The Terry Schiavo starvation...
Mark Goldberg
I'm curious... didn't they arrest, convict and jail one Jack Kevorkian,
for assisting the killing of people who _wanted_ to die?
So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants to live.
This on the wishes of a husband who's response to his vow... 'thru
sickness and health' was to leave, live with another women, and have two
children her?
Mark
Mark Goldberg
And today, the previously charged sex offender, who got caught and
questioned regarding the nine year old's disappearance, confessed to the
murdering of a child.
Do you think they'll rush to starve his vile hide... or will crowds
demand that it is cruel to kill any humans.
Why does he get to live, and someone who is capable of being alive, who
is innocent, doesn't?
Mark
Dale
news:kOK_d.41$dZ...@fe09.lga...
>
> I'm curious... didn't they arrest, convict and jail one Jack Kevorkian,
> for assisting the killing of people who _wanted_ to die?
>
> So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants to
live.
Court-appointed, government-appointed, and private physicians have confirmed
that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Schiavo
suffered massive brain damage as a result of a cardiac arrest 15 years ago,
and ongoing neurological degeneration in the interim. During a bulimic
episode, her blood potassium increased to a level high enough to stop her
heart, which remained stopped for 14 minutes. As a result, most of her
cerebral cortex is gone, replaced by spinal fluid.
As for the video "evidence" you have seen,
----
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look
lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for
how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has
carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that
these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry
Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed
her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed)
examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes
follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does
not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the
credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant
response to stimuli.
http://www.rangelmd.com/2003/10/terri-schiavo-case.html
Mark Goldberg
. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed)
> examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes
> follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does
> not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the
> credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant
> response to stimuli.
> http://www.rangelmd.com/2003/10/terri-schiavo-case.html
>
>
Well, I looked at the site, and they said this also...
> We don't know for sure because there is no direct way of measuring this
and conservatives and "right-to-life" proponents will cling to this
uncertainty
as their argument for keeping these patients alive. But this is a
closed argument
because it cannot be currently proven 100% that there is no "Terri"
inside her body
despite the large amount of evidence that makes this highly unlikely.
Now.. I'm curious.
Do you notice that this is his 'political' and 'religious' opinion of
the questioning, as opposed to his own statement that there is no way to
know how much of cognition is there or not. And if so, then why can't an
apparently peaceful women have the opportunity to see if stimulation and
therapy, by her family, at their expense, be offered to see if she is
still peaceful in her diminished state, and or more functionally aware.?
Now... since it was her husband, who turned off all therapy to assist in
seeing if there was any improvement in any of those areas, and since she
is apparently at peace and not in pain requesting death- after all- my
question was directed not at the concept of evaluating her mentation,
but her not requesting death, as kevorkians patients did, and for whom,
death may have been truly merciful, then why is it prerequisite to the
right to kill her?
The notion that she claimed not to want to live, if comatose, say,
whilel watching movie of this with her husband was proof, then why isn't
it important that she signed no document. Admittedly, she was young, and
the young don't plan for this- but without evincing pain, or desire to
die, then why does her limited consciousness mandate death- if pain and
the conscious request for relief from unremitting pain is torture, and
not allowed to be resolved in suicide, then why is the calm state that
is responsive thought limited.
If right to living folks can keep a convicted homicidal killer from
being executed, why can't a peacefully diminished women have the chance
to reinvigorate her state, if she is not apparently pained by this, and
not at the expense of the state??
The thing I really was suspicious over was the 'right to life, and
conservative labeling.
Is that what his is: an opinion based on emotional bias predominantly,
rather than the fact that she has had no rehab, is in no pain, probably
won't need a feeding tube with therapy, and her family, lovingly wants
to do this all themselves??
This you oppose?
Mark
someone
I still remember the Jack Kevorkian's arrest. It goes something like this:
The government turned a blind eye to his assisted suicide practice for a
long time because everybody knows his terminally ill clients actually wanted
to terminate their lives to die in dignity.
But Jack Kevorkian want to push for formal legalization of assisted suicide
and he was not happy that the government turned a blind eye and ignored him.
So he filmed the lethal injection for his terminally ill clients and gave
the video to the news media. This became too big for the authorities to
ignore and they charged him for murder and put him in jail.
For Terry Schiavo, she has been under life support for 15 years (according
to you info) and basically there is no hope for her to recover. Removal of
her life support is not murder technically. There is difference between
actually killing you and not helping you stay alive by plugging you into a
machine.
When a person cannot make a decision, as in Terry Schiavo's case, the next
of kin or loved ones will be allowed to make the decision for her. 15 years
is long enough time to wait for a recovery. There is no hope for her. There
is no quality of life for her to stay alive that way.
If I were in that state, I hope someone will kindly terminate my suffering
for me. I respect Terry Schiavo's family's decision. My heart goes out to
her and her loved ones. May her rest in peace.
Mark Goldberg
>
> For Terry Schiavo, she has been under life support for 15 years (according
> to you info) and basically there is no hope for her to recover. Removal of
> her life support is not murder technically. There is difference between
> actually killing you and not helping you stay alive by plugging you into a
> machine.
Actually, she's on no meds- she could be taught to eat again, according
to the family, but the attempt to move forward with any of that, any
stimulation, any recreation, any physical therapy, anything- was halted
13 yrs ago by the husband.
She's not ill, just needs a feeding tube. So they are in fact killing
her. She is not terminally ill and kept alive by machines replacing her
organ systems.
>
> If I were in that state, I hope someone will kindly terminate my suffering
> for me. I respect Terry Schiavo's family's decision. My heart goes out to
> her and her loved ones. May her rest in peace.
I visit a man, his wife and daughter, in jus this kind of situation.
The husband had an aneurysm, 3 yrs ago. He was a neurosurgeon in Europe,
but became an internist here, to avoid lenghthier approval, his wife an
endocrinologist. The daughter now a graduate from college.
He hated being in the Nursing home when he was a doctor. His wife was
sort of frailish, a delicate thing and always kidded him that he'd
probably be saddled with her when they got old.
Then one day- his head exploded, and now he lays in a bed.
I know he would have preferred to die if you ever asked him of this
scenario. But now- he's alive, and his wife, works tirelessly to keep
him going, and he's more frail than Schiavo.
That he exists,braindamaged, cannot talk, draws a few stick figures
now, with his wifes encouragement, and is slowly getting small
improvements has resulted in a few things.
His wife is fearcely fighting for his life. She is strong now- exhausted
and strong. The daughter has had a huge task to deal with this but has
lovelingly assumed the parent roll and grown thru this dreadful ordeal.
So although some people simply ignore their situation, and shake
their heads, ( isn't it ashame, isn't is a shame ) and avoid ever seeing
them, I personally like visiting them.
There are different kinds of love in this world, different ways to
push that with passion. She and the daughter do that. I think the
daughter was protective when I'd visit since she was unconsciously
protecting her mom from men- but that made her stronger, and I was
touched by the whole struggle and what that desperate struggle, grew in
all of them.
Should he have been been left to die- most would say- absolutely.
Should the wife have put him in a nursing facility, and gone on with her
life. Most would say, absolutely.
And without any position except bird's eye view... I'll tell you this.
I go to visit to wish them well, to give them,her, some energy, and
encouragement, and that's what community means. I wasn't even friends
with them. I didn't actually care for him when he was whole.
But that has nothing to do with this.
His continuing has grown those three, and for me, it is a chance to
appreciate the struggle for life itself... what it says and what it
shows about what people can accomplish when their hearts are fully
charged in a certain direction.
That's about it for that.
Mark
Dale
[...]
> Is that what his is: an opinion based on emotional bias predominantly,
> rather than the fact that she has had no rehab, is in no pain, probably
> won't need a feeding tube with therapy, and her family, lovingly wants
> to do this all themselves??
>
> This you oppose?
I never said I opposed anything, but your initial post was fraught with
emotion and insinuation, so I injected a little factual evidence into the
discussion. But since you ask, that's a good question, whether it's alright
to let someone take over another person's body for the purpose of caring for
it without financial assistance from the State.
First, the absence of pain doesn't indicate that she is at peace with her
condition, it could be that she is incapable of feeling anything about her
state, which is what various experts have determined.
Second, she's been in this state for 15 years. I don't claim to know
everything about the case, but I find it incredible that no one has tried to
rehabilitate her over a period of 15 years. Since you give no corrborating
citations, I will decline to believe this.
From everything I've seen about this, there is little to differentiate it
from other cases of persistent vegetative state. Ethical questions
concerning the removal of sustaining nutrition from a PVS patient have
already been addressed, and this action has been taken for a large number of
patients. Many people feel it is unethical, for a variety of reasons, to
maintain someone in a persistent vegetative state from which there is no
reasonable hope of recovery.
Michael Schiavo says that he and Terri discussed this and that Terri said
she wouldn't want to have her life sustained in that way. Her parents say
they think Terri would want to live. There is no evidence I have seen that
would indicate Michael has a motive to lie about this. He seems passionate
and honest in his desire to do what is best for Terri. From what I have
seen, Michael's case is stronger than the parents' case, and his claim
supercedes the parents' claim, since he and Terri were married.
But why shouldn't the parents be allowed to take care of Terri if they want
to and will pay for it? In the absence of someone with a superceding claim,
there would be no reason to stop them from doing this. But Michael's claim
is superior, it is his claim that Terri would not want this, and he has
refused multiple offers of large sums of money to "buy" Terri from him. His
wishes must be respected, because they are the closest thing the State has
to the expressed wishes of Terri.
Here's a link to a discussion of the ethics of responding to patients in a
persistent vegetative state.
http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/donal/pvs.htm
someone
"Mark Goldberg" wrote:
> That he exists,braindamaged, cannot talk, draws a few stick figures now,
> with his wifes encouragement, and is slowly getting small improvements has
> resulted in a few things.
>
I admire your compassion toward that man, his family, and humanity.
From your description, that man apparently has hope for recovery.
I saw Terry Schiavo on TV news a little earlier. She was not smiling. Her
facial expression was just stuck in a grin that way.
It is sad. I believe it is not an easy decision for her relatives to let her
go.
Best Regards,
wannabe
======
mike...@yahoo.com
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> I'm curious... didn't they arrest, convict and jail one Jack
Kevorkian,
> for assisting the killing of people who _wanted_ to die?
>
> So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants
to live.
I was under the impression she was a vegetable...
>
> This on the wishes of a husband who's response to his vow... 'thru
> sickness and health' was to leave, live with another women, and have
two
> children her?
>
10 years is a long time to stare at your wife in a hospital bed and not
have her respond back. Let's let her go gracefully, it's what she
asked for anyway.
FWIW,
Mike
Kevin Lowe
Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I'm curious... didn't they arrest, convict and jail one Jack Kevorkian,
> for assisting the killing of people who _wanted_ to die?
Yes, but that was stupid.
> So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants to live.
Actually she's a spud, Mark. A carrot. Brain scans show that instead
of a brain she has a bubble of spinal fluid. Independent medical
examiners have concluded that there is absolutely nothing going on
between her ears. She does not want to live because she has no seat of
consciousness to want anything with.
Not only that but a court found that there was clear and convincing
evidence that Terry Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive in
her current condition.
> This on the wishes of a husband who's response to his vow... 'thru
> sickness and health' was to leave, live with another women, and have two
> children her?
The important part of Terry Schiavo died fifteen years ago. The man's
entitled to move on.
What is being settled now is whether her husband will get her money, as
he is legally and morally entitled to do, or whether her Roman Catholic
parents will obstruct the process until he gives them what they want:
legal custody of Terry Schiavo and her cash settlement for malpractise.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Mark Goldberg
> In article <kOK_d.41$dZ...@fe09.lga>,
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm curious... didn't they arrest, convict and jail one Jack Kevorkian,
>>for assisting the killing of people who _wanted_ to die?
>
>
> Yes, but that was stupid.
Oh... that explains it.
>
>>So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
>>clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants to live.
>
>
> Actually she's a spud, Mark. A carrot.
Uh, I see
Brain scans show that instead
> of a brain she has a bubble of spinal fluid.
She hasn't had any scans in 13 yrs
Independent medical
> examiners have concluded that there is absolutely nothing going on
> between her ears. She does not want to live because she has no seat of
> consciousness to want anything with.
I heard two neurologists say otherwise last evening
>
> The important part of Terry Schiavo died fifteen years ago. The man's
> entitled to move on.
The important part??
To whom... her, you, or the guy who wants her gone??
She doesn't seem to mind being alive, her family who has seen her- only
under the most restrictive conditions set by the husband, who left her
for another, and refused her any support to see if she can improve for
the last 13 yrs, gives a strange picture.
The important part-
The important part???
>
> What is being settled now is whether her husband will get her money, as
> he is legally and morally entitled to do, or whether her Roman Catholic
> parents will obstruct the process until he gives them what they want:
> legal custody of Terry Schiavo and her cash settlement for malpractise.
They didn't ask for money, they wanted a chance to give her a chance-
and you have a thing against her _ Roman Catholic _ parents??
Hmmmm......
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> I was under the impression she was a vegetable...
Clearly, that is false.
> 10 years is a long time to stare at your wife in a hospital bed and not
> have her respond back.
That's not what she's done with others, who don't report that she can't
respond back.
Let's let her go gracefully, it's what she
> asked for anyway.
There's no proof that it was anything but an opinion of hers but not
specific to her status, just a comment about a comatose person once.
She's not comatose.
I dunno the answer and I'm not sure what to do. But it sure seems that
when he kept the family away and ended all chances for her to maybe
improve 13 yrs ago, that something was fishy. He sure grabbed at the
malpractice money when she was stricken, then.... he turned off any
chance for her to improve. Has an odor to it- and she's not the one
rotting, she's not terminally ill, in no acute distress....
She's not been allowed to live gracefully, no open window curtains no
stimulation of any kind, (doesn't that sound weird???)
What's gracefull about that??
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> I never said I opposed anything, but your initial post was fraught with
> emotion and insinuation, so I injected a little factual evidence into the
> discussion.
And his response was likewise tinged with an emotional appeal, as I posted.
>
> First, the absence of pain doesn't indicate that she is at peace with her
> condition, it could be that she is incapable of feeling anything about her
> state, which is what various experts have determined.
I heard two neurologist say this was untrue just last night.
>
> Second, she's been in this state for 15 years. I don't claim to know
> everything about the case, but I find it incredible that no one has tried to
> rehabilitate her over a period of 15 years. Since you give no corrborating
> citations, I will decline to believe this.
Ok... since it's all over the place, you can check this yourself, I
simply pointed that it was there.
But the question I had was... since she isn't in apparent pain, which is
obvious, is not terminally ill, which is obvious, is on no life support,
which is obvious, doesn't it seem odd that the guy turned off any chance
for her to even enjoy- as a vegetable, any normal stimulation- even for
a vegetable??? No open curtains inher room, no sunlight, no nothing.
Doesn't that strike a strange note???
Suppose they allowed one year of her family to engage rehab, and
stimulation, and phys therapy, and she improved, and didn't need a
feeding tube, and she evinced no pain, no agony no request to die, and
the family simply paid for her care, and life??
That's my question
>
> From everything I've seen about this, there is little to differentiate it
> from other cases of persistent vegetative state.
I heard differently last night from medical experts, and no evaluation
has occurred, and she is clearly not persistently vegetative, she is
diminished, not vegetative.
>
> Michael Schiavo says that he and Terri discussed this and that Terri said
> she wouldn't want to have her life sustained in that way. Her parents say
> they think Terri would want to live. There is no evidence I have seen that
> would indicate Michael has a motive to lie about this. He seems passionate
> and honest in his desire to do what is best for Terri. From what I have
> seen, Michael's case is stronger than the parents' case, and his claim
> supercedes the parents' claim, since he and Terri were married.
Yeah... that death do us part thing. He signed a vow with those very words.
I posted a story of a family I visit, where the guy is probably worse
off than Schiavo. I gave a personal account. You give me url's.
I'd be curious... what would be the harm in giving her six months of
stimulation, mri, pet scans, and such- because the feeding tube would
likely be not necessary,and then it would be more obviously murder???
The story of Michael Schiavo is muddled; more so than hers, and she's
the diminished one.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
>
> I admire your compassion toward that man, his family, and humanity.
Hell no, I'm the one who gets benefit from this too.
You want to see life struggle on... to defy the ravages of death.
Tough, gutsy, loving, unwilling to surrender kind of things... this I
think is not to be run away from. Others did... they shut the door and
paid him and them no mind. Me
I think I get something for free from all that.
>
> From your description, that man apparently has hope for recovery.
Less so than Schiavo probably- and he lost more- he was a neurosurgeon,
internist, and his wife can barely hold on financially. Much less
problematic than Schiavo's family's situation.
> I saw Terry Schiavo on TV news a little earlier. She was not smiling. Her
> facial expression was just stuck in a grin that way.
>
> It is sad. I believe it is not an easy decision for her relatives to let her
> go.
Yeah... there are issues here.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> Second, she's been in this state for 15 years. I don't claim to know
> everything about the case, but I find it incredible that no one has tried to
> rehabilitate her over a period of 15 years. Since you give no corrborating
> citations, I will decline to believe this.
Okay... the questions are all up in the air. Here's the info posted
from her parents site. They post this:
MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition
of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the
environment.
Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of
persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to
communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in
interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from
irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move
around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are,
instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does
interact purposefully with her environment.
MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:
(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away.
Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has
illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in
affidavits.
MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not
regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law
only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular
food and water:
Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized;
suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit
any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to
permit the natural process of dying.
MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year.
His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after
viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was
surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a
team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he
filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14
independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given
either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent
Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute
of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence,
Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her
for over 10 years.
Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not
examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent
approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by
Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald
Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself
“Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with
Terri.
MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a
malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was
designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than
$50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s
medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records,
however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s
medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly
awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney,
George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo
hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund,
publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on
national television to promote his newly published book.
MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the
inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s
parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his
inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed
Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to
inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and
only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days,
it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents
immediately rejected the offer.
MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's
Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust
fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993
guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50
Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99
Other
1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85
Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95
Total $545,852.34
Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski expresses dismay after he is ordered not
to give Communion to Terri.
Florida Laws
FS 744.102: To "meet essential requirements for health or safety" means
to take those actions necessary to provide the health care, food,
shelter, clothing, personal hygiene, or other care without which serious
and imminent physical injury or illness is more likely than not to occur.
Mark Goldberg
>
> I'm curious...
Here's a timeline from the family of the events...
A comprehensive Timeline and Archive of the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case
.
Since her collapse in 1990, Terri's situation has taken many turns.
While her family fights to restore her human rights, a long battle has
taken place both in the courts and in the hearts of Americans and those
abroad
We hope this timeline will help make Terri's case more clear and show
you why this is such an important cause.
Some of these entries are links to documents and court records that you
can read through. Unless specified, these documents are in Acrobat
Reader format.
1990
Feb - Terri Collapses in her home
May - Terri discharged from Humana Hospital in St Petersburg, Florida.
Dec - Terri taken to California for experimental implant
1991
Feb - Terri moved to home with husband.
Jan - Terri moved to Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center.
Apr - Terri's condition is assessed as improving.
Apr - Terri's husband advised to move her to Gainesville Rehabilitation
Center to receive advanced therapy to continue Terri's recovery.
Jul - Terri moved to Sable Palms Nursing Home.
1992
Aug - Terri awarded $250,000 in malpractice settlement.
Nov - Terri awarded $1.4 million in malpractice trial.
Nov - Michael Schiavo awarded $600,000 in malpractice trial.
1993
Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.
Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of
therapy for Terri.
Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.
Feb - Schiavo posts Do not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart.
Jun - Schiavo threatens Schindler family with lawsuit.
Aug - Schiavo orders medical staff not to treat Terri for potentially
fatal infection.
Sep - Bob and Mary Schindler petition courts to remove Schiavo as
Terri's guardian.
Nov - Schiavo admits in deposition that he knew withholding treatment of
infection could result in Terri's death.
1994
Feb - Judge Penick dismisses guardianship suit.
Apr - Terri moved to Palm Gardens Nursing Home.
1995
Sep - Schiavo orders Palm Gardens not to treat Terri for potentially
fatal infection.
1996
Jun - Terri's parents obtain court order for access to Terri's medical
records.
1997
May - Judge Shames approves Schiavo action to remove Terri's nutrition
and hydration.
Jul - Schiavo's engagement to Jodi Centonze announced.
Aug - Attorney Felos's letter notifying Terri's parents of action to
remove Terri's nutrition and hydration.
1998
Jun - Guardian ad Litem appointed by court to investigate Terri's case.
Oct - Schiavo offers to donate Terri's inheritance to charity if family
agrees to allow removal of her hydration and nutrition.
Dec - Guardian ad Litem recommends the court not approve Schiavo's petition.
1999
Feb - Attorney George Felos files bias charges against Guardian ad Litem.
Jun - Guardian ad Litem dismissed by the court.
2000
Jan - Judge Greer Conducts Terri’s Feeding Tube Removal Trial.
Feb - Greer Rules to Remove Nutrition Feeding Tube.
Feb – Affidavits filed by 3 doctors state Terri can swallow and is not PVS.
Feb - Greer denies petition to allow Terri swallowing tests.
Apr - Terri Moved from Palm Gardens Nursing Home to Hospice Facility.
Apr - Greer denies motion to return Terri to Palm Garden Nursing home.
Apr - Greer imposes restricted visitor list for Terri.
Jul - Appeal filed with Appellate Court to overturn Greer’s verdict.
Nov - Appellate Court Conducts Oral Arguments.
2001
Jan 25 - The appellate court upholds Judge Greer’s ruling to remove
Terri's feeding..
Feb. 8 - Motion for an Appellate Court rehearing or clarification - Denied.
Mar 12 - Schiavo petitions to remove Terri’s feeding immediately.
Mar 23 - Florida Supreme Court denies motion with the to review Terri's
case.
Mar 22 - Appellate Court issued a 30 day execution stay.
Mar 29 - Judge Greer moves up feeding removal date to April 20, 2001.
Apr 1 - The Appellate Court denies extending Terri's stay of execution.
Apr 12 - Attorney Anderson files motion disqualify Judge Greer.
Apr 16 - Judge Greer denies disqualification motion.
Apr 18 - The Florida Supreme Court refuses to hear Terri’s case & denies
Stay.
Apr 19 - The Federal Court claimed the issue was beyond that court's
jurisdiction.
Apr 23 - The US Supreme Court refused to hear Terri’s case.
Apr 24 - Terri Feeding was terminated.
Apr 25 - Schiavo bans Terri brother and sister from visiting Terri.
Apr 25 - Schiavo ex girlfriend (Cyndi) reveals Schiavo lied about
Terri’s death wishes.
Apr 26 - Judge Greer refuses to hear new evidence about Schiavo’s lying.
Apr 26 - New evidence compels Civil court Judge Quesada to resume
Terri's feeding.
Apr 30 - Schiavo files an emergency motion to have Terri's nutritional
feeding stopped.
May 7 - Affidavit filed by Dr. Hammesfahr (neurology) states Terri is
not in a PVS.
May 7 - Schiavo charged in the Civil Court with fraud.
May 8 - Schiavo ex girlfriend (Cyndi) refuses to testify for fear of
Schiavo.
May 9 - The 2nd District Court of Appeals announces "Oral Arguments
Hearing" date.
May 11 - Schiavo motion to negate Judge Quesada's order denied.
Jun 1 - Affidavits by five (5) Doctors were filed stating Terri was not
in a PVS.
Jun 1 - Schiavo excused from rendering his deposition.
Jun 18 - Schiavo files an affidavit that Terri is in an irreversible
vegetative.
Jun 21 - Chief Judge Demers gave Judge George Greer's Court authority to
decide whether Terri should have any new medical evaluation or treatment.
Jun 25 - A three-member panel presided at the Appellate Court hearing.
Jul 11 - The Appellate Court ordered Greer court to conduct evidentiary
hearings. The court denied Schiavo's attorneys request to order Terri's
feeding stopped.
July 23 - Schiavo filed a motion for Judge Greer to immediately stop
Terri's feeding.
Aug 7 - Judge Greer totally ignored or rationalized all the evidence
presented to him. Orders Terri's feeding stopped on August 28, 2001.
Aug 10 - Attorney Anderson motion to disqualify Judge Greer denied.
Aug 14 - Greer denies request for Conducting Terri Medical Examinations.
Aug 16 - Attorney Anderson files a Notice of Appeal with the 2nd
District Appeal Court.
Aug 17 - Judge Greer grants Terri a stay of execution until October 9, 2001.
Aug 20 - Schiavo files with the 2nd District Appeal Court to overrule
Judge Greer stay.
Oct 7 - 2nd District Appeal Court orders Terri to be neurological tested.
Oct 23 - Schiavo files a motion to reverse the Appellate Court
neurological tests order.
Nov 1 - The 2nd District Court of Appeals denies Schiavo's motion..
Nov 16 - Terri's medical testing plan will be determined before a mediator.
Dec 19 - Attorneys meet with a mediator in an attempt to agree upon the
tests .
2002
Jan 18 - Mediated agreement failed, testing is back Greer’s courtroom to
be resolved.
Jan 25 - Attorney Anderson petitioned the court for an evidentiary
guardianship hearing.
Jan 29 - Judge Greer approved Schiavo's motion to cancel the evidentiary
hearing.
Feb 7 - Schiavo files with the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the
Appellate Court's October ruling which spared Terri's life.
Mar 14 - The Florida Supreme Court denied Michael Schiavo’s appeal.
Jun 19 - Schiavo objects to the medical and neurological testing.
Jul 1 - Judge Greer conducted a 3+ hr hearing involving three issues:
1. Schiavo’s Plan to Enroll Terri into a Medicaid Program
2 Termination of Schiavo's Attorney Fees
3. Equal Payment for Terri's Examining Doctors
Jul 10 - Court Hearing again was for the purpose of allowing certain
medical tests that were requested to evaluate Terri’s true medical and
neurological condition.
Jul 12 - Judge Greer ruled -not-to-pay- Terri’s doctors for their
professional fees to examine Terri. Notably, in a previous hearing,
Judge Greer -approved- payment for Schiavo’s doctors fees.
Jul 22 - Judge Greer approved three of Terri’s desired neurological
tests and rejected a dozen other.
Aug 28 - Judge Greer established the dates for Terri's trial.
Oct 2 - Schiavo files petition to prohibit the media from seeing
Terri’s recent neurological examination videotapes or airing the video’s
to the public after they have been presented to the court as evidence.
Oct 2 - Schiavo petitioned the court to authorize Terri’s cremation.
Oct 11-22 Terri’s trial
Nov15 - Judge Greer conducted a hearing in response to a motion Attorney
Anderson filed requesting time to investigate recent evidence
suggesting Terri’s heart failure may have been caused by physical abuse.
Nov 22 - Greer orders Terri’s starvation death to begin on Jan 3, 2003.
Dec 9 - Attorney Anderson filed a ‘Notice of Appeal’ to the 2nd District
Appellate Court.
Dec 9- Attorney Anderson filed a motion with Judge Greer to ‘stay’ the
January 3rd feeding termination date.
Dec 10 - Schiavo filed a motion with Judge Greer to strike attorney
Anderson’s motion to ‘stay,’ requesting a court hearing to argue his
objection.
Dec 13 - Judge Greer acquiesced to Michael Schiavo’s attorney motion to
conduct a hearing, which resulted in a ‘stay’ being granted, pending
appellate resolution.
Dec 18 - Schiavo filed a motion with the 2nd District Appellate Court to
overturn Judge Greer’s December 13th order.
Dec 23 - The 2nd Appellate Court denied Michael Schiavo’s attorney
motion to overturn Judge Greer’s December 13, 2002 ‘stay’ order.
Furthermore, the Appellate Court established filing dates and scheduled
Appellate oral arguments to take place on April 4, 2003.
2003
Guardian Removal Petition Still Pending…
On November 15, 2002, attorney Anderson filed a petition with Judge
Greer to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri’s legal guardian. The petition
included a declaration of Adversary Proceedings, charging that Michael
Schiavo violated a dozen or more specific Florida Statutes while serving
in his capacity as Terri’s legal guardian.
Apr - Appellate Court Hearing.
Jun - Appellate Court Upholds Greer.
Jul - Appellate Court Denies Court Review and Stay.
Jul - Appellate Court grants 30 day stay.
Aug - Terri hospitalized under mysterious conditions, denied visits from
her priest.
Sep - Emergency hearing to allow visitation and obtain current medical
information.
Sep - Michael Schiavo ordered by court to give discharge summary to
Terri's parents.
Sep - Judge Greer scheduled October 15, 2003 for the removal of Terri's
sustenance.
Oct - 15 Terri's sustenance removed at Hospice Woodside in Pinellas
Park, FL.
Oct - 20 Florida Legislature and Senate meet in special session Terri's
bill is introduced.
Oct - 21 Terri's bill approved, signed into law. Governor Bush issues
executive orderr.
Oct - 23 Michael Schiavo announces plans to sue Governor Bush and
challenge Terri's Law as unconstitutional.
Oct - Dr. Jay Wolfson of Tampa, Florida assigned as independent Guardian
ad Litem.
Nov - New Guardianship hearing in Sixth Circuit court.
Nov - Disability advocacy groups file Amicus Brief.
Nov - Judge Baird to hear case on Terri's Law. Governor not properly
served in suit, appeals venue.
Nov - Governor Bush petitions to remove Judge W. Douglas Baird on
suggestion of bias.
Dec - 3 Terri's birthday. Supporters convene at Woodside Hospice. Terri
receives more than 1,000 birthday cards and gifts.
Dec - Governor Bush denied discovery in Schiavo v Bush. Governor denied
subpoenaing witnesses.
Dec - 20 Guardian ad Litem dismissed by Judge Demers.
Dec - 22 Judge Baird rules that he will issue a summary ruling on
Terri's law without a trial. His ruling is withheld until appeals by
Governor Bush are ruled upon in the Second District Court of Appeals in
Lakeland, Florida.
2004
Jan - 8, Judge Demers denies petition for reinstatement of Guardian ad Litem
A young Terri on Christmas Eve
No simple answer
Terri is not entitled to a divorce. Instead, her guardian must allow her
a dissolution of marriage.
mark_...@sbcglobal.net
I have to admit being torn about this case.
On the one hand, we would generally consider it "humane" to kill the
family pet if it were in much better condition than Ms. Schiavo; say
severely arthritic, partially paralyzed perhaps, or old, blind, deaf,
and mostly immobile.
We aren't generally as "humane" to people as we are to our livestock
or pets, it seems.
But that's more a critique of our general attitude toward humans vs
non-humans.
My wife's 97 year old grandmother is in a nursing home, having been
put their recently because she could not take care of herself at home
any longer. She's practically immobile, mostly deaf and blind, and is
in constant pain. She undergoes the indignity of young people coming
'round to change her diapers, put her in a chair and leaving her there
until she is slumped over and almost falling out.
My wife and I and her brother make routine but unscheduled visits to
make sure she's ok and being treated properly; we're considering
bringing her home and taking care of her ourselves because of how
unhappy we are with the nursing home treatment, but she may have a
persistant infectious disease, she has meds she needs, and would need
24 hour care.
So we're torn about that, too.
In the case of Ms. Schiavo, her parents want to take care of and
treat and try to rehabilitate her. It may be too late, if she's been
largely ignored for so long, but they want to try. The husband wants to
put it behind him and move on, and apparently has for some time.
If he's motivated by the need to move on, then perhaps he should make
a deal allowing for divorce, her settlement money taking care of
outstanding medical bills, and leave her in the hands of her parents.
If he's motivated by money, then he needs to be married to her when
she dies, in order to gain her estate (or what's left of it after the
debt collectors get their part).
In either case, it seems her fate lies in the hands of people who
would be more "humane" to a non-human than they are to their "loved
ones".
Truly a sad case, and one that cries out for compassion and empathy for
everyone involved, including we the spectators who try to carry this
question into our own lives and apply it to those that we love.
Best Regards,
mark evins
Mark Goldberg
> I have to admit being torn about this case.
> On the one hand, we would generally consider it "humane" to kill the
> family pet if it were in much better condition than Ms. Schiavo; say
> severely arthritic, partially paralyzed perhaps, or old, blind, deaf,
> and mostly immobile.
We don't starve animals to death... it's against the law I think.
> We aren't generally as "humane" to people as we are to our livestock
> or pets, it seems.
But I think you reversed it here. We starve a person, but not an animal??
> My wife's 97 year old grandmother is in a nursing home, having been
> put their recently because she could not take care of herself at home
> any longer. She's practically immobile, mostly deaf and blind, and is
> in constant pain. She undergoes the indignity of young people coming
> 'round to change her diapers, put her in a chair and leaving her there
> until she is slumped over and almost falling out.
> My wife and I and her brother make routine but unscheduled visits to
> make sure she's ok and being treated properly; we're considering
> bringing her home and taking care of her ourselves because of how
> unhappy we are with the nursing home treatment, but she may have a
> persistant infectious disease, she has meds she needs, and would need
> 24 hour care.
> So we're torn about that, too.
One of the most wrenching of decisions. I feel for the complexity. High
an immigrant women, find them, someone who's glad to live in your home,
and who can stay with her, and nurture her. Everyone chip in for the
money. She'll be healthier, and happier... when it's time to do nothing
extraordinary... then let her go, and wish her well and everyone say
goodbye. The old fashioned way. JMO.
>
> In the case of Ms. Schiavo, her parents want to take care of and
> treat and try to rehabilitate her. It may be too late, if she's been
> largely ignored for so long, but they want to try. The husband wants to
> put it behind him and move on, and apparently has for some time.
He could divorce her, he could take the money. They don't want it.
>
> If he's motivated by the need to move on, then perhaps he should make
> a deal allowing for divorce, her settlement money taking care of
> outstanding medical bills, and leave her in the hands of her parents.
They don't want the money. He can have it.
> Truly a sad case, and one that cries out for compassion and empathy for
> everyone involved, including we the spectators who try to carry this
> question into our own lives and apply it to those that we love.
You got that right. I know how hard those decisions are, how much time
it takes, and how difficult it is, when we don't live in communities
surrounded by family and neighbors who can chip in to care for the very
helpless or very aged and infirm.
Mark
Kevin Lowe
Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Kevin Lowe wrote:
> > In article <kOK_d.41$dZ...@fe09.lga>,
> > Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> >>clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants to live.
> >
> > Actually she's a spud, Mark. A carrot.
>
> Uh, I see
> Brain scans show that instead
> > of a brain she has a bubble of spinal fluid.
>
> She hasn't had any scans in 13 yrs
You think her brain is going to grow back, Mark? I have bad news. That
doesn't happen.
> Independent medical
> > examiners have concluded that there is absolutely nothing going on
> > between her ears. She does not want to live because she has no seat of
> > consciousness to want anything with.
>
> I heard two neurologists say otherwise last evening
I suspect if you do some digging you will find that they are the two
doctors hand-picked by Schiavo's parents to say exactly what they want
them to say. A court-appointed independent doctor said that they were
wrong, and that their claims that Terry could be rehabilitated had no
factual basis.
> > The important part of Terry Schiavo died fifteen years ago. The man's
> > entitled to move on.
>
> The important part??
> To whom... her, you, or the guy who wants her gone??
Her consciousness, as I said earlier.
> She doesn't seem to mind being alive, her family who has seen her- only
> under the most restrictive conditions set by the husband, who left her
> for another, and refused her any support to see if she can improve for
> the last 13 yrs, gives a strange picture.
> The important part-
> The important part???
Unless you actually believe in Biblical miracles the probability that
Terry Schiavo still exists as a consciousness, or will ever exist again,
is zero.
A court-appointed independent expert said that her prospects for
"improvement" are zero.
The parts of her brain that make consciousness possible simply do not
exist. You can no more be conscious with that chunk of brain missing
that you can jog with no legs. Your chances of growing it back are
about the same as your chances of growing legs back.
> > What is being settled now is whether her husband will get her money, as
> > he is legally and morally entitled to do, or whether her Roman Catholic
> > parents will obstruct the process until he gives them what they want:
> > legal custody of Terry Schiavo and her cash settlement for malpractise.
>
> They didn't ask for money, they wanted a chance to give her a chance-
> and you have a thing against her _ Roman Catholic _ parents??
>
> Hmmmm......
Yup. The RC church has a number of truly idiotic and evil "moral"
beliefs which RC members are expected to follow and parrot as if the RC
church were infallible... which of course they pretend to be.
Among them is the idea that euthanasia is evil because the RC church
says so.
So the fact that her parents and many of her parent's supporters are RC
is the big clue that their behaviour may be based on religious
grandstanding rather than any rationally based belief in the continued
existence of Terry Schiavo the human being.
Courts have been all over this for years, Mark. They took the time to
get the facts on the case rather than cutting and pasting from biased
press releases, and they concluded that Terry Schiavo has no
consciousness, Terry Schiavo has zero chance of recovery, Terry Schiavo
herself would not have wanted to be kept alive under these
circumstances, and that Terry Schiavo's husband has the right to make
the call on whether or not treatment is continued.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
mike...@yahoo.com
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > I was under the impression she was a vegetable...
>
> Clearly, that is false.
I doubt it.
>
> > 10 years is a long time to stare at your wife in a hospital bed and
not
> > have her respond back.
>
>
> That's not what she's done with others, who don't report that she
can't
> respond back.
> Let's let her go gracefully, it's what she
> > asked for anyway.
>
> There's no proof that it was anything but an opinion of hers but not
> specific to her status, just a comment about a comatose person once.
> She's not comatose.
The 'proof' is right there in front of you. She's going to be in a
vegetative like state for the rest of her life. You want to keep her
alive? For what purpose?
>
> I dunno the answer and I'm not sure what to do. But it sure seems
that
> when he kept the family away and ended all chances for her to maybe
> improve 13 yrs ago, that something was fishy. He sure grabbed at the
> malpractice money when she was stricken, then.... he turned off any
> chance for her to improve. Has an odor to it- and she's not the one
> rotting, she's not terminally ill, in no acute distress....
>
> She's not been allowed to live gracefully, no open window curtains no
> stimulation of any kind, (doesn't that sound weird???)
>
> What's gracefull about that??
Nothing. So let her go Mark.
Mike
hcannon18
would want to go. Besides the govt is messing in private affairs.
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg wrote:
>
>>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I was under the impression she was a vegetable...
>>
>>Clearly, that is false.
>
>
> I doubt it.
Well, she isn't a vegetable. She is diminished- much so- but not a vegetable
Your concept is yours...
>
> The 'proof' is right there in front of you. She's going to be in a
> vegetative like state for the rest of her life. You want to keep her
> alive? For what purpose?
Again, you presuppose she's a dead plant- or a plant- and then that I
want to keep her there.
Two assumptions, that are false.
>
>>I dunno the answer and I'm not sure what to do. But it sure seems
>
> that
>
>>when he kept the family away and ended all chances for her to maybe
>>improve 13 yrs ago, that something was fishy. He sure grabbed at the
>>malpractice money when she was stricken, then.... he turned off any
>>chance for her to improve. Has an odor to it- and she's not the one
>>rotting, she's not terminally ill, in no acute distress....
>>
>>She's not been allowed to live gracefully, no open window curtains no
>
>
>>stimulation of any kind, (doesn't that sound weird???)
>>
>>What's gracefull about that??
>
>
> Nothing. So let her go Mark.
Nothing's graceful about her being deprived, so you want to deprive her
into finality???
That's your kindness?
Winston Churchill was once at a state dinner, I think, and a women
opined to him, as the table discussion came to life imprisonment, that
she most assuredly preferred to be killed rather than spend a life in
prison. Churchill replied "No madam, death is the only thing that is final"
Look..You seem to be content to kill her off. As some kind of mercy
killing for the impaired.
So yeah- your the one condoning murdering her- which it is- since she's
not ill, not in agony, not on machines that replace organ systems,and
not requesting to die, and her family wishes to encourage her progress,
progress that was originally anticipated, and called for, but which
hubby turned off, completely, entirely- and she ain't a veggie yet from
that.
For me, if we gave them that family the chance to demonstrate their
effort,their love, perhaps some progress will occur, and at their
expense, and if, she was not unhappy... well, we wouldn't be killers.
Hell...they don't kill evil killers. They don't kill child molestors,
they don't kill the guys who assassinate the president, or blowup
buildings full of people, so, if we give them a break all too
frequently, then maybe...... ?
Mark
mike...@yahoo.com
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Mark Goldberg wrote:
> >
> >>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I was under the impression she was a vegetable...
> >>
> >>Clearly, that is false.
> >
> >
> > I doubt it.
>
> Well, she isn't a vegetable. She is diminished- much so- but not a
vegetable
> Your concept is yours...
>
> >
> > The 'proof' is right there in front of you. She's going to be in a
> > vegetative like state for the rest of her life. You want to keep
her
> > alive? For what purpose?
> Again, you presuppose she's a dead plant- or a plant- and then that I
> want to keep her there.
> Two assumptions, that are false.
Didn't someone else already say she was PVS??
> >
> >>I dunno the answer and I'm not sure what to do. But it sure seems
> >
> > that
> >
> >>when he kept the family away and ended all chances for her to maybe
> >>improve 13 yrs ago, that something was fishy. He sure grabbed at
the
> >>malpractice money when she was stricken, then.... he turned off any
> >>chance for her to improve. Has an odor to it- and she's not the one
> >>rotting, she's not terminally ill, in no acute distress....
> >>
> >>She's not been allowed to live gracefully, no open window curtains
no
> >
> >
> >>stimulation of any kind, (doesn't that sound weird???)
> >>
> >>What's gracefull about that??
> >
> >
> > Nothing. So let her go Mark.
>
> Nothing's graceful about her being deprived, so you want to deprive
her
> into finality???
> That's your kindness?
You'd rather her stare blankly at the ceiling for the rest of her life
while her family and friends sit by and reminesce(sp) over the way
things used to be 15 years ago?
>
> Winston Churchill was once at a state dinner, I think, and a women
> opined to him, as the table discussion came to life imprisonment,
that
> she most assuredly preferred to be killed rather than spend a life in
> prison. Churchill replied "No madam, death is the only thing that is
final"
So you're against the death penalty?
>
> Look..You seem to be content to kill her off. As some kind of mercy
> killing for the impaired.
>
> So yeah- your the one condoning murdering her- which it is- since
she's
> not ill, not in agony, not on machines that replace organ
systems,and
> not requesting to die, and her family wishes to encourage her
progress,
> progress that was originally anticipated, and called for, but which
> hubby turned off, completely, entirely- and she ain't a veggie yet
from
> that.
My only beef is that whatever they decide it should be unanimous
between the husband and the family. If her parents want to keep her
alive then let them have their wish.
>
> For me, if we gave them that family the chance to demonstrate their
> effort,their love, perhaps some progress will occur, and at their
> expense, and if, she was not unhappy... well, we wouldn't be killers.
>
> Hell...they don't kill evil killers. They don't kill child molestors,
> they don't kill the guys who assassinate the president, or blowup
> buildings full of people, so, if we give them a break all too
> frequently, then maybe...... ?
>
>
I hope you're not losing sleep over this case Mark? It's good that you
care as much but I'm starting to worry...
FWIW,
Mike
Mark Goldberg
> "Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
>>This on the wishes of a husband who's response to his vow... 'thru
>>sickness and health' was to leave, live with another women, and have two
>>children her?
>>
>
> No one really has the final answer; but if the quality of life is gone I
> would want to go. Besides the govt is messing in private affairs.
>
>
Well I'd otherwise agree, except- the gov has already stepped in, and in
and in.
The money's obtained in malapractice lawsuits specifically for her care,
was spent not on that but on the lawyers attempting in the husbands wish
to end her life. Essentially he shunned her- from normal stimulation
that anyone in any hospital is entitled too. That was the problem's
origin. It still rings on. The gove, does have an obligation to protect
it's citizens, and that seems to have been abrogated from the outset.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> You'd rather her stare blankly at the ceiling for the rest of her life
> while her family and friends sit by and reminesce(sp) over the way
> things used to be 15 years ago?
Once again, you are making a false statement. She does not start blankly
a the ceiling. You are simply wrong- and what your doing is translating
her diminished capacity into something that it is not....
> So you're against the death penalty?
Hell no... the guy who took that 9 yr old and raped and killed her and
hid the body- a swift, and accurate trial- and then kill him.
The predators who kill with malice aforethought- swift, accurate trial,
and if accurately identified- kill them.
I don't think- my opinion- that diminished capacity where there is no
pain, no life saving machinery required to maintain a maimed human
being, no terminal illness prevented from reaching it's conclusion,
needs, perforce, to be ended, simply because she can't
join a table for poker, or add to a bowling team...
>
> My only beef is that whatever they decide it should be unanimous
> between the husband and the family. If her parents want to keep her
> alive then let them have their wish.
>
You've hit one of the major problems. Which is what bothers me.
The state is not being asked to pay for this by the family- the state
was sued for the care by the husband- who then, took the money, and
prevented the care that was medically advised as reasonable, and legally
won for that purpose. He essentially stole it.
Then he shunned the family that only wished to follow what was medically
and legally established for the women.
They all stood as reasonable, and he was the one who stood to 'gain'
>
> I hope you're not losing sleep over this case Mark? It's good that you
> care as much but I'm starting to worry...
Are you serious??
Maybe the people who care too much... they should be euthanized????
Now... You've got ME worried :^)))
My man... considering real issues, real problems, is the privilege of
being a citizen, of being a man. My three year old and I road the
spinning teacups and bumper cars last night- and I came home to watch
Wyatt Earp on TV, After the rerun of the MMA's show, which had a fine
amateur bout, which ended in a one round stoppage, and was much more
enjoyable than that idiotic arguing over the caps and armbands which
really was annoying to have to sit thru...
Mark
mark_...@sbcglobal.net
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> mark_...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> > I have to admit being torn about this case.
> > On the one hand, we would generally consider it "humane" to kill
the
> > family pet if it were in much better condition than Ms. Schiavo;
say
> > severely arthritic, partially paralyzed perhaps, or old, blind,
deaf,
> > and mostly immobile.
>
> We don't starve animals to death... it's against the law I think.
You're right. We hold them, pet them and say goodbye as a shot is given
and takes effect.
> > We aren't generally as "humane" to people as we are to our
livestock
> > or pets, it seems.
>
> But I think you reversed it here. We starve a person, but not an
animal??
Not very "humane", is it?
Be nice, but we'd need a bigger house. A year ago or more I proposed
building a small apartment in our back yard for Grand. Her family
vetoed the idea. But for what we're paying the nursing home, we could
hire a home care nurse and turn the boy's room into Grand's room; he's
four and sleeps in our room anyway. The only problem is the possible
infectious disease she has.... CDIFF or something....
The family part is harder; Grand's youngest son, my father in law,
died six years ago. His older brother survived lung cancer 4 years ago,
but just had colon cancer surgery and isn't really expected to live
much longer; he's eaten up in the colon and liver.
That leaves my wife and her brother here locally; none of the other
grandchildren have ever shown much interest or even visited much.
Makes for a hard row to hoe.
> >
> > In the case of Ms. Schiavo, her parents want to take care of and
> > treat and try to rehabilitate her. It may be too late, if she's
been
> > largely ignored for so long, but they want to try. The husband
wants to
> > put it behind him and move on, and apparently has for some time.
>
> He could divorce her, he could take the money. They don't want it.
Then it's selfishness motivating him, I think.
> >
> > If he's motivated by the need to move on, then perhaps he should
make
> > a deal allowing for divorce, her settlement money taking care of
> > outstanding medical bills, and leave her in the hands of her
parents.
>
> They don't want the money. He can have it.
I can't figure out his motivation, really, for not letting go and
moving on *in this area*. Pure obstinancy, perhaps, or merely a "need"
to win this against her parents.
>
>
> > Truly a sad case, and one that cries out for compassion and empathy
for
> > everyone involved, including we the spectators who try to carry
this
> > question into our own lives and apply it to those that we love.
>
> You got that right. I know how hard those decisions are, how much
time
> it takes, and how difficult it is, when we don't live in communities
> surrounded by family and neighbors who can chip in to care for the
very
> helpless or very aged and infirm.
I may not like Hillary or her politics, but she was right in that it
does take a village; not only for a child, but for the aged.
Best Regards,
mark evins
> Mark
Mark Goldberg
>>> We aren't generally as "humane" to people as we are to our
> livestock or pets, it seems.
That seems to be all too common.
The only problem is the possible
> infectious disease she has.... CDIFF or something....
C-Diff is a common nosocomial ( nursing home, hospital acquired side
effect to antibiosi) but don't worry too much about it being in your
home. Just wash your hands and there are ways to manage the problem for
your grandma.
> That leaves my wife and her brother here locally; none of the other
> grandchildren have ever shown much interest or even visited much.
> Makes for a hard row to hoe.
>
It's a hard rain, and when the others walk away, it's a cold rain.
Can't but feel for you. I think an immigrant lady, in your home, staying
around, or a house nearby with your inlaws contributing for the
caregiver's wages and supplies to keep great grandma comfortable, is
probably the way to avoid even larger medical expenses.
>
> I can't figure out his motivation, really, for not letting go and
> moving on *in this area*. Pure obstinancy, perhaps, or merely a "need"
> to win this against her parents.
>
Yeah... this thing makees little sense.
>
> I may not like Hillary or her politics, but she was right in that it
> does take a village; not only for a child, but for the aged.
I disagree... it's takes a family to do what is their responsibility.
Make people comfortable.
Not the governments job. The families.
Great grannies and such, wipe the behinds of kids and others and that's
what life is about- getting people ready to be on their own. And when
they go downhill, it is the responsibility for those who got their asses
wiped to do a little cleaning up.
That's called family responsibility.
The village doesn't know your family, your memebers- the buck stops here.
Mark
mike...@yahoo.com
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > You'd rather her stare blankly at the ceiling for the rest of her
life
> > while her family and friends sit by and reminesce(sp) over the way
> > things used to be 15 years ago?
>
> Once again, you are making a false statement. She does not start
blankly
> a the ceiling. You are simply wrong- and what your doing is
translating
> her diminished capacity into something that it is not....
So you think her condition is NOT diminshed??
Hmmm.
>
> > So you're against the death penalty?
>
> Hell no... the guy who took that 9 yr old and raped and killed her
and
> hid the body- a swift, and accurate trial- and then kill him.
> The predators who kill with malice aforethought- swift, accurate
trial,
> and if accurately identified- kill them.
Then so much for the Winston Churchill quote heh?
>
> I don't think- my opinion- that diminished capacity where there is no
> pain, no life saving machinery required to maintain a maimed human
> being, no terminal illness prevented from reaching it's conclusion,
> needs, perforce, to be ended, simply because she can't
> join a table for poker, or add to a bowling team...
or even stand, or feed herself, or dress herself, or talk...
Vegetable.
>
> >
> > My only beef is that whatever they decide it should be unanimous
> > between the husband and the family. If her parents want to keep
her
> > alive then let them have their wish.
> >
> You've hit one of the major problems. Which is what bothers me.
> The state is not being asked to pay for this by the family- the state
> was sued for the care by the husband- who then, took the money, and
> prevented the care that was medically advised as reasonable, and
legally
> won for that purpose. He essentially stole it.
> Then he shunned the family that only wished to follow what was
medically
> and legally established for the women.
There's actually three issues:
1.) Whether she's PVS or not..
2.) Whether the husband alone should be the only one to decide her
fate..
3.) Whether the gov't should interfere or not.
>
> They all stood as reasonable, and he was the one who stood to 'gain'
>
> >
> > I hope you're not losing sleep over this case Mark? It's good that
you
> > care as much but I'm starting to worry...
>
> Are you serious??
> Maybe the people who care too much... they should be euthanized????
> Now... You've got ME worried :^)))
Like I said Mark, you worry too much.
;>'
>
> My man... considering real issues, real problems, is the privilege of
> being a citizen, of being a man. My three year old and I road the
> spinning teacups and bumper cars last night- and I came home to watch
> Wyatt Earp on TV, After the rerun of the MMA's show, which had a fine
> amateur bout, which ended in a one round stoppage, and was much more
> enjoyable than that idiotic arguing over the caps and armbands which
> really was annoying to have to sit thru...
>
I like that show too. I mean, to watch some guy hit pads for an hour
would be boring. They need a theme for the week. That being said I
hope someone picks Sam and sends him packing...
And it was a good fight too.
Mike
Mark Goldberg
> So you think her condition is NOT diminshed??
> Hmmm.
No... I said- her condition is diminished- why are you not reading what
I said??
> There's actually three issues:
> 1.) Whether she's PVS or not..
> 2.) Whether the husband alone should be the only one to decide her
> fate..
> 3.) Whether the gov't should interfere or not.
The government has interfered already. The malpractice- a bogus suit it
seems, brought 1.6 million of which none was used for her care- half is
left for his use. The state didn't resolve why he didn't use the money
for her care, and deprived her; they wrote it off. The family said...
"hey" what the hell is this.
Now we've got a shitpile. And she's not- according to a couple
neurolgists, a vegetable, so that leaves us with the question - shouldd
the husband alone decide her fate... when he sued and got money for her,
and then, didn't use it for her.
Does he then get the right to kill her???
>
>>They all stood as reasonable, and he was the one who stood to 'gain'
And he did, and has.
>
> I like that show too. I mean, to watch some guy hit pads for an hour
> would be boring. They need a theme for the week. That being said I
> hope someone picks Sam and sends him packing...
> And it was a good fight too.
>
> Mike
>
What the hell is this pack mentality bit... everybody ganged up on the
crazy redhead, Josh Leben, now it's the guy with the cheepo mentality of
taking a few baubbles out of the office, so he can show he was there-
like the people who take towels at the hotels.
I'd like these guys to show some skill, some heart, and have a great
time showing it.
And I'm looking forward to Liddel/ Couture- that will be a terrific bout
I guess.
Mark
Raul
> I'm curious... didn't they arrest, convict and jail one Jack Kevorkian,
> for assisting the killing of people who _wanted_ to die?
He acted unilaterally.
> So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants to live.
For god's sake, she doesn't even have a swallow reflex. Therapy won't
regenerate her cerebral cortex. This case would be non-issue if
euthanasia by lethal injection was allowed.
Mark Goldberg
>
> For god's sake, she doesn't even have a swallow reflex. Therapy won't
> regenerate her cerebral cortex. This case would be non-issue if
> euthanasia by lethal injection was allowed.
Actually, they thought she was quite capable of eating on her own, and
can still at this time, if they just retrain her...
Your last sentence says it all.... the nazi's were the last one's to
officially mandate this compassion :^)
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> C-Diff is a common nosocomial ( nursing home, hospital acquired side
> effect to antibiosi) but don't worry too much about it being in your
> home. Just wash your hands and there are ways to manage the problem for
> your grandma.
Just one thing about this.
If Great Grandma can't sustain herself thru these attacks of diarrhea or
dehydration, and she slips into a coma, then that's how folks pass,
without being dragged to the E.R. for live saving measures.
That's the way to go... with some family memebers around, with someone
to moisten her lips, and give her some drink.
This is the kind of thing to sit at a table with a bottle of whiskey,
and taught with the members of the family, and lay it down- she doesn't
have that much time; let's give her some comfort and life, and when it's
time, we'll all get the chance to say bye bye, and feel good about it.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
for live saving measures.
...Life...
>
> That's the way to go... with some family memebers around, with someone
> to moisten her lips, and give her some drink.
>
> This is the kind of thing to sit at a table with a bottle of whiskey,
> and taught with the members of the family,
...talk...
er- once again, sorry
Mark
mark_...@sbcglobal.net
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> mark_...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> >>> We aren't generally as "humane" to people as we are to our
> > livestock or pets, it seems.
>
> That seems to be all too common.
>
> The only problem is the possible
> > infectious disease she has.... CDIFF or something....
>
> C-Diff is a common nosocomial ( nursing home, hospital acquired side
> effect to antibiosi) but don't worry too much about it being in your
> home. Just wash your hands and there are ways to manage the problem
for
> your grandma.
The doctors keep giving her rounds of antibiotics to kill off the
C-Diff, but if I understand correctly, it was heavy anti-biotics which
caused it in the first place.
What would you recommend as treatment? Pro-biotics and yogurt, with a
round of milder antis?
>
> > That leaves my wife and her brother here locally; none of the
other
> > grandchildren have ever shown much interest or even visited much.
> > Makes for a hard row to hoe.
> >
> It's a hard rain, and when the others walk away, it's a cold rain.
> Can't but feel for you. I think an immigrant lady, in your home,
staying
> around, or a house nearby with your inlaws contributing for the
> caregiver's wages and supplies to keep great grandma comfortable, is
> probably the way to avoid even larger medical expenses.
She's paying for it from her own savings. A shame that she gets that
kind of treatment for her money.
> >
> > I can't figure out his motivation, really, for not letting go and
> > moving on *in this area*. Pure obstinancy, perhaps, or merely a
"need"
> > to win this against her parents.
> >
> Yeah... this thing makees little sense.
>
> >
> > I may not like Hillary or her politics, but she was right in that
it
> > does take a village; not only for a child, but for the aged.
>
> I disagree... it's takes a family to do what is their responsibility.
> Make people comfortable.
> Not the governments job. The families.
> Great grannies and such, wipe the behinds of kids and others and
that's
> what life is about- getting people ready to be on their own. And when
> they go downhill, it is the responsibility for those who got their
asses
> wiped to do a little cleaning up.
>
> That's called family responsibility.
> The village doesn't know your family, your memebers- the buck stops
here.
Time was when a village was a group of inter-connected families who
worked together for the benefit of the kids, the community and the
infirm; that's what I was thinking of. Today, even small townships are
peopled by strangers who really want to just mind their own damn
business. We pay for that in ways that are hard to see.
Mark Goldberg
> The doctors keep giving her rounds of antibiotics to kill off the
> C-Diff, but if I understand correctly, it was heavy anti-biotics which
> caused it in the first place.
> What would you recommend as treatment? Pro-biotics and yogurt, with a
> round of milder antis?
>
Depends of how severe, how long- they usually go with vanco and flagyl
together, until it's cleared, lot's of acidopholous, and there are some
other combo probiotics to use; there's a couple support sites out there,
but if you have an internist who you trust go with that- if he's not
doing enough have him call in Inf. Disease, and see if he resolves the
problem.
>
> Time was when a village was a group of inter-connected families who
> worked together for the benefit of the kids, the community and the
> infirm; that's what I was thinking of. Today, even small townships are
> peopled by strangers who really want to just mind their own damn
> business. We pay for that in ways that are hard to see.
>
That's true... but the substitution of an anonymous grouping- the
'socialist village' is really a disconnect. That's partially how the
medical system got screwed, though it is only part- but a family has a
chance, to be a unit, to work and sweat it out, and feel good about
digging their hands into the ground of their history, and taking care of
business. I don't mean to depress you; I know with many families, they
just bury their heads and can't see the forest from the trees, and it's
utterly frustrating. Do your best.
Mark
mark_...@sbcglobal.net
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> mark_...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> > The doctors keep giving her rounds of antibiotics to kill off the
> > C-Diff, but if I understand correctly, it was heavy anti-biotics
which
> > caused it in the first place.
> > What would you recommend as treatment? Pro-biotics and yogurt,
with a
> > round of milder antis?
> >
> Depends of how severe, how long- they usually go with vanco and
flagyl
> together, until it's cleared, lot's of acidopholous, and there are
some
> other combo probiotics to use; there's a couple support sites out
there,
> but if you have an internist who you trust go with that- if he's not
> doing enough have him call in Inf. Disease, and see if he resolves
the
> problem.
I think she's been thru 5 rounds of flagyl with no result; don't know
about the vanco.
Alcoholics definition of insanity: keep trying the same thing
expecting different results. :))
>
> >
> > Time was when a village was a group of inter-connected families who
> > worked together for the benefit of the kids, the community and the
> > infirm; that's what I was thinking of. Today, even small townships
are
> > peopled by strangers who really want to just mind their own damn
> > business. We pay for that in ways that are hard to see.
> >
>
> That's true... but the substitution of an anonymous grouping- the
> 'socialist village' is really a disconnect. That's partially how the
> medical system got screwed, though it is only part- but a family has
a
> chance, to be a unit, to work and sweat it out, and feel good about
> digging their hands into the ground of their history, and taking care
of
> business. I don't mean to depress you; I know with many families,
they
> just bury their heads and can't see the forest from the trees, and
it's
> utterly frustrating. Do your best.
Yup. That's what we're doing. Want to get her back some dignity, see if
being around her great grandson (4 yrs old and full of laughter and
energy) might help her spirit, give her good food and allow her decent
rest and have her around her family instead of a bunch of minimum wage
folk who are full up with dealing with the old, infirm, and dying who
aren't their own people.
Thanks, Mark, for the advice and compassion.
Very Best Regards,
mark evins
> Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> Yup. That's what we're doing. Want to get her back some dignity, see if
> being around her great grandson (4 yrs old and full of laughter and
> energy) might help her spirit, give her good food and allow her decent
> rest and have her around her family instead of a bunch of minimum wage
> folk who are full up with dealing with the old, infirm, and dying who
> aren't their own people.
>
> Thanks, Mark, for the advice and compassion.
>
> Very Best Regards,
> mark evins
Good luck... get an infectious disease guy in on it who is aware of the
chronic status and age of the patient. Acidophalous and another few are
added as they can restore normal flora.
The joy of a 4 yr old, of a family, is some of the best medicine- just
keep her clean, and fed, and you'll all be the better for it...
whichever way it goes.
And if it goes to dehydration, and semi-comatose status, there's no need
to send her to the hospital- just be with her, and moisten her lips, and
give her sips of water, and know that she's home, and so are you all.
It's nature's way, and it'll feel good having been there.
Mark
mike...@yahoo.com
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > I like that show too. I mean, to watch some guy hit pads for an
hour
> > would be boring. They need a theme for the week. That being said
I
> > hope someone picks Sam and sends him packing...
> > And it was a good fight too.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>
> What the hell is this pack mentality bit... everybody ganged up on
the
> crazy redhead, Josh Leben, now it's the guy with the cheepo mentality
of
> taking a few baubbles out of the office, so he can show he was there-
> like the people who take towels at the hotels.
You mean Chris Leben? Not everyone ganged up on him. There were
different people on different sides during the whole Koschek/Leben
controversy. Sam has been a dick from the getgo, and only moreso as
time goes on.
>
> I'd like these guys to show some skill, some heart, and have a great
> time showing it.
I think your average 26 year old MMArtist would tend to ham it up
whenever the camera is on him.
>
> And I'm looking forward to Liddel/ Couture- that will be a terrific
bout
> I guess.
Definitely. My vote is for Captain America.
Mike
Mark Goldberg
> You mean Chris Leben? Not everyone ganged up on him. There were
> different people on different sides during the whole Koschek/Leben
> controversy. Sam has been a dick from the getgo, and only moreso as
> time goes on.
>
>
I didn't watch the early shows... and I turn off the show when they
start up with the soap opera bits. I guess I missed the details.
>
> I think your average 26 year old MMArtist would tend to ham it up
> whenever the camera is on him.
I remember that show- the 'real world', which was anything but real.
I thought- now they're going to do this for all kinds of groups- and
since they don't have to pay them, they just hook the world to 15 min's
of fame.
>
> Definitely. My vote is for Captain America.
What shape he's in, and what a heart for battling.
mark
Raul
> Raul wrote:
>
>
> >
> > For god's sake, she doesn't even have a swallow reflex. Therapy won't
> > regenerate her cerebral cortex. This case would be non-issue if
> > euthanasia by lethal injection was allowed.
>
> Actually, they thought she was quite capable of eating on her own, and
> can still at this time, if they just retrain her...
That wasn't my point and who the fuck is 'they'? You haven't given a
single cite to back your claims.
> Your last sentence says it all.... the nazi's were the last one's to
> officially mandate this compassion :^)
Actually, it was the Netherlands.
+-
and the hell with her dignity, huh?
Shuurai
> So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants
> to live.
Umm... don't know what you're basing the above on, but she's
definately
vegetative. All tests have shown that there is nothing but lower brain
function going on there. No consciousness at all. She doesn't 'laugh'
or 'smile' or 'want' anything. She moves her head and makes faces, but
it's random movement.
Shuurai
Mark Goldberg wrote:
> Raul wrote:
>
>
> >
> > For god's sake, she doesn't even have a swallow reflex. Therapy
> > won't regenerate her cerebral cortex. This case would be non-
> > issue if euthanasia by lethal injection was allowed.
>
> Actually, they thought she was quite capable of eating on her
> own, and can still at this time, if they just retrain her...
The problem is that "they" are mouthpieces for the parents. All
of the independant doctors who have examined her - including the
court appointed doctors - have stated quite clearly and without
reservation that her condition is unrecoverable.
She simply *does not have* the part of her brain needed to exist
as a conscious being. It will never grow back, and there isn't
any other part that can take over. I don't care if they *could*
train her to swallow food. I don't care if they could train her
to dance the Tango. The part that was Terry Schiavo is dead and
gone and has been for over a decade. All that's left is a body
and enough of a lower brain to maintain basic bodily functions.
I'm a pro-lifer just like you, bud. But in this case it's just
not the same thing. This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
sense that matters. She doesn't think, doesn't feel, doesn't want,
because the parts of her brain that do those things don't exist
anymore. And there isn't any possibility at all that they'll
ever return.
Fifteen years is just too long. Let the woman rest in peace.
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
So why do you suppose there are so many "pro-lifers" who are against
allowing this poor woman to die?
Hal
Mark Goldberg
>
> The problem is that "they" are mouthpieces for the parents.
No... that was the prevailing opininion, from what I read... now as to
the present state, I don't know, but again; now it' the 'mouthpieces'
who are being blamed??
All
> of the independant doctors who have examined her - including the
> court appointed doctors - have stated quite clearly and without
> reservation that her condition is unrecoverable.
That is not what was stated. She is never going to read the Gettysburg
Address, but the court appointed ones, nobody took an MRI; no testing
and none of the rehab that was recommended. However, if someone bothered
to simply MRI, do some scans, open the shades so she could have some
light in the room, try to retrain her eating skills, and then come to a
conclusion about any of this, well... we would all be able to stop
guessing about this. And that 1.6 million for her rehab??
Maybe someone could squeeze a free MRI's, and a few more tests so all
this guessing could be over with.
I did listen to that tape of her communicating. She's no plant.
She's not going to the ball, but hey- we water worse than her here on
RMA, and their brains supposedly function.
>
> She simply *does not have* the part of her brain needed to exist
> as a conscious being.
Uh...I'll disagree with what you're describing- she exists, and she
isn't on life support nor terminally ill.
It will never grow back, and there isn't
> any other part that can take over.
Again, diminished capacity, is not anything but what it is...
diminished, and as far as growing back something, I question what ever
it is you want her to grow... back.
I don't care if they *could*
> train her to swallow food.
You dont'?
I don't care if they could train her
> to dance the Tango.
You want the frug??
The part that was Terry Schiavo is dead and
> gone and has been for over a decade.
Well...as long as your playing god :^)
All that's left is a body
> and enough of a lower brain to maintain basic bodily functions.
Now, I've not seen anythiny you've said that said... starve her to death.
Pain; that's a real to end life. Suffering, that can't be ended; she
isn't in that state.
>
> I'm a pro-lifer just like you, bud.
Neither a pro-lifer, nor a pro-bowler.
However- I do remember that if she isn't in agony, or pain, then what
right does someone have not to feed her.
That's my opinion.
This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
> sense that matters.
Matters to who?
Her family loves her, and it matters to them- the whole boatload.
Who cares what you, or I think...
She doesn't think, doesn't feel, doesn't want,
That is false- and listen to her trying to communicate with that
capacity gone, and the sound of life going on, seems quite there.
No... she'll never make a fourth for bridge.
> because the parts of her brain that do those things don't exist
> anymore.
Incorrect... you have stated something there that has no factual basis.
She feels, she wants, she needs- and now we're back to that MRI thing.
The one that has been witheld
And there isn't any possibility at all that they'll
> ever return.
Now, that family that loves her, wants her, cares for and about her.
Why don't you go tell them this and sit in their room and watch what
they say to you. Or do you want to just call them religious nuts
>
> Fifteen years is just too long. Let the woman rest in peace.
Now that's the crux... it's you who can't seem here, to let her live and
rest in peace.
You want to starve her to death... and call that peace.
Hmmmm.....
Mark
>
Mark Goldberg
>
> So why do you suppose there are so many "pro-lifers" who are against
> allowing this poor woman to die?
>
Hey ghoul, they aren't against allowing her to die... they are against
starving her to death.
Starving someone to death.
You got something against letting people live no doubt, you know, giving
them food and water, when they just want to live.
You are such a sport.
really, such a sport...
Mark
Mark Goldberg
Since many have stated otherwise... you have a problem finding out for
sure???
Mark
>
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg wrote:
>
> and the hell with her dignity, huh?
We're talking about givingg her diginity; where did you fall off the road??
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> and the hell with her dignity, huh?
Here goofy... this is what I said before
Mark Goldberg
> That wasn't my point and who the fuck is 'they'?
They... were the doctors who stated she could likely be rehabed for this.
Which was witheld.
You haven't given a
> single cite to back your claims.
Why don't you go trot over to the sites, that have all that info... crap
, it's all over the newschannels, and why don't you post all that. I
posted the timeline already.
which was way more than you posted.
>
>
>>Your last sentence says it all.... the nazi's were the last one's to
>>officially mandate this compassion :^)
>
>
> Actually, it was the Netherlands.
The netherlands???
Mark
Kevin Lowe
Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The problem is that "they" are mouthpieces for the parents.
>
> No... that was the prevailing opininion, from what I read... now as to
> the present state, I don't know, but again; now it' the 'mouthpieces'
> who are being blamed??
You're not listening, Mark. Brain scans have shown that her brain is
mostly one big bubble of spinal fluid. She can no more have a conscious
experience than a man with no legs can tapdance. That's not a
"prevailing opinion", it's just a fact. There is no brain in there.
> All
> > of the independant doctors who have examined her - including the
> > court appointed doctors - have stated quite clearly and without
> > reservation that her condition is unrecoverable.
>
> That is not what was stated.
It's the fact, though.
> She is never going to read the Gettysburg
> Address, but the court appointed ones, nobody took an MRI; no testing
> and none of the rehab that was recommended. However, if someone bothered
> to simply MRI, do some scans, open the shades so she could have some
> light in the room, try to retrain her eating skills, and then come to a
> conclusion about any of this, well... we would all be able to stop
> guessing about this.
You might as well try to teach a horse to sing opera. The physical
apparatus that make consciousness possible are nonexistant.
> I did listen to that tape of her communicating. She's no plant.
You've been conned. They cherry-picked footage to make it look like she
was responding to stimuli, but it's just random movement and noise. Her
reactions to stimuli cannot be reproduced, which isn't surprising given
her lack of a functioning brain.
> > She simply *does not have* the part of her brain needed to exist
> > as a conscious being.
>
> Uh...I'll disagree with what you're describing- she exists, and she
> isn't on life support nor terminally ill.
She's got a tube in her tummy because she can't eat without choking
herself. Without the tube she'd be very dead. In what sense is she not
on life support?
> This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
> > sense that matters.
>
> Matters to who?
> Her family loves her, and it matters to them- the whole boatload.
> Who cares what you, or I think...
That's because her family are stupid, or possibly mendacious... and I
notice you just excluded her husband from "family". These people can
think Terry is going to jump out of bed and tapdance down the street,
but what they think doesn't matter one damn bit. It's not happening.
> > because the parts of her brain that do those things don't exist
> > anymore.
>
> Incorrect... you have stated something there that has no factual basis.
> She feels, she wants, she needs- and now we're back to that MRI thing.
> The one that has been witheld
Go check your facts. You're wrong. At this stage any demands for more
tests are just game-playing. No one with more brains than Terry has any
illusions about the outcome of such tests, they're just a means to waste
time and money until (they hope) Terry's husband gets sick of the whole
evil rigmarole and gives them what they want.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Mark Goldberg
>>
>>>The problem is that "they" are mouthpieces for the parents.
>>
>>No... that was the prevailing opininion, from what I read... now as to
>>the present state, I don't know, but again; now it' the 'mouthpieces'
>>who are being blamed??
>
>
> You're not listening, Mark. Brain scans have shown that her brain is
> mostly one big bubble of spinal fluid. She can no more have a conscious
> experience than a man with no legs can tapdance. That's not a
> "prevailing opinion", it's just a fact. There is no brain in there.
Here's another opinion: let's not play games as to who we trust or not-
you and I have no expertise. However, seeing as how he had many hours to
evaluate her, and clearly the court appointed one's didn't, we all
might consider a nice series of MRI's and such- before we starve her to
death.
Mark
Renowned neurologist: Schiavo can eat with aid & is not in
‘persistent vegetative state’
By Joni B. Hannigan
Mar 21, 2005
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (BP)--A doctor close to the Terri Schiavo case told
the Florida Baptist Witness that the 41-year-old disabled woman could
actually be fed orally if it were allowed.
"The important thing for people to understand is that she can eat and
swallow right now,” said William Hammesfahr, a neurologist who has
examined Schiavo. He is in many of the videos circulated through the
news media showing that Schiavo is at times responsive and aware.
"They are truly withholding food from a person who is awake, alert, and
can eat and swallow,” Hammesfahr said. After spending at least 10 hours
with Schiavo several years ago, he told Florida Judge George W. Greer
that she can improve with therapy.
Hammesfahr said his credibility had been questioned at the time, but he
has since been vindicated in court and currently maintains a thriving
private practice in Clearwater, Fla. Despite reports attacking him, he
said he has never lost his license to practice medicine and currently is
involved in litigation surrounding the ordeal.
Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
in 1999 for his work in brain injury and stroke. He is a recognized
expert in treating neurological disorders, having successfully treated
thousands of patients using vasodilator therapy, which increases blood
flow to the brain, thus healing conditions previously thought to be
untreatable.
Standing with a handful of supporters outside of the hospice late in the
evening Mar. 19, Hammesfahr told the Witness Schiavo previously has
swallowed pudding and daily swallows almost two liters of water by
virtue of being able to process her own saliva and sinus drainage.
"That’s liquid and that’s the most difficult thing to swallow,"
Hammesfahr said of her saliva. "If she can swallow that she can swallow
food or pudding."
Other doctors who testified before Greer in 2003 had limited exposure to
Schiavo and did not complete standard evaluations for brain injuries,
Hammesfahr said. The court-appointed doctors maintained Schiavo is in a
persistent vegetative state (PVS), with no chance for recovery.
"Terri’s not that bad," Hammesfahr said. "She is like a child with
cerebral palsy. She can speak. At least when I saw her, she would speak
very slowly. She would sort of form words, she would move her arms and
legs at command. She could understand questions in English.”
Hammesfahr said there are at least 50 physicians he knows of, in private
practice and related to medical universities who have said Schiavo is
not in a PVS or in a coma.
In 1990 Schiavo suffered brain damage after her heart stopped. Nearly a
decade ago, Schiavo’s husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo,
petitioned the court to halt the dispensing of nutrition and hydration
through a feeding tube to his disabled wife.
Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, as well as family and supporters
have argued that she could improve were she provided rehabilitation
services. Michael Schiavo has refused to provide those services since
around 1993, they say.
Although Michael Schiavo says his wife would want to die, no written
request from her exists. Terri Schiavo’s parents have challenged his
continued guardianship of their daughter, citing conflict of interest.
Michael Schiavo has lived with his girlfriend, by whom he has fathered
two children, for 10 years.
Greer ruled Feb. 25 that Schiavo’s nutrition and hydration be
discontinued and in subsequent decisions ruled she cannot undergo more
medical testing and cannot be fed by mouth. Greer also rebuffed a
request by Florida’s Department of Children and Families for a 60-day
stay of his motion so that they could investigate allegations that
Michael Schiavo has abused and neglected his wife.
Hammesfahr said that about 30 percent of his cases are more severe than
Terri Schiavo’s, and that she most likely could improve, whether by his
approach or another.
"You can get almost anybody with a brain injury or a stroke better,"
Hammesfahr said. "I think that’s the long and short of it.
"It’s not that [Schiavo simply] deserves a chance, she deserves
rehabilitation," Hammesfahr continued. "She’s not going to get the
rehabilitation if she gets killed off here."
Each day Schiavo is off the feeding tube increases the chance that she
will end up in a coma, Hammesfahr said. He described what happens to the
human body when it is deprived of food and water.
"People who die of starvation, their acid eats through their stomach,
they develop infections in their body, their body starts to dissolve
from the inside out, they develop seizures, [and] frequently it breaks
their back," he said. "They have to have medications to essentially put
them into a coma to not have their body break their back or something of
that nature."
He explained that the process of putting someone in a coma after
withholding nutrition and hydration is part of an "exit protocol" that
involves delivering powerful drugs like Morphine and Valium to the
patient when they are expected to die.
"The danger for Schiavo is that if she is in a coma, she will not have
the type of monitoring that could help her recover if the feeding tube
is reinserted.
"Putting a person in coma is very dangerous,” Hammesfahr said, and after
7-8 days she might end up in an irreversible coma or with further brain
damage.
Angel Watson, a Pinellas Park, Fla., resident who works with the Caring
and Sharing Center for Independent Living, said she once was considered
to be in a PVS, after a skiing accident left her paralyzed, but that she
made remarkable improvements because of her strong will to live.
Referring to the two other times Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed and
surgically re-inserted, Watson said it is wrong to treat Terri as if she
would not want to live.
Watson questions Michael Schiavo’s insistence that he loves his wife and
cares deeply for her. Michael Schiavo, Watson said, has had ample proof
that his wife wants to live.
"She’s the embodiment of a living will,” Watson said. "She is a living
will. He’s tried to kill her twice and she has the will to live.
"What more [evidence] could you possibly want?"
--30--
Mark Goldberg
>
> You might as well try to teach a horse to sing opera. The physical
> apparatus that make consciousness possible are nonexistant.
>
Well, let's see, an award winning Neurologist, seems to think your
incorrect.
>
>
> She's got a tube in her tummy because she can't eat without choking
> herself. Without the tube she'd be very dead. In what sense is she not
> on life support?
>
She might be weaned off, and life support is not what tube feeding is
considered...
>
>> This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
>>
>>>sense that matters.
Uh huh, to you adolph
>>
>>Matters to who?
>>Her family loves her, and it matters to them- the whole boatload.
>>Who cares what you, or I think...
>
>
> That's because her family are stupid, or possibly mendacious... and I
> notice you just excluded her husband from "family".
No...I said the family- as in the 98% of them who want to care for her
at their expense, as opposed to the one person who used the courts to
sue for 1.6 million, copped it, didn't use it AS MANDATED, and wants the
remainder, after using it to get her croaked- for her own good of course.
And you call them mendacious???
These people can
> think Terry is going to jump out of bed and tapdance down the street,
> but what they think doesn't matter one damn bit. It's not happening.
No... it's you that demand she tapdance for you.. they don't believe
that... they just don't want to throw her over the cliff because she
can't dance anymore.
It's you that's hung up on performance.
You've established who's enough alive to be allowed to live, and not be
starved to death.
They didn't ask the state to pick up the tab. Which I think shows a hell
of a lot more credit than you've been able to give them
>
> Go check your facts. You're wrong. At this stage any demands for more
> tests are just game-playing.
Is that so??
You want her to hullaballoo for you, don't you.
... until (they hope) Terry's husband gets sick of the whole
> evil rigmarole and gives them what they want.
Why those dastardly folks,they want to roll up their sleeves, work, and
sweat for a loved one.
How evil of them.
Not like a higher being like yourself.
Yours, is the superior consciousness
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> So why do you suppose there are so many "pro-lifers" who are against
> allowing this poor woman to die?
>
Not a pro-lifer; in fact, I'm all for putting that child molester,
assaulter, murderer, in a room, with no shades allowed up, so he can't
see any sunlight, and not giving him any food, or water.
In fact, I'm for tossing you in their with him for 10 days, you get
water, no food; just for being the asshole of the world, and especially
of this newsgroup, and for your wishing so many good Americans, horrible
deaths, with your lunatic marxist hatefest for America.
I know, I know,
I'm no dammed right to lifer :^)
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
>
> How about it's the Family's business to decide, and two bit pundits like you
> and hal should butt the fuck out.
Not bad... I like the idea.
One of the things I thought was coming out of this particular situation,
was that the family was going to take that responsibility...
Mark
Fraser Johnston
"Shuurai" <Shuu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> The problem is that "they" are mouthpieces for the parents. All
> of the independant doctors who have examined her - including the
> court appointed doctors - have stated quite clearly and without
> reservation that her condition is unrecoverable.
>
> She simply *does not have* the part of her brain needed to exist
> as a conscious being. It will never grow back, and there isn't
> any other part that can take over. I don't care if they *could*
> train her to swallow food. I don't care if they could train her
> to dance the Tango. The part that was Terry Schiavo is dead and
> gone and has been for over a decade. All that's left is a body
> and enough of a lower brain to maintain basic bodily functions.
>
> I'm a pro-lifer just like you, bud. But in this case it's just
> not the same thing. This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
> sense that matters. She doesn't think, doesn't feel, doesn't want,
> because the parts of her brain that do those things don't exist
> anymore. And there isn't any possibility at all that they'll
> ever return.
>
> Fifteen years is just too long. Let the woman rest in peace.
I'm surprised the husband hasn't given her tontine therapy. Poor bastard.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
Sounds like Hal.
Fraser
Kevin Lowe
Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Kevin Lowe wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You might as well try to teach a horse to sing opera. The physical
> > apparatus that make consciousness possible are nonexistant.
> >
> Well, let's see, an award winning Neurologist, seems to think your
> incorrect.
Except, whoops, he doesn't address the fundamental point of whether or
not there is a brain in there. Did that escape your notice? Did it
also escape your notice that even the paper with the fundy name you were
quoting had to admit that his opinions were "controversial", and that
the best thing he could say about his professional standing was that he
hadn't yet been thrown out of the profession?
> > She's got a tube in her tummy because she can't eat without choking
> > herself. Without the tube she'd be very dead. In what sense is she not
> > on life support?
> >
> She might be weaned off, and life support is not what tube feeding is
> considered...
That's one bit of speculation and one bit of tapdancing.
> >> This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
> >>
> >>>sense that matters.
>
> Uh huh, to you adolph
Whoops, you Godwinned again.
You lose. Better luck next time.
> > That's because her family are stupid, or possibly mendacious... and I
> > notice you just excluded her husband from "family".
>
> No...I said the family- as in the 98% of them who want to care for her
> at their expense, as opposed to the one person who used the courts to
> sue for 1.6 million, copped it, didn't use it AS MANDATED,
Check your facts.
> and wants the
> remainder, after using it to get her croaked- for her own good of course.
> And you call them mendacious???
Sure. They're the ones pouring perfectly good money down a hole so they
can engage in religious grandstanding. There are plenty of good causes
that could do with the money and energy they are wasting on preventing
the biological passing of a body whose owner passed long ago.
> These people can
> > think Terry is going to jump out of bed and tapdance down the street,
> > but what they think doesn't matter one damn bit. It's not happening.
>
> No... it's you that demand she tapdance for you.. they don't believe
> that... they just don't want to throw her over the cliff because she
> can't dance anymore.
Stop lying. They want to discontinue treatment because the objective
fact is that the Terry Schiavo that mattered doesn't exist any more.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Mark Goldberg wrote:
>
> So how come they can take the feeding tube out of an alive women,
> clearly not vegetative, who laughs and smiles, and apparently wants
to live.
To all the people in favour of removing the tube... here's what I don't
understand. Why on earth do you feel it matters?
Terri is dead. She is no longer a human being; she's a corpse with
basic vegetative functions. So if her parents want to keep Terri's
corpse with them and "care" for it... well, it's unusual, but why do
you have a problem with that? I see no moral issue here.
Terri is not suffering. She no longer has the capacity to suffer. She
does not _care_ what happens to her. Why do you?
Laszlo
Raul
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>
>> So why do you suppose there are so many "pro-lifers" who are against
>> allowing this poor woman to die?
>>
>
>Not a pro-lifer; in fact, I'm all for putting that child molester,
>assaulter, murderer, in a room, with no shades allowed up, so he can't
>see any sunlight, and not giving him any food, or water.
Dude, did you hear about the man falsely accused of rape by a pregnant
11 yr old girl? He spent 3 months in jail before he was exonerated.
Imagine all the degradation he must've suffered in those 90 days.
http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3093321
If men like you were in charge of the justice system, the poor bastard
would've died a horrific death long before. I spit on your quick
trials and executions
+-
How about it's the Family's business to decide, and two bit pundits like you
Mark Goldberg
> In article <FzK%d.527$Ej1...@fe11.lga>,
> Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>Well, let's see, an award winning Neurologist, seems to think your
>>incorrect.
>
>
> Except, whoops, he doesn't address the fundamental point of whether or
> not there is a brain in there. Did that escape your notice?
If we could just have the brilliance of one such as yourself, we could
outthink prize winning neurologists.... Yes Lowe, he considered it.
You just missed it.
Did it
> also escape your notice that even the paper with the fundy name you were
> quoting had to admit that his opinions were "controversial",
Who cares what paper quoted it. If the NY Times, quotes an article on
the antiwar thing, do you say... aha! they're biased so the writer's
facts can't be used.
and that
> the best thing he could say about his professional standing was that he
> hadn't yet been thrown out of the profession?
No... he was smearedl, and they brought that up.... you of course, bring
that up, rather than what a neurologist, one of 10 I think who signed
affidavits that she was not PVS.
>
>
> That's one bit of speculation and one bit of tapdancing.
Again, I never said that in any speculative way. I simply reitered what
was clear evidence by her doctors when her husband turned all that off
12 yrs ago, and stated this since.
I just stated that that, was the prevailing view.
Your the one who wanted her to play chess again.
>
>
>>>> This woman isn't "alive" anymore in any
>>>>>sense that matters.
>>
>>Uh huh, to you adolph
>
>
> Whoops, you Godwinned again.
No Lowe... you've now changed the opinion of an award winning
neurologist, and you now blamed G-d for your own decision to play one
instead.....
I think it's soon to be moot... the decision by the judge to not do
anything doesn't give her much chance to live if they give no water all
that much longer. I think's now four days without so much as a sip.
>
> You lose. Better luck next time.
Well...that's creepy. But hey
It was you so that's not so unexpected, is it.
>
>
>>>That's because her family are stupid, or possibly mendacious... and I
>>>notice you just excluded her husband from "family".
>>
>>No...I said the family- as in the 98% of them who want to care for her
>>at their expense, as opposed to the one person who used the courts to
>>sue for 1.6 million, copped it, didn't use it AS MANDATED,
>
>
> Check your facts.
You check them Taz... the whole family supported the decision.
>
>
>>and wants the
>>remainder, after using it to get her croaked- for her own good of course.
>>And you call them mendacious???
>
>
> Sure. They're the ones pouring perfectly good money down a hole so they
> can engage in religious grandstanding.
I see, so he sues for 1.6 mil for her care, spends it on lawyers to
croak her, and they, want to care for her themselves, and you call that
what... grandstanding??
There are plenty of good causes
> that could do with the money and energy they are wasting on preventing
> the biological passing of a body whose owner passed long ago.
Here we go.... let me guess, healthcare, food for the children, housing,
peace initiatives, gosh there's just a whole slew of things they can do
as a 'village'.
Everything but roll up their sleeves and work to sustain and care for
their family member, on their own.
How selfish of them... and how insightful of you.
>
>
>> These people can
>>
>>>think Terry is going to jump out of bed and tapdance down the street,
>>>but what they think doesn't matter one damn bit. It's not happening.
It's you who want her to dance... that's what's makes your thing so weird.
>>
>>No... it's you that demand she tapdance for you.. they don't believe
>>that... they just don't want to throw her over the cliff because she
>>can't dance anymore.
>
>
> Stop lying. They want to discontinue treatment because the objective
> fact is that the Terry Schiavo that mattered doesn't exist any more.
Kevin, your the looney here with this bit... she doesn't matter one bit
to you; she matters to them. She has for a lifetime. It's you who want
to decide that she's not worth it to even feed.
You have no place in deciding what matters to a family, except that you
discounted one of 10 medical experts who said differently. You want to
disallow life, be my guest...
I voted that a family, can care for their own, and I like that idea of
rolling up the sleeves and doing so.
You support the governments right to starve the brain damaged to death.
Now- that's your political view, and I've simply admired
one family that took responsibility or wanted too, without the
governments interference.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
I love this... the guy confessed, openly, has done rape of children
before, and now..... Ta ta ta ta!!!
You berate ME for wanting to kill him. Just as you want to kill a women
who never did anything to anyone.
You are a pip... thank you for this one, really.
I couldn't have made the point more clearly, about the ridiculous
postering behind some of this desire to starve to death the living.
Now you accuse me of really being a killer who wants to take the life
away from future child rapers and killers BEFORE they do it, because I
think he's earned the right to be starved to death for his crime.
I love it... Ha ha ha
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> If that's all you can see, no point in arguing with you about the
> fallibility of the courts.
>
>>You are a pip...
>
>
> You're a self-righteous fool.
>
Hey numbskull... a pedophile, confessed to the murder of a 10 yr old
girl. He broke into the home, he assaulted her, he raped her, he killed
her, he buried her, he confessed.
A vicious murderer of a child, on every tv and radio channel for two weeks..
you argue about the fallability of the courst, when this killer, with
malice aforethought, savagely destroyed, and killed a child, and
confessed with the evidence already upon him.
And you objected to his being starved to death... but not some women who
wants to live, and never harmed...
You jackass...
Mark
Raul
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Dude, did you hear about the man falsely accused of rape by a pregnant
>> 11 yr old girl? He spent 3 months in jail before he was exonerated.
>> Imagine all the degradation he must've suffered in those 90 days.
>>
>> http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3093321
>>
>> If men like you were in charge of the justice system, the poor bastard
>> would've died a horrific death long before. I spit on your quick
>> trials and executions
>
>I love this... the guy confessed, openly, has done rape of children
>before, and now..... Ta ta ta ta!!!
Again, what guy? Since I can't read your mind, you'll have to
elaborate.
>You berate ME for wanting to kill him. Just as you want to kill a women
>who never did anything to anyone.
If that's all you can see, no point in arguing with you about the
Mark Goldberg
>
> I'm surprised the husband hasn't given her tontine therapy. Poor bastard.
>
> Fraser
You ever tried one of those pillows... dammed uncomfortable, I'd say.
Mark
Fraser Johnston
"Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:xL_%d.360$pd4...@fe12.lga...
How do you know she wants to live? Maybe she is miserable.
Fraser
iusedtobewi...@yahoo.com
You are turning the issue on its head. No one advocates removing the
tube, per se. They advocate letting the husband represent her wishes.
The issue, which is exactly what the courts have been concerned with,
is who is her guardian and whether he is representing her wishes in a
sound manner. The parents have no standing.
Mark Goldberg
> How do you know she wants to live? Maybe she is miserable.
>
> Fraser
>
>
Actually, since I've never seen her, it's not for me.
Those who seem to have been around her alot, including two nurse, both
said she was fine with being alive.
Maybe your miserable, how the hell do I know?
Mark
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
iusedtobewithit-use...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This reflects just how bizarre the advocacy in this case has become.
> You are turning the issue on its head. No one advocates removing the
> tube, per se.
You're wrong. Quite a few of the people in this thread were
_explicitly_ advocating removing the tube and letting her die. Want
quotes?
> They advocate letting the husband represent her wishes.
> The issue, which is exactly what the courts have been concerned with,
> is who is her guardian and whether he is representing her wishes in a
> sound manner. The parents have no standing.
I quite agree. The issues that _should_ be under debate are:
a) Did Terri ever express her wishes as to what should be done in such
a situation?
b) Can her husband be considered her guardian?
Both of these are purely legal issues. Morality does not _come_ into
this discussion. All moral reasoning is IRRELEVANT here.
Laszlo
Chas
> I quite agree. The issues that _should_ be under debate are:
> a) Did Terri ever express her wishes as to what should be done in such
> a situation?
> b) Can her husband be considered her guardian?
> Both of these are purely legal issues. Morality does not _come_ into
> this discussion. All moral reasoning is IRRELEVANT here.
'Morality' is at the *heart* of it.
Your 'morality' wants permission from the person to be allowed to die- some
statement made prior to her present state.
Her husband reports that, by the way.
Of course her husband is her guardian- that's what 'husband' means.
We tolerate a number of sorts of homicides- forgoing the option of a quick
and painless death for the agony of starvation/dehydration is the *weird*
thing. They've kept the meat moving for fifteen years- it's time to stop.
Chas
iusedtobewi...@yahoo.com
> You support the governments right to starve the brain damaged to
death.
The Government is not deciding to do anything of the sort! The courts
were asked to decide which party would represent the wishes of a woman
unable to represent herself. Following our societies well established
convention the court gave power to the husband. There is no question
that this was the right decision, and has been unequivocally supported
by every court that has heard the case.
What is so weird to me is the enormous disconnect between the way
"supporters" need to represent what they believe is happening here and
what is really going on. The big bad government is a strawman here -
nothing but a convenient scape goat for very painful personal decision
that is ultimately tragic. I guess its the only way to make sense of of
this terrible event.
> Now- that's your political view, and I've simply admired
> one family that took responsibility or wanted too, without the
> governments interference.
Terry's family, in the eyes of the law, and in our society's well
established convention, is her husband. Period.
iusedtobewi...@yahoo.com
laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
> iusedtobewithit-use...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This reflects just how bizarre the advocacy in this case has
become.
> > You are turning the issue on its head. No one advocates removing
the
> > tube, per se.
>
> You're wrong. Quite a few of the people in this thread were
> _explicitly_ advocating removing the tube and letting her die. Want
> quotes?
What I am saying is that no one is advocating the removal of tubes in
these situations. They are advocating the choice of the individual
which will result in the removal of the tube.
> I quite agree. The issues that _should_ be under debate are:
They're not under debate because they have been irrefutably settled by
the court in over a dozen rulings. Her husband is her guardian.
Kevin Lowe
Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Kevin Lowe wrote:
>
> > In article <FzK%d.527$Ej1...@fe11.lga>,
> > Mark Goldberg <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Well, let's see, an award winning Neurologist, seems to think your
> >>incorrect.
> >
> >
> > Except, whoops, he doesn't address the fundamental point of whether or
> > not there is a brain in there. Did that escape your notice?
>
> If we could just have the brilliance of one such as yourself, we could
> outthink prize winning neurologists.... Yes Lowe, he considered it.
> You just missed it.
Nope, he didn't mention that fact. Don't you think it's an important
fact, that she has no cortex? Why do you think he forgot? Is it
because you can no more have consciousness with no cortex than you can
fly with no wings?
> >>Uh huh, to you adolph
> >
> >
> > Whoops, you Godwinned again.
>
> No Lowe... you've now changed the opinion of an award winning
> neurologist, and you now blamed G-d for your own decision to play one
> instead.....
You really start raving when you've lost. Sad. Look, just try to avoid
bringing up Hitler next time and maybe you won't lose so quickly.
> >>No...I said the family- as in the 98% of them who want to care for her
> >>at their expense, as opposed to the one person who used the courts to
> >>sue for 1.6 million, copped it, didn't use it AS MANDATED,
> >
> > Check your facts.
>
> You check them Taz... the whole family supported the decision.
No, check your facts on the money.
> > Sure. They're the ones pouring perfectly good money down a hole so they
> > can engage in religious grandstanding.
>
> I see, so he sues for 1.6 mil for her care, spends it on lawyers to
> croak her, and they, want to care for her themselves, and you call that
> what... grandstanding??
Yes.
> > Stop lying. They want to discontinue treatment because the objective
> > fact is that the Terry Schiavo that mattered doesn't exist any more.
>
> Kevin, your the looney here with this bit... she doesn't matter one bit
> to you; she matters to them.
"She" doesn't exist in any morally significant sense, you idiot.
> You support the governments right to starve the brain damaged to death.
Where the hell did the government get into this? You really don't take
any notice of reality once you've found something fun to froth about do
you?
> Now- that's your political view, and I've simply admired
> one family that took responsibility or wanted too, without the
> governments interference.
Actually, you'll find that "the family" are the ones jumping up and down
whinging for governmental interference in a private family matter
between Terry and her husband. Once your kid moves out of home and gets
married their spouse is now their family and it's too bad if you don't
like it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you calling the whaaaaaaaambulance
not so long ago because the evil gays were threatening marriage?
Where's your concern for the sanctity of marriage, and your desire to
keep government out of people's private lives? Do you actually have any
principles at all?
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
laszlo_...@freemail.hu
Chas wrote:
> <laszlo_...@freemail.hu> wrote
> > I quite agree. The issues that _should_ be under debate are:
> > a) Did Terri ever express her wishes as to what should be done in
such
> > a situation?
> > b) Can her husband be considered her guardian?
> > Both of these are purely legal issues. Morality does not _come_
into
> > this discussion. All moral reasoning is IRRELEVANT here.
>
> 'Morality' is at the *heart* of it.
> Your 'morality' wants permission from the person to be allowed to
die- some
> statement made prior to her present state.
> Her husband reports that, by the way.
> Of course her husband is her guardian- that's what 'husband' means.
Sure, OK. I'm not a lawyer.
> We tolerate a number of sorts of homicides- forgoing the option of a
quick
> and painless death for the agony of starvation/dehydration is the
*weird*
> thing. They've kept the meat moving for fifteen years- it's time to
stop.
Like I said, there's no agony involved. She's already very, very dead.
> Chas
Laszlo
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg wrote:
>
>
>>You support the governments right to starve the brain damaged to
>
> death.
>
> The Government is not deciding to do anything of the sort! The courts
> were asked to decide which party would represent the wishes of a woman
> unable to represent herself. Following our societies well established
> convention the court gave power to the husband.
Who happened to get 1.6million, take another women have kids, and after
the money came in, remembered that his wife once commented that she
wouldn't want to be on life support.
This... after he gave up the vow of 'till death do us part'
disconnect?
there were 20 or so disconnects before this one came along. There's no
easy answer, is what I'm concerned about; and your easy rollover doesn't
cut it for me, considering the route thru the courts.
There is no question
> that this was the right decision,
Now that's something of a disconnect- right for whom? by whom? Oh... you
mean starving someone to death- that's the right thing to do- for you.
and has been unequivocally supported
> by every court that has heard the case.
Funny- there isn't one vicious mass murderer, not one vicious multiple
serial killer who has been starved to death.
Is that because it's too nice a way to die?
>
> What is so weird to me is the enormous disconnect between the way
> "supporters" need to represent what they believe is happening here and
> what is really going on.
I'm neither a supporter, nor an 'againer', but I think there's more than
enought 'disconnect' to go around here to see that the real solutions
for the problem have not at all been mentioned by you, nor likewise the
problems- it's all just a disconnect for you.
The big bad government is a strawman here -
> nothing but a convenient scape goat for very painful personal decision
> that is ultimately tragic. I guess its the only way to make sense of of
> this terrible event.
The irony is that there's some truth to what you say.
But I find it ironic that the dems portray it as sacred states rights,
sacred judicial fiat rights- and bow their heads.
Unlight what they did when clinton took the Gonzalez kid out of his home
after the courts all said, he had to stay...
>
>
>>Now- that's your political view, and I've simply admired
>> one family that took responsibility or wanted too, without the
>>governments interference.
>
>
> Terry's family, in the eyes of the law, and in our society's well
> established convention, is her husband. Period.
>
Oh...and that taking 1.6 mil to care for her, and leaving her for
another, which is fine, but breaches the vow, and the right to be the
spouse- why that's just a minor inconvenience.
Period.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> Nope, he didn't mention that fact. Don't you think it's an important
> fact, that she has no cortex?
It's an important fact that yours misses some things becaue you've still
got a chance to do something about that... she can't unfortunately
Why do you think he forgot? Is it
> because you can no more have consciousness with no cortex than you can
> fly with no wings?
Why is it you forgot, that consciousness is not defined as only having a
fully functional cortx. After all- you've got one,
and you lack a heart at times, but we don't hold that against you.
>
>
>>>>Uh huh, to you adolph
>>>
>>>
>>>Whoops, you Godwinned again.
>>
>>No Lowe... you've now changed the opinion of an award winning
>>neurologist, and you now blamed G-d for your own decision to play one
>>instead.....
>
>
> You really start raving when you've lost.
Raving my boy... is what you like.
you blame G-d when you can't have your way- it's your way
> bringing up Hitler next time and maybe you won't lose so quickly.
It's about winning and losing as always for you. The evil churchgoerers
vs the enlightened people like you.
Whatever the hell that means.
>
>
> No, check your facts on the money.
>
>
>>>Sure. They're the ones pouring perfectly good money down a hole so they
>>>can engage in religious grandstanding.
Ah... so your a fiscal conservative; I knew it - under those socialist
clothes of better housing, better healthcare- there's a mean old
conservative hiding under your skin.
Don't worry- your secrets save with me
>>
>>I see, so he sues for 1.6 mil for her care, spends it on lawyers to
>>croak her, and they, want to care for her themselves, and you call that
>>what... grandstanding??
>
>
> Yes.
I tell you- they just want to fake being self sufficient and care for
their family. Not like the socialists like yourself. You know it's only
real when the party has authorized appropriate dispensation- it takes a
village to be an idiot, or kill one.
>
> "She" doesn't exist in any morally significant sense, you idiot.
You don't exist in much a morally significant sense- but I accept your
existence. What choice do I have?
I accept her's as giving greater responsibility to my own- that is what
existences do, they define and defy each other- kind of like your dopey
socialist one is so reflective of your own vapid self serving vanity-
Taz's world.
>
> Actually, you'll find that "the family" are the ones jumping up and down
> whinging for governmental interference in a private family matter
> between Terry and her husband.
oh yeah, that bit about 'till death do us part'
a sacred vow, which he decided to leave- I don't begrudge him that at
all by the way- that's fine- but when you do that,
do you get to remember on pure heresay, no written document anywhere,
that 'oh yeah... by the way, my wife wants to be starved to death'
Once your kid moves out of home and gets
> married their spouse is now their family and it's too bad if you don't
> like it.
No... your incorrect. He abdicated the vow, and it's ok to abdicate a vow.
You just can't collect 1.6 mil off it.
Well, that'd be the ethical view, anyway.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you calling the whaaaaaaaambulance
> not so long ago because the evil gays were threatening marriage?
Not that was one of your fag friends who wanted to come in your mouth.
> Where's your concern for the sanctity of marriage, and your desire to
> keep government out of people's private lives? Do you actually have any
> principles at all?
A hell of a boatload more than you little man.
Mark