Terri Schiavo

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

If feeding someone is 'life support' then we all fall into that category. Well, you can argue we being healthy can actually put it into our own mouths and Terri can't, but that's just splitting hairs and I'll just leave it there.

Read the laws. We can all breath, so perhaps a ventilator shouldn't be life support either.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Airhog

There is no way that after the 10? years of this he has any money left. Or if he does, it is a very small amount.

Are you his accountant? Bud Selig said that baseball was broke last year and might have to contract some teams. People in Florida can (and do) declare bankruptcy and still keep multi-million dollar homes since they are exempt from creditors. Its not always very clear-cut.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

We obviously do as a society, have the power to try and overturn dozens upon dozens of identical court rulings simply because some disagree tho right?

Her parent's also said she said she wanted to live which clearly didn't happen, I know you'd love for things to drag on whenever one person jumped up and said "SHE BLINKED TWICE WHEN I ASKED HER A QUESTION" since that would keep her alive for decades.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Are you his accountant? Bud Selig said that baseball was broke last year and might have to contract some teams. People in Florida can (and do) declare bankruptcy and still keep multi-million dollar homes since they are exempt from creditors. Its not always very clear-cut.

Are you?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

so lets not remove anyone from life support, lets keep them there forever... of course, the president ordered a war where people died, so I guess we should take away his power to send people to death.

Read my thread regarding The Politically Incorrect Book of History. The President's use of military without congress declaring war is one of the things I highlighted in that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

That's an ironic part of this sad story. Michael Schiavo does have the right to remove life support. This right was given to him by the laws of the state of Florida, passed by the state legistlature, and signed by the Governor. The judge wasn't enpowering anyone. He, and all of the appellate judges, were simply making the determination that the decision that Michael Schiavo made was legal and lawful based on the law that was enacted, since he is the nearest relative by law.

People have moral objections to this, and are trying to project them as legal objections.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Are you?

We are talking about people able to hide assets and money and then claim to be 'broke.'

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

We are talking about people able to hide assets and money and then claim to be 'broke.'

Whoa whoa whoa, you're questioning Airhog for saying that the money is gone since he's not the guy's accountant so you obviously must be right? Or are you saying that any possibility no matter how statistically improbably should be a reason to reverse 8 years of constant court decisions?

[SFL Cat]

Personally, I hope the Schiavo's sue for part of Terri's trust fund to recoup whatever costs they have incurred helping to care for her. At least then we'll find out exactly how much money is left in the trust. The first time Schiavo tried to pull the plug on her, there was still over $700K left.

I've heard some say that Schiavo's been paying the legal bills from the fund, but I'm thinking that would violate what the fund was established for in the first place.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Are you his accountant? Bud Selig said that baseball was broke last year and might have to contract some teams. People in Florida can (and do) declare bankruptcy and still keep multi-million dollar homes since they are exempt from creditors. Its not always very clear-cut.

Do you have any idea of how much money he won? It was something like 1.2 million I believe. Do you know how much a place like where she is staying a month costs? My fiancee's grandmother is in a retirement home, and it costs her like 2400 a month. 10 years of that alone would have cost him 250,000 dollars easily, and I know the cost of living is higher down there. Lastly, look at how many court cases he has had to refute. I bet his lawyer fee's have ate up nearly all of the cash he got from that settlement.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's an ironic part of this sad story. Michael Schiavo does have the right to remove life support. This right was given to him by the laws of the state of Florida, passed by the state legistlature, and signed by the Governor. The judge wasn't enpowering anyone. He, and all of the appellate judges, were simply making the determination that the decision that Michael Schiavo made was legal and lawful based on the law that was enacted, since he is the nearest relative by law.

People have moral objections to this, and are trying to project them as legal objections.

This is pretty straight-forward. Makes sense, I stand corrected on that.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Personally, I hope the Schiavo's sue for part of Terri's trust fund to recoup whatever costs they have incurred helping to care for her. At least then we'll find out exactly how much money is left in the trust. The first time Schiavo tried to pull the plug on her, there was still over $700K left.

I've heard some say that Schiavo's been paying the legal bills from the fund, but I'm thinking that would violate what the fund was established for in the first place.

Yes, I think if Mr. Shiavo opened up his books and showed his true 'alturism' it would answer most if not all remaining questions about his motives at least. And why shouldn't he? After all, he claims Terri's best interests at heart, the money was specifically for Terri's medical care...Michael can silence most if not all his critics with an open accounting.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Yes, I think if Mr. Shiavo opened up his books and showed his true 'alturism' it would answer most if not all remaining questions about his motives at least. And why shouldn't he? After all, he claims Terri's best interests at heart, the money was specifically for Terri's medical care...Michael can silence most if not all his critics with an open accounting.

So you would all of a sudden drop any concerns that he "abandoned" Terri if he opened the books? Hahaha, right.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Airhog

Do you have any idea of how much money he won? It was something like 1.2 million I believe. Do you know how much a place like where she is staying a month costs? My fiancee's grandmother is in a retirement home, and it costs her like 2400 a month. 10 years of that alone would have cost him 250,000 dollars easily, and I know the cost of living is higher down there. Lastly, look at how many court cases he has had to refute. I bet his lawyer fee's have ate up nearly all of the cash he got from that settlement.

Many lawyers take high-profile cases without payment up front for many reasons: Fame, future profits, books, lectures, ect..., just speculating on how Michael 'may' have spent the money don't cut it. Nope, not at all.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So you would all of a sudden drop any concerns that he "abandoned" Terri if he opened the books? Hahaha, right.

I quit following you awhile back. Couldn't keep up with all of your conclusions.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I quit following you awhile back. Couldn't keep up with all of your conclusions.

The bottom line is "your side" has zero legal reasons to stop this. It is well within the husband's right to do this as it has been granted to him by law. Every judge has sided with him, you can come up with whatever outlandish reasons you want just as the parents have (GAHH somehow equals "I want to live") and it's not going to stop the inevitable and just end to this stupid overblown political circus.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The bottom line is "your side" has zero legal reasons to stop this. It is well within the husband's right to do this as it has been granted to him by law. Every judge has sided with him, you can come up with whatever outlandish reasons you want just as the parents have (GAHH somehow equals "I want to live") and it's not going to stop the inevitable and just end to this stupid overblown political circus.

So your bottom line is, Michael now has the legal authority to kill her?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So your bottom line is, Michael now has the legal authority to kill her?

He has always had the legal authority to remove her feeding tube. The courts have consistently agreed with this through the last 8 years. Please keep up.

It's not murder simply because you deem it so.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

He has always had the legal authority to remove her feeding tube. The courts have consistently agreed with this through the last 8 years. Please keep up.

It's not murder simply because you deem it so.

I think that's the problem with arguing with you Chubby...you just don't look at the words written. You said murder. I said kill. I am just stating the fact of the case. It is a yes or no answer to the question of your bottom line.

Starving someone to death is killing them. That is pretty straight-forward. Legal or not.

On second thought, its not even necessary for you to answer at all. You state pretty emphatically Michael does have the legal authority and right to kill her.

Now this is truly ironic. Those who take issue with me the most concerning religious vs. scientific fact are the ones least able to say yes to the scientific fact that starving someone to death is killing them. Amazing.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I think that's the problem with arguing with you Chubby...you just don't look at the words written. You said murder. I said kill. I am just stating the fact of the case. It is yes or no. Starving someone to death is killing them. That is pretty straight-forward. Legal or not.

Have you actually read ANYTHING on this case?

If you were "just stating the fact of the case" you would know that the husband has ALWAYS had the legal grounds to remove the tube. You would know that there is no "clear" abandonment or hiding of money going on. The parents have tried any and every trick and lie to get Terri's life prolonged for 8 years.

The pretty straight forward fact in this case is that Terri will die because her husband is carrying out her wishes whether you or Jeb agree with them or not.

[SunDancer]

Wow...

It's like arguing with monkeys. The law and religion do not interact, and are seperated.

The money is an non-issue, with the years, years of care and the court fees (even if his lawyer did take the case for free, and prolly didn't until late when it became nationa-he'll still have legal fees). In today's health world, a milion dollars is not much (and really, a million dollars in general isn't what it use to be). I highly doubt money is an issue, or else I would guess Michael would of married an extremely rich women (or dating).

The court system does not rule on religious law, but state and federal law. The only matter the courts rule is on violation and discrimmination of religion and the freedom of them. Why do people think that the courts rule on the bible, and not the laws?

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Many lawyers take high-profile cases without payment up front for many reasons: Fame, future profits, books, lectures, ect..., just speculating on how Michael 'may' have spent the money don't cut it. Nope, not at all.

Was this case high-profile when it started 10 years ago? Nope, not at all.

[Bubba Wheels]

According to the courts, Michael Shiavo now has the legal authority to kill his wife by having her starved to death. True or False? One or the other, no dancing.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

This is why I made the statements about the abandonment and adultery on the part of the husband. Those who would never think of cracking open a Bible are suddenly popping up everywheres quoting the scripture regarding 'becoming one flesh." What I attempted to point out was that as sacred as marriage is to God, He Himself makes only two real cases for ending a marriage or divorcing. Both of which are flaunted by Michael Shiavo knowing full well that his wife is in absolutely no position physically to tell him otherwise. If Terri could talk and knew what Michael was doing think she would approve? The fact that there is such a clear conflict of interest on the part of Michael and clear benefit in her dying to him should bother everyone.

That's not even thumping the Bible, that's just using plain, common sense.

Again, I said there are things that Micheal has done that I don't condone (the adultery being one of them), but I also recognize not everyone has my personal beliefs, and my understanding is his moving on was also a part of Terrri's wishes. But if you want to judge individual actions, why is character assassination any better? The rumor, innuendoes, half-truths, and out right lies about Micheal are not a sin? That is not "gossip" that is also condemn by the Bible? There are many people that are talking about this case that know nothing about the facts, but they are willing to spout off theories that have no basis in fact. Is that some how right? Or just?


As for many people "who don't crack open the Bible," well I'm not one of them. I would humbly suggest that you might spend a little more time in it yourself.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Again, I said there are things that Micheal has done that I don't condone (the adultery being one of them), but I also recognize not everyone has my personal beliefs, and my understanding is his moving on was also a part of Terrri's wishes. But if you want to judge individual actions, why is character assassination any better? The rumor, innuendoes, half-truths, and out right lies about Micheal are not a sin? That is not "gossip" that is also condemn by the Bible? There are many people that are talking about this case that know nothing about the facts, but they are willing to spout off theories that have no basis in fact. Is that some how right? Or just?


As for many people "who don't crack open the Bible," well I'm not one of them. I would humbly suggest that you might spend a little more time in it yourself.

Just making a point here. No matter how you dress it up, or attribute motive, ect., plain fact is someone is being killed. That is just a fact that you cannot get around.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just making a point here. No matter how you dress it up, or attribute motive, ect., plain fact is someone is being killed. That is just a fact that you cannot get around.

And when someone is removed from a respirator? Stop medications needed to live? Refuse treatment or have a DNR? Are you really saying that no one should be able to determine that they no longer want medical treatment?

[cartman]

Well, we all get killed once blood stops flowing to our brains. That is what has killed anyone who has ever lived, and will kill everyone to come. The reason the blood stops flowing is what varies. According to the Bible, it is a consequence of original sin, and there is no avoiding it. So there is no saving anyone at anytime, only delaying the inevitable.

Hopefully I covered both the religious and scientific aspects.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

According to the courts, Michael Shiavo now has the legal authority to kill his wife by having her starved to death. True or False? One or the other, no dancing.

False

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Wow...

It's like arguing with monkeys. The law and religion do not interact, and are seperated.

The money is an non-issue, with the years, years of care and the court fees (even if his lawyer did take the case for free, and prolly didn't until late when it became nationa-he'll still have legal fees). In today's health world, a milion dollars is not much (and really, a million dollars in general isn't what it use to be). I highly doubt money is an issue, or else I would guess Michael would of married an extremely rich women (or dating).

The court system does not rule on religious law, but state and federal law. The only matter the courts rule is on violation and discrimmination of religion and the freedom of them. Why do people think that the courts rule on the bible, and not the laws?

Thats my biggest problem with Bubba, SFL, and all the other religious right-ies (meant with no harm intended) from thread to thread. They continue to want the law of the land to be based on their religious morals and thusly apply them to everyone even if they're not that religion (which I can harken back to the mayflower and the reason for the Puritans leaving England). They dont believe in seperation of church and state and will bounce from rhetoric and theory to rhetoric and theory (sometimes conjecture) to keep their movement going (state's rights, activist judges, gay marriage ammendments, "cheating husbands", paid doctors (as opposed to independent ones), verbage, propoganda, etc.

When I tell you this is what I fear(ed) when the hijacked Republican party (my opinion) won the election (I believe it was even posted about by me and many others - along with other stuff, I know) I hope you know, it is.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

According to the courts, Michael Shiavo now has the legal authority to kill his wife by having her starved to death. True or False? One or the other, no dancing.

I would say True by some of the definitions I see on dictionary.com....but again, the fact that she asked for this (decided by our courts more exhaustedly than, probably, any other court case ever) if ever in this predicament...Im glad that HER wishes remained the most important thing in all of this and her desires she was able to get.

7 entries found for kill.
kill1 Audio pronunciation of "kill" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl)
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.

1.
1. To put to death.
2. To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.
2. To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.
3.
1. To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
2. To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
3. To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin).
4. To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.
5. To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.
6. Sports. To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty).
7. To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me.
8. To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story.
9. To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill.
10. Informal. To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience.
11. Sports.
1. To hit (a ball) with great force.
2. To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.


v. intr.

1. To cause death or extinction; be fatal.
2. To commit murder.
3. Informal. To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill.


n.

1. The act of killing.
2.
1. An animal killed, especially in hunting.
2. A person killed or to be killed: “Infantrymen... had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached” (Nelson DeMille).
3. An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed.
3. Sports. A kill shot.


Phrasal Verb:
kill off

To destroy in such large numbers as to render extinct.


Idiom:
in at/on the kill

Present at the moment of triumph.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

After all, he claims Terri's best interests at heart, the money was specifically for Terri's medical care...Michael can silence most if not all his critics with an open accounting.

Only $700K was for Terri's care. The other $300K was awarded to Michael for loss of companionship. Given the costs of keeping someone in a skilled nursing facility (it's got to be at least $200 a day, if not more), and it's been 12 years since the settlement, that adds up to about $73K a year, or somewhere around $875K total. With the money spent on legal fees, there can't be much left.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

The really ironic thing is people are fighting to feed someone who had an eating disorder.

Yeah, I noted that and saw it as a bit odd. I'm sure there is more to all of this story, but the rankling over the money seems pretty apparent.

I think it's somewhere in the middle, but the parents obviously are going off the deep end, starting to demand that lawmakers change the law to suit them. Don't they realize that once the political capital is sapped out of this, there isn't much else they'll be able to do.

Though I read somewhere that conservative groups were backfunding some of the lawyers that Terri's parents had. Not sure if it's true obviously, but there has to be something else going on here..and it's not all about how evil the husband is.

Not that I would've agreed with his choices, either.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

The really ironic thing is people are fighting to feed someone who had an eating disorder.

To a certain degree I'm surprised this isn't considered more carefully by the Christian right-to-lifers that are fighting to reinsert her tube...her condition was apparently caused by her eating disorder, and now she's continuing the process of starving to death. Seems like if a person were betting on God trying to enact his will, that would be it, with humans interfering with their technology. *shurg*

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

To a certain degree I'm surprised this isn't considered more carefully by the Christian right-to-lifers that are fighting to reinsert her tube...her condition was apparently caused by her eating disorder, and now she's continuing the process of starving to death. Seems like if a person were betting on God trying to enact his will, that would be it, with humans interfering with their technology. *shurg*

I saw it on CNN today about this. She was Belanix (not sure if I spelled it right), and had an electroyde/chemical inbalance.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

To a certain degree I'm surprised this isn't considered more carefully by the Christian right-to-lifers that are fighting to reinsert her tube...her condition was apparently caused by her eating disorder, and now she's continuing the process of starving to death. Seems like if a person were betting on God trying to enact his will, that would be it, with humans interfering with their technology. *shurg*

Your suprised? They wanted Jeb Bush to violate the law and Constitution.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Read my thread regarding The Politically Incorrect Book of History. The President's use of military without congress declaring war is one of the things I highlighted in that.

I'm staying out of the Shiavo discussion, but I think you ignored my reply in the thread you mention above. See the War Powers Act.

http://dynamic5.gamespy.com/~fof/for...633#post726633

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The problem is where you are getting your news from. Just because you or one souce deems it "clear" there's a conflict of interest with the husband does not make it so. Escpecially when every court has said there is none.

The court recognized the conflict of interest in the 1998 proceeding. That's why they didn't take his word for it -- they took the word of his brother and sister-in-law. Now, you may not think this is appreciably different, and I would sympathize with that point of view, but the judge found their testimony credible (going into some detail in his decision about the sorts of things he was looking for) and Terri's family's testimony not credible.

[Mr. Wednesday]

As far as money goes, Greer indicated in the 2000 decision that Michael and the Schindlers split in 1994 over the question of the disposition of the $300,000 loss-of-consortium judgement. Apparently, they wanted half of it -- the way Greer discusses it, one gets the impression the Schindlers claimed there was some sort of prior agreement that Schiavo vacated.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The information I have gotten is that 1. No MRI has been taken of Terri's brain per Michael's wishes. If you know otherwise please enlighten me.

CAT scans have even been posted in this thread. I don't know what an MRI would show that the CAT scan failed to demonstrate. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that point.

Terrri regularly spoke in discernable tones and words and reacted to sight and sound.

I don't think anyone has denied that. Those sorts of activities are consistent with brain stem activity, from what I have read elsewhere and in this thread.

And it shouldn't be surprising that the sources I hear this on are both Fox News and Christian radio/TV since they seem to be the ones promoting life for Terri in the face of others promoting her death sentence.

You are buying into a conspiracy theory as well? Now, it is Michael Schiavo, numerous levels of the judicial system, AND the media.

The facts about the judge should be easily checked out if untrue.

I agree they should be easily checked out. It makes me wonder why so many Courts and Judges don't agree with you.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Might be all propaganda from the one side, but certainly contradicts some aspects from the report you linked with.

I have not read all the legal documents related to the case, but you'd think those allegations would have at least shown up in some of them if they held any water. Do you know if they did?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

If you read what I've said, she may indeed be in a vegetative state (althought that is being actively denied by including registered nurses that have cared for her) but even if she is doesn't mean Michael still has a right to kill her or we as a society have the right to enpower a judge to enpower Michael to kill her. Think I've pretty well beat this horse now.

The law of the State of Florida and the United States of America says otherwise. So, you are wrong. You have every right to have this opinion, but it doesn't mean you're right.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Personally, I hope the Schiavo's sue for part of Terri's trust fund to recoup whatever costs they have incurred helping to care for her. At least then we'll find out exactly how much money is left in the trust. The first time Schiavo tried to pull the plug on her, there was still over $700K left.

What expense have they had? The cost of gasoline to/from the hospice? It would be interesting to see what they could legally claim as care expenses in such a matter.

I've heard some say that Schiavo's been paying the legal bills from the fund, but I'm thinking that would violate what the fund was established for in the first place.

Maybe not, since he is implementing her wishes. Perhaps it could be demonstrated that all of these legal matters have been everyone vs Terri Schiavo, since he is legally recognized and verified as representing her legal wishes in the matter.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

So your bottom line is, Michael now has the legal authority to kill her?

No, but he has the authority to remove the feeding tube, which has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

On second thought, its not even necessary for you to answer at all. You state pretty emphatically Michael does have the legal authority and right to kill her.

So has every court in the judicial system that their argument could be taken to. However, I would question whether he has the legal authority to kill her. He does have the legal authority to remove the feeding tube. If she sat up and asked for a cheeseburger, her caregivers would probably be legally required to bring it to her.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Just making a point here. No matter how you dress it up, or attribute motive, ect., plain fact is someone is being killed. That is just a fact that you cannot get around.

More people are being killed everyday, and some of them are killed by the government by one method or another. Your crusade would be better served working on those injustices first.

[Tekneek]

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs...654520,00.html

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) -- Amid the pitched legal battle over Terri Schiavo that has been fought through his court, Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer has been under the protection of armed guards, and friends say his family also is protected.

Death threats have been made against him for allowing Michael Schiavo to remove the feeding tube that has kept his 41-year-old wife alive for the past 15 years, and the Southern Baptist church that Greer belonged to for years has asked him to leave the congregation.

Greer - a conservative Christian and longtime Republican known for an easy manner - has become the public face of the judiciary in this internationally watched fight. But despite the mounting pressure, he has been steadfast in his rulings that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and did not want to be kept alive artificially...

Protesters now show up at his Clearwater home. The FBI arrested a North Carolina man it said placed a $50,000 bounty on the head of a judge in the case, although officials didn't name the judge.

This past week, he parted ways with his Southern Baptist church, which had advocated keeping Terri Schiavo alive, after his pastor suggested it would be better if he left...

[Tekneek]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...n/11239223.htm

...

Ronald Cranford, a Minnesota neurologist who examined her in 2002 as part of a previous court case, said a CT scan of her brain showed very little but scar tissue and spinal fluid. An electroencephalogram measuring electrical activity in the thinking areas of her brain showed no evidence of continued function, he said.

“It's totally flat — nothing, and this is very unusual,” Cranford said. “The vast majority of people in a persistent vegetative state show about 5 percent of normal brain activity.”

...

At least a half dozen neurologists have examined Schiavo. In affidavits or testimony, four of them agreed she was in a persistent vegetative state and unlikely to recover. Courts have rejected the diagnosis of the dissenters. In 2002, the judge called one of them a “self-promoter” who “offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results” to support a claim that he could cure serious brain damage.

Yet another doctor, William Cheshire, cited last week by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his decision to intervene in the Schiavo case, also questioned the diagnosis, based on a personal visit to the patient and a review of records and videotape, according to an affidavit he filed with the court.

But Cheshire did not conduct an examination, according to his employer, the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. He declined a request for an interview.

...

Neurologists, ethicists and doctors who specialize in rehabilitating people with brain injuries said it is highly unusual to make a diagnosis without a complete neurological exam. This includes a careful observation to see whether a person can track objects with the eyes, whether they pull away from a pinch, whether the nerve reflexes in their feet, eyes and elsewhere reflect some conscious control. Doctors may also perform brain imaging technology to measure changes in structure or activity.

Neurologists define several levels of mental function. Whole brain death means neither the brain stem, which is involved in breathing and reflexes, nor the cortex and other areas involved in conscious awareness are active. In a persistent vegetative state, the brain stem is engaged but not the higher brain: The eyes are open, the person may seem aware, but is not.

There have been at least four confirmed cases of patients with oxygen-related brain injuries such as Schiavo's who have recovered awareness after being declared permanently vegetative. All four were young or middle-age men who regained consciousness within two years of being declared persistently vegetative and were partly paralyzed or severely disabled afterward. One was a patient of Cranford's.

“Yes, I made a mistake, and to this day no one can explain these cases,” but the patient made his recovery in less than 12 months, Cranford said.

In the Schiavo case, he said, “there has been no change in more than 12 years, and no real disagreement about that.”

[Tekneek]

http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle4235.html

The War on Michael Schiavo/The War Over Life
by Nicholas Stix
26 March 2005

Many of the people who have claimed to care so much about Terri Schiavo are motivated less by concern for her, than by their hatred for her husband, Michael.

...

Greed:’ If Michael Schiavo were greedy, he would have found a way to do away with his wife ten years ago, just after he received a $1 million settlement from a malpractice suit against her former doctors. But he didn’t. He put the money into a trust for her, where it has been virtually exhausted -- perhaps $50,000 remains. Schiavists point out that Mr. Schiavo has spent upwards of $400,000 from the trust for legal representation, as if that were an indictment of him. But he was defending himself in court against legal challenges from Mrs. Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. The Schiavists seem to be angered over Mr. Schiavo’s ability to afford legal representation.

...

However, on Nightline a few days ago, the second guardian ad litem, Jay Wolfson, said that doctors had told Mr. Schiavo from the beginning that his wife’s case was hopeless, and that after five years of caring for her, he seemed finally to accept what they had been saying all along. Note that unlike just about everyone else who has weighed in on the case, Wolfson, a lawyer and professor specializing in health law, has not aligned himself either with Mr. Schiavo or his in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, and appears to have no ox to gore.

Note that this “devil,” Mr. Schiavo, had spent over 5000 hours caring for his wife in the nursing home during those first five years alone. And he has never deserted his wife. But such facts are wasted on the Schiavists and the Schindlers.

Wolfson emphasized that Mr. Schiavo has demanded and gotten an extraordinarily high level of care for his wife, and during the first five years had even trained as a nurse, in order to assist in her care. Wolfson said that Mrs. Schiavo had suffered no decubitus ulcers (aka bed sores), which patients in such a condition typically suffer.

...

Aside from calling Mr. Schiavo a murderer, the Schiavists’ other condemnation of him, is that he is an “adulterer.” He is cheating on a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990.

We are not talking about a 70-year-old man here, but of a young man who was about 30 years of age, when his wife became, for all intents and purposes, brain dead. The people who would condemn a vital young man, who has never neglected his stricken wife, to a life of celibacy, are ghouls.

They are saying that when her life effectively ended, he was obliged to give up on any life of his own, as well.

...

Many of the “strangulation”/“Michael wants to shut Terri up” stories seem to have originated with the Schindlers themselves. The Schiavists have portrayed Mrs. Schiavo’s parents as angels locked in mortal combat with her demonic husband. The truth is, the Schindlers are no angels. Their hatred of their son-in-law runs so deep, that they have for several years engaged in a ruthless campaign of defamation against him. Indeed, the campaign of the Schiavists mirrors that of the Schindlers. Perhaps I should call the Schiavists the Schindlerists.

‘Michael has withheld care which would help Terri recover.’ No such care exists for someone in Mrs. Schiavo’s condition. Only divine intervention could have helped her.

...

The claim that the civil rights of death row inmates are better protected than Mrs. Schiavo’s, in addition to denying reality, nonsensically treats criminal and civil cases as if they were identical. It further presumes that Mrs. Schiavo’s interests are not being represented in court. Even the highly intelligent John O’Sullivan is not only promoting this nonsense, but playing the “Nazi card,” as well.

But of course Mrs. Schiavo’s civil rights are being represented -- by her husband. The civil rights arguments must presuppose that Mr. Schiavo does not have the legal role that he in fact has, or that he has failed to properly protect his wife’s rights. But in either case, the reasoning is circular -- the Schindlers’ attorneys and the Schiavists are presupposing that which they must prove. Ultimately, their belief reduces to ‘Mr. Schiavo refuses to do our bidding, ergo he is violating his wife’s civil rights.’ The belief takes the violation of Mr. Schiavo’s rights as husband and as his wife’s legal guardian as a matter of course.

Note that the Schiavists have called for a separate lawyer to be named to represent Mrs. Schiavo. That would mean that not one party would purport to speak on Mrs. Schiavo’s behalf, but THREE: Mr. Schiavo’s attorney, the Schindlers’ attorneys, and the new attorney purportedly representing -- aren’t they all? -- Mrs. Schiavo. That is not legal representation; it is legal chaos.

Note again, that the Schiavists are conservatives who, when they are not calling for more lawyers and more governmental interference in the private matters of the Schiavos, are expressing their distrust of government, and particularly, lawyers. Note too that the Schindlers have claimed that they desire a private solution. If you believe that claim from the very people who have called on the federal Leviathan to gut the legal process and pervert a private matter, I have a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge.

...

‘Terri is a disabled person; we need greater legal protection for disabled people. The spouse of a disabled person should not have legal power over that person, but must have to share that power with the disabled person’s birth family (parents and siblings).’

To speak of Mrs. Schiavo as a “disabled” person, as many Schiavists have, is misleading. Someone who can’t walk or who is blind is disabled, though with today’s pc regime of double-talk, you could lose your job for saying that. The woman’s cerebral cortex liquefied years ago. There’s no “there” there.

...

The same social and religious conservatives have, in their support for the family, been adamantly opposed to gay marriage. And yet, many of them are supporting government intervention into the family (to protect the disabled or incapacitated) and the weakening of the marital bonds. Again, these people either don’t really support marriage, they don’t know what they support, or they have lost their minds.

I didn’t marry my mother; I married my wife. And if I were to become a turnip, and my mother or father or sister could get a judge to force my wife to somehow “share” or cede altogether her power to make decisions on my behalf, the judge would, in effect, be dissolving my marriage. No one can dissolve the Schiavos’ marriage but Mr. Schiavo.

...

In Mrs. Schiavo’s case, however, the feeding tube is a form of life support, the functional equivalent of a ventilator, and thus an extraordinary measure. (Full disclosure: This is not a popular position.) Thousands of people receive nourishment through a “feeding tube,” known in nursing as a “g-tube,” but many of those people simply have a problem swallowing or a related gastric problem. They can speak or otherwise communicate with the world; Mrs. Schiavo can’t. Her only connection to the world is through that g-tube.

When my grandmother was felled by a series of strokes just before her 80th birthday, although she was, as folks said at the time, “vegetating,” she could still swallow. And so for over three years, she was fed pureed food by her nurses. And at the beginning, unlike Mrs. Schiavo, Nana did occasionally talk, as if in a dream. I recall her once talking about “paper,” telling someone to get her some paper. (She had been an executive secretary, and later served as our hometown’s deputy registrar.)

But soon thereafter, my nana stopped talking. She wasted away, and after three years, she died....

[QuikSand]

Tekneek... you should know better. We AMericans don't decide the facts (like what state Mrs. Schiavo may be in at the moment) in the case based on the medical evidence, or the expert opinions of people who are more learned than we are in the matter, or even on the perspectives of those who know much more about this case then we do. You have it all wrong. You can't argue something like this from the bottom up.

No, indeed. We decide these matters of fact based on what we want the outcome of this situation to me. In large part, we seem to start with how we feel about Mr. Schiavo. Some of us have decided he's a bad guy, mostly based on the things being said by his wife's parents. We also seem to be persuaded by our political heroes, some of whom have opted to get very involved in this matter, as you know.

Once we have reached our conclusion about what we want to have happen, we then go back and "set the facts" to support that conclusion. Do you see, now? If I have decided that Terri now has to live, then I need to strengthen that argument by looking for evidence (any evidence wil do, from any source) that she is in some state other than "persistent vegetative," because that just doesn't sound like someone we could rightfully defend. Fortunately, we have some long-ago physician who "reviewed a few tapes" and has concluded that Mrs. Schiavo is, in fact, not in such a state. So, since it suits the outcome that was picked for me by Tom DeLay and the radio talk show guy I listen to, I will now deny anything said by the reputable physicians... and will instead rely on the fringe medical evidence. (Please understand that if I had been led to the opposite conclusion about the outcome I desired, I would be arguing equally vociferously on behalf of the other set of doctors and thir opinion -- matters of fact are simply a means to an end here)

So, since I have decided that she must live -- I now accept every assertion made that Mr. Schiavo is an evil man, and that Mrs. Schiavo is all but up and dancing about the hostpial room. And I reject any evidence that Mr. Schiavo was, for years and years, a completely devoted and even overprotective husband to his impaired wife, or that Mrs. Schiavo's state is far worse and irreversible than even the long-comatose. That way, it's almost as if I reached this conclusion by thinking.


I hope that is clearer to you, now. If you want the matters of fact (even difficult ones) to lead, step by step, to a logical conclusion... politics isn't your game. Try math.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

... If you want the matters of fact (even difficult ones) to lead, step by step, to a logical conclusion... politics isn't your game. Try math.

I'm going to frame that quote. You didn't steal it from somewhere, did you?