Masked Man of Mystery 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 If anyone knows anything contrary to the spouse making the call in this sort of situation, please post a link or something and I'll admit I'm wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Maybe if she killed a Philadelphia police officer the Xtreme Left would want her to live... No, if she had a cerebral cortex still or if Mike Schiavo said keep her alive, then I know I(can't speak for everyone) would support keeping her alive Which, again, makes her the property of Michael Schiavo. The practice of people being other people's property was supposed to have ended about 140 years ago here. -=Mike I believe that you are the only one here who calls her property. She isn't property. This is a woman without a cerebral cortex who is married. As far as I know, in cases like this, the spouse makes the call. That does not make her property. That is what we have to do because the woman cannot think, let alone make a decision about her life. If Michael chose to shoot her, would he be arrested? Most definitely. So he doesn't have the power to make that choice. What's going on with Terri is barbaric. The courts should at least allow this to happen quickly, if "dignity" is what their concern is here. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Masked Man of Mystery 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly, Mike. Every patient who gets like this should be kept alive until the body completely dies, correct? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly, Mike. Every patient who gets like this should be kept alive until the body completely dies, correct? Every patient who does not have clear instructions as to what they want (clear instructions being more than allegedly saying it once while watching TV) should not be killed, no. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Masked Man of Mystery 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Okay, I can work with that. If that were the law of the land, I'd say okay. However, where's the outrage about this story? the Sun Hudson case Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Okay, I can work with that. If that were the law of the land, I'd say okay. However, where's the outrage about this story? the Sun Hudson case 1) The story is terrible. 2) World of difference from somebody needing nutrition to live and somebody needing machines to handle the basic necessities for life. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Okay, I can work with that. If that were the law of the land, I'd say okay. However, where's the outrage about this story? the Sun Hudson case 1) The story is terrible. 2) World of difference from somebody needing nutrition to live and somebody needing machines to handle the basic necessities for life. -=Mike Nutrition is a basic necessity of life, or at least food in general, and I believe the feeding tube works via machinery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 http://www.hipinion.com/forums/viewtopic.p...der=asc&start=0 In the vein of people being assholes about current events, I present this thread. EDIT: I'm only gonna link to this one, we're not in HD...yet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 http://www.hipinion.com/forums/viewtopic.p...der=asc&start=0 In the vein of people being assholes about current events, I present this thread. EDIT: I'm only gonna link to this one, we're not in HD...yet I wonder if that pic in one guy's avatar of Catherine Zeta Jones with an "I :heart: to fuck" shirt, is legit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 Oh my god, the Slint one is incredible. Wow. I'm stealing it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 http://www.hipinion.com/forums/viewtopic.p...der=asc&start=0 In the vein of people being assholes about current events, I present this thread. EDIT: I'm only gonna link to this one, we're not in HD...yet Goddamn you. I just spit soda all over my fucking monitor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 I'm sure with a little more effort in Photoshop, that could be one nasty Bukkake picture... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 22, 2005 he problem is you guys have to take everything that was funny once and beat it to death until it's beyond not funny Where have we heard THAT one before Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 http://www.hipinion.com/forums/viewtopic.p...der=asc&start=0 In the vein of people being assholes about current events, I present this thread. EDIT: I'm only gonna link to this one, we're not in HD...yet I wonder if that pic in one guy's avatar of Catherine Zeta Jones with an "I :heart: to fuck" shirt, is legit. That'd be awesome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 If Michael chose to shoot her, would he be arrested? Most definitely. So he doesn't have the power to make that choice. One of the rights of human vegetables is the right to die. Heck, I'm not a vegetable and I have the right to die, in that I could contract a lethal disease and sit at home not treating it. But in the case of those who are this far gone, their spouse makes the decision about an accepted method of death, depriving them of machine-assisted living and letting the body sink or swim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 There's a difference between witholding something and allowing someone to die naturally, and inflicting a fatal wound on them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 23, 2005 There's a difference between witholding something and allowing someone to die naturally, and inflicting a fatal wound on them. One is actually more humane. And if all they want is to let "nature take its course", why are they arresting people for trying to give Terri water? http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p...8&c=news_photos -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 Actually, she was arrested for trespassing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 23, 2005 Actually, she was arrested for trespassing. And why was she there? To give Terri water. World of difference between allowing nature to take its course and causing a death by not allowing nutrition to be administered. -=Mike ...If Michael is to be taken seriously as her husband, shouldn't he be expected to marginally pretend to honor his vows?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 World of difference between allowing nature to take its course and causing a death by not allowing nutrition to be administered. How so? Water isn't going to get into her body naturally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 23, 2005 World of difference between allowing nature to take its course and causing a death by not allowing nutrition to be administered. How so? Water isn't going to get into her body naturally. So, giving somebody water is now not allowed? That is torture. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 There's a difference between witholding something and allowing someone to die naturally, and inflicting a fatal wound on them. Having to talked to doctors about this who have had to be caretaker for vegetative patients, I've heard suggestions that pulling the feeding tube is not the only non-action that would cause her to die. It is almost guaranteed that she is a target for urinary infections and severe cases of pneuomonia. Simply don't treat one of those, and you can guess what happens next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 World of difference between allowing nature to take its course and causing a death by not allowing nutrition to be administered. How so? Water isn't going to get into her body naturally. So, giving somebody water is now not allowed? That is torture. -=Mike Like I said, she was actually arrested for trespassing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 23, 2005 World of difference between allowing nature to take its course and causing a death by not allowing nutrition to be administered. How so? Water isn't going to get into her body naturally. So, giving somebody water is now not allowed? That is torture. -=Mike Like I said, she was actually arrested for trespassing. And if her parents tried to give her water, they'd be prevented, too. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 And if all they want is to let "nature take its course", why are they arresting people for trying to give Terri water? The idiots of the right to life crowd are making themselves obvious. There'd be a cruel irony if she choked and drowned on water or food being given to her by kooks who are so motivated by the circus this case has become. Then the activist gets charged with manslaughter. This is the right-wing's equivelant to hippies to chain themselves to trees. It's all just shameful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 23, 2005 And if all they want is to let "nature take its course", why are they arresting people for trying to give Terri water? The idiots of the right to life crowd are making themselves obvious. There'd be a cruel irony if she choked and drowned on water or food being given to her by kooks who are so motivated by the circus this case has become. Then the activist gets charged with manslaughter. This is the right-wing's equivelant to hippies to chain themselves to trees. It's all just shameful. It's forcing somebody like Michael to admit what he wants --- not to give his wife dignity, but to have her die. If she can't drink, so be it. Why can't the chance be taken? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 It's forcing somebody like Michael to admit what he wants --- not to give his wife dignity, but to have her die. What dignity is there in continuing on after you've been beyond braindead for 15 years? Furthermore, if enough did get into her lungs, there's a chance that putting the tube back in would develop some sort of pneuomonia. Again, hippies in trees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 It's forcing somebody like Michael to admit what he wants --- not to give his wife dignity, but to have her die. How do you know that he doesn't want to give her dignity? Maybe he just really doesn't see the point in keeping a severely brain damaged woman with no hope of recovery alive. I mean, I know there's all these claims about money and his other wife or whatever, but why is it impossible that he just actually thinks she should die/heard her say it and mean it years ago? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 23, 2005 It's forcing somebody like Michael to admit what he wants --- not to give his wife dignity, but to have her die. How do you know that he doesn't want to give her dignity? Maybe he just really doesn't see the point in keeping a severely brain damaged woman with no hope of recovery alive. I mean, I know there's all these claims about money and his other wife or whatever, but why is it impossible that he just actually thinks she should die/heard her say it and mean it years ago? 1) It took him SEVEN YEARS to remember it. 2) His interests and her interests do not remotely intersect. He's her "husband" who is engaged with children with another woman. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2005 His interests and her interests do not remotely intersect. He's her "husband" who is engaged with children with another woman. So just because he found another woman instead of sitting by her bed for 8 years, he's not allowed to be of the opinion that she's never, ever going to get any better, and it would be better to let her die? And how long ago was the idea of letting her die brought up? Like, did they think it would have been a reasonable idea seven years ago? Or is it only recently that they realized the extent of the damage? Because if he wanted it done ages ago but never brought up the claim that she said she'd want to die until later on, then I'd be suspicious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
