BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case

Subject: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:15 PM

The Supreme Court ruled against Gov. Jeb Bush and the State Of Florida to allow Terry Schiavo's husband to disconnect her feeding tube, much to the chagrin and dismay of her parents. I do not think that this is morally right. This is a case of judicialy sanctioned murder. As much as I do not like President Bush I do think that his brother Jeb is a very decent and kind hearted man. I applaud the extrodinary efforts that he made to save the life of this helpless human being from a very cruel death. I despise the husband who seeks to terminate Terry's life so that he could shack up with another woman and inherit her estate. I feel sorry for her parents who are trying to save her. My feelings are very strong in this matter. This is euthanasia as practiced by Nazi Germany.

                                                SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:37 PM

I am 180 opposite you Sol. I welcomed this ruling, and hope the woman's suffering, and the suffering of her husband, will now quickly end. No one but the husband ever should have been involved in this decision. No one. Not even the girl's parents, no matter how well intentioned they might be. But I truly question their intentions. They seem more interested in making their daughter's life a political football among right wing Christians, than doing the right thing by their daughter and her husband.

This decision is not just a victory for the right to die community, of which I count myself a member, but also a victory for spousal rights, which had been badly damaged by this case. Parental rights in law should never be allowed to trump a spouse's rights in law inc ases like this, unless abuse or neglect or some other negative motive or intent can be proven in court.

I believe the parents never had a legal right or standing to intervene in this case. The Supreme Court obviously saw it that way too, because they refused to hear the appeal of the Florida Supreme Court ruling that the state has no legal standing in this case.

I have to say, I couldn't disagree more with your opinion about Jeb Bush too.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 07:02 PM

Guest,
       It appears that even a convicted murderer on death row has more legal rights for appeal then Terri Schiavo. You have anti death penalty advocates arguing that death by lethal injection is cruel and inhuman punishment. They are even fighting for the muderer in Connecticut who wants to die and does not want their help. I submit to you that the lethal injection given in executions is a lot more humane than taking away food and hydration which will cause a slow and painful death that may take as much as a week. Hell! You do not even submit animals that are euthanized to that kind of barbaric treatment. Where are all the animal rights groups such as PETA ?

                                                   SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Nancy King
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 07:23 PM

I'll have to go with "GUEST" on this one. I have been watching this case for some time, and was appalled when Gov. Bush intervened to force the re-insertion of the feeding tube. The State had no business getting involved in this private family matter. Good for the Supreme Court.

Nobody makes this kind of decision easily or lightly. It's been obvious for many years that Terri was never going to get better. If it hasn't happened in 14 years, it's not going to happen. I can't imagine what makes the parents think she'll recover. And since she was married, they are no longer her next of kin -- her husband is. I doubt very seriously if he cares a fig for her "estate" (which can't be much after all these years of nursing home care), but I'm sure he does want to get on with his life, and I think he ought to be able to. Living with this kind of limbo is horrible for everyone involved.

Several years ago, my father suffered a severe stroke which left him unable to speak or otherwise communicate, and unable to swallow, which meant he got a feeding tube. He'd been a journalist all his life, and not being able to speak or write must have been hell for him. I know it was hell for my mother, who had to take care of him. He did have a "living will," stating he didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means, including a feeding tube, but for a long time the doctors kept telling my mother he would get better. But he never did -- just kept getting worse -- until my mother's doctor realized that if the living will was not invoked and the feeding tube removed, she would probably die before he did.

It was a very difficult decision, but it was obvious to everyone in the family that he (and she) had suffered enough, and it was time to end it. During that time, I had to deal with all the non-family members who felt a need to add their two cents' worth. One night I was screamed at on the phone by two people -- one a home-care worker who insisted it was murder and that we were all murderers, etc., etc., and the other an old family friend who yelled at me for letting it go on so long -- "this should have been done two years ago!" But the decision was not theirs to make. It was my mother's, and she did. It was the right thing to do, but definitely not easy.

Well, none of that has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, but it may explain why I feel so strongly that this poor woman must be allowed to die.

Nancy

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Sorcha
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:03 PM

I'm with Guest and Nancy on this one too. I watched my father die a slow agonizing death after being on a ventilator for 6 weeks in spite of a DNR order. It took him another 9 mos to die. Besides, Terri has been legally dead for 14 years.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:08 PM

In the UK a man came around from a full coma after 19 years. I wish I could recall his name so as to provde a link.

He opened his eyes, and his first words were "pepsi" and "milk". His mother had cared for him daily. His memory was affected to the extent that he still thought he was 20 yrs old. He thought his daughter was his wife etc.

But he is alive and improving. Before I read his story I was in the euthanasia camp. Now I don't think I could make that decision.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:09 PM

Sorry Sorcha. I am above guest. I too watched my father die an agonising death from secondary brain cancer. I would have given anything to have speeded that up too.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:15 PM

With GUEST, also...

And the Nizi comparasion was way off base... Way off...

And fir the record, if I'm in a vegetative state and the P-Vine won't pull the plug, will someone here please do it... I have my danged friggin' dignity, gol dangit.

(And no comments about me allready in a vegetative state....)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:18 PM

Terri Schiavo has been in a coma for 15 years. The family's life has been in a bizarre state of limbo for as long. Jeb Bush only contributed to their suffering. While the position of her parents is understandable, after 15 years if they don't "get it," they never will. Their daughter, as they knew her, is not in that shell on the feeding tube, and to drag her misery on is inhumane. (Reminds me of They Shoot Horses, Don't They?)

Rabbi Sol, you are more than entitled to your opinion, but more than just expressing it, you're playing powerful manipulative games yourself in suggesting that by choosing to end the misery of his vegetative-state wife this man is like a Nazi. And knowing the state that his wife is in and will always be in as long as she lives, you begrudge him another attempt at a life with a spouse and a family? He should wait 15 years (or more) in this purgatory? The woman and their children, who are now his family now deserve kind recognition for the apparently selfless role they have taken. The all-but-common-law wife, in particular, in understanding that the basis of their relationship might not be legalized for many years.

Blame Terri's parents for keeping everyone in this miserable state for years, don't blame the husband.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:24 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3052433.stm

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Teresa
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:26 PM

Well, I don't know a lot about the specific case. But here are my two cents on this matter.

I think it's a private decision on the part of the patient/loved ones. This is why having a living will or some such other arrangements is so important. Each individual has his/her own wishes, and they should be respected, whatever they are.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:41 PM

For those of you who believe in legal murder, why don't you just give her a lethal injection like you do at an execution instead of removing food and hydration ? You put animals to sleep. You don't starve and dehydrate them to death. Does a human being deserve worse than an animal ?
                                                SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 09:05 PM

My mother just died on January 10th. She battled lung cancer, emphysema, diabetes, and crippling arthritis right up until the very end.

She also chose, and we supported, going into a hospice program. I watched her die. Every single day. For the last two months. She never had a feeding tube, or an IV for hydration or pain.

I think, Rabbi Sol, you have never been close to death. I base this on your description of withdrawing food and hydration to a person as euthanasia. That is not only wrong, it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of what a natural death looks and feels like.

For your information, patients withdraw from food and hydration of their own volition when allowed to die a natural death. She lost a lot of weight pretty quickly. As she ate and drank less, her body began it's natural process of dying. In her last 4 or 5 days, she didn't eat or drink much of anything. She remained fully conscious until the day before she died. She never complained of any discomfort from lack of food or water or hydration.

She eventually slipped out of consciousness when her pain medication was doubled. This is referred to nowadays as "terminal sedation". It is done only when the patient is in so much pain, it is intolerable for them to bear. My mother would scream every time she was moved. It was a blessing for her, and for us, that the time had arrived. She had been suffering tremendously. She was 81, and ready to go.

Maybe you would understand more, Rabbi Sol, be less afraid of your own and your loved ones' deaths, and have more compassion about the suffering of others, if you read up on what happens to the body when it is allowed to die a natural death, without medical interference. The websites my family found to be of great benefit to us were these two:

Family Care America

Americans for Better Care of the Dying

It isn't euthanasia. It is caring for our loved ones as they are dying. We are all going to die. Or as my dad always says "Life is terminal. Nobody gets out of here alive."

Hope the information helps you. If not, I'm sure others will find it useful. If you click on the "Handbook for Mortals" link, and then click on "Coping with events near death" you'll gain a much better understanding of what quality of life, and death with dignity is all about. And hopefully be much less fearful, too.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM

And let me just add one more experience, R-Sol, for your contemplation.

While nuthin' as long, drawn out and painfull as the husband has experienced, I watched as my late wife, Judym died right here within feet of where I am writing this. Her mother and I took care of her through a valiant and couragous battle with cancer. Unlike the Schiavo case, Judy had some level of hope for the first year but after that it was another month long slow spiral toward her death. This din't happen in hospitals but here in our home. It was just the 3 of us, Judy, her mom and me... A couple months before her death, Judy's quality of life had been reduces to zero. I'm not too sure you know what that is like... We're not talking Nazi's here, pal...

I remember reading the Bible to her at night not knowing if she actually was hearing me but hoping that she was... About a week before she died things started to shut down entirely in her body and she like, ahhhh, went away. Yeah, the body was still alive but Judy had gone...

So I now how Mr. Schiavo feels... There is a point at which you just pray that the good Lord just comes for the loved one. I Judy's case it was both her mom and me..

This man has gone thru 15 years of what Judy's Mom and I experoence for a few months and I'm here to say that it was the hardest struggle of me life...

So, RabbiSol, you may think you are serving God but you aren't. All you are serving is some very nessed up set of values that someone, who has never been thru this, has instilled in you...

You are on the wrong side of this issue, my friend.

I know...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:10 PM

...another "7" month...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Sorcha
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:11 PM

Actually, Rabbi, I would if I could.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:28 PM

And my mother, after weeks of treatment for her metastatic breast cancer, couldn't accept the hospital's routine of painkiller on demand. Mom wanted it in a constant way, and after the frustration of no one responding adequately to family requests, the took matters into her own hands. She refused all medications, refused food and water. The painkiller was finally administered through a subcutaneous pump. And has been noted by others above, as she slipped from the final coma into death it was a relief, not a form of torture.

Rabbi Sol, you are addressing this particular issue with a lot of Jewish cultural baggage that isn't germane to the decision at hand. Name calling and character assassination aren't called for. "Legal Murder." A contradiction in terms, inserted into the dialog to assign guilt instead of compassion. It's simply not working on this group who have seen enough death in their own lifetimes to have come to a few conclusions regarding what is appropriate.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:33 PM

Rabbi-Sol,

I have to diagree with you on this one buddy. I enjoy your posts, especially the music related ones.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:39 PM

SRS,

We both know...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:50 PM

SRS, I'm not sure that calling it "Jewish cultural baggage" is quite accurate; there are a lot of different people that relate to being Jewish in many different ways than Sol's.

My wife and I, one a cultural but non-religious Jew and one a former Christian, both have living wills in hope neither of us will be put through the hell that the Sciavo's have experienced, and both of our plans include refusing both "life-extending" medication and nourishment if the end is inevitable and the path to it is slow and painful. I also believe that active euthenasia should be available in such cases, and I trust my wife to make that kind of decision for me if I am unable to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:52 PM

In the case of Terri Schiavo we are not talking about anyone who is suffering from terminal cancer or who is in constant unbearable pain. We are talking about somone who is in a constant vegetative state mentally but can physically keep on living as long as food and hydration are supplied. She is not suffering at all and feels no pain whatsoever The only one suffering is that good for nothing husband of hers; from guilt. He wants to get her out of the way so he can get his peter serviced by another woman legally. This case is in no way similar to the cases you have all cited above. This would be killing a human being in a most barbaric way. Let us be fair and compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

                                                    SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 10:54 PM

Rabbi, my friend. I hear a lot of pain in your posts about this, and I think in the grip of that pain, you have two different lines of argument very mixed up. I am hearing you are against state-dictated euthanasia, but I am also hearing that you wish for humane euthansia. Rabbi, I would just ask, is even humane euthanasia of human beings really all right with you?

Ah, there is the place where our too-human compassion meets our theology, eh?

Yet, must we not bless a Creator who gives us our own will with which to wrestle that out ourselves, one heart at a time?

It is very hard to find only pure compassion in one's heart... so, in the humanness of our pain, we argue as we look for it. Rabbi, I hope you find peace in this somewhere, and I hope when you do, you will send me a PM about it.

I pray for all concerned.

And Bobert-- aw, my friend. I didn't know. I did not know. That big ole heart of yours-- it must have been so sorely tried. I'm glad you still leave it open to loving people as deeply as I know you do.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:24 PM

Susan,
       For the record I am AGAINST all forms of euthanasia.

I was only using an example of lethal injection vs. witholding food and water for argument's sake. I was trying to show that we do not treat cats and dogs the way that some people on this board would like to treat a fellow human being. I trust that I made my position perfectly clear.
                                             SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM

Fine, Sol, may you be so badly injured and live for 40 years in a vegetarive state while yer family keeps a 24 hour vigil and looze their lives in the interst in keeping yor vegetative state in tack.

Like I said, you have not been thru this or you would not be so righteously indignant...

Step into my or SRS's world, my frined...

You are so wrong on this one, pal... So wrong...

And in defending yer turf? It just makes you more wrong...

Take a moment to *think* what you are saying. Reread SRS's and my experiences. Shakespeare, or somebody, said that we are all students and I think this is one time in yer life where you need to be the student...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:42 PM

Art, my reference was only to the baggage that Sol has introduced into the thread. He seems to be suggesting that Jews have cornered the market on horrible deaths. It's too easy to cite genocide after genocide in recorded human history to let him take that moral high ground. This includes many 20th century "genocides", but no mention of the millions of New World Indians who died from the 16th century forward. As horrible as the Nazi plan was, there have been much worse and over longer periods of time.

Sol said "She is not suffering at all and feels no pain whatsoever." You know this, do you Sol? So you've spoken to her? She told you she's not suffering and wants to lie in bed fighting bedsores and pernicious infections while she has a tube running into her stomach to pump in calories a few times a day?

You haven't been reading the articles very closely. You've decided that her husband is an axe murderer with a hatchet in one hand and his dick in the other. You need to let the dead die. Just because they can keep her body alive with nutrition doesn't mean she is truly alive. Whereas her husband is alive, and is trying to move on with his life. Where is your compassion for the living?

I can't imagine a worse torture that to be in Terri Schiavo's position. And if she's somehow aware under the burden of the brain damage and the non-responsive body, what a horrible fate to have to endure it for 15 years. 15 years. Putting myself in her place, I would have wanted long ago to slip off into sleep and leave it behind.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:52 PM

His dick is not in his other hand. Unfortunately it is in another woman' vagina. That more than anything else is infuencing his determination that Terri must die. This is hardly the type of person who should be deciding the fate of another.

                                           SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:11 AM

You are sick, pal....and no rabbi...

You try to reduce this suffering to a man, who has spent 15 faithfull years to a virtually dead woman, to this man's emotional needs...

How long should he go with a dead wife? 50 years? 100 years?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:28 AM

Bobert,

To be candid, step into my sister's world. I was unable to be there with my mother at the end. She went fast, once she had the news of the returned cancer. Two weeks, tops. I was there for much of that time, but I also had a young family here in Texas. Mom hung on, as the hospital made her more and more uncomfortable. She rebelled while I was away, and at 2 in the morning the day after Memorial Day Katy called to say Mom had died. I was scheduled to fly back the next day, to help spell Katy. But Mom took it out of all of our hands.

I truly believe that had the medical establishment been more concerned with dealing effectively with her pain than their worry that they were dispensing high doses of a narcotic she would have lived longer and far more comfortably. (Were they afraid she'd get high? That's not an issue with chronic pain from terminal cancer!) She was lucid, and in a position to choose death, and that's what she chose.

Think of how much further down Terri is in all of this. And how it is all out of her hands. Her husband is her only hope for liberation from the hell she has endured. The torture she has suffered is at the hands of her parents and the state and all of the do-gooders who would put their ideals ahead of the actual "life" that Terri's body is living. In the 1980s there was another case, that of Nancy Klein--her husband Martin fought several courts and pro-life "absolute strangers" who tried to gain custody of the fetus--to get the abortion her doctors felt was necessary to save her life. They finally did the abortion, and she came out of the coma. The marriage ended up in divorce, but she lived. Sol seems to be suggesting that Schiavo is choosing murder as more expedient than divorce. In making this claim he is traveling a heinous theoretical path. Schiavo has chosen to stay married to do what is right and best for the brain-dead body of his poor wife, because no one else seems to have her best interest in mind. If he were to divorce her, her custody would no doubt be handed back to her parents, who would continue to prop her up and prolong what her husband knows she didn't want.

His is a very selfless act, all things considered. More than most people could probably manage.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:17 AM

I thought rabbis were supposed to be wise men...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Pauline L
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 02:56 AM

I have been so moved by reading the stories of everyone on this thread who wrote about the death and dying of a loved one. I second what WYSIWYG said to Bobert and extend it to the others who have written. I am sympathize with you in your suffering and I am so glad that you can love again.

"Rabbi" Sol's allusions to Nazism and sex are crass as well as illogical.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,Brucie
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:28 AM

My grandfather died in agony as did my stepdad. Both from cancers. I would have helped pull the pin for both. However, I respect Sol's position. I don't agree, but I respect it. I think there would not have been such an outcry that makes reference to his religion had he said "This is euthanasia as practiced by the Turks on the Armenians" instead of "This is euthanasia as practiced by Nazi Germany."

Sol is humane, and he has had hard decisions to make before with regard to life and death; I remark about that because someone said he'd obviously never experienced that sort of pain in his life. Few people of the cloth have not. I do not envy him his personal agonies in that regard. I think it is wrong of people to impune his dignity. If you choose to disagree with him, do so. But please be polite about it.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:52 AM

With all due respect, people of the cloth are not the people who care for the dying. They are not the people who sit on the death watch, and witness the long term suffering.

IMO, it isn't all that difficult for people of the cloth to avoid the most painful aspects of death, even in the case of their closest relatives, because they have church/temple ladies to come in and care for their sick and dying relatives, while they attend to their flocks.

Just so you know, it is rarely men who do the caregiving for the dying. It is almost exclusively women, in every culture around the world, who care for the dying.

Good on Bobert, he appears to have been the rare exception.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:08 AM

With all due respect, people of the cloth are not the people who care for the dying. They are not the people who sit on the death watch, and witness the long term suffering.

No, we don't, because we have to circulate among those who are dying and sitting the death watch, sharing what moments in the process we can, because we serve SO MANY.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:18 AM

I understand the reasons for them not being present, and they are perfectly legitimate. But it also means that a person of the cloth may very well NOT have direct experience with the suffering, and likely are not necessarily personally intimately acquainted with the facts of dying.

I don't know if Sol is a Rabbi or not. But anyone who believes that withholding food and hydration from dying person--and a person in a coma for 15 years is always on the verge of death, as they cannot care for themselves, have high risks of many complications that can kill them, etc--is euthanasia, is just plain ignorant, a right to life zealot, or somehow otherwise reacting from a deeply irrational emotional level about something that isn't relevant to natural death and dying.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:51 AM

actually the US supreme court did NOT rule against Jeb bush et al. they declined to hear the case - so it is the FLORIDA court's decision which stands that the law passed to prevent the withdrawing of the feeding tube is unconstitutional and illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:14 AM

Bruce, you may have missed the link I posted above. It only touches on the geneocides of the twentieth century and earlier. (No mention of at all of what happened in Asia or India). Sol claims moral high ground based on his Jewishness and the atrocities surrounding WWII, like this is worse than all of the others. It is simply the one best known and well-publicized, and most revisited. The Turks didn't treat the Armenians the same as the Nazis treated those they exterminated, they simply slaughtered them where they found them, is my understanding of the deaths of more than 1 million Armenians at the beginning of the last century. Any codified policy of wiping out another race is horrible--and to weigh them on a sliding scale is a pretty bizarre approach to "how bad was this genocide compared to others." They're all nasty all the way through.

Sol's characterization of the situation, to compare a moral choice that is embedded with medical decisions and good science to any war atrocities is inappropriate.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:39 AM

Possibly so, SRS, but I know him to be humane and decent. This issue triggers many emotions in those of us who have sat and nursed dying people. I do not mean to lecture anyone, SRS. No acrimony. I simply feel maybe we could all take a small step back and realize that we perceive this with the vision of our personal experience.

What I am seeing here is many people whom I admire for their views, abilities in debate and kindness to others beginning to fight, and that really gets to me in a way I have a hard time explaining. It is like getting a deep cut an eighth of an inch at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:47 AM

This just seems to be such a BAD case upon which to hang a great deal of legal precedence upon. Apparently the comotose subject arrived that way due to self-destructive behavior. On the other hand, according to nurses' affidavit, the estranged husband kindly asked "when is the bitch going to die?!", and serves to gain financially even if the finacial gain is slowly but surely dwindling at the hands of the true vipers of the case -- the lawyers.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:05 PM

Since both of these events are hearsay (without merit), and since blaming the victim is such a popular American passtime (both individuals being victims in this case) I predict a long media run for the topic.

Brucie's right. We do bring our own experiences to this. And our own fears--for me, that I would never be trapped in a body like this for years and years. Even if I were lucid in there, with no way to communicate or have any control of anything, I wouldn't want to continue that way.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:23 PM

I work emergency rescue and respond to about 75-90 fire or emergency scenes per year. Some are very humdrum and others are horrific. I do know that from the time I spent as an EMR on ambulance calls, and from the occasional fire/rescue scene--well, I have DNR figuratively stapled to my chest in LARGE letters. I carry a 'living will' type statement in my wallet nad have made it clear to those who would have to make the decision on my behalf that MY decision is already made and that they don't have a decision to make on my behalf. Personally, I would not want to be that type of burden to those who care for me or love me--few enough as that number is, their collective pain would be too much for my conscience to carry into whatever follows thai life. Even too heavy to carry out of this one.

SRS, thank you sincerely for being so gracious.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:25 PM

I'm choked, guys... My heart to those of you like Bobert who have given the ultimate love offering - care in death. May I never have to do it myself, and may I never cause others to have to offer it.

Rabbi-Sol, I am usually on your side of the fence on several issues. But not on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 12:59 PM

Of course everyone brings their personal experiences with them to this issue--but that is true of everything, isn't it?

There are legal issues though, that I for one think are very important in this case. Two matter a great deal to me:

1) the State's intervention in a medical decision they had no business sticking their nose into, and;

2) the right of the spouse, not the parents, to make the decision to remove the feeding tube.

The Florida Supreme Court only decided on the first one, as I understand their ruling.

The second issue, the one of legal standing, is still in the lower Florida courts, I believe.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a legal process in place for arbitration when there is this sort of a disconnect within a family. But it is just plain sick that the parents took it to this level, IMO. Really sick. And utterly selfish.

We had a similar case which received national attention some years ago, the Karen Ann Quinlan case.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:08 PM

Sorry, I meant to also provide a link to the Nancy Cruzan case, the now famous right to die case that was eventually decided by the US Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure, if I am understanding the arguments being made by "legal experts" in the press on the news programs about this, that the Supremes likely turned down the Schiavo case because of the Florida SC decision, with this as the US Supreme Court's legal precedent in a right to die case.

The Nancy Cruzan case is the one most similar to the Schiavo case in terms of medical intervention. My understanding is Nancy Cruzan wasn't on a respirator, just a feeding tube. She died within a few days of having the feeding tube removed.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:11 PM

And people also deserve to know that it is the anti-abortion, right to life movement that is bankrolling this case, and pushing for what it calls the "Model Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act." They want to be able to trump families' wishes on withdrawing feeding and hydration tubes from the terminally ill, and those in comas.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:22 PM

In the Karen Ann Quinlan case the parents fought against the State to have her removed from a respirator. However, after she was removed from the respirator to the surprise of everyone, she was able to breathe on her own and continued to live for a long time thereafter.
There was not even a consideration on the part of the parents to take the next step and withdraw food and water from her to insure her death. That would have been considered barbaric years ago. The fact that such an action is being considered today and has been given legal sanction by the courts only shows how much our moral values as a society have deteriorated in the modern age.

                                                 SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:36 PM

I disagree. It shows that we have developed a great deal as moral, ethical, and compassionate human beings.

You either believe families should be free to make these decisions on behalf of loved ones, or that the State should make these decisions.

I vote for the families to make these decisions.

Again, anyone who thinks removing feeding and hydration tubes from people suffering from terminal illness or from people in permanent vegetative states, hasn't had any first hand experience with natural death.

Thank god for Elizabeth Kubler-Ross and the hospice movement, who continues to have to battle the right-to-lifers like Rabbi Sol.

And everyone here who says they hope they never have to deal with these issues, I can't urge you strongly enough to make sure you have executed an Advanced Care Directive, and that your loved ones have, and that you have all had a TAPE RECORDED--OR EVEN BETTER, VIDEOTAPED CONVERSATION about your wishes.

If you haven't got one, you run the risk of people like the Schiavo parents or the Rabbi Sols of this world deciding what is best for you and your family--which will mean you being kept alive artificially with extraordinary medical measures, like respirators, feeding tubes and hydration tubes. For as long as they can keep you alive.

As to the Karen Ann Quinlan case, yes she did survive after the respirator was removed. No, they didn't remove the feeding tubes. But to claim they thought that idea was barbaric shows complete ignorance of the case. They were in touch with Nancy Cruzan's parents throughout their ordeal, and very much respected the choice of the Cruzans.

It is totally obvious to me, Rabbi Sol, that this is just another right wing, conservative hot button political topic for you. It's also totally obvious that not one person here agrees with you, and is appalled at the way you are politicizing this case. That's why so many people DON'T support the stupid NRLC's attempts to shove their religion down the nation's throat on right to die issues. Too many of us have personal, intimate experience of caring for dying loved ones to buy the right wing political propaganda you are espousing, Rabbi Sol.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:44 PM

What about that "in sickness and in health" clause?

Anyhow, I'd be curious to know how many people who side with Mr. Schiavo also oppose the death penalty. Just wonderin.

I don't actually have an opinion about this. I don't think I know enough of the facts to make an educated decision. All I can say is, if it were me, I'd not want to be a burden on my family, and I'd want Mister to go on and live his life.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:57 PM

Therefore to carry the argument of the majority on this board one step further, we should also take all the Alzheimer patients who no longer recognize any of their loved ones and are mental vegetables for all practical purposes and refuse to give them food and water, so they will die sooner rather than later. Furthermore priority should be given to those who have partners with pressing sexual needs so that they can be guilt free when being serviced elsewhere. Make s sense to me.
                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:58 PM

"Too many of us have personal, intimate experience of caring for dying loved ones to buy the right wing political propaganda you are espousing, Rabbi Sol."

I don't find it to be propaganda OR right wing. I'm left wing on the political spectrum and I find myself in disagreement with the above statement. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:59 PM

I agree with the ruling in the case, and oppose the death penalty.

Nursing a terminally ill parent is a great leveller. I saw my father's death as a merciful release. The hospice treated him with the compassion and respect he deserved.

I don't agree with death as a punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:32 PM

Okay, fair enough. Just to play devil's advocate, I'm going to stir the pot a little more.

What's the difference between death as a punishment, and death as a release? The deceased is still just as dead. If all life is sacred, as some people believe, then by that same token, aren't all deaths equal?

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:39 PM

Kim C.

Not speaking here for anyone other than myself, I think people view death with different degrees of dignity.

the living left behind are the ones that have to live with that degree of dignity.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:40 PM

"If all life is sacred, as some people believe, then by that same token, aren't all deaths equal?"

It would be hard to find ethicists in any culture, at any time, that would find those "tokens" equal. I don't think it's a stretch to say that every culture has allowed as how killing in self defense is allowable. Therefore, with just that exception alone, no. all deaths are not equal.

It is the assumption that those who believe life is "sacred" and those who believe "well, it's all we got" have a common interest in determining, for their community good, how to judge our place in the commission, or hastening, or lengthening of that inevitability we all accept, "death".

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: mg
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 03:51 PM

I think she should be allowed to die a natural death. I think the Catholic church (if I remember the little bit I ever knew about this case) is involved by refusing divorce even in these extreme situations. I absolutely believe you should be able to divorce a person in those situations and remarry. And Rabbi you are unnecessarily insulting the husband and his new family. You don't know what his motivations are or what his needs are. To reduce a new marriage to "servicing" is really unholy in my book. I hate it when religion hurts people. Religion is hurting people in this and other cases. That is why I have great problems being a Catholic. I hope God doesn't read email. mg

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: LilyFestre
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:05 PM

Wow...LOTS of opinions floating around here...I think it is a VERY personal subject for all people! I can't help but wonder if maybe this woman and her husband had had discussions about what their own personal wishes were if such a situation were to occur. I know I've had them with my husband and I know that he would follow through with my wishes as much as I would follow through with his....100%.

I took care of my Nana while she was sick and towards the end of her life, while she was in the hospital, she would BEG me to help her die. She was in pain and tired and wanted to go, she wanted it over with. I held her hand and helped her through the very best that I could. I can still her her beautiful blue eyes pleading with me....it's THE hardest thing I've ever witnessed in my life! The minute I left her room, I would cry and cry and cry wishing that I COULD help her die, to release her from the agony that she was in. I would have given anything to let her "go to sleep" and stop her suffering. I think anyone who has seen someone they love in that kind of agony not have a different point of view of "life."

I don't know if Terry Schiavo was in any kind of pain any more than the rest of you...I wish her and her family peace.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:25 PM

A lot of people here seem to find it easy to make firm judgements about situations they only know bits of through stories in the papers and that, and square up for a fight on the basis of that.

But it seems strange to me that a marital relationship, which is, in our society, relatively provisional and reversible, should be seen as more relevant in a situation like this than a parental relationship, which by definition is neither of those things.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:28 PM

This is an emotional issue for me, too.

Something I think we also have to consider are the implications and ramifications of euthenasia as a 'policy' or a way of doing things. In theory anyway, my life is my life. Some will say it belongs to God or Canada Taxation, but that aside for the moment, if it is really mine to live as I see fit within the law and moral/ethical framework of my particular society, the it stands to reason that--given my adherence to those tenets--the ending of my life should be my decision. It is easy to write your own DNR order, and it has legal standing.

A friend of mine who works ambulance (somewhere in Alberta) met with the following: patient only able to keep living with CPR. The patient would NOT have lived a life as most of us know it after recovery--if indeed recovery ever happened. The patient's brother said to let him go. My buddy refused the order because there was no written instruction on the patient stating he could do that. Subsequently, he continued CPR and the brother was removed from the scene and the casualty transported (way fast). The patient died in the hospital about a half hour after arrival. What is important is this: If the patient had had a DNR order with him, he would NOT have been worked on because the Medic would not have been allowed to. That is why I carry one with me. I trust people to do their best for accident/trauma victims, but law is law, and there is NO way around that. And if a Medic determines that the extent of my injuries is such that I will 'live' on life support for ten years, and he also has the responsibility to do his/her best to keep me alive, well, I don't want him or her to have to make the decision to let me die. I have already made that decision for myself.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:41 PM

Kevin,

the irreversibility of the relationship (marriage v parenthood) is not the criterion used when it comes to which relationship supercedes the other. This is so in most European law (UK too, I believe) and in the US. I suspect it was driven by the Christian religion's statements on this (I don't know whether other religions have a definite view on the subject). In the Orthodox marriage ceremony, the priest actually instructs the couple "to leave their mother and father and go forth and become a unit".

It makes sense in the context of the need to propagate, to develop, to move on. It is reflected in inheritance law, where the spouse and children inherit, not the parents.

Parenthood is for ever, but we do need to cut the strings some time and let the child move on and have new, higher priorities than the welfare of the parents. And the reverse also.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:46 PM

I am all for people being allowed to die a "natural" death. However, the medical community has sort of put the kibosh on that. It's hard to die a "natural" death when you're on pain meds and oxygen.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:53 PM

We are talking about food and water here; not pain meds and oxygen.
It will be an unnatural death without food and water rather than a natural death.
                                        SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:03 PM

It always has struck me as the height of legalistic hypocracy for withdrawal of food and water to be somehow seen as an acceptable way of bringing about death in a way that doing it directly is not.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:11 PM

It is always risky to play God.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:04 PM

I suppose that's true, Rabbi, but I reckon someone would argue that since Terri can't feed herself, it's unnatural for her to eat. I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:27 PM

And what about someone who has been paralyzed by a stroke or accident and has to be fed by hand until they can undergo physical rehabilitation. Should we feed them or just let them die ?

                                        SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM

We have been following this thread with great interest and we are finally moved to post. First, let's get some of the facts in front of us.

Terry Schiavo collapsed in 1990 and her heart stopped depriving her brain of oxygen for a sufficient time that higher level functions like self-awareness, speech and swallowing were rendered inoperative. Recent MRI images show that the portions of her brain responsible for theses activities have decreased considerably in size. Lower level functions like breathing and circulation continue to work.
She is expected to continue in this state as long as she is fed through a tube.

Most doctors believe that she is in a persistant vegetative state and that no improvement is possible but some doctors disagree.

Her husband, Michael, sued for malpractice claiming that her condition was misdiagnosed leading to incorrect treatment and he was awarded one million dollars. During the malpractice case he testified that he believed in the wedding vows he took and that he would take care of her "through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer." "I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her," he said. "I'm going to do that."

During the thirteen years Terry has been ill, Michael has acquired a girl friend with whom he is currently living. They have a child and are expecting another.

Starvation and dehydration were used to kill people, especially Jews and the unhealthy, by Hitler (particularly at Auschwitz), Stalin and others.

These are all facts. Now for some opinoion.

While we agree with most people who have posted to this thread that termination of someone's life who is in a "persistant vegetative state" should be a decision made by that person's spouse if they are available, we can understand where Rabbi Sol's anger is coming from.

First, Michael has sworn to be true to his wife, not only in his wedding vows but under oath in court, but has moved in with someone else and had children with her. This violates several of the ten commandments to say the least.

Second, starvation and dehydration have, as Rabbi Sol says, been used to murder people (there goes another commandment) and is still being used to this day.

Finally, a question. Since exetending life by using a feeding tube is a relatively recent invention, we must disagree that removing the tube shows shows "how much our moral values as a society have deteriorated in the modern age." We agree that our moral values have deteriorated but removing the tube is not evidence. Nonetheless, one can make the argument that if we have invented the technology we must not deprive anyone of it. So, Rabbi, what if anything does the Talmud have to say about this issue? Putting aside the million dollar inheritance, Michael's "second family" and any other uses of starvation and dehydration for murder, must we do all we can to keep people alive (used in the broadest sense of the word) or may we be merciful to the patient and/or his/her loved ones?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 07:13 PM

The official and accepted Jewish Law (Halacha) in this matter is as follows:
      
    "You are not required to hook up a terminal patient whom the doctors have certified as having no hope for recovery to an artificial life saving device such as a respirator or feeding tube, if that person does not wish to have such measures taken. However, once that person has been hooked up to such a device, it is absolutely forbidden for that device to be disconnected and to do so constitutes murder in the first degree"

I did not want to bring religion into this thread to begin with, but was arguing from a humanitarian point of view. But being that I was now asked for a religious ruling you now have it in black and white.

                                                SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 07:41 PM

You know, this idea that people who either choose not to have the feeding & hydration tubes put in, or those who have them removed, are being starved to death, or that they are dying of thirst, is just plain bullshit. So I would like to know where this so-called medical information is coming from?

As I said, my mother just died on January 10th. Her doctor, an excellent physician (former chief of staff of the hospital, one of the areas best pulmonary specialists, etc etc) walked my mother and her entire family through all of this in the last 6 months, to assist us in making these decisions, and to allow my mother to give informed consent while she was still lucid and could understand what the procedures were, in case she became incapacitated and couldn't decide for herself.

Now, what that physician told us, and I have no reason to doubt him, is that when feeding tubes and hyrdration are removed, the patient does not suffer, and they absolutely do not "starve to death". There is a process of dying when body systems slow down, and eventually begin shutting down. The process the body goes through when it is dying a natural death is now very well documented in medical literature (don't make me post it here!)

So tell me this. Who is right? The doctor, or Rabbi Sol and the National Right to Life Committee? Because if Rabbi Sol and the National Right to Life Committee are right, and my mother's highly respected physician is wrong, this physician is guilty of something much worse than malpractice, wouldn't you say?

So who is right? Rabbi Sol--where is your medical proof that removing feeding tubes causes human beings to die of starvation?

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM

Guest,
       I do no feel that I should have to dignify your last question with a response. Any human body, no matter what physical condition it is in needs sustenance to exist. It is only common sense. There are people in 3rd world countries starving to death every day. I do not understand where you are coming from.

                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM

First if all, I've been waiting for a spot to jump back in and offer my apologies to Sol for first questioning his rabbi-ness and second calling him "sick" for his beliefs...

I am sorry, Sol.

With that said, I still find myself squarely on the other side of the fence.

We all have a spirit and we all have a body. The two are not the same. Once the spitit moves on, it is no longer part of the body. I learned this for myself when my wife died. Others may or may not ever learn it but that is not the issue here. What is the issue, in my mind, is that we be able to seperate the spirit from the body and accept that there is this point when the spirit leaves. Once that had occured, agin in my opinion, the person that we once knew, is no longer...


But, again, my apologies to Sol. I am sorry.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 08:50 PM

Guest 7.41 you are right in everything you say, from my experience. Someone who's body is 'naturally' closing down loses the desire to feed and drink. They do not die either starving of food or craving for water. They close down slowly and with the right medication it can be peacefully.

Our bodies instinctively know what they need to live and I believe they also know when sustenance is no longer needed.

For six weeks we watched our father being pumped full of steroids that falsely stimulated appetite. He ate everything in sight and was never 'full.' To the point where he had to be given drugs to purge the food from his body before his bowel ruptured.

Without the steroids he stopped eating and drinking. But was never hungry or thirsty. He lasted five days and they were the only five days of peace he had in the last six weeks. All he asked was that we moistened his lips with a damp cotton bud, so they wouldnt crack and bleed. He had the 'natural' instinct to avoid pain.

Rabbi Sol... a body that is dying doesn't need sustenance to exist. It needs to be allowed to die. Could you really sit back and watch a relative/friend be wracked in pain, just because you have the means to do so?

Mary Garvey ...I can't believe I am defending catholicism, but the hospice that provided our father the dignity to die peacefully was a 'catholic' hospice. Guess they're not all bad.

Guest 7.41...bet you're feeling angry as hell right now? Don't expend any energy on justifying your actions to those who have never been there...or lack the compassion to imagine being there. You have my sincere condolences.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:36 PM

Sol:

We asked the question about Jewish law to better understand where you are coming from. Most ethicists and physicians have a different take. They believe that there is no ethical difference between the decision to connect (or not) a feeding tube and the decision to withdraw it. This does not make Jewish law or your position wrong.

When the feeding tube was hooked up, there may have been some hope of recovery but now there's no hope or at least much less hope. So, when conditions change, maybe the decision should change, too.

So, it sounds like you are objecting to the removal of feeding tubes in general on religous grounds and, in addition, in Terry's case because her husband is such a "vance". Maybe you're right.

On the subject of "starvation", that word is very emotionally charged and perhaps should not be used in this case. It implies suffering and this patient probably cannot suffer. But, as long as the tube is connected, she will live and when it's withdrawn she will die.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:03 PM

Of course the word 'starvation' is emotionally charged, that is why the Right to Lifers are using it. It demonizes the decisions made by families about their dying loved ones for removing the feeding tube.

That's the game, folks. The Right to Life camp are masters at using and manipulating emotion--they do it with abortion, and they do it with right to die cases like this one. They do that, because they know if they keep using the word 'starvation' for long enough, people will soon be calling people like my family and my mother's physician murderers.

Can't wait for that special day.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,ragdall
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:25 PM

How would those who oppose the ruling, on the basis that the result will be a very cruel death by slow starvation, feel about the administration of a lethal dose of a pain killer, or other substance, instead, to bring the result more quickly?

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 10:55 PM

Ragdall, I am asking this again. Why are you saying that removing the feeding tube results in a very slow, cruel death? What medical information are you basing your "fact" upon? Can you provide us with the medical evidence that unequivocally states that removing feeding tubes results in a person who is near death, suffering a very slow, cruel death? Do you know the medical protocol of what happens to a patient who has a feeding tube removed? A respirator? Hydration?

Let me ask you Ragdall, have you ever been with a person who was dying? I ask, because your question about pain medication is totally bizarre. Why would you have to give a dying person a "lethal" injection of anything? That would be the equivalent of clubbing them until their breathing stops.

You see, people who haven't been through death with a loved one, don't know anything. They just don't know what the MANY medical decisions are that get made in the months, weeks, days, hours, and minutes before a person dies. They don't know what the medical protocols are, what the advantages and disadvantages are of the different treatments and decisions not to treat.

They just know that someone said that the patient "starves to death" if a feeding tube is removed, and that it results in long, slow, tortured, painful death.

That is ignorance talking. I can't even believe assumptions are being made that these things are done with no pain medication, no bedside care--what, do you think somebody rips out the tube, everyone walks away and leaves the person to die an agonizing death alone? I mean, think about this a little bit, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:19 PM

What I am going to say now is not going to fly very well with the folks here on Mudcat; but then again I am not out to win a popularity contest here, only to state what I believe to be right. Schiavo has everything to gain and nothing to lose if he succeeds in killing his wife. Supposing we give him something to be afraid of. If I were Jeb Bush, there is one ultimate weapon I could use to save Terri's life and the fact that my brother is President would reinforce that.
The magic word my friends is PARDON. I would let it be known that any person or persons who wished stop Mr. Schiavo from murdering his wife, by any means necessary, would be pardoned both by me and the President in the event that they committed any act that would result in a criminal prosecution, either state or federal. I am sure that in this right wing nation of religious zealots someone would take up the challenge. Believe me Schiavo would quake in his boots and run the other way before going anywhere near that feeding tube. And with this final thought in mind I bid you all good night. It has been a long day for all of us.
                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:58 PM

My father died of Leukaemia in the sixties - there were then no medical possibilities when his body would no longer respond to the packed blood transfusions.

My Mother died over some years of an autoimmune disease - that I suspect was a reaction to one of her medications - which cause the muscles of Te body to turn to jelly.


If ANYONE - the State or some "Right To Life" Wanker - wants to interfere with my family's right to make such serious decisions (and BTW pay the bills!) then they will be sued for the bills - my family will refuse to pay costs incurred as a result of external imposition of another's will on our actions.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,ragdall
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:20 AM

GUEST 10:55 PM, wrote:
Ragdall, I am asking this again. Why are you saying that removing the feeding tube results in a very slow, cruel death? What medical information are you basing your "fact" upon?

I didn't say that. I asked a question about those who believe that.

Let me ask you Ragdall, have you ever been with a person who was dying?

Yes, several.

I ask, because your question about pain medication is totally bizarre. Why would you have to give a dying person a "lethal" injection of anything? That would be the equivalent of clubbing them until their breathing stops.

I disagree with your clubbing analogy. I've held a beloved pet who was euthanized. It was quick. There was no apparent pain.

I do not know which substances are used for euthanasia in places where it is legal. I do know that a close friend ingested a lethal dose of pain killers and apparently, (from the police report), passed peacefully.

FYI, I'm not advocating euthanasia.

rags

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:19 AM

Re: the "Rabbi"s last post -- "It has been a long day for all of us."

Sol, you should have given it a rest after your previous post. With this one, you've left no room for doubt that not only are you not a rabbi, but you appear to be a dangerous sociopath. That contemptible incitation is on a level with advocating the murder of abortion providers.

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Pauline L
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 02:23 AM

I disagree with the statement that it is wrong to impugn Rabbi Sol's dignity. Rabbi Sol has killed his own integrity and dignity with his ravings about genocide and sex. I, for one, find his words disgusting. They are as lacking in dignity as the words and deeds of Bobert and others are suffused with dignity and love.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Teresa
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 02:53 AM

I second that. It seems that Sol's words come from hatred of the husband, and not love for Terri. So I can't consider any of his words to be in her best interest.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:06 AM

It is a hard position to be in, for anyone: To be the arbiter of when someone close to you, will die.

I know this well, having been an arbiter for the time of death of my father, my first wife, and my mother.

No one knows for sure if a person who is denied food or water, suffers as a result. However, in this discussion, people have been quick to villify Rabbi Sol for his strong feelings about the manner of Terry Schiavo's death.

Regardless of your personal feelings about the right or wrong of this case, perhaps a bit of compassion for Rabbi Sol's feelings?

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:10 AM

Guest 03:06 was me, RichM.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:47 AM

It's really not necessary for us to have compassion for Rabbi Sol's feelings, because this discussion isn't about him. As others have said, in this particular case, Rabbi Sol's feelings are pretty vicious and judgmental about the surviving husband, and don't seem to be concerned with the welfare of Terry Schiavo at all. Are those the sorts of feelings we want to be compassionate about? It looks to me like Rabbi Sol wants vengeance. He keeps using the words "starvation" and "murder" when those aren't even the issues in this case. How we are allowed by the State to care for our dying loved ones, is a central issue. Who will be allowed to make those end of life decisions for us, is a central issue.

Whether the husband is a jerk or not, is not relevant. Until the parents intervened in this case, the husband was the "next of kin" with the legal standing to make those decisions on behalf of his wife. Why isn't anyone discussing that very important aspect of this case.

If you were Terry Schiavo, who would you want to make those decisions on your behalf?

I don't think any of us is the "arbiter" of when someone dies. That just seems silly to me. Making decisions about when to stop or start medical procedures that may or may not extend life, whether made for yourself or someone elese, doesn't mean we are playing god. As someone pointed out, when Karen Ann Quinlan was removed from the respirator, she lived for what, more than 10 years with the feeding tube, never regaining consciousness? Nancy Cruzan, on the other hand, lived for about 10 days when her feeding tube was removed.

So this idea that we have the ability to control the time of death seems strange to me, only because I know it isn't a fact. The only way to truly control another person's or one's own time of death is to kill them by some means that will immediately end life.

Ragdall, I apologize. I realize now, after rereading your post, you were playing devil's advocate, and raising the question of euthanasia. I resented that. It is difficult enough having conversations about removing the feeding tube, and who has the right to make that decision when it can't be made by the patient, without throwing in a "well, how about euthanasia/physician assisted suicide then?" That isn't what this case is about, and if you want to discuss that subject, perhaps another thread would be appropriate.

The issue is really about the feeding & hydration issue, and who gets to decide in the event the patient is incapable of making the decisions for themselves. This isn't a case involving a patient's right to physician assisted suicide. Which I am opposed to, by the way. Just like I am opposed to killing Alzheimers patients, as Rabbi Sol suggested was the "next step" down the road from allowing families to decide to remove life support for a loved one in a permanent vegetative state.

For me, the "test" of when a person should be allowed to die, is mainly whether they have any consciousness, and are able to do basic things (breathe on their own, swallow, communicate in some way with their caregivers). I believe beyond that, one must look at each case individually, and the decision be made by the patient themselves via an advanced care directive or verbal instructions to their physicians and caretakers, or for the family to do so. Nobody just callously "pulls the plug" on the life of someone they love. It is an agonizing decision, whether made for one's self, but especially when forced to make it for another.

The decisions that need to be made are regarding palliative care when there is no chance of the person recovering, as with terminal illness or a permanent vegetative state. I know that a person in a coma can spontaneously awaken, because there are cases of it happening. But those are extremely rare. Most people in comas never recover, and never regain consciousness. In fact, in all the cases that have become notorious, the person has never regained consciousness. Karen Ann Quinlan didn't die when the respirator was removed, but her remaining life was a permanent vegetative state. Nancy Cruzan never regained consciousness. Terry Schiavo has never regained consciousness. After many, many years.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:20 AM

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:59 AM

milkmonitor, I missed your message when I logged on, sorry about that. Thank you for your condolences.

It becomes apparent rather quickly, from reading this thread, who has been through the process with a dying a loved one. All of us are deserving of compassion and condolences. For us, it's a personal matter, not political. The opposite seems to be the case for those making political hay out of this sad, painful case of Terry Schiavo and her family.

The Right to Lifers succeeded in polarizing the nation over the issue of abortion. Having found they don't have the support of the majority on that issue, they are now going after the dying, and trying to do the same. Not out of compassion and concern. Not out of the need to make ethical sense of our society's use of quickly expanding technological capabilities to prolong life without any quality of life. Nope, that isn't what it's about for them. It is about their punishing, judgmental gods' authority being imposed upon all.

That is what turns my stomach. This subject is much more "Talk to Her" and "Wit" than it is "Mrs Mike".

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: LilyFestre
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 01:52 PM

I find the "Rabbi's" last post to be frightening....MUCH more than anything else posted about this particular topic. Hinting around granting someone a pardon if they would stop the husband "by any means possible." That's just SO wrong.

If my priest hinted around that, you can bet I'd be on the phone.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 02:19 PM

Have to agree with that. Any person of the cloth advocating murder to wreak vengeance upon someone they disdain, ain't no person of the cloth in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 02:28 PM

I've just been through this kind of affair with someone I loved as much as anyone on the planet, my father. I had the advantage of knowing his wishes. He was of advanced age, his body was failing on several fronts, but mentally he had much more awareness of himself and his surroundings than poor Ms. Schiavo. The choice was between trying to maintain some form of life function at a nursing home or bringing him home and letting him spend his last sentient moments in surroundings he recognized with people he knew and loved. I am still pretty much of a mess over it, but not over how we handled it.

I think that Terry Schiavo had a loyal husband, a hero who stayed with her for years. But he was and is entitled to get on with his life. I have seen her parents on televisions. They are to be empathized with, but their expectations for their daughter are wholly misplaced.

It was not the place of the state governor to get involved in this very private matter. Jeb Bush had no business and no right to overlay his narrow views on another family. He made a difficult situation impossible.
Leaving a person in this condition is BARBARIC. Jeb Bush should be ashamed of himself.

EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A LIVING WILL. Leave a record of how you want to be treated if and when you become incapacitated. There are forms that make it easy for you and you can add to them if you have any special worries or requirement. YOU SHOULD NAME A PERSON TO ACT as your Health Care Proxy. This person interprets your wishes should your actual condition fall 'between the cracks' of the written word. Doctors appreciate having a responsible figure to deal with and call the shots. If the Schiavos had such documents this case would long be over.

Rabbi Sol, I suspect there is more going on with you than the bare facts of this case. I think you should re-read your last post and talk it over with someone you respect. Mr. Schiavo may have had other motives, we are no mind readers. But a dozen or more years of no brain activity speaks for itself.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schizo Case
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:20 PM

.... I dunno, some people have been active on the Mudcat for nearly that long...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,ragdall
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 03:27 AM

In the UK a man came around from a full coma after 19 years. I wish I could recall his name so as to provde a link.

He opened his eyes, and his first words were "pepsi" and "milk". His mother had cared for him daily. His memory was affected to the extent that he still thought he was 20 yrs old. He thought his daughter was his wife etc.

But he is alive and improving. Before I read his story I was in the euthanasia camp. Now I don't think I could make that decision.

GUEST, 24 Jan 05 - 08:08 PM
look here?
rags

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 07:10 AM

I've already acknowledged that these miracles rarely happen. They also don't happen to nearly every person on the planet who ends up in a permanent vegetative state.

I don't even agree that removing life support is euthanasia. I believe lethal injections are, but not removing feeding tubes, hydration & respirators. If the body cannot survive without these things, removing them simply allows for a natural death to occur.

It is technology keeping people alive artificially being discussed here. A generation or two ago, none of this would have been an issue. We need to come to grips with the technological advances ethically, but without people screaming "murderers!" like the Right to Lifers do about abortion and end of life palliative care decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,pavlova
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 07:41 AM

Respect is something earned, no one has a divine right to it. It is dangerous for any person to be respected because of their position, especially religious workers or politicians.

Nurses I hold in the highest esteem, they do the caring, the hard yards.

Priests and politicians - well, they have their dogma, but are they in there mopping the floors and disinfecting their hands after wiping bums?

Too many decisions are made for the wrong reasons, and whenever people are shocked, self righteous or finger pointing, then its not about finding an ethical way, its about creating followers, a dangerous thing.

I'm with Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 07:14 PM

Thankee, pavlova...

Just another thought, I'd like to know how many folks who think like Rabbi Sol who support the death penalty, or a war in Iraq that has killed obver 100,000 innocent people, or even the fact that 1 in 5 American kids live in poverty?

Just a sidebar?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,h
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 05:59 AM

I'm a Nurse, working in a Nursing home.

A lovely lady, who had lived in the home for many years, gradually became more unwell and in november she lost the ability to swallow.

Due to a range of other health/medical issues it was not possible to give her food or fluids by artificial means.
This was shocking to her family & carers, and we were all extremely concerned as to whether she would be in pain or distress.

She wasn't.

Not a representative sample I'm sure, but a powerful personal experience.

I only know what has been reported about Terry's situation. I'm sure that as she is in a deep coma she would not in in pain or distress should fluids be withdrawn.


I fully agree with Robomatic about increasing the use of advance directives/ living wills.

H

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:31 PM

Ready for a shock?





I don't agree with Bush (either of them) or the congress on this issue. The Supreme Court did right by denying to hear the case after the Florida courts ruled on this.
Comparing this case with abortion, or medically assisted suicide, or any other thing it has been compared to in this thread is like comparing apples to oranges.
After doing some thinking on this particular subject, I have come to the following conclusion. It has to do with spousal rights.

I think that the husband/wife should be in full control of the health concerns of their spouse and decisions should be made based upon medical opinions in the absence of any medical or personal directives left by the victim.
Now the issue comes up of how much awareness, if any, that Terri has. If the doctors are saying that her awareness is non-existent and her motions are caused by brain stem activity only and not actual cerebral stimuli with any hope of any recovery, then the husband should be able to, without any outside influence, be able to make the decision to disconnect OR continue artificial means of life support.
I believe the Bible when it says that one should leave his/her father and mother and be with their spouse and the two should become one. This puts, I feel, the responsibility on the medical care decisions, among a ton of others, on the spouse of the affected. Now if the spouse wants to seek the opinions of the extended family members and include them in the decision making process then that, of course, would be the right thing to do as far as in being a compassionate human being. But the ultimate decision needs to be with the spouse.
This case brings out so many exceptions, however, in that the husband has a girlfriend and wants to marry her. There is a large sum of money involved in a life insurance policy. Some doctors have said that there may be hope for some type of rehabilitation. Have these doctors had a chance to examine her? It seems to have made sense that with all of the hype of the case that they have. I read last week that Terri's father along with an investor/lawyer put the full amount of the insurance policy into an account and told her husband that he could have the money if he would divorce her and let them make her medical decisions. He refused to do so. So what does this say? It says to me that he believes the doctors, however many medical opinions that they have received, that there is no chance of her regaining a functional consciousness and being able to communicate. It tells me that even though he is with another woman socially, he still cares about the well being of his wife. Now does that mean that he is right about being with that other woman....NO...absolutely not. It's reprehensible and socially unacceptable but I think that he is still doing the right thing compassionately and making the decision that he says that she communicated to him known to the doctors and to both of their families. If he is lying, then shame on him and he will have to live with that decision for the rest of his life and into eternity.

People say that this issue would be moot if Terri had left an advanced directive and they would be absolutely right. But not everybody is going to do this, especially young, seemingly healthy people because this would make them face their mortality....something that not many people spend a lot of time thinking about. It's a shame but that's just the way that it is.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:32 PM

Hubby, I appreciate your perspective. But the legal rights of Terri Schiavo shouldn't be determined by the religious beliefs of anyone, except Terri Schiavo and her husband. The parents should never have been given legal standing in this case.

And there is a connection between the anti-abortionists/Right to Life movement and this case--it is funded and and backed by the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:46 PM

Just heard that her feeding tube has been disconnected. This gives all parties about a week to settle the matter.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 04:32 PM

Guest,

My point was that exactly. Nobody has the right to make the decision to remove or continue except Terri and/or her husband. I do though believe, although I do not think that it needs to be a requirement, that the husband should be smart enough to take in all sides of the argument from all interested parties (i.e. immediate family, clergy (if religious)) but the responsibility for making the decision and then living with that decision lies squarely on his shoulders.

If my wife told me to pull the plug if she ever ended up in the same condition, then you bet your ass I would. Not only to ease her suffering, if any, but because I would consider it an honor and treat it as her last request and rest well at night knowing that I loved her enough to overlook my selfish feelings of wanting her with me rather than letting her lay there and be only the shell of what her essence really is.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: pdq
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:44 PM

There are several threads on this topic, but this one seems more thoughtful and civilized that the others. Thank you Rabbi-Sol for starting it.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:49 PM

I hope all of you who do not agree that her parents have no say get to watch your child die before your eyes, also.

Deal with that.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 10:03 PM

I love my parents, but I would NEVER want my parents to be given power over my spouse in an issue like this. NEVER!!! They simply don't know me intimately like my spouse does. That simple.

There are always a lot of people connected by blood and marriage and friendship who have an interest in the outcome in cases like these. But it doesn't mean they should have a say in them, or be able to overrule the legal guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 11:40 PM

Only if you think watching your brain-dead child in a hospital setting for 15-years is a reasonable alternative, MG. Those parents have been seduced by the hyperbole of the religious right into thinking that being sustained mechanically by stomach tube for 15 years is "life."

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 11:46 PM

Ahhhhh, please see my post on the other thread...

Thanks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 11:49 PM

I read the latest news in the Telegraph online that GWB will sign a bill preventing Terry Schiavo from dying. Surely the case for this unforunate family is now being made worse by the intervention and name calling of both policitians and lawyers of all hues added to which the smears by members of the wifes family are not helping.

My father nursed my step-mother for many years as she declined due to altzhiemers. He looked after her as she went through the 'odd behaviour' stage and continued to look after her after she had a stroke. He knew there was no way of her recovering, he spent a small fortune on drugs which for a period regressed her illness, but then she went over the edge and into the really odd behaviour stage.

It was an awfull thing to see some one you love (she was never a wicked step-mother)degenrate into someone you know to look at but is not the same person who you have loved.

Mercifully she passed away peacefully and unassisted. This made me think what would I want if it were me in such a condition.

Terry Schiavo is in a permanent vegitative state, nothing can bring her back, her husband wants her to die with some remaining dignity. I would totally agree with him.

I do not want to be ever left in such a condition, nor do I want to put my family through torment, should it ever happen, by having them watch me become something I am not.

Living wills should be allowed and respected for adults.

The case becomes more complex when it is a child and for parents to have to make such a decision must be the most traumatic and tragic choice of their lives.

This issue is so contentious as life is sacred whether you believe in God or not, but also the choice of a reasonably dignified death under certain circumstances should also be held sacred.

Whatever, it is an issue that will bring out the views of many people, nice to see that so many of the posts I have read on this have been thoughtful and coherant.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Boab
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:28 AM

I don't have a view either way in this, as I don't know all the facts, neither concerning the mental condition of the lady who is brain-damaged, or of the motives of the husband in the case. But I find a sick feeling in my gut when I see something which has been the death of many thousands, and setting sail fair for being the death of thousands more "cutting short his holiday" in order to lead the high-profile charge "to save a life". Either he is a monumental hypocrite, or he's another case of braindead. I don't merely doubt his sincerity; I think there is none there at all.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:26 AM

I have to rise to Martin Gibbon's bait, if only to inform:

My sister in Greece did watch her 11-year old daughter die - of cancer of the ovaries, which metastacised all over her little body. In the end little Olga was in agony, and my sister, wife of a doctor and a doctor herself, but a mother above all, asked the hospital staff to give her a very powerful anaesthetic (don't know the name) that she could inject herself into her daughter, to end her suffering. Had Olga been on life support, my sister would have yanked the tubes herself. She was not allowed to do any of that, of course, the hospital staff being more "enlightened" like Martin. So she had to continue seeing little Olga writhe in pain for another two days.

Was justice and propriety served?

And to show that my sister had full presence of mind: I was getting married in the UK the previous weekend. I was all for postponing the wedding, but she insisted that we go ahead, and forced my father to make the trip to be at the service for us, because (her words) life goes on and we must not allow death to win by allowing him to sadden us.

Now, Terri Schiavo's parents may proclaim faith in God and all that; but in my view their unholy persistence in holding on to life here and now at any price belies their lack of belief in an afterlife and the redemption that comes with it. Some Christians...

Am I proud of my sis? You bet your arse I am!
Martin, you have the morality of an amoeba.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:41 PM

I think terrys parents are doing the right thing their has been people that have came outta the same state that terry is in. God still works wonders if you just belive. i think terry's husband should stop all this non since and let it go let her parents take care of her if he wants to move on with his soon to be wife. Taking her feeding tube out is doing nothing but making him a murder. starving her is not the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,cathy
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:48 PM

I agree with the last statement i think terrys husband should not leave the feeding tube out and let her die. He married her for better or worse up date all schiavos test's don't murder her.if you can't go on give the respect and let her parents take over. i think it is beond wrong to take her feeding tube out and to go so low as to not let her parents have a say so.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:53 PM

i am 100 percent with you i think it is murder to take her feeding tube out.Are they going to do this to all people who can't speek for their shelf or who doesn't have a will. I am agest terry's husband 1000 percent. HE IS NOTHING BUT A MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:02 PM

You are right, Guest, and their are MudCatters here who support killing babies also. Why? Because a broad wanted to fuck a guy and got knocked up.

I'm not talking about rape here. I am talking about the women who just are careless and irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:06 PM

Delightful to see how scrupulously you stand for the preservation of life, Martin -- as long as it is not Iraqi women and children, who are disposable. What ridiculous hypocrisy!


A

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:34 PM

Sol made a judgement of what "would have been considered barbaric years ago"...

20 years ago I had dozens of nursing friends. Those that worked in nursing homes frequently were given orders to withdraw food and water from patients who had lost consciousness along with the swallow reflex. Along with family approval it was the doctor's call to give the order.

The nurses who snuck a damp cloth into the room and squeezed a few drops of water into the mouths of the condemned were reprimanded.

The process of death is a difficult albeit natural act for most people to contend with. The "rabbi" included.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:42 PM

el Greko George, I would be very proud to belong to such a family as yours.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:48 PM

Donuel:
I suggest that the major change from those days you mention to these is that now we live in more litigious times. We can still have humane end-of-life treatment, but that little piece of paper (living will or health care proxy) MUST be made out and signed or significant disagreements may blow out of all proportion. Some good may come out of this if people learn that lesson.
My parents had these documents, and by assigning a family member as point person, things went very smoothly. The medical people knew who to talk to, who had responsibility for decisions, hence they were helpful and eager to help with the proper decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:26 AM

Rabbi Sol said, in part:

It appears that even a convicted murderer on death row has more legal rights for appeal then Terri Schiavo.

Awwww, come onnnn!! There's been legal action after legal action, and appeal after appeal in this case. Nineteen judges, not counting the federal appeals judges. All finding for the husband. You're flat-out wrong on that one.

I submit to you that the lethal injection given in executions is a lot more humane than taking away food and hydration which will cause a slow and painful death that may take as much as a week.

I submit right back at you that lack of food and dehydration does not produce a painful death, despite the evident propagandistic attractiveness of that expression to you. Particularly so in her case, but otherwise too. As the body proceeds to call on fat and muscle to sustain itself, the ketone level rises in the blood, which dulls appetite and hunger sensations. Eventually the ketone levels affect one of the organs (and I'm sorry, I can't remember which one or ones, particularly), which shut down and death ensues.

You express one of several positions of Jewish thought on the subject of removal of the feeding and nutrition tubes. One such position is of course as you seem to express it, that removal of the tube is in effect an aggressive act which kills the patient. This might be a meritorious argument if the feeding and hydration were treating the patient's condition. But another perfectly good Jewish outlook is that if all the feeding and hydration does is to delay death of the body, rather than treating the condition, its removal is not the cause of death.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:44 AM

Let her rest in peace soon.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:47 AM

" can physically keep on living"
That's not living... that's keeping meat alive... there's a BIG difference...

"I am AGAINST all forms of euthanasia"
Then I dismiss your opinion as closed minded...

"This is euthanasia as practiced by Nazi Germany."
Hey... The Nazis worked HARD at being evil... don't pin that title on just any little Tom Dick or Harry that comes along...

"I do no feel that I should have to dignify your last question with a response"
That's because you're wrong and he's right!

"any person or persons who wished stop Mr. Schiavo from murdering his wife, would be pardoned... by me"
So... so much for morals and ethics eh... Now who's the Nazi? Two-faced ingnoranus!

"Sol has killed his own integrity... I, find his words disgusting."
You're not alone... To continue to refer to this idiot as "Rabbi" is insulting...

If anyone I knew and loved was in her state, I'd 'pull the plug' in a heart-beat... exactly the same as I'd want them to do for me if I was in that state...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:55 AM

Rabbi Sol says "For those of you who believe in legal murder, why don't you just give her a lethal injection like you do at an execution instead of removing food and hydration ? You put animals to sleep. You don't starve and dehydrate them to death. Does a human being deserve worse than an animal ?
                                                SOL ZELLER "

I am surprised that any "man of God" should have so little compassion. You use words like 'euthanasia' and 'murder' and 'nazi' here yet you do not know what you are talking about. The poor lady has been dead for 15 years and only kept artificially alive, against her wishes, by people who do not realise that it is God who should decide the time of life and death - not some Rabbi or Priest or Pastor who has never met the lady.

Save your own rantings for your congregation rather than attack the man who has, for many years, fought for his wife's right to die naturally rather than have her life prolonged unnaturally.

Stop using emotive and inacurate words to slander those who have at last granted this lady's wish to go to heaven.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:15 PM

"Susan,
       For the record I am AGAINST all forms of euthanasia."


This is not a case of euthanasia. It is a case of allowing a person to die naturally rather than to keep her alive artificially. If you cannot understand that, Rabbi, then you need to think hard about who it really is who behaves as a Nazi. (It was you who first used this word in this thread?) You want to use science to deny someone the right to die a natural death when ha Shem has called her home. Michael merely wanted to see his wife allowed to die naturally and all that stuff about denying her sustenance is rubbish because that is exactly what the body naturally does when it is dying.

You are, apparently, not evil. But you seem to prefer the evil of prolonging the poor lady's death for decades to the good of allowing her to go to her make naturally.

I think a good long time in prayer with your Torah might make you think of the words "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice".

You think in terms of hate. Like ha Shem you should desire mercy.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:29 PM

Bruce said (of the so-called rabbi) "I think it is wrong of people to impune his dignity"

WHAT! He has called Michael Sciavo a Murderer. He has accused him of gross immorality. He has stated that all those who have lost loved ones and defended Michael are like Nazis. He has shown not one iota of sympathy for those who have suffered loss and has ranted against all that is decent. He has no dignity. He has shown no mercy or compassion, only hate. He does not deserve the title of Rabbi and he has said nothing that could possibly command my respect.

As another of the many people who has watched a loved one die, I consider everything he has said of Michael to apply to me too. I sincerely hope this "rabbi" does not represent the majority of Judaism.

Frank Lane

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:36 PM

Brucie says "Possibly so, SRS, but I know him to be humane and decent"

Possibly so, Brucie, but we can only know him by the fruits we see. What I have seen is hatred, malice, venom, false witness, ignorance, vile accusations.

That is neither humane or decent.

I could add (and remember that it was the si-devant rabbi who brought nazism into this thread) that many people would have said that Hitler was humane and decent.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:53 PM

What about that "in sickness and in health" clause?

Anyhow, I'd be curious to know how many people who side with Mr. Schiavo also oppose the death penalty. Just wonderin.

In sickness and in health has absolutely nothing to do with keeping a person alive artificially just because it can happen. In sickness and in health means that when a loved one is sick, you see them through it. When they are dying you care for them until their time comes to go. It also means that if they have expressed an opinion about not wanting to be kept alive artificially you respect that rather than turning them into a museum piece.

I oppose the death penalty for one reason only - the many people who have been executed and then discovered to have been innocent. However, I do not see the connection. The question seems to suggest that allowing a dying person to die is somehow the same as executing a murderer or swatting a fly. These are totally different things. The nearest "connected" things I can think of are Euthanasia (which this is NOT) and Abortion. On both subjects I have loose ends though in principal I'm against them both. (The loose ends are that I can always think of exceptions but the exceptions should not be the rule).

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:55 PM

The rabbit says "Therefore to carry the argument of the majority on this board one step further, we should also take all the Alzheimer patients who no longer recognize any of their loved ones and are mental vegetables for all practical purposes and refuse to give them food and water, so they will die sooner rather than later. Furthermore priority should be given to those who have partners with pressing sexual needs so that they can be guilt free when being serviced elsewhere. Make s sense to me.
                                              SOL ZELLER "


Sorry Brucie - this is SICK SICK SICK. How you can support this evil man is beyond me!

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:57 PM

You gonna answer each post in this thread with a post of your own Frank?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:59 PM

Frank Lane/Eagle wing/Toilet Stain

the rabbi is a good man and does represent the voice of Orthodox Judiasm.

You are a complete prick and represent the Orthodox Jew's biggest enemy, the Nazi

You support killers. Your favorite greeting is obviously zieg heil.

Fuck you in the nose.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

"We are talking about food and water here; not pain meds and oxygen.
It will be an unnatural death without food and water rather than a natural death.
                                        SOL ZELLER"

You have obviously not read, or not understood, what has been said many times. When a body is dying naturally it begins, of itself, to reject food and water. The unnatural thing here is the forced feeding which prevents the body from shutting down naturally. If you cannot understand that then you should withdraw your remarks until you have had time to discover what dying actually is.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:13 PM

McGrath says It always has struck me as the height of legalistic hypocracy for withdrawal of food and water to be somehow seen as an acceptable way of bringing about death in a way that doing it directly is not.

I have to disagree with you on this one McGrath. The point here is that the food and water are not so much being "withdrawn" as the forced feeding being stopped. We're not talking about starving the person but no longer force-feeding them. By removing these artificial stimuli the body is allowed to take it's natural course - to die.

Leastways, that's how I understand it.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:22 PM

Guest,
       I do no feel that I should have to dignify your last question with a response. Any human body, no matter what physical condition it is in needs sustenance to exist. It is only common sense. There are people in 3rd world countries starving to death every day. I do not understand where you are coming from.

                                              SOL ZELLER

SOL, Are you really as unintelligent as this post makes you seem or is it just an act?

I should have thought that the post that you were replying to was about as clear as anything could be. Yet your response appears to show that you neither understand life or death. Read it again, and again and again, SOL, until you understand what is being said to you.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:35 PM

Regardless of your personal feelings about the right or wrong of this case, perhaps a bit of compassion for Rabbi Sol's feelings?

WHY? Not only has he shown no compassion for anybody else, he has shown no respect. He has continually insulted and attacked. He knows nothing of showing mercy. He only needed a few more swear words to make me believe his initials were MG (though the one posting here that I've seen from MG was very, very balanced).

I would love to have more compassion for Rabbi Sol's feelings. I feel, somehow, that I'm letting Jesus down by not showing more compassion but even Jesus got angry about people who spouted only hatred.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:51 PM

Martin said "I hope all of you who do not agree that her parents have no say get to watch your child die before your eyes, also.

Deal with that."

I find it difficult to believe that you are really laying such a curse on people, Martin. I do NOT hope that you will have to watch people keeping any of your loved ones artificially alive for decades while you know that all they want is to die peacefully. Having watched my wife die - and then had to answer questions of the police at 5 a.m. because the illness was sudden - I know what it is like to lose someone very dear to me. For you to wish that on anyone is unworthy.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:10 PM

Oh dear, Martin,

I was beginning to think that your posts to this thread were a little more balanced than usual.

I was wrong. I am also saddened to hear that Orthodox Judaism is genuinely represented by yourself and Sol.

I believe that the Nazi's were actually in favour of human experiments which is not the same as being in favour of allowing dying people to die in peace.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM

I hate to start a post like this, but I will never again refer to Sol Zeller as Rabbi. Any man who starts a thread talking about the sanctity of life, then puts out a thinly veiled OK to murder is no Rabbi. As I read his posts, I am astounded at the contradictions. I have known, and sought the guidance of, several Rabbi's. One of them I count as the wisest holy man I know. They would never advocate that which was implied by Zeller's post.

Folks, my understanding is that Schiavo used most of the $1,000,000 to take care of his wife. Zeller's crude comments about Schiavo's motives with regard to his "dick" are inexcusable. Zeller has absolutely no knowledge of what drives this man, as I don't. But I do know that he was a loving husband, that he has tried to take care of his wife and honor her wishes. Zeller mentioned in one of his posts that convicted killers have more right to appeal than Terri. I would love to hear her appeal. OH ...... that's right ....... we can't hear her appeal, because has been vegetative with no chance for recovery for 15 years.

What this issue comes down to for me is that folks view death as a failure, a horror. It is not. From the moment we are born, we begin to die. It is the final act in this part of the journey. The inability to accept it as a part of the journey is what makes folks think that a tragedy is going on.

Terri, God be good to her, is only "alive" because we keep her that way through extraordinary means. When we judge Michael, we need to look at his actions prior to the tragedy. He was a loving husband. There is nothing to suggesgt anything else. Looking at his actions at the beginning of the tragedy, we can see that his intentions were to do all he could to do right by his wife. It was only when it was clear that all hope was gone that he decided to let inevitability take its course. He gave another look at himself when he was offered an extraordinary amount of money to let others decide his wife's fate a few weeks ago. He turned it down and pursued what he felt was the wishes of his spouse.

Of all the players in this tragedy I ache most for the parents. The damned politicians with there incessant meddling for political gain have caused these people to be able to cling to a thread. Understandably they want to believe, they do not want to let go of their child. On an intellectual level, I believe what I said a couple of paragraphs back. From the perspective of a Dad, I would want to cling to any hope. By their craven pandering, these flyshit politicians are prolonging the agony, and not allowing these good folks to face the inevitable, and deal with it. Will they ever recover? I don't know, but what chance they had is likely over now.

One cannot respect life without respecting death. In the 21st century we seem to have forgotten that.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM

Your a fat pig, Big Mick

Isn't it time for another pint? I'll bet you've known more priests who have fondled little boys than Rabbis.

BTW, I am not Orthodox. but I respect Rabbi Sol as a fine Rabbi.

And EagleWing/Frankie boy, Jesus sure has let you down. but keep the faith, Bud, and put some extra change on the plate for him, will ya?

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:53 PM

Martin, once again you demonstrate your considerable intellectual deficit. The best you can do, because you are ignorant, is make these comments. Aside from exposing you for the idiot you are here on the Mudcat, I sincerely hope that I meet you face to face one day so I can do the same in public. And, with any luck, you will react in a violent way so that I may show exactly what it is that I know. In the meantime, please continue to demonstrate what a fine Jewish man you are.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

"I respect Rabbi Sol as a fine Rabbi"
In the same way that other loonies respect Charles Manson...   Birds of a feather...

Keep posting Martin... you're only confirming what a doofus you are, and justifying peoples low opinion of you... Be glad it's not MY message board... your IP'd be blocked in a heart beat...

Now go ahead... string together some more meaningless profanity, like the good little troll you are... Prove my point...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

I don't want to stop anyone posting about Rabbi Sol, but the irate responses come a bit late, the last post by him is two months old.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:13 PM

Big Mick, too bad.

If I ever meet you, which I wouldn't bother wasting my time with, I would expose you as the ignorant, drunk, baby-killing veteran you are.
And fat, also.

Keep it up. Shanty Irish shooting their mouths off are common in Chicago. but ones posing as intellectuals are especially laughable.

Clinton Hammond, you are another one. It's you who are ignorant. And too fucking bad, it's not your message board. If it was, it would be a porno sight or at least one about poor musicians, which I have heard first hand that you are no big deal.

My comments ring so true to you, that is why you respond and keep coming back for more. Pretty good entertainment, much better than your singing, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:17 PM

It is I who am entertained by your ignorance martin...

mildly at any rate...

Keep digging...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:28 PM

I'm not really entertained by ignorance such as yours and Big Micks.

It's not me who's digging. It's you responding to something here that makes you so uncomfortable.

It's just not that much of a safe haven here for mentally disturbed society misfits such as yourself to hide in.

Your world just continues to shrink.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

Calm Down You Folks:

Rabbi Sol was posting back in January, getting more and more upset when he didn't pick up the support he expected. I submit that something else was going on with him, so EagleWing's one on one posts two months after the event are of limited utility since obviously the Rabbi has "left the building".

Please speak for yourself in the NOW at someone who's likely to respond.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

Nothing you do makes me uncomfortable MG...   Cause I and everyone else can tell how sad and pathetic you really are... Pitiable really...

Or you would be if I could be bothered...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,Sandra Silva
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:55 PM

Imagine if such went with you...   
   
Anyone of us could be in Terri Schiavo's place or of her parents... Think about...   

The correct would be the Terri's husband to request the divorce and consequently to give to the Terri's parents the right to drive their daughter's destiny.   
   
Is not right that the husband or the wife decide in cases like this, when their spouse should die or where should be buried, if the parents or any other member of the family with sanguine connection want to assume the responsibilities of defenseless relatives...      

Is evident, the Terri's husband only wants to be free to join to another woman legally... The Judge could give to him the right of the automatic divorce, but to ignore the despair of the Terri's parents it's inhuman! If He was a good man he could abdicate of this difficult decision...   

The laws are wrong and they need to be corrected. I agree, the euthanasia could be admitted in some cases, but it should be absolutely painless and it should only be applied in the own patient's case to sign the authorization or not being possible, the parents, siblings and or children to sign. Spouses should only to authorize the deliberation in the lack of another closest member of the family of blood.      

I think that should be allowed to the parents of Terri to take she to their house and to rent the machine for maintenance of her life.   
   
It's inhuman to leave a defenseless patient without feeding to die of starvation...      

Today the drama is of the Terri's parents. Tomorrow can be our !

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM

Sandra, did you bother to read the thread before you posted? If Michael Schiavo were that shallow, why didn't he just take the money a few weeks ago and run? If he really only wanted to be shed of her, why not just give up his guardianship to the parents, divorce and then marry this woman? It seems to me that the only reason he would continue to subject himself to the rantings and ravings of the Zellers, and to the likes of this slime called Martin Gibson, is because he believes he is carrying out his wife's wishes.

You are transferring what you think should be done, and then saying it is the only decent thing to do. He believes that it would be far from decent to leave his wife in this state.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 PM

CT Scan of Terri Schiavo's Brain, 1996

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:23 PM

Clinton, I don't care if you think if I am sad and pathetic. go ahead.

But remember, I think of you as a pompous, egomaniacal asshole caked with feces. You rate as one of the most arrogant here.

I and many others know how true this is.

Many others.

big Mick, I don't know what you are more: fat or naieve. It's a close race.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM

Pot... meet kettle... kettle... meet pot...

Yawn...

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:32 PM

Sandra like many others has probably landed on Mudcat because we turn up in Google, and for no other reason. And she's nuts if she can't see that Terry's spirit has been trapped by her non-responsive body for 15 years. She's close to freedom, as her husband understands her wishes. The horror her parents would visit upon her for years and years is no life. The irony of all of this is that Michael Schiavo is also going to finally release her parents from 15 years of the prison they have erected for themselves as well as their daughter.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:46 PM

I think this information should be disseminated, so, to repeat:

Here is a 'Normal Brain'

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:53 PM

Clinton

I figured you smoke your pot from a kettle.

Good stuff, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 PM

I'm having trouble seeing anything informative in those two brain scan pictures. Probably because they view the brain from two differen angles, and also because I'm not trained to read brain scans.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:57 PM

Martin's obsessions centre around a few main topics. Women, faeces and drugs. What female influence in his life abused drugs and left him lying in a dirty diaper. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM

And what are your favorite topics, Doc?

I love women, always have.

Learn how to spell feces. I have. There is plenty of being dished out by the likes of jerks like you.

I gave up drugs years ago. Obviously, you haven't.

I have plenty of other topics I like to talk about.

Your wife's naked pictures is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM

Ha! He doesn't even know where his own wife's pictures are to be found!

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM

Ha! She doesn't even know that my wife and I are very much in love.

She does know that she is quite a wretched old woman and about as desirable to a man as her old lady underwear.

Ebbie. The wicked witch of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:52 PM

hahahah

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:58 PM

Awwwww... but -I- wanted to be The Wicked Witch Of Mudcat!

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM

Your the asshole of Mudcat, Clinton

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:58 AM

Hm! I have seen Joe close down at least 2 threads on this subject because of Gibson and his detractors.

Any moment now . . .

We have allowed this person to goad us into slanging matches on threads about something as serious Terri Schiavo's life and death situation. Perhaps we should take previous advice and ignore Gibson who only exists to foul all threads (and has admitted it).

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 12:06 PM

Would that I were MG... I'd relax, pass you, and send you swirling down the drain to be in the company of your betters....

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:16 PM

Uh, threads weren't really closed down because what I've said.

They've been closed down because of Guests and others who have their undies in a big bunch up their cracks getting so bent out of shape that they show their real colors.

Liberal tolerance is quite phony it seems.

Eagle Wing, I most certainly don't admit to trying to foul all threads. The majority here I don't bother with. Some I do because they are relatively interesting. Others just need a dose of reality that all people just don't have that far left radical drug induced train of thought.

See ya.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

Martin, your post seems to adopt a different stance than usual. When you suggest that liberal tolerance is quite phony, does that mean we should tolerate you using filthy language, and making lewd references?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:37 PM

[bleep] (for antisocial behavior)If you fucking well want to, Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,Gringo
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:56 AM

Who has been paying for her care for the past few years? G

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: EagleWing
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM

Joe,

Is there no way of just preventing Martin Gibson from coming onto every serious thread and goading people into these slanging matches? If not then I shall stop using Mudcat since I find that every time I want to discuss something of worth Gibson manages to force its degenration into slime and filth.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:57 AM

I think we're faced with a question of common sense against common humanity. Mud gets flung because folks tend to love a mud fight. If people ignored the flinger, the flinger would go elsewhere, because the flinger only really cares about the response.

The question of policing the threads rapidly becomes a two pronged problem. Someone has to spend a lot of time doing the policing, even installing a holding pen so that posts get sequestered for analysis by assigned 'masters'. If you try just revoking memberships, you have to justify what you do and people just change their names and re-up and the problem persists.

The best solution is for folks to learn what to ignore and plow ahead, responding to worthwhile posts.

It's a lot like life.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Eagle Wing apparently doesn't know much about life, Robo.

I am never really looking for responses Robo. I don't need to feed my ego in the way you imagine.

Merely stating my opinion and comments in a public forum is really good enough for me.

I know it gets read, some people nod yes and some people nod no.

Big deal.

The problem stems when someone else's ego is bruised, not mine. I just don't take it all that seriously, please believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: GUEST,ME ME ME
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:46 PM

IT IS ALL HERE SAY

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM

You saw it here first, folks!

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:31 AM

I just heard on CBC that Terry's parents received many letters and e-mails from people that also sent money to help pay for their legal fees. Now they are selling the addresses of the donators to a marketing firm. If you are one of those who helped support the parents because you thought they were morally righteous, you might want to think about this twist in the story.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:01 AM

Martin:

Good posts should be about the subject. If egos are involved, then the intelligence and thought put into the thread gets sidelined. And again, I think mud flinging as a message and as a response can be fun, but they can also be ignored when they detract from a subject which might in fact be fun and interesting all its own self.

If we're going to be concerned with "LOOK AT ME!" types of posts, we might as well post photos to go with.

Subject: RE: BS: High Court Rules In Terry Schiavo Case
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:06 AM

Now back to the subject:

Terri's folks won a ruling from Atlanta Court of Appeals (March 29, 2005), that they would hear the case on the facts, not on procedure.

I can only remark that while I think this whole media/legal battle has become a farce, if it were punishment it would be cruel and unusual, as the procedures being used on Terri are COMMONLY used to ease hopeless (in this case brain dead) physical wrecks out of their burden of existence.