Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

If Schiavo gets kept alive

Then every veggie should be kept alive!

What a stupid precedent to set. It would set the path toward keeping every vegetative human alive, indefinitely. Laws are made for social order. What kind of social order requires us to pay to keep all veggies hooked up? What kind of precedent is it set that we all have to pay for every veggie's medical bills? Ludicrous!

If principles of life are so important to conservatives, then those suckers should be willing to keep me alive, dammit.

But they won't because they are hypocrites.

NEXT!
Permalink Broccolli 
March 25th, 2005
There are to issues here really. One is the sanctity of life thing, and with regards to that you are right. If a veggie is legally ruled to be "alive" we are going to have to come up with some kind of efficient storage scheme.

But then there is the "who gets to decide" issue. Parents or hubby. Theoretically the courts have solved this problem several time already, but now it seems its getting confused with the first issue.
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 25th, 2005
Terri's case is fairly rare, I believe. First of all, they don't usually revive people who've been without oxygen as long as she was. Second of all, you need to have a family that can't possibly agree on a course of action.

Thirdly, you need to be relatively beautiful, so your brain-dead body looks good on video tape. Fourthly, you need to have a lunatic Congress and President who have no sense of proportion, and are trying to defeat the efforts of those they call "activist judges".

This set of conditions is fairly rare. Hopefully.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 25th, 2005
No, this situation isn't rare at all, which is not what the press and Michael Schiavo would have you believe.

She only requires a feeding tube to keep her alive, which is ordinary care by most any definition.

She's not a vegetable--she's clearly brain damaged, but she can respond to people around her to some degree.

So absent a written living will (her husband claiming some statement in the past is way too shakey), the presumption should be in favor of her life. Particularly when there are plenty of people (her family) who'd be glad to take care of her.

It's not hard to see why her husband would like her out of the way. She's just a burden to him, since he's already got another common-law wife, and he's got some money coming to him. Plus, the circumstances of her original problem are unclear, and he may not want her ever telling anyone what happened.
Permalink Chris Ryland 
March 25th, 2005
Broccoli, there's a lot of exaggeration and conflation with other euthanasia-related issues going on here. I believe that just because we _can_ keep people alive indefinitely through artificial life-support machines, it doesn't mean we _should_.

However, Terri Schiavo is not on any life-support machines. She's being fed through a feeding tube:

http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/dental/tube_feeding.htm

She has diminished mental capacity, but she's not having her life prolonged artificially. This is not like shutting off an artificial heart or lung machine and letting her slip away. There are no machines. Instead, they're taking away her food and water. How long would _you_ last if people withhold food and water from you?

As others have pointed out elsewhere, if you tried to do to a dog or a child what they're doing to her, you'd be arrested.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
I'm still very confused. Why is it that there is so much assertion that she is simply brain damaged?

None of the twenty or so cases about removing the tube would have been decided that way if the judge thought in any way that the patient was clinically alive. So far as I can see the patient is clinically dead, conflating this with some kind of right to life (which no one actually has) is just dishonest.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 26th, 2005
Yes we do, Simony. It's in our Constitution.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
Simony? Where'd that come from? 'Scuse me while I rub the sleep out of my eyes.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/23/204359/812

I've read that she flat-lined her EEG (which records electrical activity in the brain), and that a CAT-scan revealed spinal fluid filling in the gap where her cerebral cortex formerly was.

This type of damage to the brain cannot be healed. In other words, Terri has permanently lost almost all of the memory/reasoning part of the brain, and she will not recover from her present state.

Personally I don't think it's fair or appropriate to be held prisoner in a body like that for 15 years, but that's a personal opinion. The husband has a legal right to make this medical decision, and, despite dozens of appeals, the courts have upheld that decision so far.
Permalink Apes Ma 
March 26th, 2005
Ah, I see, this situation is not rare at all. Congress regularly meets in midnight session in order to save the life of one brain-damaged individual. Sure, how could I have overlooked that.

Sure, Right-to-lifers regularly intervene on behalf of brain-damaged people. Darn, missed that one too.

OK, I'll admit that I'm sure there are thousands of seriously brain-damaged people out there. The issue of when are they brain-damaged enough that an intravenous feeding tube can be removed to let them die is NOT a trivial one. They have human life. Why so many court cases have said Terri is brain-dead enough that her husband is allowed to have the feeding tube removed, I don't know, I haven't seen the cases. But that is how they have ruled.

This second guessing of the courts feeds into the neo-cons assertion that the courts are writing legislation through their opinions. It also feeds into the red-state paranoia that the Federal Government is stealing money from us and should be destroyed -- except for being the world's policeman because that's the only thing the Government is good for. Not that we should pay for it, of course.

So I can see your point that Terri's and her family's situation is not 'rare' -- there's quite a few people in that situation. The rarity comes from the US Congress and Executive branch trying to over-ride the Judicial system in such a blatant way. Hopefully that part of the situation is rare.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 26th, 2005
Unfortunately it is becoming less rare that Congress expresses helpless inchoate rage at the Judicial branch for not being more accomodating and buckling under to their bullying.

This is *exactly* why the Constitution was written to include multiple branches of government with different powers to act as checks and balances. The Judicial branch is *not* there to do whatever Congress wants.

And it's pissing the Religious Right off.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
That darned Religious Right! Everything going wrong in the country today is their fault! Programmings jobs going off to India, the AIDS crisis, child abuse, people living in poverty--it's all the fault of that blasted Religious Right! We should pass a law about them or something!

*sigh*
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
Funny how I said none of that.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
Oh, like it's all about _you_.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
No, I'm just the only person in this thread to have explicitly mentioned the Religious Right by name, that's all.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
I mean, until you did, too.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
The term can be found in no less than seven current threads, as well as numerous older threads.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
Which is why I specified "in this thread". I assumed you were replying to my post, rather than to the posts in some other threads. Personally, I (for the most part, but not always) try to keep my replies confined to the threads in which they are directly relevant.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
I'm killing seven birds with one stone.
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
Six - since I didn't say anything you mentioned, and nobody else here mentioned the Religious Right, this one doesn't really count, does it?

:)
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
March 26th, 2005
And actually you are killing zero birds with one stone. You're just making yourself sound shrill, with an off-topic remark that tries to join seven threads.

I could say that is typical of the Religious Right, that they have little perspective, and see EVERYTHING as an attack on the moral foundation of America. Since they join all these issues together in such a black and white way, they sound ignorant of the shades of grey and the comprimises necessary to actually resolve these issues.

But I don't think I'll say that. I have friends in the Religious Right, and that's a better forum to raise these issues.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 26th, 2005
Actually, I'm not part of the Religious Right. But a lot of my friends and family more or less are. And the continuous attacks get old after a while. Perhaps I'm a bit oversensitive on this topic, as I worked in a very left-leaning environment on my last job, and I got tired of hearing about all the "idiots" (e.g. my family and friends) who voted for Bush. (Incidentally, I didn't vote for Bush, either.)
Permalink Kyralessa 
March 26th, 2005
Kyralessa, I feel for you. However, if you take a position that you yourself do not believe in (supporting the Religious Right) then you just muddy the waters.

I agree the way to bring more moderation back to America is to support moderation, not bash the RR. But blind defense of the RR because you're tired of the bashing doesn't do any good.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 26th, 2005
The two doctors that testified in court that people in a persistent vegatative state can not recover did not actually examine Terri. Of the doctors who have actually personally examined Terri, among them a neurologist who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, all but one have said that she is conscious, aware of her surroundings, and would benefit from therapy, being able to eat on her own, and possible even be able to walk again. The one doctor who examined Terri who said that she was brain dead is a member of the Hemlock society, has given speeches for them, and is a rapid euthanasia advocate.
Permalink Steve Bender 
March 27th, 2005
> Nobel Prize
> yada, yada, yada

Document, document, document.

Until you provide documentation from a *reliable* source (not the Christian Right wackos), this is all just more hearsay. Let's see something from the BBC or someplace else without a dog in this fight.
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005
Here's an interview with one of the doctors who actually personally medically examined Terri for ten hours and also thoroughly reviewed her medical records:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151148,00.html

I see here that he didn't actually win the Nobel prize, he was only nominated.
Permalink Steve Bender 
March 27th, 2005
More interviews:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101458,00.html

In that one he points out that medical examinations done after Terri's brain damage occured show that she did NOT have a heart attack. I mention that for all you folks who keep repeating that she had a heart attack brought on by a pottasium imbalance because of bulimia. It's true that a potassium imbalance can cause a heart attack. However, Terri did not have a heart attack, therefore a potassium imbalance brought on by bulimia could not have caused her brain damage.

"Right now we have a woman who had a collapse with no known cause. No evidence of infection, heart attack, respiratory failure or anything. The only thing found in the emergency room is a damaged neck."
Permalink Steve Bender 
March 27th, 2005
Fox News?! I said "somebody without a dog in this fight." Fox News is about a half step above the National Enquirer in terms of credibility.
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005
Here is a copy of the complete medical report that Dr. Hammesfahr submitted to the court as sworn testimony:

http://libertytothecaptives.net/hammesfahr_dr._report.html

The entire examination was videotaped as well and the videotape is available at the courthouse.
Permalink Steve Bender 
March 27th, 2005
I repeat - "somebody without a dog in this fight," and you send me a page on the "Liberty to the Captives," another Christian fruitcake website?

Isn't it odd that in the 15 years since this originally happened, nobody's filed criminal charges against the husband, and umpty-squat physicians have said, "the woman is a turnip," and another umpty-squat judges (including Scalia and Thomas, those two notorious flaming liberals, who along with the rest of the Supreme Court declined to even comment on this farce) have said, "this is over and done with, go away?" But noooo - now all of a sudden Fox News "uncovers" these "facts" and "expert medical witnesses" who have all of a sudden appeared to turn the last fifteen years on its ear?! And to top it off, our media-whoring, allegedly pro-States' Rights, "Get the government off our backs" Congress and President jump all over this to make political points?!

What's truly immoral is that all the money being spent on this circus of fools could have been spent on medical care for people in this country who can be saved. Think about how many dialysis machines could have been bought for the money spent on legal fees.
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005
Perhaps the Secular Left could clarify whether Terry is in vegatable state or not.

The mistake has been made early on. The judges decided if Terry is conscious she would decide to remove the tube. And judgement of fact could not be appealed.

So the husband now could say the parents and their lawyer is now violating the rights of Terry -- the right of not eating.

Right. Parents violate the rights of their child.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 27th, 2005
And parents who try all their effort to keep their child alive are circus fools.

They have the money, they get to decide how to use it. Leave them alone.
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 27th, 2005
Whoever or whatever Terry was, she checked out 15 years ago. There's no "Terry" - there's just a pitiful lump of flesh being run on autopilot by the lizard brainstem, a bunch of delusional relatives and supporters, and a larger bunch of opportunistic bastards who are using this to make a buck and/or further their own ambitions.

Do you see the rest of the world agonizing over this? Is this the main news story anyplace else in the world? No, just here in the Land of the Free and Home of the 24-hour Fruitcake Review, brought to you live by the Fox Network.
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005
Make a buck? I don't think so.

Seems like Jeff Bush is behaving a little bit better than his brother.

The president and the congress on the other hand...
Permalink Rick Tsang 
March 27th, 2005
> Let's see something from the BBC or someplace else without a dog in this fight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/schiavo/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/schiavo/vegetative_state.html

And, from someone who may feel that he does have a dog in the fight, who says among other things, "The medical team ... states that Terri has no cognitive awareness and no hope of ever regaining any. The Schindlers, on the other hand, have found 33 doctors and therapists, 15 of whom are neurosurgeons, who state a contradictory view. The courts deal in matters of law and not necessarily the rightness or wrongness of an issue. God preserve us from judgments rooted in the vagaries of law when the question is one of ethics and morality."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_disabilitymatters/smith_20050322.html
Permalink Christopher Wells 
March 27th, 2005
Uh, ok, a timeline, an article, and an op-ed piece. The first two are straight off the BBC website, of which CBC is an affiliate, if I'm not mistaken (Canada is still part of the Comonwealth, right?). How does any of those three back up the lurid insinuation of the Fox News articles about the husband abusing her, or in any way contradict the medical authorities who say that her brain scans show she has *no* cerebral cortex left?
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005
> Make a buck? I don't think so?

Want to wager that the advertising rates Fox is charging during this circus have gone through the roof? Sounds like money to me....
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005
The doctor's report given is a literal reprint of the testimony he filed during the court case. You can read the exact same document at the courthouse. Courthouses don't put such documents on the web, but they are available to anyone who wishes to examine them from the Court Clerk's office because they are a matter of public record. If you can not travel to the courthouse yourself (I have since I live in Georgia, one state over and it was not a long drive.), there are legal services that will acquire copies of the documents yourself. You may also if you wish, as I have, view the videotape of the examination at the courthouse since it is also a matter of public record.

The neurologist, who testified in the trial, is not a employee of Fox News. I don't see why you would think he is. They merely interviewed him. There are other news sources that interviewed him as well.

wne, quite frankly, it is apparent you know nothing about this case and are not qualified to give an opinion. Your protestations to the contrary are spectacularly ignorant.
Permalink Steve Bender 
March 27th, 2005
Your sole source of "information" seems to be wacko Jesus Junkie websites and Fox Network news. Your credibility is nonexistent.

Tell you what - go down to the college bookstore and pick up a good medical school textbook on neuroanatomy and neurophysiology. Read it. Talk to a few neurologists. Then pick up another few textbooks on radiology and read them. Then look at some MRIs of people with similar conditions to Sciavo. Then when you have a better understanding of the human brain and how reflex reactions work and what the brainstem does, get back to us, ok?
Permalink wme 
March 27th, 2005

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

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics