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: