BS: Mudcatters supporting murder

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:17 PM

My question has always been, if her parents are willing to care for her, why won't he just divorce her and let them take care of her?

I don't know if you read my post about the death of my late wife, Kim, but your question disgusts me! I think about the woman I adored being put on to ARTIFICIAL life supports because somebody who knew nothing about her desires on the matter says so. And then being told that if I didn't like this situation I could always divorce her and let others look after her. What right have we to question whether, in their most intimate moments, Terri told her husband the sorts of things Chris told me? What right have we to remove the rights of a husband simply in order to fit in with the religious prejudices and the cruelty of a family? They were married before God. Now her family want to play God and keep her artificially alive.

I know I'm taking this personally. My own wife's passing is too near to me not to. Many Christians (and Terri was a Christian) believe that to deny a person death is as wrong as to deny them life. I know Chris felt that way. So do I. So, apparently did Terri and her husband.

Divorce!! What an insult!

Frank L

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM

Marty must be living in a bubble. He certainly knows little about real life. Might just be a horribly rude shock some day when reality suddenly intrudes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:01 PM

"I can't understand why those of you who are so sure about Eternal Life are determined to prevent this poor soul ~ who certainly has long since come to the end of her normal earthly existence ~ from moving on."

That would have been my late wife's position absolutely. She always held that she knew where she was going (even if she didn't know what it was like) and she was ready to go when the time came.

That it came early (at 57) was a grief to me and to her family but would definitely not have appreciated being kept from her "reward" once that time had come.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:16 PM

No Martin - I feel no guilt.

On December 18th of 2000 my wife and I held my 5 day old son in my arms while the nurses disconnected him from the life support "miracles" that kept him alive. And I felt no guilt.

Six weeks later I watched my Mother die of a brain tumor. I was relieved that she had effective paperwork in place so that the doctor and nurses wouldn't keep her alive beyond the hour that God called her home.

I pray you never have the same experiences. I really do pray for you Martin.

Because when that time comes you won't be looking for curse words. You'll find a dark quiet corner and try to be alone with your God and your soul and you'll pray - "Dear God - take my loved one now. Don't let them suffer another minute."

Trust me Martin - that's what you'll do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:03 PM

Bullshit all of you. No spite. I succeeded getting my point across. support killing and I have the right to call it murder. It's a strong word, I know but cutting off this living, brathing human life from surviving is guiltless evil.

Wesley s. my next dirty word since you are so anxious for it is that you suck shit from possums. Happy? glad you feel the guilt you should feel, you anal pore.

Carolc. thread after thread after thread your arguements are as laughable as a big tit broad who plays accordian and lives in a trailer in rural Alabama. Mudcat's own arguementive Googly idiot living next to the broad with no teeth playing her Reba McIntyre CD.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:23 PM

Re:   Martin. Perhaps in spite of himself, he's precipitated a worthwhile discussion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:20 PM

Various agencies around here have noted that, where previously, they would get only occasional requests for living will forms, within the past couple of weeks, thousands of requests are coming in. This case woke a lot of people up, notifying them that they'd better making a record of their wishes while they still can, rather than leaving it to the whims of others.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM

I agree Joe - but Martin doesn't have any common sense. He was trying to stir up a hornets nest and he succeded. My guess is that the toughest decision he ever had to make was what dirty word to use next.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

2:34 Guest, I think we have similar points of view, but we're just using different words. Removing a feeting tube can certainly be considered "taking a life" from many valid perspectives, but it's different from taking a life by inserting a knife or bullet. There's a similar distinction/flaw in the "guns don't kill people" argument: of course, guns kill people, but the gun's infolvement is different from the involvement of the person who pulls the trigger. If you deny that removing a feeding tube or shooting a fatal bullet is "taking a life," then I think you are attempting to euphemize away reality. I think the same is true for abortion - it is certainly logical to say that abortion is "taking a life" from certain perspectives, but that does not imply that abortion is either right or wrong.

It has to do with the different types of causation. I'm sure Bill D could give you quite a lecture on causation, but I had that stuff in a late-afternoon Philosophy class, and I tended to doze....

Martin used "murder" in the thread title for a reason - he knows the word has an impact, that it carries a value judgment. "Murder" is a judgmental word - it implies that there is guilt involved, and I suppered it also has a veiled implication of a need for retribution. "Taking a life" is a more impartial term, one that does not have an implication of guilt - and guilt and causation are two different things. I think it's a long stretch to call removal of a feeding tube "murder," and I think the same could be said to some extent about those who call abortion "murder." Still, both actions involve taking a life.

All of this is a very worthwhile topic for exploration - but this world would be a much happier place if people could just understand that many things aren't as clear-cut as they first seem. "Murder" is an accusatory word, and it should be used with judgment.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:53 PM

"As to why you are confused as to why he doesn't "just divorce her and let her parents take over her care"--WOW! Think about that for a minute, KimC. Are you married? Would you want your spouse to abandon you like that & take the easy way out?"

I would want my husband to be able to move on with his life - like Michael Schiavo apparently has. He hasn't exactly "stood by her" as some of you have implied. He's already had kids with someone else, hasn't he? If that's true, he abandoned Terri a long time ago.

Her parents want to keep her. Her husband doesn't. Only Terri can say what's best for Terri, and she can't say it. If it were me, no, I wouldn't want to be there, immobile like that. But I also wouldn't want my husband and my parents fighting over what they think is best.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM

I'd like to add one more thing here. Might not be the best place to put it, but Free will forms Forms for wills and living wills available for every state and perhaps many countries. Scroll down about a third of the page to find them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:28 PM

I don't have a living will, but all of this has moved me to act. I do not want to live a life if I can't live my life. I do not want to be fed from a tube. I do not want to put my family through years of bullshit and money.
Please let me die, I don't fear what is to come in the next phase of my life's journey, but I do fear anyone trying to keep me from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

With DougR being as passionately against removing life support from patients like Terri Schiavo as he implies he is, heric, I have no doubt that he will take the trouble to find the Texas legislation in question and make sure it is not guilty doing what he thinks shouldn't be done with regard to Terri Schiavo. And I'm equally sure that he will provide us with the relelvant documentation so that we may examine it ourselves.

That is, unless he is nothing but a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

I agree with your sentiment Joe, but I'd even disagree with the phrase "taking a life". I don't even believe that removing life support IS taking a life in these circumstances. I believe it is a decision that is made to allow natural death to occur. I believe it is a decision NOT to use/continue to use "heroic measures". It isn't a decision to take a life at all, IMO. That is one reason why I found all this absurd (on my good days) and so deeply offensive and disturbing on most days.

Why couldn't the parents of this woman get up to speed after all this time? I mean really--why would they be looking to keep her alive after all these years? Money is the only really legitimate reason I can think of. They would stand to gain financial support from Medicare, insurance, and possibly the Right to Life movement, for moving her into their home. While it may be a coincidence, the "falling out" between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers occurred after the Schindlers had financial troubles, and expected Michael to use the settlement money to bail them out (according to a story in today's Miami Herald).

But the other thing is, I find it more than a little disturbing that this family--the parents and two siblings--are this involved in the life of their nearly dead and unconscious adult child. I mean, I find that to be very creepy and dysfunctional.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:21 PM

Well, yes, I do think that all life is sacred - but I don't think that implies that we have to do everything possible to preserve every life indefinitely.

The ants came back today, and they really are remarkable beings. If you look up close at an ant, I think you have to say that there is something sacred and wonderful about the life of each one of them. But still, I squashed a bunch of them. I tried to do it with at least a little bit of respect for the lives I was ending, and a tiny bit of regret that I had to do it. When I moved into the house, my wife used to deal with ants by carrying them outside. I guess I've been an evil influence on her - now she squashes them, but with regret.

And I really do enjoy eating a hamburger, but I don't do it with triumphant glee over the killing of the cow.

When it comes to the taking of human life, I do take that as a far more serious decision - but it is a decision that must be made at times. I cringe when it becomes a political issue, when when people jump up and down and insist that a decision to take or not to take a life is completely right or completely wrong. George Bush seemed to take pleasure in the number of executions he permitted as Governor of Texas - I think there's something wrong with that attitude. Even if the executions were justified, they should have been done with deep regret.

Taking a life is a moral dilemma. It happens all the time. Sometimes it's the right thing to do - but it should never be a cause for rejoicing or triumph. I admit that I violate that principle at times, and can get carried away when I have a flyswatter in my hand.

-Joe "Seven at One Blow" Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM

I'm with CarolC. If I were Terri, I would be damn thankful I had a husband who would stay in the fight for me, even after moving on with his life, having a new partner, kids. I'd say Terri Schiavo has a truly great husband. I sure wouldn't want my spouse to cave and give into MY parents demands that I be kept alive, when my spouse knows I would have wanted the exact opposite, that's for sure! And believe me, my parents can be pretty demanding!

As to why you are confused as to why he doesn't "just divorce her and let her parents take over her care"--WOW! Think about that for a minute, KimC. Are you married? Would you want your spouse to abandon you like that & take the easy way out?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

El Greko stated it well. It's a sad situation - and none of us know what we would really do unless we were in the same situation ourselves. It's one of the hardest decisions one has to make and I pray none of us has to make it.

Y'know - Martin stirred up this shit and left this thread a long time ago. Why don't we do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:55 PM

My best guess is that this uncited Texas law has nothing whatsoever to do with the availability of funding. (On its face.) So that if you want to ascribe nefarious financial motives, you'd have to blame health care providers, not tar Bush or Bush-heads. We'll know when someone actually provides the law in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM

Carol if you are going to dig through Medicare on Thomas (I warned you, though), you might start at 42 USC §4401 et seq (Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997). That might point to the right place. (By distinguishing what is allowed from what is not.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:38 PM

I know I would, GUEST.
But we've all said out piece on this long ago. I don't believe anyone has changed opinion as a result of this discussion. We all agree is a horrible dilemma to have to face in the first place; and most of us use our hearts and logic to resolve it as best we can, uninvolved as we are. A few turned this into a scatological argument, and a further few rose to the bait and responded in kind. I know I learned some new choice expressions.

But in the end, it's just sad that Terri cannot live (or die) loved for who she is. Her parents clearly love what she was; and her husband now loves another. In her place I would have wanted to depart from this world a lot sooner.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM

Maybe he really and truly wants what's best for her, Kim. I don't know why that would be so difficult to believe. If I were in her situation, I would consider myself very fortunate indeed to have a husband like Michael Schiavo.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM

That's fair enough, although Terri isn't in a position right now to make that decision, and all we have is her husband's word. It may be true, I don't know. My question has always been, if her parents are willing to care for her, why won't he just divorce her and let them take care of her? I don't understand the reason for the power struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM

Forgot to mention - for many people, Kim C, the issue with Terri Schiavo is whether or not she has a right to determine whether or not her life will be artificially prolonged. That is certiainly the crux of it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder (Sciavo)
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

DougR wrote:

"I believe the one weak link in the chain touted by folks who favor allowing Terry to die, is there is nothing in writing to support her husband's claim that she would want to die."

DougR, this has been discussed a lot about this case. It is estimated (because there is no way to measure who has one & who doesn't) that only about 10% of the US population has a written living will, advance health care directive, or durable power of attorney for health care (the three types of legal documents people make for circumstances like Terri Schiavo's). That truly isn't a weak link, because virtually all of the cases where people in persistent vegetative state, who are brain dead, or in a long term irreversible coma, the life support (including feeding and hydration tubes) is removed without any legal documents expressing their wishes. In other words, this is happening all across the country everyday, and usually is done without a living will. This is only in the public realm because that is where the parents chose to put it. Very few of these cases where there is family feuding over life support before removed end up in court.

Then DougR said:

"Because of the actions of the courts, I assume that from now on, anyone without a written Living Will that states how one wishes to be treated if he/she has a similar condition to Terry's, is at the mercy of their spouse or whoever to inform the authorities what they BELIEVE to be their wishes."

That depends upon state laws, but that is the way the law is written in most states for adults. When there is nothing in writing, someone has to be given the right to decide what is best for the patient. Doctors and other health care providers of the patient are not allowed to make that decision, and for very good reasons.

So in a circumstance where there is nothing in writing DougR, who do you think should be given the legal right to decide? Because it can only be one legal entity (ie the spouse, or for minor children, the child's parents). The courts have to insist on it being one legal entity deciding, or there would never be an end to these things--which is the problem we're having now.

IMO, once the determiniation was made that the spouse in this case wasn't guilty of neglect or abuse, no abuse of the appeals process and legal system should be allowed. This case is ridiculous. This is a process that literally thousands of Americans go through every year. It should never be allowed to reach this point. Never.

The order of who becomes the legal representative for a patient in the event of the patient being unable to make the decision themselves has always been the spouse for married adults, then the adult children of the marriage if a spouse isn't alive, and then if there are no adult children or spouse, the parents.

That is the way it's always been DougR, so why do you think it should be different in this case? Or do you think a spouse shouldn't have the right at all to act as the legal proxy? I mean, it comes down to this. Once we are adults, our parents can't barge into our married lives and take over legal rights that are the spouse's legal rights, just because we don't like the decision the spouse of our adult child makes. That is one of the main reasons why so many people are opposed to what the parents are doing. Most of us who are married would want our spouses and NOT OUR PARENTS making this sort of a decision on our behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

Well, Kim, I have given one perspective that explains why some people are against capital punishment in my 24 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM post, and it is entirely consistent with my positions on all of the other issues you have raised, because is protects innocent life. Why don't you go read it? It might make sense to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:11 PM

Let's look at this in some logical-type terms.

I, too, sometimes see what I perceive as an inconsistency of thought - not necessarily on this forum, but just in general. I used to work for a woman who was a staunch vegetarian, because she believed it was cruel to kill animals, yet she was also very pro-choice and thought China's one-child-forced-abortion policy was state of the art. Of course people have the right to believe what they believe, but that never made sense to me. If it's cruel to kill animals to eat or wear them, isn't is also cruel to abort a baby before it's born, or to force a woman to have an abortion because it's government policy?

Likewise, many people argue against capital punishment on the grounds that it's cruel and unusual, and all life is sacred - but some of these same people are also for letting Terri Schiavo, and others like her, die.

So - is ALL life sacred, or is it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

I called my old boss last night. I haven't talked with him for three years, and it was time to catch up. He had been quite a doctrinaire liberal, and his wife told me that he had turned into a "Rush Limbaugh."
So, I got quite a lecture on the Sciavo case, and the Boss is quite sure that Terri could come back to life if only she were given the rehabilitation her husband discontinued several years ago. I dunno. I hate to see the whole case tried in the tabloids and talk shows.

This case has been through several courts, and I still believe in the general integrity of the courts in the U.S. I suppose they fall prey to political influences when the issues have political aspects, and I think that's natural and not really a horrible thing. So, I believe that the courts have made their decisions based on a review of good evidence, even though there may be political aspects to their decision; and I'm willing to live with the court decision.

My dad decided to disconnect my mother's feeding tube in December, and she died. I think it was the right decision.

-Joe Offer-


...and in case anybody wonders - yes, I'm watching this thread. And no, I'm not ready to shut it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,PoppaGator
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

I've got a question for the super-religious folks who are stirring up so much controversy in the effort to keep poor Terri on life support:

Did you ever consider that this 15-year extrasordinary intervention might be trapping her soul in limbo, preventing her from moving on to whatever comes next?

I'm open to the possibility of an afterlife (or none), and I'm willing to believe that whatever comes next is something we cannot possibly imagine in our current human state. I can't understand why those of you who are so sure about Eternal Life are determined to prevent this poor soul ~ who certainly has long since come to the end of her normal earthly existence ~ from moving on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder (Sciavo)
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:54 PM

Murder is, by definition, the act of intentionally and unlawfully killing another person

If the state reasonably supports the death penalty, or abortion, then these cannot be murder as they are lawful, as is a soldier killing in a war.
Only if the state is totally insane and out of control, then can a death legal in the state be murder. Deaths in the Holocaust, even if legal in the Nazi regieme, were murder. Legal deaths in Texas are not.

Bunnhabhain.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:54 PM

I believe the one weak link in the chain touted by folks who favor allowing Terry to die, is there is nothing in writing to support her husband's claim that she would want to die.

Nevertheless, Terry's husband is her next of kin.

Three years ago my wife was rushed to hospital with a subarachnoid haemorrhage. While they were still trying to diagnose that condition she went into a coma. During our marriage she had always insisted that she did not want anyone killing her before her time but that she also did not want anyone playing God and keeping her alive artificially.She considered these two things to be equally wrong. This is the sort of thing that married people sometimes do only say to their spouses. They don't write them down. Thank God, none of Chris' relatives challenged my statement on this. The medical staff knew that any operation to "save" her life would result in a vegatative state and, therefore, allowed her to die.

I was, I am, broken hearted that she died so early. But the idea of keeping her artificially alive like a specimen in a laboratory seems heartless and even, to me, Godless.

Yes, I'm pro-life. I don't generally approve of abortion or euthanasia (please note the word 'generally'). But if it is wrong to kill the living, surely it is equally wrong to artificially keep alive the person who is, to all intents and purposes, dead.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder (Sciavo)
From: GUEST,Diogenes
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM

Martin, im hayu samim it hamo'ach shelcha betoch tsipor, hihayta matchila la'uf achora! Ma nisrat lech bamoch?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

Many Mudcatters support murder, Martin. Generally, people who DO support it give it another name, but support it they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

So DougR, what do you think about that Texas legislation that Bush signed into law. It calls for the same thing to be done to those whose loved ones cant afford to keep them on life support (to be "killed", as you put it), as is being done to Terri Schiavo.

The fact that you are ignoring (or glossing over perhaps) this legislation, and Bush's involvement in it, but making a big noise about the Schiave case seems to me to be not only a bit hypocritical, but excedingly hypocritical.

And my postition on the death penalty (as I've stated elsewhere) is that until and unless it can be one hundred percent guaranteed that the person who is being charged with a capital crime, is the one who committed the crime, there should be no death penalty.

If there is even the tiniest percentage of a chance that an innocent person could possibly be executed for a crime committed by another, it is incredibly hypocritical for you to advocate in favor of the death penalty if you say you support a pro-life position.

So who is the real hypocrit? DougR is the real hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:05 PM

No, and the regs are a lot larger than the IRS regs. Pauline L. would probably know. The answer can be had at Thomas.loc.gov, but googling .edu sites with keywords would probably be a lot faster.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM

I believe the one weak link in the chain touted by folks who favor allowing Terry to die, is there is nothing in writing to support her husband's claim that she would want to die. Because of the actions of the courts, I assume that from now on, anyone without a written Living Will that states how one wishes to be treated if he/she has a similar condition to Terry's, is at the mercy of their spouse or whoever to inform the authorities what they BELIEVE to be their wishes. Her husband has nothing in writing so the courts are taking him at his word.

I do not see any harm in allowing the parents to care for Terry for the rest of her natural life if they want to. There would be ample time later to kill her if the parents can no longer take care of her.

And I do see Martin's point when he criticizes those who profess to value life so much, they oppose the death penalty for murderers on death row. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Raptor
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM

Lets pull the plug on Martin Gibson.

It's quite apparent that he has been BRAIN-DEAD for quite some time now!


Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:17 AM

Mudcatters supporting murder.
And the Supreme Court too.

Wolfgang (glad about that decision)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 11:11 AM

Do you know what the federal Medicaid (or Medicare) regulations on this subject are, heric?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:13 AM

Because I doubt that it can be inconsistent with the federal Medicaid (or Medicare) regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: heric
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:00 AM

My first question about the Texas law would be: How does it differ from the laws of other states. My second question would be: What have bioethicists written in critique.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wesley S
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:40 AM

Carol C - You don't have all the facts on the Texas law as I understand them. The law here provides for the plug to be pulled against the familys wishes - WHEN THEY RUN OUT OF MONEY. If you got the cash you can keep them alive as long as you can find a facility that will take them.

It's all about the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:14 AM

S. Blumenthal's opinion from the Guardian

For the first time public policy in the US is being made on the basis of pitting invisible signs versus science.

As in tribal cultures, a confederacy of shamans - Bush, Frist and DeLay - have appeared to conduct rites of necrophiliac spiritualism

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM

That's a great article.

It is also quite enlightening to read the Miami Herald, for information about this case. You have to register, but it's well worth it, as they seem to be the only national paper really examining who these hucksters are.

Here are some very interesting excerpts from one of their stories in today's paper:

Posted on Thu, Mar. 24, 2005

FAMILY HISTORY

Husband, in-laws once were united in caring for Terri

Before the fighting, Michael Schiavo and his in-laws cared for Terri Schiavo together. The Schindlers urged him to date, and later agreed on the extent of her damage.

PINELLAS PARK - For years, even after suspicion drove them apart and pitted them in a fierce legal fight, Michael Schiavo and his in-laws seemed to agree on one thing: that Terri, his wife and their daughter, was in a persistent vegetative state.

During a January 2000 court battle in which Bob and Mary Schindler sought to wrest Terri's guardianship from Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers repeatedly conceded that their daughter's brain damage was extreme.

''We do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state,'' Pam Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court. Later, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, asked Mary Schindler, ''Is Terri in a vegetative condition now?'' to which she replied, ``Yes. That is what they call it.''

Many of the Schindlers' supporters insist Terri is very much alert. Michael Schiavo has also been cast by detractors as an adulterous, heartless husband who wanted to remove Terri's feeding tube in order to access her trust fund.

But testimony from court files documenting the 12-year struggle over Terri Schiavo's fate tells a far more complex story.

Beyond accepting that their daughter was in a vegetative state, the Schindlers had, years earlier, encouraged Michael to date. When the Schindlers later accused Michael of greed, he offered to donate Terri's entire trust fund to charity.

Up until a bitter falling out in 1993, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers were united in efforts to rehabilitate Terri.

They moved in together after Terri's collapse in February 1990, and Michael called the Schindlers ''Mom and Dad.'' A year later, the Schindlers encouraged their son-in-law to get on with his life and date. They even met some of the women he saw.

''I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,'' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. ``He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.''

WORKED TOGETHER

The Schindlers later said that they urged Michael to see other women because they ultimately hoped to gain guardianship of their daughter. But they still worked feverishly with Michael to ensure Terri had the best possible care.

To raise funds for medical costs, they sold hot dogs and pretzels on the beach, threw a Valentine's Day dance and made appeals on local news stations. In 1991, the city of St. Petersburg Beach declared Feb. 17 ``Terri Schiavo Day.''

Terri was frequently moved between hospitals, hospices and nursing homes. Each rehabilitation facility treated her with aggressive physical, recreational, speech and language therapy, moving her arms and legs, trying to rouse her with scents.

But according to court filings, Terri was not responsive to neurological or swallowing tests. Mary Schindler testified that a neurologist told her, ``This might be where she's going to be for the rest of her life.''

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers brought Terri home briefly in the fall of 1990, but were overwhelmed. Then they sent her to California to have experimental platinum electrodes implanted to stimulate her brain. Michael slept by her bedside for five weeks. Terri sat up and her eyes burned brightly when the implants were turned up high, Michael testified, but the doctor told him the reactions were mere motor responses.

Meanwhile, Michael filed a malpractice suit against two of Terri's doctors, unwittingly setting into motion events that tore him and the Schindlers apart.

Michael initially expected a multimillion-dollar award, and the Schindlers said he promised them a share, which would enable them to care for Terri at home.

By then, the Schindlers were almost broke. After selling his share of a successful industrial equipment company, Bob Schindler lost his savings in a Florida business venture that went sour. The couple declared bankruptcy in 1989, Bob Schindler testified. He told a court that Michael Schiavo promised to help.

But Michael said he never committed to sharing any award money with the Schindlers, especially when the award ended up being far smaller than hoped. Roughly $700,000 was earmarked for a trust fund for Terri, and $300,000 for Michael.

The Schindlers still expected part of Michael's share to help care for Terri. On Valentine's Day 1993, they confronted Michael in Terri's hospital room. The discussion quickly turned ugly. Michael said the Schindlers demanded the money, so he lied and said he did not have it. Disgusted, the Schindlers left, their trust in Michael irrevocably breached.

''The fact that he was going back on his word upset me,'' Bob Schindler testified in 1993. ``I was devastated.''

Michael soon began believing doctors who told him that Terri had effectively died in 1990. In a 1993 deposition, he testified that Terri had said she would never want to live by artificial means. He imposed a ''do not resuscitate'' order. Hospice staff challenged the order's legality, so he reversed it.

Horrified, the Schindlers launched the first of many exhaustive battles to become Terri's legal guardians. They accused Schiavo of being abusive, citing his admitted belligerence to hospice staff. They also said he wanted to kill Terri for her money.

But in 1998, when one of Terri's court-appointed guardians noted this conflict of interest, Michael offered to donate Terri's estate to charity, as long as the Schindlers stopped fighting his decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. The Schindlers rejected this proposal. All but $50,000 of the award has since gone to Terri's care and court costs.

NUMEROUS PROBLEMS

By the mid-1990s, Terri's physical therapy had been stopped, enraging her parents.

Court guardians concluded that Terri was cared for extremely well, but her condition still led to numerous complications and hospitalizations. She suffered from bile stones and kidney stones, according to court papers, and had to have her gallbladder removed. She has ''drop foot,'' where her foot twists downward, and the ensuing pressure resulted in the amputation of her left little toe. She frequently developed urinary tract infections, diarrhea and vaginitis. Several cysts were removed from her neck. Several times, her feeding tube got infected.

In 2000, despite conceding their daughter's persistent vegetative state, the Schindlers said they still believed she knew when they were there. When Felos, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, asked Bob Schindler if he thought Terri would be tormented by her current state, he replied ''Yes,'' but added, ``she's not that cognizant to be aware of it.''

Several years ago, a few doctors said Terri was, in fact, responsive, evidently causing her parents to believe that the Terri they knew could at least partially be brought back. But judges repeatedly sided with the medical opinion that their daughter's chances for improvement were nil.

The Schindlers never stopped believing. Mary decorated Terri's room during holidays and saw light in Terri's eyes when she softly sang, ``Terri, it's Mommy.''

''I think she understands. I think she knows I'm there,'' Mary Schindler told the court in 2000. ``She just . . . I just want her to live.''

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:38 AM

The God Racket

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: 42
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:02 AM

My mother left a living will and everyone should do the same. It did not make her dying less sudden or horrific, but she made the choice.

The creation of such a document would make the hatred and rancour evidenced in this thread moot and ensure that those who wish their lives to be prolonged, regardless of what we may perceive the 'quality' of that life to be, may do so; while those who want to exist independent of artifical devices also have the choice.

It's a disgrace the media decided to give this story such a high profile when what it comes down to in the end is the intimate, raw emotions of a family in distress. With thousand of children around the world dying each day of starvation, it seems so ironic.
jen

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:14 AM

Martin, you support a lot of things, including pack rape. Lucky we have Joe to clean up some of your nastier comments.

Glad you're beginning to discover the value of human life... conservative, American human life.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Pied Piper
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 05:19 AM

Yet another thought provoking and cogent analysis of a current moral dilemma from Martin.
Were would we be without his insightful and intelligent observations. The flashlight of his mind illuminates for us, all those things that our limited perspective is unable to discern.

Martin Martin Ubermensch
Speaks both Latin, Greek and French
What a pity that your view
Only ever, relates to you

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Dead Horse
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:02 AM

I am all in favour of murder in one or two particular cases. It's only the legal retribution that is bound to follow that stops me from actually committing the crime. Crime? Not in my mind, more like justifiable homicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:00 AM

Yer man Bush supports murder too then, Martin. After all, he signed the legislations that allows hospitals in Texas to commit what you are describing as "murder" (removing life support from people like Terri Schiavo) against the wishes of their families.

Looks like you'd better get started writing letters to Mr. Bush so you can let him know what a murderer he is.

Oops! You support murder too! You voted for him!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 11:30 PM

Nicely put, garg. I'll see if I can find someone else with the appropriate bizarre pathology who can translate your comments for me.

Martin, thanks for a reasonable response. No, I'm not an attending physician, but I believe the resolution to this should lie in scientific evidence and not unsupportable hopes. I have seen no evidence that supports the idea that Terri Schaivo is in anything but a vegetative state, and certainly none to support the idea of any recovery. I do have a child, and I think I understand how her parents must feel. Tragically, there are thousands of others who are enduring the same sort of pain, without the complication of lawsuits, media coverage, and those seeking to advance a political agenda. The MRIs are available for viewing. I would be interested in your opinion on them.