Breaking news: Shiavo has died.
Well, I'm sorry that nobody was allowed to give her morphine. Death by dehydration is a pretty unpleasant way to go, even if your cerebral cortex has been replaced with spinal fluid. The pain center in your brain may still be functional. At least there was no mind there to feel it.
And even if you say there was, there isn't now, so it's pretty pointless to argue about it.
I will say that I'm glad that the Religious Right failed.
Whatever you do, don't post anything about her blog. It gets deleted. Probably like this message will.
eh? i thought she was getting morphine...
March 31st, 2005
Oh. I didn't hear that. My bad.
ronk! the funny thing about your post is that it *was* deleted, and has been restored.
Technically it was "Held for approval" and then Approved.
March 31st, 2005
(Why should Joel be the only one who gets to talk about the inner workings of FogBugz this week?)
March 31st, 2005
Ah. Since I don't have a green checkie, I didn't know that. It could have been moderated out very quickly (before I would have seen it), and then restored.
The latter is a rare event, its far more likely that a posting is automatically held rather than deleted regardless of what the general paranoia of the crowd may believe.
I'll grant you that the Approval was more on the basis of making it funny than for the actual content though.
contd Secrets of the Mods, John Wiley 2005...
March 31st, 2005
I don't mean to seem insensitive, but I'm sort of glad that she passed. The fact that it has been a 15 year stuggle, and it's finally over. Also, our news reporters can go on and leach onto something else now. Maybe report on something positive in the world? Probably not.
Not to be an arse, but after 15 years of coma it matters little whether she is now technically dead. In my eyes she died a long time ago.
Well, she wasn't really in a coma, that's what made it so difficult. She'd wake-up, open her eyes, look around, but there was still nobody home. She couldn't eat or drink un-assisted, for instance.
I had no idea your body could still do that, even with a 'flat-lined' EEG, but apparently so.
I've not been able to come to the conclusion that said she would be better off dead. I've only been able to come to the conclusion that said there's been over 20 court cases, all of which concluded her husband had the right to disconnect the feeding tube. And I've concluded the Federal Government and the Executive Branch don't have the right to override the judicial branch in the way they tried to do.
Still, it is a tragedy, and I suppose I'm glad she doesn't have to suffer any more, if there was any suffering.
> I had no idea your body could still do that, even with a 'flat-lined' EEG, but apparently so.
I've been learning about ECGs [and assume that EEGs are similar]: different parts of the heart [or brain] generate different components/frequencies/locations of the ECG [or EEG] signal. It's possible for part of the heart [or brain] to be dead (inert ... in heart tissue this is called "necrotic"), even while some other part is still alive. The dead part doesn't emit its usual signal (that *component* of the signal is called 'flat'), though the alive part still emits its portion of the signal.
There's the bogeyman again. It's becoming the most convenient way to justify inhumanity in this country: Just claim the Religious Right as your opposition.
That's just because you are a christian.
Just imagine how a gay person feels when you blame them on everything.
You're right, puritanism and control freaks are certainly long deceased and should be of no concern in our 'modern' society.
Have you any wool?
Kyralessa: re: The Religious Right -- hmm, I don't see them mentioned anywhere in this thread. To what are you referring?
It sounds more like you are trying to raise your own bogeyman -- that anyone who opposes the Religious Right only does so out of liberal bias, or because it's convenient to do so.
I don't think it's convenient -- opposing the Religious Right pits me against a small majority in this country. And you say I have a "liberal bias" like that's a bad thing, like you can then discount what I have to say because it comes out of some knee-jerk reaction to what the RR is doing.
I don't think my reactions are knee-jerked. I try to look at what is going on, and its effect on this country and people's lives, and come to some conclusions. Some of my best friends are members of the Religious Right -- really, my Bible Study group is quite conservative.
If you want to dismiss my arguments for whatever reasons I cannot stop you. But I do object to being minimized in that way.
Actually, AllanL5, I'd say the first of those two posts was rather knee-jerk. :)
"I try to look at what is going on, and its effect on this country and people's lives, and come to some conclusions."
Ok. What conclusions have you made?
1. Religious right is evil.
On the other hand, Kyralessa, calm down. Why get trolled so easily?
I'm the one who broght up the RR, in the original post.
And I'm still glad they failed.
Ok, not the OP, but in the first reply.
>There's the bogeyman again. It's becoming the most
>convenient way to justify inhumanity in this country:
>Just claim the Religious Right as your opposition.
Huh? Since Aaron’s post was the only one that mentioned the religious right, please describe for us how you came to the conclusion that he or his post was somehow “inhumane”.
(You know, Kyralessa, given some of the wacky stuff that you say, I’m beginning to think you suffer from some sort of right-wing Tourettes!)
Though it was directed at more than just Aaron, he did say he was glad the "Religious Right" failed. Since Shiavo would have had to have lived for them to succeed, does this mean he's glad she was killed? That would strike me as extraordinarily inhumane.
Even if he meant it only in the sense of being a good thing to come out of a bad situation, it's still a trivialization of someone's death. Granted he'd be far from the only one in this culture to trivialize death. (Oops, there I go being wacky again.)
That something as common as death should not be considered trivial strikes my more logical side as odd. Still, I somehow know what you mean.
To be explicitly clear:
I am sad that her mind died fifteen years ago. I am sad that this event managed to drag damn near the entire government into it. I am sad that the Religious Right and others have taken it as an opportunity to chastise judges for doing their jobs.
I am not sad that her body died, as her mind left it long ago. I am not glad that her body died, either. I believe that once the mind dies, what happens to the body is pretty irrelevant except as using it as spare parts to help others.
I am glad the Religious Right failed to intervene. I hope that attempts to make the judicial branch of government secondary to the other two will continue to fail.
Understand that if rabid liberals had been attempting the same thing, I would have felt the same way about them.
I do not believe that there should be a governmentally established religion in this country. I do not believe that even claiming "God" as the ultimate source of law and authority is a good thing, as that will lead to many problems regarding which God and whose interpretation of God's will and which texts are acceptable sources.
Also understand that I don't care if you think I am wrong. You are free to attempt to persuade me that I am wrong, and if your arguments are clear and reasonable and do not conflict with what I perceive to be directly observable truth, I may be convinced to change my mind. Understand that when it comes to religion, such attempts have tried and none have succeeded, many with more powerful arguments than I believe you can bring to bear. On the other hand, if it can be shown that my beliefs conflict with what I perceive to be directly observable truth, I can and do change my beliefs quickly. I admit my mistakes readily when confronted with them.
I think. My statements may sound like gut reflex decisions, but most of them stem from things I have thought long and hard about, and they do not conflict with what I have deeply ingrained. I challenge my own belief systems periodically, though I admit not as often as I used to - mostly because I am fairly satisfied that I came to the correct conclusions long ago and that I would continue to come to the same conclusions today.
So, short form of the above: Unless you have something worthwhile to debate and can present your side of the argument in a rational way, bite me.
If I am wrong about her mind having died fifteen years ago, which I doubt as I cannot imagine how someone's mind could possibly survive having most of your cerebreal cortex replaced with spinal fluid, then I am sad that her mind was trapped behind a wall of nonfunctionality and unable to interact with the world for so long. I think that would be a living hell far beyond what most of humanity could endure, and it would probably drive most past the brink of sanity. I deeply hope that is not what actually happened to her - not because of her death, but because of how horrible it would have been for her. I believe that her death would be a release from such horrid torment.
So it winds up with the same conclusion about her death.
>Oops, there I go being wacky again.
Indeed! It is not at all a trivialization to have a sense of gladness when someone passes. In the case where a person’s continued existence is torturous, or completely devoid of worth to themselves, knowing that they have finally made the journey that everyone must make, and that is as essential to life as birth itself, is definitely reason to be glad.
Now this is not to say that there isn’t also sadness and grief. But in an emotionally mature person these feelings can intermingle without contradiction. And none of them implies a “trivialization” of the other.
D'oh! No, my response was not knee-jerked, I really did review the thread multiple times and somehow never did see that the Religious Right was in fact mentioned in the first or second post. This took time.
And thanks for the smiley on your response, K.
And I don't conclude that the RR is evil, necessarily. I think they are badly mistaken in thinking that they can make this a more 'moral' country through legislating away abortion rights. I think they tend to simplify very complex matters into strawman arguments, then draw flawed conclusions based on the strawman they created. This applies both to abortion rights, gay rights, and Creationism/Intelligent Design.
And certainly some of the members of the RR distort reality so much it can lead to evil. But that does not make the large body of churches and people in the RR evil. They want to do good and make this a more moral nation. So do I. We just disagree a lot on the implementation details.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Yup. The question is, when you find yourself on that road, what do you do about it?
If you say "whoops, THIS isn't where I wanted to be, I'd better change something to get off this road", then you can recover. If instead you say, "Hell? This can't be the road to Hell. I'm acting with Good Intentions!", then you are well on your way to evil.
It's tragic, but it happens everyday.
I hope the parents could recover from this loss. I think it's hard for them to accept the court let their daughter die.
Hard to describe the feeling if you never experienced it.
I think what Jessis Jackson said reflect the thinking of some people
"I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips"
Interestingly (or unsurpising?), according to a poll 74% thinks the Congress got involved because they try to advance political agenda.
And many protestants think the government should not got involved.
"I am sad that her mind was trapped behind a wall of nonfunctionality and unable to interact with the world for so long. I think that would be a living hell far beyond what most of humanity could endure, and it would probably drive most past the brink of sanity."
A devout Catholic may disagree with that.
Obviously I'm not a Catholic, devout or otherwise. My mom used to be, but left the church before I was born, and I did go to a Jesuit highschool, and my mother's side of the family is still almost entirely Catholic, so I do know a few. Maybe I'll ask a couple their opinion.
Or maybe not. I don't really care what their opinion is on this.
Aaron F Stanton
April 2nd, 2005