corporate re-education is so fun!

Terry Schiavo spawned a HUGE right-to-life debate and she was a

turnip.

THIS woman was conscious, talking, and waiting for her mother to arrive so that she could die in her arms...

and they pulled her vent because she had no insurance.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa051214_lj_african.bb0e76d.html

Yeah.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Although I LOVE the last line of the article: "George Bush has said he wants to expand healthcare for immigrants in this country."

Err.. OK SO?

He also said that Saddam had chemical weapons that he could deliver to US targets in under 45 minutes.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
No registration link with fewer details:

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_story_348124802.html
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
OK, the lesson learned is:

A) You have a right to life (even if you're about as alive as a toaster) provided they can still milk your insurance.

B) You have a right to life provided that you are not an african imegrant.

C) You have a right to life, if you can get the media to say you have.

D) All of the above.
Permalink Eric Debois 
January 6th, 2006
>He also said that Saddam had chemical weapons that he could
>deliver to US targets in under 45 minutes.

Actually, I think that was us. Apologies.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 6th, 2006
Well, whatever.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Well, if you believe the "quality of life" arguement, this is right in line with all of it.


If you believe that lives have value, regardless of their "quality", then this a demonstration of a sick, demented government and bureaucracy run amok.


When you believe that citizens are the property of government (required for Socialism and Communism), you can't complain when this power is demonstrated.
Permalink KC 
January 6th, 2006
I don't see anywhere in the article(s) where it mentions whether the woman wanted to remain on machine support or not.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Sadly it tends not to matter what the individual wants, it's all about what whoever can shout the loudest says should happen...
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 6th, 2006
Yeah well in the case of Schiavo it was understandable. In THIS case the woman was AWAKE. So why no mention in these stories of what she wanted? Sheez.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Hmm.

Terry Schiavo: White, a vegetable (brain damange), with money, her family wants her kept alive, her husband wants to turn off the ventilator. Court cases, George Bush, Congressional action.

Tirhas Habtegiris: Black, East African immigrant, terminal (cancer), conscious, no money, no insurance, the hospital decides to turn her off. No court cases (yet). I'll bet there's NEVER going to be Congressional action.

So, it's not about "the sanctity of life". Instead, it's about money and the cost of health care.

As we suspected. It's tragic that people die. It would be good if some truth came out of it.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 6th, 2006
`So, it's not about "the sanctity of life". Instead, it's about money and the cost of health care.'

Really I'd say the Shiavo case was largely about the rights of the [estranged] husband versus the rights of the family. Most of the people who became passionate did so while rallying behind the rights of the family, or behind the rights of the husband.

If both parties wanted to pull the plug it would have been a complete non-event.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Dennis -

In this case it sounds like NOBODY wanted to pull the plug except the hospital. Where's the hoopla?
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
I agree the hype over the Terry Schiavo stuff was hypocritical. Although to refute what you said earlier, Terry was awake too I believe, she probably was just not aware that she was. I agree with Dennis that the terry thing was mostly about the right to choose to end someones life while this issue is should the state pay for life support on someone who is dying.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
Right - instead of a precedent setting struggle that the public can identify with, it's a classic money versus survival. On the flip side if this woman was sustained at the cost to the hospital, that would come out of a budget that could conceivably have saved other people: Sorry, we were understaffed and couldn't get to you in time, but we had to keep someone breathing for several months.

And really, how does this differ at all from the countless people around the world, and even in the US, who die regularly because they couldn't get expensive drugs, or at a lower level because they live in unsanitary conditions, don't get enough prenatal support, can't get clean needles...whatever.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
How about the issue is that people suck and that this should have hit the national news DAYS before the plug was ever pulled, but wasn't reported until now, and only barely at that.

Terry wasn't "awake". Her eyes were open because she couldn't close them. They did an autopsy and her brain was Jell-O.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
You probably know this working in a hospital, but it's a dirty secret of the medical profession that many hospitals frequently kill off the terminally ill: If you're just floating above the death line courtesy of medical intervention, and if you're costing the system a lot of money and there is no possibility of recovery, invariably you'll start getting more and more morphine until it's an overdose.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Mark, because this happens every single day, probably 5 times a day all over the country. Some random things just get on the news everytime someone wants to make a big political stink about something. Its like all the children that get kidnapped and killed every year, but suddenly we hear about one random girl for like 3 months of nonstop coverage.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
Well, Dennis, I think that's the point. It's true that keeping Tirhas alive was taking resources from the state (or the hospital) which could be used to support other patients.

Keeping Terry Schaivo alive was taking resources from her husband, or her family, or the bank that was holding those resources.

Now, THAT would be an useful discussion to have -- who decides how the money is spent? Who 'should' decide? (I'm always suspicious of 'should' arguments, myself, but they're sometimes useful).

Instead in America we tend to side-step these issues completely by raving about "sanctity of life", or raving about "freeloaders on the Capitalist system".

Now, if we HAD 'universal health care', they'd probably still have turned off Tirhas, and we'd still have had the hoo-rah regarding Terry. Hopefully, the Terry Schaivo incident would NOT have triggerred Congressional action, though.

Would it simplify the situation to have required the Hospital to check with some oversight group before they turned off Tirhas? Maybe. Maybe not.

I find it a problem that in our current situation, for SOME people it takes an act of the Supreme Court to decide their life, while for others a Hospital Administrator can do it.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 6th, 2006
You bleeding heart liberal pansies. You're damn right, money decides who lives and who dies. If these people are smart, they'd have decent insurance. Who's gonna pay for all the deadbeats who want live as long as someone else pays?
Permalink Thunderpussy 
January 6th, 2006
You're trying too hard, Thunder.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 6th, 2006
Just doing my best to reflect the right wing neo-con philosophy.
Permalink Thunderpussy 
January 6th, 2006
Allan hit the point after a pointless build up, but the rest of you have managed to miss it entirely.

Duyh, people:

Why, when it's a white insured VEGETABLE who isn't draining public funds, does it require an Act of Congress to decide her fate, but for this uninsured black person who is ALIVE & AWAKE & ALERT with medical intervention, a nobody Hospital Admin is allowed to just pull the plug, with no repurcusion or public outcry whatsoever?
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"Just doing my best to reflect the right wing neo-con philosophy."

Maybe you can take part in a conversation with such simplistic polarization?
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Ugh...WITHOUT...
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
"Why, when it's a white insured VEGETABLE who isn't draining public funds, does it require an Act of Congress to decide her fate"

BECAUSE IT WAS A CONTROL BATTLE BETWEEN THE FAMILY AND THE ESTRANGED HUSBAND, WITH POTENTIALLY NEFARIOUS MOTIVES. There is no other reason why this got attention, and if you fell for the sanctity-of-life diversionary argument then the duyh goes out to you for so clearly missing the point.

"but for this uninsured black person who is ALIVE & AWAKE & ALERT with medical intervention, a nobody Hospital Admin is allowed to just pull the plug, with no repurcusion or public outcry whatsoever?"

You're pulling a sharkfish/thunderpussy. What possible relevance is the fact that person is black, apart from racism on your part? White people get the plug pulled all of the time with zero public interest. Do you think uninsured white guys get a free ride at hospitals?
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Oh, and on top of that - further eviscerating any comparison to the Schiavo case (even if it hurts your racism slant) - Schiavo had to be starved to death. She didn't really require what most people would call "medical intervention" beyond the normal care one would provide for a child.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
"You probably know this working in a hospital, but it's a dirty secret of the medical profession that many hospitals frequently kill off the terminally ill:"

I believe there are some people being prosecuted in/around New Orleans for doing just this sort of thing when the hurricane was coming.

Personally, I think with "Universal Health Care" this sort of thing would become even more common. Consider that secondary arguments of the Left on the Schiavo case (after "husband's rights" of course) were that "she has a terrible quality of life" and "who will pay the bill!?"

Once it's all of us paying the bill and the government determining "quality of life", we're all screwed.

Do you want the DMV in charge of your medical care?
Permalink KC 
January 6th, 2006
[I should clarify that she was "fed" through IV, which some would call medical intervention, however it's something that some people do for themselves. IV feeding is on the border of being a layman alternative]
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
"BECAUSE IT WAS A CONTROL BATTLE BETWEEN THE FAMILY AND THE ESTRANGED HUSBAND, WITH POTENTIALLY NEFARIOUS MOTIVES. There is no other reason why this got attention, and if you fell for the sanctity-of-life diversionary argument then the duyh goes out to you for so clearly missing the point."

So when it's a control issue between the family and the hospital over a loved one's LIFE, that's LESS controversial???

You're the idiot here, Denny.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Mark, i'd say the main difference was because the family tried to get media attention, the word got out, and thus people contacted their representatives, and the outcry was so huge they acted. I doubt many in congress even knew this lady existed. Also Shiavo was on life support for like 15 years, and we didnt hear about her until last year, so I think it was really just luck...if they had offed her 10 or so years ago, it would have just been like every other vegatable out there. Either way, this woman could not live on her own... those machines can keep people alive forever, when does one decide to pull the plug? When consienceness is lost? It's not like she just needed her appendix out and that would have saved her, but instead the doctors decided to kill her cuz she had no insurance.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
Well, in sweden, and I suspect all the other countries with tax funded health care, this sort of thing does not happen at all. Of course there is the occational ethical dilemma, but no one is ever refused health care for finacial reasons.

I am not saying that there are infinite resources or anything like that, but if resources are slim the result is usually that the over all quality of service suffers because the hospitals become understaffed.
Permalink Eric Debois 
January 6th, 2006
Eric, well there is health care, and then there is life support. Whats sweden's policy on life support?
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
Phil -

It's not like she was in a persistent vegetative state, either. She was alert and aware and knew exactly what was going on, including during the 15 minutes that it took her to die of asphyxiation.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"So when it's a control issue between the family and the hospital over a loved one's LIFE, that's LESS controversial???"

Even presuming that it is analagous - which it isn't even remotely, and this whole comparison is void of intelligence from the get-go - yes, that is less controversial. A husband seemingly looking to directly gain from life insurance, making medical choices against the wishes of a woman's family is a tad more controversial than some random, emotionally detached hospital administrator following procedure to save funds to help where it can be much more beneficial, even if it goes against some ambiguous life goal (where is the info on where the mother in Africa even was? Was she on a plane? Sounds more like that was some nebulous delay tactic with some unknown completion).

"You're the idiot here, Denny."

Good technique MuppyFlup. Get a life.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Dennis -

The silly tactic at the end doesn't invalidate the argument.

If you find a possibly on-the-take husband more controversial than a loving family told to fuck off by a callous hospital administration, then you're missing a few screws.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Dennis -

If you think the issue is about the timing of the mother's arrival, you have even MORE screws loose.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"If you think the issue is about the timing of the mother's arrival, you have even MORE screws loose."

The whole drama of the story is that they wanted her sustained, at all costs, long enough to say good-bye to her mother who was in Africa. I'm not the one who imagined up that drama.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
It's a shame that they used that as their story, sure. Maybe it was the news reporter who latched onto that detail, and not the family, hmm? It sounds like her family wanted her alive, period, to me. Having her sustained until the mom got there would have been the LEAST good that could have come from the whole scenario.

Remind me never to have you anywhere near MY family, Dennis.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Eric,

Here in Canada, with Universal Healthcare, the topic of medical euthenasia of the short-term terminally ill is one that is seldom spoken about, but when it is there are usually anonymous medical practitioners talking about the tacit euthenasia that is a reality in the real world (no matter how left or liberal they think they are from an unrealistic external perspective, once they get involved and realize the compromises, it becomes the norm). Palliative care often consists of an ever-increasing regiment of drugs, until the patient finally dies. No doubt many patients could be sustained for months longer by heroic, and incredibly expensive treatment.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
She was a goner either way Mark, when would you be ok taking her off life support? Never?
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
How about letting her decide, Phil? I realize that you believe in an "everybody for himself" philosophy, but some of us don't buy it. If she was dead to the world, with no awareness or consciousness, then I say let her go, it's a waste of resources, but if she's awake, alert, and able to participate in, you know, existance, then maybe it's not your call.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"but if she's awake, alert, and able to participate in, you know, existence, then maybe it's not your call."

Sounds like the hospital just didn't follow protocol. Normally they'd advise the family that they need to put her on some very strong painkillers that will knock her out, and then they'd encourage a system failure or overdose.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Well I think the article stated that she wanted to die when her mom was there, so in that case Dennis was right about that point. I'm not disagreeing with you that alive, awake people should have every opportunity to be saved. As long as your ok with them getting the plug pulled once unconscience then i'm ok with paying for their life support.
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
Dennis -

1) I realize you're trolling.

2) It's not going to work. :)

There is no protocol of doping up terminal patients and convincing their loved ones that they're not long for this world. That might happen in your Godless Canada, but around here there's WAY too much oversight for that to be a common practice. An exception, sure, but common: not a chance.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"Remind me never to have you anywhere near MY family, Dennis."

So are you saying that the big get together is off?

In any case, it is possible, you know, for people to propose a perspective without actually subscribing to it. Personally I have no opinion about this particular case, though I realize that it can't be simplistically used to forward one's political bias. Keeping a short-term terminally ill woman alive through medical intervention might have meant that the sex-ed and condoms-for-teens program had to be cut, indirectly killing a dozen people of AIDS several years later. There are compromises in everything.

"There is no protocol of doping up terminal patients and convincing their loved ones that they're not long for this world."

<wink wink, nod nod> Right.

Palliative care's primary goal is pain elimination, usually achieved through the help of enormous amounts of life threatening drugs. The pain elimination _most_certainly_ greatly reduces the lifespan of the individual, not to mention that it eliminates much of the drama that cries out (literally) for heroic actions. If someone just stops breathing quietly in the night in the stupor of morphine, it's a lot easier to justify than some screaming, gasping and choking patient, with family members calling out for emergency action.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
I agree 100% with the hospital's decision. The woman had terminal lung cancer and was past the final stage. There was no cure. Without life support she would die. There was no point to keeping the machine going. There was nothing to be done to save her.

On the Shiavo case, I supported her parents. Completely different situation. She wasn't terminal. She wasn't dead of cancer.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 6th, 2006
Also regarding this: "Salvi believes this would not have happened if his sister had health insurance."

That is her family's OPINION and it is based on ignorance snice they have never had insurance.

There is no insurance policy in the US that would approve keeping you on life support indefinitely when you have stage 4 cancer.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 6th, 2006
Absolutely there is a practice which puts priority on pain elimination for someone who will certainly die in a short period of time. It's not as sinister as you make it out, and certainly isn't applied as a cost saving measure.

But you'll think whatever you want to, Dennis.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
"It's not as sinister as you make it out, and certainly isn't applied as a cost saving measure."

I don't believe it's sinister, actually. In many cases I think it's probably justifiable for the best interests of the family (should they go through weeks of waiting around the hospital while a zero-chance patient gasps and weazes through endless heroic and expensive medical efforts?), along with the best interests of overall public health.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
Oh, and whether one thinks it's a cost saving measure or not, it is.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
"Well, in sweden, and I suspect all the other countries with tax funded health care, this sort of thing does not happen at all. Of course there is the occational ethical dilemma, but no one is ever refused health care for finacial reasons."

Actually, I've read of cases recently where handicaped babies have been drowned just after birth in Europoe (Netherlands maybe?) I'm trying to find the article again for sourcing...
Permalink KC 
January 6th, 2006
You're right Art, Schiavo wasn't terminal. She was dead already.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 6th, 2006
Well that's a bunch of crap from a abusive husband and his cronies.

Did you people even read the articles you linked to? The woman had said in the past that she wanted her mom present. Her mom was in Africa. The hospital OFFERED TO PAY FOR AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY TO BRING THE MOTHER OVER AND THE FAMILY REFUSED.

Anybody around here that has seen somebody with that sort of cancer at that stage wouldn't be talking this shit - as the morphine wears off, you are screaming, begging for someone to let you die or to increase the morphine. Because of tolerance, you do die of morphine poisoning if the cancer doesn't get you first. The cancer got her. A machine was doing her breathing for her.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 6th, 2006
Terry Schiavo is white a somewhat attractive:

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/img/AFA%20PIX/misc_pics/terry_schiavo.jpg

This woman is black and not so attractive.

A thumbs down for the media.

And oh, her death would fund one more smart bomb. If we can fund one more smart bomb than no price is too great, even her life.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 6th, 2006
Yeah Terry Schaivo was hot, i'd totally hit that.... what?
Permalink Phil 
January 6th, 2006
"somewhat attractive" is exactly the same as saying hot, yeessireee.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 6th, 2006
Art Wilkins,

Don't go bringing facts into this, mister.

You see, to some people the world has only two diametrically opposed perspectives: The dastardly, religious rich white "religious fundy" neo-cons, and the loving, peaceful, intelligent left. Everything has to fit into these clean partitions, and battlefields near to be laid out for every argument.

Just look at that "Left Coaster" site that muppet linked to - It's a fact-deficient load of bullshit, imagining up some grand conspiracy against South Asians, and cries of hypocrisy against the "neocons".

What in the world did "neocons" have to do with this? It seems to me that we're talking about a hospital administration that actually went above and beyond, and then conferred with a lot of industry partners to get agreement, until finally taking the action that they did. Their action might very well have saved the budget a bit of funds that can be used for liberal policies. In fact it's entirely possible that it was a "left" mentality that led to this decision. The whole "better for the whole rather than the individual" mentality.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 6th, 2006
How about the idea that *this* story only made the news BECAUSE the patient was black?

I'm sure white women have had life support pulled since the Schiavo case, but "That white girl got Congress interested, while this white girl didn't" isn't news at all.

I'd like to know if the woman's family tried to contact the press or their representatives. If they had, and were rebuffed, that adds fuel to the fire. But absent that, how was anyone supposed to find out? As Dennis mentioned, the Schiavo family was issuing press releases and burning up phone lines all over the government.

The thing to see now is if this, now that it's news, gets any traction.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
> How about the idea that *this* story only made the news BECAUSE the patient was black?


I think that's the angle they had to take to make it news. Whereas being white and not ugly was enough for terry.

A cute little missing white girl makes the news. Make her ugly or make her a boy and nobody cares.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 6th, 2006
Duh. Little boys fall down wells.
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
1. The hospital's decision was based on standards of medical care. It had nothing whatsoever to do with race.
2. Certain elements, who are completely anti-life radicals, are trying to make this into a race issue.
3. So who's racist? It's those abusing race to further their political agendas.
4. The photo shows an attractive black woman.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 6th, 2006
Art, where I can read this talking points memo? I'd like to see the whole thing.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 6th, 2006
You know, it seems to me this should be picked up be the press no matter which way they lean.
Liberal news should use it to mock the perceived hypocrisy of a Republican Congress
Conservative news should use it to smokescreen the Abramoff thing.

Hmmm...

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
To show it is a race issue with any credibility, you have to show that that hospital doesn't take terminal, white, stage 4 lung cancer patients off of respiratory life support under the same circumstances.

The fact is that they do. Every single day.

So, where's the race issue? Not with the hospital. Only with the racists, such as those of you who struggle, pathetically, to make this about race to further your personal political agendas.

Sorry, but I don't respect this sort of abusive tactic, your debating abilities or your intellectual capabilities.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 6th, 2006
"To show it is a race issue with any credibility, you have to show that that hospital doesn't take terminal, white, stage 4 lung cancer patients off of respiratory life support under the same circumstances."

The race issue isn't about what the hospital did; it's about:

1) the reaction of those who got inflamed over the Schiavo thing
2) the over-reporting by the news media of the Schiavo thing

BTW, what you talk about above sounds suspiciously like balanced, factual reporting. What color is the sky on your planet? :)

"Sorry, but I don't respect this sort of abusive tactic, your debating abilities or your intellectual capabilities."

Who is 'you' in this sentence?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 6th, 2006
'You' is the zeitgeist of the thread.

Ok, so WHAT is the argument about race then? Your explanation is a non-explanation. Explain to me again how the hospital treated her differently because she was black. I don't see this at all.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 7th, 2006
"Explain to me again how the hospital treated her differently because she was black. I don't see this at all."

Because that wasn't muppet's point. Some people who responded to the thread tried to *make* it his point, but if you look at the top, you'll see "Terry Schiavo spawned a HUGE right-to-life debate..."

See the word "debate"? Hospitals don't debate. PEOPLE debate. Or, as muppet is asserting, people debate when *white* women get their life support pulled against the wishes of the family, but not when black women get it pulled against everyone's wishes but the accountant's.

This is not about what the hospital did - that's a "medical care in the US sucks" argument. This is about the complete lack of reaction by the press and Congress, who apparently cared more about a white vegetable than a crying black woman who just wanted to see her mom before she died.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 7th, 2006
The articles Mark referenced, which was the body of his early posts, discussed at length why the hospital and medical system were racist.

So Philo your argument is that in the past when white people with the stage 4 cancer are removed from a respirator, the media and congress have protested? I do not remember such a story.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 7th, 2006
Also, the very first post in this thread said "they pulled her vent because she had no insurance", but that was not true, was it?
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 7th, 2006
Art -

I didn't link the articles for their slant, I linked them for their content.

Philo's right, of course, as you'd know if you'd actualy READ my posts in this thread. What the hospital chose to do is a side issue. The MAIN issue is, people got PISSED over Schiavo and created a HUGE public, mainstreamed debate over it. Nobody gave a SHIT about this woman, and wtf?
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 7th, 2006
Mark Warner,

"The MAIN issue is, people got PISSED over Schiavo and created a HUGE public, mainstreamed debate over it. Nobody gave a SHIT about this woman, and wtf?"

Again, even thought these stories have nothing to do with each other...

So are you saying that 99% of people are redneck, racist neocons? Or are you saying that the neocons are the ones who choose what the public gets to hear about, and they silenced this issue to ensure that people didn't get up in arms?

Strange, anyways, given that many studies, and many critics, have found the media to lean to the left. So the people who didn't get "up in arms" are...the left? Were there rallies out front by the black community, or the immigrant community?

Who let this woman down (presuming that she really was awake and crying for her mother, even though it appears that she incapacitated by drugs, and the hospital tried to get her mother over to be rejected. Damn that hospital!)?

Instead of some blanket "people" being the guilty party, I'd love to know where all of the left websites were defending this woman's rights before she died.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 8th, 2006
Hey Dennis, sweetie, I'm not assigning blame anywhere. I'm asking, why the hell wasn't this case a huge deal, if Schiavo was?

Why does that make you SO angry?
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 8th, 2006
No, muppet, why does it make you so angry? You seem to imply that there is a villain, whether it's the media, the neocons pulling the strings, the general public and their racist foundations, and so on. I'd like to know who the villain is in this case. Everydayman and woman?
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 8th, 2006
No, Dennis, I'm NOT saying there's a villian. You are arguing with your own assumptions, not discussing anything at all with me. If that's what you want to do, that's great, but you don't need me for that.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 9th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics