Schiavo case

[whap2005]

"Do you really think that you can say without a doubt that no one, such as her husband, would be harmed?"

 

Your looking at this soley from his perspective.... Do you really think that her accident and condition hasn't subjected her blood family to the same stress as her husband? Like I said, he has moved on.. and is being selfish for net letting her family care for her.. Legally his is the guardian so it is his choice. If he is causing her death just to relieve his own suffering then he is indeed being selfish.

[blike]

Are you gloating with some sick satisfaction.Your a very strange person.

Yes, but not over Terri's death. I'm gloating over the fact that the judicial branch is keeping the state and the federal government the heck out of our personal lives. It's very very satisfying to hear senators on the radio and on TV enraged over the fact that a judge has put them in their place. This is legislative madness. This is not why we elect governors and senators.

 

Regardless wether your the site owner or not,the fact is you posted the family were attaching strings and stuff(like a puppet)which you must have either been there or made up.

I already admitted to being wrong.

 

Then infamousley saying what was best for Terri was unimportant..are you on the same planet mate.

Why can you not fully comprehend this point? It's really not that difficult. IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHAT IS BEST FOR TERRI. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT SHE IS ABLE TO MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS AND MAINTAIN HER AUTONOMY WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT DICTATING WHAT IS BEST FOR HER. WHO ARE YOU, OR I, OR JEB BUSH, OR GEORGE BUSH, OR CONGRESS, OR ANYONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR TERRI. SHE EXPRESSED HER WISHES AND NOW THEY ARE BEING HONORED. It doesn't matter that the doctors think something else is better for her. It doesn't matter that the county, city, state, or national governments feel that something is better for her. What's best for her is what she decided. That's all there is to it. Autonomy needs to be respected, not trampled over by legislators making political maneuvers. The courts ruled that she wouldn't have wanted to live in this situation based on the testimony of her husband and two others. That's all that is important.

 

You're just being dense, and everyone is this thread is well aware of it. Stop it.

[Newtonian]

Your position based on your repeated assertions,is from the stance that:

a) Terri is in a PVS,and has been from 1990.

b) Terri made a request to her husband,if ever she was incapable of a quality of life.That she be allowed to die.

Firstly throughout the 90's and up to 2003,medical experts disagreed that her diagnosis.Her limited cognitive function disputed PVS daignosis.

No such diagnosis was based on definitive testing,thus the dispute.

Secondly apart from Michaels testimony,nobody knows her wishes(and can ever know)

 

Whilst her present condition is not known,she may well be now PVS.?

My opinions are based on her spouses actions since 1992.These are uncontested facts.

He filed a lawsuit for malpractice,was awarded $1.2 million .$300,000 for his loss of concubine.$750,000 for Terri's medical care and rehabilitation.This he testified he would do.Never once stating terri's wishes not to be kept alive.

Within a few months of recieving the money,and medical recommendation of rehabitation.More importantly without full and proper medical diagnosis,he made assertions of her wish to die.He immediately refused all medical care and sort through the courts,his rights of guardianship to terminate her life.

While his actions were not illlegal,i ask does this not raise an eyebrow?

May i add if her spouse and immediate family agreed with the fact Terri was all but dead,we would not be having this convo.

 

Instead of a family hanging on for a cure,or so locked in anguish they refuse to accept her condition.For over a decade their interaction with their daughter convinced them however limilted she was alive.

I comprehend the points you make regarding politician interference.

IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHAT IS BEST FOR TERRI. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT SHE IS ABLE TO MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS AND MAINTAIN HER AUTONOMY WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT DICTATING WHAT IS BEST FOR HER. WHO ARE YOU, OR I, OR JEB BUSH, OR GEORGE BUSH, OR CONGRESS, OR ANYONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR TERRI. SHE EXPRESSED HER WISHES AND NOW THEY ARE BEING HONORED. It doesn't matter that the doctors think something else is better for her. It doesn't matter that the county, city, state, or national governments feel that something is better for her. What's best for her is what she decided. That's all there is to it. Autonomy needs to be respected, not trampled over by legislators making political maneuvers. The courts ruled that she wouldn't have wanted to live in this situation based on the testimony of her husband and two others. That's all that is important.

However i find it ironic that you do not include the judicial courts as interference.Especially how a judge is dictating her right to life/death.

Once again you deviously construct your posts to appear convincing.

The courts ruled that she wouldn't have wanted to live in this situation based on the testimony of her husband and two others.

The two others you fully are aware of are Micheals brothers. Your omitting their Identity is a delberate act to gain credibility yes.(I have stated before its documented a previous lover of michaels stated he told her Terri made no such statement.She backed out of testifying fearing his previous violence towards her and repercussions.This is her statement and hearsay but i thought it pertinent to highlight)

To finish Blike i do not consider either my own opinion or yours superior.It has only been a discussion and we disagree.

If you only consider our posts to each other,i have been transparent as i can be hopefully posting factually.You have posted hearsay,assumption and fantasy puppet strings.You have played with words and been dishonest.

To divert attention from your own posts and assert im dense and everyone in this thread is well aware is again dishonesty isnt it,and not born out of fact.

But i will comply to your instruction and stop it.

[blike]

Your position based on your repeated assertions,is from the stance that:

a) Terri is in a PVS,and has been from 1990.

I don't think it depends on her being in PVS. Any sort of extended life-support with no hope of rehabilitation. I can't recall exactly what was said, but I don't know that it was exclusively limited to PVS.

 

However i find it ironic that you do not include the judicial courts as interference.

I don't only because Michael asked that they get involved.

 

To divert attention from your own posts and assert im dense and everyone in this thread is well aware is again dishonesty isnt it,and not born out of fact.

But i will comply to your instruction and stop it.

Listen, I shouldn't have called you dense, I apologize for that.

[Cadmus]

To finish Blike i do not consider either my own opinion or yours superior.It has only been a discussion and we disagree.

Good attitude.

If you only consider our posts to each other,i have been transparent as i can be hopefully posting factually.You have posted hearsay,assumption and fantasy puppet strings.

How many people have you made this accusatio of so far in this thread? Have you been keeping count? What I have heard and read does not support your claims. Why don't you stick with the citation above, that you have a valid opinion, and quit trying to claim that you are the only one with the "real" facts.

[Newtonian]

Two!

I dont believe im the only person who knows the 'real' facts(the thread has been very quantitive in facts),all i hope is ive debated factually,and people dont make stuff up.I apologise if ive been percieved to be conceited.

[Pangloss]

(never mind, deleted)

[Cadmus]

Two!

I dont believe im the only person who knows the 'real' facts(the thread has been very quantitive in facts)' date='all i hope is ive debated factually,and people dont make stuff up.I apologise if ive been percieved to be conceited.[/quote']I don't understand why you argue your point so strongly. There is conflicting information. Many people have suffered for years in this case. Schiavo is the guardian. He has made his decision. It is backed up by legal precedence, and the opinion of umpteen judges. No matter how any of us feel on a personal level, let the guy make the decision that is legally his. I think that the government has tortured him for the past 10 years by allowing him to be subjected to judge after judge. What an ordeal he must be going through. Not only is his wife in this condition, but people are forcing him to deal with religious nuts, legal torture, and whimsical opinions of people who judge on partial knowledge and guessing what we might do in similar circumstance. I think that the guy deserves his life back and a break.

[ans]

Her husband is just an incredibly selfish and stubborn azzhole, that is basically the root of the whole issue here.

Selfish for what? Endeavouring to fulfil his dying wife's wishes?

 

One could argue it is the blood family that's being selfish - for wanting their daughter to live on, simply prolonging the imminently inevitable death.

[Coral Rhedd]

Newtonian, in this thread you engaged in a veritable blizzard of direct personal attacks, and several by innuendo that I will not expand upon.

 

Here is what you have said:

 

To Cadmus: That he is an "idiot." And the question, "Are you mentally ill?"

 

To Blike: That he "has issues" and is a "strange person."

 

To me (Coral Rhedd): That I am "trailor trash," "pathetically stupid," "unfair," "lazy," "childish," and "bone idol."

 

I confess that last one made me laugh.

 

Hmm. You seem to have reserved most of your ire for me even though Cadmus, Blike, and I have taken essentially the same positions. That really got me to pondering: What is the obvious difference between Blike and Cadmus from me?

 

In any case, allow me to refer you to the following link, which could be of some use to you in actually formulating a few arguments:

 

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

[Coral Rhedd]

Oh its quite clear drom your introduction into this thread' date='that you originally didnt get any information from anywhere.Factual statements of this case throughout the last decade,not disputed which ever site you go to is hardly properganda.

[/quote']

 

Newtonian, you have repeatedly harped on my first post as showing I had no information about this case. It is quite possible that I have not followed it as fervently as you seem to, but I did have prior information of the case. In fact, this case is going on so long that I doubt there are few Americans who have not heard of it.

 

However, I am quite puzzled as to what you found so objectionable about my first post in this thead. Would you care to elaborate, rather than just attack?

 

So people don't have to read back, I now quote my original post in its entirety:

 

To add a little more less emotional background:

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

 

These same players have certainly been on this same stage before. What is sad is that the star can't take bows. This poor woman cannot see and cannot understand how people she once loved fight over money like dogs over a bone. It is silly to pretend that either her parents or her husband have high intentions. That is placing an interpretation upon their feelings that we cannot know from news stories. We can only surmise.

 

What is clear is that laws are being passed to cater to this one individual case. Jeb and George are trying to override Florida state law. I think I can probably surmise more about their political intentions than I can about Terri Schiavo's family members.

 

Last night' date=' prompted by this circus of a case, my daughter and I discussed on the phone how, when she next visits, we will both make Living Wills and tape record our feelings and intentions about being kept alive in such a state. Neither one of us would want our lives prolonged by either medical care or sustenance.

 

The purpose of a Living Will is to speak for us when we cannot speak for ourselves.[/quote']

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps in the future you might avoid the word we when you don't mean you or me.

What quaint notions you have on the use of 'we'. Did you acquire these through being such a singular person? I recommend you examine some examples of modern english usage, where you will find the collective 'we' used effectively, with no failure to communicate its inclusiveness to its target audience. Perhaps if you remain alert for this particular usage in future you will be able to avoid misinterpreting an otherwise lucid post.

 

 

That really got me to pondering: What is the obvious difference between Blike and Cadmus from me?

On the 'what kind of leader are you thread" you emerged' date=' as I recall, as Bill Clinton.[img']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img]

[Newtonian]

This poor woman cannot see and cannot understand how people she once loved fight over money like dogs over a bone. It is silly to pretend that either her parents or her husband have high intentions.

This is one of many things you have said in this thread,which i object to.It shouldnt be neccersary to say why?

The others were similar in opinion devoid of facts.Which became increasingly annoying,when one is trying to post factually.

__________

I will respond to your recent post out of politeness.BTW no im certainly not misogynist.

On a subject like the Schiavo case,occasionally emotions run riot on both sides.The discussion gets heated and words are exchanged.Which on reflection we regret and should not have said.

The situation between Cadmus,Blike and myself has been resolved amicably,we have moved on.

You however feel the need to attempt to reignite the situation.Which gives me the impression you're preoccupied not in debate but stirring up trouble.You are as guilty as anyone regarding insults.I recall you being quite insulting as regards Syntax on his physical appearance(from an old photo),this had nothing to do with the discussion.You just thought you would throw it in.Maybe because he debated better than yourself?

I personally found this obnoxious behaviour.Im certain you would rather be called 'stupid' than someone telling you, that you looked "like a scruffy old fishwife" Coral would you not.

To finish when im emotive and insult,i immediately offer sincere apology,regardless at the time if i felt justified.The fact is its wrong.

Unlike yourself who feels you are above apology.As you say 'if i dont mean it ,i wont say it".Which means you fail to act on a situation that warrants an apology.Merely because toyou, you can say what the hell you like,and dont have to apologise because it wont be sincere.How righteous.

 

__________

Anyway i dont like you or your attitude,and will not respond to any further post from you regardless of thread.

[Cadmus]

What quaint notions you have on the use of 'we'. Did you acquire these through being such a singular person? I recommend you examine some examples of modern english usage, where you will find the collective 'we' used effectively, with no failure to communicate its inclusiveness to its target audience. Perhaps if you remain alert for this particular usage in future you will be able to avoid misinterpreting an otherwise lucid post.

I see that you are one of those who encourages sloppiness in language. Yes, let us be sloppy, so that we do not have to take responsibility for our words, and if others do not recognize what our sloppiness means we can always blame it on them.

 

So intent are you on making this point that you do not care that the example that you cite is particularly egregious. I do not need to tell you that sloppy langauge reflects sloppy thinking, and that yo should attempt to sharpen up your language skills. I am sure that you already know that. If you prefer "sloppy as your friends" over clarity, feel free. You call it quaint that I ask that people select grammar for the purpose expressing what they mean rather than to be hip and sloppy. Ha ha.

[Ophiolite]

I see that you are one of those who encourages sloppiness in language.

Delightful. You have brought novelty into a dull afternoon. You are the first person in five decades to place me at that end of the spectrum - I find it much more refreshing than the normal accusations of grammatical pedantry.

Yes, let us be sloppy, so that we do not have to take responsibility for our words, and if others do not recognize what our sloppiness means we can always blame it on them..

I take now, as I always do, full responsibility for my words. In the main, if we fail to communicate our meaning, that is our responsibility, not that of the reader. The exceptions occur when the reader is unexpectedly ignorant of a word, grammatical construction, usage or stylistic form that is in common use.

So intent are you on making this point that you do not care that the example that you cite is particularly egregious.

The only reason I have for making the point lies in the example: it is apposite, not egregious.

I do not need to tell you that sloppy langauge reflects sloppy thinking, and that yo should attempt to sharpen up your language skills.

If you choose to take me to task for my language skills, which could certainly be better, I imagine you will be ready to help me in improving these. Perhaps you could clarify these points, taken from your post:

“I see that you are one of those who encourages sloppiness in language.” Are you opposed to agreement between pronoun and verb? Would you not favour ‘encourage’?

"Yes, let us be sloppy, so that we do not have to take responsibility for our words, and if others do not recognize what our sloppiness means we can always blame it on them." Surely the comma after "words" should be omitted, or replaced by a semi-colon.

"particularly egregious". Since 'egregious' contains within it the sense of 'conspicuous' or 'excessive', does that not make 'particularly' redundant?

“sloppy langauge”. This seems to be a novel spelling of 'language', though the juxtaposition with 'sloppy' is rather droll.

"You call it quaint that I ask that people select grammar for the purpose expressing what they mean..." My objection is to your exclusion of a commonly used meaning for the word 'we'. Why are you suggesting this is a matter of grammar, when it is clearly one of lexicography and semantics? [Also, would you not prefer the correct ‘the purpose of expressing’, over the incorrect “the purpose expressing”?]

I do not need to tell you that sloppy langauge reflects sloppy thinking, and that yo should attempt to sharpen up your language skills. .

No, yo(sic) don't.

[Cadmus]

Delightful. You have brought novelty into a dull afternoon. You are the first person in five decades to place me at that end of the spectrum - I find it much more refreshing than the normal accusations of grammatical pedantry.

You are welcome.

 

I find it odd that you are attempting to be so picky here, yet you appreciate and attempt to justify the sloppy grammar in question that lead to the requirement to guess at the meaing involved.

[Newtonian]

Ophiolite you certainly do have a pedantic writing style.

Lol

We are amused.

 

However being as grammatically challenged as Cadmus.As long as i can convey my point to the reader in a coherent manner ,im a happy bunny.

 

What did Cadmus expect?.

My Scottish gran used to say"If you insist on standing behind a cow.Annoyingly tickling its ass with grass.Dont be suprised if it shits on you."

[Ophiolite]

You are welcome.

 

I find it odd that you are attempting to be so picky here' date=' yet you appreciate and attempt to justify the sloppy grammar in question that lead to the requirement to guess at the meaing involved.[/quote']If you presume to question another's language skill's, as you did, it would be appropriate to give attention to the application of your own skills. That was why I was picky. I understand, from other threads, that your language skills are considerable, therefore you should be aware, as I have pointed out, that there was no sloppy grammar in Mustang's post: there was a common usage that you claimed to be sloppy. Usage and grammar are not the same.

I see no point in continuing this discussion, which is decidedly off-topic, if you are unable to understand this simple distinction.

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite you certainly do have a pedantic writing style.

Lol

We are amused.

Which was why an accusation of 'sloppy writing skills' was so peculiar. If Cadmus had accused me of being boring and long-winded he would have heard his blood flowing in the silence of my response.

And I've never had any trouble understanding your posts: that's probably why I disagree with you so much!

[Coral Rhedd]

On the 'what kind of leader are you thread" you emerged' date=' as I recall, as Bill Clinton.[img']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img]

 

Well then I should certainly have a penis. Or at least a cigar.

[Coral Rhedd]

This is one of many things you have said in this thread' date='which i object to.It shouldnt be neccersary to say why?

The others were similar in opinion devoid of facts.Which became increasingly annoying,when one is trying to post factually.

[/quote']

 

Even when I put my post up front where every one can see it, you still manage to misrepresent my intent by leaving out the very clarifying words that followed concerning the Shindlers. They were:

 

That is placing an interpretation upon their feelings that we cannot know from news stories. We can only surmise.

 

In short, one of my points throughout this thread is that we cannot unequivocally know the feelings or intentions of the parties to the lawsuits. You cannot know that Michael Schiavo is the monster you would like to portray him as. I never once indicated that I could know the the Schindler's feelings or motives either.

 

If you know anyone connected with this case personally then do say so and allow the rest of us to stop hurting your very tender feelings. If you do not know the people involved then you know no more or no less abuout them than the rest of us.

 

I will respond to your recent post out of politeness.

 

Isn't that refreshing!

 

On a subject like the Schiavo case,occasionally emotions run riot on both sides.The discussion gets heated and words are exchanged.Which on reflection we regret and should not have said.

 

Who is "we" in this instance? I have not felt emotional.

 

The situation between Cadmus,Blike and myself has been resolved amicably,we have moved on.

 

They will no doubt be relieved to hear this.

 

You however feel the need to attempt to reignite the situation.Which gives me the impression you're preoccupied not in debate but stirring up trouble.You are as guilty as anyone regarding insults.

 

Other than suggesting that you check your spelling, I have not insulted you. I have merely suggested that you post a site that was not obvious propaganda, which you proceeded to do.

 

I recall you being quite insulting as regards Syntax on his physical appearance(from an old photo),this had nothing to do with the discussion.You just thought you would throw it in.Maybe because he debated better than yourself?

 

I did apologize to him for my unintentionally hurting his feelings. To be quite frank, I think he is rather good looking clean shaven. However, it is strange to me that we live in a culture where being older is considered bad. There are many cultures that revere people for their years.

 

 

To finish when im emotive and insult,i immediately offer sincere apology,regardless at the time if i felt justified.

 

When did you offer one to me. I must have missed it.

 

The fact is its wrong.

 

Then why do you persist?

 

Unlike yourself who feels you are above apology.As you say 'if i dont mean it ,i wont say it".Which means you fail to act on a situation that warrants an apology.

 

Hardly. It means that, if I offer one, I am sincere. I don't do it to score points.

 

Merely because toyou, you can say what the hell you like,and dont have to apologise because it wont be sincere.How righteous.

 

Of what value is a lip service apology. My experience with people who offer them is that they tend to repeat the offense.

 

Anyway i dont like you or your attitude,and will not respond to any further post from you regardless of thread.

 

I will definitely make a note of this.

[JHAQ]

As long as she has no sentient awareness of what is going on OR any anticipatory foreknowledge of her imminent death , then the poor soul should be allowed to die AS LONG AS suitable analgesia is in place to prevent any suffering from efffects of dehydration & starvation . I have long believed in physician accepted suicide EXCEPT for one thing : the onus it might put on a person not to become a burden on others & feel guilt bound enough to die . I have long had a living will in place & DNR tattooed across my chest .

[JHAQ]

To add : I take exception to the utterances of the Pope on this issue . How can a person whoes rigid doctrinaire authoritarian views on conception control and it affect on the biggest killer of the times -- poverty due to over population -- have anything credible to say on the matter .

[Coral Rhedd]

DNR tattooed across my chest .

 

Wow. I never thought of that. To me the whole idea of checking out maybe a little early is too avoid too much pain in the first place.

[Pangloss]

This past week there was an interesting right-to-die case in Houston that I believe graphically illustrates the President's hypocrisy on this issue.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3103113

 

In a nutshell, a baby named Sun Hudson was allowed to die based on hospital decision, against the family's wishes, based on a judgement offsetting cost against quality of life. The law that allowed the hospital to make that call (again, against the will of the family), was signed by then-governor George W. Bush.

 

Now this was an extreme case. I cited the above article specifically because it gives a non-partisan analysis of this poor child's miserable condition and the fact that he had zero chance to survive.

 

But it's still a perfect illustration of right-wing hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. That woman has no chance either. Zip, zero, zilcho, none. Why would you "err on the side of life" in the Schiavo case, but not in the Hudson case?

 

Where was the last-minute bill to save this child's life?