View Full Version : The Terri Schiavo Case.
I am saddened to hear that Terri Schiavo's relatives are being torn apart by her suffering. I am also dismayed by Bush's attempt to intervene in the case.
But most of all I am saddened for Terri Shiavo. Should she die by having her feeding tube removed or should she have her life prolonged?
I have always been on the understanding that starvation/dehydration is one of the worst deaths you can go through. So is this right? Don't get me wrong, I am not a pro-life nutter but I would like to see a peaceful end to Terri's life whenever it comes be it next week or decades from now.
Personally, I am not a religious person so I do not have my concience with God to wrestle with but we would not allow a dog to suffer the same fate as Terri. But I value human life only marginally above the more cognitive of animals, so yes I would end Terri's suffering but in a more 'humane' way. If you were pro-capital punishment wouldn't you question your humane values if we ended a murderers life by denying him food and water as a means of execution?
I agree with you. The woman should be allowed to die but not by denying food and water. Although there might be an arguement that her mental state is so degenerated that she might not be capable of even feeling discomfort. However - how do we know that for sure?
I totally agree that she should be allowed to die without pain and suffering but with any dignity she has left!
as with everyone else.. i agree they should let her die but please dont starve her to death.. isnt there a law to stop it.. isnt that torture of some kind? def inhumane!! must be something that can be done .. why cant they just put her to sleep? for crying out loud!
... there might be an arguement that her mental state is so degenerated that she might not be capable of even feeling discomfort. However - how do we know that for sure?
She has been in a vegetative state for 15 years. My understanding is that most of her brain has atrophied. The primitive part of her brain sustains her breathing, but I doubt she's capable of feeling much or understanding anything.
.. isnt there a law to stop it.. isnt that torture of some kind? def inhumane!! must be something that can be done .. why cant they just put her to sleep? for crying out loud!
As euthanasia is not legal in the US, this is the most humane option available to them.
but it isnt humane at all.. they woundt even execute someone in that way.. they surley shouldt let an innocent person die like that.. a law needs to be passed for euthinization
fingers crossed.. DSS may be stepping in and taking over her case! her evil.. refrains from saying very bad words husband.. dosent even wont the drs to see her !! but they are saying that she is not actually in a veg. state.. but unconcious... they have even arrested children today for trying to give her water!!!
please people !! lets hope something is done!
fingers crossed.. DSS may be stepping in and taking over her case! her evil.. refrains from saying very bad words husband.. dosent even wont the drs to see her !! but they are saying that she is not actually in a veg. state.. but unconcious... they have even arrested children today for trying to give her water!!!
please people !! lets hope something is done!
Oh come on! She's in a persistent vegetative state, as demonstrated time and time again by neurological tests. Her cerebral cortex is atrophied - it is liquid! This is not a coma or anything else, so don't try to dress it as anything other than PVS.
She exhibits only reflexive responses to light and noise, basic swallowing and gag reflex, and sleep/wake cycles, all of which are part of our primitive brain function. She has no higher brain function whatsoever. She shows no sign of cognition, wilful activity or emotion. She's been this way for 15 years!
There is no evidence that she can even experience pain, though without food and water it is likely that she will go into a state of ketosis. In an advanced state of ketosis, the nervous system is dulled, pain is limited and it's even thought that there may be mild euphoria.
There have been unending attempts to slander and libel her husband, who trained as a nurse in an attempt to rehabilitate her and only accepted the PVS diagnosis after 3 years of trying traditional and alternative treatments.
The only doctors who've suggested she could recover (and who just happen to have been hired by her parents) have been discredited.
For pity's sake, let her die. She's been a lifeless shell for 15 years. Of course anyone who tries to give her water will be arrested - that would only prolong the length of time it takes her remaining brain function to shut down.
If you support euthanasia, you're on the wrong side. Bush and his cronies want this woman kept alive out of some misinformed pro-life argument. The same Bush and his cronies who think the death penalty's great. The last people on earth who'll legalise euthanasia in any form.
lynne duncan
24-Mar-05, 09:19
euthanasia is an issue I've discussed at length with my other half, I'm 100% behind euthanasia if that is the person who is sufferings wishes, ie if you right a living will. I personally would hate to be dependant on any other person to totally care for me 24/7 I would prefer to have the right to a dignified choice which I think in this day and age should be a human's choice.
hate to tell you this but im very pro life!!! at the same time i agree that people should be allowed to die in certain cases but not like this! i do not want her to starve to death and if that means keeping her alive until they can legalise euthanization then yes im all for it! think about her mum and dad how they feel.. if it was your child would you want to watch them starve to death?
they may be hanging onto a false dream but at least they are trying!
when you have sat and watched someone you love lit waste away and die a very slow painful death.. even if it isnt painful for her .. which we do not know... how painful is it to her family.. her husband dosent care about her.. thats pretty obvious.. he has his own life he just wants the money.. he wont divorce her even though he has another family and he wont let her family have custody.. ever ask yourself why?
hate to tell you this but im very pro life!!!
So am I, IF there is a quality of life to be lived
at the same time i agree that people should be allowed to die in certain cases but not like this!
So you are not pro-life then? :roll: Under what circumstance do you approve of Euthanasia if this is not a classic case for it?
i do not want her to starve to death
Welcome aboard, neither do I
and if that means keeping her alive until they can legalise euthanization then yes im all for it! think about her mum and dad how they feel.. if it was your child would you want to watch them starve to death?
Do not presume to speak for her parents, you are implying that they would like a more 'humane' way to end Terri's life.
they may be hanging onto a false dream but at least they are trying!
when you have sat and watched someone you love lit waste away and die a very slow painful death.. even if it isnt painful for her .. which we do not know... how painful is it to her family.. her husband dosent care about her.. thats pretty obvious.. he has his own life he just wants the money.. he wont divorce her even though he has another family and he wont let her family have custody.. ever ask yourself why?
Until you have been in the EXACT position as them, you do not know what to think or react to those circumstances.
As America is the last so-called civilised country to have the death penalty, you will personally appreciate the hypocracy of the lawmakers of wanting to end life so readily for a crime and wanting to prolong human suffering when it is the law makers that are not the ones who are actually lying there in the hospital ...
I agree with Lynne. If it was me, I would want to die as humanely and with as much dignity as possible. How can anyone be a hundred per cent sure she does not feel? For all we know the last fifteen years may have been a living hell for her. If it was my child I would want her to be at peace - but not if there was the slightest chance that she could suffer more.
umm im all for the euthanisation! never said i wasnt!
when i said not like this i meant starvation..
and that was what i was trying to get across..
those poor parents.. i know myself as a parent the last thing i would want is to see my child suffering.. and def would not want to see one starved to death.. would rather take a pillow over their face first!
actually as a pro lifer im actually agree with terminally ill peeps who are dying and in exscrusiating pain to be given the option of being put to sleep.. it gives closure.. and familys do not have to watch them waste away and die slowly and painfully.. i think it should be made legal in the US post haste! but no one should be made to suffer the person or the family .. which has happened in this case.. her husband.. is not doing what is best for all but what is best for him.. he wants her to die and he dosent care how she does it... if he loves her so much as he claims then why didnt he fight to get euthanization leagalised and let her go that way instead of doing what ever he can to get her to die any way he can?
I think they should let her go peacefully. The doctors can ensure she feels no pain or discomfort from her "starvation" and therefore it should be a peaceful way to go. Starving someone in this situation is not like starving a person who has all their faculties.
Her poor husband and her poor parents will never ever recover from this and to suggest that a man who has clearly demonstrated a high level of commitment and love for this woman is evil shows a lack of compassion and empathy.
There is no place for politics and posturing by Bush and his cronies in this situation. The decision should be a clinical and legal decision and not a political decision.Each of these cases must be judged on its own in isolation with reference to the individual concerned and these cases should never become a political football.
George Brims
24-Mar-05, 18:22
The people "trying to give her water" were simply marching up to the hospice door clutching bottled water, in order to be arrested on TV to make a point. [Added later] Apparently they were ten year old kids pushed forward from the crowd of demonstrators by their parents.
The ONE doctor who has come forward to give an opinion that she has been mis-diagnosed (by countless doctors over 15 years!?) has not actually seen her, except on video tape, and (it is alleged) is connected to pro-life groups.
If the Bush brothers actually cared about cases like this they would be trying to pass a law legalising assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, not trying to bypass the existing law and constitution. But then this is the administration that has so much respect for law it thinks the Geneva Conventions are "quaint".
For pity sake they cannont let a human being die through starvation and/or no water! An animal would get put to sleep by the vet if it were in a severe state through this diabolical and barbaric way.
No one has the right to take anothers life, but if my own family and I had made the choice that we were to die rather than live on machines then I would have to respect their wishes, hard as it would be.
Personally I have no wish to life on a machine. My husband is of the same opinion, but on the other hand my son would be a different matter. At present he is to young to make up his own mind as to whether or not a machine can keep him alive until a medical miracle came along. This is a very difficult thing for anyone to go through and I really hope that the descision is one that I never have to make.[/u]
This site has more info into the case.
http://www.terrisfight.net
After visiting this site I feel sick. I was under the impression that this woman was in a totally vegitated state, and should be allowed to die, but now my opinion has changed drastically. Her brain is obviously funcioning. Her face lit up when she saw her mother, so she is aware. She responds to music and obviously did not want the doctor to take a swab from her mouth. The spark that was Terri is still there and if it was my daughter I would fight to the bitter end to keep her alive. The only question in my mind is, are these clips current?
I can't see any court ruling that she be condemmed to death the way she appears in these videos - that would be nothing short of murder.
Her husband isn't the angel that the UK press originally cracked him up to be. It can be argued that he is using her to gain money, allegedly...
Her husband isn't the angel that the UK press originally cracked him up to be. It can be argued that he is using her to gain money, allegedly...
And if he doesn't want her any more, why not just give custody to her parents and move on? I did think (to give him the benifit of the doubt) that he may be catholic and therefore not believe in divorce - BUT then he would also be pro life. So that theory is out the window. It seems more likely that he is seeing her fortune dwindling away and wants to grab what little is left before it's too late, although allegedly there is not all that much left. OR he could just want rid of her and won't give her to her parents because he is a control freak -Are there any sites that give his side of the arguement?
In either case, withing six months there will probably be a film made out of it and SOMEONE will make a more than a few bucks.
This site has more info into the case.
http://www.terrisfight.net
This is absolutely the most skewed site you're going to have the misfortune to visit. At least be objective here, please. Her parents now have a serious agenda, having been 'taken under the wing' of pro-lifers. The same pro-life neo-cons who use the death penalty on any criminal that suits them, including those with the mental age of a child. Utter hypocrites.
After visiting this site I feel sick. I was under the impression that this woman was in a totally vegitated state, and should be allowed to die, but now my opinion has changed drastically. Her brain is obviously funcioning. Her face lit up when she saw her mother, so she is aware. She responds to music and obviously did not want the doctor to take a swab from her mouth. The spark that was Terri is still there and if it was my daughter I would fight to the bitter end to keep her alive. The only question in my mind is, are these clips current?
I can't see any court ruling that she be condemmed to death the way she appears in these videos - that would be nothing short of murder.
They have take hours and hours and hours of tape - they have then made available tiny snippets that appear to give the image they want. For example, they moved a balloon past her face 400 times. Do you see them do that 400 times? Of course not - you see the single occasion when she appeared to watch it go by. It was a fluke.
Her cerebral cortex is liquid. She has no higher brain function whatsoever. The doctors who've claimed she is not in a vegetative state have been discredited. There is a nurse who claimed in an affidavit that Terri was capable of speaking, among other things. Judge Greer dismissed her claims as 'incredible' (ie not credible).
She's a 'living' shell. Nothing of what Terri was is still there. She's lived a life without dignity for 15 years. For pity's sake let her go.
The Pepsi Challenge
25-Mar-05, 13:52
After visiting this site I feel sick. I was under the impression that this woman was in a totally vegitated state, and should be allowed to die, but now my opinion has changed drastically. Her brain is obviously funcioning. Her face lit up when she saw her mother, so she is aware. She responds to music and obviously did not want the doctor to take a swab from her mouth. The spark that was Terri is still there and if it was my daughter I would fight to the bitter end to keep her alive. The only question in my mind is, are these clips current?
I can't see any court ruling that she be condemmed to death the way she appears in these videos - that would be nothing short of murder.
They have take hours and hours and hours of tape - they have then made available tiny snippets that appear to give the image they want. For example, they moved a balloon past her face 400 times. Do you see them do that 400 times? Of course not - you see the single occasion when she appeared to watch it go by. It was a fluke.
Her cerebral cortex is liquid. She has no higher brain function whatsoever. The doctors who've claimed she is not in a vegetative state have been discredited. There is a nurse who claimed in an affidavit that Terri was capable of speaking, among other things. Judge Greer dismissed her claims as 'incredible' (ie not credible).
She's a 'living' shell. Nothing of what Terri was is still there. She's lived a life without dignity for 15 years. For pity's sake let her go.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And what about Bush, huh? Doesn't lose a wink of sleep about the thousands of innocent people he's helped kill in the Middle East, now he's fighting tooth 'n' nail to keep her alive. A token vote for the religious right or what? Sick. Let her go, please.
Her husband isn't the angel that the UK press originally cracked him up to be. It can be argued that he is using her to gain money, allegedly...
Another manipulation by the pro-lifers (sigh).
Terri was bulimic. They were trying for a baby and having trouble. They saw many doctors, none of whom bothered to prescribe tests which would have discovered her potassium imbalance. It was this imbalance that led to her heart attack, which led to her brain being without oxygen for several minutes, which led to her PVS.
He sued over her misdiagnosis and was awarded $1.2 million. He trained as a nurse to care for her. He tried traditional and alternative treatments to aid her rehabilitation for 3 years before he finally accepted that she was PVS. All of the money has been spent on her care (it has been 15 years after all) and there is no money left.
He has won every single court judgement. The judges find him to be a highly credible witness. He believes Terri would not want to live this way, so he continues to campaign for her case. He IS her next of kin.
Her parents, on the other hand, have said that even if they were certain that she wouldn’t want to be alive in her condition (as her husband argues), they would still never agree to the cessation of feeding. They are not prepared to let her go, and what her wishes may or may not have been appear to count for nothing.
The allegations against her husband appear to be nothing more that slander and libel, and it disgusts me how easily these appear to be propagated by people who've read the pro-lifers propaganda.
Katarina - the husband doesn't appear to have a website as such. He's not interested in publicity or public sympathy. He's just trying to observe her wishes by seeing the case through the courts.
I have found this interview (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/27/lkl.00.html) with him and his lawyer. Puts a different slant on it, huh?
The Pepsi Challenge
25-Mar-05, 14:10
If you want to feel better about pro-lifers (i.e. laugh at them), then check out anything Bill Hicks ever said about them.
If you want to feel better about pro-lifers (i.e. laugh at them), then check out anything Bill Hicks ever said about them.
Yeh definatley, there was the whole Bill Hicks/Tonight Show/Pro Lifers incident. Bill Hicks was so anti Pro-Life he died young.
The allegations against her husband appear to be nothing more that slander and libel, and it disgusts me how easily these appear to be propagated by people who've read the pro-lifers propaganda.
Katarina - the husband doesn't appear to have a website as such. He's not interested in publicity or public sympathy. He's just trying to observe her wishes by seeing the case through the courts.
I have found this interview (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/27/lkl.00.html) with him and his lawyer. Puts a different slant on it, huh?
It does, but I'm still not one hundred percent convinced. If he still loves his wife so much, as one person asked, would SHE really want to see the people closest to her at each other's throats? If he is so hell bent on honouring his wife's wishes, why not imagin what she would say now if she could. I think her words would be - 'I'm unaware anyway please let it go. Please stop fighting.' but then I'm just putting myself in her position.
Her face did light up in that clip when she saw her mother, and even if it was just once in four hours, for these few seconds she was aware.
Okay, so he's not the monster they are making out, and I'm sure he believes in what he's doing, but he is doing it as much for himself as the parents are doing it for themselves. In the mean time Terri is suffeing a living death. I think it would be anyone's wish not to be allowed to live like that, but are the people concerned sure that it has not just become a battle of wills? I accept it doesn't seem to be aboput money since there is so little left.
And it does concern me a little that the husband would not take a lie detector test or allow a 24hr cameras to be installed. Surely that would prove something to a lot of people, if nothing else.
It does, but I'm still not one hundred percent convinced. If he still loves his wife so much, as one person asked, would SHE really want to see the people closest to her at each other's throats? If he is so hell bent on honouring his wife's wishes, why not imagin what she would say now if she could. I think her words would be - 'I'm unaware anyway please let it go. Please stop fighting.' but then I'm just putting myself in her position.
And her parents shouldn't do the same thing? You're right, she almost certainly wouldn't want to see those closest to her arguing… but then should she (and her husband) forgo her right to decide on her future because her parents can't let her go? Do her parents carry no responsibility for this in your eyes?
Her face did light up in that clip when she saw her mother, and even if it was just once in four hours, for these few seconds she was aware.
You did read the interview Drutt linked to… didn't you?
And it does concern me a little that the husband would not take a lie detector test or allow a 24hr cameras to be installed. Surely that would prove something to a lot of people, if nothing else.
Prove what? That he doesn't see why his civil liberties should be trampled upon to pander to the delusions of his wife's parents? That he thinks his wife has suffered enough and, PVS or no PVS, doesn't see why she should be under 24-hour surveillance? Or were you trying to accuse him of something else here?
A former nurse of Terri has gone on record accusing the husband of neglecting Terri's diabetic condition. If that won't aid her end , I don't know what will.
Alas this is another part of this case that seems to muddy the waters.
Would that be the same nurse Drutt mentioned? The one whose 'incredible' affidavit was dismissed by a judge?
A former nurse of Terri has gone on record accusing the husband of neglecting Terri's diabetic condition. If that won't aid her end , I don't know what will.
Alas this is another part of this case that seems to muddy the waters.
The nurse who has made accusations about Terri's husband is Carla Sauer Lyer. Here is her affidavit (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm), in which she clearly appears to have an agenda. I wonder about the circumstances under which she left the hospital she worked for. It speaks volumes that the only news organization to link to this affidavit is Fox News. You can see from this article (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001) that Judge Greer dismissed her allegations as 'incredible' (i.e.not credible).
I don't see any muddied waters, except for those muddied by the pro-lifers. Why are you continuing to peddle this nonsense? Can't you see that her parents' website is trying to play you like a puppet?
Her face did light up in that clip when she saw her mother, and even if it was just once in four hours, for these few seconds she was aware.
Her cerebral cortex has atrophied, it is liquid, she is not aware of anything.
Her amygdala/primitive brain/reptilian brain (however you'd wish to term it) is the only part of her brain which is intact. It is responsible for reflexes, and primitive functions. This part of the brain cannot develop awareness. The only part of her brain that could be responsible for awareness no longer exists.
I don't see any muddied waters, except for those muddied by the pro-lifers. Why are you continuing to peddle this nonsense? Can't you see that her parents' website is trying to play you like a puppet?
Muah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
You obviously have not read my opening post in this thread. Just because I present stuff from the prolife campaign doesn't mean I advocate it. On such an emotive issue as this, I advocate considering all evidence and giving equal attention to all. Clearly , you dismiss any ideas out of hand if they don't comply with your idea of decency.
You are not the only one who should have an opinion...
[quote="jjcAnd her parents shouldn't do the same thing? You're right, she almost certainly wouldn't want to see those closest to her arguing… but then should she (and her husband) forgo her right to decide on her future because her parents can't let her go? Do her parents carry no responsibility for this in your eyes?]
I meant that for both of them. And yes I did read the interview. and yes it did make me see another side. there are usually three sides to every story - both sides and the truth.
And if he is willing to go on national television to allow people to see his side, why should he not take a lie detector? I would. and no, I'm not accusing him of anything else. Surely 24hr survelance would prove the point he was himself making. That she did not respond at all. and that the clips were just quick flashes, nothing to do with what was going on at the time. Again If I was pillaried by the public, and wanted to show a court that she made these noises all the time,that they meant nothing and that her apparent recognition of her mother was merely a reflex action (if this was true then she would have the same reaction from time to time when there was no one there) I'm sure I would.
Her amygdala/primitive brain/reptilian brain (however you'd wish to term it) is the only part of her brain which is intact. It is responsible for reflexes, and primitive functions. This part of the brain cannot develop awareness. The only part of her brain that could be responsible for awareness no longer exists.
See my above post. If the husband had allowed 24hr survelance, then he could have proved this point. since he won't there must always be a question of why? Especially in the minds of the parents.
He did sound sincere in most things, there's just a few things that don't add up here.
Muah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh for heaven's sake.
You obviously have not read my opening post in this thread. Just because I present stuff from the prolife campaign doesn't mean I advocate it. On such an emotive issue as this, I advocate considering all evidence and giving equal attention to all. Clearly , you dismiss any ideas out of hand if they don't comply with your idea of decency.
You are not the only one who should have an opinion...
And in all honesty, I have a great deal of respect for anyone who bothers to actually hold an opinion and justify it. I can't be bothered with those who will play devil's advocate for the fun of it. That website is an example of appalling, misleading propaganda which has sucked in many people already and will continue to do so. It is not a website that counts as 'evidence'.
Get an opinion, Rheghead, then maybe we can have a debate.
Again If I was pillaried by the public, and wanted to show a court that she made these noises all the time,that they meant nothing and that her apparent recognition of her mother was merely a reflex action (if this was true then she would have the same reaction from time to time when there was no one there) I'm sure I would.
Actually, I think you'll find that she does make all sorts of noises and movements whether there's anyone in the room or not, or whether there's any attempt at stimulation or not. Her behaviours are random, reflexive and not in response to anything.
Her husband doesn't want her subjected to surveillance because he thinks her life is undignified enough already, without her nappy changes and washing being taped. I would agree with him.
I have got an opinion, read my opening post.
Presenting stuff which I don't believe in is not playing devils advocate. I presented it with a value neutral comment like ' here is a website with some info'.
I also said comments about her old nurse. Again, a value neutral statement. Just to balance up the debate.
However you are too blind behind your opinion to accept that others have such such a wrestle with their faith on such a subject. I respect their views but I don't condemn them as being cruel to Terri.
So far, you have tried to describe her human brain in terms of liquid, reptilian, atrophied etc. I am just waiting for you to come out with 'mush' and 'mince' comments!
If you are the big expert on the true nature of conciousness then you have so far outsmarted all theologians, pschologists and Brain surgeons that have ever been.
I doubt it. Since you have turned this discussion into a personal attack on me , I have reciprocated likewise, since you did it first, I take it that you have lost the arguement.
I have got an opinion, read my opening post.
Presenting stuff which I don't believe in is not playing devils advocate. I presented it with a value neutral comment like ' here is a website with some info'.
I also said comments about her old nurse. Again, a value neutral statement. Just to balance up the debate.
I tried to point out where your 'stuff' is propaganda and has been discredited, yet you continued to peddle it. I'd rather deal with actual truths than with this nonsense.
However you are too blind behind your opinion to accept that others have such such a wrestle with their faith on such a subject. I respect their views but I don't condemn them as being cruel to Terri.
I'm not blinded. I know my opinion and I've attempted to provide credible evidence to justify it.
I respect someone whose theological beliefs mean that they would rather see her live. I cannot offer the same respect where discredited beliefs about her prognosis are propagated.
I would prefer that a more humane form of euthanasia was available for her, but the US is highly unlikely to legalise euthanasia in the near future.
So far, you have tried to describe her human brain in terms of liquid, reptilian, atrophied etc. I am just waiting for you to come out with 'mush' and 'mince' comments!
We all have a reptilian brain. It is the primitive brain that early animals, like reptiles, have, and it's at the top of the brain stem. When we evolved into mammals we developed a mammalian brain, ie the cerebral cortex, through which we developed advanced functioning, awareness and a sense of self. This is accepted fact and I presume that we don't need to get into further neuropsychological details here. Google it if you're still not convinced.
Atrophied is a clinical term. Liquid is a factual term, when describing her cerebral cortex. As such I'm afraid I don't understand the objections to these terms being used. I would not use the terms mush or mince as they do not apply here.
If you are the big expert on the true nature of conciousness then you have so far outsmarted all theologians, pschologists and Brain surgeons that have ever been.
The functions of the lobes, the cerebellum and the brain stem are well known. We do not attribute a sense of self/consciousness to those animals with only a reptilian brain. Therefore it would be inappropriate and misguided to apply the notion of consciousness to a human in whom the only functioning part of the brain is the reptilian brain. Blame René Descartes if it's a problem for you.
I doubt it. Since you have turned this discussion into a personal attack on me , I have reciprocated likewise, since you did it first, I take it that you have lost the arguement.
You tell yourself that, if it makes you feel better.
And if he is willing to go on national television to allow people to see his side, why should he not take a lie detector?
Why should he take a lie-detector test? He has won every court case brought against him and he has won every court case he has brought. He clearly says in the interview that he isn’t interested in how others judge him, only in fighting for what his wife wanted so the only purpose this lie-detector test could serve is to make you feel better.
Surely 24hr survelance would prove the point he was himself making. That she did not respond at all. and that the clips were just quick flashes, nothing to do with what was going on at the time. Again If I was pillaried by the public, and wanted to show a court that she made these noises all the time,that they meant nothing and that her apparent recognition of her mother was merely a reflex action (if this was true then she would have the same reaction from time to time when there was no one there) I'm sure I would.
The interview you read clearly says that the full, unedited videos of his wife were available to the court but that he asked that they not be made public because he didn’t think that it was proper for film showing his wife’s condition to be broadcast for public consumption. So, just as with the lie-detector test, this idea of 24-hour surveillance has nothing to do with proving his case in court (he’s already done that) and is simply something that would make you feel better.
Of course, that her parents might have raised these two ideas knowing full well that he would refuse and they could hold them up as ‘evidence’ of his deviousness never crossed your mind, did it?
George Brims
26-Mar-05, 01:24
I'll tell you why he should NOT take a lie detector test. Lie detectors DO NOT WORK. They are inadmissible in a court of law. The FBI and CIA have used them for years and haven't uncovered a single spy in their ranks. On the other hand, several people later uncovered as spies had previously passed the tests without any problems. Pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo would be the best description of these devices.
The fact we are all discussing this desperately sad case (along with millions of other people worldwide) is itself desperately sad. It should have been a private affair between the husband, the parents and the doctors, with the courts involved only when they couldn't resolve it between them, and no publicity.
So far, you have tried to describe her human brain in terms of liquid, reptilian, atrophied etc. I am just waiting for you to come out with 'mush' and 'mince' comments!
We all have a reptilian brain. It is the primitive brain that early animals, like reptiles, have, and it's at the top of the brain stem. When we evolved into mammals we developed a mammalian brain, ie the cerebral cortex, through which we developed advanced functioning, awareness and a sense of self. This is accepted fact and I presume that we don't need to get into further neuropsychological details here. Google it if you're still not convinced.
Atrophied is a clinical term. Liquid is a factual term, when describing her cerebral cortex. As such I'm afraid I don't understand the objections to these terms being used. I would not use the terms mush or mince as they do not apply here.
If you are the big expert on the true nature of conciousness then you have so far outsmarted all theologians, pschologists and Brain surgeons that have ever been.
The functions of the lobes, the cerebellum and the brain stem are well known. We do not attribute a sense of self/consciousness to those animals with only a reptilian brain. Therefore it would be inappropriate and misguided to apply the notion of consciousness to a human in whom the only functioning part of the brain is the reptilian brain. Blame René Descartes if it's a problem for you.
Thank you for that 'scientific and clinical explanation'.
OK, I take your point entirely, but I am putting my DA's hat back on. Now all mercy killing judgements should take place in a court of law Yes? So I suppose DA can mean either for Devil's Advocate or District Attorney, take your pick.
Here goes.
You have explained away that Terri's brain is liquid, atrophied or reptilian. I agree. But consider this. Some months ago I was watching a TV documentary about people who had no brains that lived normal lives. Yes their brains were liquid, they could be described as atrophied or even reptillian. In fact they defied all expert opinion on the conventional ideas of brain physiology. Their brains consisted of about 80-90% liquid with a thin lining of grey matter around the lining of the skull.
No cerebellum, no cerebral cortex, no lobes just a thin lining of grey matter on the underside layer of the skull.
If I hypothetically 'switched' a CAT scan of one of these brains with one of Terri Schiavo's brain scans in one of the Schiavo hearings, would you agree there is a possibility that the Judge would come to the SAME conclusion? Even though these brains were perfectly healthy?
I have established that people with liquid/ little brain can live normal lives, and you do not need a normally structured brain to havea quality of life.
Two years ago, a friend of mine was involved in a car accident. He spent several minutes if not an hour by the roadside without breathing properly. As a result, several weeks later they were going to switch off his life support machine off on the Sunday morning. On the Saturday night, I prayed for my friend,( the first time that I had done since childhood).. Lo and behold, on the Sunday, he was sat up in bed chatting to his wife. Power of prayer or not, you got to admit that that was a 'result'. He still has brain damage, it is obvious in his speech, but he goes to work now.
Nor should we be fooled by Terri's outward signs, Stephen Hawking has one of the best functioning brains but it is so damaged by disease that he looks similiar to Terri.
If you accept that a person can live a normal life with a liquid brain AND they can think rationallly with the outward signs of a vegetable, then you have to accept that , given this, there may be a case for letting Terri live until medical advances can help her?
Now couple this evidence with the stuff (rightfully or wrongfully) from the Terrisfight website, can you now agree it would be a brave Judge to order that the feeding tube be removed?
If you accept that my points above have mitigated even in the slightest way in your stance on this case, then you will accept that the Judges decision is unsafe, ie reasonable doubt.
My 2 points being, there are many points to cases like this, maybe a courtroom is not the best place for judgements as these?
My last point being, it is very dangerous to go down the majority held point of view just on the basis that it MAY be the most likely one to be correct.
Yes, let Terri go peacefully, but do it on the end of a syringe, not like this. A dangerous judgement, but only probably the most merciful...
Her husband doesn't want her subjected to surveillance because he thinks her life is undignified enough already, without her nappy changes and washing being taped. I would agree with him.
Okay, I agree that part should not be taped. Switch it off when the undignified stuff happens and leave it on the rest of the time. Did you not read the statement by her lawyer? Are you saying her lawyer is a liar? And you can't deny her face did light up - random or know - that to me shows emotion.
He clearly says in the interview that he isn’t interested in how others judge him, only in fighting for what his wife wanted so the only purpose this lie-detector test could serve is to make you feel better.
Then why go on national television in the first place? He is clearly contradicting himself. And I think it might make the family feel better if they could believe him - did you ever think of that?
Okay, I agree that part should not be taped. Switch it off when the undignified stuff happens and leave it on the rest of the time.
I, like her husband, think that showing her in a completely vegetative state, non-responsive to stimuli, is pretty undignified… so if the only parts of her life which will be taped are those rare coincidences when one of her involuntary actions happens to occur at exactly the same time as, say, a balloon is passed in front of her face for the 400th time are we not simply repeating the exercise already carried out by her parents?
And you can't deny her face did light up - random or know - that to me shows emotion.
No, it shows that her facial muscles are still attached to her nervous system… that would be where the 'random' part comes into things… :roll:
Then why go on national television in the first place?
Because her parents (and their pro-life supporters) seem to want to try this case in the court of public opinion rather than have to worry about that annoying law stuff… it's just possible that the only way to win the fight for what his wife wanted was to stand up in public and open himself up to scrutiny – however much he personally would like to avoid it. Did you ever think of that?
------
Anyway, the reason I came back into this thread was to post the following:
It would seem that the Schindlers have done their supporters proud and sold their details to any right-wing, pro-life nut-job with a spare $500...
[T]he Schindlers have authorised a direct-mailing firm to sell a list of the people who have supported them financially in recent weeks. It means that thousands of people who have felt moved to help them will be inundated with e-mails, letters and phone-calls from anti-abortion and other conservative groups. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=624671)
…so that's nice (and honest) of them. [disgust]
The Pepsi Challenge
30-Mar-05, 17:34
I don't agree with removing her feeding tube: what a painful, drawn out way to die. Why not give her a lethal injection? Her death would be quick. The whole matter has broken my heart.
The Floridian authorities have shown great disrespect to Terri Schiavo's body, starvingand dehydrating her to death was wrong, they may have just thrown her to the pigs. It would have been a lot quicker, less suffering, more economical, more environmentally friendly, less fuss.
The Floridian authorities have shown great disrespect to Terri Schiavo's body, starvingand dehydrating her to death was wrong, they may have just thrown her to the pigs. It would have been a lot quicker, less suffering, more economical, more environmentally friendly, less fuss.
Emotive twaddle… I don’t think anybody (least of all her husband) would call for this withdrawal of food & water if there had been a quicker alternative but the simple fact is that there is not a quicker alternative.
I’m not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that withdrawing her food & water is bad for the environment either… but suspect that you are (just for a change) simply posting guff in an attempt to start an argument. :roll:
I don’t think anybody (least of all her husband) would call for this withdrawal of food & water if there had been a quicker alternative but the simple fact is that there is not a quicker alternative.
In all reality, is there any difference between removing the feeding tube and injecting her with a lethal overdose, except one is a slow death and one is a quick one? I mean, they are both lethal acts.
I thought all laws should be at least have a basis in morality.
[… it's just possible that the only way to win the fight for what his wife wanted was to stand up in public and open himself up to scrutiny – however much he personally would like to avoid it. Did you ever think of that?
[disgust]
ok so he decided to go public. so why not go the whole hog? makes me wonder.
In all reality, is there any difference between removing the feeding tube and injecting her with a lethal overdose, except one is a slow death and one is a quick one? I mean, they are both lethal acts.
For Terri? No… and even the speed of death isn’t an issue as she has no awareness of anything that is happening around her, to her or in her… let alone that she is hungry, thirsty or dying.
For her family? There is really only one difference and, as you said, that’s the speed of death. Once the decision was made the injection could have been given and her family (husband and parents) could begin the grieving process. Instead they have had all of these days of mental torture asking themselves the ‘what ifs’, ‘perhapses’ and ‘maybes’.
The Pepsi Challenge
30-Mar-05, 21:14
Are you suggesting she can't feel pain?
George Brims
30-Mar-05, 21:16
She is not feeling any pain as she is being given morphine.
Are you suggesting she can't feel pain?
Can she feel pain? I wonder. If her brain is liquid or atrophied it could be argued that she can't thus she doesn't need the morphine. Even if she does feel pain, only if she can come to a decision that it is unpleasant does it require the need to suppress it, if she can't then why the morphine?
For whose benefit is she being given morphine, for us? :roll:
Are you suggesting she can't feel pain?
Medical consensus is that no, she cannot feel pain in her condition… and even if her condition didn’t mean that she effectively isn’t feeling pain, the withdrawal of food and water will send her body into a state of ketosis which not only dulls the nervous system, it can also produce a state of mild euphoria.
Actually, withdrawal of food and water is a surprisingly natural way to die. Terminal cancer patients will often simply stop eating several weeks before death.
She is not feeling any pain as she is being given morphine.
Another case of a misleading statement by her parents.
Her father says that he is concerned about the effects of the morphine she is being (that’s being) given ‘to relieve her pain’, conjuring up an image of a painful and horrific death.
Hospice records, however, show that she has been given just two low doses of morphine. The first was given on March 19th and the second on March 26th and she is not on a morphine drip.
ok so he decided to go public. so why not go the whole hog? makes me wonder.
At a guess I'd say that it's because he doesn't actually want the publicity that her parents have sought and has therefore done the minimum required to counter their baseless accusations and lies.
but dont you think it was ridiculous when his lawyer came out and said that she looked beautiful and at peace and her skin was not peeling and her lips where not cracked and bleeding?
just curious have they found a miriacle drug that stops the signs of dehydration?
shakes head..
she is dying at least they can be honest and not put on a show calling her parents and brothers and sisters liars by saying that she looked beautiful and at peace .. when obviously her body would not look beautiful..
when obviously her body would not look beautiful..
To whom?
People can look beautiful to those who love them even when they are dying
it was her husbands lawyer that said it.. not a loved on e*grrr* if it was a famly memeber that said she looked at peace and tranquil .. would have been dif but a bloody lawyer!
Wasnt he commenting on behalf of her husband though -isnt that what lawyers do?
no he came out and said he had just come from visiting her and was waxing poetic on how well she looked .. he said her lips were not cracked and bleeding nor was her skin peeling as her family said..
Have you actually seen her to be able to refute his claims? She is, is she not, in a hospice for the terminally ill? Isn't there a slim chance that the staff there know how to look after the dying? I mean, they are faced with this situation daily.
And whilst I'm here… her parents have claimed that, hours before her feeding tube was removed, Terri tried to say 'I want to live' but was only able to say 'AHHHH WAAAAA'… the same noises which doctors have categorically stated are 'involuntary moans consistent with someone in a vegetative state'. Her sister publicly claimed that Terri is 'still trying to talk' and that her facial expression is one of pleading.
An EEG has shown that there is no electrical activity and a CAT scan has shown massive atrophy. Aside from her brain stem, almost all that is in Terri's head are connective tissues and spinal fluid. Terri simply has no brain – let alone the level of conscious thought required to attempt speech or make more than spasmodic facial expressions.
Is there any reason why you have not attacked the parents or sister for their blatant lies in the same manner as you are attacking Michael Schiavo's lawyer?
Is there any reason why her parents' suggestion that the staff at the hospice were planning to kill Terri with a morphine overdoes passed you by without comment?
[disgust]
yes there is a reason why im not attacking her parents and family .. because for teh simple fact their are mad with grief... its as simple as that.. i dont disagree that terrie should be let to die.. my argument was always how they are letting her die.. slowly and if not painfully for her then for those that love her..
as for the medical team being able to make her look good?
have you ever seen pictures of anyone or thing that is starved to death?
your face starts to sink in on itself your skin starts to peel away.. your lips literly dry up shrivel and bleed.. your tounge swells and turns black.. without rehydrating her their is no way to make her look any dif. than that..
her family is hearing what they want to hear that she is there with them..
and i dont belive for one sec that we know the whole story by a long shot so we dont really know what is and is not true.. but common sence tells you that if she has not had anything to eat or drink since mid march then yes.. she is going to look really bad.. and prob skelatal at that.. so when a lawyer comes out and says that she looks great and her skin isnt peeling and lips arnt cracked you know he is lying or that they are feeding her and giving her water.. which the guards standing round her.. wont allow
i have a link to a starvation experiment.. it is very explicit.. as it is a naked woman .. who has been purposfully starved to death .. do not think i am allowed to post it here but if anyone wants to see the effect of starvation let me know.. and will give you the link.. will ask if is ok to post on here as well
oh what a loving husband .. she finally dying and he wont let her parents be there.. they have begged him even offerd to get a mediator... and he is still refusing to let them be at her bedside when she dies.. yeah very loving that!
my argument was always how they are letting her die.. slowly and if not painfully for her then for those that love her..
I agree that it's not a nice thing for her family (and that includes her husband) to go through… but the alternative is that our own wishes concerning our medical treatment are ignored in order to spare those around us. That can't be right surely?
as for the medical team being able to make her look good?
The symptoms you list are all potential symptoms of dehydration… but that's potential, not always. So Felos's specific claim that Terri Schiavo's lips are not bleeding and her skin is not peeling might be accurate. And I'm no medical expert, but as Terri isn't lying alone in a desert somewhere but is, instead, in a hospice with medical staff in attendance, isn't it possible that somebody might apply moisturising cream to any areas of skin which appear to be drying?
Terri Schiavo has died. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4398131.stm)
Thirteen days after her feeding tube was removed..! Peace for her at last
oh what a loving husband .. she finally dying and he wont let her parents be there.. they have begged him even offerd to get a mediator... and he is still refusing to let them be at her bedside when she dies.. yeah very loving that!
Ah - so this shows the true measure of the man. He was so keen to carry out his wife's wishes - he says - would she not have wished her parents to be there at the end? Seems to me if his actions were, as he claims, all done for this wife he loves, then he would not have acted this way. This thing that was niggling at me after i read his interview has just grown stronger!
Thank God she is at peace!
George Brims
31-Mar-05, 18:59
One of the results of all the conflict and argument between the husband and the rest of the family is that one of the courts dealing with the case mandated that he and the rest of them should not be in the room at the same time, so if he was to be there with her then they could not. Pretty sad all round.
no they offered to let a mediater be there so that they could all be there that was just his mule headedness
It seems that the reason her father was not in the room is that he had had a 'dispute with law enforcement' when he had previously refused to leave the room to allow nurses to carry out an examination of Terri. Her brother was in the room when she died.
I think we should all stoop squabbling about this now and any comments should be added to the other thread.
My thoughts are with her family and i hope they can find some reconciliation
There are many who believe that she was not a vegetable, but was a human being and should have been treated accordingly.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.