• 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.


- - - - -

Euthanasia? What choice for yourself?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Poll: You have been diagnosed with PVS - make your choice (36 member(s) have cast votes)

You have been diagnosed with PVS - make your choice

  1. Death by dehydration (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Death by lethal injection (11 votes [36.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.67%

  3. Stick around and see what happens (19 votes [63.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.33%

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

#1

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 01 April 2005 - 06:09 AM


One out of two voted that it was right to remove Terri's feeding tube. I am interested if this ratio is maintained if it was YOU that was in a condition similar to Terri's:

Imagine that you are diagnosed* as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). What is your preference?

* Assume that the diagnosis is as clinically nebulous (or not according to your own opinion) as the one for Terri Schiavo. You have not had the opportunity to be tested using MRI, fMRI or PET.



For the sake of brevity and to reflect the same hard choices that must be faced by those in mainstream society (without the benefit of being able to consider cryogenics) I have deliberately omitted the option for death + cryopreservation. I ask you to have the courage not to vote null.

#2 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 01 April 2005 - 11:28 AM

Well I believe it is totally does not matter how you die, when you die, and what you knew before you died- it is all same NOTHING, totally nothing!

I think I'd stick around and see what happens since there is still hope in such case...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#3 lightowl

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

Posted 01 April 2005 - 02:33 PM

The choice is ridicules. I am assuming that by "diagnosis is clinically nebulous" you mean uncertain. What is the choice? The poll is designed to make me vote "stick around" so I will take a null vote.

You have been given an uncertain diagnose of PVS. What is your choice?

1. Live.
2. Die.

If in the unlikely event that you choose death, what is your choice?

1. Slow and horrible death.
2. Quick and painless death.

Edited by lightowl, 01 April 2005 - 02:53 PM.


sponsored ad

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

#4 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 01 April 2005 - 02:58 PM

What is truly silly about the choices Prometheus, is that if you have just been diagnosed with PVS it is a little too late to make a decision.

I assume that is because you are trying to avoid the *What if* side of the perspective but the other point is that the options you have provided simply don't address the reality of options being developed or even those we have.

What about for example high risk surgery that offers a significant probability of death but the possibility that

A) Your death might yield significant data contributing to med-tech advances (the Artificial Heart model)?

and

B) An outside chance of reversal of condition for a limited or even a long period due to the success of the experimental methodology (i.e. neural BCI implants)?
This option accepts that the overall probability of such experimental techniques will result in possibly a shorter life expectancy but it includes the possibility of significant improvement in quality for that life while option *A* is still a risk along with:

C) Option *A* doesn't occur and option *B* result in no change or apparent improvement and you continue to deteriorate into PVS anyway with a fall back on further prearranged experimentation or voluntary oblivion?

All of these options I offer are really a part of *what if* strategic options that revolve around seeing this as a TACTICAL ANALYSIS in a battle against the disease common known as *Death*.

I raised this point earlier with respect to seeing Cryo as an alternative Euthanasia option.

I suggest instead that we have a highly *parochial society* (and legislature) to blame for the draconian options the courts are limited to deciding (and offering) not for example a problem of *Judicial Activism*.

In fact the limited structure of this poll reflects that parochial perspective quite well IMHO.

#5 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 02 April 2005 - 12:19 AM

From sudden and improvident death, deliver us O Lord!


Prescinding from the impossible scenario of making a decision and communicating it to responsible people when a person is already in a persistent vegetative state -- which is not strictly vegetative, because vegetables live without artificial tubings...


I am reminded as one who adhere to the policy of physician assisted euthanasia, that I must attend to the task of making my last will and testament which should include the how I want to be assisted to depart from this life.

As a matter of fact, I have I think written to Dr. Kevorkian, telling him that it is not necessary for a physician to assist a subject who has opted for self-departure. What he should be doing is to publish instructions on how to effect self-departure painlessly, quickly, economically, and aesthetically, informing people where to legally purchase the substances and the equipment if needed to effect self-departure.

No, he has not responded to my correspondence. I guess he had decided that I could get the required information on my own; or his correspondence is censored; or he does not want to get into further trouble with prison authorities, by adding more charges to his list of transgressions against US laws.


Susma

#6

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2005 - 12:40 AM

What is truly silly about the choices Prometheus, is that if you have just been diagnosed with PVS it is a little too late to make a decision.



Prescinding from the impossible scenario of making a decision and communicating it to responsible people when a person is already in a persistent vegetative state -- which is not strictly vegetative, because vegetables live without artificial tubings...



This is a hypothetical scenario, gentlemen, designed to force you to think what choice you would make for yourself if you were in the same situation as Terri Schiavo. If it makes it easier to grasp, assume you are making a will.

In fact the limited structure of this poll reflects that parochial perspective quite well IMHO



No, Laz, it is designed to give you the same limited choices of real life, not some Immortalist fantasy. It is forcing you to make a decision - either death (slow - by dehydration, fast - by lethal injection) or life in a vegetative state. Many members here were quick to vote on removing the feeding tubes for Terri Schiavo and demonstrated a pro-death attitude which they supported by contextualizing with political issues. Would they vote similarly if they were in the same position?

The point I am making is simple - given no other choice but death - any sensible person should choose life, vegetative or not, because there is the opportunity for a cure in the future.

The choice is ridiculous. I am assuming that by "diagnosis is clinically nebulous" you mean uncertain. What is the choice? The poll is designed to make me vote "stick around" so I will take a null vote.



From you, Lightowl, I expected nothing less than a null vote. :)
You have elected to not to die so I will mark your vote as sticking around, congratulations.
If you have followed my arguments about Terri Schiavo, you would you find that my view is that the diagnosis was ambiguous, for two reasons:
1. There are no firm standards for diagnosing PVS (1) and 50% of diagnosis have been found to be wrong (2)
2. Terri was never given MRI, fMRI or PET scans.





(1) Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2004; 92(5): 633 - 640.
Brainstem death testing in the UK--time for reappraisal?
D. D. Bell, E. Moss, and P. G. Murphy

(2) BMJ 1996;313:13-16
Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit
Keith Andrews, Lesley Murphy, Ros Munday, Clare Littlewood

#7 lightowl

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

Posted 02 April 2005 - 12:47 AM

From you, Lightowl, I expected nothing less than a null vote

Please elaborate Prometheus. On what do you base those expectations? I am frankly tired of not being able to comment without you second guessing my intentions. I am commenting to this poll, not to you. Do you fathom?

#8 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 02 April 2005 - 01:15 AM

No, Laz, it is designed to give you the same limited choices of real life, not some Immortalist fantasy. It is forcing you to make a decision - either death (slow - by dehydration, fast - by lethal injection) or life in a vegetative state. Many members here were quick to vote on removing the feeding tubes for Terri Schiavo and demonstrated a pro-death attitude which they supported by contextualizing with political issues. Would they vote similarly if they were in the same position?


Prometheus I gave options based on real life not fantasy. There are experimental procedures undertaken everyday and the reality of modern medicine is that over 80% of all deaths in technocratic society are matters of *choice*.

Life is never a simple matter of either/or dichotomy, it is a plethora of complex choices we make and remake as opportunities change. What truly matters is the *Will*.

Where exists the Will we find a Way.

The point I am making is simple - given no other choice but death - any sensible person should choose life, vegetative or not, because there is the opportunity for a cure in the future.


That is the point Prometheus, given no choice but a living hell of tortured existence a step away from oblivion or potentially greater quality of probably shortened life is a classic example of a high stakes risk risk/reward cost benefit analysis.

Just holding on to the body when the mind is gone is not preferable to many people. A vast number of people measure their will to live based on the quality of that life and there are numerous historical examples of mass suicides to demonstrate that fact.

Personally I would rather opt for *a winner takes all but losers die risk* than let my body live without my mind. Save my genome aside but if my mind were gone than the body becomes just a husk and worse; a prison torturing the desperate remnant of my consciousness.

The options of tomorrow are too late to save me today if the brain is decaying into protein waste. My loss of all memory cognitive ability, and experience is the loss of *me*. A slow painful death of a thousand cuts. My body running on only the limbic system is less alive in many respects than the internet.

But the real challenge every one of us faces is the making of the hard *choice* and respecting the reality that it must be made.

We must all accept that responsibility of making this choice and not by allowing it to be by simple *default* (null choice). We cannot continue to behave like a society in denial but if the default must be made then a choice must ensue and better that it is made by those closest in some rational tiered relationship, preferably also arranged beforehand. Carpe Diem.

Hey one more thing Prometheus I have had to choose life or death in this kind of matter.

Have you ever had to make the choice for another person or accept theirs?

I don't wish this situation on any considerate, intelligent, and empathetic person.

It is never easy and it never should be.

It was one of the reasons I despised the circus that was made of this event. For me it was personal but I do sincerely hope that it awakes the people to the considerable potential options they are being manipulated out of by the very people that claim to be protecting life.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 02 April 2005 - 03:57 AM.


#9

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2005 - 01:44 AM

Hey one more thing Prometheus I have had to choose life or death in this kind of matter. Have you ever had to make the choice for another person or accept theirs?



The overwhelming smell of decay filling the room, the rasping, crackling breath, the feint hospital sounds.
My wish for death to come and relieve the misery.
The life was well lived and happy and death came at a very old age, suddenly with kidney failure.

Yes, I chose death.
The paroxysm of grief that followed, was for weeks, asphyxiating - because of my choice. The alternative would have extended life by a few days, weeks perhaps. Whatever the case - even a few more moments of sharing.

I keep the memory fresh and sharp, to remind me of my mistake.
.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 02 April 2005 - 01:55 AM

I sympathize and will not second guess you either way because that is the real point after all. It was your choice to make and you made it.

You made and regret it perhaps but should at least respect yourself for the fact that you made it and did not simply abrogate the responsibility of choice and let others make it for you.

Perhaps you should be a little more forgiving of yourself too.

Life is not as easy as perfect right and wrong, at times in life all we have are hard choices between the hammer and the anvil.

With a name like you've chosen for the screen I would think you would never forget the Roc.

Beware of feeding the vulture through your guilt.

#11 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 02 April 2005 - 05:23 AM

If I was in the same state as Terri was, which after all is said and done I believe that is what you are alluding too, I would choose death. I do not want to live as a husk. And I would choose lethal injection, not because I am worried about feeling pain. What I am would be gone, but because what's left is still at the level of some kind of animal. And there is no reason to tourture any living creature.

The same would be true if my mind was deteriorating. I would not allow myself to live until my mind was gone.

If I have to die someday I would hope that I can face that with honor, and with some measure of my wits about me.

All was stated above assuming cryonics is not an option. For me it is an option. One I intend to utilize.

#12 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 02 April 2005 - 05:35 AM

My grandmother was in a similar state in the days before her death. The machines could have kept her body alive for another week or so as to my understanding. My Grandfather, my father and his brothers and sister chose to pull the plug.

The same decision had to be made for both of my grandparents on my mother's side.

All of my grandparents who died were religious. Cryonics was not an option. My grandfather who remains is not. I've talked with him about it, but he seems to be of the opinion that when it's his time to go, then it;s his time. I would like to convince him otherwise, but I must respect his decision. It's his life.

I think the key issue many of us can learn from all this is you should make your wishes absolutely clear in such circumstances, so the decisions can be yours. Not another member of the family. It would be good to shift that burden away from them anyway.

#13

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2005 - 10:35 AM

Beware of feeding the vulture...



Until he chokes. :)

It would be good to shift that burden away from them anyway


Indeed.

Do you fathom?



Deeply.

#14 FutureQ

  • Guest
  • 57 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Pacific North West

Posted 13 April 2005 - 07:41 AM

Null vote, not enough choices. I'd prefer in any instance of euthanasia, thatby the way I support the right to do legally, that hypothermia be used aided by powerful pain meds and barbituates that help protect the brain. Then following such a brain conserving deanimation cryo preservation. I'll let the future decide if I can be revived. Who knows, maybe someone will develop technology capable of receiving at least information from the past that could help restore memories to whatever brain remains and any additional engineered material. I won't expect that it will be me just as I don't for destructive mind uploading or destructive teleportation, that's just me and how I feel now about the perrenial identity of duplicates debate. But whoever emerges, someone 1/10 me? or 50% me? or whatever?, will have a long time to reconsider it all and as Randolfe points out at least my genes live on.

I supported Terri having the feeding tube removed because I believe Michael was telling the truth about her desire not to continue with such a non living existence. I believe Michael over her parents because of all the lies they told and supported being told about Michael by their followers. I saw no reason to reward their treachery with a meat puppet to embue all their angst about death within nor reward what may have been a ploy in the first place to highlight their anti-choice agenda. My choice for "what if" for *me* has nothing to do with her case.

As I said before, but late in the whole discussion, the preponderance of the evidence in the Schiavo case was that Michael was doing what she wished and that the Shindlers would pull any dirty trick to win their way. Michael showed his integrity by turning down TEN MILLION DOLLARS offered to him to turn her over to her parents! Me I'd have taken the money and run, after all Terri wasn't suffering, she was dead, only her husk remained but that which made her 'Terri' was long gone. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that he made a promise and meant to carry it out, enough said.

To support the fact that the Shindlers are liars one need only look at the record. They supported Michael all the way during the medical malpractice trial and for a long time after. Reversing their position means they either lied then or lied in the reversing. I place it in the latter based on what was to be gained by it. I am not unsympathetic to their grief but come on, people need to know when the horse has died and quit whipping it. They dragged the whole country into what should have been a private matter and for this they deserve shame.

Lastly, I'll add this little thought. I am a quadriplegic and due to some health issues I live 99% of my life in bed. I think that gives me a unique perspective on so called "quality of life" issues. Being paralyzed from the shoulders down means I am stuck with whatever is within arms length and beyond that I must bother someone else, disrupt their schedule and all that for anything else I need. At least I am able to reach out to the whole world via my pc and the internet but I would be maddenly trapped if I did not have this outlet. Just try and imagine what life there is if you cannot move and cannot communicate. Imagine what it is like for those that really do have cognition but are as physically disabled as Terri was, sufferers of ALS and Guillain-Barre Syndrome for example. Now extrapolate to having no consciouness at alll! For me, knowing only a sliver of what life would have been like if Terri were minimally conscious as her so called supporters claimed, that would really be pure Hell On Earth! From my unique perspective I cannot side with those that sought to prolong the torturous existence that was Terri's from their distorted perspective. It is montrous to think that people actually hoped she was conscious and they would force her to remain trapped if it were true?

James

Edited by FutureQ, 15 April 2005 - 12:19 AM.


#15 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 April 2005 - 12:02 AM

Shame. I can't make any decisions in PVS. My living will is not difficult to interpret however, but it involves the clause you excluded.

#16 FutureQ

  • Guest
  • 57 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Pacific North West

Posted 15 April 2005 - 06:59 AM

Oh man, I told you guys and gals that being on the wrong side of the Schiavo case was bad for Immortalism. It may even be aiding the enemy. By enemy I mean anyone that would stand in the way of Immortalism and any intrinsic component thereof. To wit, in this case both Stem Cell and all Cloning related research and therapies and Right to Die [needed in cryonics if identity is threatened by brain disorder advance]. I'm probably forgetting something else these scumbags threaten.

I'm a member of PFAW "People for the American Way". I know, the name itself is a Sweeping Generalization, but I didn't give them their name. It's a progressive politics group trying to keep the reigns on out of control radical right wing extremism.

I was looking over their site tonight while getting ready to donate some money to help them with an ad campaign so I clicked on "Right Wing Watch" one of their features. I found this scary as hell shit!

Go here for the whole story. http://www.pfaw.org/....aspx?oid=18300
I've excerpted points below for comment, mine.

Right Wing Watch Online 2005

[begin excerpt]
April: The Right’s Crusade Against the Independent Judiciary

There can be little doubt that the case of Terri Schiavo inflamed passion throughout the country. And those passions, rather than cooling following her death, have fueled a frightening escalation in attacks on the independence of the federal judiciary by far-right groups who have seized it as an opportunity to pressure Senate Republicans into destroying the filibuster and 200 years of Senate tradition.

Beginning on April 7, 2005 the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration hosted a two-day event entitled “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.” Though the JCCCR is a relatively new organization, it is overseen by well-establish right wing figures such as Jerry Falwell, Rick Scarborough, and Phyllis Schlafly. Befitting its pedigree, the conference attracted a myriad of right wing activists and even several members of Congress who all share a passion for, and a mission to, impose their ideology on the federal court system.

Though the Schiavo case was at the forefront of the panelist’s complaints, it soon became clear that they saw it as merely the most recent act of “judicial tyranny” which has thwarted their agenda.

Tom Delay delivered a tape recorded message to open the conference in which he declared that the judiciary has “run amok” and poses a threat to self-government. He went on to warn that Congress must take action to reign in the judiciary and that such actions must be “more than rhetoric.” [end excerpt]
---

Self government? How outrageous! It is the actions of these nutballs that go against the "Grand Ole Party's" historical stance on Self Governance and that relation to States Rights of autonomy! Mr. Lincoln would be thoroughly ashamed, in fact he'd be a Democrat.

---
[begin excerpt]
Edwin Vieira, speaking on a panel focused on “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny,” told the audience that Justice Kennedy need to be impeached for his majority opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas because it "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Vieira then drew “on the wisdom of [Joseph] Stalin,” noting that Stalin “had a slogan and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'" As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank pointed out, the full quote is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."
[end erxcerpt]
---

This punk is alluding to assassinating judges that don't conform to their narrow minded agenda! This is dangerous. Some carzy fool out there will try it. This compounds the verbal incitement from a Republican Senator saying much the same thing this week. This crap has got to be stopped!

---
[begin excerpt]
Against a Hostile Backdrop

The “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” conference was, in many ways, the culmination of weeks of increasingly hostile attacks launched by the Right against the judiciary. Shortly after Schiavo died, right wing figures took to the airwaves to decry the “judicial tyranny” they claimed killed her. Congressman Tom DeLay remarked that Schiavo was the victim of an “arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary” and ominously warned that “the time will come for the [judges] responsible for this to answer for their behavior.”

Others took their outrage one step further and openly accused the court system of murdering Schiavo. The Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly claimed that Florida Probate Judge George Greer had “ruled like a dictator over Terri” and compared him to Dr. Jack Kevorkian while Schiavo’s parents’ attorney declared that “the courts killed her.” The director of Operation Rescue alleged that “the courts of this land have become a tool, in the hands of the devil, by which the culture of death has found access” and failed presidential and Senate candidate Alan Keyes declared that “the judiciary is the focus of evil” in the country today.

James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, also railed against the various courts decisions, noting that “the courts are killing us. Not only with regard to Terri Schiavo, where they literally did kill a person, but what they're doing to democracy.” In a lengthy April newsletter, Dobson compared the courts’ actions to Nazism: “It is eerily similar to what the Nazis did in the 1930s. They began by ‘euthanizing’ the mentally retarded, and from there, it was a small step to mass murder.” A short time later, Dobson went on to compare the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan:

"I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South, and they did great wrong to civil rights and to morality. And now we have black-robed men, and that's what you're talking about."

Dobson and his allies are not content merely to complain and are demanding action, including deploying the “nuclear option” in the Senate and impeaching judges who issue decisions with which they disagree. In the earlier mentioned newsletter, Dobson called Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “the most dangerous man in America,” and demanded that he be impeached “along with [Justices] O’Connor, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.” He went on to declare that “the makeup of the federal judiciary in the coming years will play a key role” in furthering the ultra-conservative agenda and that, as such, “this fight to end obstruction and restore Senate tradition is critical!” [end excerpt]
---

This one probably bugs me the most. One will have to read the following, and forgive me but it is very long, understand my outrage at these, here's a hint, incredibly hypocritical comments. It may require reading at least half of it.

http://www.insider-m...istianMafia.htm

Here is good source for intelligence on what the immoral majority are up to:
http://www.yuricarep...mInAmerica.html

I hope this gets people to understand just how serious the situation is with the current state of affairs in US government. The barbarians aren't "at the gates", they've been inside for years while we've been sleeping. If we don't wake up soon and get this country back on a rational course we'll wake up to the gurgle of our cut throats.

I don't think it's any longer possible to hope that bipartisan support will exist for bringing Immortalism to the mainstream and that everyone will naturally want it. I'm afriad that is naive and does not take into account the hopelessly irrational ideations of a huge number of people American people. These people actually believe they can speed up Bible prohecy by supporting Israel in a manner that will allow for the rebuilding of the temple which the Bible says if rebuilt will herald Christ's return. Such people cannot be reasoned with. Anyone impeding this process is to them in league with he devil. Even suggesting to them they are wrong makes you an agent of Satan. I don't know if any of you have a clue what that means but I've had someone accuse me of such and and it's not a nice place to be. In an instant you are stripped of your humanity, you are made less worthy than an animal and to their thinking death is too good for you.

James

Edited by FutureQ, 15 April 2005 - 07:15 AM.


#17

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 15 April 2005 - 09:33 AM

Michael showed his integrity by turning down TEN MILLION DOLLARS offered to him to turn her over to her parents!



Do you have any evidence that he received such an offer, James?

(In any case, let's wait and see how many MILLIONS "Michael" gets for the book/TV miniseries//film rights).

Schiavo's motives will be revealed in the fullness of time. From any consideration his character is questionable, and I am sure that sooner or later he will have his day.

#18 FutureQ

  • Guest
  • 57 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Pacific North West

Posted 17 April 2005 - 07:46 AM

Michael showed his integrity by turning down TEN MILLION DOLLARS offered to him to turn her over to her parents!


Do you have any evidence that he received such an offer, James?

(In any case, let's wait and see how many MILLIONS "Michael" gets for the book/TV miniseries//film rights).

Schiavo's motives will be revealed in the fullness of time. From any consideration his character is questionable, and I am sure that sooner or later he will have his day.


He and his lawyer said so on CNN. Then last night on a program narated by Bill Curtis, the same information again brought up but with book and movie deal offer thrown in. All were turned down. I highly doubt there'll be any need to wait. It would be extremely against Michael nature and disgust with the way the Shindlers made the whole thing a public spectacle for him to add to it. However, I ould not blame him one damn bit if he did. He's been so badly besmirched he deserves the opportunity to tell his side of the storey.

What surpises me here is the lack of scientific thought amongst people I thought held similar beliefs with the very out of character apparent adherence to superstition, belief in the non corporeal soul. Most Immortalists would ascribe to the materialist position that the neuronal pattern and potential weighting is what allows our emergent consciousness, memories, personality, in other words, our personhood. Moreover the largest difference between more and less evolved species is the latter not having a cerbral cortex. One thing for sure to be *human* to have *Human* "consciousness" one must have a working cerebal cortex. Autopsy will show what the MRI's and the CT scans already showed, she had no cortex left. In other words technically she was already dead. I realize the irony, that if she is already dead why kill the body if someone wants to keep it as a pet? Well, I'd call that a form of slavery. I also support the notion that people shoulkd have a say in the treatment of their body after their legal death. And like I said I believe she wouldn't have wanted that fate for her body and would have wanted her parents to have found closure, something they seem to be avoiding at all cost.

Speaking of MRI's when you are making your case P, please TRY to stick to the truth.

2. Terri was never given MRI, fMRI or PET scans.


This [regarding MRI] is a lie and you know it. Morereover, All the crap about Michael not allowing a *recent* MRI or fMRI is more twisted truth that becomes blatant lie. I listened while Shindler's lawyer explained that Shindler went up north to see if a fMRI could be helpful, better at showing mnimal consciousness. Claiming that they were told yes they returned. Then...

Interviewer, Anderson Cooper:

"Did he [Mr. Shindler] ask Michael if she could have the fMRI...[sic]?"

Lawyer:

"No he knew he'd refuse so he didn't even try....[sic]"

I've placed *[sic]* in these quotes because I can't remember the exact words but this is very close. If I had more time I'm sure I could find the transcript. What I remember very well is how it made me so mad for them to yet again turn such things into "it's all Michael's fault". They passively don't ask him and then allow that to become an active refusal? That's outrageous!

It's high time for some critical thinking in this case.

James

#19

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 17 April 2005 - 12:32 PM

Speaking of MRI's when you are making your case P, please TRY to stick to the truth.



Nothing but the truth pal - don't ever forget it. The excuse against the MRI's was the metal stent that she had been fitted with. There we no MRI's - only CT scans. I've already covered this in other posts and it can also be found in the public record. As for the art and science of determining PVS, a review of the literature will show that it is far more of an art than a science - once more covered in previous posts. Furthermore, there are cases of hydrocephalic individuals who are alive and well and with normal cognitive function yet have only a fraction of the normal amount of cortex. This is as grey an area in neuroscience as it gets.

He and his lawyer said so on CNN. Then last night on a program narated by Bill Curtis, the same information again brought up but with book and movie deal offer thrown in. All were turned down. I highly doubt there'll be any need to wait. It would be extremely against Michael nature and disgust with the way the Shindlers made the whole thing a public spectacle for him to add to it. However, I would not blame him one damn bit if he did. He's been so badly besmirched he deserves the opportunity to tell his side of the storey.



Baloney! So you're basing your assumption that there was a legitimate offer of such money on a TV interview of Michael Schiavo's? You must be kidding! Who made the offer? You have a warped sense of reality when you compare the grief and pain of the entire Shindler family against a guy who's shacked up and already has kids with another woman.

Have you asked yourself why was he so determined to see her euthanized, when in his opinion she was no more than a vegetable? What was the driving motivation? Why did he persistently refuse to entertain any notion of her condition being investigated further - when the medical diagnoses did not concur? Is this the behavior of someone who loves his wife and would do anything to bring her back? Just does not add up.

If I was in his shoes, and thought there was even a 1 chance in a million to bring my wife back, I would do my damnest to keep her around. However, if I was over it and just wanted to start my life then I would want it to be over. I would want her to die so I could be free to enjoy my life with my new family. Of course, that is the most innocent scenario. There are different shades and possibilities.

In any case, he never should have been allowed to be the legal guardian. *This was the fundamental and inexcusable blunder of the legal system.*

It's high time for some critical thinking in this case.



Yeah, but less critical and more thinking.

#20 FutureQ

  • Guest
  • 57 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Pacific North West

Posted 20 April 2005 - 05:04 PM

Nothing but the truth pal - don't ever forget it. The excuse against the MRI's was the metal stent that she had been fitted with. There we no MRI's - only CT scans. I've already covered this in other posts and it can also be found in the public record. As for the art and science of determining PVS, a review of the literature will show that it is far more of an art than a science - once more covered in previous posts. Furthermore, there are cases of hydrocephalic individuals who are alive and well and with normal cognitive function yet have only a fraction of the normal amount of cortex. This is as grey an area in neuroscience as it gets.


So when the court appointed guardian that spent weeks observing Terri said on CNN that in fact she had had two MRI's, he was lying? Perhaps you are paying too much attention to the wrong news sources, specifically the propaganga mill set up by the anti abortionists, and maybe Fox News or similar?

Moreover, Harold, what's the point of an MRI anyway? Why is it so important? Oh, wait, let me guess, it's to show that she was "minimally conscious". And this is so that a case could be made that she could improve with therapy, right? One would expect that within a 15 year span she would have exhibited some spontaneouis improvement if in fact the premise of improvement possibility held true. Why if I recall correctly, in fact, they even trotted out the cases of those other people that did have spontaneous improvement. These were trotted out to bolster their case for Terri being capable of improvement if had been given therapy. Little did they know how damning this was to their case. I have some experience with this area and I can tell you that it does not require therapy for the brain to begin to utilize regenerated neurons. The brain will begin using whatever resources it has regardless. Besides that she was getting a "therapy" of sorts with the machinations of her family members that insisted they saw signs of consciousness and played to those with talking, cooing, touching and a number of things straight from the theories for bringing comatose victims out of coma. If there had been regeneration she would have exhibited improvement somewhere in those 15 years but SHE DID NOTHING OF THE SORT! The MRI issue is a moot point.

Can you think critically enough to to see the implications here? This is called having your cake and eating it too. Or holding two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive logical premises that negate each other.

Do you really discount the estimated 150 doctors that were invo,lkved with her or the 40 odd court actions? Come on!


Baloney! So you're basing ...


Gee, what happened to "balox" and "bullshit"! You get youcool back and re-edit these explitives outt? Maybe you need to take a step back and get some composure and while you are at it get back in touch t=with the "specific neural patern that was *you*" when you wrote the following.

Our current neuroscientific model of cognition and memory suggests that it is based on the spatial pattern of neural connections in discrete regions of the brain. Each individual's unique pattern is dynamically modulated as a function of inheritance and environment. Thus, notwithstanding any vitalist perpectives, the essence of each individual's memory and behavior resides in the unique neural pattern and the regulation of that neural pattern based on genetic and environmental developmental influences.

Anyone with a reasonable scientific grounding can determine the validty of the above for themselves. ....
.....[sic] Theoretically, the memories and personality of the brain - the person - would thus be as recoverable as that of a someone awakening from a long term comatose condition.

....At the end of the day it is a question of education, and those of us in the scientific industry are obligated to foster the requisite knowledge and clarify it from the abounding pseudo-science. ....

.....As a professional scientist, as a father, husband and son, and most importantly as a human being I wholeheartedly support and endorse any method that allows for the preservation of the unique three-dimensional pattern of neural network that comprises the CNS as well as the DNA, irrespective of the degree of cellular damage (so long as the pattern remains intact).

Harold Brenner
Athens, Greece


So you're basing your assumption that there was a legitimate offer of such money on a TV interview of Michael Schiavo's?


Umm, yes! You see I trust that he is a decent human being and that his motivation to endure so many excrutiating years of inhumane abuse was to fulfill a promise to the woman he loved. I do not damn him for finding another woman to love, people are capable of loving more than one person at a time and no one should require him to have remained a celibate monk serving as nurse slave to his invalid wife. Anyone pulling their head out of their collective midievil asses would understand that anyone would deserve to go on with their own lives and enjoy companionship and love. I do not base my opinion on the mad ravings of rabid anti abortionist right wing wacko ultra conservative religious fanatic biased websites that you apparently have gotten your information from.

Apparently you don't understand how damaging to him it would have been to mnake such a claim on national television with a whole nation looking on and with a huge number of them, including hostile (Fox News) media sources, scrutinizing every word for any grist for their mills that they may use to damn him with. And as I said it was corroborated by other sources.

Again, step back and take a breath. If you meant at all what you said about the Arizona legislature Cryonics caper then you need to get back in touch with your thinking processes used then.

Lastly, I done with this. When the autopsy results come in, assuming they are made public, I'll expect to see you eating some well served crow.

James

#21

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 21 April 2005 - 09:46 AM

Perhaps you have too much faith in human nature: "I trust that he is a decent human being and that his motivation to endure so many excrutiating years of inhumane abuse was to fulfill a promise to the woman he loved". I just can't fathom how one can devise this sort of interpretation. Do you know the guy personally?

Irrespectively, I never give up on life - it's far too precious to risk on a nebulous diagnosis - which is why I will always prefer to err on the side of caution rather than the irreversibility of death. We have so much more to learn about the way the body works and just how much can be salvaged by inducing regeneration. I will bet my bottom dollar that future generations would look at this deplorable situation as a blunder - both legally and most importantly, medically. Terri could have still been alive today, in whatever state she was in with hope and the possibilities that the future promises - instead she has been cremated. Period. It's an insane act if one considers that her family were prepared to pick up the tab and were willing to go to such ends to fight for their beliefs.

Anyway, I'm over this - it's far too depressing. Back to the wonderful abstraction of theoretical biology. ;)

#22 FutureQ

  • Guest
  • 57 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Pacific North West

Posted 16 June 2005 - 03:03 AM

Perhaps you have too much faith in human nature: "I trust that he is a decent human being and that his motivation to endure so many excrutiating years of inhumane abuse was to fulfill a promise to the woman he loved". I just can't fathom how one can devise this sort of interpretation. Do you know the guy personally?

Irrespectively, I never give up on life - it's far too precious to risk on a nebulous diagnosis - which is why I will always prefer to err on the side of caution rather than the irreversibility of death. We have so much more to learn about the way the body works and just how much can be salvaged by inducing regeneration. I will bet my bottom dollar that future generations would look at this deplorable situation as a blunder - both legally and most importantly, medically. Terri could have still been alive today, in whatever state she was in with hope and the possibilities that the future promises - instead she has been cremated. Period. It's an insane act if one considers that her family were prepared to pick up the tab and were willing to go to such ends to fight for their beliefs.

Anyway, I'm over this - it's far too depressing. Back to the wonderful abstraction of theoretical biology. :)


My faith in humanity and Michael Schiavo vindicated.

http://www.comcast.n.../15/157166.html

"The autopsy released Wednesday on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding she was severely and irreversibly brain-damaged and blind as well. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed."

So every time the Shindlers trotted out the videos saying, "look she sees us, she's looking at us" she could not possiibly have.

All the lies and vitriol they spewed all the damnable accusations against Michael, all the bullshit our whole country had to go through!! I hope they feel ashamed now.

FQ

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 16 June 2005 - 03:34 AM

An autopsy cannot determine whether she was in a persistent vegetative state or not.

Some people argued that Schiavo was in a "minimally conscious state," a recently formulated condition defined as a notch above "persistent vegetative state." Both states, however, are diagnosed by examining a living patient. Neither can be confirmed with certainty on the basis of autopsy findings. ...Washington Post.

#24 jaydfox

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

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:55 PM

An autopsy cannot determine whether she was in a persistent vegetative state or not.

Perhaps true, but the claims of her family were still just wishful thinking. She was blind. She couldn't have been reacting to them. Her optic nerves were atrophied too much to be functional, from what I read.

#25 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:06 PM

"The diagnosis they (court-appointed doctors) made is exactly right. It's the pathology, I'll respect that. I think it's time to move on," Frist said on CBS' "The Early Show."


---BrianW

#26 Clifford Greenblatt

  • Member
  • 355 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Owings Mills, MD

Posted 18 June 2005 - 05:26 PM

I heard that Terri was given morphine to reduce her pain in the process of death by starvation. If Terri was not sentient during the starvation process, then why was there any concern about her being in pain?

#27

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 18 June 2005 - 11:28 PM

Clifford:

I heard that Terri was given morphine to reduce her pain in the process of death by starvation. If Terri was not sentient during the starvation process, then why was there any concern about her being in pain?


She was probably given morphine to appease those who thought she was minimally conscious, as unlikely as that was.

#28

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 19 June 2005 - 11:29 AM

Prometheus, you don't know enough and don't care too.


On the contrary, I do care enough to strictly constrain my opinion against my knowledge of medical science and law. More importantly, my opinion is not tainted with an incessant need to promulgate a personal political agenda at every turn.

However, it is interesting to note at this stage in the poll that the majority would prefer not to be guided into oblivion via enforced dehydration or some such if they found themselves in similar circumstances. This is in line with a poll conducted earlier on whether it was appropriate to remove the feeding tubes.

#29

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 19 June 2005 - 01:40 PM

You are into murder, dude.


This is utterly baseless and intolerable. We have covered the ad hominem stuff before and you know very well that it will shortly find its way to the catcher. Confine yourself to the topic - if you can't we can continue in a more appropriate forum.

sponsored ad

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

#30 mrfesta

  • Guest
  • 155 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 04:19 AM

Well I believe it is totally does not matter how you die, when you die, and what you knew before you died- it is all same NOTHING, totally nothing!

I think I'd stick around and see what happens since there is still hope in such case...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity


agrees 100% [thumb]




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users