's hope the 11th Circuit doesn't fuck it up!

i've been thinking about this recently too... one of the arguments i seem to be hearing for leaving her tube in is usually to the effect of 'starving her is barbaric.' and i don't disagree. but unfortunatly, if she had never been resussitated (sp?), it wouldn't matter, but because she was and retained a functioning brain stem, it isn't as simple or painless as 'pulling the plug.' (for clarification, i'm not saying that she is in any pain, but if she had a fully functioning brain, i'm sure it would be unpleasant).

maybe now it's time for us to wake up as a country and legalize euthinasia...

lucky for terri that she can't feel any pain, but what about all the people dying of cancer or als or any number of other terminal and painful disease? we do treat our criminals better, maybe it's time we treat our normal citizanry with the same courtesy.

And you know this how??? Do you think your ancestors in the death camps would have agreed with you?? Would the 30 million Ukranians that Stalin starved to death have agreed with you???

This makes me sick. No one here has any clue what the woman is feeling.

Including you, m'dear. So what makes you more qualified to judge, or your opinion more valid?


I have to disagree with the "no pain" thing though - she can absolutely feel pain. What she can't do is "suffer," which is a uniquely human trait limited to people with intact cerebellums: the addition of significance to events.

You're correct in the sense that I don't know what it is to starve to death. However, what makes me qualified is knowing what everyone else here knows....that starving is not a pleasnat experience. If you wanna believe that she's not suffering because it helps you sleep better, fine, but please do not presume to know whether another human being is suffering or not.

You wanna make it better NCB?
Next time you have the opportunity to vote, find out if candidates are in favor of euthanasia and vote for them.
Until then this is unfortunately the best we have.

And, again, because this woman has NO INTACT CEREBELLUM we know she can perceive no pain. We aren't presuming when we use this thing that the controlling minority of Christian Fundamentalists shun, called Science.

Since when did the separation between Church and State disappear? Bush and Congress had no right to attempt to interfere in the case.

Good point. Sorta like a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it.

Her brain is shut down. She's done. Let her die peacefully- and not by removing the feeding tube- that's a painful death. Whether or not she can feel herself slowing starving to death is irrelevant- it's disgusting to DO to a person, and completely unnecessary.

Euthanize her. She's not "responding" to anyone's presence any more than the body of a decapitated worm continues to move. Certain physical stimuli produce certain reactions- this does not mean she's "alive" and "cognizant", and it certainly does not negate all the tests that have been performed that show she's a veggie.

Euthanize her. Let her pass with some damn dignity.

11th Circuit Court says "We agree that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims." Ouch. That must brutal to hear for the Shindlers.

Here's a link to the text of the decision (PDF from the court's website).

I can't believe there is talk of euthanasia. That's the slippery slope of all slippery slopes if you ask me.

A very dangerous path to consider going down.

Why do you consider talk of euthanasia a dangerous path? When my Mother in Law was dying of brain cancer, she begged my wife to take her to Sweden(?), so that she could be euthanized. My wife negated that request. She's lived with that guilt ever since, as her mother's passing was, most assuredly, not an easy one.
We treat our household pets with more dignity and respect than we give to our loved ones.

Yep. The next case we'll hear about is some person with Alzheimers. The guy will be strapped down to his bed and starved. After all, it's what he would have wanted.

It's coming, and the hostility the Left seems to hold towards a culture of life will embrace it whole heartedly



Edited

Stop. That. Now.

The Left is not a death cult. This is not a liberal issue. DO NOT just impose anything you disagree with to the left.

A MAJORITY of Liberals, Conservatives and Evangelicals are in favor of letting her pass away like this and are against the federal actions.

By the way the doctor you were touting, William Hammesfahr, was not a Nobel Prize Nominee.
His nomination was based on a letter a Florida Republican Congressman wrote to the committee. This guy, though was not one of hte people that Nobel accepts nominations from.

Would that be hard to believe?

My grandfather had alzheimers, its what he wanted...his last week of life was in a hospital, no food, no hydration

he had it in writing though

Euthanasia and late term abortion in the minds of many are a form of death cult. Just because you may not like the term does not mean that it's not a belief that many conservatives hold. I think its a shame that life has become so cheap.

And some could say supporters of a death penalty that is skewed horribly against the poor and minorities who are unable to pay for a proper defense could be called a death cult as well.

But then I'd be playing a rhetoric game and I don't want to do that.

I think this is one of the key points. If she had it in writing, then OK. However, the husband is the only person that says she wanted it this way, and he didn't mention this until 7 years after her condition?

The people here who argue that TS wanted to die say that there are other who claim to have heard her say such things. Who those "others" are is another story. Her friends who I have seen interviewed say that she made no such claim. Thus I suspect the others are probably Steve Schiavo, brother of hubby, and an assortment of Michaels friends.