And now, I would like to further clear up Mike's name, as I think he was an excellent husband. Firstly, Id like to ask a question:

Where does the idea that Mike did nothing to help her come from, and tried to keep her from getting help? This was a debate I constantly saw put up, that he was an evil man that tried to keep her dead... Yet, I believe, he gave her over to her family who begged him to let her stay with them barely a month after the incident. So he allowed it. Then, they threw her out after a week because they couldn’t handle her... So, barely a month after they threw her out, he had her flown to California where he stayed with her for 7 months as she went under the most advanced brain recovery treatment we currently have. Then, about a year later he began schooling to train as an emergency room nurse so that the could take care of his wife. He completed school, and began taking care of her.

You argue that the parents knew what a terrible husband he was--But, last time I checked, in the beginning they referred to him as 'the best son-in-law a family could hope for', and allowed him to live in their home free of rent. But these words mean nothing, when years later he becomes abusive, and the reason Terri's in the hospital? Never mind her history of Anorexia, which easily would lead to a situation such as this. Never mind the paramedics examine her (as is required) and finding no marks of abuse. Never mind that all broken bones and fractures are explained beyond ease with the fall, respiration procedures, and defibulator use.

Do you people hate anyone who ever removes someone from life support?

It wasn't a matter of life support that bothered me- it was starving someone to death- that just seems so cruel to me

She had every right to die. She should have died 14 years ago. The whole media circus was beyond the pale.

It wasn't a matter of life support that bothered me- it was starving someone to death- that just seems so cruel to me

Euthenasia was blocked by her parents. It is irrelevent though, the method meant no difference at all to her.

I'm with Riz on this one. Personally, I don't know if he was a good husband or not, but this should not have gotten to where it did in the media.

I am just glad it's over. I don't know if she was able to feel anything, but I sure as hell wouldn't want my braindead lifeless body hooked up to a machine for all that time.

Yes, we should all be relieved that an Inconvenient Woman who prevented her estranged husband from being able to remarry due to her ability to stay alive was finally exterminated by the state via the withholding of food and water.

No, not at all. She wasn't an inconvenience, she was a shell of her former self. Her body was still alive, but her person was dead. What's the point of keeping a body that can never do anything again alive?

My biggest problem with this is that it was made into a national, federal issue.

Congress passed a law written for one specific citizen. Name one other time in American history that this has happened.

It was a dispute between a woman's spouse and her parents, and it shoul NEVER have gone as far as it did. For the federal government to be brought into the private lives of individual citizens sets a dangerous precedent for a massive invasion of privacy.

It was none of our business, and the nation should never gotten involved.

No, not at all. She wasn't an inconvenience, she was a shell of her former self. Her body was still alive, but her person was dead. What's the point of keeping a body that can never do anything again alive?

:yeahthat:

I would feel completly different if there had been a good chance that they could have saved Terri, but as far as I know, she was doomed to a hospital bed until she died on her own. What kind of life is that?
If I say that I don't want to be on life support for fourteen years, then dammit, I wouldn't want my parents going against my wishes.

Jeb Bush and his band of political opportunists can go straight to hell.

I forgive all those who childishly, irresponsibly, and idiotically supported trying a man in the court of public opinion after his case was heard and ruled upon in a court of law. I also apologize to my fellow DAers for getting clearly mental over the subject. I confess I still cannot understand how anyone could support Jeb Bush to the extent that people did. I got nothing else to say except:

Yo Jeb -

Wanna mess with my wifes last wishes for your political gain?

With all my strength and every last breath I have I'll torch you to the ground.

There will be no mercy.

Stick that in your presidential campaign.

It was none of our business, and the nation should never gotten involved.

Yeah, it's none of our business when someone wants to legally murder his wife. :rolleyes: Sorry, but her parents, her friends and the people all over the country who saw it for what it was do not agree.

Congress passed a law written for one specific citizen. Name one other time in American history that this has happened.
- Actually happens more frequently than you think: for example, Congress has created special laws granting citizenship to specific individuals not otherwise qualified under the State Department's guidelies.

It was a dispute between a woman's spouse and her parents, and it shoul NEVER have gone as far as it did. For the federal government to be brought into the private lives of individual citizens sets a dangerous precedent for a massive invasion of privacy.
- Particularly to promote a personal political agenda on a divisive issue.

It was none of our business, and the nation should never gotten involved.
- Agreed.

Yeah, it's none of our business when someone wants to legally murder his wife. :rolleyes: Sorry, but her parents, her friends and the people all over the country who saw it for what it was do not agree.
- Their delusions really don't matter.

Her parents are to blame for taking a private matter and exposing the nation to their conniving plans.

Federal laws should not be changed for one person.

As I said, sorry to interrupt your quest to get rid of the old wife. And pave the way for the legalization of euthanasia in this country.

And since we will never agree on this, i'll leave you to keep parroting your pro-death talking points.

*yawn*

bye!

Never mind that all broken bones and fractures are explained beyond ease with the fall, respiration procedures, and defibulator use.
- They weren't even "broken bones and fractures": they were "hot spots" on a bone scan that, unlike an x-ray, doesn't analyze bone density, that might be interpreted as past trauma currently healing or might be interpreted consistent with, as you've said, a fall, CPR, and defibrillation.

As I said, sorry to interrupt your quest to get rid of the old wife. And pave the way for the legalization of euthanasia in this country.

And since we will never agree on this, i'll leave you to keep parroting your pro-death talking points.

*yawn*

bye!

There was 0% chance for her to get better, BC.The doctors even said it. If her husband just wanted her dead, why did he go to nursing school and take care of her for 7 years? He would have been having affairs and just not of cared by that point.

As I said, sorry to interrupt your quest to get rid of the old wife.
- Character assassination - I certainly don't want to "get rid" of anyone, nor would I support anyone with such plans.

And pave the way for the legalization of euthanasia in this country.
- That's just simple paranoia: the laws for end-life decisions for the brain-dead and cerebrally-dead are already on the books, as they are in the state of Florida.

No one's talking about "euthanizing" actual persons, unlike the brain-dead, nor is there any political movement for it afoot.

And since we will never agree on this, i'll leave you to keep parroting your pro-death talking points.

*yawn*

bye!
^^^ Condescension masking a weak case built primarily on hearsay and factoids.

There was 0% chance for her to get better, BC.The doctors even said it. If her husband just wanted her dead, why did he go to nursing school and take care of her for 7 years? He would have been having affairs and just not of cared by that point.
- One nursing home took out a restraining order against him because of his constant attempts at cajoling the staff into paying more attention and giving more care to his wife.

That doesn't really sound like a man that wants his wife dead.

In fact, because he was next of kin in the state of Florida, he could have pulled the plug any time he wished to. He didn't have to wait ten years.

There was 0% chance for her to get better, BC.The doctors even said it. If her husband just wanted her dead, why did he go to nursing school and take care of her for 7 years? He would have been having affairs and just not of cared by that point.

I don't know how closely you were following the case, Spaz, but that is simply not true. There were doctors handpicked by her husband who wanted her dead who said that, but there were a number of doctors who said otherwise. Also, you really should read the sworn affadavits of 3 or 4 nurses who all said that she understood what was being said to her, that she tried to communicate, and did communicate non-verbally, and occasionally with attempts at speech, and many other things that completely go against the lies from the pro-death side. If you want to read the affadavits, I'll find them for you and post the links.

The doctors that sided the parents got no access to her medical records and never examined her. They were never informed that an MRI was done, confirming the PVS diagnosis, for example - a clear case of manipulation.

Virtually 100% of them now agree with the assessment of the coroner, including the one in Congress.

The testimony of the nurses contradicted known facts and was disallowed by the judges, only to be futher exposed as politically-motivated deceit by the autopsy.

There was 0% chance for her to get better, BC.The doctors even said it. If her husband just wanted her dead, why did he go to nursing school and take care of her for 7 years? He would have been having affairs and just not of cared by that point.


Nobody is arguing that she may have recovered. She was permanently disabled.

He kept her alive so he could collect the insurance settlement - and then reduced her care and prohibited rehab therapy after the settlments were completed. Not a coincidence.

I would think that moving in with another woman and having children with her would classify as an affair, at a minimum.

There WAS no "insurance settlement," Bo - there were the proceeds from her successful malpractice suit; $750,000 kept in a court-managed trust fund for her, and $300,000 compensation for lost of consort for him.

The money in the trust fund had been spent by the court some time ago, and virtually nothing of it was left. He stood to inherit nothing from her death. In fact, a right wing tycoon offered him $1 million to walk away and several others put up even more. He turned them down flat.

It was not about money for him.

There WAS no "insurance settlement," Bo - there were the proceeds from her successful malpractice suit; $750,000 kept in a court-managed trust fund for her, and $300,000 compensation for lost of consort for him.

The money in the trust fund had been spent by the court some time ago, and virtually nothing of it was left. He stood to inherit nothing from her death. In fact, a right wing tycoon offered him $1 million to walk away and several others put up even more. He turned them down flat.

It was not about money for him.

^ Spin.

Bunk - they are hard, cold facts: he stood to gain nothing financially from her death, particularly since she was being supported by Medicare.

The money they won in the lawsuit against the doctors had been spent - as the court's documents reveal - and he walked away from bigtime paydays by conservative millionaires.

There's no "spin" there whatsoever, just documentable truths.

Funny how he refused to spend the money on proper tests and rehab therapy.

Funny how he refused to spend the money on proper tests and rehab therapy.

Where did you hear that?

Not true: MRIs and EEGs were done, and established that she had no higher brain functions.

He paid for therapy - like the experimental procedure that involved implanting electrodes in her brain - as long as there was hope of success.

But the doctors confirmed that her brain damage was too severe to rehabilitate, as her entire cerebral cortex was absent, and that there was no use in further therapy.

That's when he stopped paying for therapy, and he should have.

The medical examiner and his team concluded no amount of therapy would have reversed her condition.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/15/schiavo.autopsy/index.html

Where did you hear that?

You didn't mention wanting to read the affadavits. (because you've probably already made up your mind) but I'm going to give them to you anyway. Please read them, all of them, in their entirety. These are medical workers who worked with her on a daily basis.

Carla Sauer Iyer, R.N (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff2.pdf)
Heidi Law, CNA (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff3.pdf)
Carolyn Johnson, CNA (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff1.pdf)


I'm gonna be off the computer for a while, but I wanted to give you those.

(and I can already hear what CP's reply is. just read them, Spaz)

Nobody is saying therapy would have reversed her condition. The therapy was to improve the quality of her life given her disabilities. Michael ensured that her life would be as worthless as possible by forbidding physical therapy that could have enabled her a bit more motor function.

When I was a girl, my family volunteered to do "patterning" for a young buy who was a quadrapalegic. Even if someone cannot voluntarily move their own limbs, having therapy which moves them is beneficial. Michael denied Terri such help.

Ah, yes - our trio of pro-life liars, whose fabricated stories were so ridiculous even the parents refused to call them to testify, regardless of their supposed damaging revelations.

Now why might that be?

Of course, every contradicts the findings of the medical examiner autopsy, so it's a good thing the judge threw them straight out of court.

Nobody is saying therapy would have reversed her condition. The therapy was to improve the quality of her life given her disabilities. Michael ensured that her life would be as worthless as possible by forbidding physical therapy that could have enabled her a bit more motor function.

When I was a girl, my family volunteered to do "patterning" for a young buy who was a quadrapalegic. Even if someone cannot voluntarily move their own limbs, having therapy which moves them is beneficial. Michael denied Terri such help.
- Unlike your disabled friend, Terri had no cerebral cortex, which means she had no awareness, thought, or consciousness. It was impossible for her to notice any difference in her quality of life, or, for that matter, anything else.

She had no consciousness whatsoever, or any perception of the world. She was a vegetable.

I find it strange that the Left Wing Zealot is so eager to dismiss Terri's life as having no worth. What happened to the concern for the unfortunates who are not able to speak out for themselves? When in doubt (of which there was an abundance in Terri's case), shouldn't we err on the side of life?

Nobody is saying therapy would have reversed her condition. The therapy was to improve the quality of her life given her disabilities.
How do you know that it could have worked?
Michael ensured that her life would be as worthless as possible by forbidding physical therapy that could have enabled her a bit more motor function.
Forbidding, huh? Are you sure he did it JUST to make her miserable? If he didn't want her, why didn't he make them pull the plug a while ago, like CP said? It just seems a little far-fetched that he kept her alive just to make her miserable.

How do you know that it could have worked?

Michael made sure we would never know.

Forbidding, huh? Are you sure he did it JUST to make her miserable? If he didn't want her, why didn't he make them pull the plug a while ago, like CP said? It just seems a little far-fetched that he kept her alive just to make her miserable.

It is in the record that he forbid therapeutic physical therapy. There was no plug to pull. She was not on life support. What she was on was assisted nutrition - ie, she needed help with food and drink.

Ah, yes - our trio of pro-life liars, whose fabricated stories were so ridiculous even the parents refused to call them to testify, regardless of their supposed damaging revelations.

Now why might that be?

Of course, every contradicts the findings of the medical examiner autopsy, so it's a good thing the judge threw them straight out of court.

Exactly what I predicted you would say. You're so predictable, CP! Yeah, all the people who gave sworn affadavits (and there are others) were all committing perjury, a felony, risking their careers, so they could keep alive a vegetable. Makes loads of sense. :rolleyes: btw, don't you have anything better to do with your time? Practice your music maybe? I realize fighting for death is such a noble cause, but you should give it a rest sometimes.

I gotta go. I'll be back later.

I find it strange that the Left Wing Zealot is so eager to dismiss Terri's life as having no worth.
I don't think he ever said her life didn't have worth. In my opinion, she didn't HAVE a life. Her body was nothing but an empty shell.

btw, don't you have anything better to do with your time?

A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

I don't think he ever said her life didn't have worth. In my opinion, she didn't HAVE a life. Her body was nothing but an empty shell.

Who are any of us to make that judgement? A body which can breathe on its own and which has some (albeit very limited) brain function is alive. Your opinion that she was nothing but an empty shell requires a secular view that human beings have no souls. Many people disagree with that view.

I don't think he ever said her life didn't have worth. In my opinion, she didn't HAVE a life. Her body was nothing but an empty shell.


Absolutely not true. Again, read the affadavits. And there are others.

Carla Sauer Iyer, R.N (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff2.pdf)
Heidi Law, CNA (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff3.pdf)
Carolyn Johnson, CNA (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff1.pdf)

I find it strange that the Left Wing Zealot is so eager to dismiss Terri's life as having no worth. What happened to the concern for the unfortunates who are not able to speak out for themselves? When in doubt (of which there was an abundance in Terri's case), shouldn't we err on the side of life?
- No, Bo - there was no doubt. In borderline cases, there may be doubt, but hers was a case in extremis. She was missing half of her brain, and no hope of regaining even the slightest higher brain functions.

It wasn't that her life had no worth: it's that her life was over. Everything that made her Terri Schiavo was gone, and all that was left was a shell.

No one should have to remain in that condition if they don't wish to, and the laws for determining her wishes in the state of Florida were carried out. As should be the case with big boys and girls, her husband determined her endlife wishes.

In less severe cases, we should perhaps err on the side of life, but in there was no ambiguity here, except on the part of the politically motivated.

- No, Bo - there was no doubt. In borderline cases, there may be doubt, but hers was a case in extremis. She was missing half of her brain, and no hope of regaining even the slightest higher brain functions.

It wasn't that her life had no worth: it's that her life was over. Everything that made her Terri Schiavo was gone, and all that was left was a shell.

No one should have to remain in that condition if they don't wish to, and the laws for determining her wishes in the state of Florida were carried out. As should be the case with big boys and girls, her husband determined her endlife wishes.

In less severe cases, we should perhaps err on the side of life, but in there was no ambiguity here, except on the part of the politically motivated.

I'll refer you to my response to Spaz above. It applies here as well.

Who are any of us to make that judgement? A body which can breathe on its own and which has some (albeit very limited) brain function is alive. Your opinion that she was nothing but an empty shell requires a secular view that human beings have no souls. Many people disagree with that view.
- Basic neural anatomy tells us so, and the persons to make that judgement are the individuals themselves and their next of kin.

If the people disagree with that point of view, they're welcome to write out a living will or inform their spouses and next of kin otherwise.

- Basic neural anatomy tells us so, and the persons to make that judgement are the individuals themselves and their next of kin.

If the people disagree with that point of view, they're welcome to write out a living will or inform their spouses and next of kin otherwise.


So what you are saying is that as a matter of law, without a Living Will, The State should adopt a secular point of view regarding Life - despite the religious upbringing and practices of the person in question. Without a document provint she would want to live, The State should assume An Inconvenient Person should want to die - extermination is expected / required.

Yep - err on the Side of Death. This is the direction in which your philosophy leads.

Who are any of us to make that judgement? A body which can breathe on its own and which has some (albeit very limited) brain function is alive. Your opinion that she was nothing but an empty shell requires a secular view that human beings have no souls. Many people disagree with that view.

I'm not saying human beings have no soul--I'm saying that if you aren't aware of anything, you are always sleeping, never waking up, not hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, and have no emotion--THATS when you have no soul.


And what I want to say now is that I hope, if I say I don't want to stay on life support if I'm in that condition, that people will carry out my wishes.

Absolutely not true. Again, read the affadavits. And there are others.

Carla Sauer Iyer, R.N (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff2.pdf)
Heidi Law, CNA (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff3.pdf)
Carolyn Johnson, CNA (http://www.cnsnews.com/pdf/2003/aff1.pdf)
- Uh huh, explain to us why the family refused to call them as witnesses as the trial, Cindy - they stated under oath that Iyer contacted the Schindlers and told them their story.

Only one explanation - even the family didn't believe they were telling the truth.

I'm not saying human beings have no soul--I'm saying that if you aren't aware of anything, you are always sleeping, never waking up, not hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, and have no emotion--THATS when you have no soul.


And what I want to say now is that I hope, if I say I don't want to stay on life support if I'm in that condition, that people will carry out my wishes.

Are you really claiming that when people are asleep that they have no souls? In that case, killing a sleeping person is not murder.

So what you are saying is that as a matter of law, without a Living Will, The State should adopt a secular point of view regarding Life - despite the religious upbringing and practices of the person in question. Without a document provint she would want to live, The State should assume An Inconvenient Person should want to die - extermination is expected / required.
- A) The state NEVER adopts a religious point of view in the US of A.
B) The state assumes nothing - the next of KIN determine what they would have wanted, as they're in the best position to know.

Yep - err on the Side of Death. This is the direction in which your philosophy leads.
- Only if the family believes in erring on the side of death.

Are you really claiming that when people are asleep that they have no souls? In that case, killing a sleeping person is not murder.

I did not say that--if you are asleep and you NEVER WAKE UP, and there is no chance that you will--that is saying, if a person is in a coma, and they may wake up eventually, then they have a soul. If they will NEVER wake up, then they don't.

I did not say that--if you are asleep and you NEVER WAKE UP, and there is no chance that you will--that is saying, if a person is in a coma, and they may wake up eventually, then they have a soul. If they will NEVER wake up, then they don't.

Thank you for playing God. You are making as assumption I would not make. So if a person is in a coma and can breathe on his own - you feel justified in killing him.

Sad.

Are you really claiming that when people are asleep that they have no souls? In that case, killing a sleeping person is not murder.
- No, peoples' cerebral cortexes don't magically disappear while they're sleeping.

"Soul" is a religious concept, and the state doesn't base public policy on religion.

Thank you for playing God. You are making as assumption I would not make. So if a person is in a coma and can breathe on his own - you feel justified in killing him.

Sad.
- No, the person and/or their next of kin are justified in refusing treatment to sustain their lives when there is no hope of regaining consciousness.

No one can FORCE you to accept treatment in such cases.

It's interesting how Spaz has not acknowledged (unless I missed it?) that I gave her those links, twice.... yet you, CP, keep posting to me when I have not been posting to you.


- Uh huh, explain to us why the family refused to call them as witnesses as the trial, Cindy - they stated under oath that Iyer contacted the Schindlers and told them their story.

Only one explanation - even the family didn't believe they were telling the truth.


That is a flat out lie. They didn't give their affadavits until 2003, which was already after the first, and important trial. Once they did submit their affadavits Judge Greer did not take them into account, supposedly because it wouldn't allow for them to be cross-examined. But the reality is, we all know he was the one disallowing their testimony in the courtroom. As my friend in Florida wrote to me in a message, "Greer could have (if he wanted to hear their testimony)adjourned the court so that Felos could have gotten depositions from them, and then cross-examined them in the courtroom, but Greer just didn't allow the nurses (or the Schindlers) the time of day."

That's a flat-out non sequitur, BC: in their testimony, under oath, they stated that Iyler called the Schindlers and informed them of her observations about Mike Schiavo and her condition AT THE TIME.

That means either that a) the parents were aware of their claims, but refused to call them as witnesses; or b) that Iyler is LYING about having called them at the time.

So either their story is so bogus the parents refused to called them as witnesses, despite the explosiveness of their charges and benefit to their case OR they're simply liars.

So which is it?

The parents weren't the ones in control, in the courtroom. There were many witnesses that corroborated the parents who were disallowed from testifying. If you know anything about this case, you would know that Judge Greer was so obviously on the side of MS, from the beginning. He consistently ruled for MS, even with an increasing pile of evidence that favored the other side.

So, stop trying to speak for her parents, and stop trying to play God, as bo said. And once again, I'm trying to leave, so quit posting to me until I get back. And if you want more info on this, I'll find it.

Bull****, BC - the parents were the PLAINTIFFS in the trial. THEY were the ones that called witnesses to testify for them, and ONLY they had that power.

The judge didn't disallow the nurses testimony - the Schindlers didn't call them to the stand, even though they had told them things like that Mike had asked "When is that bitch going to die," and that Terri had miraculous awareness of her surrounding in spite of having no cerebrum or vision.

Even though that would have made their case, they were never called.

So when Iyler stated under oath that she called the Schindlers at the time of Terri's stay under her care with her charges, that means that one of two things happened:

1) The parents as plaintiffs refused to suborn perjury by putting them on the stand.

2) Iyler actually perjured herself on the stand by saying that she called the Schindlers when she didn't.

It's amazing how much information you people know about the case. It's like you watched TV/read stuff on the net 24/7 during the whole thing.

I must admit though, Spaz is impressing me here! Not that I am trying to be pro-anything here or taking sides.. but her oppinions sound much older than those of a 13 year old. And people that I usually don't agree with are on my side in this one! :p

She's very special.

She's very special.

Quoted for agreement! :nice:

And for the record, she voices my opinions on the matter just fine. :)

Bull****, BC - the parents were the PLAINTIFFS in the trial. THEY were the ones that called witnesses to testify for them, and ONLY they had that power.

The judge didn't disallow the nurses testimony - the Schindlers didn't call them to the stand, even though they had told them things like that Mike had asked "When is that bitch going to die," and that Terri had miraculous awareness of her surrounding in spite of having no cerebrum or vision.

Even though that would have made their case, they were never called.

So when Iyler stated under oath that she called the Schindlers at the time of Terri's stay under her care with her charges, that means that one of two things happened:

1) The parents as plaintiffs refused to suborn perjury by putting them on the stand.

2) Iyler actually perjured herself on the stand by saying that she called the Schindlers when she didn't.

You are actually going to deny that the Schindlers were not the ones in control of the courtroom? :rofl: :rofl: Hello? GREER MADE THE DECISIONS. HE had the final say on what testimony is allowed and what isn't. And as I said, it is clear that from the beginning, he sided with MS on pretty much everything.

Apparently, Pat Anderson, the Schindlers' lawyer did try to get in their testimony, but it was shot down by Greer. Here is an email from someone who knows far more about this case than I do:


I believe that the answer is that Greer refused to allow the testimony. The sworn affidavits were submitted to the court but Greer would never allow any new testimony, ie when Cyndi Shook Brasher and Trudi Capone came forward and said that Michael had no idea what Terri's wishes were. Greer said it was too late to be admitted and squashed it all. It definitely wasn't because of the Schindlers. Pat Anderson tried, Greer shot it down as usual.

This whole case is so depressing, and the more I read about it, the more I see how evil the whole thing was, and how what we have here is a state-sanctioned murder, most likely to set a precedent for legalizing euthanasia.

I must admit though, Spaz is impressing me here! Not that I am trying to be pro-anything here or taking sides.. but her oppinions sound much older than those of a 13 year old. And people that I usually don't agree with are on my side in this one! :p

She's very special.

Awwww, thanks guys. You're very sweet :D


Bo, I am not saying that I should play god and KILL someone who is still breathing. You are misunderstanding me completly. What I am saying is that, if you will be unconscious until their body dies out,like Terri, then they are already gone.

But assume that I always mean the worst, thats ok. Its just bad for debating is all.

And Buttercup, I'm about to look at those links now. My mom made me get off before ("Five minutes, I mean it!"), and I didn't have time to look at them. I apologise :nice:

Spaz is special. And very bright. I'm gonna let her argue on my behalf as well.

This is one of those experiences that you think you know how you would act, but when it happens close to home & you see the whole story, your opinion may drastically change.
The problem in this case is there are mistruths, exaggerations & contradictions. On every side too, I imagine.
Decisions like this should be private family matters, not media fodder.

This is one of those experiences that you think you know how you would act, but when it happens close to home & you see the whole story, your opinion may drastically change.
The problem in this case is there are mistruths, exaggerations & contradictions. On every side too, I imagine.
Decisions like this should be private family matters, not media fodder.


The best UNBIASED oppinion I've read so far! :nice:

The best UNBIASED oppinion I've read so far! :nice:
Well, it is biased though. I've been in a like position.

BC--Wow. No. I have no idea where your getting this info, but please source it, as the fact that... I dont know... the parents were the plaintiff's.

But anyways, Im still waiting for the addressment of my arguments as everyone skipped over them...

And btw, If thats your definition of state sanctioned murder, theres thousands everyday BC. Maybe you should start fighting for everyone on lifesupport. Hell, 1/2 of them have a better chance of recovery then Terri ever did.

You are actually going to deny that the Schindlers were not the ones in control of the courtroom? :rofl: :rofl: Hello? GREER MADE THE DECISIONS. HE had the final say on what testimony is allowed and what isn't. And as I said, it is clear that from the beginning, he sided with MS on pretty much everything.
-

Apparently, Pat Anderson, the Schindlers' lawyer did try to get in their testimony, but it was shot down by Greer. Here is an email from someone who knows far more about this case than I do:


I believe that the answer is that Greer refused to allow the testimony. The sworn affidavits were submitted to the court but Greer would never allow any new testimony, ie when Cyndi Shook Brasher and Trudi Capone came forward and said that Michael had no idea what Terri's wishes were. Greer said it was too late to be admitted and squashed it all. It definitely wasn't because of the Schindlers. Pat Anderson tried, Greer shot it down as usual.
- This is the most inane thing I've read

For Greer to "quash" their testimony, the Schindlers would have had to subpeona them, have the opposing attorneys file a motion, and the judge would have had to rule against their testimony.

None of that happened. They were never subpeonaed. There would be a record if they were, and no one has found one.

Greer never ruled on them, because they were never called. This whole story is a fabrication.

And btw, If thats your definition of state sanctioned murder, theres thousands everyday BC. Maybe you should start fighting for everyone on lifesupport. Hell, 1/2 of them have a better chance of recovery then Terri ever did.

Before she was slowly starved and dehydrated to death, Terris was NOT dying, she was not terminally ill, she was not even on life support, with the exception of a feeding tube, which by itself it not considered a heroic life support, there are many people who live with a feeding tube. Also, according to the nurses who worked with her and others, she could swallow.... in fact we KNOW she could swallow, because she didn't drool, she swallowed her own saliva. MS continually denied her therapy and tests to see if she could eat orally.... why? Because her feeding tube was the only "life support" she had, and therefore, the only way he could 'pull the plug' on her, to kill her legally.

So this is not the same thing as somone who was on their death bed, about to die, hooked up to machines, etc. It was a brain damaged woman, in a case that is rife with fishiness, as far as how she got to be in her condition in the first place, and she was LEGALLY starved and dehydrated to death - something it is completely immoral, by any stretch.

Greer never ruled on them, because they were never called. This whole story is a fabrication.

That is not what I heard, and we KNOW there are many other witnesses who were not allowed to testify. Many people.... who apparently you are willing to believe are ALL lying, yet the scumbag who we KNOW has conflicts of interest, you believe is the honest one. That is laughable to me, CP, laughable, but very sad.

Cindy, every one of Greer's rulings is a public record - if they had been subpeonaed and called to testify, and Greer had denied it, everyone would know it. Reporters would have published it, and the trial notes would include that fact.

No such rulings were ever made because they were never called to testify by the plaintiffs.

I really wish that the people who support Michael Schiavo's ability to have Terri starved/thirsted to death would at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that this was a case of EUTHANASIA, not a right to die case. Terri was not dying. Her proximate cause of death was the withholding of food and water - something which would kill any of us if we were subjected to the same treatment.

BC, the autopsy confirms that she could not have been able to consume food orally. She would need the feeding tube until the other half of her brain rotted away or she died of other causes.

Bo, she was going to die anyway. She didn't have anything left. Terri Schiavo died long before her body did.

It wasn't euthanasia because euthanasia occurs without consent based on a belief that the individual's life isn't worth living.

This was Michael Schiavo carrying out the wish of his wife not to remain permanently in an vegetative state, not euthanasia

I really wish that the people who support Michael Schiavo's ability to have Terri starved/thirsted to death would at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that this was a case of EUTHANASIA, not a right to die case. Terri was not dying. Her proximate cause of death was the withholding of food and water - something which would kill any of us if we were subjected to the same treatment.

Oh... And she was in PVS. That might be worth mentioning. As this means that she had virtually no hope of ever getting better, as every doctor who actually examined her records agreed on.

yet the scumbag who we KNOW has conflicts of interest, you believe is the honest one. That is laughable to me, CP, laughable, but very sad.

Have you even read my first post?

Bo, she was going to die anyway. She didn't have anything left. Terri Schiavo died long before her body did.

^ Another statement supporting the Incovenient Persons Must Be Exterminated Because Nobody Would/Should Want To Live That Way pogrom.

You have no idea if she had anything left. All she required to stay alive was food and water - she could breathe on her own and had some brain function. If you consider that no life left, that is your judgement - not fact. It presupposes that humans do not have souls - something that should be left to a Higher Power than any human or human made construct to determine for another person.

Cindy, every one of Greer's rulings is a public record - if they had been subpeonaed and called to testify, and Greer had denied it, everyone would know it. Reporters would have published it, and the trial notes would include that fact.

No such rulings were ever made because they were never called to testify by the plaintiffs.

Their affadavits were submitted, in 2003, and according to theempirejournal, as well as what the nurses themselves said, the judge did not allow them to testify in court, saying that it was too 'incredible.' And as I keep telling you, there were other witnesses who were not allowed to testify, and there is obviously a pattern there, keeping out key witnesses, who had information that was totally damaging to MS's side.

It wasn't euthanasia because euthanasia occurs without consent based on a belief that the individual's life isn't worth living.

This was Michael Schiavo carrying out the wish of his wife not to remain permanently in an vegetative state, not euthanasia

There are no real scientifically reliable standards for PVS.

^ Another statement supporting the Incovenient Persons Must Be Exterminated Because Nobody Would/Should Want To Live That Way pogrom.

Simply not true. Your comparing retarded people to people who are no longer there. She was gone. Everyone knew this except people who appearintly have no grasp whatsoever of the brain.


You have no idea if she had anything left.

Yea. Those of us who had looked over medical documents could clearly see there was no hope. The autopsy only proved what we already knew to be absolutly true.


All she required to stay alive was food and water - she could breathe on her own and had some brain function. If you consider that no life left, that is your judgement - not fact. It presupposes that humans do not have souls - something that should be left to a Higher Power than any human or human made construct to determine for another person.

And if you had a soul, youd want it trapped in that body which she had no control over? Do you even get how the human body works? Certain parts of the brain, do certain things... Its not just a glob of goodness doing a bunch of work. The part of Terri that made her Terri, her 'soul' on earth if you want to call it that, was destroyed. Virtually non-existent. But, the mechnical portion which operates her life-functions (you know, beats your heart for you, breaths for you, etc etc) was still operational. This doesnt make her alive. if you go by this logic, that we are executing everyone who's merely on life-support, but can still do any life functions by themselves, the number of people who are victoms of 'state sanctioned murder' every year are astronomical.

^ Another example of the Pogrom.

BC, the autopsy confirms that she could not have been able to consume food orally. She would need the feeding tube until the other half of her brain rotted away or she died of other causes.

Bo, she was going to die anyway. She didn't have anything left. Terri Schiavo died long before her body did.

The autopsy was conducted 15 years later, and of course after 2 weeks of slow starvation/dehydration. I'm talking about BEFORE, when she was in the hospice, being fed everyday, at THAT point she was able to swallow, we know that because a) she didn't drool, she swallowed her own saliva and b) there were a number of people who saw her on a regular basis who said that she was able to swallow small amounts of juice and jello.

And it's a total lie that she was "going to die anyway".... unless you are saying that we ALL, me, you, bo, anyone are going to die anyway... Yes, someday we all are. In HER case, she was not dying, any more than you or I or anyone are 'dying.' They didnt' "let her die", they KILLED her.

Their affadavits were submitted, in 2003, and according to theempirejournal, as well as what the nurses themselves said, the judge did not allow them to testify in court, saying that it was too 'incredible.' And as I keep telling you, there were other witnesses who were not allowed to testify, and there is obviously a pattern there, keeping out key witnesses, who had information that was totally damaging to MS's side.

Your terribly misinformed. If a judge did that, he'd be removed from the case and disbarred.. Find the real story, then get back to us. That or, as Im assuming, this was simply all fabricated, and the Schindlers never actually moved to call them as witness's.

The autopsy was conducted 15 years later, and of course after 2 weeks of slow starvation/dehydration. I'm talking about BEFORE, when she was in the hospice, being fed everyday, at THAT point she was able to swallow, we know that because a) she didn't drool, she swallowed her own saliva and b) there were a number of people who saw her on a regular basis who said that she was able to swallow small amounts of juice and jello.

And it's a total lie that she was "going to die anyway".... unless you are saying that we ALL, me, you, bo, anyone are going to die anyway... Yes, someday we all are. In HER case, she was not dying, any more than you or I or anyone are 'dying.' They didnt' "let her die", they KILLED her.


This is why I am requesting that they at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that what was done to Terri was EUTHENASIA.

Please excuse my stupidity, but I need to have these two questions answered before I can debate any further:
1. What is "PVS"?
2. What is "the pogrom"?

Sorry :p

^ Another statement supporting the Incovenient Persons Must Be Exterminated Because Nobody Would/Should Want To Live That Way pogrom.

You have no idea if she had anything left. All she required to stay alive was food and water - she could breathe on her own and had some brain function. If you consider that no life left, that is your judgement - not fact. It presupposes that humans do not have souls - something that should be left to a Higher Power than any human or human made construct to determine for another person.
Hmm. Now we're invoking religion. No, humans do not have souls. And even if we do, her person is dead. The part of her that was her had rotted away, as CP keeps on repeating. She could feeling nothing, think nothing, do nothing. She had no future.
But I'm glad we've gotten to a theocratic state. Yes, Bo, we have. Think about it. You're saying that we should have let her live, the state should not have followed the state's own laws, because it violated a religious principle, regardless of her own opinion on the matter. Somehow, I feel uncomfortable.

Your terribly misinformed. If a judge did that, he'd be removed from the case and disbarred.. Find the real story, then get back to us. That or, as Im assuming, this was simply all fabricated, and the Schindlers never actually moved to call them as witness's.

First of all, as I've told you many times, it's "you're", not "your". And second, it is a known fact that the judge disallowed them to testify, just as he disallowed certain other witnesses to testify, so obviously you are the one who is uninformed.

Hmm. Now we're invoking religion. No, humans do not have souls. And even if we do, her person is dead. The part of her that was her had rotted away, as CP keeps on repeating. She could feeling nothing, think nothing, do nothing. She had no future.
But I'm glad we've gotten to a theocratic state. Yes, Bo, we have. Think about it. You're saying that we should have let her live, the state should not have followed the state's own laws, because it violated a religious principle, regardless of her own opinion on the matter. Somehow, I feel uncomfortable.


Yes, we have gotten to a Theocratic State: The Theocracy of God Doesn't Exist and Humans Do Not Have Souls Secularism. This is what you believe, and you want The State to shove it down the rest of our throats.

Given the sentiments expressed in this thread and elsewhere, one could observe that Some People really do not have souls. The more accurate view, however, is that they don't realize they have them.

The autopsy was conducted 15 years later, and of course after 2 weeks of slow starvation/dehydration.

*sigh* And your disregarding the fact that Mike tried to help her within 3 months of the accident for 7 months in California? That he then trained as a nurse to watch over her and hoped to help her recover? 15 years, so what? They did all they could over the years, the questionw as about now. You cant improve. And the 2 weeks really had no effect on the brain: even if it did, we still had the medical examinations which simply further proved everything the autopsy reported, and the fact that autopsy's take into account cause of death in their examination. There was likely even more damage, but he ruled it to the starvation.


And it's a total lie that she was "going to die anyway".... unless you are saying that we ALL, me, you, bo, anyone are going to die anyway... Yes, someday we all are. In HER case, she was not dying, any more than you or I or anyone are 'dying.' They didnt' "let her die", they KILLED her.

They kill thousands of people everyday who have no chance of getting better. Its better then the god-awful existence of laying in a bed as your muscles decay away, you stare at a ceiling, and have people drool and cry over you (for all those of you who think she was in pain during starvation).

It actually wouldnt have mattered if you hit her in the head with a baseball bat, or starved her. She wouldnt have felt the slightest of either.

First of all, as I've told you many times, it's "you're", not "your". And second, it is a known fact that the judge disallowed them to testify, just as he disallowed certain other witnesses to testify, so obviously you are the one who is uninformed.

No. Courtrooms dont work like that. Im perfectly aware of the process in a trial, and what your arguing is an absolute impossibility, or your not telling everything about the situation. A judge can not operate like that.

Given the sentiments expressed in this thread and elsewhere, one could observe that Some People really do not have souls. The more accurate view, however, is that they don't realize they have them.

*sigh* Youd think after 2,000 years of civilizations, humans might actually start realizing that old dogmas do not become established truths. I believe humans have an essence, that is for sure. But saying that you know you have a soul is complete foolishness, regardless of my personal views. Its arrogent and foolish.

*sigh* Youd think after 2,000 years of civilizations, humans might actually start realizing that old dogmas do not become established truths. I believe humans have an essence, that is for sure. But saying that you know you have a soul is complete foolishness, regardless of my personal views. Its arrogent and foolish.

But claiming that someone else doesn't have a soul is not is not arrogAnt and foolish?

Thanks for clearing that up.

:rolleyes:

No, humans do not have souls


But saying that you know you have a soul is complete foolishness, regardless of my personal views. Its arrogent and foolish.

WOW. I don't know whether to laugh, or cry. But I'm truly amazed that you guys actually believe that.

Of course we have souls!!! It is what keeps us alive! If we do not have a soul, the body dies...within a short amount of time.

There are no real scientifically reliable standards for PVS.
- If half you brain is missing, including your entire cerebral cortex, you're reliably a vegetable. :rolleyes:

- If half you brain is missing, including your entire cerebral cortex, you're reliably a vegetable. :rolleyes:

No, you are severely brain damaged if you can also breathe on your own.

Why can't you admit that she was euthenized?

Of course we have souls!!! It is what keeps us alive!
Actually, our brain,heart and lungs keep us alive. I believe we have souls, but there is no real proof :shrug:
If we do not have a soul, the body dies...within a short amount of time.
Or within 14 years, anyway.

Please excuse my stupidity, but I need to have these two questions answered before I can debate any further:
- You're the brightest kid I know. :)

. What is "PVS"?
- "Persistent Vegetative State" - when a brain-damaged person has sustained so much injury to their cerebral centers, they never wake up and have no awareness.

. What is "the pogrom"?
- Anti-Jewish attacks that happened in Russia led by the Cossacks that killed many people around the turn of the century.

Euthenasia was blocked by her parents. It is irrelevent though, the method meant no difference at all to her.
I'm nervous to get into this again, but I just have to...

Her parents and siblings, and other witnesses testified that Terri suffered greatly from starvation and dehydration. She could (and did) feel and suffer.

Of course euthanasia was blocked by her parents - they were trying to save her life! Only Michael and his brother even tried to prove that's what she would have wanted and his opinion was worth nothing - as he had left her years before, and was shacked up with another woman.

No, you are severely brain damaged if you can also breathe on your own.
- It doesn't really matter - no cerebral cortex, no awareness, consciousness, or perception; ie., PVS.

Why can't you admit that she was euthenized?
- Because it's a lie.

I think I have it all figured out.

Adult women have souls.

Everybody else doesn't.

Does this make everybody happy?

Simply not true. Your comparing retarded people to people who are no longer there. She was gone. Everyone knew this except people who appearintly have no grasp whatsoever of the brain.

Read the affadavits I posted earlier. And there are over 30 affadavits total, from either doctors or medical workers who said she was not 'PVS'. Listen to what her parents said, and her brothers and sisters and friends. Or look at the videos, it is so obvious that she was not gone! You guys are amazing, I seriously think that you are blinded.


Yea. Those of us who had looked over medical documents could clearly see there was no hope. The autopsy only proved what we already knew to be absolutly true.

Sorry, mr Gloom and Doom, but on this one you are just plain wrong.


And if you had a soul, youd want it trapped in that body which she had no control over? Do you even get how the human body works? Certain parts of the brain, do certain things... Its not just a glob of goodness doing a bunch of work. The part of Terri that made her Terri, her 'soul' on earth if you want to call it that, was destroyed. Virtually non-existent. But, the mechnical portion which operates her life-functions (you know, beats your heart for you, breaths for you, etc etc) was still operational. This doesnt make her alive. if you go by this logic, that we are executing everyone who's merely on life-support, but can still do any life functions by themselves, the number of people who are victoms of 'state sanctioned murder' every year are astronomical.

If she had gotten the therapy she was SUPPOSED to have gotten, over 10 years ago, then she could have improved. She was DENIED that therapy, because her husband just wanted her dead, and the pro-death lawyers used him and the case as their stepping stone for their pro-death political agenda.

IHer parents and siblings, and other witnesses testified that Terri suffered greatly from starvation and dehydration. She could (and did) feel and suffer.
- The witnesses were wrong, or quite possibly lying, as the autopsy proves. People have a great capacity to see what they wish to see in those situations, but you can't beat dissecting the brain.

Of course euthanasia was blocked by her parents - they were trying to save her life! Only Michael and his brother even tried to prove that's what she would have wanted and his opinion was worth nothing - as he had left her years before, and was shacked up with another woman.
- He didn't "leave her": she underwent severe brain damage, and experienced cerebral death, irreversibly and permanently.

Actually, our brain,heart and lungs keep us alive. I believe we have souls, but there is no real proof :shrug:

Those are the physical things, but obviously we are more than just physical beings, there is an energy, that animates us, and keeps us alive.


Or within 14 years, anyway.

No, a person without a soul cannot live, for longer than a short period of time.

Personally, I believe that, and that's why I'm happy that her soul is at peace, just as she wished. :nice:

Personally, I believe that, and that's why I'm happy that her soul is at peace, just as she wished. :nice:


You do not know what she wished. You are projecting what you think she SHOULD HAVE WANTED in order to justify exterminating an Inconvenient Disabled Person.

If she had gotten the therapy she was SUPPOSED to have gotten, over 10 years ago, then she could have improved. She was DENIED that therapy, because her husband just wanted her dead, and the pro-death lawyers used him and the case as their stepping stone for their pro-death political agenda.
- Sorry, but this is simply irrational bull**** - as the autopsy proved, no amount of therapy could possibly have helped at any time after her collapse, period.

Her cerebrum was destroyed, and nothing could change that, full stop. Once that happens, you are no longer the individual you were, and you will never, ever wake up.

All the pie in the sky will not change it, because it's a simple scientific fact.

Those are the physical things, but obviously we are more than just physical beings, there is an energy, that animates us, and keeps us alive.
I know, and I really do believe that, but there is no proof. We could both very well be wrong :shrug:




No, a person without a soul cannot live, for longer than a short period of time.

Well, if Terri's case, her body lasted 14 (or 15, I'm not positive) years. Sure, I am aware that there is no proof that she had no soul at that point, but there was no proof that she did, either.

You do not know what she wished. You are projecting what you think she SHOULD HAVE WANTED in order to justify exterminating an Inconvenient Disabled Person.
- No, I'm repeating exactly what she told her husband, and I have no reason not to think otherwise.

He was a good man that moved heaven and Earth to carry out his wife's expressed wishes, and he entirely deserves the special place in eternal paradise he's earned for doing so. :nice:

Well, if Terri's case, her body lasted 14 (or 15, I'm not positive) years. Sure, I am aware that there is no proof that she had no soul at that point, but there was no proof that she did, either.


If there is no proof one way or the other, shouldn't we, as a society, err on the side of life instead of death?

Personally, I believe that, and that's why I'm happy that her soul is at peace, just as she wished. :nice:

Um, I said "No, a person without a soul cannot live, for longer than a short period of time."

She lived for 15 years, and lived through more than one starvation attempt inflicted on her, as well as surviving illnesses where she wasn't even treated or given antibiotics. And even during the last starvation, she held on for 2 weeks. She clearly had a will to live. And I repeat, "a person without a soul cannot live, for longer than a short period of time."

No, we should err on the side of scientific fact and individual's expressed wishes to their next of kin, not religious bull****.

- No, I'm repeating exactly what she told her husband, and I have no reason not to think otherwise.

He was a good man that moved heaven and Earth to carry out his wife's expressed wishes, and he entirely deserves the special place in eternal paradise he's earned for doing so. :nice:

^ Bought into the pro-Death propaganda in order to justify Euthanizing a woman who could breathe on her own and required assistance with food and water.

If there is no proof one way or the other, shouldn't we, as a society, err on the side of life instead of death?

I would love to think that she was alive, but I don't. I think that the fact she had no awareness and that she wouldn't regain it is BECAUSE there was no soul to control it. She was already gone, living the happy afterlife she deserves.



that word again....propaganda.... :p

Um, I said "No, a person without a soul cannot live, for longer than a short period of time."

She lived for 15 years, and lived through more than one starvation attempt inflicted on her, as well as surviving illnesses where she wasn't even treated or given antibiotics. And even during the last starvation, she held on for 2 weeks. She clearly had a will to live. And I repeat, "a person without a soul cannot live, for longer than a short period of time."
- Sorry, but I don't accept your dogma. The fact you happen to believe it doesn't make it Truth.

I would love to think that she was alive, but I don't. I think that the fact she had no awareness and that she wouldn't regain it is BECAUSE there was no soul to control it. She was already gone, living the happy afterlife she deserves.

Did you read the links I gave you? Have you seen any videos? Have you read any of the other affadavits from a number of doctors?

^ Bought into the pro-Death propaganda in order to justify Euthanizing a woman who could breathe on her own and required assistance with food and water.
^ Bought into the stupid right wing pro-life bull**** that contradicts demonstrable scientific and documentary facts to promote a sectarian ideological agenda.

Did you read the links I gave you? Have you seen any videos? Have you read any of the other affadavits from a number of doctors?
- Absolutely! She really needs to read the opinons of doctors that never examined the patient or her medical records, and have since changed their minds, and a propaganda video that culls four minutes of footage from hundreds of hours of tape to create a carefully engineered bogus impression.

She should really avoid actual scientific facts like the results of the autopsy! That's rational!

- Absolutely! She really needs to read the opinons of doctors that never examined the patient or her medical records, and have since changed their minds, and a propaganda video that culls four minutes of footage from hundreds of hours of tape to create a carefully engineered bogus impression.

She should really avoid actual scientific facts like the results of the autopsy! That's rational!


I was speaking to SPAZ, not you. No offense, but when I want to talk to you, I will. :P

/kidding.

There's a means of posting that ensures people other than your intended subject don't respond on a public message board - it's called a "PM."

Just sayin' :)

Yes, I started to read the first one. As far as I could tell, it was the nurses OPINION. Opinions aren't what matter in court cases. Its cold hard facts.

*leads a global standing ovation for Spaz* :usa:

Yes, I started to read the first one. As far as I could tell, it was the nurses OPINION. Opinions aren't what matter in court cases. Its cold hard facts.

Opinion? It doesn't sound like you read it, she was RELAYING what happened when she worked with Terri, on a daily basis. She brought up specific incidents, that is not "opinion", it is her testimony, in a sworn affadavit.

And there are the other nurses who said pretty much the same thing, who worked with Terri at a completely different time, yet what they are saying is similar.

^ Bought into the stupid right wing pro-life bull**** that contradicts demonstrable scientific and documentary facts to promote a sectarian ideological agenda.

^ Bought into the Seculary Statist Theology And Dogma that insists that Inconvenient People Are Obligated To Choose Death.

Opinion? It doesn't sound like you read it, she was RELAYING what happened when she worked with Terri, on a daily basis. She brought up specific incidents, that is not "opinion", it is her testimony, in a sworn affadavit.

And there are the other nurses who said pretty much the same thing, who worked with Terri at a completely different time, yet what they are saying is similar.


BC,

Haven't you figured it out yet? Any opinion which supports the Choose Death Pogrom is a fact. Any which support the view that Terri was alive and a person deserving equal protection under the law are demeaned as "mere opinions".

^ Bought into the Seculary Statist Theology And Dogma that insists that Inconvenient People Are Obligated To Choose Death.
^ Somehow thinks that an economics term constitutes a bogeyman sufficient to disguise the fact that people and families that choose to terminate their permanently unconscious brain- and cerebrally-dead loved ones and selves haven't been "obligated" to do anything. :rolleyes:

^ both brought into the idea that we should just keep pointing arrows and keep telling people what they were brought into and should get back to the debate :p

BC,

Haven't you figured it out yet? Any opinion which supports the Choose Death Pogrom is a fact. Any which support the view that Terri was alive and a person deserving equal protection under the law are demeaned as "mere opinions".
- Because DUH - they weren't discussing matters of "opinion" - they were discussing matters of fact regarding her state of awareness and consciousness.

If they were acting out of an ideological motive at all, instead of just reporting objective medical facts and conclusions based on science, then we should dismiss their testimony entirely.

BC,

Haven't you figured it out yet? Any opinion which supports the Choose Death Pogrom is a fact. Any which support the view that Terri was alive and a person deserving equal protection under the law are demeaned as "mere opinions".

I think you're right.... What is truly amazing is that MS never said anything about Terri "wanting to die" until years later, AFTER he received a huge chunk of cash, and only then did he say, "oh yeah...I remembered a long time ago one time, Terri mentioned that she would want to die.." blah blah blah.

AFTER he got his settlement, which a big chunk of it was supposed to go to her rehab.

The same man who has a number of ex-girlfriends who have publicly said he was a controlling, abusive jerk, and the same man who WHILE MARRIED to Terri, got another woman to play house with, while still wanting to control Terri's life.

THAT man is honest. But everyone else is lying. Yep, makes loads of sense. :nice:

:rolleyes:

Please - he spent a ton of the money on rehabilitation and even got his nursing degree so he could care for her himself.

It was only after the doctors made it clear that no such therapy would be effective that he conceded her wishes.

Why would he let her die withOUT getting the money for the therapies and experimenting with them first? She only said she would prefer death IF there were no possible intervention, which logically means interventions would have to be tried first.

If he had said she wished to die immediately and acted to pull out the plug, he would NOT have been carrying out her request.

Besides, the malpractice suit did NOT require her to be alive - he could have had her examined, pulled the plug, and then sued anytime. It's for past suffering caused by incompetence.

Please - he spent a ton of the money on rehabilitation and even got his nursing degree so he could care for her himself.

It was only after the doctors made it clear that no such therapy would be effective that he conceded her wishes.

Why would he let her die withOUT getting the money for the therapies and experimenting with them first? She only said she would prefer death IF there were no possible intervention, which logically means interventions would have to be tried first.

If he had said she wished to die immediately and acted to pull out the plug, he would NOT have been carrying out her request.

Besides, the malpractice suit did NOT require her to be alive - he could have had her examined, pulled the plug, and then sued anytime. It's for past suffering caused by incompetence.


That is simply wrong, or a distortion of the truth.

According to her parents, she received some therapy, for a short time after the collapse, and was doing fine, and we know that there were a number of doctors who DID SAY she could improve. But it is so dang obvious to everyone but the pro-Michael people that he just wanted her dead, so why listen to doctors who said she could improve with therapy?

And however you spin it, the fact remains that he didn't *remember* her allegedly saying that until AFTER he recieved the settlement money.

And that settlement money, a large chunk of it, (close to a million dollars) was SPECIFICALLY supposed to go for HER rehab, that is what he said under oath that he would use that money for, for her rehab.

Yet shortly after receiving the chunk of cash, he suddenly remembered her saying something about wanting to die if she was ever in that position... Obviously he would much rather spend that money specifically meant for her rehab, on other things.... like lawyer fees to finish off what he started, and probably some money on himself. From what I have heard, he drives a nice car, lives in a nice house, etc.

That is simply wrong, or a distortion of the truth.

According to her parents,

You do realize that the parents are just as capable of lying as the husband is, don't you?

That is simply wrong, or a distortion of the truth.

According to her parents, she received some therapy, for a short time after the collapse, and was doing fine, and we know that there were a number of doctors who DID SAY she could improve.
- No credible doctor said she could improve - only quacks like Hammesfahr, who's had his license suspended several times, been censured by the AMA and a federal court, and has falsely claimed to be nominated for a Nobel Prize claimed that she could improve, despite no scientific evidence for his assertion.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155906.htm

Just about every other doctor in the world quickly pointed out that it's impossible to bring dead tissue back to life.

And however you spin it, the fact remains that he didn't *remember* her allegedly saying that until AFTER he recieved the settlement money.

And that settlement money, a large chunk of it, (close to a million dollars) was SPECIFICALLY supposed to go for HER rehab, that is what he said under oath that he would use that money for, for her rehab.
- $750,000 was put into a trust fund for her, managed and directed by direct court order. He spent it on therapy for as long as therapy was a viable option, and stopped spending money on it once it wasn't.

He didn't need her alive to collect the settlement money, so that's irrelevant.

Yet shortly after receiving the chunk of cash, he suddenly remembered her saying something about wanting to die if she was ever in that position... Obviously he would much rather spend that money specifically meant for her rehab, on other things.... like lawyer fees to finish off what he started, and probably some money on himself. From what I have heard, he drives a nice car, lives in a nice house, etc.
- What are you talking about? $350,000 of the money was awarded to HIM personally for his own use to compensate him for his loss of consort. He could spend that on whatever he wished.

The rest of the money could only be spent with the strict approval of the JUDGE by a direct court order. It was certainly not spent on him.

You do realize that the parents are just as capable of lying as the husband is, don't you?

I'm not basing this on any one person's word. There are plenty of facts that are verifiable, for anyone who takes the time to look into it. And many of the things the parents have said are backed up by many other people, who worked with Terri on a regular basis, as well as others. So this is about much more than just believing the parents.

Sadly, it's not, because most of those folks are simply lying on behalf of the parents and pro-life movement.

No, not at all. She wasn't an inconvenience, she was a shell of her former self. Her body was still alive, but her person was dead. ...
You do know, Chris, that that isn't generally agreed?

I worry about people who are unable to communicate being assumed to be brain-dead!

My friend Tom has a son now in his 40s, who was born with cerebral palsy. In the 1960s, Mark was in an institution, where he was assumed because of his inability to speak, to be "lights on, nobody home". Then, when he was about 13, Mark managed to communicate (out of sheer desperation) that the building was on fire. Everyone was saved. Mark himself was 'saved', inasmuch as his father took him home, and he was finally given an education. Thanks to computer technology that didn't exist in the 1960s, he has just attained a Bachelor's degree at the University of Liverpool, and is doing a Master's degree in sociology in a another years or so. It's terrible to Tom and his wife to think of all the years that were wasted because he and Helen took the well-meaning advice of doctors, that Mark "knew nothing" and "had no consciousness"...

- No credible doctor said she could improve - only quacks like Hammesfahr, who's had his license suspended several times, been censured by the AMA and a federal court, and has falsely claimed to be nominated for a Nobel Prize claimed that she could improve, despite no scientific evidence for his assertion.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155906.htm

BS. And I really am sick of your negative, gloom and doom rhetoric. Seriously, CP, I was sick of it months ago, so now I'm beyond sick of it.


- $750,000 was put into a trust fund for her, managed and directed by direct court order. He spent it on therapy for as long as therapy was a viable option, and stopped spending money on it once it wasn't.

The settlement money that was supposed to go to her therapy DID NOT, he refused her therapy, after the settlement, when he really started his legal battle to end her life.


He didn't need her alive to collect the settlement money, so that's irrelevant.

Yeah, he didn't need her alive, period. Why, when he got what he wanted, some cash, and a new wife and family, to boot. Nice guy, huh? Who needs a wife like that? Not to mention, perhaps he didn't want the real truth coming out about how she got into her condition in the first place.


- What are you talking about? $350,000 of the money was awarded to HIM personally for his own use to compensate him for his loss of consort. He could spend that on whatever he wished.

The rest of the money could only be spent with the strict approval of the JUDGE by a direct court order. It was certainly not spent on him.

I could find the list of how the money was spent, it available for people to see. Most of it went to his lawyers.

My biggest problem with this is that it was made into a national, federal issue.

Congress passed a law written for one specific citizen. Name one other time in American history that this has happened.

It was a dispute between a woman's spouse and her parents, and it shoul NEVER have gone as far as it did. For the federal government to be brought into the private lives of individual citizens sets a dangerous precedent for a massive invasion of privacy.

It was none of our business, and the nation should never gotten involved.
I understand that you're upset about that, and from my point of view, as I said on the other thread, the worst thing that could ever have happened to Terri, is the Bushies getting involved! That turned people who might otherwise have supported the rights of the disabled and a battered wife against her, because it became a "political football" as they say here...

She could (and did) feel and suffer.

Incorrect. The autopsy proved that isnt true.


Of course euthanasia was blocked by her parents - they were trying to save her life! Only Michael and his brother even tried to prove that's what she would have wanted and his opinion was worth nothing

Really? The opinion of a husband, who the parents said was their ideal son-in-law, is worth nothing once they change their minds huh? The fact that he flew to LA to stay with her for 7 months as she underwent treatment, and then actually went to school and got the education to become an emergency room nurse, something many people make a lifelong goal, Mike Schiavo did just to watch over his wife, and his word about how much he cares about her is worth nothing?


- as he had left her years before, and was shacked up with another woman.

Years is a long time to go when the person your talking to cant respond. Ever had that kind of emotional strain? I cant imagine how good it must have felt to be able to get close to another person again after years at Terris bedside, praying for her to get better. IHave you ever gone threw something like that? I wouldnt judge him before considering how you might feel in his situation, and if your loved one told you that they wouldnt want to be kept on life support like that. Regardless of what anyone says, Mike Schiavo indeed knows more about this situation then anyone. Terri had actually distanced herself from her family before the incident somewhat. Mike obvious didnt do it it for money--He was offered millions of dollares from tons of organizations. Mel Gibson alone offered him 1 million dollars. This was nothing but a political push by republicans thinking they could (successfully in some cases, as is appearant from the bored) Drive emotionally charged reactions out of those who 'support all life' or whatever. Nevermind the guy who got stabbed down the block but couldnt get into the hospital because the emergency room was to busy. Nevermind the 18,000 people who die everyyear because they cant afford proper treatment for their sicknes....

NO, we'll make people focuse their eyes on one specific case out of thousands... Stalin was an ass, but he made one of the truest statements of all time--'The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is just a statistic.' It is apallingly true in this situation where people feel far more remorse over one PVS women finally being removed from life-support and being allowed to die, then the thousands upon thousands of healthy people blown to pieces in Iraq on our 'just' millitary invasion... It disguists me that I see far more people upset over one womens death, then the tens of thousands of innocents.

I'm not saying human beings have no soul--I'm saying that if you aren't aware of anything, you are always sleeping, never waking up, not hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, and have no emotion--THATS when you have no soul.


And what I want to say now is that I hope, if I say I don't want to stay on life support if I'm in that condition, that people will carry out my wishes.
Spazola, what gave you the idea, that Terri was "always sleeping"?

BS. And I really am sick of your negative, gloom and doom rhetoric. Seriously, CP, I was sick of it months ago, so now I'm beyond sick of it.

Umm.. Everything he said about quack doctor is true, fact check it.




The settlement money that was supposed to go to her therapy DID NOT, he refused her therapy, after the settlement, when he really started his legal battle to end her life.

He refused her therapy? So what do you call the treatment in california, out of curiousity?




Yeah, he didn't need her alive, period. Why, when he got what he wanted, some cash, and a new wife and family, to boot. Nice guy, huh? Who needs a wife like that? Not to mention, perhaps he didn't want the real truth coming out about how she got into her condition in the first place.

Im beginning to think the idea of personal rejection is waying in on these ideals you have about Mike Schiavo... Last time I checked, for years he did everything he could for her. He couldv moved on right away, but no. He flew her to California for 7 months where she was treated. He then trained as an Emergency Room Nurse to be at her bedside all the time... Yea, what a terrible husband... :rolleyes:



I could find the list of how the money was spent, it available for people to see. Most of it went to his lawyers.

LOL. Yea, he cared so much about money. Thats why he took the millions offered.... Oh wait, HE DIDNT. He paid millions of dollars to see his wifes last wish threw. I would hope my wife would have as much love for me to do that... Hell, actually, Id want her to take the money and live happily. Id be willing to stay in that horrid PVS state of non-existence till I died, if she could live happily...

BC, are you sexist? Just wondering.

Spazola, what gave you the idea, that Terri was "always sleeping"?

IDK what gives him that idea... But it might be modern day science and technology that was likewide the thing keeping her alive, that also told them that she was in this state... Yea, use the technology to keep her alive, but hate it when it proves something you disagree with... :rolleyes:

And since we will never agree on this, i'll leave you to keep parroting your pro-death talking points.

I'm just making my way back to this thread, or I would have replied to this earlier.

Look back through my posts, if you really want to. I'm fairly certain that I never took a "pro-death" stance on this whole deal. My point FROM THE BEGINNING was that this entire ordeal was none of our business.

The parents had no right to involve the media, the media had no right to involve the nation, and nobody had a right to take it to the national level of politician or Justice.

From day one of the Terri Schiavo disaster, I have felt that the nation needn't concern itself with the private matters of a family plagued by horrible circumstances. I NEVER SAID THAT I WANTED HER TO DIE. At most, I said that her husband hold the legal rights to make that decision, and that as such, the legal system should support him.

My standpoint on this is in no way based on the morality or lack thereof involved in her life support and death. My standpoint is based on the legal standing of the parties involved, and the complete and utter lack of respect for them all in making them into a media circus and, as Della so aptly put it, a political football.

I'll keep saying it as often as I need to. IT WASN'T OUR CHOICE TO MAKE.

Before she was slowly starved and dehydrated to death, Terris was NOT dying, she was not terminally ill, she was not even on life support, with the exception of a feeding tube, which by itself it not considered a heroic life support, there are many people who live with a feeding tube. Also, according to the nurses who worked with her and others, she could swallow.... in fact we KNOW she could swallow, because she didn't drool, she swallowed her own saliva. MS continually denied her therapy and tests to see if she could eat orally.... why? Because her feeding tube was the only "life support" she had, and therefore, the only way he could 'pull the plug' on her, to kill her legally.

So this is not the same thing as somone who was on their death bed, about to die, hooked up to machines, etc. It was a brain damaged woman, in a case that is rife with fishiness, as far as how she got to be in her condition in the first place, and she was LEGALLY starved and dehydrated to death - something it is completely immoral, by any stretch.
Absolutely right, Buttercup! Spot on! :nice: Once again, I'd like to refer Spaz, Cowpunk, and others to This site... (http://www.terrisfight.org ) and to another site Buttercup previously linked to
Disability rights (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506716)

It wasn't Terri's fight. It was Terri's parents fighting to overturn existing laws simply because they didn't agree with them.

It was the legal equivalent of a child's temper tantrum thrown because a spoiled brat doesn't get what he/she wants.

Oh... And she was in PVS. That might be worth mentioning. As this means that she had virtually no hope of ever getting better, as every doctor who actually examined her records agreed on.
Er, sorry, no, she wasn't.
"The IME clearly stated that PVS is a clinical diagnosis made on a living patient. That is something an IME cannot do by looking at a corpse."
from This site (http://www.terrisfight.org/statement.html)

The fact that her cerebral cortex had been destroyed, making it impossible for her to ever awake, changed that utterly.

If it's a borderline case, then the ME might not be able to make any determination. When half the brain is destroyed including the cerebrum, they can confidently give a prognosis.

Please. Do you have any knowledge of the human brain?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050329/050329_schiavoCT_hmed_1p.standard.jpg

Nough said.

Absolutely right, Buttercup! Spot on! :nice: Once again, I'd like to refer Spaz, Cowpunk, and others to This site... (http://www.terrisfight.org ) and to another site Buttercup previously linked to
Disability rights (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506716)
- A patient with only half their brain and no cerebral cortex isn't "disabled" - they're no longer a "person." They have no awareness, consciousness, perception, or any of the other qualities that make someone that individual mentally.

That's why people have the right to refuse treatment, or allow their next of kin to refuse treatment for them if they don't wish to remain in that fate worse than death permanently.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the genuinely disabled.

- A patient with only half their brain and no cerebral cortex isn't "disabled" - they're no longer a "person." They have no awareness, consciousness, perception, or any of the other qualities that make someone that individual mentally.

That's why people have the right to refuse treatment, or allow their next of kin to refuse treatment for them if they don't wish to remain in that fate worse than death permanently.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the genuinely disabled.

Correct. The constant false analogys and comparisons in this case are amazing. On top of those who appearintly have no understand of human bio. 101.

BTW, this is a fact: The soul digests your food for you, and the stuff that comes out is the evil in the food. No joke. :|

And I really am sick of your negative, gloom and doom rhetoric. Seriously, CP, I was sick of it months ago, so now I'm beyond sick of it.

1stly--I think Cowpunk does a very good job of stating his arguments without being rude, unless you drag him into a shoutfest which you are pretty good at it seems...

On top of that, Im sick of you switching your argument to criticsm of my english mechanics on a web forum everytime your argument falls threw and you need to make a personal attack to justify yourself. But I have a feeling your going to keep it up anyway.

- The witnesses were wrong, or quite possibly lying, as the autopsy proves. People have a great capacity to see what they wish to see in those situations, but you can't beat dissecting the brain.


- He didn't "leave her": she underwent severe brain damage, and experienced cerebral death, irreversibly and permanently.
I can only conclude, Cowpunk, that for reasons which I can't fathom, that's what you want to believe! Goodness' knows, between us, Buttercup, Boedicca and I have posted enough stuff, linked to enough sites, that if you weren't determined not to know, you'd have to open your mind! Personally, I don't think there's any point at all in trying to convince you - your mind is made up!

Before assumptions are made, I am neither right wing, nor a "fundamentalist" (no disrespect to those who are.) To me, it's an issue of womens' rights and disability rights. Pure and simple. I have nothing more to say about any of this. Just look at these links...

Disability activist (http://www.earnedmedia.org/ka0311.htm)
Not Dead at All (http://slate.msn.com/id/2115208/)
Marxism (http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w12/msg00299.htm)

Incorrect. The autopsy proved that isnt true.

Bollocks, it couldn't and didn't prove any such thing!

Years is a long time to go when the person your talking to cant respond. Ever had that kind of emotional strain?
As I said the other night, I work with people with disabilities, many of whom can't communicate - so, duh, yeah, I have. Excuses for Michael don't wash with me. He was and is a creep, a rat, an unfaithful husband, probably an abusive one, and certainly not the plaster saint you're making him out to be. Now, no more, I mean it - I'm wasting my epithelials on this keyboard. The evidence is out there - Cindy, Boedicca and I have linked to a ton of it. You just don't want to know!

I can only conclude, Cowpunk, that for reasons which I can't fathom, that's what you want to believe! Goodness' knows, between us, Buttercup, Boedicca and I have posted enough stuff, linked to enough sites, that if you weren't determined not to know, you'd have to open your mind! Personally, I don't think there's any point at all in trying to convince you - your mind is made up!
It seems to me that you could be the object of this statement as much as anyone.

I think Cowpunk has laid it out pretty well, too.

I also think that Spaz has been pretty even headed in this as well, though, bias doesn't plague the young as much I think.

Bollocks, it couldn't and didn't prove any such thing!

- It certainly can prove that thing - she had no cerebral matter, and half a brain, hence she had no consciousness.

That's not a matter of opinion - that's a demonstrable scientific fact.

Correct. The constant false analogys and comparisons in this case are amazing. On top of those who appearintly have no understand of human bio. 101.

BTW, this is a fact: The soul digests your food for you, and the stuff that comes out is the evil in the food. No joke. :|
- Although I believe in it, as soon as people start talking about souls in the context of public policy, that's when I start tuning out.

For some reason, folks seem to believe they have the right to make laws based on their religious ideologies in the US. :rolleyes:

IDK what gives him that idea... But it might be modern day science and technology that was likewide the thing keeping her alive, that also told them that she was in this state... Yea, use the technology to keep her alive, but hate it when it proves something you disagree with... :rolleyes:

Exactly......and I'm a SHE. :nice:

- Although I believe in it, as soon as people start talking about souls in the context of public policy, that's when I start tuning out.

For some reason, folks seem to believe they have the right to make laws based on their religious ideologies in the US. :rolleyes:

You seem to have a narrow view of the real elements of politics and law.

Uh, no - religious ideologies are NOT suitable foundations for laws under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Like I said, a narrow view.

No, in the United State of America, the government doesn't endorse religion, as the framers believed themselves.

So CP, when you express opinion regarding a legal or political issue, you leave no room for doubt within your own argument?

Not often does an airtight slam dunk argument come along sir.

I submit to you that souls often have everything to do with political and legal decision.

My point is neither is an absolute science. What people believe does have to do with what they decide. Often more than not religion and ideology plays a very important role in formulating policy and law.

Goodnight CP. I'll catch up tommorrow.

Umm.. Everything he said about quack doctor is true, fact check it.

I was talking about his whole post. And there were a number of doctors, but of course every doctor who said she could improve, will invariably be dismissed by CP, and you.


He refused her therapy? So what do you call the treatment in california, out of curiousity?

Yes, AFTER the settlement, that was my point. AFTER the lawsuit/settlement money, he denied her the therapy that the money was specifically meant for, AFTER he stated under oath that he would use that money for her THERAPY. Shortly after that case, he suddenly *remembered* that she said a long time ago that she would want to be euthanized. So the money that was meant for her therapy, was not spent on it, read the affadavits posted earlier, by the nurses who said that MS and the hospice went against the orders for her rehabiliation.

And btw, the trip to California itself was very odd, but I'll get back to that later.



Im beginning to think the idea of personal rejection is waying in on these ideals you have about Mike Schiavo... Last time I checked, for years he did everything he could for her. He couldv moved on right away, but no. He flew her to California for 7 months where she was treated. He then trained as an Emergency Room Nurse to be at her bedside all the time... Yea, what a terrible husband... :rolleyes:

You are so duped.


LOL. Yea, he cared so much about money. Thats why he took the millions offered.... Oh wait, HE DIDNT. He paid millions of dollars to see his wifes last wish threw. I would hope my wife would have as much love for me to do that... Hell, actually, Id want her to take the money and live happily. Id be willing to stay in that horrid PVS stat