The seven separate courts and 20+ justices seem to think the "others" were significantly credible to side with Michael.

again, I will state......other people besides her husband testified in court that they heard her say the same thing. He gave her YEARS of aggressive rehab and therapy before he tried to let her go. Thats when the parents started fighting him and they had to start going to court.....


gosh dont ya'll read anything? I feel like this same thing has been said 20 times in this thread.

So who are these "other" people. I hear a lot about them, but very few details

It would be interesting to go through all 300+ posts in this thread and create a bar graph to show how many times identical information was given.

But I'm not that bored.

Feel free to review all court transcripts. I bet you can find them at findlaw.

I have, and still have seen no evidence of who the "others" are.

:lol:


You may not be able to see 'em, but damn if they don't make good witnesses. Virtually unimpeachable

I think your on to something here. I mean whats to stop them, theres no difference between the two. Mabye next week a man goes to get a physical for work when the doctor just puts a gun in his mouth. Theres no difference , and nothing we could do. After all we set president with this case and its all the same. We as a people cannot differentiate , and even if we could why would us death worshiping left even want to?

I've read most of this thread, and I've decided that I refuse to enter this discussion substantially. I can only say that after reflecting on this entire situation, I only hope that if one day I, or any of my loved ones are in a situation like this, that they will be allowed to pass without anything remotely approaching this much scrutiny or public attention. It's disgusting. It's hard enough to be involved in a situation where you have to make a life or death decision about a loved one - the villification of the individuals involved in this situation, which is seeminly based on very little substantial fact, is simply irreponsible. It's very easy to make judgemental statements from miles away - having been in a similar situation before, I can only say that many rhetorical arguments melt when you're face to face with a loved on who is in a similar situation.

well what do you know........

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151252,00.html

DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — A judge temporarily barred a Philadelphia woman from prolonging her husband's life with a feeding tube, which his daughter claims is contrary to his wishes.

Like the federal court battle over the removal of Terri Schiavo's (search) feeding tube in Florida, the Bucks County Court case of Alzheimer's disease victim John P. King Jr. (search) is complicated by disagreement among family members.

Unlike Schiavo, the 72-year-old King had signed a living will, but the document didn't avert the dispute that led to a preliminary injunction signed late Tuesday by President Judge David W. Heckler (search).

The injunction says King may not be nourished through a tube pending a hearing Heckler has scheduled for Monday.

King's daughter, Mariann Judith Clunk, of Hatboro, filed the lawsuit, saying her father suffers from the late stages of Alzheimer's disease and has deteriorated into an unconscious condition.

The lawsuit includes a copy of a living will King signed in 1998 saying he has a "firm and settled commitment to refuse life-sustaining treatment."

If he were ever to be in a "state of permanent unconsciousness," King said in the document, "I do not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition or hydration."

Clunk said she believed her mother, Ann King of Philadelphia, intended to have her husband nourished through a feeding tube.

Ann King said she had asked for insertion of a feeding tube. "I have been talking to the doctor about it for while," she said. She said she didn't know about the injunction, and declined to comment further.

Though the living will stated King's opposition to a feeding tube in the event of permanent unconsciousness, it also named Ann King as her husband's surrogate, with the power to carry out his wishes if he is "unable or incompetent to make or express a decision."

Clunk and King's son, John P. King III, were named as alternate co-surrogates.

Clunk's attorney, Joseph M. Masiuk, declined to discuss whether Clunk's authority would outweigh Ann King's, but said Ann King had no power to alter the terms of the living will.

"The issue is what John P. King Jr. wants. That is clear by the terms of his living will," Masiuk said.

Then you haven't read very carefully.

Several of the links we've posted to backup documentation said that in addition to Michael Schiavo, his brother and brother's wife (who was also a very close friend of Terri's) stated that Terri Schiavo made comments in numerous instances - after the prolonged deaths of family members - that made them believe she wouldn't want to be kept alive in this state.

Interesting how not reading the documentation we provide allows you to keep claiming that "I haven't seen such and such evidence." It's there if you're actually interested in being educated.

Intresting sources. I've also heard 4 other of her close friends that are not related to hubby of the year and they say the oppossite. So who do you believe.

For someone who's is so concerned about my education on this, you sure don't seem to educated about the people who claim that she didn't want this.

back up NCB......we are not the ones asking for proof of things we have already provided documentation for....we are well aware of the statements from the other side, and I dont see where anything that we've said proves otherwise... since we get our information from non biased sources... YOU are the one that doesnt seem educated on both sides

Intresting. A little different, because this has a living will with his wishes included in it. Nice find

Could you leave my (and HH's) ancestors out of this, please? Is it really so hard to see the difference between genocide and "killing" a braindead piece of flesh?

It's really simple: you have your opinion, and see mercy killings as evil; we have ours, and see it as humane. The courts seem to be on our side in this, and I would guess that that isn't because they *like* killing helpless people. Just because you don't know all the details, doesn't mean those details aren't there, nor that they're all fake/wrong.

I'm a bit vocal about this issue, because I saw the whole process from up close. It's really different when one of your loved ones is suffering on a daily basis. Because of this experience, I think that forcing people to experience that is less humane than putting an end to it.

Lurkette, Shani, S-Belt et al: why are you arguing about this anymore? The patient's guardian (via marriage) has made the decision he was entrusted with, all legal challenges have been turned down, and the process of this family is carrying on. NCB doesn't accept that as an ethical procession in this situation, and I hightly doubt he's going to change his mind. You have posted more sources for information than should be necessary. No offense to y'all, but I don't think it's worth your emotional input to argue this. I just hope that if I'm ever in the position of this lady , whoever in my family it falls to to make the decision isn't of the mindset of NCB . No offense at all NCB, but we just differ largely on this point. Aside from that - the intense focus on this particular family at this time in their lives is awful.

actually, just this morning ANOTHER legal action is being considered. A neurologist who has spend about half an hour with terri and reviewed video tapes (NOT given her an actual examination) is preparing an affidavit that brings up doubts that she is in a persistant vegitative state. This would allow the DCM to put Mrs. Schaivo into protective custody, which would allow them to reinsert the feeding tube.

I think this is sick. the Carr family is not doing this for Terri, they're doing it for themselves. After HOW many years they're still clinging onto impossibility of her recovery. What does Michael Schaivo have to gain from letting his wife die? Terri has been dead for almost two decades; her body has been kept alive so her family could pretend she might someday wake up and say "thanks for sustaining my body all those years, now i have dimished mental and physical capacities but at least I'm 'alive'."

I'm with analog. Let this woman die, but don't starve her to death; euthanize her. It bothers me that the "right to life" is more important than the rights of an individual.

And I must say, although this thread has walked the fine line a number of times, but it's impressive how long it's lasted. kudos to those who have kept the debate alive and civil.

This is sad that it has to come to this. The kid may be scum in many books, but in mine, he's a hero. Also, it looks like the end is near. I just read that death may come as early as tonight. Pray for her, no matter what side you're on.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...4209066064.jpg

Gabriel Keys (foreground) is arrested by police officers for trespassing in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The young protester attempted to take a glass of water into the Woodside Hospice for the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo. A federal judge rejected a request from the parents of Schiavo to order her feeding tube reinserted, dealing a blow to attempts by the U.S. Congress and the White House to prolong her life. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Scum? Hardly. A pawn? Most certainly. Kudos on the last sentence, though. ;)

Exactly BOR. Anyone who thinks this kid wasn't compelled into what he did is deluded.
He doesn't understand what is going on and likely doesn't care. There's a very dedicated parent behind this kid and the strings should be followed back and the puppetmaster should be charged with corrupting a minor.

i'm going to just second what dragon said, i couldn't have said it better (and probably not as nicely) as he did.

nicely put. i think i'm going to try to take your advice.

Corrupting a minor? Please explain

because they are moronically following the mantra of people who don't know what they are talking about. I've seen Tom Delay give a speech about the sanctity of life being more than the sanctity of marriage and watched some people post a little quip by Winston Churchill about a talk with an old lady who wouldn't want to live 'like that' and churchill saying death is the only thing you cant get out of. These two idiots shouldn't speak unless they'd been there and the last that I checked neither of those two were in a 15 year coma or persistent vegetative state.

now, this kids got a juvi record for doing something his parents believed in. way to look out for the kids there. :|

The kid's a hero in my book. Anyways, it's over now. By this time tommorrow, she'll be gone. May God bless her soul

well it just goes to show that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

/sarcasm (kinda) off

Now that Terri will be gone, what's the number of months before hubby of the year gets remarried:

Over/Under- 5 months

I'm going with under

so what. He's never made it a secret that he has moved on with his life or that he remains married to her so that he can carry out her wishes.

I'm not arguing the merits of the case anymore.

So is that an under?

are you that concerned about his future?

No, you are just using the typical character attack that the right has used on him. "He has this family on the side so how can he really care about her?" Of course they miss all of the obvious reasons why...

Weddings take time to plan. I'd say over on that alone.

Y'all are the one's who brought out the sanctitiy of marriage thingy. I'm just wondering if the grieving period between marriages applies to him. I know my wife and I talked about what if scenarios and we both said that we would morn a at least a year out of respect if it ever came to it.

Thus, I'm wondering what conversations they had about it and if "others" have heard them as well, since the others seem to have intimate knowledge of their mariage.

He's had 15 years to grieve....I think thats more than enuff time

one last post, just for you NCB...

http://www.choppingblock.org

/1st class ticket to hell... all aboard!

7 years ago michael made the decision to carry out terri's wishes. almost 7 years of therapy failed. I'd say that, although upset at the loss, anyone that watched a spouse live for 15 years in a way they would never want to would be relieved at the end of it for them.

Some evidence from our "others"


I'm sure they're not as credible as husband of the year's "others", but it's still worth the read considering this is an innocent woman's life on the line.

Let's see what the temp agency lady had to say:

Oh yeah, we've got a doctor on our hands here.

The child you posted about NCB, is simply a pawn of his parents political beliefs. Children should not be used by either side for political gain. That is corruption of a minor. I say this from the piont of view of someone who found it despicable when Kerry kissed a baby on the cheek for a photo-op.
Let me make an analogy your not going to like to much.
Using this child is like saying "I don't agree with the death penalty, why don't I try and sneak my 10 year old into the local prison on execution night to give that man in the electric chair some rubber boot's!"
Children are not political pawns.

To any and every parent: Do not ever use your child to make a statement in a political fight!

As for the husband, let me make a note of your rule of thumb NCB, there we go, written down. One year of greiving required if spouse passes away. Thank you for correcting us on what a correctly "moral" greiving period is.

I hope that Terri finds peace, and I hope that to her, these fights and arguments seem silly.

Arch, you're young and I presume you don;t have any children. So it's easy for you to sit on your soapbox and say to others how to raise their children.

I'll tell you how I raise my children. It's not easy, but I tell them to stand up for family and stand up to bullies. I give them guidelines of what's right and wrong. My daughter came home from school one day last fall and told me of kids on her bus who were being mean to her friend and neighbor, a kindergartner who is very small for his age. I asked what did she do. She said nothing. I didn;t get mad at her, but rather I told her that it's important to stand up to bullies, and when she did so, I would never get mad at her. I told her that's what good people do; they stand up to people who cant do so themselves. I tell this to my sons as well. I'm fortuante to have been raised this way. (my mom reenforced this in me....she had two brothers, my uncle, who were killed by Castro in Cuba during the early days of his reign)

My point I guess is, if this were my son I would be proud because he was doing what he thought,(and what values was instilled in him) was right. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this kid will grow up to be a leader.

Go ahead and demonize him, arch. Just please don;t raise your children to not stnad up for others.

I'm not going to read through this whole thread to find if these points ahave already been made, but

1) Why are we wasting time with this? It's a somkescreen, folks. it has been adequately, and extenisvely handled by state courts and has no business in national discourse, particularly not when Bin Laden is still putting out tapes willy nilly, Iraq is still teetering on the edge of quagmire, North Korea is still building nukes, The Iranian Government is trying to build nukes while the Iranian public is probably the most Pro American public in the middle east, gas is over $2 a gallon, our harebrained leader has a harebrained scheme to gut social security in the guise of saving it, and the deficit is spiralling out of control. And you want to discuss whether a woman who is dead to herself has the right to die? It's the only right anyone ever really has.

2) Judaeism was a wonderfully adaptive strategy to living in the southern Levant 5000 years ago, and Christianity was a wonderfully adaptive strategy for protesting Jewish social hegemony in the central Levant 2000 years ago. Not so much now. Stop trying to impose religious values whose time has passed long since on modern society with modern technology. Seriously. If it helps you live in your own head to believe in that dreck, then that's your business. Please don't make it mine.

3) Only one thing goes down my feeding tube: Bourbon til I die.

I know this is off topic but even 10 year kids are intelligent, have an opinion, realize and decifer what is perceived as right or wrong. Maybe that kid took the initiative and got his parents involved. Do you know? Even more off topic is the 12 year old Canadian kid who received accolades in person from the Prime Minister for raising 25k for tsusami relief.

There are smart kids in the world and one day will take part in running it.

That parent and kid should be applauded, providing they are true to their cause. I think if they weren't genuine, childrens aid would be hot on their asses for not providing proper parental supervision..

338 and counting......

I've noticed that many parents have much larger soapboxes than non-parents, simply because their giant parent-ego needs more support from a larger, heftier box. Don't presume to know all about other people's opinions, or their merit, based on what you guess their situation is, or how much you disagree.

This kid was a pawn. He was, like this entire stupid fiasco has been, a political stunt.

Oh- and NCB, if you're going to make a statement about Mr. Schiavo's grieving period and how long it'll take him to remarry, then at least have some clue what you're spouting off about.

Since you obviously don't understand the psychological nature of extended (15 years) periods of grief, for the suffering and deterioration of a loved one due to terminal illness or situations such as this one, then don't insult this poor woman, this poor man, or us here on the boards by giving your inappropriately sarcastic "how long until he remarries" nonsense. If you would like to refute what I've written here, then show me a PhD in Psychology and i'll retract my statement.

Until then, consider this a warning against any further posting of that nature. That goes for everyone. This is not a sarcasm forum, this is a serious discussion.

I'm not insulting anyone here or TS, but I am questioning the man's motives, which are fair game and a part of this story. The guy claims he's doing this to fulfill his marital duties, but yet he's out there living with another wife and two kids, along with 300,000 dollars that he was personally awarded and another 700,000 that is in a trust fund set up for her and which some people claim has not been entirely used up.

I'm sorry if you don't like my opinions on the guy , but if you don't recognize that this is a legitimate part of the story, then you can't fully grasp the arguments people on my side of the story.

Her whole cerebral cortex has been replaced with fluid. Language, voluntary movement, problem solving, emotion, sight, smell, hearing, touch...she has NONE of the above. I don't even know if she can even be considered human at this point, just a heartbeat.

What is Jeb Bush trying to accomplish with his rediculous attempt to pass as Schiavo's legal guardian?

This should say it all for our supposedly conservative members instead of the kneejerk conspiracy theorizing thats been running rampant over this issue


There comes a time when it becomes necessary to break ranks with one's political compatriots.

Notwithstanding strongly held opposing opinions regarding the life of Terri Schiavo specifically, it may be wise for all parties to proceed with due caution and deliberation. While it is indeed true that this is a case of one woman's life, there are larger and broader issues at stake, such as: the sanctity of marriage. Therewith, we must view the matter in the abstract.

Marriage is the legally binding union of a man and woman. With this union comes spousal responsibility, as well as other accepted rights and obligations. Some of these same rights and obligations have been at the center of the debate over gay marriage. However, most relevant in this case is the use of power of attorney in the making of medical decisions. For gay couples, this is an important issue. The case of Terri Schiavo, should her parents succeed in their custodial battle, may damage spousal rights in circumstances that many others are fighting for the right to have.

The operative question in this case: should Michael Schiavo's rights as a husband be reduced or eliminated because his wife's parents do not agree with his legal right to make medical decisions on her behalf? The point of view of some conservatives on this issue is, I believe, incorrectly predicated. While we may argue Terri Schiavo's right to live or die ad infinitum, the broader issue is being ignored; it is not our choice. While we do seemingly pay lip service to the vows of marriage as being sacred, when confronted with an issue of this nature, some of us are all too willing to cast the rights of the husband aside. Additionally, it is indeed an odd juxtaposition that in this case, we have conservatives who normally seek to limit the interference of government in the affairs of individuals, seeking in this case to have government intrude in an exceedingly egregious manner.

This is not a pro-life related issue; Terri Schiavo is not an unborn child. Therefore, this aspect should not be brought into the picture. The fundamental issue should be about who has the ultimate right to make a decision, medical or otherwise, of this nature. Irrespective of personal feeling with regard to whether or not Terri Schiavo should be artificially kept alive or not, conservatives who struggle mightily to preserve the sanctity of marriage are exhibiting a typical knee-jerk liberal reaction in this matter. The emotions of the moment are holding sway and the rights of the spouse are being abrogated in the extreme.

Conservatives fight hard to preserve not only the sanctity of marriage, but the idea of individual responsibility and independence of action. However, it would appear that as concerns this matter, some of our number have forgotten these basic tenets. Where may this lead us, and what should conservatives being saying or doing, ultimately? As with our defense of the sacrosanct right of free speech, while we may not agree with Michael Schiavo, we should be willing to support his right to act in accordance with his rights and obligations.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=273

until i see real consistency coming from the right on the question of the veneration of life--which would include opposition to war and calls for social/economic justice in the world that those of us who are alive have to operate, i will not see in actions like those which surround this sad, sad case anything like a principled stand. that is, once the american right manages to catch up pope john paul 2--who, as much as i detest his politics, is at least consistent.

i wonder about the correlation between the conservative agitation on this matter and the nature of the coverage on fox news of the matter. it seems that roger ailes holds the toggle switch--when he flips it on, the right reacts.


this is an exploitative, brutal, horrific political stunt mounted by the right at the expense of people who seem for some reason to see in being exploited for political ends a type of therapy.

i feel badly for all parties involved. for some reason, i feel particularly badly for schiavo's parents. who obviously are terrified of death, who obviously cannot let go. in a way, it looks like their inability to let go has driven them into a public and grotesque version of kafka's story "the hunger artist"

Yes, in this case I break ranks with the coalition that elected this President. It is dangerously irresponsible (and ultimately, anarchic) to work so hard to knock down the rights of guardianship, overwhelming medical evidence, and legal precedent. Media exploitation, strident adherence to personal belief systems, and rampant emotionalism are the culprits here - and unbridled co-optation of a situation for political gain by those who should know better how to lead responsibly.

NCB I've just to ask, and I'll probably not have time to check this thread for a while, so if I don't insta-reply, no offense. My question to you is:

Why do you give a flippitty shit shit shit who he is marrying, why he is marrying her/him/it, or when they marry? I don't personally care, nor do I see a reason to care, if he is actually involved in a polyamorous relationship with the last vestiges of the Branch Davidians, who wandered down from Texas to live in the shadows of the rides at Disneyworld. It's complete strawman character assassination. It's irrelevant.

Facts:

1.No one on this board, as far as I can tell, has all the facts of this case. We have some information available through the public media, but none of us is consulting the physicians / family personally. Some of these sources would seem to be more objective than others.

2. This didn't pop up over night. This is not akin, in any way shape or form, to a last minute death-row appeal. This has been applealed. And appealed. And appealed. And applealed. It has received more attention from the legal system, political parties, religious groups, special interest groups, etc than it could have possibly merited on an individual basis. Do you honestly think that the courts can "slip" something by, when they are under this type of scrutiny from everyone from the governor of Fla. to the President of the United States.

3. Please see dksuddeth's most recent post.

4. You don't have to like the husband. I don't like him. I don't dislike. I don't know jack shit about him, and neither do you really. When is the last time y'all hung out and swapped stories? What I know is that this case has gone through pretty much every step it can go through.

5. There are other things occurring right now in this country and in this world. The intense scrutiny this case is receiving is completely disproprotionate to its real importance. As dksuddeth alluded to, the position that the conservative right is adopting in this case is seeminly quite counter to the position it has stated regarding the sanctity of marriage and its utility to stabilze society.

6. Re: the nurse. It's very simple. Screw the media coverage - that's just for the hospital's image. Since you're so adept in dealing in hypotheticals, let's hypothesize this: Michael Schiavo is doing what he believes is the morally correct thing to do, but it is not easy. He has endured this situation for 15 years. It is not easy to visit the animated remains of the woman he married many years ago. Others in the hospital feel sadness at what they know they must do, but of course they don't like it. I don't think anyone involved in this decision woke up one morning and said " Shit. I feel like killing someone today. Hell yeah and yee haw!!! Let's get the party started. Somone get some beer and a radio..."

It.
is.
not.
an.
easy.
situation.
to.
be.
in.

The last thing you need in that situation is a nurse running around making everyone feel like shit, and/or annoying the hell out of everyone involved. It is very simple. No one hired her to pontificate on her views of moral righteousness. They hired her to check the drip bag, vital signs, and sponge the patient off, etc If she can't perform professionally in a hospitial, she should not be there. It is a huge responsibility to be in the position she is in. Let her find another job that isn't so sensitively position, and she can run her yapper all she wants.

.

Don't get me wrong, I don;t fault the guy for getting on with his life. However, when he made the decision to have another wife and family, he should have relinquished Terri's rights to her flesh and blood. Afterall, he has given himself to another and that voids the relationship he had with Terri.


You are correct, this is not like a death penalty appeal. The condemed prsioner has far more rights and appeals.


You can make the same argument to those who think he's a loyal hubby doing what is best for his wife.

You're correct, and the liberal left seem to be running counter to their arguments about the sanctity of marriage. It's as if everything is upside down

Phd Degree

:p

Thats what the "experts" say. What I would like to ask them is, if this is true then why is she given pain-killers? Why is she given morphine? Why is she even at a hospice center at all? It just doesn't add up.

At this difficult time for the Schiavo family I think we all need to take a moment to respectfully keep in mind that the most important thing here is maintaining the right-wing's freedom to shriek a lot and exploit her situation for maximum political gain.

No, it does not. There exists no 1:1 correlation between those two events that is outside your head.


1. Usually not more than 17. that's big number in the legal system.

2. This may be a useful analogy in some context, but it is not a direct relation. The two situations are not the same. A condemned prisoner in a PVS would have much the same level of "rights" that this Schivo has. Specifically which rights are you claiming she is being denied?

Yes, the problem being that the system of arbitration that we have adopted in this society has fallen on the side of the guardian. If you don't like that, start filing an appeal to courts to change the defination of the rights entailed in the marriage contract. Maybe you can slip something in there allowing gay people to get married while you're at it.


Is this the on-line equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I" or am I missing some deeper point here, because honestly - 1. I have no idea what you're talking about, 2. You're going to have a very difficult time explaining your points to me / debating me if you make the ridiculous assumption that I identify myself in any way, shape, or form with the "liberal left." 3. I am now out of this. I did not intend to debate you in any serious fashion. I asked a simple question:

why do you care who this guy is shagging?

You answered me with something reflecting your personal values within the context of marriage, but which reflect no socially accepted norm / law that I am aware of. Do your committments to your old friends vanish because you make new friends? If you get re-married and have new kids, do you no longer have responsibility for your kids from your first marriage? If you make a promise to one girlfriend/lover/spouse, and get re-married - do you really believe that your old committments vanish? If so, then you are bordering on philosophical relativism, and I would like to be first to welcome you to the "liberal left".

She is given pain-killers more for the family than the patient. I signed my living will yesterday, and that clause was in there about pain killers. The idea was that the family rests easier knowing that the doctors have done everything they could do to eliminate any possibility of pain. A hospice generally provides end-of-life care, and it's been clear for years that Michael Sciavo intended this for Terri.

I couldn't disagree with you more about that. People enter into marriage as equals, but the idea of "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health" means in part that one spouse advocates for the other when the relationship is no longer one of equals. That's what Michael Schiavo is doing explicitly. I understand that people think Michael abandoned Terri is some sense. I don't have the authority to judge that. But he didn't divorce her or abandon her, he tried for years to help her, and when all else failed, he tried to do what he said Terri would have wanted him to do. It would have been much easier for this man to leave any any point in the last 12 years, especially with the relationship he has with Terri's family.

There's also a little clause in there about being faithful and devoting himself to her. He's not even close to doing that

Again, I think that he's being more faithful than most spouses have the stomach for. He is demonized daily for a thankless task, and yet he stays. Fueds in the family are the most bitter I've ever known, and I just don't see an upside for Michael Schiavo staying, other than knowing he's doing what he knows his wife would want him to do.

Is there a place that anyone here can link us to to get info about the status of the money that's left? What I've read is that there is "less than $50,000" remaining of any assets of Terri's and Michaels, and that whatever is left is intended for final legal costs and medical/burial costs. I clearly understand that a financial motive would make sense, but I see no evidence of it anywhere, I hear no major media outlets verifying it -- is it true or false?

As for living with another woman and having children -- he hasn't been able to live with his wife for 15 years. If the same happened to me that happened to Terri, I wouldn't condemn my SO for enjoying a life, and caring for my interests at the same time. It's a pretty cold person who would deny Michael Schiavo happiness in his highly unusual circumstances.

NOBODY is superman nor is anyone a perfect husband. I'm reminded about stones and glass houses.

There MAY be things that this person or that person has issue with when it comes to schiavos behavior, but theres never been anything found to call him a criminal. Trying to demonize the husband because he's not acting 'perfect' is nothing more than cheap and dirty political tricks and frankly its quite classless to do so.

I'm not looking very forward to the vicious reports soon to come out about this judge greer as the radical right to life whackos start their persecution.

First of all, devoting yourself to your wife does not mean keeping them alive against all hope and against their wishes. I'd say that, in this situation, it takes more devotion to kill the person you love than to keep them alive.

Second, let's discuss your statement when *your* wife has been braindead for the past 15 years, shall we?

DK, I said earlier I cannot blame the man for moving on with his life. And like I stated earlier, when he moves on with his life, the moral thing would be to allow her own flesh and blood to care for her.

maybe so, maybe no. people have varying degrees and beliefs about things. Some people would think very little about saying that they've moved on, here ya go mom and dad....she's all yours. Others may actuallly have taken their vows as seriously as possible and actually try to abide by their spouses final wish. Alot of people have made judgement calls based on some seriously outlandish propaganda and barely mitigated circumstances to re-inforce their own belief systems. walk a mile, i say. you just might gain a different perspective.

where are you getting this morally absolute statement from? You can not prove that this is morally what he should have done. You are making this shit up

"the moral thing to do"?

underneath this repulsive display of television-bourne sanctimoniousness from conservatives is a sequence of incoherent claims.

as usual, one premise comes from character assassination of the husband. republican hatchet men apparently feel that they are in a better position to render judgements about this case than he is. [for the record, i neither know nor care about the details of this guy's life--i dont see how they are relevant to anything beyond buttressing an incoherent collective froth in which the foxnews variant of conservative spins)

the usage of the term morality here makes it clear that for the right, it is a term without content, which they can fill as they like since they have convinced their followers that they control the entire discourse of morality.

but if you do not accept the assumption that the right can declare for itself what is and its not moral, and you look at the arguments, such as they are, it is pretty clear that the morality claims make no sense whatsoever. particularly not from a population that a few months ago was rapidly behind the war in iraq, which has no problem accepting the rationalization of torture, which is mobilized efficiently across the transmission belt system of right ideology to support any and all bushworld initiatives, no matter how insane they might be, no matter their consequences for folk living and yet to be living.

so if the morality argument is basically worth less than the energy it just took to type the phrase "the morality argument" then what is really going on here?


is this whole thing about a symbolic fight in favor of inherited privilege over legal relations?

how can the right on the one hand blab endlessly about the centrality of marriage and then on the other seek to usurp the legal priroity of the relation husband-wife and replace with with parents/children?

is the real argument about the image of the community--one based on hierarchies rooted in birth, in succession, all of which operate in a wholly private domain, as over against legal relations?

in which case, this is not about terry schiavo at all, but is rather some sick theater of republican delusions about the nature of Authority (always either divinely rooted or rooted in birth lines--both private, both not open to question).

it cannot be about health care, really, because the right has nothing coherent to say about it beyond cheerleading for the existing system no matter how incoherent.

it cannot be about "life" because from what i can tell, life is not an issue for terry schiavo.

maybe it is about the possibility of miracles. usually, with such things, the best strategy is to divert attention from real time and write a story about what happened after the fact--that way there are no camera watching and you can say as you like. miracles are easiest to find through ex post facto stories that work the claim to miracle into a starting assumption.

but it appears that after 13 years or so, the rationale of waiting for a miracle has worn pretty thin.

so the question changes:
how long can those who might not or do not believe be kept in a state of suspended pseudo-animation, their desires subordinated to the articles of faith of the christian right?

is that what this is about then? the subordination of legal channels, legal relations, to fantasies rooted in a particular religious position which has the quirk the tendency to claim for itself a monopoly on the term christian?

what does the right really hope to accomplish here? as much as i would love to see the entire edifice fall in on itself, i am not so naieve as to thing this a simple fuck up on the part of the aisle-rove axis--it must be understood as tactically functional at some level. but that functionality is so bizarre....

rb

the best i can come up with is that if you add the term american christian to the "right to life" bit, and combine it with the (mis?)conceptions of the faction of the gop base that considers itself to be extremely conservative christian, and allow for the fact that faction's beliefs will bleed over towards the more moderate parts of the spectrum, then that is what is going on. It's the one thing that ties the objection to stem cell research, objection to abortion, and this objection to self-chosen life termination, as long as you don't look at the issues on a particularly robust scale. Moral myopia is apparently contagious.

after 10-15 years or whatever it is.....there is no hope of her condition getting better. She is middle aged, and the body deterioates naturally.....therefore it cannot heal as well as it could've...say 10 years prior. Her parents need to just accept this and let her go.....

Denied AGAIN. The latest from CNN:

It's a three ring circus, and it's fucking disgusting. The conservatives have had their photo shoot; the little children have had their fun, but it's time for them to go back to their homes and act like adults, like human beings.

Oh, and in other less important news :rolleyes: : and

Some of the things I consider when I attempt to unravel the functionality of these events is the mobilizing currency this issue is presenting to a highly agitable base. At the most basic level, the right positions itself in a win-win scenario, at least to its most activated members right now.

They do something and obtain results, win
They try and are rebuffed by the court system, they martyr, they win

Both of those positions are easily frameable as oppositional to a judicial system gone awry, at least to this particular group of members.


In the long run: this position appears to fit very well in opposition to the left's long battle over personal rights to death with dignity. As we look over the horizon, we might wonder what looms in terms of the most divisive issue driving vocal minorities to the voting polls--abortion. That issue is on the wane, whether it be settled in their favor via a reconstituted court, or through the political process. Either way, it's mobalizing power is beginning to slip. On to greener, and newly created politically divisive issues, it appears.

Perhaps of interest: I read about this earlier this morning.


Center for American Progress
Perhaps you feel the source is biased, so we'll try this one:

cnn.com
And if that is too biased:


foxnews.com
Believe who you want to believe, but it is an interesting item, in my opinion.

parallel argument to the above, run out at greater length, from today's ny times.

source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/ar...721740&ei=5070

Im confused on something.....can somebody please explain to me why the people on the side of the parents dont get why gov bush cant do anything about this? Am I missing something? Am I the only one that thinks it totally ridiculous that these people expect him to go against the court rulings?

These are the same people that think that the courts have taken too much power. They think that, as governor, Jeb should do what needs be done. They sort of have a point, is a republican majority house going to impeach him for breaking the law?

The reason is that these people are religious extremists who believe that their absolute morality should triumph over the American system of government.

One thing you can say about the Schiavo circus: it caught the religious right with its pants down.

Regardless of where one stands on this issue, in light of the fact that there is a lack of concensus in the medical community on whether Terri's condition is or will ever be reversible, I think the following is a compelling example of what she could be going through (from someone who has been there - declared to be in a persistent vegitative state and had her feeding tube removed.) Granted, 3 months is not quite equivilant to 15 years, but it is food for thought.....

http://dutch-ess.blogspot.com/2005/0...-has-been.html

I watched that episode.
In light of the evidence that portions of Mrs. Shiavo's brain are no longer intact, I didn't find her analogy between the two sitations compelling.

There is no lack of consensus among the medical community, except among the people who haven't directly diagnosed Mrs. Shiavo.

Perhaps. But according to Kate Adamson, her doctors' prognoses for her were just as bleak. "Doctors had given up hope that Kate would ever recover."

It's a tough call, to be sure.

ok, Im confused again...she's comparing a brain stem stroke to the cerebrum being replaced with spinal fluid? Am I reading that right? From what I understand that is nothing wrong with Terri's brain stem....so how are the two things related?

I think prognosis is the common theme in these two cases.

True, but the analogy fails because the diagnoses were radically different.

If prognosis becomes the basis for comparison, we open the debate to every bad prediction made by any doctor; or maybe we'll limit it to inaccurate predictions in regards to recovery from brain disorders.


My wife spoke with her father last night, who has in the past expressed a desire to not have life-sustaining measures taken in the event of a catastrophe, to see whether he would contradict his past expressions on the matter to retain what is evidently becoming a party line.

His response to this apparent contradiction was that he is opposed to being hooked up to a breathing apparatus, whereas Mrs. Shiavo is able to breath on her own. There must be other details in his living will, because that seems to be an extremely arbitrary disctinction on the face of it.

Now, the idea that someone without a functioning, indeed with liquified portions, brain who can breath on her own is disctinct from, and a more highly valued life, than a person with a functioning brain but who's lungs aren't working is bizarre to me.

I think that opinion really brings to light the notion that to, at least some, members of the christian coalition the body/soul is a mystical object that can not be and is not understood by modern scientists.

This disdain of science among such members percolates into every aspect of the secular world and becomes oppositional to major scientific understandings of humanity: spanning (pro)creation to death.



This latest story, where you accurately depicted the critical difference between 3 months and 15 years, is an attempt to ramp up emotional appeal that doctors are fallable. Therefore, according to this logic, the doctors could be fallable and one ought to "error on the side of life." Unless I'm using this incorrectly, I think it's a non-sequitar. The diagnoses might appear to have been similar, which isn't surprising since the symptoms appear the same--but the causes for the symptom are radically different.

i don't hold a lot of faith in what she has to say. i've heard about her speaking out on this issue, and both she and the people who parrot her can never seem to get the story straight. check out her website, http://www.katesjourney.com/ and look in the articles area. the bio area doesn't tell a whole lot about what happened.

for example at http://www.katesjourney.com/southbayhealth.html

[quote = http://www.katesjourney.com/southbayhealth.html]
Adamson’s recovery began in the blink of an eye. As she lay in the intensive care unit, connected to breathing tubes and intravenous feeding lines, Adamson could do nothing but think and pray. Without the ability to move, she had no way to communicate with the outside world, no way to tell her doctors or her husband that she was awake and aware.

Then her husband, desperate to reach her and grasping at straws, asked her to blink her eyes if she could understand him. It took all her energy to make it happen, but somehow Adamson found the strength to do it — she blinked.
[/quote]

hmm... feeding tube unhooked? not according to this article. while i haven't looked very deep into the articles yet, i have yet to see it mentioned as her being in a PVS. she's described multiple times (by herself in her bio even) as having 'locked-in syndrome.' quite a different thing.

i take anything she has to say regarding this situatin with a grain of salt.

Michael Schaivo announced this morning there will be an autopsy to definitively determine the extent of brain damage. The parents have pushed for one already.

They have just announced on the radio that Terri has passed away

rest in peace Terri....you've earned it

RIP Terri.


And btw, hubby of the year refused her brother to see Terri last night and this morning. Nice.

I am thankful she was released from her suffering. Her passing came much too late in my estimation. Maybe now the people involved can get on with their lives!

You mean this debacle is over? We can get back to our lives again? Congress can resume their oh-so-important baseball investigation, and worry about pending legislature on ANWR, Healthcare, etc? Jeb's gotta be sad to see his TV time drop so suddenly.

I'm just waiting for the minister I saw on TV shouting "There will be Hell to pay if Terri dies!" to come crawling back out of the woodwork.

Err on the side of life my friends, and now that this circus is over, where will that line of rhetoric take us regarding the death penality, war, health care, and affirming the quality of life for..you know...those of us with a life to live?

Well, expect to her about this crap for the next week, then it should die off. Thank god.

lol, they just want to make sure you have that baby. Once the baby is out they don't give a fuck.

Apparently the person who was wouldn't feel any pain was prescribed morphine. I thought morphine was to control pain?

http://www.kasa.com/Global/story.asp?S=3145889

I think it this point we can move past opinionated speculation about the "what if's". She is dead, why can't it just end there?

The morphine issue has been raised and cut down many times in this thread alone. It is normal for Hospice patients of her sort to recieve painkillers, mostly for the comfort of relatives and family to ensure at least a less painful death.

I saw this on CNN's main page and thought it was pretty funny - "Bush: Millions saddened by Schiavo's death"... painting this picture as if there are a ton of people actually sad by this as opposed to being pissed off that she was kept alive (well, body kept alive, everything inside dead) for 15 years.

Sure, bud... why don't ya just go ahead and speak for everyone without any actual credentials to back it up ;)

It is very possible and reasonable to be saddened by her death and what her family has gone through while still being disgusted at the political circus the right has made it into.

I'm sure that there are more than 20M people on the 'err on the side of life' camp. But there is more than 100M that disagreed with them. It's a big country.

I think if I were the husband, under these circumstances, I'd go to court and let them take back legal responsibility for her and her medical bills and see if they still feel the way they are acting like they do now

rather than make a new thread about this...I thought I'd just post the autopsy results in the original thread

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/15....ap/index.html

I think this part
pretty much blows some of her parents statements out of the water

exactly. lesson for everybody. I have. even if i didn't write it down, i would expect society to be humane, and do me in.

Ah yes, so Terry was blind. Flashback time, kiddies! Remember mean old mister Frist, worst doctor ever?

Wow. The Senate majority leader made bullshit medical diagnoses on a patient he only saw on years-old video tapes for crass political reasons and whaddayaknow? He was wrong. What an ass.

Well, I'm sure we can look forward to Tom Delay and Bill Frist apologizing to Michael Schiavo for the hell they put him through tonight at 11.

" He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead."

Being that autopsy's are more often than not post-mortem, wouldn't everything in her brain be dead?

In all seriousness guy44 this: "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli" is not a medical diagnosis, it's an opinion, a professional one at that. One which many shared based on the videos shows and because of Terri's controlling behavior, is all anyone had to go on. This does not make him an ass or the worst doctor ever.

his opinion was based on seeing her eyes reflexively follow the light and putting his wishes onto her. and he then tried to use her for political gain. that's why he was an ass. so what if other people made an opinion based on seeing a video? he was a doctor, he should have known better. i'm not sure how you can even say it was a professional opinion. for him to give a professional opinion, he would need to read her chart, her health history, and examine her himself (if possible). but he didn't do any of that. he just saw a video. one made by her parents that showed only what they wanted it to. hell, i could show you a video of me turning water into wine... that doesn't make me jesus.

and of course autopsies are post-mortem. but you differentiate healthy tissue from diseased and dead tissue. you keep the corpse nice and cold so it doesn't start decomposing until after you're done with the autopsy. the fact that the brain was about half the weight of a healthy one shows that areas of it no longer existed, and they can look at the tissue of the various areas of the brain to see where damage had been done.

As soon as I saw this story elsewhere, I knew this thread was going to get the bump. What I find most annoying, is the fact that the parents' lawyer is already talking about "unspecified legal action" (civil court?) based on review by other medical experts. It's one thing for them to *think* they can buy / solicit testimony that will corroborate some sort of "wrongful death" suit, but I find it annoying for them to basically say it publicly.

I'll tell ya this: I used to be pro-choice, but I am so, like, pro-life now. Because "they" killed a brain-dead woman in Florida.

I suspect that many are of the opinion that medical science is "only a theory" and much of it's body of knowledge, including the practice of pathology, "cannot be proven".

Many medical outcomes, seem to some to be beyond the realm of the expertise of practitioners, since they could not, left to themselves, achieve such a high level of proficiency just 6000 years after the lord created the heavens and the earth.

Face it, people, when you post autopsy results as vindication, you are preaching only to the choir. Ten effing pages of this B.S. thread, a distraction from all of the pressing problems related to our lives, and here I am, feeding it, too.
Sheesh!!

I dont call it preaching to the choir, there was quite a debate going a few months ago....whats wrong with updating people on the end? No matter the outcome I would have posted it so it had nothing to do with "vindication".

Its sad that you thought it was BS, but that doesnt mean that everyone with an opinion on it thought that.