The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I think it's fine. There's worse ways to die.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think it's fine. There's worse ways to die.

Worse ways to die than starvation?

 

Care to explain which ones it'd be?

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Being set on fire.

 

The way I look at this case is by putting myself in their shoes. If I were her, there's no way I'd want to live, and I wouldn't want to see my wife like that either.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Mangled in farm equipment, being pressed between two rocks..Mike, do you have any idea how long that post would be?

[Guest MikeSC]

Fire and farm equipment would be far quicker.

 

Starvation takes about 2 weeks.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'd take starvation over those other ones ten times out of ten.

 

ESPECIALLY IF I DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY BRAIN MATERIAL TO FEEL HUNGER OR PAIN

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Incapacitation is incapacitation.

 

And it's all equal in your world.

 

I think having a a flesh-eating bacteria eat out your body would be pretty lousy too.

[Molotov The Bear 0]

Why the fuck would you WANT to live for 15+ years as a vegetable? Whether she told him to or not, it's fucking stupid to think that someone would want to stay alive when it's been called a miracle that she'll ever come out of it.

 

Let her fucking die. Kepping her alive is far worse "torture" then taking out the feeding tube.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm pro-euthanasia and pro-right to die. However, in absence of any actual, documented proof (ie, a living will) that she wanted to die, there is no legal option but to keep her alive.

[SuperJerk 0]

Anybody know what Constitutional justification the strict-constructionist Republicans are using to explain this law that was just passed about this?

 

Interstate commerce clause perhaps?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm pro-euthanasia and pro-right to die...

Wow, General. I thought you'd be falling on the other side of this issue...

[CanadianChris 0]

I think it's fine. There's worse ways to die.

Worse ways to die than starvation?

 

Care to explain which ones it'd be?

-=Mike

She has no brain activity. She would not be affected by starvation, as she cannot sense that it is even happening. All it would do is shut her body down in the same fashion that her brain has already been shut down. Starvation is cruel only to those who are aware that it is happening.

 

As for your repeated insistence that this is an eighth amendment issue, that amendment very specifically states that it is meant to impose boundaries on the state in how they may treat prisoners in the course of a criminal case. Which this very clearly is not.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Day One: Medical personnel use a simple surgical procedure to remove the percutaneous endoscopic gastrotomy tube, which is placed through the skin and into the stomach. Patients who do not have mental cognition to have a sense of thirst or hunger will not be uncomfortable.

 

Days Three to Four: Urine output decreases and patients begin to lose normal body secretions. The mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. Patients will look thinner because the body tissues have lost fluid. Their heart rate gradually goes up, and their blood pressure goes down. In some patients, dehydration releases endorphins in the brain that create a state of euphoria.

 

Days Five to 10: People who are alert have a marked decrease in their alertness. Respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. Some patients will become restless, while others will be less active. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, there may be no discernible change in their movements.

 

Days 10 until Death: Patients do not appear to respond to their environment at all and may appear to be in a coma. The length of the death process is determined by how well-nourished patients were and how much body fat and fluid they had when the procedure began. There may be outward signs of dehydration, such as extremely dry skin. Kidney function declines, and toxins begin accumulating in the body. Toxins cause respiratory muscles to fail. Multiple organ systems begin to fail from lack of nutrition.

 

She's not going to feel a thing.

Well I guess that makes it okay!

[The Czech Republic 0]

No country is better off with euthanasia.

 

That is a Pandora's Box that should NEVER be opened.

-=Mike

Very true, but I'm not certain that artificially sustaining her life with no hope in sight is much better. Like it or not, it's the husband's call, legally, and I don't think this is a congressional matter. Between this and the baseball hearings, our legislature has really been waving its dick around quite a bit lately.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

She's not going to feel a thing.

Well I guess that makes it okay!

Well, in response to Mike's claim that this is an issue of cruel and unusual punishment (which, as Chris has pointed out, it isn't anyway), yes, it does. It's not like removing a feeding tube is something new; dehydration for terminal non-response patients happens in hospitals and hospices every day.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Anybody know what Constitutional justification the strict-constructionist Republicans are using to explain this law that was just passed about this?

 

Interstate commerce clause perhaps?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...728_memo20.html

 

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.

 

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

 

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

 

That's probably not what you're looking for, though

[Stephen Joseph 0]

All I have to say is that I think it's pretty shitty how this has turned into political fodder both sides are trying to benefit from.

 

At this point, neither side really cares about the 1 vegatative person who matters.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I never quite understand how Republicans are supposedly the State's rights party until something comes along that might upset the Religious Right, then the party changes it's tune and is happy to interfere.

 

Here's my living will right now. Don't keep me alive for 15 years to drool and shit my pants. The end.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I'm pro-euthanasia and pro-right to die...

Wow, General. I thought you'd be falling on the other side of this issue...

Despite my general conservatism, most of that comes from econmics and foreign policy. I'm a social liberal. I think, if someone wants to die, it's their life and their right, but we have to know unequivocally that that was indeed their wish. In this case, we do not.

[Vyce 0]

I'd take starvation over those other ones ten times out of ten.

 

ESPECIALLY IF I DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY BRAIN MATERIAL TO FEEL HUNGER OR PAIN

People keep saying that.

 

And no matter how many times it is said, it still reeks of justification every time it's uttered.

 

Here's a hypo: what if she COULD feel pain? Not necessarily cognizant of her surroundings, etc., but she could feel pain, thus ensuring that starvation would be a slow and agonizing death for her. Would your opinion then change?

 

Again - it just seems as if people are using the "well, she won't feel anything" as a justification for the fact that starvation is very much a bad way to go.

 

Let her fucking die. Kepping her alive is far worse "torture" then taking out the feeding tube.

 

But wait - she doesn't feel anything anyway, so how is it torture?

 

For that matter, who fucking cares if we let her live? I mean, she doesn't know any better at this point. It's not as if she's going to object. I mean hell, we could tie strings to her limbs and have her perform in a marionette show, she won't care. I mean, she doesn't feel anything, so that makes it okay, you know?

 

I never quite understand how Republicans are supposedly the State's rights party until something comes along that might upset the Religious Right, then the party changes it's tune and is happy to interfere.

 

Where have you been? The parties have changed roles in the past few years. Another example: Republicans pulling for federal legislation (i.e. a Constitutional amendment) over gay marriage, and Democrats arguing it's a state's rights issue. The parties have shifted a bit in recent memory from their previous positions on state's rights.

 

I'm pro-euthanasia and pro-right to die. However, in absence of any actual, documented proof (ie, a living will) that she wanted to die, there is no legal option but to keep her alive.

 

I agree.

 

Well, not about being pro-euthanasia and pro-right to die. Very much opposed to those ideologies.

 

But my problem with this case from the very beginning is that there is absolutely nothing to prove that she wanted to die other than the assertions of her husband (who may or may not be an entirely trustworthy witness, depending upon your point of view). Second-hand statements of what HE says she wanted may be good enough in some situations, but really, as Mike mentioned, when it comes to life and death it ain't good enough. Not even close.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I never quite understand how Republicans are supposedly the State's rights party until something comes along that might upset the Religious Right, then the party changes it's tune and is happy to interfere.

 

Here's my living will right now. Don't keep me alive for 15 years to drool and shit my pants. The end.

I'm looking to get a DNR-ish card saying something like "In case of (blah blah), make a huge political issue out of whatever hurt me"

 

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'd take starvation over those other ones ten times out of ten.

 

ESPECIALLY IF I DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY BRAIN MATERIAL TO FEEL HUNGER OR PAIN

People keep saying that.

 

And no matter how many times it is said, it still reeks of justification every time it's uttered.

 

Here's a hypo: what if she COULD feel pain? Not necessarily cognizant of her surroundings, etc., but she could feel pain, thus ensuring that starvation would be a slow and agonizing death for her. Would your opinion then change?

 

Again - it just seems as if people are using the "well, she won't feel anything" as a justification for the fact that starvation is very much a bad way to go.

"What if she COULD feel pain?" Then she wouldn't be in the vegetative state she's in. I suppose the case would have to be evaluated, but you're comparing apples and boxcars here. Additionally, if it were her wish to go, it'd be her priority regardless of pain.

 

But my problem with this case from the very beginning is that there is absolutely nothing to prove that she wanted to die other than the assertions of her husband (who may or may not be an entirely trustworthy witness, depending upon your point of view). Second-hand statements of what HE says she wanted may be good enough in some situations, but really, as Mike mentioned, when it comes to life and death it ain't good enough. Not even close.

 

My emphasis. It IS good enough. What, ten years of litigation on this and he's still been ruled fit to be her guardian? I said it before and I'll say it again: what you personally believe about the character of Michael Schiavo means nothing in this case, because a court has ruled that he is suitable to remain her legal guardian which, as her husband, he most certainly was and continues to be. Obviously you can say what you think about whether or not he's trustworthy and make your opposition known, but second-guessing the court's opinion and agreeing with all the tabloids is veering into tinfoil hat stuff.

[SuperJerk 0]

All I have to say is that I think it's pretty shitty how this has turned into political fodder both sides are trying to benefit from.

 

At this point, neither side really cares about the 1 vegatative person who matters.

So far I only see one side trying to get political benefit from it.

The side that wants to let her die had already won before Congress stepped in. They have nothing to gain by dragging this out.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

ABC News (PDF). 3/20. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines.)

 

Removal of feeding tube

Support 63

Oppose 28

 

Federal Intervention

 

Support 35

Oppose 60

 

Appropriate for Congress to get involved?

 

Appropriate 27

Not Appropriate 70

 

Reason political leaders are trying to keep Shiavo alive

 

Concern about Shiavo 19

Political Advantage 67

[SuperJerk 0]

The religious right/conservatives constantly use issues the general public disagrees with them on for political advantage (i.e. abortion, gun control).

 

That's because they have long memories and stay informed about who's playing up to their views (versus apathetic liberals who usually can't be bothered to vote at all, despite how much they claim to care about an issue).

[AndrewTS 0]

The religious right/conservatives constantly use issues the general public disagrees with them on for political advantage (i.e. abortion, gun control).

Approximately half of the general public, you mean?

 

Count me in as one of the ones who doesn't give a damn either way, but instead of starving her can't they do something more humane like smother her with a pillow?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I found myself talking about this on IM with a friend. Around the end of the convo, I mentioned one thing and one thing which is probably wishful thinking

 

#1) if she does have the tube pulled, her pain and suffering would soon be over. That's just one thing I believe, that people who do go to heaven go there without the pains which they felt before.

 

#2) I mentioned a hope that all this could end up resulting in good things (living wills) and people coming together, as opposed to people being divided.

 

I wish that the second thing could happen, but I doubt it.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The religious right/conservatives constantly use issues the general public disagrees with them on for political advantage (i.e. abortion, gun control).

Approximately half of the general public, you mean?

 

Count me in as one of the ones who doesn't give a damn either way, but instead of starving her can't they do something more humane like smother her with a pillow?

It's a really sticky situation. On one hand, dying of starvation is a long process, and may or may not be painful for her depending on who you believe. On the other hand, removing the tube is the only thing that allows for a "natural" death, anything else would move into the realm of assisted suicide at best, murder at worst.

[Slickster 0]

Also, Terri Schiavo is incapable of feeling pain. The dehydration, not the starvation, would kill her, slowly but not painfully. She would pass into sleep and not wake up, simple as that.

 

To say that Terri Schiavo is 'alive' is misleading. 40% of her brain is literally gone, she is incapable of any motion beyond the most basic reflexes, and she has no possible hope of recovery. She's 'alive' only in the sense that she is breathing and her internal organs are still functioning.

 

This case sets a dangerous precedent by taking Terri's right to live or die and making it the decision of Congress and the President, not her legal guardian. If they can go over the heads of the state courts once, who could stop them if they wanted to do this again in the future to decide another person's fate?

[Guest MikeSC]

Anybody know what Constitutional justification the strict-constructionist Republicans are using to explain this law that was just passed about this?

 

Interstate commerce clause perhaps?

8th Amendment.

13th Amendment.

 

You want more?

-=Mike