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

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Party Identification

Republican

44%

Democrat

29%

Independent

28%

That's actually just the portion of the sample that had living wills. The real demographics are even scarier for the right's extremist crowd:

 

"There are no partisan political differences on this issue: majorities of Democrats (89 percent), Republicans (72 percent), liberals (84 percent) and conservatives (76 percent) are in agreement that the government should not be involved."

[redbaron29 0]

That parrot sketch thing was just plain EVIL, man

Your probably right, it's surely not in good taste for such a "sensative" situation....but that is exactly how I envisioned it. So I guess that makes me a very creative bad person. Both sides see it as a completely different issue. The Republicans point of view is a "right to live" argument which is valid. When it comes between the right to life or death, life should always be given the benifit of doubt. The Democrats are looking at this as a "quality of life" point of view, which is also true. People should be at least given the right to live life in the proper manner. Terry definetly doesnt seem to have a good quality of life. I'm in no way saying either side is right or wrong I am just weighing the views of each side as a valid point which is probably why my opinion is up in the air. Feel free to sway my opinion with your rhetoric.

[Guest MikeSC]

The case you cite is also misleading, but that's par for the course.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3094518

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlaw...upport_sto.html  --- written by one of the people who WROTE the Texas law, so he knows what he's talking about.

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/03/20/4103/

 

Sun also required a respirator. Terri does not.

 

Nice try.

Doesn't exactly work, I'm afraid, since the basis of your arguement is that life is so gosh-darn important and it's a crime against all humanity when someone comes in and takes them away.

No, the Sun case was that they went from NO protections to whatever protections they could add in.

And your response still doesn't disprove my point that there suddently wasn't a bunch of Reupbulicans in Washington pushing the edge of what they can legally do in the interest of saving a life.

And there is no better use for gov't power than to save helpless people.

If somebody is going to claim that they should have a voice in their spouse's decision, then they should honor their marriage vows.

 

If they abuse their vows, then the family who IS NOT cheating on the patient should be given precedence over the man who IS cheating on the patient.

There's no legal binding to wedding vows.

If Terri was conscious, there'd be a divorce.

BTW, just to clarify, the memo --- yes, this is a true shocker --- appears to be a fraud. Apparently, what happened to Rather didn't teach a lesson.

 

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/03...ate_part_i.html

 

user posted image

It's a shame that, yet again, the press has to invent a memo to attack Republicans with. I see no reason to trust the media.

Why not actually TEST for PVS, since there are doctors who have examined her and said that she is not a PVS case?

 

 

Bullshit. They've looked at videos and looked through her records. Anyone with eyes could look at the X-Rays and look at the fucking facts and tell that there's not just some sort of minimal braindamage there.

An affidavit that disagrees.

And there's nothing illegal about it. It means he's not the most honorable man in the entire world, but how important it is comes down to the Court of Public Opinion. Just like the same Public Opinion that wasn't as concerned about the President getting BJs as they were about him lying about it (and rightly so.)

And life and death is more important than that.

 

I am deeply and profoundly ashamed of my country.

First of all, Christopher Reeve at least had a working thought process still. And how do you not know that if he was allowed to do carry out his wishes earlier, he wouldn't have wound up in this situation?

 

The Shindlers and the people who have turned this case from a family matter into a national circus have stalled for time for years and years and years. If what's happening now could have happened 7 years ago, he would have met his new partner as a single man.

They had problems with his treatment of Terri way back in 1993. It's not like this is a NEW issue --- and this was before he suddenly remembered that she wanted to die.

And of course, the funny thing is how you've bitched in the past about how divorce is ruining marriage, and here you're advocating it.

I'll take divorce over cold-blooded murder.

As much as you can complain about him being an awful husband, the flip side of the coin says that the same parents you feel are right haven't been challenging his status as the person who makes the decision. They've been trying to play a game of seeing if they can wait him out. They waited and waited and have finally run out of time.

 

They've basically fillibustered the issue as long as they can, and while it's a subjective issue, I can't blame the guy for not wanting to relinquish control after such a tactic.

Because making damned sure she died is just that important.

Using phrases like "starve to death" carries with it certain emotions that only fuel the fire. It is also misleading.

No, it's the truth. What's happening?

 

She is starving to death and being dehydrated.

 

If you don't like facing reality, so be it. It does not change what is happening.

Do the research, listen to the doctors, not the politicians or some blogger's political spin. She is not aware. And don't quote the Shindler's doctors who say she is aware and can be cured. Most of the doctors they reference have never actually examined her.

The affidavit I gave you is from a doctor who says she DOES respond who has examined her.

 

Nurses have said she can drink water and eat some food without a machine and that Michael put a stop to that years ago.

 

But, hey, you're letting "nature take its course" --- come hell or high water.

I just like how his opinions on this completely subjective matter just happen to match perfectly the views of Congressional Republicans.

Funny that they don't.

  By the way, as an effort to provide relief in this thread, I'm hence ignoring Mike until he actually provides a fact.

 

That part where he kept going on about shack-up honeys and pussy on the side while no-selling the posts about the Shindlers encouraging him to date to reply to posts made afterwards just shows how hard he's sticking his fingers in his ears and telling people they're wrong.

 

But it has been damn entertaining to watch him advocate divorce and what basically comes to a court filibuster. I guess that's why they call them values, because their value goes up and down as you need them to prove a point.

And the left's concern for human rights is kicked just a little bit more.

 

Just so long as those evil Christians learn a lesson.

 

So what if a helpless woman is murdered as a pawn in your game? It's worth it, if the "religious right" is "stopped".

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

An affidavit that disagrees.

Ah, you finally made a fact.

 

The proclimation from one of Michael's relatives about Terri's comment was also in an affidavit, yet you don't buy it. In this case, our skepticism towards them shall work both ways.

 

I'll take divorce over cold-blooded murder.

 

No, it's the truth. What's happening?

 

She is starving to death and being dehydrated.

 

If you don't like facing reality, so be it. It does not change what is happening.

 

I still don't think it is smart to deem the phrase "starving to death" as accurate. Again, she is not aware, she feels no pain, her movements are involuntary. You cannot confuse the issue by saying that starving a cognitive being is the same thing as allowing a PVS patient to die by withholding the feeding tube.

 

Ditto all this stuff about shooting people, property, etc. You've been letting this sewage in for the whole thread and it's time someone called you on it.

 

There is a HUGE difference between killing someone, and not forcing them to live simply because we have the ARTIFICIAL means to keep them alive. Your statements make it clear that you do not want to play God by ending something which may still be alive, but if it were up to nature, she'd already be dead. It is because we already decided to step in and play God that she is in her current situation.

 

She has no chance to have any kind of life. If she could sustain life without the use of tubes, then we should not take it, regardless of what she's experiencing. But it is another book entirely to talk about withdrawing the tubes. We were not born to live with tubes.

 

Do you, personally, think that she would WANT to live this way?

 

And hey, another successful ignore of the fact that the parents encouraged him to go date other women. Excellent.

[Vyce 0]

It's pretty much over.

 

By now, I'm burnt out.

 

And Mike, you REALLY got tone down with the "murderer!" crap. I'm starting to think that Sean Hannity has been cloned and has infiltrated the board.

[CanadianChris 0]

An affidavit that disagrees.

Ah, you finally made a fact.

 

The proclimation from one of Michael's relatives about Terri's comment was also in an affidavit, yet you don't buy it. In this case, our skepticism towards them shall work both ways.

Plus there's Schiavo saying in an interview that doctors were signing affidavits based on looking at a picture of Terri, without an actual exam.

 

Mike has pretty much shown himself to be well into his normal no-selling the facts form. Any further discussion is pretty pointless.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

An affidavit that disagrees.

Somebody might want to check up on William Cheshire's background. I was reading an article in my local paper this morning that mentioned he was a member of a couple conservative religious organizations that are strongly against removing the feeding tube, so he might not be totally unbiased in his diagnosis.

[Guest MikeSC]

An affidavit that disagrees.

Ah, you finally made a fact.

 

The proclimation from one of Michael's relatives about Terri's comment was also in an affidavit, yet you don't buy it. In this case, our skepticism towards them shall work both ways.

Then have a hearing and listen to the other side. This isn't hearsay.

I'll take divorce over cold-blooded murder.

 

No, it's the truth. What's happening?

 

She is starving to death and being dehydrated.

 

If you don't like facing reality, so be it. It does not change what is happening.

I still don't think it is smart to deem the phrase "starving to death" as accurate.

It is PRECISELY what is happening. NOBODY is allowed to TRY to feed her or give her water (Michael is controlling access to Terri and has for years --- locking her family out of her room for long, long stretches of time). They are starving and dehydrating her to death and NOBODY, whatsoever, is permitted to try and feed/hydrate her.

Again, she is not aware, she feels no pain, her movements are involuntary.

Nurses have stated she feels pain and discomfort, mentioning her menstrual cycle as a key part.

You cannot confuse the issue by saying that starving a cognitive being is the same thing as allowing a PVS patient to die by withholding the feeding tube.

When you won't permit anybody to try and give her food and water ---- then, yes, you're starving and dehydrating her to death.

Ditto all this stuff about shooting people, property, etc. You've been letting this sewage in for the whole thread and it's time someone called you on it.

 

There is a HUGE difference between killing someone, and not forcing them to live simply because we have the ARTIFICIAL means to keep them alive. Your statements make it clear that you do not want to play God by ending something which may still be alive, but if it were up to nature, she'd already be dead. It is because we already decided to step in and play God that she is in her current situation.

When you REFUSE to give somebody food or water, which is happening, then you are murdering them.

 

If somebody rubs ice on her chapped lips, they'd be arrested. If her FAMILY did it, they'd be arrested.

 

You don't find this barbaric?

She has no chance to have any kind of life. If she could sustain life without the use of tubes, then we should not take it, regardless of what she's experiencing. But it is another book entirely to talk about withdrawing the tubes. We were not born to live with tubes.

And they won't let anybody TRY to feed her. It's hard to say "Well, we're allowing nature to take its course" when, in reality, NOBODY is ALLOWED to feed or give her water.

 

This is beyond removing tubes. This is refusing to allow anybody to TRY to take care of her.

Do you, personally, think that she would WANT to live this way?

I do not KNOW. Nor do you. So killing her makes no sense.

And hey, another successful ignore of the fact that the parents encouraged him to go date other women. Excellent.

They wanted him to move on and allow them to take over her care.

 

Hell, her family, to this day, has NO clue what CAUSED her heart attack. Nobody can say what caused it because the only person who knows is Michael.

 

And her parents wanted him to move on so they could take care of their daughter. It boggles the mind that he'd move on --- and STILL want to kill his wife.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

It's pretty much over.

 

By now, I'm burnt out.

 

And Mike, you REALLY got tone down with the "murderer!" crap. I'm starting to think that Sean Hannity has been cloned and has infiltrated the board.

People are killing the woman. They refuse to offer her any sustenance. If people do not like hearing what is actually happening, that is their problem.

 

If this was done to a rapist, we'd have massive lawsuits.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

I don't see how anyone can call a feeding tube "artificial means of life". Its giving someone food. Something that controls her breathing...that is artificial life. She is being starved to death if dying of thirst doesn't kill her first. That is barbaric no matter how you want to try to look at it.

 

No one here can survive without food or water. If you cut off your supply of either you would die and it would be murder. How this is any different is beyond me.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

Al Franken was on some Newshow on CNN or whatever and he owned the host and the other guest by using logic and medical facts to prove that she was "braindead" the other guy just grinned and said your wrong...bah she's disabled not brain dead. The woman was like "This is like taking a mother's breast away from the baby! Al was just like "Oh my...*rolled eyes*" The host really didn't like Al and wouldn't let him voice his full opinions... good stuff

[redbaron29 0]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050324/D891E8HO3.html

 

Well I guess this ends the argument on how things are going to turn out.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

This is awful.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

Well I feel awkward being surronded by people who think we should keep her "living"

 

 

 

/leaves thread

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Twenty court rulings have sided with Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and guardian. The courts have ruled that evidence shows Terri Schiavo expressed her wishes, although she did not have a written living will. -CNN

 

I think that's enough

[NoCalMike 0]

Turns out not so many Christians support either Bush brother in this matter afterall..........

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...s/schiavo_polls

 

Poll: Evangelicals Oppose Gov't on Schiavo

 

2 hours, 45 minutes ago U.S. National - AP

 

By The Associated Press

 

More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress and President Bush (news - web sites) in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.

 

A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP almost that high.

 

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last month.

 

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president early Monday.

 

 

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.

 

 

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

 

 

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points

[NoCalMike 0]

An

Do you, personally, think that she would WANT to live this way?

I do not KNOW. Nor do you. So killing her makes no sense.

Well her husband knew, and that is what matters, not what I know, or you know, or even what her parents THINK they know for that matter. The courts have heard the case over and over and over, and they have failed to find any reason Michael Schiavo has to be lying about this. The bottomline is that this is Michael Schiavo's decision whether you, me, her parents like it or not, it is his decision, and the courts have ruled in his favor multiple times. And as far as what caused her heart attack, aren't there reports of her being bullemic? Yes of course it is being denied by the family now, but they are also trying to latch onto ANYTHING that will make a court rule in a different way then they have the last fourteen times. Also, haven't other people testified in the past to have heard Terry talk about this and not wanting to be kept alive in this condition?

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

ABC Caught - Schiavo

Poll Distorted

By Michelle Malkin

3-23-5

 

 

However you feel about the Terri Schiavo case, one fact is indisputable: The mainstream media (MSM) coverage of the matter has been abysmal.

 

On a fundamental matter of life and death, the MSM heavyweights have proven themselves utterly incapable of reporting fairly. Take a widely publicized ABC News poll released on Monday that supposedly showed strong public opposition to any Washington intervention in Terri's case. Here is how the spinmasters framed the main poll question:

 

"As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?"

 

A follow-up question asked:

 

"If you were in this condition, would you want to be kept alive, or not?"

 

The problem is that, contrary to what ABC News told those polled, Terri Schiavo is not on "life support" and has never been on "life support." The loaded phrase evokes images of a comatose patient being artificially sustained by myriad machines and pumps and wires. Terri was on a feeding tube. A feeding tube is not a ventilator. Terri can breathe just fine on her own.

 

And as many of her medical caretakers and parents have argued, if given proper rehabilitation, Terri could learn to chew and swallow on her own as well. She is disabled, not dead.

 

But ABC News did not see fit to inform either the poll takers or its viewers of the truth. Instead, it misled them -- and the result was a poll response that produced -- voila! -- "broad public disapproval" for any government intervention to spare Terri from slowly starving to death. Blogger Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters noted: "Either ABC is completely incompetent in conducting research, or they have attempted to fool their viewers and readership with false polling that essentially lies about the case in question. Since when does ABC conduct push polling for euthanasia?"

 

Imagine how the poll results might have turned out if ABC News had made clear to participants that Terri is not terminally ill. Not in excruciating pain. Capable of saying "Mommy" and "Help me." And of "getting the feeling she's falling" or getting "excited," in her husband's own testimony, when her head is not held properly.

 

Imagine how the poll results might have turned out if ABC News had informed participants that in a sworn affidavit, registered nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who worked at the Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Fla., while Terri Schiavo was a patient there, testified: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that b---h gonna die?'"

 

Now, if you were in this situation, would you want to be kept alive, or not?

 

Not to pick on ABC News, but, well, let's. In an attempt to embarrass Rep. Dave Weldon (R.-Fla.) who noted that withdrawing food and water from someone like Schiavo was extremely rare, ABC's Jake Tapper last week featured this counter-quote from Prof. Bill Allen, of the University of Florida College of Medicine:

 

"Feeding tubes have been removed in the United States for many years, and it's been a common practice. This has happened in many cases, probably a hundred thousand times in this country."

 

"A hundred thousand times"? There have been a hundred thousand cases of non-terminally ill, non-brain dead individuals slowly starved and forced to die in this country? Tapper demanded no proof from his professor. Instead, he dismissed lawmakers as ignoramuses contradicted by "experts," cited the biased ABC News poll cited above, and tossed it back to Jennings with this slam: "Terri Schiavo and her family deserved better than the way Congress worked this week."

 

Meanwhile, contradicting the experience of every starved child in Africa and abandoned street animal at your SPCA shelter, the New York Times informs us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death."

 

Is it any wonder the credibility of the MSM (main stream media) is withering on the vine?

 

Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

[Special K 0]

/leaves thread

You fucking liar.

 

I have to say, I am HIGHLY skeptical about her ability to speak. Don't you think someone would have a TAPE of this? They've only had 14 years. I call complete and uter bullshit on that.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Uh...Ms. Malkin has some flaws in her argument there. Terri cannot learn ANYTHING. She does not have a cerebral cortex anymore! Enough is enough. Also, I would call getting fed through a tube life support. At this juncture, I am sick, sick, sick of this case, sick of people making things up about this case, and desptie the fact that I'd personally rather seee her go offf to whatever afterlife there is, right now I wish he had just said keep the bloody tubes in and this would have been a non event.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I just googled Michelle Malkin, and I'm pretty sure she's out of her mind. She wrote a book about how racial profiling during WWII was a GOOD idea.

[redbaron29 0]

I have to say, I am HIGHLY skeptical about her ability to speak. Don't you think someone would have a TAPE of this?

There was a tape realised by some repuitable non-profit organization of her talking on a tape. Most of it was just moans and what not, but there was a part where her dad asked her if she was and pain, and while I am a skeptic on the entire situation, I thought I heard her say yes. Not saying she did not saying she didn't, just in my opinion sounded like she was saying yes.

[NYU 0]

....if she's in pain, then why the hell would the parents want to keep her artificially alive anyway?

 

That piece of evidence certainly doesn't help the case to keep the food tube inserted.

[NoCalMike 0]

Michelle Malkin is the next Ann Coulter waiting in the wings. Arguing that the roundup of Japanese civilians during WWII was a good thing, is about as outrageous as anything Coulter has uttered.

 

Oh and she failed to report that this is the husband's decision anyway, not the courts, or her parents.

[redbaron29 0]

....if she's in pain, then why the hell would the parents want to keep her artificially alive anyway?

I think the actual argument is that shes alive on her own accord...she's just incapable of feeding herself. Now I personally don't think that means you are keeping someone alive "artificially". So that argument in itself is a strawman.

[NoCalMike 0]

....if she's in pain, then why the hell would the parents want to keep her artificially alive anyway?

I think the actual argument is that shes alive on her own accord...she's just incapable of feeding herself. Now I personally don't think that means you are keeping someone alive "artificially". So that argument in itself is a strawman.

Malkin's claim that she can "learn" to do this or that is perposterouse as her cerbral cortex is LIQUID, and you know, that doesn't grow back through rehabilitation. She isn't going to LEARN anything, ever.

[redbaron29 0]

Ok Mike granted the chick is definitely over-zealous in trying to push forward in her agenda. But you can’t overlook her point that media totally fucked up by misleading people to believe she was on life support. This isn’t the case, and therefore should not be the argument. The point is she will live if she was feed. This has never been a “right to die” issue, like everyone is saying. This is definitely a “quality of life” issue. Again I’m not on one side or another of the argument, I’m just playing the devils advocate here.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

With all the people camping out outside the hospice does that mean conservatives still hate protesters?

[NoCalMike 0]

Ok Mike granted the chick is definitely over-zealous in trying to push forward in her agenda. But you can’t overlook her point that media totally fucked up by misleading people to believe she was on life support. This isn’t the case, and therefore should not be the argument. The point is she will live if she was feed. This has never been a “right to die” issue, like everyone is saying. This is definitely a “quality of life” issue. Again I’m not on one side or another of the argument, I’m just playing the devils advocate here.

If you ask me, the media is fucking up coverage by reporting heresay as if it was fact. They keep showing that stupid balloon tape, the 10 second version, when in fact the entire tape covers over two hours of NOTHING. Or the fact that the doctors who say Terry can recover haven't examined her, they are just going by pictures and some video tape footage. Then they show the small number of protestors, and then say "and Lots of people around the country agree with these people" failing to mention that every single poll shown, reveals the OPPOSITE, and not by a small margin. There isn't ANY group yet to be polled where even 50% believe the feeding tube should be put back in. All that really should be reported is the fact, it is the husband's decision here, unless the court finds he is making his decisions in malice or for some other extroidanary reason, then he, the spouse is where the decision lies, not to mention others testifying in the past as to Terry's wishes not to go on like this.

[CanadianChris 0]

life support: medical equipment that assists or replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive

 

If a person is unable to feed him/herself, I would say a feeding tube definitely qualifies. Malkin's whole point is just ridiculous semantics.