Schiavo

[time]

I don't want to start a fight here - I'm genuinely perplexed. Can someone who believes in this explain to me: why? I like to think I can put myself in a lot of people's shoes, but I'm unable to comprehend the mindset behind the protests.

 

[mubs]

You're not clear, time; somebody who believes in what? Keeping her alive or withdrawing support? This issue has been debated ad nauseam in the media already.

 

[time]

Keeping her "alive". From what I hear, 4 out of 5 Americans oppose intervention. Surely someone here can explain how the other 20% is reasoning?

 

[Handruin]

I assume it's making a decent amount of press time in your area? It's all the news can talk about here...I feel she should be let go peacefully if she really is in a vegetative state.

 

[sechs]

I always see these things as a quality of life versus quantity of life issue.

Some people believe that all life is precious, no matter how poor the quality. And, unless it's food.

Others believe that a poor life is not one worth living.

In this particular case, some parties are given to the idea that quality exists where medicine and law have clearly stated that there is none. For better or for worse, medicine and law cannot change these people's opinions, and that is why they keep fighting.

According to one (unsubstantiated) report, this poor woman's cerebrum has liquified, leaving here with no cognitive function.

 

[Fushigi]

What's mostly clear to me is that every politico who thinks they can get publicity out of the case is milking it for all they can. I am thankful that the judicial arm of the government has been quite level-headed in this affair. Far more so than the executive & legislative branches.

I've not heard a single doctor say there is any chance of recovery. She's been in this state for 15 years. The legal battle has gone on the past 7 or so years. I think her parents are denying the reality that their daughter will not recover. They are making the rest of their own lives as well as the life of her husband (and numerous others) miserable instead of celebrating her life, accepting that it has come to an end, and learning how to move on.

 

[Groltz]

Given the amount of press and emotion this event has created, the husband is going to be vilified by people wherever he goes for as long as it is remembered.

On Friday, the FBI said a man was arrested in Fairview, N.C., on charges of sending an e-mail threat, allegedly for offering a $250,000 bounty for Michael Schiavo's death and $50,000 for that of a judge in the case.

 

[ddrueding]

From the analysis I've read, most of her brain has attrophied years ago due to lack of activity, so anything approaching normal is completely out of the picture. As one of the PhDs on NPR said "Wouldn't it be worse if she was partially conscious?"

I'd go after the parents for neglect.

 

[Handruin]

I agree, I think the parents are having a hard time letting her go and it's making it worse for both. Given the situation, I can understand to some degree how hard it must be, but on another level, one cannot truly know unless you are in the same situation.

 

[mubs]

time[/i]]I don't want to start a fight here - I'm genuinely perplexed. Can someone who believes in this explain to me: why? I like to think I can put myself in a lot of people's shoes, but I'm unable to comprehend the mindset behind the protests.

Only Fushigi gave an answer, and a part one at that. I'll try, even though my personal opinion on this is that she should have been let go a long time ago.

There are bascially three parties that want to keep her alive.

a) Her parents. They believe she'll turn around some day, so they want her kept alive.

b) Fushigi rightly pointed out that the politicos are shamelessly milking this for whatever they can get.

c) Fundamental Christians - pro-lifers / anti-abortionists / clergy / the Pope and similar groups/persons.

Now to add in some more weirdness to the mix. 70% of Conservatives in this country believe that the government should stay out of this. Which, in essence, amounts to "let her go".

I am not a Christian, and I cannot claim any knowledge of this subject. On Public Radio they quoted a Christian woman who said "I was reading the Bible for Easter. Mary Magdalene was weeping at Jesus' tomb when he appeared and said 'Let go of me, woman'. So I believe they should let Schiavo go."

 

[RWIndiana]

I don't know why anyone thinks that the politicians are "milking" this, since polls indicate that they are clearly in the minority. I do not think that is a valid point.

I think most people (those who want to "let her go"), are not realizing the bigger picture here. There are clearly VERY suspicious circumstances behind her present condition, involving Michael Shiavo. He has also refused to allow an autopsy, but wants the body cremated immediately. My question would be, why on earth does he care what is done with her body once she is dead? Obviously her death is all he wants, supposedly so he can marry his girlfriend with whom he has a familiy. Nearly everyone who personally knows him testifies to his "wife-beater" charactaristics, and one can not ignore the testimony of Terry's best friend who feared for Terry's life the night of the alleged heart-attack because of the fights between Terry and Michael.

As far as the political end of the spectrum, I think this is a much bigger issue for liberals than for conservatives. This thread being a case-in-point, where the larger issues at stake here are ignored and the subject of her life or death is focused on exclusively.

The emotion on the part of the large majority of Americans because of the tremendous and unrelenting press coverage is only softening us to the idea of euthanasia. Who wants to go through another process like this? Just give her an injection and get it over with! Of course, we all know this would lead to all sorts of things. Anyone who is brain damaged and/or physically handicapped could be euthanized. Let's face it, injection is far better than starving to death! And these people can't speak out on their own behalf.

 

[Mercutio]

The only reason this is an issue is that republicans believe they'll get more traction among the religious right. Since the religious right turn out to vote in higher numbers than other constituents, there were gains to be had in at least paying lip-service to their demands.

Since the religious right won't be happy until we're living in the baptist version of Saudi Arabia, hopefully this issue will at least lead to the moderation of certain scary bastards in our legislature.

/still looking for a job in Canada.

 

[jtr1962]

Since the religious right won't be happy until we're living in the baptist version of Saudi Arabia....

And the day that happens is the day I'll join you in Canada. It's the extremists on both sides of the isle who scare the sh*t out me.

And on this issue, I think Congress running with its hand up its behind to reconvene for an emergency session was one of the most disgusting spectacles I've ever seen. This isn't an issue of national urgency like many of the things Congree postones until after recess are. Only a few people are affected by this. I feel terribly for the circumstances which led to this poor women's present state, but facts are facts. She is never going to recover. There just isn't a brain left any more. It's time to let her go.

 

[time]

Thanks for responding, RWIndiana. Unfortunately, your contribution left me none the wiser.

I can understand the parents' feelings.
I can understand politicians' need to repay their sponsors.
What I don't understand is what sort of reasoning is driving the "religious right".

Libelling the husband is all very well, but I don't see what bearing that has on the fundamental issue. Is the explanation that people want to preserve life at any cost - that is, override God's will? This is hard to believe when the same people support capital punishment and lethal military action. Would it make a difference if the victim had previously requested 'no resuscitation'?

 

[sechs]

Many in the "religious right" see this as a right-to-life issue. If you're against abortion on these grounds (they argue) you have to be against this, too. It's people going out of their way to kill innocents.

I have found that conservatives tend to be far more hypocritical and unprincipled than liberals. This is why they can be confusing.

A DNR wouldn't be of help now, because they really only keep you dead after you've entered that state -- they don't get you there. In this situation, a living will with specific instructions would be necessary. The issue is the extraordinary means being taken to keep her alive.

 

[RWIndiana]

Once again, my point has been proven. Many people simply can not and will not see beyond the issue of Terry Shiavo's temporal, physical life. I see it's no use explaining things to concrete blocks.

"I have found that conservatives tend to be far more hypocritical and unprincipled than liberals."

Typical comment by an uninformed liberal and not backed up with any substance whatsoever.

 

[ddrueding]

Terry Shiavo's temporal, physical life.

So removing her feeding tube is taking something else?

I see it's no use explaining things to concrete blocks.

I may not be a sponge, but posts with

any substance whatsoever.

Would have a better chance of informing me.

 

[Mercutio]

Once again, my point has been proven. Many people simply can not and will not see beyond the issue of Terry Shiavo's temporal, physical life.

Please show me some scientific evidence of any kind of life that is not temporal or physical.

If you can't, I suggest you stop trying to inflict your unproven religious beliefs on other people.

 

[RWIndiana]

Please show me some scientific evidence of any kind of life that is not temporal or physical.

If you can't, I suggest you stop trying to inflict your unproven religious beliefs on other people.

I suggest you stop inflicting your idiotic comments on me. Whether or not you believe in God is between you and Him. He does not need your approval to exist, you need His.

Anyway, I'm not talking about her life, whether spiritual or temporal. I'm talking about the obvious things you all are totally missing. First of all, since when is food and water considered "life support?" And why does Michael Shiavo seem so concerned about her death and making sure there is no autopsy? Why not give custody of Terry to her family and let them take care of her, rather than forcing them to allow her to starve? Do you realize that if they tried to give her even a little bit of water they would be arrested? This is what I'm concerned about. I realize she probably does not feel what is happening, but do you realize what outrage there would be if she were a dog or cat? They would send out the national guard!

The inconsistency here is so blatantly obvious. Of course, that's probably why the liberal nut-jobs miss it entirely.

Of course, I see inconsistency on the right side too. Why not the outcry over abortion? Clearly it is mass scale murder, yet it seems we've gotten used to it.

 

[time]

First of all, since when is food and water considered "life support?"

It's not food as we know it, brother. It's a nutrient solution delivered through a tube into her stomach. The only reason it's not an IV is because you can't sustain people for extended periods with the latter.

There would be no point in offering her food and water; she wouldn't know what do do with it, let alone be able to chew and swallow it.

I realize she probably does not feel what is happening, but do you realize what outrage there would be if she were a dog or cat? They would send out the national guard!

No, they'd put her to sleep. It would be considered cruel and inhumane to keep a dog or cat in this state.

The absolutely overwhelming evidence is that the poor woman died fifteen years ago, but her body has been forcibly kept 'alive' all this time. Her current status doesn't meet the definition of life. Removing the life support allows nature to take its course.

 

[Mercutio]

Keep your god in his jai... church where he belongs.

RWIndiana, your faith is a personal matter. Regardless of what you happen to personally believe, it means exactly zero to anyone else. Even if the majority of people in your community believe the same thing, that does not mean that you have the right to force your beliefs on others.
I realize that some horrible person has commanded those who share your faith - whatever it is - to be evangelical and that you care very much about a matter that can only be understood by those who share your faith.
However, it is neither fair nor correct to bring faith into a secular issue. Secular life by definition cannot include the subset of faith that only you understand. Whether or not republican lawmakers realize it, ours is a nation of secular law.

It is harmful to our nation as a whole for the personal religious beliefs of the citizens or the lawmakers of this country to supercede the personal decisions made by any other citizen of this country, save those decisions that might actually harm another person.


Terry Schiavo the person died when her heart stopped and her brain was denied oxygen for 15 minutes. The only thing left is a non-sentient container. We already know how she died, and there is no point for her remains to suffer the indignity of an autopsy.

Ideally she should be euthanized. OD'd on morphine or whatever.
But THAT is a against the law (unless you live in Oregon). Removing the tube is the only legal way to end her life. Honestly, there should be a better way, but somehow I think that the same people who are standing around a nursing home in Florida would be standing around a capitol building if someone tried to pass that law.

I see no inconsistency in choosing to end a life with no thought or personality in charge of it. A human body without thought or personality isn't any better than a plant in need of a pair of diapers.

And we've had the "abortion is a responsible decision" argument before, RW. I'm sure I can dig up the thread if you'd like to be reminded again why you are wrong.

 

[e_dawg]

Why not leave religion in the discussion? After all, isn't that more representative of the world we live in? I'm not talking about fundamentalist christians, or the SuperCatholic ready to unleash his GuiltMaster 2000 on you... just your average guy who used to go to church every sunday with his mom but is not devout and no longer goes to church every week, but dooes for easter and christmas, says grace on thanksgiving, knows Psalm 23 from the King James version, and still retains some of the influences from his childhood. Somebody who doesn't go out of his way to be a christian, someone who generally doesn't evangelize or espouse his beliefs, but someone who prays for his sick aunt, that his infant son -- born 1 month premature, clinging to life in the Peds ICU -- will live to see his 1st birthday.

So who is actually going to hell? The people who pull the plug or the people who keep her alive?

If you want to be hard core catholic, the answer is pulling the plug = murder = go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. But if that person is suffering, keeping them alive would be rather cruel, no? If you're going to keep someone alive because you yourself don't want to go to hell, doesn't that selfish act -- knowing full well the suffering you're prolonging -- qualify as Air Miles to the hot place?

And what if the patient is not suffering? Does reduced quality of life justify as a form of suffering requiring a form of compassionate intervention? Surely that qualifies the budding Kevorkian as eternally damned?

I don't know why I thinking about such things -- after all, I've always been more secular than not --, but suffice to say that I am. Maybe it's a post-Constantine brain dump, but I bet a lot of people out there who are more centrist and semi-secular struggle with those types of thoughts.

 

[RWIndiana]

It's not food as we know it, brother. It's a nutrient solution delivered through a tube into her stomach. The only reason it's not an IV is because you can't sustain people for extended periods with the latter.

--You fail to show that this fits the proper definition of "life support."

There would be no point in offering her food and water; she wouldn't know what do do with it, let alone be able to chew and swallow it.

--According to many, that is very debatable. She is able to swallow her saliva. But then, anyone who would dare try to feed her would be put in jail. That is insanity. If she can't eat or drink (or swallow), fine. What's sad is that they will not allow even an attempt at feeding her, but are forcing those who want to care for her to stay away from her and allow her to die. I can only imagine what I would feel if I was not allowed to give my dying sister a drink, and an armed guard was at her bedside preventing me from doing so. It's communism.

I realize she probably does not feel what is happening, but do you realize what outrage there would be if she were a dog or cat? They would send out the national guard!

No, they'd put her to sleep. It would be considered cruel and inhumane to keep a dog or cat in this state.

--Exactly. Just as starving them would be cruel and inhumane.

Her current status doesn't meet the definition of life.

--What is your definition of life as opposed to the six billion other definitions?

RWIndiana, your faith is a personal matter. Regardless of what you happen to personally believe, it means exactly zero to anyone else. Even if the majority of people in your community believe the same thing, that does not mean that you have the right to force your beliefs on others.

--I never forced my belief on you. I did not bring up the issue, nor did I try to convert you. I should be the one saying this to you.

However, it is neither fair nor correct to bring faith into a secular issue.

--It is perfectly fair. I can't not bring my faith into anything. It defines me, it is who I am, and it is what I live by every day of my life. The only way to be "fair" is if I could order you not to bring that which defines you into any discussions with me.

--Who defines what is fair and correct in a "secular" issue? Apparently, only those of the *religion* of Atheism! Without faith, everything is relative, therefore I am just as correct as you. The only difference is that I have a solid base for my beliefs (the Bible); you have philosophy and humanistic theoreticism.

It is harmful to our nation as a whole for the personal religious beliefs of the citizens or the lawmakers of this country to supercede the personal decisions made by any other citizen of this country, save those decisions that might actually harm another person.

--I could totally agree. Of course, we must all depend on *your* definition of what harms other people, therefore this thought is a perfect conflict of interest. Now tell me, why shouldn't the family of Terry Schiavo have a say in this matter, according to you? Would it harm anyone for them to be given custody and try on their own to keep her alive? Yet you support Michael Schiavo's decision to let her die and refuse an autopsy, which may very well harm other people. He may have just gotten away with murder, and you couldn't care less. Why don't you see this?

We already know how she died, and there is no point for her remains to suffer the indignity of an autopsy.

--We do not know how she died. The only evidence for the "heart-attack" is Michael's testimony. Yet we have the testimony of doctors, nurses, and friends who say that this was not a heart attack. To make an absolute statement such as that is highly irresponsible.

--Anyway I'm not sure how an autopsy would be such an indignity. And When there is any question surrounding a death, an autopsy should be required.

And we've had the "abortion is a responsible decision" argument before, RW. I'm sure I can dig up the thread if you'd like to be reminded again why you are wrong.

--If you want to dig it up again, go ahead. I'm not wrong, but I may have given you the last word in the discussion. Have at it. It is obvious that abortion in the later months of pregnancy is nothing less than barbaric murder.



E-dawg. Heh. Good questions. My belief concerning those who go to hell is rather simplistic. Those who reject God to follow their own lusts, the world, or the devil. Of course, there are certain evidences obvious in a person who is following God. And I don't think that person will be a politician. Reason being that politicians must swear an oath to the country. Something a child of God should never do.

 

[Howell]

Let me begin by saying I have only marginal information with regards to the situation. I don't watch TV or usually read the paper and have not had time to catch up on the web-news in some time.

The issue of her husband's motivation is a seperate issue and unrelated.

For me the issue revolves around whether or not she is in there. If "the lights are on but nobody is home" I don't really see any reason to continue to keep the corpse from decomposing. If she is responsive and aware I think the the choice is obvious.

Do vocalizations in response to questions count as awarness?

 

[Platform]

What's mostly clear to me is that every politico who thinks they can get publicity out of the case is milking it for all they can...

Namely, jackasses like Tom DeLay.

 

[Howell]

Mayo Clinic Neurologist Says Terri's PVS a Misdiagnosis
Synopsis:
A doctor who has seen Terri Schiavo this month says she seems to be aware of what's going on and appears to feel pain.

William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D,. M.A, F.A.A.N.is a neurologist practicing the State of Florida who believes that it can be ethically permissible to discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for persons in a permanent vegetative state.

...

In summary, Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurological diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurological consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state.

http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/doctor_says_ter.php

Full text of Affidavit:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf

 

[Howell]

Another "20%" perspective I agrre with:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/112/48.0.html

 

[mubs]

Mayo Clinic Neurologist Says Terri's PVS a Misdiagnosis

That may well be. But is is also well known that the neurologist in question is a staunch pro-life Christian. I bumped into a neurologist acquaintance on Friday, and mentioned this, and he was livid, saying that the Mayo Clinic guy was mixing religion and medicine to further his religious causes, that she was long gone. Another point of view that it is important to be aware of.

 

[mubs]

RW,

You keep insisting Michael is responsible for his wife's condition. If this is true, why hasn't the state proceeded against him? Why hasn't the judge ordered an autopsy? Are you saying that every judge/court in this country before which this case has appeared, and which has agreed with the husband almost 100%, is either corrupt or inept?

 

[Mercutio]

The higher courts that have thusfar heard appeals have done so on procedural grounds exclusively. They don't have the right to admit new evidence; they can only review whether the superior court judge has correctly handled the case.

 

[Howell]

Mayo Clinic Neurologist Says Terri's PVS a Misdiagnosis

That may well be. But is is also well known that the neurologist in question is a staunch pro-life Christian. I bumped into a neurologist acquaintance on Friday, and mentioned this, and he was livid, saying that the Mayo Clinic guy was mixing religion and medicine to further his religious causes, that she was long gone. Another point of view that it is important to be aware of.

<open curtain>
Peasant 1: Oh no, "a staunch pro-life Christian" what ever shall we do.
Peasant 2: Hide the children and sheep.
Peasant 1: I hear they are crazy. Big horns and sharp teeth.
Peasant 2: I hear they eat their young.
Peasant 3: I hear they want to cause needless pain and suffering for all of humanity.
Peasant 1&3: Oh the humanity.
<close curtain>

It is too bad your friend did not have the presence of mind to actually read the affidavit before passing judgment. Too emotionally attached, IMO. Personally invested? The facts are the facts. It matters not what his particular beliefs are when we are talking about the affidavit. For instance, If they really wanted to know her current mental state don't you think they would want a neurological exam more recent than 3 years ago.

FWIW, I don't have a dog in this particular fight. But you kinda act like you didn't even read what I posted.

For what it's worth until the doctor reviewed the patient he thought she was PVS and saw no ethical problem with letting her die.

 

[mubs]

I did read what you wrote. perhaps it is you that misunderstood what I wrtoe, and with reason. I did not mean to imply that I told my neurologist acquaintance that the Mayo Clinic guy was a Christian; I didn't bring that up, but had read that in a news item. However, the way I wrote my earlier post is certainly confusing.

<open curtain>
Peasant 1: Oh no, "a staunch pro-life Christian" what ever shall we do.
Peasant 2: Hide the children and sheep.
Peasant 1: I hear they are crazy. Big horns and sharp teeth.
Peasant 2: I hear they eat their young.
Peasant 3: I hear they want to cause needless pain and suffering for all of humanity.
Peasant 1&3: Oh the humanity.
<close curtain>

I am not a giant intellectual like you are, so this went totally over my head. Sorry.

I did NOT say that the Mayo Clinic guy was wrong. I did want to point out his religious beliefs. I did not read his affidavit, but as I said, did read the news item where it was reported that he is very open about his convictions and there were questions raised that his judgement might be clouded by his beliefs.

I am a lay man, and so are you. My neurologist acquaintance has seen this kind of case over and over. Knowing him, he's not the kind of guy to dismiss life and death situations with a wave of his hand. No, he hasn't examined Schaivo, but I think people of his ilk know enough to make a judgement.

There are two sides in this issue, and it looks like the twain shall never meet. In my mind, there's no point in discussing this further. I'll not be posting in this thred.

 

[Howell]

I did read what you wrote. perhaps it is you that misunderstood what I wrtoe, and with reason. I did not mean to imply that I told my neurologist acquaintance that the Mayo Clinic guy was a Christian; I didn't bring that up, but had read that in a news item. However, the way I wrote my earlier post is certainly confusing.

The links were more important than what I wrote myself. One of them was a summery of the affidavit.

<open curtain>
Peasant 1: Oh no, "a staunch pro-life Christian" what ever shall we do.
Peasant 2: Hide the children and sheep.
Peasant 1: I hear they are crazy. Big horns and sharp teeth.
Peasant 2: I hear they eat their young.
Peasant 3: I hear they want to cause needless pain and suffering for all of humanity.
Peasant 1&3: Oh the humanity.
<close curtain>

I am not a giant intellectual like you are, so this went totally over my head. Sorry.

Although I appreciate the compliment (sarcasm?), You are quite capable of thinking. I've witnessed it. Mine was an attempt to point to the absurdity of the "Christian boogyman" scapegoat.

I did NOT say that the Mayo Clinic guy was wrong. I did want to point out his religious beliefs. I did not read his affidavit, but as I said, did read the news item where it was reported that he is very open about his convictions and there were questions raised that his judgement might be clouded by his beliefs.

No, you graciously allowed your neurologist friend to take the fall for you. Why would your friend be livid if he thought the Mayo doctor was right? You certainly implied that the Mayo doctor was wrong. Furthermor, I'm only committing to the observations as fact not his particular judgement of them. How the hell would I know? BTW, My retired neurosurgeon can beat up your neurologist? :-D

Nevermind the insult that a Christian's beliefs cloud their judgement (I suppose your beliefs don't "cloud" your judgement.) Color, influence; OK. Cloud? At least try not to appear so arrogant.

I am a lay man, and so are you. My neurologist acquaintance has seen this kind of case over and over. Knowing him, he's not the kind of guy to dismiss life and death situations with a wave of his hand. No, he hasn't examined Schaivo, but I think people of his ilk know enough to make a judgement.

You would think so. And you'ld think the highest amount of respect would be between associates in the same field. You'ld also think your friend would want to review the clinical data before essentially calling the Mayo doctor self-deluded to the point of error. We know so little about the brain. Even today most cases could be considered a special case.

There are two sides in this issue, and it looks like the twain shall never meet. In my mind, there's no point in discussing this further. I'll not be posting in this thred.

Well, I do hope you will continue to read the thread even if not post in it.

My point is that it is irrelevant that he is a Christian. Or a two headed martian with three tits. Since you read what I posted you realized that he gathered clinical data and then gave his opinion. Look at what he observed and form your own lay opinion.

 

[sechs]

I see it's no use explaining things to concrete blocks.

Others agree and certainly won't explain things to you....

If you're going to be an asshole and insult people, rather than making a principled argument, why don't you just come out and do it? It's this kind of idiocy and lack of respect that makes any kind of intelligent conversation on controversial issues impossible.

If you're just going to continue to wave your hands and complain that people are idiotic and not proving anything, then why should we be any different towards you? As someone once said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Pradeep]

[--We do not know how she died. The only evidence for the "heart-attack" is Michael's testimony. Yet we have the testimony of doctors, nurses, and friends who say that this was not a heart attack. To make an absolute statement such as that is highly irresponsible.

--Anyway I'm not sure how an autopsy would be such an indignity. And When there is any question surrounding a death, an autopsy should be required.

To quell the conspiracy theorists:

"Attorney George Felos told reporters late Monday afternoon in Florida that Michael Schiavo has requested that Pinellas County’s chief medical examiner perform on autopsy on his wife once she dies in order to answer questions about the severity of brain damage and to put to rest rumors about her physical condition."

 

[Handruin]

...
My belief concerning those who go to hell is rather simplistic. Those who reject God to follow their own lusts, the world, or the devil. Of course, there are certain evidences obvious in a person who is following God. And I don't think that person will be a politician. Reason being that politicians must swear an oath to the country. Something a child of God should never do.

I'm starting to believe that hell and the devil are nothing more than an answer for what exists outside the box.

Back on topic:
The situation is unpleasant, but educational. We've now learned that no matter what age, you must decide in advance a QoL (Quality of Life) factor that is acceptable for you to live. If you drop below your established QoL, someone can pull your plug with no court battle. She is unfortunately the front runner in this new era of QoL and has to bear the weight of progress, much like many other people in their font running shoes.

The best we can do is not embrace the media, pray to which ever god or supreme being you all believe in, and wish her the best in whatever lies next. May we never quibble so long over the QoL of an individual ever again.

 

[Howell]

time, Was your question answered adequately?

 

[time]

Although I didn't get a coherent response from RWIndiana, I think I now have a glimmer of understanding:

Religious fanatics don't like to think for themselves. They gravitate towards leaders who can feed them black and white views of the world. In their eyes, people are either good or bad, white hat or black hat, innocent or guilty.

Rather than the sanctity of life, they believe in punishing anyone perceived to be deliberately taking 'innocent' lives, but are more than happy to extinguish others. Hence they regard abortion as falling into the former category, yet are unconcerned about 'collateral damage' from military or other action. It all comes down to who their leaders define as innocent or otherwise - good or evil if you like.

It's a philosophy that enables a follower to bemoan the death of Terri Schiavo, while putting out a bounty on the lives of the husband and a judge. There is active disrespect for secular justice and systems; only religious beliefs matter. Ultimately, this leads to a theocracy, as in the former Afghanistan.

BTW, I'm not including you in this, Howell, but then you don't think like the people I was trying to understand. Sorry.

 

[Will Rickards]

It is an interesting issue of secular rights versus right to life. This is I think what the protests are about. There are two people, her parents, who are willing to take care of her, thus holding up her right to life. There is one person, her husband, who under the law has complete say in what happens to Terry because he is her husband. He has decided not to turn over his rights and let the parents take care of Terry. Whatever his motivations are for this decision, it has created this dilemma for those of the 'religious right'. The law is standing in the way of someone's right to life. They are upset at her husband, the judges and anyone else who will not side with the right to life.

It is a bad situation no matter how you look at it.
As a parent I can see myself fighting for my child's right to life.
As a husband I can see myself wanting to let her go if that is what she would have wanted.

 

[time]

Howell, I did read the affidavit. Frankly, I was amazed at the absence of professionalism. I can see why Mub's acquaintance made that comment.

Convinced he must be a fraud, I checked out his qualifications. He really is a neurologist, although he doesn't appear to have published anything related to PVS.

If you wade through all the waffle, he does make a point based on observation of a video of an earlier examination. However, the doctor concerned ignored the event at the time, despite being recruited by the parents to back their case.

Out of interest, I noticed that same doctor recently popped up claiming that Terri Schiavo could in fact chew. But then, he also falsely claims he was nominated for a nobel prize, and I see he was prosecuted for malpractise for his stroke treatment (he got off because they couldn't prove he'd harmed anyone, but was pinged for ripping off a patient - $50000 costs, $2000 fine, 100hrs community service and six months supervision).

As just one example of the dubious content of the affidavit, the Schiff fMRI study is quoted, but without mentioning the additional tests that showed any such response in PVS patients was automatic rather than conscious.

Sticking to the facts, it also mentions:

The structural studies have shown substantial loss of ceberal cortex which was deprived of blood supply for more than 40 minutes in 1990 ...

and

Terri did not demonstrate during our 90 minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness, or volitional behaviour ...

I find the affidavit inept, but his peers would rip it to shreds.