• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Terri Schiavo


  • Please log in to reply
190 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think of the current case? (84 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the current case?

  1. It was right to remove the feeding tubes (27 votes [40.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.30%

  2. It was wrong to remove the feeding tubes (40 votes [59.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.70%

Vote Guests cannot vote
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 8,956 posts
  • 1,809
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 March 2005 - 08:02 PM


ImmInst opposes the blight of involuntary death.

But where does one draw the line?

Is maintenance of persistent vegetative state it in conformity with immortalist ideology?
Does it matter whether the family is for or against it?
Does it matter whether the brain is severly damaged?
What about assisted suicide and euthanasia?



This topic is mildly moderated. ( http://www.imminst.org/cira ) All serious contributions welcome.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 21 March 2005 - 08:11 PM

Null Vote

Preserve (via cryonics) as much of her consciousness (brain) as possible for future reanimation. Do the preservation as soon as possible after removing the feeding tubes.

From an immortalist perspective, the importance of preserving the brain rests upon the idea that nothing happens after death. Thus, it's sad to see such helpless individuals obliterated.

#3 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,797 posts
  • 10

Posted 21 March 2005 - 08:15 PM

Null vote. Second Bruce's position.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 21 March 2005 - 08:42 PM

It's a sad case at any rate. I strongly am in favor of one's right to choose to die, provided that decision is not made lightly. Practical implementation of a set of rules to allow assisted suicide is not something I'm going to try to piece together, so for opponents of assisted suicide, spare me the what-if scenarios.

At any rate, this case is an intriguing one. Many, if not most, if not all states allow someone to terminate their life through a document that specifies that they do not want advanced life-saving techniques to be used in the case of otherwise fatal medical conditions. I don't know the numbers, but from what little press I've seen on the situation, every year, dozens if not hundreds or thousands of people are allowed to die precisely because they are in a condition similar to Terry Schiavo's.

So all this denunciation by the Republicans about the state of Florida and its judicial system and of Mr. Schiavo himself is totally unwarranted. This is not a unique experience.

The only reason that this case is receiving press is because of the ambiguity over whether Mr. Schiavo can make that decision. Even if thousands of people are allowed to die every year, Terry didn't have the documents in place to allow this, and Mr. Schiavo and Terry's family are both claiming the right to make this decision on her behalf, in the absense of such documents: that's the reason this case continues to drag on.

So in the end, no matter which way the decision goes, whether she is allowed to die or not, it's neither a victory for "pro-life" people nor a defeat. It's just a decision on who has the right to make these sorts of medical decisions. The lesson here, is that the necessary documents should have been in place, but it's a situation that most Americans are in: we don't have the necessary documents in place. Sadly, the situation for emergency cryonics procedures is bogged down by similar red tape problems.

That said, I sincerely hope that the feeding tube is allowed to remain removed, because even though a court order to reinsert the tube doesn't necessarily invalidate the principle of allowing one to die in this condition, the religious right will spin it exactly that way. They will use it as, not a legal, but a social vindication of their standpoint.

That said, if we had any say, I'd agree with Bruce on pursuing the cryonics route, to prevent any more deterioration of her mind than what has occured in the last 15 years.

#5 123456

  • Guest
  • 295 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 March 2005 - 09:13 PM

I believe it is wrong to remove he feeding tube. Unless she indicate she would want it removed, no one has the right to do it. Furthermore, her so called husband, to what her brother said on CNN yesterday, said; He abandoned her in marrige (Had a Fling or Left completely, I am not sure about the details) with another lady. I think her brother said he had two chidren with his Mistress. Her brother also said that the husband went to the courts to demand that her feeding tube removed because, at the time he would receive 1 million dollar insurance money if she died. He abandoned her in marriage, therefore he had no right to any say in this matter. I will repeat my belief, no one should have the right to kill another being, including spouses, unless the individual indicates he or she wants to die. It would be nice to cryonics preserve her if the government makes her die, proving her biological family agrees; Who is going to pay for it?

Edited by 123456, 22 March 2005 - 02:30 AM.


#6

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 21 March 2005 - 11:29 PM

She has the right to refuse treatment and not continue living sustained by artificial means in the US. If it was truly her intent not to continue living in such a state, and I think it was, then she should probably be allowed to die.

#7 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,797 posts
  • 10

Posted 22 March 2005 - 12:43 AM

Chip

This thing is a tool of the Republicans to keep the protests against the war and the Tom Delay ethics violations out of the public eye.


The thought has crossed my mind Chip, the thought has definitely crossed my mind... [sfty]

#8 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 22 March 2005 - 03:12 AM

I have to wonder whether l'affaire Schiavo invokes so much anxiety in religionists because they don't want to face the fact that unconscious neurological processes can generate our elementary social behavior even when the consciousness engine in the brain is trashed. Terri cries, laughs, grimaces and so forth, much like an unimpaired human -- but these behaviors are all happening automatically; they don't require the organism to maintain the delusion of a "soul" behind its eyes.

In other words, Terri's example challenges the common belief that equates a seemingly responsive human life with the possession of a supernatural consciousness to generate it.

#9 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 22 March 2005 - 01:27 PM

Chip and advancedatheist, I think you've both hit the nail on the head. This is just grandstanding by the Republicans. Tom Delay made me sick with the way he accused Florida of not respecting one's right to life. If that were truly how he and the rest of the Republicans and Americans felt, then no one would ever be allowed to be taken off life support until they were declared legally dead.

But it happens all the time, and I see no outcry. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind!

And yes, advancedatheist, Terry's family fight against rationality and against reason itself. They want so much to believe—religionists want so much to believe that there is a soul directing Terry's body's behavior, when it is just automatic functions, with no consciousness to direct it. It's reflexes, albeit complex ones. I don't need a soul for my leg to jerk when I tap on the tendon under my kneecap, and Terry doesn't need a soul to cry, laugh, or grimace. Terry is gone, and what very little may be left of her has very little if any influence on her behavior, certainly not enough to be measurable above the background noise of autonomous behavior.

Like I said, if we had a say, cryonics would be the way to go, so that if there is anything left of Terry's conscious mind, we can save it and prevent the further suffering it endures daily.

Otherwise, there's no indisputable proof that it wasn't her wish to die, so I'm for pulling the tube.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 22 March 2005 - 01:53 PM

Regardless of her right to live or die and what constitutes clinical death and so forth, I think its a barbaric way to terminate what ever existence she has left. Why not just give her a poison shot of some kind or something that leads to a quick death? Leaving her to die of starvation and dehydration is in my opinion bizarre and horrible.

#11 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:09 PM

True lightowl, but the way this country works, suicide by commission is not acceptable, but suicide by omission is still in a grey area, and that's why this form of death is "acceptable", as opposed to a painless lethal injection. Go figure.

While I don't agree with many of the ways that The First Immortal handled certain issues, I do foresee, or at least hope, that assisted suicide will become legal at some point, especially as a preparatory step to scheduled cryonics procedures (e.g. in the case of an inoperable brain tumor, where the patient wants to be preserved before their brain is irreparably damaged), but also as a means of ending suffering (e.g. should the person decline cryonics).

#12 lightowl

  • Guest, F@H
  • 767 posts
  • 5
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:20 PM

suicide by commission is not acceptable, but suicide by omission is still in a grey area

Very strange indeed. Where is the morality and humanity now. If this kind of treatment was given to an animal it would be considered animal cruelty and be subject to penalty. Something is really screwed up in the minds of these people.

#13 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:44 PM

Lightowl, funny you should mention that, because that's very close to one of the statements that DeLay (Delay?) made. However, the problem is, it's okay to euthenize a dog, but it's not okay to euthenize a human, which is why we're left with suicide by omission.

My first painful experience with putting an animal out of its misery was when I was maybe ten years old. Our cat had had a litter just a few weeks before, and we had already given away a few of the kittens. We still had two or three, including my favorite, Calvin. Well, unfortunately, Calvin liked to take naps on top of the tires of my dad's car, because it was dark and warm and pretty secluded. One day, my dad came in the house all pissed off, looking for his shovel. He wouldn't let me go outside to see what all the commotion was, but I found out that he had accidently run over Calvin, and that Calvin was horribly wounded but still alive and twitching, so my dad put him out of his misery. Needless to say we all had a good cry over the incident.

Imagine if Calvin's only relief from his suffering would have been to be left to die slowly for however many minutes or hours it might have taken! I didn't like what happened to him, but I'm glad that my dad was able to put him out of his misery.

Now in humans, we unfortunately get to suffer through these sorts of things, because we make more of an effort these days to save people's lives. Thank goodness for morphine and the dozens of other analgesics and anaesthetics used today.

But when the decision is made that someone will be put out of their misery, and allowed to die, that death should be painless. If Terry Schiavo cannot be actively laid to rest with a lethal injection, then she should at least have the benefit of pain killers or whatever sorts of drugs are appropriate to relieve whatever discomfort or pain is caused by dehydration and starvation. Of course, from what I understand, it's more discomfort and disorientation than pain that's to fear, problems which probably won't affect her much in her current state.

#14 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:51 PM

There are so many issues and so many uses of Weapons of Mass Distraction here that I have been almost encouraged by one single element of this spectacle that has substituted for rational deliberation and that is the quality of discourse here at imminst and the fact that maybe, just maybe a few people are learning.

I first brought this case to everyones' attention over a year ago and warned that we needed to be very cautious of its potential misuse. Those risks obviously still exist.

The judges have now decided to exert their prerogative and demonstrate the division of powers in this country and the executive no doubt intended to utilize this act as justification to limit those powers so the show is far from over.

Congress should be ridiculed for being manipulated in the manner it has but the people may only be excused in that they are only beginning to awake to what is going on. But in their case willful ignorance is really no excuse.

I must say having gone through a lot of this experience myself that I was outraged that government has openly attempted to grandstand, exploit, manipulate, and pander in the crass and blatant fashion that it has but I am sadly not surprised. Surprise would imply that somehow I didn't or shouldn't expect it. I have tragically found out in life that no one has ever been surprised by expecting those in power to behave in the most reprehensible manner possible.

Is it another cause for cynicism about politics?

Perhaps, but I am going to instead be hopeful that the obviously apparent duplicity of an administration that cuts Medicare and then demands treatment will become apparent.

An administration that argues against the development of practical life extending medical technology for the healthy but insists on inane applications of prophylaxis for prolonging the suffering of the *hopelessly* infirmed will become obvious. That the criminal intentions of an administration who would pander to ignorance and fear so as to inhibit the development of Stem Cell technology, which offers an avenue that albeit remotely, could provide a rational possibility of treatment in this case denies such efforts all while insisting on prolonging the suffering of the individual ASSUMING you credit them as actually believing that Terri Shiavo actually DOES still exist inside the prison of her body.

This situation is comic and tragic on a scale that easily brings tears and gasps. I fully expect the media to exploit this next in every way possible from the sensationalism of a miniseries to SNL jokes. Why don't they just nail the poor girl to freaking cross and get it over with?

I seriously hope this debate explodes in theirs faces like a flaming bag of shit. I hope the debate forces the public to face squarely: What is the definition of life?

And what are we talking about the soul, the mind, or the body?

And are they all somehow to be conflated into equivalence?

I seriously hope the public comes out of this carnival sideshow screaming in rage for life extension technology that is scientifically based.

If the mind is gone what is the body?

Is it still some mystical vessel for the soul?

What can government legislate and what exists?

Can the government legislate questions of souls or is its responsibility to be found elsewhere?

I have some issues associated with this case that I have avoided because they belong in the debate on cryonics, BCI, or discussions on the mind/brain but the real issue is what are we talking about when we discuss the *person*?

Does Terri Shiavo even still exist or is this just a biological shell with a remnant of her face still present?

But really this demonstrates that the real question is about when the hell will politicians, priests, and lawyers get the f*ck out of hospital and our pockets, quit micromanaging these problems from the disadvantage point of ignorance and let our families and physicians deal with the real dilemmas and derive their difficult solutions on a case by case basis.

PLEASE!!!!

Oh yeah I forgot these folks have been litigating and legislating this spectacle for years now and the level of disinformation I observe demonstrates just how fast this is descending into the memetics of popular sport rather than science or medical ethics.

There is a level of duplicity on all sides so disgusting that I am truly surprised any of these folks can keep their lunches down. This is rapidly becoming one of the most reprehensible and irresponsible demonstrations of governance that I have seen come from a body that has been searching for new lows for some time now; they really should know better. They actually have credentials with which to claim this level of amateurish discourse?

Oh I almost forgot they truly are representative of the people.

I have heard more objective debate with more mature and informed analysis at the local grammar schools.

I can't tell whether to spit, weep, or laugh hysterically at this scene but the spectacle of it is now becoming epic and many are certain to profit. I just pragmatically hope that we can also benefit in a rational and healthy manner from what is tantamount to a modern display of human sacrifice.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 22 March 2005 - 03:35 PM.


#15 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 March 2005 - 03:22 PM

Oh I almost forgot to make it clear and concise Caliban.

Null vote.

It is none of our business.

It is the excruciatingly difficult choice of those closest (family & physicians) and then the judges who have the unenviable role of actually having to weigh the facts through litigation, make a judgment in such a case and then live with their decisions.

The rest of us should count ourselves lucky when we don't.

Perhaps there should be a law in some people's mind but then again is it not the height of folly to legislate from a position of ignorance?

We should all be asking and seeking answers to the tough questions before trying to impose simplistic solutions in a *feel good* *ritual* manner.

#16 shadegrown

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Germany

Posted 22 March 2005 - 07:10 PM

For whose benefit has Terri Schiavo's death been drawn out for so long? Certainly not for her own, given court-approved findings about her condition. Terri has no capacity for awareness. She is not dreaming either. To put it bluntly: her cerebrum is mush, her personality irrevocably deleted. Brain stem and spinal reflexes are all that remain. Years and years of medical examinations supervised by half a dozen courts (not counting today's federal ruling) and 19 judges have resulted in the conclusion that there is no hope of improvement. "Experts" brought in by Terri's parents and their backers disputed the court rulings, but their objections are clearly irrelevant to the case.

Cryopreservation arrives too late (to put it mildly) when the parts of her brain that contained her memory and personality are long gone and scavenged by the body. Mature stem cell engineering wouldn't bring Terri back either. Somehow growing her a new brain intracranially would merely create another human being, an infant's mind from scratch in a woman's body.

Now I could care less if an empty shell of a former person lives or dies, if it weren't for Michael Schiavo who rightly believes that it is his duty to carry out the wish of his wife. He is enduring a barrage of theocon media-perpetuated baseless rumors which could have driven a less courageous man into suicide and which collide with court findings that, throughout the appeals chain, established "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri didn't want to be tube-fed.

As to my personal choice: I want to live..... so long as there's a faint chance to experience or accomplish something I deem worthwhile. An existence of insensate biomass controlled by brain stem reflexes doesn't appeal to me. Hopefully indefinite youth tech will arrive in time for me, but I have no way to be sure. So I'll take the time and write my living will now, so as to keep misinfomed legislative busybodies off my brain stem and out of my family's affairs.

#17

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:35 PM

**repost of deleted Malchiah post** [Thank you Comos! DonS]

I am normally in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide (much to your surprise, I'm sure), but the choice of pulling the feeding tube should only be made by those close to her. Hence, Null Vote.

HOWEVER, this case is unique (not just because of its media focus) because there are a few things going on that havent been discussed:

While clearly she is not normal, she is awake, aware, responsive, and can be fed normal food by doctors! There are testimonies by doctors and nurses that suggest the husband would not allow her to be rehabilitated. Some have gone so far as to accuse him of abuse and prolonging her condition artificially with injections. He did not want to spend the necessary funds on someone he hasn't loved in over a decade, and he stands to gain financially by her death.

Certainly, while the husband is under investigation, the feeding tube should remain in place until it can be determined whether or not he had an effect on her condition.

 
Lazarus Long:  Congress should be ridiculed for being manipulated in the manner...


In this case, Congress demonstrated just how effective it can be. When a few hours means everything, the parents' appeal simply could not wait for the bureacratic red tape to be processed. By the time their appeal would be heard, Terri would have aready died. They made no decision that would really affect the outcome. All they did was ensure the appeal would be heard in a timely fashion.

 
Lightowl:  Why not just give her a poison shot of some kind or something that leads to a quick death? Leaving her to die of starvation and dehydration is in my opinion bizarre and horrible.


Jack Kevorkian and I agree, but the majority of people aren't comfortable with the notion of asssisted suicide. They'd rather take a hands-off approach of "letting" someone die rather than "help" them die.

 
Chip: This is a “right to murder” administration...  It has and is preparing to escalate the amount of death and suffering in our world.


Do you REALLY believe this?! I hope you're not referring to the administration's war in the Middle East which has so far had a pretty positive outcome in spite of the prolonged and botched occupation of Iraq.

Do you REALLY believe Bush and company WANT people to DIE on purpose?!

Edited by DonSpanton, 22 March 2005 - 10:55 PM.


#18 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:46 PM

Laz, I'm tempted to make the split on this subject as I think this could turn into a decent conversation. What do you think?


Don please do as this is off topic under CIRA guidelines albeit they are *limited*.

In this case, Congress demonstrated just how effective it can be. When a few hours means everything, the parents' appeal simply could not wait for the bureaucratic red tape to be processed. By the time their appeal would be heard, Terri would have already died. They made no decision that would really affect the outcome. All they did was ensure the appeal would be heard in a timely fashion.


All they did Malchiah is make a farce of their legislative power and overstep their mandate drastically into an area that isn't theirs, the courts. They are guilty of doing EXACTLY what they accuse *activist* judges of doing. They are now adjudicating in areas they have no power to, experience, or facts. They are also demonstrating they do not understand their own role as legislators. Laws aren't written for individuals they are written for everyone and doing what they have done shows them to be incompetent legislators.

That is why it is farcical and going to basically result in a threat to court power. However it will be a the price of their own I suspect too.

Anyway, as to poor Terri, smiling is instinctive, so is the fact that her eyes are open. This is not as uncommon as many think. A lot of *disinformation* is out there and take a little while to delve deeper before forming opinions.

I have heard it said in the halls of congress that she was not given an MRI but that is false from other sources I have heard for example. This is just not Congresses job and it is a violation of States and individual rights and hypocritical in every way imaginable for the Republicans.

Do you REALLY believe Bush and company WANT people to DIE on purpose?!


I suspect this to be true Malachiah.

#19 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:55 PM

Cosmos and Don if you are careful and backtrack when this happens you can sometimes recover the lost text.

I have done this successfully but you have to jump back and not scroll back by hitting the back button. If you do it will reload the page.

However if you use the drop down menu for the back button and jump directly to the edit page where you messed up you can at least often see the original text in the posts listed below.

#20 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,797 posts
  • 10

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:10 PM

My original post to Malchiah:

Malchiah

Do you REALLY believe Bush and company WANT people to DIE on purpose?!


Brian Alexander: "Does the government have the right to tell its citizens that they have to die?"

Francis Fukuyama: "Yes. Absolutely."

http://images.google...yamaFrancis.jpg

Know thy enemy.

#21 swami17

  • Guest
  • 8 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles!

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:34 PM

Why has the option of cryonics not been included in the debate over what to do about Terry Chiavo? It's the one option that would give both sides what they say they are seeking: It would end whatever suffering she may be experiencing, which her husband seeks, AND it would preserve the possibility of Terry's future recovery (something which may in fact be MORE compromised by keeping her in a vegetative state than a cryonically preserved state,) which is the hope that Terry's parents are holding on to.

Both the parents and the husband are currently seeking ends that are arguably tragic. I can think of no more compelling circumstance in which the option of cryonics is so clearly the best available option.

#22

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:42 PM

http://www.imminst.o...iew=getlastpost

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,449 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:55 PM

As far as I can tell from all media sources, there is no direct evidence that Mrs Chaivo wanted to be terminated under these conditions. All that exists is circumstantial testimony from the husband and three supposed friends that she had mentioned at some point in the past.

Also, according to what I have heard from media outlets, the family has agreed to grant the husband a divorce on thier daughter's (Terri's) behalf and have agreed to assume all financial responsibility for her care.

So why is the husband so persistent on ending her "life". Some have suggested there is insurance money available. I do not know if this is true. He has said that he wants to end her misery or pain or whatever....except if she is brain dead, she is not feeling anything....so where's the misery? There is only some form of indignity.

What makes this case more difficult than others is that Terri's eyes are open and she responds to basic stimuli. This doesn't make her fully conscious, but it does make her seem a lot more human and alive than someone in a deep coma hooked up to a heart-lung machine.

Cryonics is an intriguing option. I guess what I would llike to know is if the higher functioning parts of her brain are gone and dead. That is, are the neurons are completely destroyed and gone? If the neurons remain but are not active, then I would say there is hope of someday re-animating her brain with sufficiently advanced technology.

#24 sonia

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:56 PM

I'm really surprised by the pro-death sentiment found in this discussion. I would have thought that people who believe in the possibility of successful cryonics would perhaps also have some faith that over the next 10-15 years biotech and nanotech might come up with something to bring Terri's mind back to normal. Instead many of you would rather lop off her head.

#25 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:58 PM

Hehe, did I get lost somehow? [huh]

Anyway, Laz and Don, I really don't know how to respond to your skepticism that Bush WANTS people to die. I disagree with liberals on many issues, but I have no doubt that they genuinely want to improve society and mean to do good. I don't see how you can not do the same for conservatives. If you really believe Bush is as bad as Hitler (as some liberals have said) then please say so. We can only "agree to disagree" if we respect the other's point of view.

Back to the topic, this really isn't an issue of whether or not someone has a right to die. This is a case about whether or not Terri has gotten the proper treatment and a CRIMINAL investigation into the husband. (He has not been charged, but he IS under investigation.)

Also this may interest some of you:

I just found out a man that lives in my house experienced a similar situation as Terri Schiavo for over 14 months! He was awake and aware, but was completely unresponsive. He was also paralyzed and doctors did not think he would ever recover. With some therapy and treatment (and according to him, faith) he has had a miraculous recovery! If he didn't tell me, I never would have known. He is now completely functional. [:o]

#26 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:06 AM

Perhaps Malchiah it is not entirely fair to lump *Bush* with *Conservative*.

He is an *Evangelical Neo Conservative* and that is really a different animal IMHO.

If it turns out that Michael Schiavo has been falsely accused and the misuse of the law has been irresponsible in his case will the persons and governmental bodies that have conspired to ruin his name and life then be held liable?'

After all that would be only fair now wouldn't it?

Government is normally immune from prosecution but in this case I wonder if the Fed's have in fact violated their own exemption by passing a *personal* law?

As some have gone after him and his assets then shouldn't he now have a right of redress for *his* grievances if exonerated of the claims and then he could in turn go after the assets of various organizations and the parents?

Of course how would that make this any better?

He has been investigated before BTW.

#27 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:11 AM

And BTW, I have known people to recover after many months in such states as well but 14 months is NOT equivalent to fifteen years.

#28 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:16 AM

It would end whatever suffering she may be experiencing, which her husband seeks...

When I first heard of this case, I too, wanted her to be allowed to die peacefully.

But the more I learned about this case, the more I realized that is NOT what the husband wants. Michael Schiavo doesn't want to end her suffering. He wants her dead, and has been quoted as saying "When is that bitch going to die?" He stands to gain financially and there are testimonies by hospital personnel who suggest he wanted her to die, and tried to help it along with insulin injections. There are times when he was forbidden from seeing her in the hospital unsupervised!

Terri's father has nothing but contempt for Michael and believes he doesnt want her to recover because of things Michael has done to her in the past. Why else would Michael not want any kind of therapy to help her?

One nurse who cared for Terri for two years says that Terri was responsive and communicated verbally to the staff at the hospital. One time she put a washcloth in her hand to test her reflexes and ability to clean herself, but Michael got upset and took it away from her.

I'm honestly amazed that these details haven't been making the news more often.

#29 JMorgan

  • Guest
  • 645 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Queens, NY

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:25 AM

If it turns out that Michael Schiavo has been falsely accused and the misuse of the law has been irresponsible in his case will the persons and governmental bodies that have conspired to ruin his name and life then be held liable?

Agreed.

But the alternative must also be considered. The feeding tube is removed and Terri dies. Then we find out that she COULD have been rehabilitated and Michael had an effect on her condition. THAT would be the most tragic scenario in this case.

14 months and 15 years is a huge difference, but not when the man I know had 14 months of therapy, compared to 15 years of no treatment. It could have made a difference.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:36 AM

There has already been a malpractice case involving Terri and a finding was made, further treatment applied and the funds are documented as having gone back into her care.

A lot of things are being said about Michael but people say all kinds of things in these situations, it is what the valid evidence supports that matters, the rest is what is defined as *hearsay* and if not merely circumstantial then downright malicious gossip and possibly libel.

The *shoulda* woulda coulda arguments are the worst kind because everybody is a great quarterback after the game.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users