# Terry Schiavo...



## Dale Mabry (Mar 20, 2005)

So what should happen.  Feel free to elaborate.


----------



## soxmuscle (Mar 20, 2005)

No question about it, let her die. She can't speak, she can't comprehend, she doesn't know whose who, she doesn't know herself, she doesn't know where she is, what shes doing.. she has bags attached to her colon and bladder, is being fed through a straw..

Absolutely pathetic. She should have been dead 15 years ago before she went on life support.

P.S. Flex, if I ever become like that, you better murder me like you murder everyone else or i'll murder you.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 20, 2005)

let this be a lesson people, get those living wills in order.


----------



## CRASHMAN (Mar 20, 2005)

I voted let her die..........i dont watch TV so i dont know who she is so who is she?


----------



## min0 lee (Mar 20, 2005)

If it were me I would want the plug pulled.


----------



## Chain Link (Mar 20, 2005)

If somebody is willing to pay for it, keep her alive. I hear alot of the crap about this case since Im in Fl, and it really sounds as if her husband is the next Peterson. Among other things, hes been offered around 10 million dollars so far to just back away and let her family take care of it.. To which hes refused, most probably because he knows if she recovers, hes going to jail.


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2005)

15 years with a tube in your stomach isn't "living" it's exisiting.  If her parents weren't roman catholic this shit wouldn't even be happening.  the sad part about it that our Congress is having an emergency session on a sunday night about this shit. a family matter that effects the lives of a handfull of people, when there are way more important matters at hand that effect millions all over our country.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 20, 2005)

Bleh, she's not going to recover... she's pretty much screwed IMO.  She should have died long ago, but they just wont let it be done with.  Its pretty rediculous.  Even my old Christian grandmother down in Florida says so. 

Some people are trying waaaay to hard to bring the dead back to life.


----------



## gococksDJS (Mar 20, 2005)

I would only hope that they would let me die if I was like that. That is no way to exist.


----------



## seven11 (Mar 20, 2005)

i have no idea who that is, but after reading all those posts i think death would be the best for her... cuz shes just suffering now


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

You guys are missing the point.  She's not a normal case, or this would never make the news.  Her husband had years to do this, but didn't until he had control of an accident settlement.  Now he wants the money.  For T.S., it's not a matter of the kind of regular life support.  We're talking a feeding tube, not a ventilator.  It's a whole different situation when you actively remove food versus pull the plug on a person who can't breath/have a heartbeat on their own.  

The point is, it is cruel to starve a person, or any living thing for that matter.  If you put a dog in a cage and let it starve to death b/c it didn't fit your view of what a good dog was, people would be outraged.  Yet here we have yet another situation of people with limited philosophical and ethical backgrounds attempting to alter medical law, and more.  It's really sad, in my view, that more people don't see it this way.  But I guess I shouldn't expect otherwise, b/c the majority have neglected every "truth" in their quest for a dilution of modenrity, which only serves to bolster their psychoses, to the extent of mocking visionaries while they ruin their own world.  It's sad, but to be expected.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

I say let her go, but this is based on the fact that I wouldn't want to be around in that condition.

I have no idea if the parents or the husband are in the right.  IMO they are both in the wrong in some manner.  I also think there is no reason for politicians to be involved.  Well there is a reason, but it has nothing to do with the welfare of the woman.

Brodus, I get what you are saying, but this woman will not be feeling a thing if they remove that tube based on what the Doctor's say her condition is.  Also, it is about her wish, not the cruelty of the measure.  IMO, they are equally as cruel.  This is, of course, assuming the Dr.'s are correct.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> So what should happen.  Feel free to elaborate.



I suppose I can only speak for myself, 

But if I ever am in a vegetative state, and need to be fed, and require 24 hour care, and am basically brain-dead.

It is time for me to go.  

This is not the quality of life I would want.


----------



## LW83 (Mar 21, 2005)

wow. 10 to 1


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 21, 2005)

Her parents claim that she responds to them. There is even a link to an audio clip of this on the drudge report. 

 I don't know a lot about her case, but I do know one thing - If it were me, I would much rather that my fate be determined by my parents, than by an ex-spouse. 

 (My view is independant of Shiavo's case. I would feel the same if the situation were reversed and the parents said pull the tube)


----------



## Pepper (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> You guys are missing the point. She's not a normal case, or this would never make the news. Her husband had years to do this, but didn't until he had control of an accident settlement. Now he wants the money. For T.S., it's not a matter of the kind of regular life support. We're talking a feeding tube, not a ventilator. It's a whole different situation when you actively remove food versus pull the plug on a person who can't breath/have a heartbeat on their own.
> 
> The point is, it is cruel to starve a person, or any living thing for that matter. If you put a dog in a cage and let it starve to death b/c it didn't fit your view of what a good dog was, people would be outraged. Yet here we have yet another situation of people with limited philosophical and ethical backgrounds attempting to alter medical law, and more. It's really sad, in my view, that more people don't see it this way. But I guess I shouldn't expect otherwise, b/c the majority have neglected every "truth" in their quest for a dilution of modenrity, which only serves to bolster their psychoses, to the extent of mocking visionaries while they ruin their own world. It's sad, but to be expected.


I am pretty much undecided on this issue but I am very glad that SOMEONE sees the larger issue here.

The thing I can get past is that the woman's family wants to care for her...why wouldn't the husband let them do this? He has cleary already moved on, he is living with a "common law" wife now.

As stated, we are talking about a feeding tube here, NOT a ventilator. It just seems that our society has little regard for life. If a baby will be born poor, kill it. on and on and on...


----------



## I Are Baboon (Mar 21, 2005)

I told my wife that I am ever in a Schiavo-like state, to remove the feeding tube and replace it with a beer tube.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

I Are Baboon said:
			
		

> I told my wife that I am ever in a Schiavo-like state, to remove the feeding tube and replace it with a beer tube.



What kind?  I would find it hard to be stuck with the same kinda beer, but I am thinking I would prolly go with Magic Hat Feast of Fools, which is a Raspberry stout.  Could you imagine if your wife didn't like you and gave you a Old Milwauklee Beer tube?   That would suck.

To whomever wrote the part about the parents...IMO, it is hard to say whether it should be the parents or not for me as I am not married.  Both sides seem fishy to me...From where I stand the husband obviously has other things going on and the parents may be allowing there religious beliefs to creep in where they don't belong.  If I were the husband and what he said is true wrt Terry stating she did not want to be kept alive, I would prolly have to pull the plug.  But who at that age even has that discussion?  She must have been early 30's when she went into the coma.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> and the parents may be allowing there religious beliefs to creep in where they don't belong.


OK, I am not arguing with your basic point here b/c, like I said, I don't really know how I feel. However, where the heck do religious beliefs belong if they don't belong in issues of life of death?

Sorry, statements like that always get me going b/c my religious beliefs impact (or at least should impact) every aspect of my life. I don't understand how someone can expect you just to set them aside when making certain decisions. That goes against everything Christianity teaches and quite frankly both impossible to do and ridiculous to ask.


----------



## Flex (Mar 21, 2005)

This is a very toucy case, but IMO they should let her go. When dealing with a patients' right to die, it's about quality of life. Right now, her quality of life is not good whatsoever. 




			
				LAM said:
			
		

> a family matter that effects the lives of a handfull of people, when there are way more important matters at hand that effect millions all over our country.



Oh, you didn't know? 
The media/gov't has been doing that a lot lately *cough steroids cough*




			
				soxmuscle said:
			
		

> P.S. Flex, if I ever become like that, you better murder me like you murder everyone else or i'll murder you.



No prob, I'll just send the bill to your family.


----------



## I Are Baboon (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> What kind?  I would find it hard to be stuck with the same kinda beer, but I am thinking I would prolly go with Magic Hat Feast of Fools, which is a Raspberry stout.  Could you imagine if your wife didn't like you and gave you a Old Milwauklee Beer tube?   That would suck.



I'm thinking something dark, like a good brown ale or a porter (I had some great Maine microbrews this weekend).  Some of those beers are so heavy they are like a meal themselves.  My wife knows better than to feed me cheap beer.    Magic Hat makes some good brews.  I think the Humble Patience would make a good beer-tube beer.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 21, 2005)

One thing I do know is that Congress needs to stay the f*ck out of it.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

I Are Baboon said:
			
		

> I'm thinking something dark, like a good brown ale or a porter (I had some great Maine microbrews this weekend).  Some of those beers are so heavy they are like a meal themselves.  My wife knows better than to feed me cheap beer.    Magic Hat makes some good brews.  I think the Humble Patience would make a good beer-tube beer.




If it were Humble Patience Draft I would be in.

Pepper-

What I meant is that they are letting their religious beliefs creep in where they may not pertain to their daughter.  Obviously her husband was not a religious man so maybe she no longer was as well.  I think they are looking at it more like, "She should go when the lord takes her" when it should be, "She should live because that is what she would want".  That is my point and that is why I think they are at least partially in the wrong.  In the end, it should be her decision and not theirs, unfortunately that won't be happening so you need to figure out who has her best interests at hand.  I don't think her parents or husband have her best interests at hand.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

Pepper said:
			
		

> One thing I do know is that Congress needs to stay the f*ck out of it.



100% true.  IMO, it is just political posturing on both sides.  McCain had a good quote that I will paraphrase..."I sincerely hope we are not using this woman's fate to push a political agenda, there are far more issues we could use for that."

I would so vote for that man as pres, unfortunately he is too nice to go far enough.


----------



## LW83 (Mar 21, 2005)

Although it's irrelevalt, she is in this state because of cardiac arrest that killed the majority of her brain.  That cardiac arrest, ironically, was caused by starving herself.  What a horrible twisted fate that lead too.


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 21, 2005)

It must be a nightmare for the parents. Right or wrong, they feel as if there is hope. How terrible it must be, to have to fight an ex-spouse to keep your child alive. 

 One thing no one has mentioned - there is money at stake. The ex-husband is due to inherit a pretty nice sum if Terry dies. Each day she is kept alive, the fund shrinks because it is being used to pay her medical bills.


----------



## maxpro2 (Mar 21, 2005)

"Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition."

Knowing this, it is ridiculous to ever think she will recover. It is just false hope on the parents' part. Saying the ex-husband is the next Peterson is just stupid; he is probably the only one with any sense in this whole situation (besides the doctors).


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> You guys are missing the point.  She's not a normal case, or this would never make the news.  Her husband had years to do this, but didn't until he had control of an accident settlement.  Now he wants the money.  For T.S., it's not a matter of the kind of regular life support.  We're talking a feeding tube, not a ventilator.  It's a whole different situation when you actively remove food versus pull the plug on a person who can't breath/have a heartbeat on their own.



Actually, in my opinion it is a normal case.  Plus, who knows why the husband kept her around.  Perhaps he was had some hope she would pop out of it as well if he isnt the one that did her in to begin with.  As to whether or not she is on life support, I'd have to say that everything depends on her amount of brainwave activity.

http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/02/new-study-on-comatose-patients.html

A feeding tube is definiely life support.  How do you differentiate between having to breath and needing food? Is one more crucial? I could see if a person was in a coma to offer them food and what not, but Shiavo is a just a tad past that.



> The point is, it is cruel to starve a person, or any living thing for that matter.  If you put a dog in a cage and let it starve to death b/c it didn't fit your view of what a good dog was, people would be outraged.



It is cruel to starve a normal person that had higher brain function.  To let a person die that cannot feel anythin and cant recover is hardly cruel.  Speaking of cages.  Being that her parents are Christian (as are a good deal of the people trying to keep her "alive"), you would that they are keeping her in a cage and not letting her out to go to Heaven.  Now that I think about that, I am very outraged that they would cage her so.  Oh, and FYI... if you had a dog that was pretty much brain dead, you'd get the damn thing put down.  Unless in your househould you keep all your dead animals in IVs in your living room.  In which case, no I wont come over for dinner 



> Yet here we have yet another situation of people with limited philosophical and ethical backgrounds attempting to alter medical law, and more.  It's really sad, in my view, that more people don't see it this way.



Sooo, what your saying is that everybody involved that _doesnt agree with you_ has a limited philosophical and ethical background?  Iiiiiiinteresting.  Yes, I see... its too bad we dont all _see it your way_ because then obviously it would be evident that we have a much stronger philosophical and ethical background.  Ahhh, well, I'm sure you can see what problems I have with that statement  



> But I guess I shouldn't expect otherwise, b/c the majority have neglected every "truth" in their quest for a dilution of modenrity, which only serves to bolster their psychoses, to the extent of mocking visionaries while they ruin their own world.  It's sad, but to be expected.



[laugh] I'd say thats a tough conclusion to draw from the Schiavo case.  To tell you the truth, it also sounds like you're trying waaay too hard.  First off, what would you define as "every truth"? What exactly is the impact that this has on modernity and do you have any studies to indicate the increase of this "neglect of truth" that also observes this "dilution of modernity".  Yes I'm psycho, I wont argue that sentence 

Lastly, what visionaries are being mocked?  Bush?  Jerry Garcia?  the Fruit of the Loom poster guy? I mean, seriously, I know what you're talking about, but we have few visionaries, and those that we do have tend to make a mess of themselves without anybodies help.  Besides which, I think that your description of a visionary might not necessarily hold up, at least not to the benefit of everybody else.

As to ruining our own world, yes and no.  You want to argue a case like this that supposes that this person that has no higher brainwave activity should be kept alive on life support for eternity, denying her the right to die a clean death, she has instead been kept alive and dragged through the media because her parents cant get.  It is to be expected that when a parent loves their child they should want to care for them.  However, it should also be expected that you have enough respect for somebody that they are not forced to persist for centuries in a vegetative state.

That isnt respect... and that cannot possibly be the humane option.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> It must be a nightmare for the parents. Right or wrong, they feel as if there is hope. How terrible it must be, to have to fight an ex-spouse to keep your child alive.
> 
> One thing no one has mentioned - there is money at stake. The ex-husband is due to inherit a pretty nice sum if Terry dies. Each day she is kept alive, the fund shrinks because it is being used to pay her medical bills.



He's been offered millions to give her to the parents.  How much is this inheritance?


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

I really believe most are missing the point like Brodus said. True she cannot function in a normal life as we all know it, but she is a living person. She does react to her parents, laughing, squeezing their hands and making faces. Most of you on this board are young-not married and don't have children. As a father of two beautiful children, I could not imagine this happening. At least the parents have SOMEONE to hug and love. If you let her die, they have nothing. Then their lives are tore apart. Is this right or wrong. I'm not sure. I would not want to live this way, but I would also still want my children to hang onto. To say she doesn't feel anything is not correct. Her father said this morning she is dehydrated and her lips are dry and chapped. She absolutely feels it. She just can't communicate it. I also think her husband is a asshole. He was fine for 8 years with her this way until he got money. Now he wants her to die. She has never had a brain scan so they really don't know what her diagnostic is. This is what all this is about. Like RG said, you better think hard about getting a will in place. It's just not for old people. Young people need them too.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I am pretty much undecided on this issue but I am very glad that SOMEONE sees the larger issue here.



I'm not sure if he sees the larger picture, just that he painted one that you perhaps like a bit more Pepper.  Which is understandable, we all care about human life and think its wrong to take it carelessly.



> The thing I can get past is that the woman's family wants to care for her...why wouldn't the husband let them do this? He has cleary already moved on, he is living with a "common law" wife now.



Besides the various statements that say he could have possibly done this (which worry me because that could be somebody passing on that information falsely in the hopes that he would suffer from it), one could very well understand that if she had told him this that he would try to respect it.  If my wife told me that she did not want to live as a vegetable for years to come, then I would do everything in my power to see that she doesnt have to suffer through that.  Its not just about moving on.  If he is indeed a decent man that loved his wife, the explanation for this could simply be that he is trying to follow her wishes.  Her parents IMO are psychos who are trying so hard to convince everybody (including themselves) that Terry is going to somehow come back to life and develop a new brain again someday, and in the mean time that she is able to respond, etc.  Which I dont believe to be true.  I'm not saying the husband might not be a bastard, but that I dont believe that they are doing the right thing.



> As stated, we are talking about a feeding tube here, NOT a ventilator. It just seems that our society has little regard for life. If a baby will be born poor, kill it. on and on and on...



A feeding tube is still life support.  The determination of whether she is kept alive or is allowed to die should be determined by what the state of her brain is and how much damage it has.  From what I've read, its screwed.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I really believe most are missing the point like Brodus said. True she cannot function in a normal life as we all know it, but she is a living person. She does react to her parents, laughing, squeezing their hands and making faces.



http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/09/17-medical-affidavits-about-terri-schiavo/

I'm not sure I believe all that about making faces, etc.  Please provide a link to where you read it... from a decent source and not someone wishing to push their (or your) objective.  



> Most of you on this board are young-not married and don't have children. As a father of two beautiful children, I could not imagine this happening. At least the parents have SOMEONE to hug and love. If you let her die, they have nothing.



She's not a teddy bear.  You dont stick a feeding tube in her and keep her around to hug when you're having a rainy day.  That IMO is selfish and definitely not truly in the best interest of Terry Schiavo.



> but I would also still want my children to hang onto.



Bad stuff happens, and turning into Dr Frankenstein isnt truly respecting those you love.



> To say she doesn't feel anything is not correct. Her father said this morning she is dehydrated and her lips are dry and chapped. She absolutely feels it. She just can't communicate it.



I would like a link to where she stated this.  If not, I'd say it is just something that is evident because they took her feeding tube out and she is starting to die.  Chapped lips arent a neurological response.  They are what physically happens when you are deprived of enough water.



> I also think her husband is a asshole.



I'm not going to argue this, there are plenty of ass holes in the world and he could very well be one of them.



> He was fine for 8 years with her this way until he got money. Now he wants her to die.



I'm also not going to put a name to his motives being that I am not in his head.



> She has never had a brain scan so they really don't know what her diagnostic is. This is what all this is about. Like RG said, you better think hard about getting a will in place. It's just not for old people. Young people need them too.



She's had a CAT scan, at which time they said her brain was pretty much done.

PS - When I said "your objective", I wasnt stating that you have some sort of malicious over arching motive in this.  Just saying that perhaps your beliefs are intertwined with your hope that she is alive and it is influencing you in a manner that would not truly be consistant with your beliefs.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

Something that I find ironic in all of this is that when I sometimes go to church everybody sings about wanting to go home to glory and be with God and all that.  Yet now Schiavos parents are showing that they cant truly believe that because it is evident by their actions that they do not believe a better place exists for her to go to.

Or they are just so selfish that they want to keep her around for their own personal benefit. 

Neither of which would be considered good Christian motives.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

I saw video this morning on the tv of her with her parents. Looked to me like she laughing. Shocked me. As far as the dehydration thing, I heard that on the radio.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I saw video this morning on the tv of her with her parents. Looked to me like she laughing. Shocked me. As far as the dehydration thing, I heard that on the radio.




You have to take into consideration that the parents are prolly grasping.  I am sure she has laughed at one point in the past 15 years.  I call my roommates cats black and grey, neither of which is named that.  If I sit there and say grey for an hour, there is bound to be 1 or 2 times that it responds.  Since I have no attachment to the cats, I can objectively say that was completely by chance.  If I were somehow emotionally invested in the cat I may think otherwise.  All we have now is that Docs say she is done and I would guess they would be the most objective of all.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

So I just briefed myself by going to an impartial website to see what the deal is.  By impartial, I have no idea of the person's political/religious affiliation, just that he provides both sides and no conclusion to his opinion.

So, it appears that the husband is not after money as he states he will donate it to charity.  Whether he does that or not I have no idea, but if I cannot conclusively say he is one way or the other, I will disregard the argument.

The dude also discussed the tape of her responding.  Over 4.5 hours of tape, there is apparently a few seconds where she is responding.  Her parents have found Dr.'s that said she responds, the Dr.'s appointed by the courts and Mr Schiavo find otherwise.  This is a hard one for me to decide, but I would be more likely to believe these are just random movements based on the evidence.  

I still would not base my opinion on this alone.  What I am basing my opinion on the fact that 19 judges have ruled on the case, and all 19 have ruled that the tube be removed.  From my vantage point, it seems that the parents will fight until they find a judge that sees it there way.  So, say this eventually happens, 1 in 20 judges sees it their way, does this make sense to anyone?  I cannot see in any way that this makes sense.


----------



## Mudge (Mar 21, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> She should have died long ago, but they just wont let it be done with.  Its pretty rediculous.  Even my old Christian grandmother down in Florida says so.



Yep. My gramps said if I dont recover in a month, pull it and let me go, it wasn't meant to be. Ahh those beloved Roman Catholics, some are stupid and love to repaint the Bible their own way.


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> So what should happen.  Feel free to elaborate.



Hi Dale,

It is not a good situation no matter how anyone looks at it.

She will never be able to live life at all - certainly the last 15 years can not have been good for her. Her body is harmed by so long a period of inactivity. 

I understand her father and mother - but there is a time when you MUST allow them to go. And have their peace...

I understand her husband - he recognizes there is no reason to prolong her agony.

The medical bills I do not even want to think about. And who will pay them or be able to pay for them and what is the purpose of prolonging the life of someone who can never really enjoy and live life.

The situation is out of hand and has been turned into a political spectacle. And the President and Congress have no business in this at all. The President is just courting the religious right - the ONLY reason he was ever elected. That is truly PATHETIC. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

and FYI - when I first heard the case I was on the side of Terry's parents.  After I studied it a little more and discussed it with people for a while I decided that I had been mislead originally and have since changed my view on the matter.


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> 15 years with a tube in your stomach isn't "living" it's exisiting.  If her parents weren't roman catholic this shit wouldn't even be happening.  the sad part about it that our Congress is having an emergency session on a sunday night about this shit. a family matter that effects the lives of a handfull of people, when there are way more important matters at hand that effect millions all over our country.




Hi Lam,

How true. But it is not just the roman catholics...

 And when this happens to someone else I wonder if Congress and the President will now step into the situation with EACH case as they arise now. 

When does Congress and the President begin to take care of the problems of the ENTIRE country? Not just the "select religious"... 

The Democrats have been forced into this situation and no matter how they find they will be damned. But I am sure most of them will see this for what it REALLY IS - political payback to the President to the religious right. Nothing more. The FILTHYNESS OF POLITICS AND RELIGIOUS ZEAL.... 

My Father who I LOVE IMMEASUREABLY died a slow painful death through this extreme care business and he SUFFERED EVERY SECOND of it. He thought there was more to the Medical Community and that they could help him but when he realized himself there was no hope he WANTED to go... NO ONE SHOULD EVER have to go through this crap!!! When your time is up YOUR TIME IS UP. You HAVE TO AND MUST MOVE ON. There is no reason to prolong agony and suffering. (Unless some view this as a learning lesson for others and that a person MUST suffer and be in agony so others can "learn"... - but that would be horrible to put that on someone just so others "can learn")...

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> and FYI - when I first heard the case I was on the side of Terry's parents.  After I studied it a little more and discussed it with people for a while I decided that I had been mislead originally and have since changed my view on the matter.



Ditto to that.  Initially I thought it should be the parents' choice because they typically would know their daughter better.  The more and more I read, it just looks like they won't let go.


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I say let her go, but this is based on the fact that I wouldn't want to be around in that condition.
> 
> I have no idea if the parents or the husband are in the right.  IMO they are both in the wrong in some manner.  I also think there is no reason for politicians to be involved.  Well there is a reason, but it has nothing to do with the welfare of the woman.
> 
> Brodus, I get what you are saying, but this woman will not be feeling a thing if they remove that tube based on what the Doctor's say her condition is.  Also, it is about her wish, not the cruelty of the measure.  IMO, they are equally as cruel.  This is, of course, assuming the Dr.'s are correct.



Hi Dale,

I completely agree with you!

I would not want extreme measures used to prolong life that has already left me in the first place...

When it is your time, it is your time. As with the end of each day when the sun goes down the daylight part of it is over. So too with our lives. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## LW83 (Mar 21, 2005)

John H. said:
			
		

> She will never be able to live life at all - certainly the last 15 years can not have been good for her. Her body is harmed by so long a period of inactivity.




It is predicted that within the next year (if permitted) she will lose up to 3 of her limbs.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

I hate to say this... because it sounds cruel, but that could almost be for the better.  If that were allowed to happen, the American people could possibly see what a travesty this situation is and how bad an idea it is to allow government to try to interfere with cases that should be between doctors and the people responsible for the person in question.

On the bright side, I'm quite sure she would not be able to comprehend any difference with or without limbs.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

This fight has been going on for years. The feeding tube has been removed and replace several times. You find some that will remove it, then you find others that put it back in. The president signed a bill last night after congress passed it saying it be put back in. Now a federal judge will rule. Wanna bet which way he/she rules?
I also don't think the government has any business in this decision making.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

The tube is not going back in.  Any federal judge thats worth their salt knows that the senate, etc shouldnt be passing stupid ass little laws like this.  Or at least the judges so far have said so.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

Just as many have said yes


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> This fight has been going on for years. The feeding tube has been removed and replace several times. You find some that will remove it, then you find others that put it back in. The president signed a bill last night after congress passed it saying it be put back in. Now a federal judge will rule. Wanna bet which way he/she rules?
> I also don't think the government has any business in this decision making.



Hi Robert,

I can see it now. EVERYONE will now have to go through Congress and the President to die - get THEIR "permission" AFTER an "appropriate"  amount of suffering has been done on the part of the person dying. Kinda like paying taxes I guess...  Maybe it can be called the United States Department of Death and Dying - we "NEED" more "politics" in our lives!!!! 

What if the Federal Judge rules in favor of the Women being allowed to pass away? What will the President do next? And the "religious right"? Vote to throw THAT judge out and put someone else in his place to "rule in THEIR FAVOR"? And prolong her miserable existance longer? 

People MUST BE ALLOWED to die with dignity when it IS their time to go. NO ONE must ever interfere with that. It is a personal thing between them and their god. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## LAM (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I also don't think the government has any business in this decision making.



exactly.  since when does the legislatiive branch of government overturn decisions made by the judicial branch ? sounds like a dictatorship to me.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

DG

I don't think any judge has ruled in the parents favor, i just think with all the appeals being allowed it has to be put back into place.

I am wary of this going to federal court, but I don't think a single judge, regardless of personal beliefs, would rule in favor of the parents.

John H,

Dg's name is Dave, not robert.


----------



## LazyByNature (Mar 21, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> exactly.  since when does the legislatiive branch of government overturn decisions made by the judicial branch ? sounds like a dictatorship to me.



Here's where a little lesson in US government would be good.   The legislative branch makes the laws and the judical branch interperates those laws.   So the job of congress IS TO MAKE LAWS!!!     When congress doesn't like how the courts rule they make new laws and sometimes things called "amendments."

This particular law is bad IMO and they should not interfere with states rights.   But, don't let her strave to death over a 2 week period, grow some balls and take her out quickly with a morphine OD.


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 21, 2005)

What is worse than the actual government involvement is how her life is being used as a political issue. From what I have seen, EVERY republican wants to keep her alive and EVERY democrat wants her to die.  That tells me that most of them don't really give a flying fuck about her. They are only jumping on their own political party bandwagon and toeing the party line. It seems like no one is allowed to think for themselves anymore.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 21, 2005)

You're right Lazybynature.  The Republican party(you know the states rights people) once again are challenging not only the individual rights of the people involved, but also the Florida courts jurisdiction. This is not a federal concern they need to be doing more important things now. Court after court in the state has sided with Terry's husband in this matter, but since they do not like what the state has done they are trying to move it into Federal jurisdiction. They are the ones pulling at the heart string and pandering for votes. I have to wonder what the Republican leadership would be doing if this had been a Democrat cause?

For the record, starvation is actually a painless way to die due to the release of ketones during the profound ketosis that ensues (a natural anesthetic). (From studies by physicians who attend to cognicient, fully aware political activists who have starved themselves to death voluntarily)   

 Her CAT scan showed severe hydrocephalus (were fluid pretty much displaces much of the brain matter, a consequence of anoxic brain injury), at this point the brain is pretty much...to put in layman's term.......toast.  

  In addition, simple reflexes such as smiling are primitive reflexes that do not require a higher functioning  cortex. 

I also believe she is on medicare and medicaid now, so tax payers are paying for most of her care.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

Sad story, but the only proof we have that she wanted to die in the situation is from her husband, who no one can deny acted very suspiciously.  As soon as he get's control of the money, he decides to pull the plug.

Nothing he does now can refute that.  He can turn down millions, donate the remainder of her settlement.. whatever.  There is an obvious motive behind it...was he just doing it to save face?  If he didn't donate the money (or accepted the million dollar offer) he would be plastered all over the world as the money-grubbing murderer.... HE *CAN'T* ACCEPT ANY MONEY!

Bottom line, there was no living will.  He should move on & let the parents take care of her. 

The husband cannot be trusted... I heard he said awhile ago 'When will the bitch die?"


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 21, 2005)

From all the reading I've read regarding the money issue is this:

The husband was already offered 1 and 10 million dollars to just walk away but refused both times clearly saying it wasn't about the money. He was awarded 700,000 for her care (by winnin the malpractice lawsuit)  and 300,000 for the loss of his wife. After 15 years only about 50,000 remains. In 1993 Judge Greer even found that the Shindler's financial motives were just as conflicting as Michael Schiavo's.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Sad story, but the only proof we have that she wanted to die in the situation is from her husband, who no one can deny acted very suspiciously.  As soon as he get's control of the money, he decides to pull the plug.
> 
> Nothing he does now can refute that.  He can turn down millions, donate the remainder of her settlement.. whatever.  There is an obvious motive behind it...was he just doing it to save face?  If he didn't donate the money (or accepted the million dollar offer) he would be plastered all over the world as the money-grubbing murderer.... HE *CAN'T* ACCEPT ANY MONEY!
> 
> ...



Proof?

I thought not.

You can prove there is no living will, but I believe since he was the common law husband he is guardian.  While he did seem suspicious, you have no proof that he was after money.  He got control of money that was no longer there so it is pointless to argue he was out for money.  I imagine he is responsible for paying his lawyers as well, which I imagine is coming out of his pocket.  If not they would get part of the settlement, which after her bills is prolly a little more than 1/3rd of nothing.

The last statement you presented is laughable and obviously some sort of unsubstantiated propaganda.


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> DG
> 
> I don't think any judge has ruled in the parents favor, i just think with all the appeals being allowed it has to be put back into place.
> 
> ...



Hi Dale,

My mistake. I have no idea why I addressed that to "Robert"... I apologize to Dave and you.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

Which one, i am Dave too.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> From all the reading I've read regarding the money issue is this:
> 
> The husband was already offered 1 and 10 million dollars to just walk away but refused both times clearly saying it wasn't about the money.




I don't see that as clear at all.  If he had taken the money, everyone would be calling him a murderer rather than her 'Savior'


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> The last statement you presented is laughable and obviously some sort of unsubstantiated propaganda.



I can't validate this news source (just ran a quick search), but this is the story.. I'm sure you could find it elsewhere, more reputable.

"In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, "When is she going to die," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch going to die?" (This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response.)"

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith090503.asp


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Which one, i am Dave too.


LMAO 1 OR 2?


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

..and yes, Dale, I heard it on a conservative radio show


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I don't see that as clear at all.  If he had taken the money, everyone would be calling him an murderer rather than her 'Savior'




I gotcha Busy, but $10 million is alot of cheddar.  The funders prolly would have welched anyway since he would have been villified.  I have no idea if he was out for money or not, but I know she ain't coming back and will only deteriorate from here on out.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I gotcha Busy, but $10 million is alot of cheddar.  The funders prolly would have welched anyway since he would have been villified.  I have no idea if he was out for money or not, but I know she ain't coming back and will only deteriorate from here on out.




I agree & wouldn't want to live like that either, but I would leave the decision up to the family.. that's all.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

What if you were the husband and in the same situation?  Do not include the money as a variable.

I am in the same boat as you, I think a parent would know better, but things change and since I am not married i don't consider myself a good candidate to say it is the family over the husband.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

hey, I'm one of those Roman Catholic nut-jobs.. 

seriously though, I don't know what i'd do. If I had given up, I would let her parents take her.


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> LMAO 1 OR 2?



Hi,

Didn't I get into "trouble" with you a while ago by addressing your name as "Bob" and you asked me later on  to address you as "Robert"? I AM (admittedly) SO CONFUSEDDDD!!!

Anyway, HELLO BUDDY!!!! I APOLOGIZE for getting your name wrong if I did. I feel like such a "dope"...

Take Care, SINCERELY, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> ..and yes, Dale, I heard it on a conservative radio show




Hi Busy,

Someone just told me that Rush Limbaugh was going on a frenzy on his talk show about this - probably a last-ditch effort before the courts go after him for his "alleged" drug abuse...  ....Ya gotta keep the ratings up....

Take Care, John H.


----------



## LAM (Mar 21, 2005)

LazyByNature said:
			
		

> Here's where a little lesson in US government would be good.   The legislative branch makes the laws and the judical branch interperates those laws.   So the job of congress IS TO MAKE LAWS!!!     When congress doesn't like how the courts rule they make new laws and sometimes things called "amendments."



that is not the case here.  the legislative branch passed a specific Bill to become a law to overturn a decision made by the judical branch.  it was not an ammendment.  there is a HUGE big difference


----------



## P-funk (Mar 21, 2005)

What was it that got her in this state?  Car accident?


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

A heart attack from lack of potassium from an eating disorder.


----------



## P-funk (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> A heart attack from lack of potassium from an eating disorder.




thanks, didn't know that.


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 21, 2005)

If the tube is kept in, she can possibly live another 40-50 years?? .. In the long run, that's a short period of time. I seriously doubt that anyone will even remember her name 400 years from now. So I say that if her parents want to keep her alive, then let them. If she is truely brain-dead, she has no concept of time anyway. She has an eternity to be dead. 

 And it is very doubtful, but who knows what science will come up with in the next 50 years. Maybe a computer chip to help brain damaged people? You never know. 

 I went through this last year when a good friend suffered a severe brain injury. He was on a ventilator and his wife decided to pull the plug. I supported her descision. If she had decided to keep him alive, I would have also supported that choice. I just thank God that it isn't me who is in that position with a loved one.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

Yeah it's a very tough situation to be in.
I really think congress set a dangerous precdent by making this law. Now they can step in anytime they want and make a law for anything!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

She essentially has no brain matter, so unless they perfect the brain transplant, there will be no improvement.  I hear ya on not having to make the decision, it is so much easier being a MOnday morning Quarterback than actually having to live this.

You would figure with my belief set that you are essentially just wormfood when you die thatI would be for staying alive in this instance, but I am not.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Yeah it's a very tough situation to be in.
> I really think congress set a dangerous precdent by making this law. Now they can step in anytime they want and make a law for anything!



I think we need a "Fake 8" Law.  Anytime a woman is an 8 or better and has fake jugs she should be forced to go topless in public.  I could really get behind something like that.


----------



## ZECH (Mar 21, 2005)

I think I want to be cremated so my ashes can be sprinkled in the trout streams and over the mountains.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

I was thinking cremation as well, but I don't no where I would want to be spread.

Anyone see the Seinfeld where Kramer decided to start a living will.  Hilarious.


----------



## fantasma62 (Mar 21, 2005)

Even before we knew about the Schiavos, my wife and I drafted our living wills.  No way in hell that I am being kept in that state with that machine hanging to me, while people tell me that I look alive and vibrant, when I look like a vegetable.  It just isn't right.  I don't want anyone cleaning or bathing me, unless it's my wife or a hot nurse.... 

I was going to vote No, but I pressed yes by mistake, so the poll will be off by one vote...


----------



## maniclion (Mar 21, 2005)

I just can't beleive that we stick a needle in some murderers arm when we decide it's his/her time to die, but when an innocent person has that decision made he/she has to suffer 2+ weeks of starvation.  Pretty bassackwards huh?


----------



## Pepper (Mar 21, 2005)

Well, thanks guys...after wandering by this morning  and reading this all day, I am still completely undecided on whether she should die or not.

you guys are freaking worthless.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Actually, in my opinion it is a normal case.  Plus, who knows why the husband kept her around.  Perhaps he was had some hope she would pop out of it as well if he isnt the one that did her in to begin with.  As to whether or not she is on life support, I'd have to say that everything depends on her amount of brainwave activity.
> 
> http://www.rangelmd.com/2005/02/new-study-on-comatose-patients.html
> 
> ...



Well, actually, these are the times when trying too hard is most important.  I would never feel offended if someone accused me of trying to hard in this case.

And there is money at stake, as I pointed out.  

When I argue from a philosophical and ethical perspective, what I mean to say is unless you have the background in philosophy and biomedical ethics, and chain of legal precedent, all you really have in an opinion based on your own feelings...which is fine...but this has become the standard by which people judge things now, where in the past they turned to visionaries for guidance.  

The deeper problem is a chain of precendence and a slippery slope toward a state-defined "quality of life."  Once we green-light the active starvation of the mentally damaged, we've opened a floodgate that places us only a few steps from A Brave New World, or your dystopic novel of choice.    I wish you could see it this way, but like most people, you can't get past your own ego to think of the greater good.  Given you're ethics, a person like Stephen Hawking, who re-wrote the book on astrophysics, would have been flushed down the toilet thanks to the genetic marker of Lou Gehrigs disease.  Or Helen Keller...or Ray Charles the blind man.  

The list is endless.  

Whose genes are the best?  Who can market the new master-baby?  How much will Pfizer sink into convincing the mindless public that they need genetic therapy to be happy?  How far are you from Hitler when you tread this path?

Why don't you just walk into a mental health institution and hold up a sign saying "You genetic losers should be euthanised?"  You might call this example extreme, but I assure you it is not.  

You've obvisouly never met someone who's been profoundly impacted by a mentally compromised person.  

Additionally, I think people can say whatever they want about wishing for death if in a similar state, but how can you say that?  What happens if you have full consciousness but no ability to move, and you hear your husband talkign about killing you (let's get it straight--stop using semantic convolution to appease your soul--we're talking about killing a person), and you can't respond to say "Wait--I am still thinking."  

Do we even want to open this door?  

They say a nation is judged by how it treats the ailing and the poor, and the minute it gets too expensive to keep the "undesirables" alive is the minute we have devolved and become akin to our Babylonian  mentors.

The fatal human flaw is thinking we can alter the future and not understanding the ultimate importance of experiencing life in a Zen-state, not a state of "controller and conquerer of all things natural." Of course, our natural tendency is to do just that, try to control, conquer, define, etc., and in the meantime we ruin all the things that make life exciting, like struggle, and triumph over adversity, and working hard for a goal, etc.

I'm not saying there's an easy answer. I actually think our self-destruction is inevitable, based solely on research, study, and anaylsis, not religion or anything that requires faith.  

Additionally, if someone could provide a link to Doctor's reports, that would be great.  If you already have, I appologize for not seeing it.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

She didn't make a living will.  There is nothing in writing.  That is KEY to this issue. 

It's called refusal of heroic ressucitation measures.

It's called assigning an empowered proxy in WRITING.

If you don't want to go this way, write that shit down, and the plug will be done before it even gets plugged in.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 21, 2005)

In addition, Michael Shiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life sustaining measures.
In May, 1998, Michael filed a petition, asking the court to appoint a Guaradian Ad Litem, and to determine whether or not Terri would want the tube to be removed.
It turns out that Terri told five different people -- including her mother, by the way -- that in the case of brain death she would not want her body kept alive.( at least according to the legal briefs) 
Read the decision:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf 

And as sad as it may be for her parents, the law is very clear on the matter, as far as who has the responsibility of making these decisions in the absence of a living will.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

And on the subject of cruelty, we have no way of knowing she cannot feel pain, regardless of what you say.

One of the most common thought experiments in philosophy is this:

Prove you have a headache with empirical data?

OR this:  Prove you're experiecing emotional anguish, through empirical data?

Or: Prove you're suffering from Amotivational Syndorme, and not just lazy?

OR: Prove you experience phantom pain in the leg that was severed years ago?

You cannot prove any of this.  It is only known to the "experiencer," whether or not it occurs.  True, you may be able to correlate certain biometrical markers with certain pain, but if we were all that advanced in understanding pain management, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and people wouldn't be taking Alleve.

In my opinion, starving ANYTHING is cruel, period.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Did someone already post the link about her brain being turned into cerebral spinal fluid?  

Secondly, does anyone have experience in removal of feeding tubes?  Does this occur regularly as a "removal of heroic measures?"

So far I have been primarily arguing from a philosophical standpoint, and if there are details I don't know yet, I might be mistaken.  I would really like to review all of the documents.  I find it odd that so many republicans and democrats would join together to get involved if there weren't compelling evidence on the side of the family.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Since a lot hinges on the method of death, would this case be different if they would give her an injection versus starving her?

I know it would be for me.

What made me think of this was Eggs comment about putting down the dog.  I grew up on a farm--we put down lots of animals, but we never starved one. That's cruel.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

And then on the other hand we have State Supreme Courts ruling death penalty by lethal injection is "cruel and unsual punishment" for convicted serial rapist/murderers.

What a strange world.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 21, 2005)

_I didn´t read the whole thread yet but was she conscious? I think I read someone saying that she communicated with her parents. _


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> In addition, Michael Shiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life sustaining measures.
> In May, 1998, Michael filed a petition, asking the court to appoint a Guaradian Ad Litem, and to determine whether or not Terri would want the tube to be removed.
> It turns out that Terri told five different people -- including her mother, by the way -- that in the case of brain death she would not want her body kept alive.( at least according to the legal briefs)
> Read the decision:
> ...



Thank you for the info.

And yes, the law is clear as to the chain of responsibility, and it's spouse first, agreed.

I think the hardest part for me in all of this is the starving, and that some people say the notice improvement.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I didn´t read the whole thread yet but was she conscious? I think I read someone saying that she communicated with her parents. _



Her parents claim she communicates, albeit it at a low level...this is what disturbs me.  It's one thing to administer an injection while sleeping.  It's another to sentence her to starvation.

Additionally, I don't agree with all of our definitions of consciousness.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Here is terry schiavo's brain
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT scan.png

here is a normal brain on cat scan (look at second one)

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/scanning/cat.html

Notice the "butterfly" shaped area in the center (the ventricles) is much bigger in terry's cat scan and almost non existant in the normal CAT scan, that's how much fluid has built up and compressed the brain.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Thanks BAW-->So in effect, the oxygen starvation caused the brain cells in that region to die, and the are is flooded with cerebral spinal fluid?  What happens to the tissue?  Does it wither away?  It can't just disappear, right?

Also, what is the standard for determining brain death?  It's been a little while since I had my biomedical ethics course (which was taught by Dr. Insoo Huyan who authored Clinton's position paper on cloning and genetic research , btw  )


----------



## Vieope (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> Her parents claim she communicates, albeit it at a low level...this is what disturbs me.  It's one thing to administer an injection while sleeping.  It's another to sentence her to starvation.
> 
> Additionally, I don't agree with all of our definitions of consciousness.


_Why they don´t give an injection? Why a prisioner on death sentence dies in a peaceful way and she needs to starve to death? 
At least overdose her in some hallucinogenic drug.  _


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _Why they don´t give a injection? Why prisioner on death sentence die in a peaceful way and she needs to starve to death?
> At least overdose her in some hallucinogenic drug.  _



I agree--two weeks of starvation seems way overkill, and cruel.

But the reason is passive versus active causation of death.  Giving injections is seen as euthanasia, while removal of food and starvation is considered natural.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> But the reason is passive versus active causation of death.  Giving injections is seen as euthanasia, while removal of food and starvation is considered natural.


_Sick! If she was someone that I loved I would do it myself. 
I still don´t understand what is the big deal on liberation of euthanasia but that is another topic.. _


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> Well, actually, these are the times when trying too hard is most important.  I would never feel offended if someone accused me of trying to hard in this case.



Right, but trying to hard by saying misleading things doesnt get us anywhere.  If you have actually studied logical thinking, you'd know pretty well that throwing a red herring into the argument gets us nowhere.



> And there is money at stake, as I pointed out.



Yeah, and as I pointed out, he has more to gain if he gives her to her parents.



> When I argue from a philosophical and ethical perspective, what I mean to say is unless you have the background in philosophy and biomedical ethics, and chain of legal precedent, all you really have in an opinion based on your own feelings...which is fine...but this has become the standard by which people judge things now, where in the past they turned to visionaries for guidance.



If you're so accomplished, please point me in the direction of some of the work you have done for journals and what not so I can read what you've published.



> The deeper problem is a chain of precendence and a slippery slope toward a state-defined "quality of life."  Once we green-light the active starvation of the mentally damaged, we've opened a floodgate that places us only a few steps from A Brave New World, or your dystopic novel of choice.



  No, the deeper problem is that once you set up a chain of precendence allowing the govenment to intervene in every little thing that pops up around the country you begin to slowly but surely strip away the rights of the people in this nation, including our right to die a peaceful death when we are stuck in a vegetative state that it is impossible to recover from.



> I wish you could see it this way, but like most people, you can't get past your own ego to think of the greater good.



Riiiighteo bum fuck. Because we dont see it "you're way... the way of the greater good".  Now whose ego is in question you twat.

If you want to keep the conversation civil, then stop assaulting me personally.  You fucking shit.  Then I'll be kind enough to do the same.  Ass whipe.



> Given you're ethics, a person like Stephen Hawking, who re-wrote the book on astrophysics, would have been flushed down the toilet thanks to the genetic marker of Lou Gehrigs disease.  Or Helen Keller...or Ray Charles the blind man.
> 
> The list is endless.



You're a slippery slope waiting to happen arent you.  We've talking about a lady that is in a vegetative state who will not and cannot recover because her brain is trashed.  So far you've been full of red herrings and slippery slopes, please tell me you dont have a degree in this.



> Whose genes are the best?  Who can market the new master-baby?  How much will Pfizer sink into convincing the mindless public that they need genetic therapy to be happy?  How far are you from Hitler when you tread this path?



I'm not sure, but I do know you are a fucking psycho. 



> Why don't you just walk into a mental health institution and hold up a sign saying "You genetic losers should be euthanised?"  You might call this example extreme, but I assure you it is not.



Thats nice, I think you would do well to walk into one of those mental health institutions.  If you need a number I can find an excellent psychiatrist in your area for you.



> You've obvisouly never met someone who's been profoundly impacted by a mentally compromised person.



Besides you?



> Additionally, I think people can say whatever they want about wishing for death if in a similar state, but how can you say that?  What happens if you have full consciousness but no ability to move, and you hear your husband talkign about killing you (let's get it straight--stop using semantic convolution to appease your soul--we're talking about killing a person), and you can't respond to say "Wait--I am still thinking."



If you want to call it killing, then so be it.  So is it murder when somebody has it in their will that they want to die if they are in that state?  What happens if once they are in that vegetative state and they try to communicate that they changed their mind but cant?  Is it murder then?  It is suicide?  We're talking about some lady who has been in this persistent vegitative state for a very long time.  She no longer has a mind, and you can determine that scientifically.  There is no full conscious state lurking behind the distant gave of Terry, she's looking nowhere, and nothing is clicking in that mind.

Yet you want to keep her alive for your own shits and giggles because you're worried about Hitler coming and knocking down your door and stealing the babies out of your womans womb.  Get help, and get it quick.  Or else stop letting an overly ambitious sense of ethics screw up your logic.



> They say a nation is judged by how it treats the ailing and the poor, and the minute it gets too expensive to keep the "undesirables" alive is the minute we have devolved and become akin to our Babylonian  mentors.



Yay, now we're Babylon.  Tell me, just what do you know about Babylon? 



> The fatal human flaw is thinking we can alter the future and not understanding the ultimate importance of experiencing life in a Zen-state, not a state of "controller and conquerer of all things natural." Of course, our natural tendency is to do just that, try to control, conquer, define, etc., and in the meantime we ruin all the things that make life exciting, like struggle, and triumph over adversity, and working hard for a goal, etc.



I'm glad you've discovered the secret of life.  Thats nice.

I havent seen any doctors report... but considering that the courts so far have always said the tube should be removed should be a sign of what the doctors actually involved in the case have said.  I wouldnt mind seeing a doctors report either, but all I have been able to turn up is news related information on it.

Oh, and on an ending note... if you can argue without tacking jabs at me with condescending little pokes then I'll refrain from lascerating you with my sharp and quite unfriendly language.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I can't validate this news source (just ran a quick search), but this is the story.. I'm sure you could find it elsewhere, more reputable.



I really doubt you could, that seems like something that would be found in the National Observer or something 



> "In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, "When is she going to die," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch going to die?" (This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response.)"



I have no doubt he said "when is she going to die" and "has she died yet".  Those are things normal people say when they are expecting someone they love to die.  The last bit very much sounds like potential BS.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> Thanks BAW-->So in effect, the oxygen starvation caused the brain cells in that region to die, and the are is flooded with cerebral spinal fluid?  What happens to the tissue?  Does it wither away?  It can't just disappear, right?



Consider what would happen if you have some big 21" guns.  Then you stop working out and eating properly for a year, and when you go to measure them they are 15".  What happened to that tissue?


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Look, you're an angry person who must resort to "fuck" and a misspelled "ass whipe" to feel good about your inability to control your temper in this situation, and that's fine, but realize you'd look like a fool if we were doing this in a real-life public venue...or maybe you do realize this, and that's when you equated f-bombs with some form of wit...your knee-jerk reaction is toward anger, and those are always the funniest people to watch in a congressional hearing.  It's called losing your cool, and it's not very becoming, and it doesn't get anything accomplished.

If you think I'm dropping "red-herrings" by referencing questions of legal precedence and ethical dilemmas and slippery slopes, then why is congress involved?  Surely the 80% of representatives who voted are concerned about something a little bigger than the plight of this ailing woman?  I assure you these I bring up are the very things they are concerning themselves with.

I do have an overly ambitious sense of ethics. I am writing a book on it right now.  My undergrad instructor wrote the nation's position paper on the subject of cloning research and genetic testing a few years back, and it happens to be something I am very interested in. I feel it is the final step in evolution.  It will be the capstone on our "post-post-modern" existence.

But this isn't about me or you, and I never implicitly indicated that.  If I make a "jab" at the unnamed collective "you" and you place yourself in that category, that's your own deal.

Look--I'm referencing evolution of ethics and culture on a major, historical level, and bringing in all of the pertinent examples.  You're vomitting seventh grade insults.  If you fail to see that we're moving toward the dystopic future envisioned by every great modern and ancient thinker, than we're not even operating in the same epsitemic hemispehere or eschatological ballpark.   If that makes me a psycho in your book, so be it.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> I really doubt you could, that seems like something that would be found in the National Observer or something
> 
> I have no doubt he said "when is she going to die" and "has she died yet".  Those are things normal people say when they are expecting someone they love to die.  The last bit very much sounds like potential BS.



I've heard about it  now several times on Chicago radio.  Whether or not it's true, I don't know... but why would it be so far fetched?  

It may be cruel, but that doesn't mean it's not true.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Where at in Chicago, BusyLivin?

I'm at Wacker and Adams right now--World's Gym in the basement--just getting out of work--Logan Square is home.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I've heard about it  now several times on Chicago radio.  Whether or not it's true, I don't know... but why would it be so far fetched?
> 
> It may be cruel, but that doesn't mean it's not true.



You guys can't even win a World Series, what the hell would you know?


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

south suburbs... orland park.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You guys can't even win a World Series, what the hell would you know?



OUCH!  

Sad but true.  

At least we got rid of Sammy, I mean corky.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You guys can't even win a World Series, what the hell would you know?



Hey, the Sox won in 1917, they've been rebuilding.


----------



## brodus (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Hey, the Sox won in 1917, they've been rebuilding.



True, the new stadium is really nice


----------



## Vieope (Mar 21, 2005)

_Hey you guys need to decide if the woman dies or live, the judge is waiting. Can we please stop talking about sports?  _


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 21, 2005)

I am actually a Cubs fan, or used to be when I liked baseball.  Mark Grace was my fav player.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 21, 2005)

_Good. _


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> Look, you're an angry person who must resort to "fuck" and a misspelled "ass whipe" to feel good about your inability to control your temper in this situation, and that's fine, but realize you'd look like a fool if we were doing this in a real-life public venue...or maybe you do realize this, and that's when you equated f-bombs with some form of wit...your knee-jerk reaction is toward anger, and those are always the funniest people to watch in a congressional hearing.  It's called losing your cool, and it's not very becoming, and it doesn't get anything accomplished.



Its not very becoming in your reply to me to use the word "you" if you didnt mean it for me.  Next time, be more clear.  Now look, you're an arrogant little person that thinks they are a whole lot more than they really are.  Some people grow up and realize that there are many intelligent people in the world, and that being condescending is a quick way to make people dislike you.  You could very well use a dose of reality.  You're pretty much dust waiting to happen, and you'll have your little turn here on the wheel in life like everyone else will and then you'll be gone.  So lets get something straight, if you want to deal with people, then deal with them as equals, because there are many people in your life that will be bigger than you, smarter than you, and alot more likeable than you.  You can remedy a bit of that by being polite, dropping the arrogant act, and being specific when you are insulting a certain party 



> If you think I'm dropping "red-herrings" by referencing questions of legal precedence and ethical dilemmas and slippery slopes, then why is congress involved?  Surely the 80% of representatives who voted are concerned about something a little bigger than the plight of this ailing woman?  I assure you these I bring up are the very things they are concerning themselves with.



Yes, you compared taking out Schiavos feeding tube to starving a completely live and well dog.  Those two in no way are similar.  First, you are comparing a dog to a human.  Do you make your wife sleep outside or slap her with a newspaper when she pees on the floor?    Second, we're talking about a dog that is in control of all of its functions, and a person whose brain is all but destroyed.  Did you take a peek at that CAT scan?  Have you ever starved yourself?  I've gone without eating for 6 days once to see what it was like (for a short time) for the people in africa to feel starvation.  Near the end, I have to admit that I was no longer hungry, as BAW said.  I actually almost felt like not eating anymore, and the state was quite pleasant.



> I do have an overly ambitious sense of ethics. I am writing a book on it right now.  My undergrad instructor wrote the nation's position paper on the subject of cloning research and genetic testing a few years back, and it happens to be something I am very interested in. I feel it is the final step in evolution.  It will be the capstone on our "post-post-modern" existence.



Ethics without logic is sensless though.  We need them both, and they both have to mesh with each other.  I agree that ethics is a huge step in evolution.  I'm not one to say it is the final step, but yes, it is a big deal.  Once you get your book published please post the name of it up, I'd be interested in giving it a read.  I enjoy reading of cultural evolution and what not, so I'm sure it would be fun.



> But this isn't about me or you, and I never implicitly indicated that.  If I make a "jab" at the unnamed collective "you" and you place yourself in that category, that's your own deal.



You implicilty replied to me  If you want to rant about something else when it doesnt pertain to someone, I suggest doing it in another post.  If not, the person might think when you write "you" that you are speaking of them 



> Look--I'm referencing evolution of ethics and culture on a major, historical level, and bringing in all of the pertinent examples.  You're vomitting seventh grade insults.  If you fail to see that we're moving toward the dystopic future envisioned by every great modern and ancient thinker, than we're not even operating in the same epsitemic hemispehere or eschatological ballpark.   If that makes me a psycho in your book, so be it.



No, I said you're a psycho because you went off on me, and we're confusing the issue with irrelevant matters.  If you had a line of ants walking into your kitchen trying to take off with your bagel in the morning, would you carefully pick each one up and let it outside?  Or would you get a wet towerl and wipe them up and kill them?  So stop comparing humans to the rest of the animals, we're a different thing.  Along with that, stop comparing fully active and competent animals/people to Schiavo, they arent on the same level.  Lastly, it is a travesty that we have to step in and try to take over a persons right that should be passed on in marriage.  Her parents no longer were responsible for Terry when she married her husband.  It shouldnt revert to them now, married couples should be responsible for each others well being and doing what is right.  Yes, we should all have wills.  However, that confuses the issues that this is a right that should belong to the spouse.

When my grandfather died from his 4th or 5th heart attack, the doctors managed to rescuscitate him (oooh, probably 10 minutes out at least).  They were keeping him alive, and even after my grandmother had a scan done that showed no brain waves she pretty much had to beat them into letting him die instead of keeping him hooked up to a machine for another 10 years.

If someone is in a coma and they can measure their brain and see it is fully functional, then it should be up to the will whether they want to live or not.  When someones mind is gone, then the answer is obviously to let them go.  Even if they could revivie Terry Schiavo now, it wouldnt be her.  She's long gone and they are just keeping the husk of her existence around.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

Speaking of which, what do you guys think of Soldier Field?  

I'm pretty much disgusted.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 21, 2005)

If they give her morphine and a little water then I say let her pass.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

Could I have a little morphine with my water too?


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

Oh, and while you're arguing, do us all a favor and vote! 

http://www.atozfitness.com/cgi-bin/top25/rankem.cgi?id=Prince


----------



## maniclion (Mar 21, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Could I have a little morphine with my water too?


Sorry all I got is some banana demerol syrup, would you like some on your pancakes?


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 21, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, what do you guys think of Soldier Field?
> 
> I'm pretty much disgusted.



It's awesome inside.  I love it. Needs more bathrooms, though.. lines were ridiculous.


----------



## PreMier (Mar 21, 2005)

I like reading debates, this was/is a good thread for that.

Eggs, your my new hero.

I vote let her die/kill her, whatever.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> It's awesome inside.  I love it. Needs more bathrooms, though.. lines were ridiculous.



I agree it needed all the modern amenities, but I kinda wish they could have kept the historic feel that it had.  I really liked its architecture. 

Ah well, still so many beautiful buildings in Chicago and whats done is done.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 22, 2005)

brodus said:
			
		

> Thanks BAW-->So in effect, the oxygen starvation caused the brain cells in that region to die, and the are is flooded with cerebral spinal fluid?  What happens to the tissue?  Does it wither away?  It can't just disappear, right?
> 
> Also, what is the standard for determining brain death?  It's been a little while since I had my biomedical ethics course (which was taught by Dr. Insoo Huyan who authored Clinton's position paper on cloning and genetic research , btw  )




She is not brain dead, her midbrain or medulla which controls basic things like breathing still function quite well, which is why she does not need a ventilator.  An EEG will show a severe diffusse slowing of ther brain waves in someone who is in a vegetative state as well as a neurological exam that elicits primitive reflexes etc. etc.  Brain death is easily deteremined by a flat line EEG and doing caloric responses etc. etc.   And yes, her brain cells do atrophy after anoxic brain damage as well as getting compressed by the buildup of the cerebral spinal fluid.  
You are obviously a caring individual.  If it makes you feel better,when they do discontinue the feeding tube her physician will administer morphine as "comfort measure".  Physicians do this all the time when they stop feeding tubes,IVs etc. in terminally illl cancer patients whose family or the individual him or herself request that all life sustaining measures be stopped.  Not lethal doses to suppress her breathing, (that would be Kavorcian) but around the clock administration to keep her comfortable "just in case".


----------



## Eggs (Mar 22, 2005)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo/index.html

And so now all the federal judges will order the same thing. I dont see why people would be too surprised about this 

I do agree with BAW though, that an administration of morphine over the course of the feeding tube removal would be a kind "just in case".  Not truly needed, but a good sign that they are trying to allow her comfort while letting her pass.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 22, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo/index.html
> 
> And so now all the federal judges will order the same thing. I dont see why people would be too surprised about this
> 
> I do agree with BAW though, that an administration of morphine over the course of the feeding tube removal would be a kind "just in case".  Not truly needed, but a good sign that they are trying to allow her comfort while letting her pass.



I find this statement by her parents quite ironic - "They argue that their daughter's due process rights have been violated and that she, as a Roman Catholic, would not have wanted to die."

So she, as a Roman Catholic, would rather hang around in a vegetative state until her limbs have to be amputated and her mind dissintigrates.  I personally think her parents are awful people, no matter what anybody would say.  While I sympathize with what they went through (15 years ago when this originally happened), I believe they belong in some screwy horror movie where the kids in the basement on life support and they keep them there until long past their own deaths.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 22, 2005)

What I find odd is that if you fish for a Doctor to give you a pescription for something it is illegal, but if you hop from court to court trying to get your verdict read it is fine.

I would really like to meet these Doctor's who say she has a chance for improvement.  Don't get me wrong, I think experimental measures should be carried out in order to make new strides in science, but make them on people who make the decision to be kept alive, not on ones that seem to have stated they don't want to be kept on life support.

Also, the more this garbage goes on, the more and more it just looks like political maneuvering to me.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 22, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> So she, as a Roman Catholic, would rather hang around in a vegetative state until her limbs have to be amputated and her mind dissintigrates.




I read that too, but I don't really look at her parents as bad, really.  I just think what a shame it is that people could let their religious beliefs stand in the way of the welfare of their child.  But hey, too each his own, I do dumb shit on a daily basis.


----------



## SlimShady (Mar 22, 2005)

The judge denied the parents request today..

*Judge denies request to restore Schiavo's feeding tube*



http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo/index.html


----------



## crazy_enough (Mar 22, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> At least the parents have SOMEONE to hug and love. If you let her die, they have nothing. Then their lives are tore apart.


I understand where ur coming from, I cant bare the thought of loosing one of my children, yet it seems rather unfair to think of the parents feelings in this case. They will always have her memories to hold on to. Her life (if we can call it that) is currently torn apart!


----------



## I Are Baboon (Mar 22, 2005)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> The judge denied the parents request today..
> 
> *Judge denies request to restore Schiavo's feeding tube*



 

Nice to see the judge doing the right thing.


----------



## John H. (Mar 22, 2005)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> If the tube is kept in, she can possibly live another 40-50 years?? .. In the long run, that's a short period of time. I seriously doubt that anyone will even remember her name 400 years from now. So I say that if her parents want to keep her alive, then let them. If she is truely brain-dead, she has no concept of time anyway. She has an eternity to be dead.
> 
> And it is very doubtful, but who knows what science will come up with in the next 50 years. Maybe a computer chip to help brain damaged people? You never know.
> 
> I went through this last year when a good friend suffered a severe brain injury. He was on a ventilator and his wife decided to pull the plug. I supported her descision. If she had decided to keep him alive, I would have also supported that choice. I just thank God that it isn't me who is in that position with a loved one.



Hi Slim,

You are right.

But it can not be much of a life FOR HER.

And I am also glad I am not in that position.

Nor would I want to be - as I am sure most would feel.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## brogers (Mar 22, 2005)

I wouldn't want to be in that state, but I believe the husband 1) Didn't say a WORD about her "not wanting to live like this" until the million dollar settlement. 2) Denied therapy for her. Additionally x-rays indicated she had broken bones and accusations have been made about possible physical abuse, creating a motivation for him to want to keep her in that state.

Like I said, I wouldn't want to be like that, but I don't understand why the husband won't just turn her over to her parents and let them give her some kind of therapy.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 22, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> I wouldn't want to be in that state, but I believe the husband 1) Didn't say a WORD about her "not wanting to live like this" until the million dollar settlement. 2) Denied therapy for her. Additionally x-rays indicated she had broken bones and accusations have been made about possible physical abuse, creating a motivation for him to want to keep her in that state.
> 
> Like I said, I wouldn't want to be like that, but I don't understand why the husband won't just turn her over to her parents and let them give her some kind of therapy.




I think most of the stuff being brought up by the parents' side is completely fabricated.  I initially thought the hubby waqs a slimeball, but now I am more apt to believe the parents are.  Also, there is no money left, and there is evidence that Terry told one of her friends that she would not want to be in that kind of state, it may even be in the court records.  Also, she is not coming out of her current state regardless of what anyone wants to do.

As for giving her back to her parents...Their motives are as shady as his.  If I had married a woman and promised her I would not let her live in that state, I would damn well make sure that i followed thru on my promise.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 22, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I think most of the stuff being brought up by the parents' side is completely fabricated. I initially thought the hubby waqs a slimeball, but now I am more apt to believe the parents are. Also, there is no money left, and there is evidence that Terry told one of her friends that she would not want to be in that kind of state, it may even be in the court records. Also, she is not coming out of her current state regardless of what anyone wants to do.
> 
> As for giving her back to her parents...Their motives are as shady as his. If I had married a woman and promised her I would not let her live in that state, I would damn well make sure that i followed thru on my promise.


 I also believe that a spouse would be more likely to let a loved one go than the parents would.  The spouse would want to end the loved one's pain while the parents wouldn't want to lose a child.

 This wouldn't always be the case, but I bet it's that way more often than not.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 23, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> I also believe that a spouse would be more likely to let a loved one go than the parents would.  The spouse would want to end the loved one's pain while the parents wouldn't want to lose a child.
> 
> This wouldn't always be the case, but I bet it's that way more often than not.




I agree with you hundred percent.  Physicians see this   battle between parent's interest and spousal interest play out all the time in so many other aspects of caring for a sick patient. (Ie: cancer patients, terminally ill ALS etc.)

Well, the 11th Circuit here in Atlanta has now ruled that the parents "failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims."  They made this pronouncement at 2:30am. This comes from  one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country .


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

What I find odd is that most peeople who oppose this think it is a cruel way to die, albeit it not.  If it were, I imagine an even crueler way to die would be to have the tube removed for 3 days, then put back in, then removed for 3 days, then put back in, then removed for 5 days...


----------



## DOMS (Mar 23, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> What I find odd is that most peeople who oppose this think it is a cruel way to die, albeit it not. If it were, I imagine an even crueler way to die would be to have the tube removed for 3 days, then put back in, then removed for 3 days, then put back in, then removed for 5 days...


 
 That's horrific.  I mean that.  That would be utterly horrible.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 23, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> I agree with you hundred percent. Physicians see this battle between parent's interest and spousal interest play out all the time in so many other aspects of caring for a sick patient. (Ie: cancer patients, terminally ill ALS etc.)
> 
> Well, the 11th Circuit here in Atlanta has now ruled that the parents "failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims." They made this pronouncement at 2:30am. This comes from one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country .


 Duh.  With a moniker like 'bandaidwoman', you'd figure I'd have picked up that you're in medical field.  I'm a genius.  Yeah, definitely 697 toothpicks...

 My thoughts are that the parents simply don't want to let her go.  They don't want to lose their daughter.  The truth is that their Terry left 15 years ago.

 No doubt about it, if it were me, I'd want them to pull the plug.  RG is spot on, I'm getting a living will.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 23, 2005)

The irony is that Terri had anorexia nervosa, and most psycologists feel this disorder stems from bad family dynamics, which is probably what is playing out publically and perpetuating this  struggle by her parents .



> *Many researchers claim that family dynamics are at the root of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa. The role of dysfunctional family interactions in the pathogenesis of anorexia nervosa has been given a prominent place in the research field. *Evidence for a specific family constellation in this disorder, however, has been conflicting. While the majority of studies argue for a specific family interaction style, further studies must be conducted to identify distinguishing characteristics of anorexic subtypes and to determine whether these characteristics are of a causal or consequential nature (Minuchin, Rosman & Baker, 1978).
> 
> Family focused treatments for anorexia nervosa have been developed based on accounts in family therapy literature of the "typical" anorexic or "psychosomatic" family (Weme & Yalom, 1996). Anorexic families may appear to have a perfect or ideal environment on the surface, but upon close observation little expression of affection or warmth is seen. Members of these families seldom take specific stands on issues, and conflict is avoided at all costs. Underlying dissatisfaction and tension is often present within the parental dyad.* It has been suggested that parents of anorexic offspring put high expectations on their children to over-compensate for the lack of love in their own marriage (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). The anorexic is then capable of using the illness to unite his/her parents.*
> 
> In a review article on anorexia and family issues, Yager describes how anecdotal reports of child-parent interactions and personality styles of parents show a great deal of variability. The relationships between mothers and daughters are reported by some to be rejecting and by others to be ambivalent or overinvolved. Although these mother-child interactions are contradictory, several general themes are present (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). Anorexic mothers tend to focus all of their attention on the well-being of their children (Minuchin, Rosman & Baker, 1978). They set high expectations and foster ambitions for external achievement. *The mothers of anorexics may be involved socially, they usually lack intimate friends. In many cases, the daughter becomes the mother's confidant. This overinvolvement creates separation difficulty later in life (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988)*. A great amount of variability exists in father-daughter dyads as well. Some anorexic fathers have been described as kind and affectionate, while others have been described as passive and ineffectual. These fathers are often peripheral to the family (Blinder, Chaitin & Goldstein, 1988). ......etc etc.




http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/famstruc.htm

I am not a psycologist, but most anorexics do have alot of emotional/ family  baggage.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

Her sister is very thin and attractive as well.  I have no idea what Terry looked like prior to the accident, but that can also be very hard on a woman.  Especially if her parents used her sister as a benchmark for comparison, even if it were in something totally unrelated to looks and thinness.

As a kid I put alot of pressure on myself to measure up to my brother, and that was with zero pressure from my parents.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 23, 2005)

Yep, I definitely agree that having an attractive sibling can be hard and make one want to match up. Or not necessarily attractive, but better at anything.  More so also when they are an older sibling.

I was at a friends house recently and he has twin daughters.  One of them is normal, but the other is afflicted by a mild deformation.  It doesnt make her ugly, but she has become taller than the other and her eyes and set apart a bit wider I think and her facial features are different.  As well as some minor muscle things here and there.  Anyways, she is quite normal looking.  When I was at my friends house he called the one that didnt have the deformation "My little princess", while I only heard him refer to the other one by name.  When I heard that I was quite thoroughly disgusted, as it is going to have a huge impact on the girls lives.  Both of them actually.  And it can already be seen, the abnormal one wants to please, and she'll clean up the toys, finish her plate, and so on.  The "normal" one is a bitch and doesnt listen, and she's only a kid.  So I just grind my teeth when I'm there and shower the "abnormal" one with more attention, because in my book she is far more deserving of it because of her pleasant spirit.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

I hear ya.  When I have my children I am going to beat them equally.  I mean treat them equally.

Child abuse is not a laughing matter, I would never beat a child, only a cat.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 23, 2005)

I am a twin (my non identical twin sister is 5 ft 10 amazonian athlete(ocean lifegaurd etc)  with an IQ of 180 and got a full scholarship to Harvard).  Luckily my parents always made me feel as special as her!

Back to the issue at hand:


What's ironic is that even if Terri was not physically brain damaged, her psychiatric diagnosis of Anorexia Nervosa would preclude her from making any decisions regarding feeding (in much the same way a depresssed suicidal patient is no longer mentally competent to decide wether he wants to stop his artificial life support after a suicide attempt.) She would probably opt for no feeding, no? In which case, when mentally incompetant the flow of legal decision making goes first to the spouse, if no spouse, the children, if no spouse or children, the decisions are made by the parents.


----------



## kbm8795 (Mar 23, 2005)

A Living Will is obviously a good idea. And after the events of the past weekend, I suggest sending your congresspeople and senators a copy, too.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 23, 2005)

......


----------



## Vieope (Mar 23, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> I am a twin (my non identical twin sister is 5 ft 10 amazonian athlete(ocean lifegaurd etc)  with an IQ of 180 and got a full scholarship to Harvard).  Luckily my parents always made me feel as special as her!


_You are the normal kid? Damn I feel stupid. _


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 23, 2005)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _You are the normal kid? Damn I feel stupid. _



You _should_ feel stupid, there shouldn't need to be an underlying reason.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 23, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You _should_ feel stupid, there shouldn't need to be an underlying reason.


_Now I feel smart. _


----------



## John H. (Mar 24, 2005)

There comes a time in EVERYONE'S life when your time IS UP.

It is DAMN HARD to "let go" but when the time arrives YOU MUST LET GO. It IS a part of life and living. As with ALL other aspects. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

Supreme Court's a no-go.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7283607/?GT1=6305


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 24, 2005)

Our country is run by the courts... Fat unaccountable appointed judges have more say than our elected officials.  Bullshit.

This will be the Roe v. Wade of euthanasia.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Mar 24, 2005)

From a washington post editorial. by Jonathan Weisman  and Ceci Connolly

Yeah, they want her to live, but they don't want to pay for it.



> * As Republican leaders in Congress move to trim billions of dollars
> from the Medicaid health program, they are simultaneously intervening to
> save the life of possibly the  highest-profile Medicaid patient: Terri
> Schiavo.*
> ...


 

yeah,  they want her to live but they don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Rocco32 (Mar 24, 2005)

I need to start posting in this thread but I don't have time right now. I just read it and wanted to say something here-

Brodus- I really lost respect for you in this thread. You definately came across arrogant and insulting to Eggs for no reason. It was just a debate and YOU got personal, not very impressive from someone so "learned." Now I don't know much about philosophy, logic etc... but I do know that with all your "accolades and study", you don't belong in the same boat as Eggs. Maybe you should go study some more.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

I thought they both got personal.

Wow, BAW, I guess that just reaffirms that this is just political posturing.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

rock4832 said:
			
		

> I need to start posting in this thread but I don't have time right now. I just read it and wanted to say something here-
> 
> Brodus- I really lost respect for you in this thread. You definately came across arrogant and insulting to Eggs for no reason. It was just a debate and YOU got personal, not very impressive from someone so "learned." Now I don't know much about philosophy, logic etc... but I do know that with all your "accolades and study", you don't belong in the same boat as Eggs. Maybe you should go study some more.




Aren't you gone or some shit.


----------



## Rocco32 (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I thought they both got personal.
> 
> Wow, BAW, I guess that just reaffirms that this is just political posturing.


Fuck you bitch!!! 



Sorry, that's how *I* argue


----------



## Rocco32 (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Aren't you gone or some shit.


I came back because I couldn't take all your pitiful emails to me begging me to come back!


----------



## iMan323 (Mar 24, 2005)

don't you get enough of this mastrubation on TV?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

rock4832 said:
			
		

> I came back because I couldn't take all your pitiful emails to me begging me to come back!



Why don't you make like Chrono and beat it.


----------



## Rocco32 (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Why don't you make like Chrono and beat it.


I have twice already


----------



## min0 lee (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Why don't you make like Chrono and beat it.


Chrono's gone?


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 24, 2005)

rock4832 said:
			
		

> I came back because I couldn't take all your pitiful emails to me begging me to come back!



Would you leave again if I pitifully begged you to?


----------



## Rocco32 (Mar 24, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Would you leave again if I pitifully begged you to?


Ohhhhhh, that is sooooo mean. But hey, what are you to do with a Roman Catholic


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 24, 2005)

rock4832 said:
			
		

> Ohhhhhh, that is sooooo mean. But hey, what are you to do with a Roman Catholic


----------



## Vieope (Mar 24, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Chrono's gone?


_Tit dominated him. _


----------



## Crono1000 (Mar 24, 2005)

I hate you all.  

ps.  I'm only here because my senses told me someone said masterbation so I had to make an appearance.


----------



## Vieope (Mar 24, 2005)

_It is true though. You don´t connect anymore. You are all peearrogant. _


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Our country is run by the courts... Fat unaccountable appointed judges have more say than our elected officials.  Bullshit.
> :




So fat unaccountable politicians are somehow better?  IMO, this should be in the hands of doctors, 90% of which have said she has no hope for recovery.  I would consider myself an optimist and I would say without a doubt there is nothing there wrt Terry Schiavo.

I also believe a judge is likely to let religious prejudices interfere with their decisions than a politician.  It helps that I am not religious, though.


----------



## Eggs (Mar 24, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I thought they both got personal.



Dont worry, I think the personal problems been nipped in the bud.  It was a mixture of communication problems and lack of respect for each other, but I think we're well past that.



> Wow, BAW, I guess that just reaffirms that this is just political posturing.



I agree with this as well.  And I have to say, it doesnt really phase me.  It would be nice if he could just come out and say that he believes cases like this are a waste of the tax payers money and that the push through the court system has been rediculous in this case... but that wouldnt click well.  One one hand you have to reduce the money we are spending, on the other you have to please some people who have a bit of a political grasp on you.  I dont think we can know exactly the reasoning for why that was pushed through congress, but its not hard to say that Bush it seems like Bush is paying more lip service to it than actually wanting to have a part of it.  In that I cant blame him really, its a tough situation to handle politically.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 25, 2005)

I hate that this is the latest Divide the Nation trend, fad whatever you wanna call it.  All the fanatics are pouring out of their crevices like roaches when the lights go out at McDonalds.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

bandaidwoman said:
			
		

> From a washington post editorial. by Jonathan Weisman  and Ceci Connolly
> 
> Yeah, they want her to live, but they don't want to pay for it.
> 
> ...



Hi Bandaid,

ABSOLUTELY TRUE! The conservative-types are speaking out of ALL sides of their mouths on this one. The minute anyone of those WANTING her to live HAD TO PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES they would change their minds REAL FAST. As long as SOMEONE "ELSE" is paying for it they are very comfortable "being religious". 

This women WOULD HAVE DIED ALREADY had it not been for the medical advances that ALLOWED her to continue living ARTIFICALLY. NATURE ALREADY TOOK HER LIFE. She was ALREADY DEAD. Basically. 

When it IS your time (meaning anyone here) IT IS TIME. No matter how hard it it to leave or to loose someone IT IS YOUR TIME. Artifical means of continuing life are not always in the best interests of the person so involved. Or their families or those that care about them. Loosing someone YOU CARE ABOUT IS NEVER EASY.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> What I find odd is that most peeople who oppose this think it is a cruel way to die, albeit it not.  If it were, I imagine an even crueler way to die would be to have the tube removed for 3 days, then put back in, then removed for 3 days, then put back in, then removed for 5 days...




Hi Dale,

How VERY TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if people are thinking about this aspect that are directly involved with the prevention of her passing as is intended by Mother Nature.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

kbm8795 said:
			
		

> A Living Will is obviously a good idea. And after the events of the past weekend, I suggest sending your congresspeople and senators a copy, too.



Hi Kbm,

It had BETTER be HANDWRITTEN though.

I understand anything that is sent via e-mail, typed, or reproduce in volume is never really of much importance to them and is usually just tossed out. And I can understand that given the volume they must receive in the mail each say - especially from zealots.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> I hate you all.
> 
> ps.  I'm only here because my senses told me someone said masterbation so I had to make an appearance.




Hi Crono,

An "appearance"?!!!  EXACTLY     what do you mean by "appearance"???!!!! You are not "showing" are you???       

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

I TOTALLY understand people's desire to have people LIVE. I UNDERSTAND the feeling of impending loss of someone you love. COMPLETELY.

BUT, there IS a time EACH OF US will have to face. It WILL BE OUR TIME too. For some it is NEVER easy and for others (depending on how their lives were and maybe how they may have been treated by others) it might be a blessing.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I hate that this is the latest Divide the Nation trend, fad whatever you wanna call it.  All the fanatics are pouring out of their crevices like roaches when the lights go out at McDonalds.




Hi Maniclion,

There IS a faction in this Nation that has as their main effort to RULE OVER OTHERS BASED ON THEIR "religioius" BELIEFS. It never enters their minds that EACH person IS ENTITLED to believe as they wish and that EACH PERSON IS ENTITLED to "believe" or "not" - this country is founded on FREEDOM and LIBERTY that is supposed to be applied to ALL people here equally. If you "do not agree with them" you are "in the wrong". And it IS "religious zealots" that are at the forefront of this bullshit in this country. The rest of the world sees that happening here in the USA and wonders if many  of us - especially the ultra right" - are not completely nuts and have gone off the deep end. 

This country IS NOT the same country it once was and IS NOT nearly as strong because we have given it all away or thrown it away....

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Mar 25, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Dont worry, I think the personal problems been nipped in the bud.  It was a mixture of communication problems and lack of respect for each other, but I think we're well past that.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this as well.  And I have to say, it doesnt really phase me.  It would be nice if he could just come out and say that he believes cases like this are a waste of the tax payers money and that the push through the court system has been rediculous in this case... but that wouldnt click well.  One one hand you have to reduce the money we are spending, on the other you have to please some people who have a bit of a political grasp on you.  I dont think we can know exactly the reasoning for why that was pushed through congress, but its not hard to say that Bush it seems like Bush is paying more lip service to it than actually wanting to have a part of it.  In that I cant blame him really, its a tough situation to handle politically.



Hi Eggs,

Bush was elected ONLY because of the vote from the "religious" right. 

He is "paying them back" by doing this. And he will use this situation to find a way do damn the legal system now and have the religious right behind him to force changes TO THEIR WAY OF "THINKING"...

The whole thing is VERY POLITICAL. How many other people in this country EVERY DAY have gone through the very same situation and have not received ANY attention - and passed on without any "fanfare"?

It IS ALL POLITICS. And posturing.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Crono1000 (Mar 25, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I hate that this is the latest Divide the Nation trend, fad whatever you wanna call it.  All the fanatics are pouring out of their crevices like roaches when the lights go out at McDonalds.


I like this post.  I agree


----------



## John H. (Mar 26, 2005)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> I like this post.  I agree



Hi Crono,

I UNDERSTAND people's desire to help others - honestly. Mother Nature would have taken this woman a long time ago... 

But I could not agree with you and Maniclion more. 

Take Care, John H.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 26, 2005)

John H. said:
			
		

> Mother Nature would have taken this woman a long time ago...



Mother Nature would have taken a lot more of us if it wasn't for medical advances.


----------



## chiquita6683 (Mar 27, 2005)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I suppose I can only speak for myself,
> 
> But if I ever am in a vegetative state, and need to be fed, and require 24 hour care, and am basically brain-dead.
> 
> ...



No, and she didnt want it either! People in that situation usually don't Choose to be in that situation either that is why their caretakers try and make their quality of life the best possible.
 I have 2 traumatic brain injuries and its a miracle Im even here. So I now take care of myself the best I can, but I went through alot of therapy for along time with other the patients were in similiar conditions as Teri. I would talk with their caretakers, hear their stories.
  Aperson never chooses a disability or quality of life they are in.


----------



## Chain Link (Mar 27, 2005)

John H. said:
			
		

> Hi Eggs,
> 
> Bush was elected ONLY because of the vote from the "religious" right.
> 
> ...


I hadnt really thought of it from this perspective, But Id have to agree. It got me to thinking.. Remember Columbine? It was the worst thing to happen in the world up to that point in time, everything stopped, we had rallys of support, outrage, public outcry..

A week ago kid from a native American community shot up his school, beat the death toll of Columbine(Well, counting his grandparents.. What a fuqnut), and killed himself.
Wheres the outcry? The Million Mom March? The Brady Campaign? It was a shooting; WITH GUNS, just like Columbine, but worse! You know where they are? At home, not giving a shit.
Because the Firearm he used was his grandfather's police issue weapon. Its still contraversial to ban citizen's firearms much less police firearms in the US, The only case they could make is to bring up the old,"Smart guns" which were expected to be complete and in use everywhere by like 2002 after Columbine happened, lol.
But even that wont work, because the shootings took place on an Indian.."Native American" reservations, the laws we make would probably not affect them.

So do Native Americans not have TV? Would they not appreciate thousands of Americans gathered, lighting candles, praying for the victims and offering their condolences? Of course they would appreciate it! And theres plenty of people out there who would be willing/want to do that.. But the politicians see no gain in it, so its not worth the time to rally the people.

I think its the same thing as with Shaivo, if there werent political motivation in it, it wouldnt have become such a big issue.. But its managed to take the front page of even the BBC's website a few times now. 

Its funny thought that, these days its more ethical to let somebody starve to death than to put them to sleep and give them a lethal injection.


----------



## Du (Mar 28, 2005)

Terry Schiavo before she got sick:


----------



## John H. (Mar 28, 2005)

Chain Link said:
			
		

> I hadnt really thought of it from this perspective, But Id have to agree. It got me to thinking.. Remember Columbine? It was the worst thing to happen in the world up to that point in time, everything stopped, we had rallys of support, outrage, public outcry..
> 
> A week ago kid from a native American community shot up his school, beat the death toll of Columbine(Well, counting his grandparents.. What a fuqnut), and killed himself.
> Wheres the outcry? The Million Mom March? The Brady Campaign? It was a shooting; WITH GUNS, just like Columbine, but worse! You know where they are? At home, not giving a shit.
> ...



Hi Chain,

EVERY DAY someone is dying the very same way as Terry S. And there is no outcry for them. IT IS a POLITICAL move on the part of the Republican President and his Associates and the Christian Coalition. It IS a POWER STRUGGLE - OVER ALL OTHER PEOPLE who may disagree with their thinking, beliefs, tactics, etc. Look at the EXTREMISM associated with this situation. 

What do these people THINK they are going to accomplish? The Medical Community has said - and the Courts - there is NOTHING that can be done to help her any more. She has been in this state FOR FIFTEEN YEARS - her body was NEVER meant to endure this. As with other people. There is only so much that can be done for anyone. I UNDERSTAND anyone not wanting to loose someone they LOVE AND CARE FOR but sometimes LETTING THEM GO IS CARING FOR AND LOVING THEM. 

I wonder what the Christian Coalition is going to do when they go to Washington, D. C., to talk with the Legislators? Are they now going to try to find a why to LEGISLATE DEATH AND DYING? Are we now going to have to ASK PERMISSION to die? Or pay a TAX before we go? Or be put under a "religious microscope" to "make sure" it is "really time for each of us to die"?!! And WHO is going to be the "judge and jury" - the pope or some "religious higher up" - and I can just imagine all the crap that will be associated with this PRIVATE aspect of a person's life being broadcast to every Tom, Dick and Harry - oh, yes, political speaking, Suzie, Blanche, Mary...

WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP IT IS UP AND IS TIME TO GO. There comes a time in EVERYONE'S LIFE when that is the case no matter how hard someone "prays" it not to be so. NO ONE WANTS to die necessarily. Especially if you ENJOY life and living - and a few of us are accorded that  SACREDNESS OF ENJOYING life and living while many experience a horrible time and wish it to be "all over" which IS A REAL TRAGEDY brought on MANY TIMES by the way Human Beings HAVE MADE LIFE FOR OTHERS in most cases. 

The American Indians DO NOT LIKE a lot of "public display" and I can UNDERSTAND THAT - not just because of the situation at that School but they are a very quiet people most often and especially a situation like the school shooting is something they grieve about among themselves and want their privacy which is perfectly understandable. And right. They do not want this situation turned into a "circus" event. They will speak among themselves - WHICH IS SOMETHING WHITE MEN do not really do much of if at all - to try to come to grips with it all and figure out a way to HELP EACH OTHER out ALL THROUGH THEIR LIVES... American Indians VALUE LIFE AND LIVING and every Human Being - even those who are troubled. White Men usually just give up on them and throw them away...  And American Indians do NOT WANT this turned into a political hot potato FOR DAMN SURE!!! 

Remember Dr. Kivorkian? They called him the "death doctor". This situation with Terry S. IS EXACTLY what he wanted to PREVENT FOR EACH PERSON. He KNOWS that there comes a time when it is TIME TO GO for EACH PERSON and that we need to treat the final hours of our lives with respect, dignity, and as LITTLE suffering as possible. Look at what the "religious extremists" had to say on that...  The doctor wanted to RELIEVE people's suffering AS A DOCTOR WHO CARES about others. NOT to kill them but to bring a final end to their SUFFERING in a CARING AND LOVING WAY. 

This is a PRIVATE SITUATION usually and most people ONLY want those they feel CARE about them TRUTHFULLY around them when their time to pass on comes. It is NOT a CIRCUS EVENT. Or a marathon....

The political "footwork"  in Washington, D. C., and that of the President IS WAY OFF BASE. They really have no business getting into this at all. It is something that is between family members and the doctors treating her. This has been made into an ugly political "event"... A way to "pay back" the "religious right" for their support at the past election. And nothing more. How LOW can they go!?



Take Care, John H.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

It's finally over.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/?GT1=6305


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

Holy crap, I didn't know she had been hot before...


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 31, 2005)

country run by appointed judges. it's not over..it's the beginning.


----------



## Decker (Mar 31, 2005)

At least she's at peace now.


----------



## Decker (Mar 31, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> country run by appointed judges. it's not over..it's the beginning.


Judges are elected and appointed.  Generally judges are guided by former decisions--a concept called stare decisis (sp?).  In this case, a number of judges reviewed the case and came to the same conclusion.  It is over.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> country run by appointed judges. it's not over..it's the beginning.



No, I'm pretty sure it's over, neither political side benefitted so they will drop it.


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 31, 2005)

nothing to do with politics.  dems & repubs jointly ordered a review of the case.

this is judicial activism & arrogance.


----------



## shutupntra1n (Mar 31, 2005)

She's dead now.


----------



## LAM (Mar 31, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Holy crap, I didn't know she had been hot before...



yup. then she screwed herself up when she became anorexic.  she put herself in that hospital bed


----------



## Maynard Keenan (Mar 31, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> At least she's at peace now.


  agrees..........


----------



## busyLivin (Mar 31, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> yup. then she screwed herself up when she became anorexic.  she put herself in that hospital bed


assumingly.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> nothing to do with politics.  dems & repubs jointly ordered a review of the case.
> 
> this is judicial activism & arrogance.




That's the point, they won't make an issue of it because no one stands to benefit.  This is a "keeping congress out of your business" case more than a right to life case.  The GOP has more to lose than gain in this instance and who cares about the Dems, there are only like 4 of them anyway.

BTW, the last appeal was a 10-2 vote, I don't see any major changes occuring that could get that even remotely close.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> assumingly.



She has a documented eating disorder, tests would show the difference between blunt trauma to the head and someone falling from a potassium deficit.  One could make the argument that he could have shoved her, but then the fall would have been forward instead of straight down.  I assure you, Dr's would know if she was thrown down as opposed to having fall down.


----------



## Muscle_Girl (Mar 31, 2005)

I am glad she had the chance to rest in peace. As the neuroligist said, she was dead long ago. Only the machines were keeping her alive.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 31, 2005)

Is it too late to vote?


----------



## Muscle_Girl (Mar 31, 2005)

I think it would be ok to vote, still shows your opinion.. whether she is living or not.


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 31, 2005)

Muscle_Girl said:
			
		

> I think it would be ok to vote, still shows your opinion.. whether she is living or not.



psssssssssst..........It's called sarcasm.  It's like trying to bet on a horse race after it's already been run.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Mar 31, 2005)

There should have been a trap door in the floor,
and a "Red Button" at the nurses station...

Ever see Austin Powers, When Dr. Evil Roast's Mustafa!?

Like that


----------



## Muscle_Girl (Mar 31, 2005)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> psssssssssst..........It's called sarcasm.  It's like trying to bet on a horse race after it's already been run.


I know, but in actual fact, it wouldn't matter. The poll is opinionated, no matter the actual outcome.


----------



## Crono1000 (Mar 31, 2005)

so who just watched south park?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

Are u shittin me?  Was it about this?  Man, if it was I am pissed I missed it.


----------



## PreMier (Mar 31, 2005)




----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2005)

Jesus Christ, the South Park is on, pretty good.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Apr 1, 2005)

Crono1000 said:
			
		

> so who just watched south park?


Those guys don't miss a beat


----------



## cjrmack (Apr 1, 2005)

It is a shame that from what I have heard a very private woman had to go through this. It is a shame too that politicians and her mom and dad would have you beleive she was bouncing around dancing and singing when she had been brain dead for 15 years and the villification of her husband in the process. At least now she can rest in peace.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 1, 2005)

What kind of _heartless _rating could I get if I said, "It's time to plant the vegetable"?


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 1, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> What kind of _heartless _rating could I get if I said, "It's time to plant the vegetable"?



I'd give you about an 8 1/2 on a 1-10 scale.  High marks for having the guts to say it, but 1 1/2 point deduction because it's such an obvious joke.


----------



## Crono1000 (Apr 1, 2005)

the way I see it, even IF we were given all the honest, hard, unbiased facts it would still be a controversial topic- controversial in that there's no fine line between right or wrong.  But in THIS situation, lies are scattered like crazy.  Strong opinions are flying and distorting the truth even more, doctors and activists are saying complete opposite extremes.  The first time I had heard of this case I heard it from a pro- let her live stance and the only condition they told me that she was in was that she had to use a feeding tube, indeed they said that she was just like everyone else except that she used a feeding tube.  This left me to think, "Well why would they kill her?"  Later I heard from a pro-let her die stance that she was brain dead.  "Well if she's just like me, except that she's using a feeding tube, how can we suggest that she's brain dead?"  One group failed to recognize that she's a vegetable, while the other group failed to inform me that she has supposedly shown signs of conciousness.

My point is, there are no hard facts given to the public.  So even if we had all the hard facts, there would be a fuzzy line between right and wrong.  Now that we're given no hard facts, how is anyone so sure that they are right?  Isn't there *always* room for error?  

as a side note, I heard the old guy on 700 Club say that the husband "wanted her dead so badly" because he supposedly (and I emphasize supposedly because I don't think anyone but those directly involve know for sure) only allowed her to have a single drop of wine for communion.  Even as a Christian I laughed at this because of the wanted her dead so badly statement- as if he were one of Gothem City's evil villians chasing after Batman.  These guys really give the rest of us a bad name.

the way I see it, she's been mistreated for years in a hospital- which both sides agree on.  This it the most truth I feel I can get if I rely on what everyone agrees with as truth.  In that case, I think she's in a better place now, put out of her life of misery at the cost of two weeks of pain that she may or may not feel.  Also, as evil as her husband is pertrayed, he and her family really need to move on with their lives.  He can't carry on normal relationships with a prune wife in the hospital, and her parents can't carry on their own lives by holding on to something that can't have a positive outcome (I personally find their actions more greedy than the husband- he wants to continue with relationships and life in general, they want her to continue suffering so they don't have to grieve a loss that they've already endured)


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 1, 2005)

cfs3 said:
			
		

> What kind of _heartless _rating could I get if I said, "It's time to plant the vegetable"?




I have been holding off as I didn't know what the response would be.

I would match Albob's score.


----------



## DOMS (Apr 1, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I have been holding off as I didn't know what the response would be.
> 
> I would match Albob's score.


 You and Albob would only give me an 8.5?!

 You guys are pretty fuckin' heartless.


----------



## Crono1000 (Apr 1, 2005)

I'd give u an extra .5 for sexiness


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 1, 2006)

Why the fuck do people keep voting this back to the top? SHE'S FUCKING DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## topolo (Feb 1, 2006)

I just got done rubbing one out.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 1, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> I just got done rubbing one out.


 To Terry Schiavo?


----------



## topolo (Feb 1, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> To Terry Schiavo?



and you


----------

