BS: Mudcatters supporting murder

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 - 01:28 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
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 - 01:37 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:34 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:17 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: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:26 PM

Those who martin have loved have deserted him. They have chosen to walk away from him. He now wishes to feel the power of being able to hold onto someone, anyone, even if it is a woman he has never met and doesn't know. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:29 PM

Kim says "Only Terri can say what's best for Terri, and she can't say it."

Unless you are calling her husband a liar, she has already said it. I suggest you publicly (in the press, rather than here) call him a liar. What you are doing is libeling a man whose wife has been kept in a living death purgatory for 15 years. Terri is being denied her own wishes and her husband is called a liar by a group of selfish people using religion as their excuse.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:53 PM

yes I agree with the last bloke, even if it does make me a turd with ear flaps.

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

I suppose my comment about folks who profess to be so against the death penality yet favor allowing Terry to die appear to be a bit hypocritical struck a chord. It certainly did with Carol C.

I just re-read my post and nowhere did I state that I was opposed to ending life when medical authorities deemed that a quality life was no longer possible. I have a Living Will. My wife has Medical Power of Attorney. I do not want heroic measures to be taken to continue my life, if there is no life to look forward to.

I was merely pointing out that the weak link in the chain appeared to me to be the fact that her wishes were not made known in writing. If they had been, this whole mess with the press and every thing that has gone along with it would have been avoided.

I don't question Guest's post that it happens every day and that husbands or wives give permission to stop life support every day even if the wishes of the person involved are not memorialized in writing. So what's the point in having a Living Will?

No one knows, with certainty, what Terry would have wanted to do, and as I said in my previous post, the courts are merely taking the husband's word for it. So I ask again, what's the point in having a Living Will?

And no, Carol, I'm not going to research the Texas law. I've had my say and that's it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:09 PM

MG, there you go with your shotgun approach to every problem. It's people like you who turned me from being a right wing raving, judgemental, anal pain in the ass.
I am a yellow dog liberal now and I am not in favor of "Allowing" her to die. If that was me in the state, I'd want to be set free, but I don't think anyone has the right to pull the plug. Playing God is a slippery slope.
When you use that broad brush approach, all you do is show your IQ, or, the lack of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 PM

"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."

Um, it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself here KimC. In the first sentence you say you would want your husband to be able to "move on with his life like Michael Schiavo apparently has". I suppose I don't know what you mean by "moving on". I would define his new relationship, including the children, as having "moved on".

Then you say, with what I read as an accusing tone "He hasn't exactly "stood by her" as some of you have implied."

I'm confused. Do you not think he can do both? That he must do either one or the other thing? I would disagree very strongly with that sort of assertion. There are very good reasons--which we are, sadly, watching played out in the media--for Michael NOT to divorce her and walk away, the main one being that he would lose his guardianship of Terri, seeing her parents appointed, knowing they would not honor Terri's wishes not to be kept alive artificially in a circumstance like the one she is in.

If he truly loved her, how could he just walk away from her like that? I can tell you, if it were me and I had found a new partner and begun a new family, I wouldn't give up the fight for my loved one either. I would do exactly what Michael Schiavo is doing. Both move on with my private life, while continuing to fight the good life for his wife who still needs him to be married to her more than she needs him to divorce her.

Another thing--how many of you would want to have video and photographs taken of you and plastered all over the world, of yourself in that condition? Video and photographs showing your hospital gown raised to show the feeding tube? What kind of "dignity" is that? It is sheer humiliation. Apalling that any parent could claim to love their child and then do that to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:17 PM

But, isn't using the plug to begin with, also playing god?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:10 PM

Guest, fuck you.

Wesley S. and others, I have been there like you but things worked out for the better. My mother lived and is still with me today because of the miracle of modern science and medicine 8 years ago. I'm not talking about Jesus here because he means nothing to me. So screw blaming fundamentalist Christians for just having faith.

Why not give smart and educated humans a chance?

I am talking about giving life a chance.

Terry's husband probaBly tried to kill her. He could give a shit about her.

He's probably someone who posts as a Guest on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:24 PM

Martin, ya want to look at murder, imagine taking a big blunt instrument and with months of premeditation using it to squash humans and smash their children, knowing that was what one was about, and doing so NOT witht he grave acknowledgement of the courts, as in Schiavo, but in defiance of national and international law.

That a man could do such acts, resulting in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of butcherings and deaths and maimings, and then try to make a poster-person out of a brain-dead woman, smacks of the most arrant hypocrisy and double-tongued self-serving disingenuousness possible -- complete slimery of the soul and duplicity of the mind. Thus, George Bush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:46 PM

I have to tell you, DougR, that it did strike a chord. Because most of the peope I see in these threads who are advocating for Terri Schiavo to be allowed to die and not be forced by people with secondary agendas to remain in a persistant vegetative state indefinitely, are people who know from their own experience how it feels themselves to be in the shoes of Michael Schiavo. And I imagine that many of them may very well be against the death penalty, for whatever moral reasons they may have.

It really pisses me off to see you call people hypocrites for wanting what they see as mercy for Terri Schiavo (death with dignity), and also wanting to value human life enough to prohibit the death penalty.

These people have EARNED the right to hold both opinions. And it is the height of arrogance (and hypocrisy) for you to come onto threads like this on and call them hypocrites. That makes you a right bastard in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: DougR
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:16 AM

Carol C: my parents (yes I had a mother and father) would be most disappointed to hear that their son is being called a bastard. From you, though, I would expect nothing less.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 12:37 AM

You're right, DougR. Wrong word, since some might take it in the literal sense.

However, the lack of compassion you have exhibited towards people on these threads who have experienced some of the most painful and difficult experiences a person can have, is something that I have, over the last few years, come to expect from you. And so now, from you, I would expect nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Japonica
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:16 AM

Everything Martin Gibson says is right.
He is great.
Everything he thinks is right and great.
Every thought he has always, always, turns out to be true.
Martin Gibson must continue to turn his thoughts into postings here.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:21 AM

Doug said "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."

I happen to think that it is the right thing to do to let Terry Schiavo's body die.
I also support the death penalty.
I don't for the life of me understand why the Schiavo issue breaks down along political lines. I understand that there is a grassroots culture of born-again christian rightwingers who dismiss all actual physical evidence in this case in favor of "she just needs prayer and a heap of love from above". What I don't understand is why other Republicans who are reasonably intelligent...and I count Doug among these... feel the need to string along. Even such a conservative stalwart as George Will seems baffled by this, calling the phenomenon "a worst case scenario of the tail wagging the dog" and "the kind of issue that makes moderates who voted Republican in the last election reevaluate the charge that the religious right has seized the steering wheel of the bus and everyone else on board is just grabbing a strap". I'm with George on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:22 AM

Hey, you have to admit that there's some poetically vivid imagery in asking somebody to suck shit from a possum. Them suckers can get vicious.
Yes, I know he's said stuff that is extremely objectionable. You people who respond to that, don't help a bit. Not only did I have to delete Martin's crude comment - I had to delete five messages that responded to it and one that quoted it. I'm here for the music, and I really don't enjoy having to intervene in these squabbles. If you don't like what Martin has to say, freeze him out by refusing to respond to him.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:51 AM

I never could see the difference between someoneone posting as "guest", and someone posting with a made up name.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:52 AM

MG, I rest my case. Your IQ is showing. (Again)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM

Frank, I apologize if I offended you. I did not know the story of your wife and it was certainly not my intent to insult anyone. I have never been in any such situation so all I can do is approach it as an outside observer; and as such, the only facts I have are what I can get from the news media. In addition, I am trying to approach the situation factually rather than emotionally, which is no simple task.

Maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have liked. My impression of Michael Schiavo is ambivalent because yes, he is still fighting for what he believes his wife wished for; but on the other hand, he is living with a woman and has had 2 children with her. I don't really know what I think about that. It seems like in this unique position, he can't fully do right by either woman. He is still married to Terri and as her husband, he should be giving her his FULL attention, but he also has a family to whom he should be giving his full attention. He can't do both.

And as I already stated, I don't understand the motivation behind the power struggle between him and Terri's parents. Is it that if he divorced her, he would cease to be her guardian and then would have no more say in the matter? I could accept that.

I never suggested that he is a liar, and I never said anything about religion. I only presented the facts as they have been presented to me: he says she wouldn't have wanted to live this way, and that may very well be true, but we have no way of confirming that. Those are both facts, yes?

I wouldn't want to live like that. I wouldn't want my child to live like that, either. I would hope that if I were ever in that situation, my husband and my mother would be able to work together and come to an agreement.

I didn't mean to upset anyone with my comments here. I will not be returning to post on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:52 AM

No one knows, with certainty, what Terry would have wanted to do

How can you say that? Her husband knows with certainty what Terri would have wanted to do because she told him, just as my wife told me and I told my wife.

If her husband is lying then it is surely somebody's burden of proof. The husband is the next of kin. Unless he is proved to be lying then he is the most likely person to know her wishes. Has anyone proved that he is lying?

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:59 AM

A GUEST said, Playing God is a slippery slope.

I agree. So why have people been playing God for the last 15 years and artificially keeping alive this poor lady. That is playing God! Allowing a person to die naturally is not playing God. It is allowing God, or nature, to take his/her/its course.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:21 AM

Joe:

I appreciate your sense of tolerance and your ability to express yourself on that issue. Thank you for your time spent in cleaning up this and other threads from whomever, especially if someday it's me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:33 AM

Back to the topic of this thread & the thread title. Here is a snippet of a news account of of an exchange between the lawyer for the parents, and the federal judge to whom the Schindlers were making their SECOND round of federal appeals to last night, Judge Whittemore.

"In the federal court hearing Thursday, Schindler lawyer David Gibbs III argued that Terri Schiavo's rights to life and privacy were being violated. Whittemore interrupted as Gibbs attempted to liken Schiavo's death to a murder.


"That is the emotional rhetoric of this case. It does not influence this court, and cannot influence this court. I want you to know it and I want the public to know it," Whittemore said."

Amen to that, Judge!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: EagleWing
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:34 AM

Kim C

Like you I do not have all the facts - only those we have been allowed to know.

I can understand that you have an ambivalent impression of Michael but try putting yourself in his shoes. He is in a very ambivalent position himself. His wife 'died' 15 years ago, yet she is not dead because she is being kept artificially 'alive'. He is not free to act as though she is dead but, for Terri's sake he will not divorce her because that would be betrayal. In all probablility Terri had also said something along the lines of "If I die please feel free to marry again" only he can't do that because although she has 'died' yet legally she is 'alive'.

The "power struggle" is not of his making. It is the interference of her family - Christian (and Jewish) teaching is that when people marry they leave their parents and become one together. Unless they have some proof that he illtreated her (or according to MG he tried to kill her) they actually have no authority to interfere.

I did not say that you had called Michael a liar. However, to refuse to accept his word about her wishes is to imply it whether deliberately or not. No, it was not you who mentioned religion - I was refering to her parents and others. If he is not telling the truth then the burden of proof is on those who disbelieve him - not on him to prove that he is telling the truth. You say "we have no way of confirming that." We also have no way of proving it to be untrue. Must we, then, keep Terri in limbo untill she dies of old age? Unless we can prove he is lying we must believe him. That is our normal way of dealing with people - why should not Michael have the same right as the rest of us to be believed?

Whether you post to the thread or not is your decision but in dealing with situations like this - on or off the board - please try to realise that many, many people have been through similar positions. In my case, Chris' death was so sudden and unexpected that, after a night of watching her die, I then had (at 5 a.m.) to face the police whose job was to discover whether or not I had murdered her. They obviously didn't like the situation any more than I but that's the law (in the UK) where sudden death is concerned. You can understand why I got heated? Please have great sensitivity for the spouse in such cases. It isn't easy for them at the best of times but to have relatives interfering makes life so much harder.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 11:52 AM

And then there is this patronizing insult from Terri's sister this morning:

"Schiavo's sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, said watching her sister deteriorate has been "gut-wrenching" for the family. "I can't imagine any family member having to sit back and watch this happen to somebody that you love," Vitadamo said on "Good Morning America."

So that is the problem, is it? We shouldn't let anyone die? Or is it that we shouldn't have to watch Terri go through the same death process everyone else goes through who experiences a natural death?

My mother just died. She had cut herself off from food and hydration. Eventually she slipped into a coma, and died within 48 hours. It was peaceful. It was merciful. There was a grace to her death I was startled by, yet deeply and profoundly grateful to have been able to be a part of--the very last part of her journey on earth.

Maybe if the parents and siblings got out of their lawyers offices, out of the courts, and off the damn talk show circuit, they would be able to actually be part of those really sad, happy yet bittersweet privleged moments the could have with their daughter, if they just chose to accept what is happening...

Why is their no joy in their heart that she will be free of all her terrible suffering in this hard, cruel world? When my mother finally passed away, I kept telling people how joyous I was at her release from suffering. How I finally understood, for the first time in my life, the meaning of the word "resurrection" in the biblical sense? And I'm and ardent secularist!

The parents and siblings fear and terror of death is truly disturbing to watch, especially because it is SO dysfunctional and unhealthy for them physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if they could somehow all reconcile over Terri's death bed before she passes?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Michael's sister and one of her friends also testified under oath that they'd heard her say she didn't want to be kept alive on tubes.

Fox News interviewed, with a straight face, a woman who had been one of Terri's nurses some years ago. The nurse asserted (with an affect that I can only compare to a bad actor reciting a memorized speech)that Michael tried to kill Terri with insulin injections. The nurse claims to have discovered "needle marks" all over Terri's body. When she brought this to the attention of her supervisors, she was fired. The police, she says, declined to investigate the accusation of attempted murder.

She also claims that Michael demanded to know, during a staff meeting about Terri's care, "When will the bitch die!!!!????"

Unmentioned by Fox until 48 hours later was the fact that the courts rejected her statements as "not credible."

While the lawyers for Terri's parents insist "she's never even had an MRI, so how can she be properly diagnosed?" neurologists who have actually examined her report that an MRI is not indicated in cases like this where the patient's EKG has "flatlined" and X-rays show that the "human" part of her brain has atrophied, contracted, and liquified.

On the "right to life" side, another neurologist who's worked extensively with "stroke patients" claims he can help Terri "significantly" by providing medications to "increase the blood flow to her brain."

What stroke? What brain?

Why have such people found it so easy to steal the limelight and dictate Congressional agendas?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcatters supporting murder
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM

Would anything necessarily be different if Terri had made a living will? No. The same publicists and propagandists could simply say, "She may well have changed her mind. Perhaps in her comatose state she realizes for the first time just how precious life is. Since we can't know what she wants now, we must err on the side of life, regardless of what the liberal judicial system says."

Interesting too is that the legislative and executive branches are now distancing themselves from the situation.