PDA

View Full Version : Terri Schiavo



Pages : [1] 2

WVRed
03-15-2005, 09:48 PM
:(

LOS ANGELES - A San Diego-area businessman on Thursday offered $1 million to Terri Schiavo's husband in an attempt to keep the brain-damaged Florida woman alive.

Robert Herring said he would pay Michael Schiavo the money if he transfers the legal right to decide his wife's medical treatment to her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who oppose removing a tube feeding their daughter.

The offer will remain on the table until Monday, Herring said in a statement released by high-profile attorney Gloria Allred.

Michael Schiavo has obtained a court order to remove the feeding tube March 18. Herring said he felt "compelled to act" before then in hopes of preventing her from dying, adding that he has had no personal contact with Schiavo or the Schindlers and was not affiliated with any organization involved in the case.

"I believe very strongly that there are medical advances happening around the globe that very shortly could have a positive impact on Terri's condition. I have seen miraculous recoveries occur through the use of stem cells in patients suffering a variety of conditions," Herring said.

Herring, who founded an electronics firm and later a cable and satellite channel, has deposited the money into a trust account at Allred's Los Angeles law firm, Allred said in a statement. The monetary offer was submitted in writing to Michael Schiavo's attorney, she added.

A message left at the law office of Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, seeking comment late Thursday was not immediately returned.

Calls seeking comment from the Schindlers' attorney also were not immediately returned, nor was a message left on Bob Schindler's cell phone.

"Mr. Herring thinks there might be hope for Terri Schiavo and wonders why there is a rush to death, especially in view of the advances being made in medical research," Allred said. "He feels that he couldn't live with himself if he didn't make this offer and he sincerely hopes that it will be accepted."

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 after her heart stopped due to a chemical imbalance possibly brought on by an eating disorder. Her parents and her husband have fought in court for nearly seven years over her fate.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in 2003 pushed a law through the state Legislature that authorized him to resume the woman's artificial feedings six days after a court stopped them. The law was later ruled unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court.

RBA
03-15-2005, 10:01 PM
A rush to death? It's been 15 years for the Schiavo family. Hasn't this family suffered enought?

That was an inappropiate offer to the family. That is sad. :(

WVRed
03-15-2005, 10:07 PM
Hasn't this family suffered enought?

Depends on who you define as her family. Her husband who re-married, or the parents who want to keep her alive and take care of her.

If her life is taken Friday, it will be a sad day.

RBA
03-15-2005, 10:15 PM
Depends on who you define as her family. Her husband who re-married, or the parents who want to keep her alive and take care of her.

If her life is taken Friday, it will be a sad day.

So because her husband remarried, he no longer has any say in this manner? Sorry, but the courts have ruled otherwise. And soon this tragedy will be over.

RBA
03-15-2005, 10:39 PM
IMO, that million dollars would be better spent to keep several hundreds, if not thousands alive who are starving to death all over the world.

Phoenix
03-16-2005, 12:47 AM
This is such a sad story. It goes to show that if you don't want to be kept alive by a feeding tube you have to get it written down somewhere. I know I wouldn't want to suffer Terri's fate.

TeamCasey
03-16-2005, 06:09 AM
This is such a sad story. It goes to show that if you don't want to be kept alive by a feeding tube you have to get it written down somewhere. I know I wouldn't want to suffer Terri's fate.

That's how I feel. Her wishes weren't in writing, so you have to believe the husband.

I'd want my husband or someone close to me to be able to make that decision.

I'd hate my family if they kept me prisoner in my own body.

WVRed
03-16-2005, 08:38 AM
So because her husband remarried, he no longer has any say in this manner? Sorry, but the courts have ruled otherwise. And soon this tragedy will be over.

Do you think he really cares? I dont.

RBA
03-16-2005, 08:41 AM
Do you think he really cares? I dont.

I have no idea. I haven't really got a chance to chat with him and give him the "really cares" test.

WVRed
03-16-2005, 08:42 AM
I just wonder if somebody tried to kill a cute little puppy dog like this to illustrate Terri Schiavo if they would show their execution live on the 6 o'clock news.

Bobo (http://mfile.akamai.com/6713/wma/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/preview/03/09/bobo-full.asx)

Read the hatemail closer to the bottom to see what people thought:)-

Glenn Beck Hatemail (http://www.glennbeck.com/hatemail/index.shtml)

RBA
03-16-2005, 08:52 AM
She has no cerebral cortex. There is no chance of recovery. Her parents are ignoring the facts. I can't blame them for being emotionally attached to her, but the person laying in that bed is no longer their daughter. She died a long time ago.

Her parents are not paying attention to the fact that her brain is mush. Did you see the xrays? Her brain is mostly water.

RedFanAlways1966
03-16-2005, 08:56 AM
Makes me think of the old college days. Reminds me of a once popular song and video. Of what it may be like inside the head of that person who is rendered helpless for the rest of their life. Especially one who has suffered severe brain-damage. Miracle cure? Tell that to someone who has been a diabetic for 32 years of his life. No one knows what she is thinking. But I have no idea what her parents are thinking either. A living will.... get it done if you have not already. Or at least let your loved ones know how you feel about this situation if it should happen to you.

I can’t remember anything, Can’t tell if this is true or dream
Deep down inside I feel to scream, This terrible silence stops me

Now that the norm is through with me, I’m waking up I can not see
That there is not much left of me, Nothing is real but pain now

Hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please god,wake me

Back in the womb it’s much too real, In pumps life that I must feel
But can’t look forward to reveal, Look to the time when I’ll live

Fed through the tube that sticks in me, Just like a wartime novelty
Tied to machines that make me be, Cut this life off from me

Hold my breath as I wish for death, Oh please god,wake me
Now the world is gone I’m just one
Oh god,help me hold my breath as I wish for death
Oh please God help me

Darkness imprisoning me, All that I see, Absolute horror
I cannot live, I cannot die
Trapped in myself, Body my holding cell

Landmine has taken my sight
Taken my speech
Taken my hearing
Taken my arms
Taken my legs
Taken my soul
Left me with life in hell

RBA
03-16-2005, 08:57 AM
I have no idea what a healthy puppy has to do with a woman that does not have a cerebral cortex.

WVRed
03-16-2005, 09:03 AM
RFA, I was thinking of the same song.

If there wasnt a living will, then how do we know if it is murder or not? Why dont we just begin killing off all elderly people in the nursing homes or all mentally and physically challenged because they are a burden on the rest of the healthy world?

http://www.glennbeck.com/clock/starvedwifeshirt.jpg

RBA
03-16-2005, 09:13 AM
The woman is not alive. I'm sorry, it is not murder. She has no cerebral cortex. There is nothing possible in medical science within our lifetime that will jumpstart her brain. This is not murder and I'm not sure why you choose to use that word.

WVRed
03-16-2005, 09:23 AM
The woman is not alive. I'm sorry, it is not murder. She has no cerebral cortex. There is nothing possible in medical science within our lifetime that will jumpstart her brain. This is not murder and I'm not sure why you choose to use that word.

Is she consenting to this? Did she put in a living will specifying that in an event like this that she would rather die? I dont see it anywhere.

RBA
03-16-2005, 09:28 AM
She's not alive. So how can she consent to something that is already done? It was God's will, she is going to have to take it up with him. I wouldn't question him, if I were her.

dman
03-16-2005, 09:53 AM
Michael Schiavo is more interested from the monetary gain he stands to receive from her death anyway, so why not take Herring up on his offer, gain a million bucks, and be free from the guilt and ridicule that he will face whem she dies? He's merely a gold digger trying to portray himself as some kind of saint for relieving his wife's suffering.

TeamCasey
03-16-2005, 10:09 AM
Michael Schiavo is more interested from the monetary gain he stands to receive from her death anyway.....

How do you know this? How do you know the intimate thoughts and wishes of this family?

remdog
03-16-2005, 10:26 AM
Just the fact that Gloria Allred is involved in this makes it a smarmy, smarmy proceeding. It's likely that Robert Herring is actually a Red Herring.

This woman is dead. D-E-A-D! Give her a proper funeral and let her go on her way. Grieve if you must but don't do it at a bed full of tubes for the next 20 years. That what cemataries are for.

Rem

Johnny Footstool
03-16-2005, 10:30 AM
If her life is taken Friday, it will be a sad day.

Her life has already been taken.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept death?

Let her go.

Red Heeler
03-16-2005, 10:51 AM
This is a good example of why I think that euthanasia should be an option in human medicine. Ms. Schiavo died a long time ago, but a little part of her brain didn't get the message. I think that keeping her body alive is a selfish act borne of an inability of them not wanting to let her go. On the other hand, I can somewhat understand her parents not wanting to see her body slowly waste away due to starvation, though. Perhapse if euthanasia were an option, rather than starvation, they would be more willing to let her go.

Larkin Fan
03-16-2005, 11:21 AM
Ms. Schiavo is already dead. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that. She has absolutely no chance of a meaningful recovery and I have long thought that her parents are being selfish by keeping her "alive." They're doing it because they can't let go and accept the truth. It's that simple.

Dom Heffner
03-16-2005, 11:24 AM
Glenn Beck takes the side of the parents, while most poeple take Terry's side by putting themselves in her shoes. There is no one on this board that can honestly say they would like to be kept alive by feeding tubes for 15 years.

Yes, if I were her parents, I might feel differently, but if I were Terry, I would not.

That's the dfference here.

Larkin Fan
03-16-2005, 11:25 AM
Is she consenting to this? Did she put in a living will specifying that in an event like this that she would rather die? I dont see it anywhere.

Gee, it would pretty hard for her to consent to this since she is already brain dead. Most people don't have a stipulation like that in their living will, simply because they aren't expecting tragedy to hit. There aren't many people in this world that would want to be kept alive by machine and tubes when they have absolutely no chance for a meaningful recovery. Ms. Schiavo is already dead. The rest of her body just hasn't gotten the message yet.

919191
03-16-2005, 12:25 PM
Almost 3 years ago, I had to go to Indianapolis to have my dad removed from support. The day before, he suffered a 2 hematomas. The night it happened, the doctors said he had little brain avtivitivity and would only breathe a few minutes to maybe a few hours after being removed. To me, it was a no brainer. I made the decision to let go. Ironically, when I got there the next day, theyy said they had scanned again, and brain function was gone, so I didn't have to make a decision- they would just do it on their own. I supposed I was relieved a bit, but I would have had him removed anyway.

I say let her go. His motivation means nothing. She is gone.

They didn't need my approval as there was no brain function. I wonder if the laws pertaining to this vary by state.

dman
03-16-2005, 01:12 PM
How do you know this? How do you know the intimate thoughts and wishes of this family?
For one, she has a large sum life insurance policy that he can still collect on once she is declared dead. Second, had this been my wife, I wouldn't have went out and knocked up some other woman, while, for all intents and purposes, my wife sat alive in a hospital. Though Teri can't talk or communicate, how do we know that she's not taking in what's being said or going on around her. It's a matter of simply putting the pieces of the puzzle together to see what Michale Sciavo's motives are.

If Teri's parents are willing to shoulder this heavy load, then what would be the problem with Michael getting what he wants ($$$$$$$$$) and letting Teri's parents take over the situation?

cincinnati chili
03-16-2005, 06:13 PM
For one, she has a large sum life insurance policy that he can still collect on once she is declared dead. Second, had this been my wife, I wouldn't have went out and knocked up some other woman, while, for all intents and purposes, my wife sat alive in a hospital.

Since I don't know the facts here, when did he "knock up" another woman. Are you talking about a few days after her accident or a few years?

If I am ever clinically brain dead, I HOPE my wife will do whatever she can to get on with her life, including having children if that's what she wants to do.

Larkin Fan
03-16-2005, 06:29 PM
Though Teri can't talk or communicate, how do we know that she's not taking in what's being said or going on around her.

You do realize that she's clinically brain dead, right? Simply put, that means that her brain is not capable of processing what is being said or what is going on around her. Tests such as an EEG have been conducted to show that the only part of her brain that is functioning is the part that is responsible for carrying out life sustaining processes. The other vital areas of that brain are not functioning.

Redsfaithful
03-16-2005, 06:40 PM
Second, had this been my wife, I wouldn't have went out and knocked up some other woman, while, for all intents and purposes, my wife sat alive in a hospital

I'm not married, although that'll be changing this August. And I love my fiancee more than anything in the world.

But if I'm ever brain dead in a hospital then I certainly would want her to move on with her life and find whatever happiness she can. I'm sure that if Terri Schiavo really loved her husband then she would feel the same way.

GAC
03-16-2005, 08:48 PM
If her ex-husband is really that concerned about her then let him forgo ANY monetary gain he may make (or is offered). That in itself would show the sincerity in his heart. Right now I doubt it.

I'm one who has always believed that it may be just as morally wrong, when you have anyone who is in the condition like this woman is in (brain dead) and needs a machine in order to keep certain bodily functions/responses active, and could not do so without that machine. That is not life. At least not as God intended IMO.

RedFanAlways1966
03-16-2005, 08:58 PM
If her ex-husband is really that concerned about her then let him forgo ANY monetary gain he may make (or is offered). That in itself would show the sincerity in his heart. Right now I doubt it.

I'm one who has always believed that it may be just as morally wrong, when you have anyone who is in the condition like this woman is in (brain dead) and needs a machine in order to keep certain bodily functions/responses active, and could not do so without that machine. That is not life. At least not as God intended IMO.

Great post, GAC! :thumbup:

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

TC81190
03-16-2005, 09:55 PM
Great post, GAC! :thumbup:

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

I thought it was a car accident?

919191
03-16-2005, 09:55 PM
Great post, GAC! :thumbup:

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.


I suppose that would work, but I don't think this guy has to explain himself to the public, no matter what his motivation. I wouldn't feel the need to justify it in your eyes, whether $ was what I wanted, or if I really thought it was the right thing.

Red Heeler
03-16-2005, 10:49 PM
Great post, GAC! :thumbup:

Perhaps, relative to your 1st paragraph, he should donate the money to charity. Didn't Ms. Schiavo have anorexia, which caused this? That might be a worthy cause, some sort of anorexia clinic, for that money. Makes sense to me.

If your wife would die in an untimely manner, would you donate the money to charity? Maybe you would, but Mrs. Heeler and I pay for life insurance to financially provide for the surviving spouse in the event of our death.

Once again, his wife died a long time ago. What is lying in that hospital bed is nothing more than her shell.

WVRed
03-17-2005, 08:12 AM
Once again, his wife died a long time ago. What is lying in that hospital bed is nothing more than her shell.

That is what is ultimately being questioned is whether she is dead or not. People just dont see eye to eye on issues like this. Its like abortion, where does life begin, at conception or once it exits the womb? This is more or less the same thing, except we are dealing with death.

And as a typical political/religious debate on Redszone goes, the name calling and insults will usually follow.

GAC
03-17-2005, 08:26 AM
If your wife would die in an untimely manner, would you donate the money to charity? Maybe you would, but Mrs. Heeler and I pay for life insurance to financially provide for the surviving spouse in the event of our death.

But is the money he is trying to get from a life insurance policy? No. It's the remainder of the settlement from a malpractice suit which was awarded and designated for the continuation of her care and rehabilitation. So it is not the same as a life insurance policy.

http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/humaneuthinasia/a/bgTerry.htm

Terry Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack. The brain damage left her unable to care for herself so for the last 13 years she’s had a feeding tube in her for nutrients and fluids.

Terry was awarded a substantial malpractice settlement for the improperly diagnosed potassium deficiency that led to the heart attack and collapse which damaged her brain. The settlement was for continuation of her care and rehabilitation, among other things.

Terry is now in a hospice. Several doctors, including those appointed by the courts, have pronounced her to be in a "persistent vegetative state". However Terry parents have hired doctors that claim that Terry has a consciousness.

Terry is unable to eat or swallow, and is being kept alive by means of a feeding tube. Her husband, Michael Schiavo has sought for years to remove the feeding tube and allow Terry “die naturally”. In other words to starve to death.

The issue has made it’s way through the Florida courts, and in June of 2003, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that would allow Michael to have the feeding tube removed from Terry.

On October 20, 2003 the Florida Legislature passed bill 35E, which empowered Governor Jeb Bush to issue executive order 03-201, which he did the following day. His executive order required that doctors replace the feeding tube and continue to provide medical attention as needed.

The Issues and Controversy:

First, the question is does Terry have a right to die? If her brain was in fact dead, and she were unable to breath without artificial respiration, then there would be little question. Indeed the cessation of brain functions has long been held as justification for removal of life support.

But in the case of Terry, her brain is still functioning, though at a very low level - she cannot swallow food, or communicate with those in the room. Most doctors say she is in what they call PVS or “persistent vegetative state"

Despite this, she apparently is still able to make eye contact and respond, though in primitive ways, to those in the room. - or is she? There is great controversy over this. Terry's parents (who are fighting to prevent Terry's feeding tube from being removed) illegally made a video tape of Terry that appears to show Terry responding to outside stimulus.

she appears to be conscious and possibly even making eye contact. This is a bit unlike a person on a respirator in a permanent coma. Doctors hired by Terry's parents believe that she could be rehabilitated to swallow food on her own.

But experts point out that these "reactions" are nothing more than random motor reflexes, and not indicative of real consciousness. Indeed, of nearly 4 and a half hours of video taken by Terry parents, they are only showing a few seconds that "appear" to be conscious moments.

The malpractice award is also part of the controversy. If Terry dies, her husband Michael will then receive the balance of the remaining money, though there is little left. Nevertheless, if Michael stands a significant financial gain, does he really have Terry’s true interests at heart? Is his role as guardian suspect because he stands to profit from her death? Terry's parents say so, but Michael points out that he's willing to donate Terry's money to charity.

At the same time, are Terry’s family really just kidding themselves regarding Terry’s true condition? Are her responses really just motor or automatic reflexes?

Terry did not have a “living will” - a document that gives permission to remove life supporting treatment under certain circumstances, such as when there is no hope for recovery.

Again, the courts have looked at this over the years, and found that Michael as guardian has the right to remove life sustaining treatment from Terry. However Governor Bush’s order overrides the court’s decision; the issue here is if the governor and legislature have the constitutional power to supersede the court’s ruling.

Certainly some of the difficulty here is whether her state is truly a “persistent vegetative state”. Doctors appointed by the court, and by Michael say yes. Doctors retained by Terry’s family say no.

Some of the most dangerous aspects of euthanasia were seen under the regime of Nazi Germany where people with retardation and other serious disabilities were “euthanized”, though today we can easily call that murder. But where is the line drawn from “euthanization” to “murder” in today’s society? This is one reason we must always proceed with caution in is area.

In the absence of a living will, or an absolutely clear declaration by the individual, should the line be drawn at the “absolutely brain dead” - that is, those who cannot survive without an external respirator and are in a permanent coma? Even the definition of brain death has its controversy, as this article points out.

But while we can say that Terry has a right to die, without a clear indication from her, how can we say for sure that she has to die?

Michael states that it would have been her wish, and 19 judges in 6 courts have studied the case at length and concurred that Michael is indeed acting on Terry's best interest.



Once again, his wife died a long time ago. What is lying in that hospital bed is nothing more than her shell.

But I hear differing accounts from several different quarters which make me want to doubt Michael's true intentions, and also those of several right to die groups.

I'm not really siding with anyone on this; but I have a lot of sympathy for those parents who have expended alot of time with their daughter in her care (when he has not). So why doesn't he just cut ties with his wife, say his goodbyes, and allow the parents to assume control and care for her? If that is what they want, then why fight it?

Has it ever been proven that Terry is suffering?

So again.... if they want to take on the responsibility/care for their daughter, then why not allow them to do so?

This is why I have some doubts to his motivations. But maybe I'm wrong.

[b]End The Charade, Michael Schiavo
Posted: January 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By David N. Bass
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Throughout his decade-long crusade to condemn Terri Schiavo to a gruesome starvation death, Michael Schiavo has habitually hinged his case on three words: "persistent vegetative state." He has pawned the lie that since his brain-disabled wife requires a feeding tube for sustenance, she is no more human than a vegetable; that since she needs more care and attention than the average human being, her life is no longer worth living.

That lie has done its job. Every time we turn on the television and hear the name Terri Schiavo, we are condescendingly reminded of her "persistent vegetative state." Bob and Mary Schindler are blasted in newspaper opinion columns across the country for believing their daughter is still a human being capable of recovery and worthy of protection under the U.S. Constitution. All efforts to save her are in vain, the pundits tell us. She is beyond rehabilitation, beyond treatment and beyond hope.

All fine and good … provided you ignore reality.

The two lawyers serving as head legal counsel for the Schindlers recently had a chance to witness firsthand just how outlandish Michael Schiavo's claims really are. For the first time since agreeing to represent the Schindlers in September, attorneys David Gibbs and Barbara Weller were allowed to pay a Christmas Eve visit to Terri at her hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla.

Did they find a shriveled woman staring up blankly from her bed, struggling to breathe, life-support tubes attached to every portion of her body? Did they see a woman tortured by pain, a woman who had given up all hope for living, a woman who simply wanted to "die with dignity"?

Far from it.

According to an account given by Barbara Weller, the real Terri Schiavo is entirely different from the image propagated by her estranged husband, the mainstream media and the "right-to-die" crowd. Weller recollects that Terri "was very purposeful and interactive" and appeared "very curious about the presence of obvious strangers" when she and Gibbs, accompanied by members from the Schindler family, first entered her room at the hospice.

"When her mother was close to her, Terri's whole face lit up," Weller continued. "She smiled. She looked directly at her mother and she made all sorts of happy sounds. When her mother talked to her, Terri was quiet and obviously listening. When she stopped, Terri started vocalizing. The vocalizations seemed to be a pattern, not merely random or reflexive at all."

Does that strike you as a "persistent vegetative state"? Of course not. Florida law defines the condition as an "absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind" and "an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment." How can a reasonable mind conclude that Terri's condition falls anywhere near either of these criteria?

Weller continued: "Terri was not in bed, but was in her chair. … She was dressed and washed, her hair combed, and she was covered with a holiday blanket. There were no tubes of any kind attached to her body. She was completely free of any restraints that would have indicated any type of artificial life support. Not even her feeding tube was attached and functioning when we entered."

Instead of noticing her so-called vegetative condition, Weller was instead struck by her beauty: "I would have expected to see someone with a sallow and gray complexion and a sick-looking countenance. Instead, I saw a very pretty woman with a peaches-and-cream complexion and a lovely smile. … I was amazed that someone who had not been outside for so many years and who received such minimal health care could look so beautiful. She appeared to have an inner light radiating from her face."

That's where euthanasia advocates loose their feel for true humanity. Human beings are not solely designed to think, but to feel as well. We are not designed with minds alone, but with the capacity to care, to hope and to love others. Terri may not have the same mental capacity you and I possess, but she is still able to experience happiness, express love, and let joy shine on her face. The ability to love and be loved by others is the essence of true humanity.

"As I watched her," Weller concluded, "my foremost thought was that on the next day, Christmas, Terri should not have been confined to her small room in a hospice center … but that she should have been gathered around the Christmas dinner table enjoying the holiday with her family."

I couldn't have said it better myself. A woman who receives no life support or respiration, interacts with her family, endeavors to communicate, feels emotion and is capable of spending Christmas with her loving family is not a vegetable. It's time we dropped the charade and acknowledged Terri Schiavo for what she is – a human being.

RBA
03-17-2005, 08:43 AM
Well, he turned down the 1 million dollars. If money was all he was after, how come he didn't take it?

GAC
03-17-2005, 09:18 AM
Well, he turned down the 1 million dollars. If money was all he was after, how come he didn't take it?

Maybe because he knows that that would REALLY make him look bad in the court (and public's) eye, and shed light on his true motives while they are still fighting this in the court system? You sure don't want to give any more "ammo" to the opposition's contentions/allegations (her parents). If he had taken the money then everything that is being said about him would seem true.

No one said the guy was stupid. ;)

KronoRed
03-17-2005, 09:21 AM
He looks bad to half the public now, if he were after that cash IMO he would have taken it

RBA
03-17-2005, 09:31 AM
It's funny or maybe a little disturbing is when I use Google search for more information on this subject, I get 99.5 percent Right Wing Blogs. Looks like another character assassanation once again by them.

GAC
03-17-2005, 09:34 AM
He looks bad to half the public now, if he were after that cash IMO he would have taken it

I also never said he didn't have a conscience either. ;)

Like I said earlier... I haven't really paid much attention to this case; but what I have read makes me want to have some doubts as to his motives?

Again... does he feel she is suffering, and he just wants to end it? Or is it simply indeed compassion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it reported that he had an affair while his wife was in the hospital, and his new wife/GF had his child?

GAC
03-17-2005, 09:35 AM
It's funny or maybe a little disturbing is when I use Google search for more information on this subject, I get 99.5 percent Right Wing Blogs. Looks like another character assassanation once again by them.

That's funny. When I did a Google search I found quite a few objective sources (medical, etc) on this situation. If I know that it was far right or left wing, then I stay away from it.

RBA
03-17-2005, 09:49 AM
That's funny. When I did a Google search I found quite a few objective sources (medical, etc) on this situation. If I know that it was far right or left wing, then I stay away from it.

I consider WorldNetDaily a right wing news source. IMO, they are not objective. I know you have your opinion. Not saying your wrong. But that's my opinion.

RedFanAlways1966
03-17-2005, 10:38 AM
Hmmmm... I tried the Google thing (put in "Terri Schiavo") and of the top 4 listed there was: #1 - Terrisfight.org (her parents org. to keep her alive) ; #4 - NY Times. At the bottom of the 1st page of Google-hits was the Saving Terri Schiavo Petition. To be honest I saw very few right-wing blogs. I only looked at page one, but this is usually all I need when Googling. Howver, these topics tend to get the blogs up-front. But I really did not see it as a 99.5% thing... unless someone studied 100 pages of it on Google.

Not like Google searches before the U.S. presidential elections where the bloggers took over Google. Not that we saw any of those articles/blogs copy-and-pasted here during that time. But I am sure some here are experts at the extremist blog sites. Some member names may even get associated with extreme blog-isms. Some might have even used extremist blog statements in their sig. lines here. No names immediately come to mind for me, but it might for others. Some may even be considered blog-site experts!

:)

TeamCasey
03-17-2005, 10:39 AM
Why should this guy look bad at all?

My family had to go through this decision twice this year. There came a point in my sister-in-law's and aunt's treatment, when it was time to stop. My sister-in-law was cognizant and her and my brother came to that decision together. My Aunt's husband had to make that choice for her. The important thing is that all of them had a lot of support.

To have kept them going for our own emotional well-being would be torture and selfishness.

It's a family's decision - the press and everyone else should have just stayed the hell out of it.

How selfish is it that people are using this family's very difficult crisis for there own political/career gain?

How utterly ridiculous is it for us to sit here and judge a man we do not know over something so personal.

remdog
03-17-2005, 11:13 AM
How utterly ridiculous is it for us to sit hear and judge a man we do not know over something so personal.

:clap:

Rem

Red Heeler
03-17-2005, 11:49 AM
But is the money he is trying to get from a life insurance policy? No. It's the remainder of the settlement from a malpractice suit which was awarded and designated for the continuation of her care and rehabilitation. So it is not the same as a life insurance policy.

Thanks, GAC, I did not know that. Like you, I have not been following this case closely.

RBA
03-17-2005, 11:56 AM
How much is left? I heard less than $50,000. Is that true?

RedFanAlways1966
03-17-2005, 12:35 PM
From her parents' web-site, www.terrisfight.org,...

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.


MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley $ 10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $ 65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $ 4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99

Other
1st Union/South Trust Bank $ 55,459.85
Michael Schiavo $ 10,929.95

Total $545,852.34

remdog
03-17-2005, 12:48 PM
Fact: She's still D-E-A-D! DEAD Let her go!. You've got two people argueing over a corpse! And, if you want to place money at the root of the problem, so be it. But the parents seem to be just as greedy, even if they couch it as keeping Terri 'alive'.

Geez!

Rem

dman
03-17-2005, 01:04 PM
Fact: She's still D-E-A-D! DEAD Let her go!. You've got two people argueing over a corpse! And, if you want to place money at the root of the problem, so be it. But the parents seem to be just as greedy, even if they couch it as keeping Terri 'alive'.

Geez!

Rem
If/When you or loved one is involved in an auto accident or something of the sort, and the medics didn't do CPR becuase they felt you were D-E-A-D, how would you feel? Teri's still breathing and her heart still beats that's far from D-E-A-D.

WVRed
03-17-2005, 04:07 PM
Fact: She's still D-E-A-D! DEAD Let her go!. You've got two people argueing over a corpse! And, if you want to place money at the root of the problem, so be it. But the parents seem to be just as greedy, even if they couch it as keeping Terri 'alive'.

Geez!

Rem

Again, some people on here dont agree that she is "dead". Its like arguing over where life begins, except in reverse.

GAC
03-17-2005, 08:15 PM
Why should this guy look bad at all?

My family had to go through this decision twice this year. There came a point in my sister-in-law's and aunt's treatment, when it was time to stop. My sister-in-law was cognizant and her and my brother came to that decision together. My Aunt's husband had to make that choice for her. The important thing is that all of them had a lot of support.



It's a family's decision - the press and everyone else should have just stayed the hell out of it.

I agree TC. But in this case, isn't her parents also family? Do they have the right to any input also?

All of us are getting our data/info on this case through the media. And one really needs to shuffle through alot of various sources (some very biased on both sides) in order to try and find out the truth.

I think all of us here value life very, very much. But medical situations like this, where someone is basically "hanging" in a type of limbo between life and death presents a very precarious dilemna.

And I have to be honest. As much as I respect the advances of the medical profession, I really don't think they have determined or have the answers/solutions for a person in this situation. Alot of the technical medical terminology they use usually confuses most (at least me). Does "persistent vegetative state" mean they are dead? What does it mean (details) to be "clinically dead".

I've read several medical analysis' on this woman where she demonstrate some cognitive abilities/reactions. And if I were a parent at that bedside, and seeing this was my child, then I can sympathize with those parents who want to hold on to HOPE, and also their daughter.

Put yourself in their shoes.

Sure. Alot of us may not agree, and think their actions are absurd or ridiculous. But if they want to accept the care and responsibility for their daughter, then why doesn't her husband just let go and let them, and move on with his life?

I've read several articles on this woman, and one, like the one below, does cause me to cast doubts on Michael's motivations. And the writer of the below article is pro-life and conservative. So I am sure there is plenty of room to show doubt at her.

I guess the only one who knows for sure is God. ;)

I just hate to see that the only alternative is to basically starve this woman to death in order to end a life where some contend she is already dead.


Michael Schiavo: Loving Husband Or Monster?
By Bonnie Chernin Rogoff (02/21/05)

As national pro-life groups and prominent leaders converged in vigils outside Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, Terri Schiavo is inside the building in her bed, still hooked up to the feeding tube that has been center-focus of this so-called “right-to-die” case for the past several years. Ms. Schiavo is profoundly disabled and cannot communicate with words at this time.

But she knows. She feels. There’s expression in those eyes. Just one look at her in a video with her mother and everyone except the Scarecrow on his way to Oz knows it, too.

Recently, another presumed “brain-dead” woman made news in Kansas. In a coma after becoming the victim of a drunk driver, Sarah Scantlin snapped out of a twenty year silence and began to speak. Memories are now coming back to her. By legal definition, Miss Scantlin’s life is valid. Yesterday, it was not. Was she ever in a persistent vegetative state, or PVS? She’d respond to questions by blinking once for no, twice for yes, but since she couldn’t speak no one was ever sure she understood the questions.

That’s the problem. No one is ever sure. The only ones who claim to know what’s best for the profoundly disabled are those who seek to benefit the most by having them legally murdered.

On Monday, February 21, new hearings will commence before Judge Greer with regard to the Schiavo case. The Empire Journal reports that David Gibbs III, attorney representing Terri’s parents Robert and Mary Schindler, will argue that new medical tests be ordered for Terri based upon a new brain imaging study published in the journal “Neurology.” These tests could determine whether Terri Schiavo is, in fact, in a PVS. Since Judge Greer believes she is, ruled to have her killed and has thus far refused the admission of any medical evidence that would save Terri’s life, I’d be shocked to see him budge.

Greer has been acting in the dual role of judge and guardian ad litem. He previously denied a petition by Terri’s parents that their daughter be given a swallowing test, and has denied them the right to visit Terri. He continues to promote the interests of Michael Schiavo by refusing Terri the right to independent counsel, a right which even serial killers like Ted Bundy received.

Whenever people discuss euthanasia, you’ll always find those who will defend the odious practice. However, no one defends domestic violence. That leads to the 6 ft. 6 inch, 250 pound problem: Michael Schiavo. The evidence compiled against him suggests a history and pattern of domestic abuse against Terri and other women that is strong and significant. An immediate criminal investigation is warranted.

The main evidence comes from a bone scan taken on March 5, 1991. As Terri’s guardian, Michael Schiavo denied her family access to Terri’s records, the results of which were not made available until November, 2002. This scan indicated numerous broken bones in various stages of healing, including compressions fractures, a broken back, pelvis, ankle, bone bruises and ossifications.

Board certified radiologist Dr. Walker read the scan in 1991 and interpreted the results as abnormal, which he attributed to either an accident or earlier trauma. Based on the remodeling process of her bones, Dr. Walker stated in his deposition that a) the injuries indicated by the scan occurred on or around the time that Terri Schiavo collapsed; b) the abnormalities on the bone scan were not typical of someone suffering cardiac arrest and collapsing to the floor, and c) the fractures indicated by the bone scan are not typical of patients bedridden only thirteen months. As recorded in Dr. Walker’s November 21, 2003 deposition, Terri might have been the victim of foul play via a blow to her body, being thrown into a sharp furniture corner, or assaulted with a blunt object.

On October 24, 2003, renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden was interviewed by Greta van Susteren on Fox News. He disclosed that with low potassium and no elevated enzymes, it would be extremely rare for a young woman to collapse as Terri did from a heart attack. When asked what the bone injuries suggest to him, Dr. Baden replied, “Some kind of trauma. The trauma can be from a fall, or the trauma can be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It’s something that should have been investigated in 1991 when these findings were found.”

Other medical testimonies are in agreement. One medical expert testified that a diagnosis of a heart attack was never made. Another testified that Terri’s rigid neck indicates she may have been the victim of strangulation. Psychiatrist and expert witness Carole E. Lieberman, M.D., M.P.H. offered preliminary thoughts and provided a chilling profile of Michael Schiavo as an abusive husband.

Prior to Terri’s collapse, there were serious financial problems in her marriage and her husband Michael tried to control her behavior. He was fired from six jobs in two years, some of which he held only two weeks. They often lived on her income, which Michael often spent on himself. He monitored her odometer and isolated her from her family and friends. On the day of her collapse, Michael and Terri had a bad fight after he accused her of spending too much money at the hairdresser.

Dr. Lieberman concludes: “He (Michael) should most definitely be investigated as the perpetrator of the ‘incident’ that caused Terri’s collapse and her current condition.”

Michael Schiavo insists that Terri stated early in their marriage that she never would want to be kept on life support. Even if that were true, Terri is not on life support; she breathes on her own. Since Terri has no written will, everything Michael Schiavo says is hearsay. He violated numerous Florida statutes and the Americans for Disabilities Act by failing to perform his duties as his wife’s guardian, most notably by denying his disabled wife basic medical care as part of a malpractice settlement award he received.

However, of all Michael’s offensive actions against his wife, what I deem most suspicious was his decision to have Terri cremated immediately upon her demise. In all the documentation on this case, there is not a single account of Terri Schiavo having ever expressed a desire to be cremated. Michael’s excuse is to say that she wouldn’t want a standard burial because she “doesn’t like bugs.” I’m not buying. The likely reason is that Michael has something to hide – like the cause of her numerous bone injuries, perhaps? – and he doesn’t want an autopsy to uncover any incriminating evidence.

So, what really happened on February 25, 1990? We know that Terri fell in her home and sustained serious injuries. We know that Michael Schiavo, who was trained in CPR, oddly did not administer CPR to his wife. We know for the past fifteen years his only mission has been to deny any rehabilitation for Terri.

Dr. Carole Lieberman observed, “If Terri were to be allowed to die, as Michael has been desperately struggling to achieve for years, it could help him escape detection. This would be a grave miscarriage of justice.”

That’s exactly the way Michael Schiavo and the Florida judicial system want it.

And here is an interview/depositiom from Micheal's former GF. Take it for what it is worth; but it can/does make one think....

http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/02/michael_schiavo_1.html

Dom Heffner
03-19-2005, 01:31 AM
I just hate to see that the only alternative is to basically starve this woman to death in order to end a life where some contend she is already dead.

We can't have it any other way with the euthanasia laws in this country.

GAC
03-19-2005, 07:02 AM
I was watching the news last night since this story is getting even more coverage then ever right now. I'm no medical expert (as most of us aren't); but they showed a couple Drs moving various objects in front of Terry and she was following them with limited head movement, and at times was even blinking. This is what bothers me when I think they are gonna unplug this woman's feeding tube and basically starve her to death.

And another aspect of this case that is very confusing to me is that I have heard scores of Drs from both sides (pro-life and righ to die) who give very valid arguments. But who do you believe? Are they allowong their own ideologies/biases to influence their opinions?

GAC
03-19-2005, 07:34 AM
We can't have it any other way with the euthanasia laws in this country.

I think a vast majority of Americans are opposed to, or very aprehensive, at enacting euthanasia laws in this country for various reasons...

- as a whole, this country has lost it's respect for life in alot of ways. What I mean is that if that life gets in the way of ournown personal comfort/pleasure, then we selfishly find a way to justify ending it.

- what type of euthanasia laws are we talking about? How liberally written are the laws to be? And even if at the onset the laws have strict guidelines, then alot of people feel that is just "opening the door" for later on down the road for widening these laws to be inclusive of situations that are not warranted.

Who decides who has the right, or who qualifies, to live or die? Who sets that criteria? While I have nothing but sympathy for a terminally il patient (my Dad died of cancer 7 years ago); are they in the proper state of mind emotionally/psychologically to make those decisions?

Is there a possibilty at some point in the future that the law will be abused or mis-applied? Will it, at some point in the future, influence our medical profession (and maybe legislators/state) in order to save costs, hospital space, or for whatever various reasons (lack of insurance or the coveraage runs out), to make decisions that are more beneficial to them then that patient/family members?

Will we see it being utilized more on the poor, or maybe those who are "seen"/defined as not being "contributors" to our society, but a burden? They won't be missed as much.

Now some may think these are silly or illogical questions; but it presents situations that IMO would be on the horizons if we enact such laws. I don't believe it is that far fetched. Ask someone 50-60 years ago if abortions would become legal and so readily accessible, and I wonder what kind of response one would get?

Dom - I stated at the beginning of this thread that I would in no way want to be kept alive on a machine. In fact, I suggested that it may be somewhat wrong (or even immoral) to put anyone through that process if they are not able to maintain life functions without the aid of a machine (brain dead, etc).

Right now, my feelings are that if someone is terminal, then they should be made as comfortable as possible till the end. Like the situation with my Dad - I don't think I would want to be the one who had to make that decision to "pull the plug" on my own Dad. Yes, it may be better off in the longrun; but still, it would be a decision that would weigh on me the rest of my life. And alot of people aren't prepared to handle that.

Our medical technology has made great advances, and it's a wonderful thing. But I sometimes think we/they overstep their boundaries (and this case with Terry may be one of them, I don't know). And you know that I, as a Christian, see life as very precious. But sadly enough, death is also a fact of life.

And this may sound silly, but I sometimes feel that our medical profession has at times lost the "humane" aspect that is to guide that profession. In other words, some, in the name of science/advances are like Victor Frankenstein who while maybe warned by his peer was "toying"/experimenting in areas that maybe are not meant to be. And we have paients who are neither dead or alive; but surviving in some sort of limbo. And that ain't living IMO.

Red Heeler
03-19-2005, 07:39 AM
I was watching the news last night since this story is getting even more coverage then ever right now. I'm no medical expert (as most of us aren't); but they showed a couple Drs moving various objects in front of Terry and she was following them with limited head movement, and at times was even blinking. This is what bothers me when I think they are gonna unplug this woman's feeding tube and basically starve her to death.

And another aspect of this case that is very confusing to me is that I have heard scores of Drs from both sides (pro-life and righ to die) who give very valid arguments. But who do you believe? Are they allowong their own ideologies/biases to influence their opinions?

GAC, one of my classes yesterday was about helping pet owners deal with the decision and consequences of euthanasia. One of the criteria that is used as a guideline for the decision to euthanize a pet is "are they having a lot more bad days than good days?"

My two week old son will sometimes follow objects with limited head movements and blinks, too. Even if you allow that her brain activity is on par with a two week old infant, is that the kind of quality of life that we want to allow for our loved ones? If she has a higher level of consciousness than an infant, would that not be even worse? I can't even imagine the daily misery a person would go through if they actually realized that all they could do was occasionally follow objects with limited head movements.

GAC
03-19-2005, 07:57 AM
GAC, one of my classes yesterday was about helping pet owners deal with the decision and consequences of euthanasia. One of the criteria that is used as a guideline for the decision to euthanize a pet is "are they having a lot more bad days than good days?"

But that is justification to end someone's life?.... having more bad days then good? Heck! I qualify then! :lol:


My two week old son will sometimes follow objects with limited head movements and blinks, too. Even if you allow that her brain activity is on par with a two week old infant, is that the kind of quality of life that we want to allow for our loved ones? If she has a higher level of consciousness than an infant, would that not be even worse? I can't even imagine the daily misery a person would go through if they actually realized that all they could do was occasionally follow objects with limited head movements.

Is it still life, whether it's a 2 yr old or a 40 yr old?

If a child was born with Down Syndrome or some other type of brain abnormality, or any type other type of disability that prevents them from living what we define as a viable/productive life within our society, do we then say that is not life and we should have the option to end it?

That is what I am woriried about RH - laws written with so many generalities that even though the intentions are good, it leaves the door open for abuse/mis-application.

What about guys like Christopher Reeves? Do we, as a society, just give up on these types of individuals?

P.S. -congratulations. 2 weks old huh? Are you getting any sleep? :lol:

Red Heeler
03-19-2005, 08:22 AM
I see what you are saying, GAC. It could be a slippery slope. In a case like Ms. Schiavo's, I would like to see euthanasia as an option once the decision has been made to remove life support. A quick death from euthanasia would be far more humane for both her and her family than a slow death from starvation. I also think that it should be a living will option for chronically ill patients. I would not want to expand the abilities of other people to make the decision on euthanasia beyond the current ability to decide whether or not to remove life support.

As for Heeler, Jr, thanks for the congrats. He is our first, and I have to say that being a Dad is the coolest thing going. I'm getting by alright on sleep. He is a pretty placid little fellow right now. Mrs. Heeler has it worse than I do. She is breast feeding, so she has to get up a couple of times during the night to feed him.

Dom Heffner
03-19-2005, 09:35 AM
I think a vast majority of Americans are opposed to, or very aprehensive, at enacting euthanasia laws in this country for various reasons...

Everything I have read shows the opposite, especially when specific restrictions are laid out. There aren't many people who would want to be in Terry Schiavo's place right now, and I can't see them denying that to someone else.


And this may sound silly, but I sometimes feel that our medical profession has at times lost the "humane" aspect that is to guide that profession.

I would disagree with that. Take a look at this survey from the NE Journal of Medicine:

"Eleven percent of the physicians said that under current legal constraints, there were circumstances in which they would be willing to hasten a patient's death by prescribing medication, and 7 percent said that they would provide a lethal injection; 36 percent and 24 percent, respectively, said that they would do so if it were legal."

It seems that we want someone to do this to us in these situations, but it's tough finding someone to do it. :)

I realize this is a little different than the Schiavo case, but it's still worth noting.

GAC
03-19-2005, 02:33 PM
As for Heeler, Jr, thanks for the congrats. He is our first, and I have to say that being a Dad is the coolest thing going. I'm getting by alright on sleep. He is a pretty placid little fellow right now. Mrs. Heeler has it worse than I do. She is breast feeding, so she has to get up a couple of times during the night to feed him.

He'll do alot better when you can start giving him cereal mixed with formula. They sleep longer then.

And you're right...it is the coolest thing. I was in the room when each of my children were born, and even though I am not an emotional person (it's a man thing), I almost came to tears watching them being born. It was simply awesome.

And know that two of them are teenagers (16 and 14), they still bring me to tears (and gray hairs). :lol:

But I wouldn't have it any other way.

My oldest boy is getting his permit this Spring, so that should be a real challenge. I'm gonna need a prescription for Demarol. :lol:

RBA
03-19-2005, 03:50 PM
Looks like a further waste of money as Congress agrees to meet on a weekend to pass a bill. With the amount of money they are wasting they can save hundreds of 3rd world children. You know the kids that actually have the Cerebal Cortex, but no feeding tube. :thumbdown

dman
03-19-2005, 03:55 PM
Looks like a further waste of money as Congress agrees to meet on a weekend to pass a bill. With the amount of money they are wasting they can save hundreds of 3rd world children. You know the kids that actually have the Cerebal Cortex, but no feeding tube. :thumbdown
Not to sound crass here, but why try to save third world child before we try to save on of our own citizens?

TeamCasey
03-19-2005, 03:58 PM
Thread diversion starts here. :MandJ:

RBA
03-19-2005, 04:02 PM
Not to sound crass here, but why try to save third world child before we try to save on of our own citizens?

The only way you are going to save this woman is if somehow you can freeze her for 300 years, bring her back and than use the latest scientific stem cell discoveries to regrow her brain.

Red Leader
03-19-2005, 04:14 PM
Thread diversion starts here. :MandJ:

So true, so true.

remdog
03-21-2005, 03:50 AM
If/When you or loved one is involved in an auto accident or something of the sort, and the medics didn't do CPR becuase they felt you were D-E-A-D, how would you feel? Teri's still breathing and her heart still beats that's far from D-E-A-D.

How would I feel? How would I feel? Perhaps a better question, dman, is how did I feel?

In 1990, I was returning from a business trip to Europe. In those pre-cellphone days, I was out of touch during the flight from France to Los Angeles and when I finally got home I found frantic calls on my answering machine from my sister to call her immediately. My Dad, who had been suffering from the devistation of Alzheimer's had suffered a massive heart attack. He was now on life support with a hole in his heart so big that there was no surgery that could repair it. We could keep him on life support indefiniately and he would 'live' on, of course. It was our decission to make.

My Mom, my sister and I discussed it. We all agreed. It was better to let him go. Why prolong a life that had been full and wonderful just to say that he was alive----because he certainly wasn't living!

My Dad remained 'alive' almost six hours after we took him off of the life support system, but he had passed from this earth a much earlier time before.

So, since you asked, that's how I did feel. And I still feel that way. I'm not trying to put you on the spot or make you feel bad. It's just ironic that you asked a hypothetical question of someone that has gone through this already. I bear you no malice over it and I sincerely hope that you aren't faced with a similar situation someday.

Rem

dman
03-21-2005, 06:47 AM
How would I feel? How would I feel? Perhaps a better question, dman, is how did I feel?

In 1990, I was returning from a business trip to Europe. In those pre-cellphone days, I was out of touch during the flight from France to Los Angeles and when I finally got home I found frantic calls on my answering machine from my sister to call her immediately. My Dad, who had been suffering from the devistation of Alzheimer's had suffered a massive heart attack. He was now on life support with a hole in his heart so big that there was no surgery that could repair it. We could keep him on life support indefiniately and he would 'live' on, of course. It was our decission to make.

My Mom, my sister and I discussed it. We all agreed. It was better to let him go. Why prolong a life that had been full and wonderful just to say that he was alive----because he certainly wasn't living!

My Dad remained 'alive' almost six hours after we took him off of the life support system, but he had passed from this earth a much earlier time before.

So, since you asked, that's how I did feel. And I still feel that way. I'm not trying to put you on the spot or make you feel bad. It's just ironic that you asked a hypothetical question of someone that has gone through this already. I bear you no malice over it and I sincerely hope that you aren't faced with a similar situation someday.

Rem
I understand that your not trying to put me on the spot, and no malice is even remotely taken from this. However, Terri Schiavo is not on life support. She does not have a machine breathing for her. She only requires a feeding tube as her major medical assistance. This is a far cry from a person who is brain dead or clinically dead.

BTW, if one of my family members or myself were on a ventilator I think I would want them to let me go just the same as I would want them to go on at that point, but I just can't see doing that over a feeding tube.

MaskedMarvel
03-23-2005, 10:53 PM
I'd hate my family if they kept me prisoner in my own body.

But if that were the case, wouldn't that mean that you were of sound mind? in order to realize any type of wrong doing here, she would have to realize what was going on,

Thus the right to stay alive is not our's, it's NOT her life, it was given too and should taken from by God, God doesn't play chess with our lives, his reasonning often many more times than not is superiorly beyond our comprehension. But life and death, beit in a natural state, is not in our egotistical man made jurisdiction. just my belief.

GAC
03-24-2005, 08:10 AM
This issue now that is being thrown around quite regularly is what worries me....

"quality of life"

What does that mean? What are the defining parameters/restrictions. Or are there any?

Is it someone who is able to actively contribute to society and not be a burden?

What about all the people with disabilities of varying nature, or severe emotional problems, that have them institutionalized for life, and require constant care, while contributing very little at all if anything? At least no more then Terry Schiavo.

Down's syndrome, MS, mental retardation, etc., etc.

What about death row criminals who are there for life, and who robbed someone of the "quality of life". Why do we fight to keep them alive? Can living on death row be seen as "quality of life"?

If a person becomes a paraplegic from some sort of accident, and decides they don't want to live this way, should they then have the option to end it? It's somehow their right?

NDReds
03-24-2005, 08:38 AM
Not to sound crass here, but why try to save third world child before we try to save on of our own citizens?

1/6 children in the US live in poverty... the same argument could be made about them...

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 11:05 AM
1/6 children in the US live in poverty... the same argument could be made about them...

"Could be" being the operative wording there. You are the only person I've seen proposing this, for what it's worth.

GAC and NDReds- No one is making the arguments you are describing. People who are mentally disabled are not on life support or feeding tubes.

And no one is advocating the death of poor children.

Death row immates do not fall anywhere near the same category as a person in a vegetative state. We are talking different worlds here.

This slippery slope stuff makes for an interesting high school paper, but it is a logical fallacy nonetheless. Just because people say - and quite correctly- that Terry Schiavo has no quality of life, that does not mean we are going to apply that standard to every segment of the population.

And yes- if a paraplegic wants to die, then they should be allowed to do so.

I tell you what- the day a group of paraplegics gets together and votes that they don't have the right to die is the day I won't support euthanasia laws.

The way it is now, we have perfectly healthy human beings making these decisions for people in difficult circumstances.

There isn't any of us here who would want to live in a vegetative state for 15 years with our mouths hanging open laying in a hospital bed, but I guarantee you there is someone here who thinks that we are "murdering" Terry Schiavo.

I would argue that it is cruel and unloving to keep someone alive like that, which is totally consistent with moral principles.

The Supreme Court got this right today (with the exception of Scalia, I'm sure, who never gets anything right- he was the only dissenting vote in a prior right to die case).

RedFanAlways1966
03-24-2005, 11:17 AM
I'll add another tangent. The front page of my local rag, The Dayton Daily News, shows a 14-year-old girl being handcuffed by police for trying to give Ms. Schiavo a glass of water. It says that the teen was arrested with her father who also attempted to deliver water to Ms. Schiavo.

My question... shouldn't the father be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor or similiar charges? Did he not lead his child into that arrest situation? What kind of a man leads his child into getting arrested? I have my opinions and adjectives to describe this sort of parent, but I'll not give 'em.

TeamCasey
03-24-2005, 11:21 AM
Thus the right to stay alive is not our's, it's NOT her life, it was given too and should taken from by God, God doesn't play chess with our lives, his reasonning often many more times than not is superiorly beyond our comprehension. But life and death, beit in a natural state, is not in our egotistical man made jurisdiction. just my belief.

Not sure where you stand from your statement. Are you saying that no medical intervention should be allowed, because life is in God's hands?

Unassisted
03-24-2005, 11:26 AM
It's funny or maybe a little disturbing is when I use Google search for more information on this subject, I get 99.5 percent Right Wing Blogs. Looks like another character assassanation once again by them.Nope, not "character assassination." You're thinking too small.

I think what we have in this case is the wedge issue for this election cycle. The GOP will soon point to this issue as their justification for using the "nuclear" option to ram those pending Federal judical appointments through the Senate.

They could also point to the judicial inertia on this case as a key election issue in the 2006 congressional races. The ads in Dem-held swing districts will say that we "need" more Federal judges to get the judiciary moving again, and maybe you didn't realize it, but your incumbent Democrat has been standing in the way of those appointments.

I see Karl Rove's fingerprints all over this one. The swiftness and the timing that this landed in the national consciousness are eerily reminiscent of the gay marriage debate of last year.

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 11:28 AM
Thus the right to stay alive is not our's, it's NOT her life, it was given too and should taken from by God, God doesn't play chess with our lives, his reasonning often many more times than not is superiorly beyond our comprehension.

If Terry Schiavo's condition was forced upon her by God for a reason, then she is undoubtedly a chess piece in a very large game. I'm not sure how you could argue any other way.

As well, what kind of all-powerful god cannot come up with a better way to demonstrate his will than to cause someone's heart to stop in the prime of her life and then let let her sit there in a hospital bed for decades? You are telling me there is this all-powerful God, and yet he cannot think of a better way to demonstate his will than to make someone a vegetable?

traderumor
03-24-2005, 02:01 PM
If it is legal to consider a person dead when their care involves being unable to feed oneself, that pretty much eliminates infants, cerebral palsy sufferers, stroke vicitims...This person can breathe and her heart is beating. Her brain is functioning in some respect or it could not do that much. It is not right for human beings to make capricious, arbitrary judgments about someone else's "quality of life." For example, I don't see how people can live with rats and roaches in slums and do nothing about it and feel that children in those situations have a poor "quality of life." So do we stop feeding them?

ochre
03-24-2005, 02:10 PM
If it is legal to consider a person dead when their care involves being unable to feed oneself, that pretty much eliminates infants, cerebral palsy sufferers, stroke vicitims...This person can breathe and her heart is beating. Her brain is functioning in some respect or it could not do that much. It is not right for human beings to make capricious, arbitrary judgments about someone else's "quality of life." For example, I don't see how people can live with rats and roaches in slums and do nothing about it and feel that children in those situations have a poor "quality of life." So do we stop feeding them?
So, what happens if her family goes in there and spoon feeds her? Can she process the food on her own?

GoReds
03-24-2005, 02:13 PM
No, she doesn't have the capacity to swallow.

ochre
03-24-2005, 02:15 PM
That would seem to be a telling difference between her and the examples mentioned above then.
...infants, cerebral palsy sufferers, stroke vicitims...

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 02:21 PM
If it is legal to consider a person dead when their care involves being unable to feed oneself, that pretty much eliminates infants, cerebral palsy sufferers, stroke vicitims...

Again, you have given only a portion of the story.

This woman is brain damaged beyond repair. Because of this, she cannot feed herself, and she has a "zero" chance of recovery. She has a zero level of conscienceness. Zero. She has no idea that she is starving to death right now, because she has no brain activity.

The are two requirements to "conscienceness." One is that a person be able to be aroused (in other words be awake-Schiavo actually falls in this category), and two that the person comprehends their own existence and the world around them. Terry Schiavo fails the second prong of the test, sadly.

Most of what you have listed in your argument above does not fit in this category.

traderumor
03-24-2005, 02:31 PM
She has no idea that she is starving to death right now, because she has no brain activity.She has to have brain activity. The brain controls her heart and breathing, both of which she does unassisted. I think the debate here is with the term "vegatative state," is it not? Nourishing someone that can not do that on their own does not seem to be a valid reason to withhold life support. The rest seems incredibly subjective.

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 02:50 PM
She has to have brain activity. The brain controls her heart and breathing, both of which she does unassisted.

She does not meet the definition of conscienceness. She has no idea that she has been in that bed and she has no idea that she is dying.

traderumor
03-24-2005, 02:54 PM
She does not meet the definition of conscienceness. She has no idea that she has been in that bed and she has no idea that she is dying.

Is that definatively measureable? Last word I heard before tuning out the latest media feeding frenzy (they sure can smell that chum in the water) on the subject was that someone is now contesting the EKGs.

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 03:27 PM
I believe I saw that a pro-life activist neurologist is coming out now - 15 years after the fact- and disputing something.

Let me ask you this, TR: Would you want to stay in that state for decades?
I'm not asking if you would want to be a vegetable, I'm asking that if you were, would your living will instruct others to keep you alive?

traderumor
03-24-2005, 03:48 PM
I believe I saw that a pro-life activist neurologist is coming out now - 15 years after the fact- and disputing something.

Let me ask you this, TR: Would you want to stay in that state for decades?
I'm not asking if you would want to be a vegetable, I'm asking that if you were, would your living will instruct others to keep you alive?

No, I would not want my spouse to have to live with the fact that out of expedience she had to let me die of starvation and dehydration. See, the usual thought is that the invalid's wishes are noble because they don't want to be a burden, but here my spouse would have to live with starving me to death. I'm pretty sure the lesser of two evils for her would be for me to die from being unable to breathe on my own or that my heart stopped beating, but that having to choose to not feed me would be no "mercy" for my dear wife. I wouldn't ask her to make that decision, even if it was veiled as my "wishes."

Red Heeler
03-24-2005, 05:26 PM
No, I would not want my spouse to have to live with the fact that out of expedience she had to let me die of starvation and dehydration. See, the usual thought is that the invalid's wishes are noble because they don't want to be a burden, but here my spouse would have to live with starving me to death. I'm pretty sure the lesser of two evils for her would be for me to die from being unable to breathe on my own or that my heart stopped beating, but that having to choose to not feed me would be no "mercy" for my dear wife. I wouldn't ask her to make that decision, even if it was veiled as my "wishes."

You bring up a very good point. Watching their daughter's body waste away over the next week or two is going to be a living Hell for her parents. In cases where life support is to be removed, euthanasia should be an option.

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 05:54 PM
TR, you did not answer the question I posed, and I'm guessing it is because you would choose not to stay alive. Whether your wife has to make the decision or not had nothing to do with the question.

No matter what decision your wife makes, she is going to feel guilty. Letting you stay hooked up to a feeding tube for decades doesn't sound like a very mind calming decision. Once she is placed in the position of making a decision, she is going wonder "what if" regardless. It isn't which choice you make here, it's being placed in the position of having to choose which way to go.

Terry Schiavo is not conscious. She cannot be. She would not understand laying in her bed for 30 years any more than she would understand starving to death. Her husband is simply allowing her to move on to whatever is next.

As a parent, it would be easier to see my child die over a few week span than watch one of them in a bed, hooked up to a tube for 30 years.

Anyway, we shall just agree to disagree. :)

traderumor
03-24-2005, 06:15 PM
TR, you did not answer the question I posed, and I'm guessing it is because you would choose not to stay alive. Whether your wife has to make the decision or not had nothing to do with the question.

No matter what decision your wife makes, she is going to feel guilty. Letting you stay hooked up to a feeding tube for decades doesn't sound like a very mind calming decision. Once she is placed in the position of making a decision, she is going wonder "what if" regardless. It isn't which choice you make here, it's being placed in the position of having to choose which way to go.

Terry Schiavo is not conscious. She cannot be. She would not understand laying in her bed for 30 years any more than she would understand starving to death. Her husband is simply allowing her to move on to whatever is next.

As a parent, it would be easier to see my child die over a few week span than watch one of them in a bed, hooked up to a tube for 30 years.

Anyway, we shall just agree to disagree. :)

Yes, I did answer your question. I wouldn't ask her, regardless of if she was carrying out my wishes through a living will, to allow me to starve to death as a supposed "removal of life support." She would be saddled with watching the effects of that and the guilt that she allowed them to starve me to death. I do not consider a feeding tube life support, that is simply what a human does for another human if the possibility exists to provide someone food. In fact, I don't know the laws in Florida, but feeding someone would seem to qualify for the "care and comfort" part of a DNRCC type request. Therefore I would not provide for that to be done in a living will. Hopefully that clarifies. I wasn't asking you to agree, I was answering your question.

TC81190
03-24-2005, 06:38 PM
As for the God made/He should take argument...

If God wanted Terry dead, she would be.

GAC
03-24-2005, 06:52 PM
If Terry Schiavo's condition was forced upon her by God for a reason, then she is undoubtedly a chess piece in a very large game. I'm not sure how you could argue any other way.

As well, what kind of all-powerful god cannot come up with a better way to demonstrate his will than to cause someone's heart to stop in the prime of her life and then let let her sit there in a hospital bed for decades? You are telling me there is this all-powerful God, and yet he cannot think of a better way to demonstate his will than to make someone a vegetable?

God didn't make her a vegetable. If allowed to have progressed naturally, Terry would have been dead years ago.

It was our medical technology that has kept her in that bed and maintained that vegetative state.

I don't see how one can fault God because medical science, at times, tries to play God. They're rookies.

Dom Heffner
03-24-2005, 09:04 PM
Deleted. Uncle!

:)

NDRed
03-25-2005, 01:45 AM
This sad situation is just the unfortunate progression of our society. As we continue to lesses the value of life, case such as this are inevitable. What puzzles me it why he wants her dead so bad- that is baffeling. I mean he could have given treatment over to the parents years ago and just walked away. I don't understand why he is so consumed with her being dead.

By the way, if Michael Schiavo treated his severly disabled dog this way he would be arrested.

Ravenlord
03-25-2005, 07:37 AM
You do realize that she's clinically brain dead, right? Simply put, that means that her brain is not capable of processing what is being said or what is going on around her. Tests such as an EEG have been conducted to show that the only part of her brain that is functioning is the part that is responsible for carrying out life sustaining processes. The other vital areas of that brain are not functioning.
yep...plug/tube should have been pulled years ago.

WVRed
03-25-2005, 07:41 AM
By the way, if Michael Schiavo treated his severly disabled dog this way he would be arrested.

My thoughts exactly.

I think Jeff Foxworthy put it best when he said that his parents used to leave him out in the car at the grocery store when he was young. Now if you so much as leave a poodle out in the car, they will show your execution live on the 6 o'clock news.

I thought what Glenn Beck did with Bobo was absolutely hilarious. It was cruel, but to see so many people act the way they did over an imaginary puppy and miss the point, it was funny.

Danny Serafini
03-25-2005, 08:40 AM
This sad situation is just the unfortunate progression of our society. As we continue to lesses the value of life, case such as this are inevitable. What puzzles me it why he wants her dead so bad- that is baffeling. I mean he could have given treatment over to the parents years ago and just walked away. I don't understand why he is so consumed with her being dead.

By the way, if Michael Schiavo treated his severly disabled dog this way he would be arrested.

A severly disabled dog would've been put to sleep years ago, and everyone would've said it was the humane thing to do. In other words, the same thing he's trying to do now.

NDRed
03-25-2005, 10:01 AM
Deleted

kbrake
03-25-2005, 10:07 AM
Danny S. you nailed it. I am so sick of hearing the dog comparision. I wish the religous right would put their bibles down for two seconds and pick up a science book and give this woman a chance to go on. I love how the people who are most certain about heaven and God are so afraid to get there. Just let her go.

RBA
03-25-2005, 10:12 AM
A severly disabled dog would've been put to sleep years ago, and everyone would've said it was the humane thing to do. In other words, the same thing he's trying to do now.

Exacty right. Think about it folks.

Ravenlord
03-25-2005, 10:12 AM
Danny S. you nailed it. I am so sick of hearing the dog comparision. I wish the religous right would put their bibles down for two seconds...*continues holding Bible*

so i've never read a science book?

traderumor
03-25-2005, 11:02 AM
Exacty right. Think about it folks.
The laying down of an animal is much different than considering the same thing for a human being. For example, they will lay down a horse with a broken leg, but I would assume you would not recommend the same for a human being. Dogs are laid down because of senility, madness, old age, and just plain old not being wanted, and a variety of other reasons. Again, I would submit that you would probably not recommend going through nursing homes and gassing all the Alzheimer and senile patients or heading to the asylum to put down all the mentally ill, even those who are a danger to society (the reason mad dogs are put down), or knocking off the orphans. The dog analogy referred to in this thread is only valid insofar as being used to compare the value folks place on a dog often appears to be higher than is placed on a human being, and I don't see anyone trying to say any more than that.

There, I thought about it :)

kbrake
03-25-2005, 11:57 AM
*continues holding Bible*

so i've never read a science book?


No and thats not the way I meant to come across, I just get sick of people who continue to argue God over science and common sense. Didnt mean to offend anyone.

traderumor
03-25-2005, 12:27 PM
No and thats not the way I meant to come across, I just get sick of people who continue to argue God over science and common sense. Didnt mean to offend anyone.Where do you think science and common sense came from?

zombie-a-go-go
03-25-2005, 12:32 PM
Where do you think science and common sense came from?

The stork brought them over from the cabbage patch, yo.

Dom Heffner
03-25-2005, 01:55 PM
The laying down of an animal is much different than considering the same thing for a human being. For example, they will lay down a horse with a broken leg, but I would assume you would not recommend the same for a human being.

What RBA is saying is that we let dogs and animals have a better death- when they are killed legally- than we do for ourselves when we are allowed to expire legally. Terry Schiavo told her husband she would not want to live in a state like this, and her husband should be allowed to carry out the wish. This is legal, friend. Can I prove that she said this? No, just as much as you can't prove she didn't. However, I fail to see the motivation behind Michael Schiavo lying about this. He could just as easily have walked away, turned custody over to someone else, and have been millions of dollars richer in the process.

The reason you are fighting a losing battle here is that nearly everyone agrees they would not want to live for years in a condition like Terry's. This is from an article about living wills:http://www.theksbwchannel.com/family/4303206/detail.html

At attorney Christopher Likens' office in Sarasota, clients invariably bring up Terri Schiavo as they put their affairs in order.

"Almost universally, it's 'That poor girl. I don't ever want that to happen to me,'" Likens said. "People are much more informed about the issue."

Almost universally. Whoever goes to get a living will and thinks, "Man, I better get a living will in place so my family doesn't decide to cut the feeding tube when I'm a vegetable"?

I mean, whoever says, "Man, if I am laying in a hospital bed for 15 years with no level of conscienceness, please feed me for decades. They might find a cure."

I've been alive for 36 years and I have never heard someone say that. Not once.

What is telling about your argument is that you have to keep using examples totally unrelated to make your point. Poor children, the insane. How about making your argument based on people who do not fit the definition of being aware that they are even alive? Make a case for that.

You brought up the fact that I may not know that Terry is aware of what's happening to her- that she actually has some measure of awareness of her condition. I would submit to you that this would be an even more cruel reason to keep her alive. Being aware of your surroundings and not being able to communicate -in a bed for 15 years nonetheless- is a torture I cannot even fathom. Think back to what you did on your birthday 15 years ago and then imagine spending every moment since then in a bed unable to let the world know that you are aware of being alive.

In fact, there are drugs that can do this to people, and it's done for torture, not pleasure.

This is the right thing to do as decent and moral human beings.

M2
03-25-2005, 01:58 PM
If God wanted Terry dead, she would be.

Perhaps God's guiding the judges striking down all the last minute appeals and giving them inner strength to withstand all the self-aggrandizing politicians who've turned this poor woman's misfortune into a whipping stick. Perhaps God's disgusted by a president who leaves a vacation early for the first time ever to engage in some politicking when he couldn't drag himself away for the greatest natural disaster in modern human history.

Perhaps God wants Terry with him now and this is His way of doing it. Or perhaps God's displeased that people kept alive the body of a woman whose soul long ago left it.

Perhaps none of the above, but I'd urge a little caution when acting as if you happen to represent the uncontestable will of God.

zombie-a-go-go
03-25-2005, 02:01 PM
Perhaps none of the above, but I'd urge a little caution when acting as if you happen to represent the uncontestable will of God.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Post of the day.

ochre
03-25-2005, 02:09 PM
I blame the supermodels.

traderumor
03-25-2005, 02:38 PM
What RBA is saying is that we let dogs and animals have a better death- when they are killed legally- than we do for ourselves when we are allowed to expire legally.

Death is ugly whether you give someone or something gas or whether they are beheaded. To claim that one should be allowed to "die with dignity" is a nice thought, but then you would have to kill me if I contracted Alzheimer's, was incontinent, paralyzed, or became mentally ill. These are all things that I would not want to live with. However, I do not get to choose my ailments or mode of death. If I do, I'm crossing a line of which I will have a penalty to pay.


Terry Schiavo told her husband she would not want to live in a state like this, and her husband should be allowed to carry out the wish. This is legal, friend. Can I prove that she said this? No, just as much as you can't prove she didn't. However, I fail to see the motivation behind Michael Schiavo lying about this. He could just as easily have walked away, turned custody over to someone else, and have been millions of dollars richer in the process.
I was thinking about this today, and GAC already asked the same question. Why didn't he just walk away? The money could still be used today for her medical care. Rather, it was used for legal fees. He squandered money that could be used to keep her alive, to let her parents have medical care in their home. Why did he do it? I don't know. My guess isn't some evil plan to get money, but that he had no idea what he was getting himself into and never saw a way out where he could just walk away. I honestly think it is about principal at this point, of which to me it should have been about being more considerate of the parent's wishes.



The reason you are fighting a losing battle here is that nearly everyone agrees they would not want to live for years in a condition like Terry's. This is from an article about living wills:http://www.theksbwchannel.com/family/4303206/detail.html

At attorney Christopher Likens' office in Sarasota, clients invariably bring up Terri Schiavo as they put their affairs in order.

"Almost universally, it's 'That poor girl. I don't ever want that to happen to me,'" Likens said. "People are much more informed about the issue."

Almost universally. Whoever goes to get a living will and thinks, "Man, I better get a living will in place so my family doesn't decide to cut the feeding tube when I'm a vegetable"?

I mean, whoever says, "Man, if I am laying in a hospital bed for 15 years with no level of conscienceness, please feed me for decades. They might find a cure."

I've been alive for 36 years and I have never heard someone say that. Not once.

I would agree with what you just said. I think you will notice that nowhere have I contended this is something someone desires, but when you stop and think about someone besides yourself for a minute, which is hard for human beings to do, there are more things to think about than poor little ole me. Obviously, no one would choose this as a way to live, but I also pointed out several "qualities of life" that I would not like to have. I don't wanna run around wearing a diaper some day, yet I'm not going to ask someone (seriously anyways) to kill me if I happen to become incontinent. Of course no one wants to live that way. I don't think folks born with cerebral palsy want to live that way, do they? But then, that isn't what this issue is about. This is an issue of when it is ok to withhold life sustaining medical care.


What is telling about your argument is that you have to keep using examples totally unrelated to make your point. Poor children, the insane. How about making your argument based on people who do not fit the definition of being aware that they are even alive? Make a case for that.
The point is that Terry Schiavo's life is just as valuable and she is just as helpless to do anything about it as those examples I used. You are making an artificial existential distinction, one which an insane person is very comparable to. What if an insane person thinks they are a flower? Are they fit to live? Which consciousness is acceptable and which isn't? That is the issue, which may be our point of misunderstanding, as we do not seem to be on the same page as to what the issues are.


You brought up the fact that I may not know that Terry is aware of what's happening to her- that she actually has some measure of awareness of her condition. I would submit to you that this would be an even more cruel reason to keep her alive. Being aware of your surroundings and not being able to communicate -in a bed for 15 years nonetheless- is a torture I cannot even fathom. Think back to what you did on your birthday 15 years ago and then imagine spending every moment since then in a bed unable to let the world know that you are aware of being alive.

In fact, there are drugs that can do this to people, and it's done for torture, not pleasure.

This is the right thing to do as decent and moral human beings.

The same rationalization is used by folks that commit suicide every day. They view their life as worthless, so they kill themselves. Also, your reasoning again makes my examples of folks with cerebral palsy, or an Alzheimer's victim, or someone with mental illness. How is it any less cruel to let folks like that live based on the very statements you just made? Where is the distinction?

Dom Heffner
03-25-2005, 04:00 PM
if I contracted Alzheimer's, was incontinent, paralyzed, or became mentally ill.

These are not the same conditions as Terry Schiavo is in. Again, make a case using patients just like her instead of trying to destroy an argument by building a six foot tall straw man that you can "heroically" tear down.

An Alzheimer's patient is conscious of their existence, whether it be factual or not. Terry Schiavo has no conscienceness, so the argument is moot. It is not merely a "quality of life" issue as you have incorrectly tried to reduce it to.

Being incontinent is merely being able to not control your bladder. While this an inconvenient way to live, no one is proposing that these people be allowed to choose to die.

Being paralyzed is different because, again, there is conscienceness.

For the umpteempth time, this woman has no conscienceness with zero hope of recovery. Zero.

As for being selfish- I would submit that claiming to know the will of god and then enforcing it upon others is a much better fit for the word.

As well, it's selfish to enforce your beliefs on others when their beliefs go a different way. Terry Schiavo said she did not want to live this way, yet there are some who are selfish enough to keep her from her wish.

If you want to stay alive if you ever become a vegetable, tell all your friends that this is your wish, and they'll be sure to keep you in that bed for 40 years.

Also- you argued earlier that you would never place your family in the position of deciding whether to pull the plug for you. That's the point of a living will, though, isn't it? To make your wishes known so that your family doesn't have to make that call.

traderumor
03-25-2005, 05:23 PM
These are not the same conditions as Terry Schiavo is in. Again, make a case using patients just like her instead of trying to destroy an argument by building a six foot tall straw man that you can "heroically" tear down.

An Alzheimer's patient is conscious of their existence, whether it be factual or not. Terry Schiavo has no conscienceness, so the argument is moot. It is not merely a "quality of life" issue as you have incorrectly tried to reduce it to.

Being incontinent is merely being able to not control your bladder. While this an inconvenient way to live, no one is proposing that these people be allowed to choose to die.

Being paralyzed is different because, again, there is conscienceness.

For the umpteempth time, this woman has no conscienceness with zero hope of recovery. Zero.

As for being selfish- I would submit that claiming to know the will of god and then enforcing it upon others is a much better fit for the word.

As well, it's selfish to enforce your beliefs on others when their beliefs go a different way. Terry Schiavo said she did not want to live this way, yet there are some who are selfish enough to keep her from her wish.

If you want to stay alive if you ever become a vegetable, tell all your friends that this is your wish, and they'll be sure to keep you in that bed for 40 years.

Also- you argued earlier that you would never place your family in the position of deciding whether to pull the plug for you. That's the point of a living will, though, isn't it? To make your wishes known so that your family doesn't have to make that call.

Dom,

No straw man's have been constructed. Your lack of being able to see the connection does not invalidate the argument. Now, you shift back to the consciousness angle when my examples were in response to your idea that no one would want to live in the state that she is in. Again, you are making your moral decision on the basis that one brain damaged person deserves the rights and privileges of life while another one should be left to starve to death. The examples I have provided, except for the incontinence, have to do with varying degrees of brain damage. That is what it comes down to. Playing the consciousness game is the same as splitting hairs about when a conception becomes a "life." That is where I am coming from, that is why I believe the examples to directly address the issue rather than represent strawmen as you contend.

As for the will of God stuff, where is that coming from? I hadn't made one claim about this issue in relation to believing what the will of God is either way?

dman
03-25-2005, 07:54 PM
Terri's state is far from good. I don't necessarily think letting her die is the right avenue. My whole line of skepticism lies in her husband's (if that's what you want to call him) motives for wanting her to die. He just seems to so much want her to die, and that is what I am not comfortable with. People make agonizing decisions all the time whether or not to let a loved one pass on. It just seems to me if Terri is such a burden on Michael Schiavo, why doesn't he turn the care and custody over to her family? I know for me personally, had this been my wife and she was not legally dead, I would not have went out messing around and getting another woman preagnant (twice at that) while my wife lay there possibly dying. I guess what I am saying is that adultery was adultery whether she was in a vegetative state or not, and I think Michael's motives should be grilled. This whole rush to death for her really bothers me.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2005, 09:39 PM
Hey, I thought the Repubs were all about the "sanctity of marriage." Now when the husband wants to exercise his judgment, marriage doesn't count?

I mean, where the h-e-hockey sticks do you 'Pubs stand? On anything?

919191
03-25-2005, 10:36 PM
Hey, I thought the Repubs were all about the "sanctity of marriage." Now when the husband wants to exercise his judgment, marriage doesn't count?

I mean, where the h-e-hockey sticks do you 'Pubs stand? On anything?


Maybe not all Republicans come from the same cookie cutter.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2005, 10:47 PM
Maybe not all Republicans come from the same cookie cutter.

Or maybe the President has yanked that party so far to the right, you moderates no longer recognize it.

Ravenlord
03-25-2005, 10:51 PM
Or maybe the President has yanked that party so far to the right, you moderates no longer recognize it.
the right? he's not heading right or left. he's headed east north east. and i'm willing to call the president a bleeding heart on a bunch of things.

WSNCWFU#1
03-25-2005, 10:59 PM
I happen to be the area (Clearwater FL) at my father in laws and he just h appends to live in the same housing development as the Schiavo's on our way out today we went by their house signs in the yard "no trespassing" and many cars on the street.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2005, 11:01 PM
the right? he's not heading right or left. he's headed east north east. and i'm willing to call the president a bleeding heart on a bunch of things.

No disrespect, but:

what are you talking about? Please tell me one liberal policy Bush advocates/defends.

And don't tell me faith-based initiatives. Liberals are secularists governmentally.

Ravenlord
03-25-2005, 11:16 PM
what are you talking about? Please tell me one liberal policy Bush advocates/defends.illeagals and the borders and his views on this case. there are some other things, but that's less bleeding heart and more all politicians. keep in mind though, i don't follow the line that says all bleeding heart views are liberal.

Mutaman
03-26-2005, 01:11 AM
Hey, I thought the Repubs were all about the "sanctity of marriage." Now when the husband wants to exercise his judgment, marriage doesn't count?

I mean, where the h-e-hockey sticks do you 'Pubs stand? On anything?


What do you mean? Just because most republicans are for sending other people's kids to Iraq but when it came time for them to do their duty they had "other priorities". Just because they are opposed to large malpractice awards but they applaud the use of a large malpractice award to keep Terri alive. Just because they are all for "states rights" and limited federal intervention unless they don't like the ruling of the stae court and then they're all for federal intervention. Just because the president is all for "life" but when he was governor of Texas he signed a law withdrawing life support from those too poor to pay for it. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Are you saying these Republicans are hypocrites? Are you sure you have enough evidence to make that claim.

Ravenlord
03-26-2005, 03:04 AM
Are you saying these Republicans are hypocrites? Are you sure you have enough evidence to make that claim.
you can do the exact same thing with the Democrats. thus, i hate political parties.

GAC
03-26-2005, 05:58 AM
Hey, I thought the Repubs were all about the "sanctity of marriage." Now when the husband wants to exercise his judgment, marriage doesn't count?

IMo, this is not about politics (Repub/Dem), and the discussion shold not degenerate into such.

Why don't you ask the husband about the "sanctity of marriage"? The word "sanctity" means/refers to the holiness of marriage; that it is something sacred; a relationship whose foundation is to be so secure, that it is to be resistant to violation. What he is attempting to do has nothing to do with protecting that sanctity

If he is still legally married to Terry, then why has he lived for years with another woman, and had two children with this woman? As I stated before, so much for that vow that says "in sickness and in health, and till death do us part". Empty vows for many I guess (just words).

I'm sorry, but Terry is not dead. And that is why everyone is now throwing out this terminology "quality of life", because they know that. So now it's no longer about life; nor the sanctity of that life (or the marriage relationship), but the quality of that life.

Looking for loopholes.

With me, that makes me suspect of his motives, and also that he may no longer be qualified to make such an important decision for Terry, or that he may not be looking out for her best interests.

It is being reported that they need to carry out Terry's wishes. But no one knows for sure that it is Terry's wish. Yet again, it is being reported as such. Why? Because he says that she once told him that. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But that sure is pretty shaky evidence IMO (especially in a court of law), seeing the situation this guy is currently in. And I don't think those who doubt this guy are being ridicuous or irrational.

I don't believe the guy is evil or some kind of low-life. Alot that has been reported about this guy (and yes, by certain conservative sources), I personally do not believe. I think it is an attempt to tear him down. But what I stated above, and the situation he is currently in, is enough for me to cast doubt.

I know, I know...some are gonna say-"Geez! The guy has a right to get on with his life!" as valid justification for the relationship with this other woman. Personally, I don't. Again - either we believe in the sanctity of that marriage, or it's all pretense. But that, just like everyone elses view on here, is simply my opinion.

If anything good does come out of this situation (as far as the American people are concerned), I hope it shows them that they need to have a contigency plan (a living will) in case they or a family member are placed in this situation. People, in most cases, avoid doing this because just like avoiding going to the Dr, we don't like to think about situations like this - so we put it off or don't think it is that important of an issue. Until a situation like this arises. ;)

And FCB - in the latest ABC poll of evangelicals/conservatives, almost 2 out of 3 polled said they strongly disagree with the Prez/Congress intervening in this issue. While we may be passionate about life, and yes the whole situation around Terry, we also believe it is not the government's rolle to intervene. It does set a dangerous precedent.

But again, that could have all been avoided if Terry and her husband had done what?

traderumor
03-26-2005, 12:20 PM
GAC,

I'm with you as far as the issues here go, but one thing I don't see is where a living will even solves this dilemma and any other forms of life support issues. Personally, I consider a breathing tube to be a distinction in the area of life support from breathing apparatus, the other common form of life support. And I'm not sure that a living will can handle the pressure associated with removing a feeding tube from someone whose heart is beating and is breathing on their own. I probably didn't communicate that very well in my responses to Dom, but that is the crux of the issue to me, and honestly I don't know what the answer is with respect to removing a feeding tube when the other critical organs are functioning.

That is what got me thinking that something smelled rotten in this case, because until recently my thinking was that it was simply a removal of life support, and then I remembered feeding my grandmother after a stroke (that eventually killed her) had turned her brain to mush to the point that she didn't know anyone and was a shell of her former self , and remembered a friend's son with cerebral palsy and how they are essentially lacking the consciousness (to varying degrees, sure, but how do we know where to draw the line?) that Mrs. Schiavvo is, and she is being condemned to die.

I know Dom says the consciousness is not the same, but the dividing lines seem arbitrary and capricious. In all honesty, I don't know the right answer, and I assume that if I am ever put in a position, or if I ever decide to do a living will, I will have to arrive at some sort of answer on various forms of life support. I don't care for the grandstanding on either side of the fence, and I hope my responses on this issue don't seem that way. As of today, I would not want starved to death or left dehydrated, regardless of my condition and regardless of what others had determined my level of conciousness to be.

Mutaman
03-26-2005, 12:54 PM
IMo, this is not about politics (Repub/Dem), and the discussion shold not degenerate into such.




This is all about politics.

dman
03-26-2005, 01:16 PM
This is all about politics.
I agree. Judges are also politicians. Politicians are often on the take. I believe there should be an investigation into how much money switched hands between Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer.

cincinnati chili
03-26-2005, 04:19 PM
I agree. Judges are also politicians. Politicians are often on the take. I believe there should be an investigation into how much money switched hands between Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer.

What about the scores of Federal Judges who are appointed for life, esp. the Supreme Court Judges. Bribery of federal judges is ultra-rare, and when it happens, it's a bigger fish than Michael Schiavo doing the paying.

Mutaman
03-26-2005, 10:24 PM
I agree. Judges are also politicians. Politicians are often on the take. I believe there should be an investigation into how much money switched hands between Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer.


The typical rant of one who loses in litigation- "the judge was paid off". Of course in the Schiavo case that would mean that Michael Schiavo also paid off the Florida Appellate courts, the US District Court, the US Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. This guy must be richer than Bill Gates.

dman
03-26-2005, 11:44 PM
The typical rant of one who loses in litigation- "the judge was paid off". Of course in the Schiavo case that would mean that Michael Schiavo also paid off the Florida Appellate courts, the US District Court, the US Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. This guy must be richer than Bill Gates.
I haven't lost any litigation. The last I checked, other than on my job, I haven't had any litigations.

Mutaman
03-27-2005, 01:44 AM
I haven't lost any litigation. The last I checked, other than on my job, I haven't had any litigations.


Obviously the side you favor lost the Schiavo suit. Its also the typical rant of annother group of people which I won't define for fear of violating the rules here.
Anyhow, better to know the judge than to know the law.

GAC
03-27-2005, 04:50 AM
GAC,

I'm with you as far as the issues here go, but one thing I don't see is where a living will even solves this dilemma and any other forms of life support issues. Personally, I consider a breathing tube to be a distinction in the area of life support from breathing apparatus, the other common form of life support. And I'm not sure that a living will can handle the pressure associated with removing a feeding tube from someone whose heart is beating and is breathing on their own. I probably didn't communicate that very well in my responses to Dom, but that is the crux of the issue to me, and honestly I don't know what the answer is with respect to removing a feeding tube when the other critical organs are functioning.

My feeling is that a decision of this magnitude can only be made by the individual involved... i.e. Terry Schiavo (or anyone else who finds themselves in a similar situation). And that "line" has to be drawn, or made as clear and distinct, by that person, and not possibly hearsay (her husband said he heard her say it). A living will, a legal document, would not leave room for any ambiguity as to what that person's wishes were. It is certainly alot better then the situation we currently have, where we really don't know Terry's wishes. But when we have a situation where that individual is in the state she is, and is unable to communicate/interact, and most likely never will have that compacity, then a living will can be that last form of communication as to what that person's desires are. And it's a decision that I, and I alone, have a right to make... not even family members, nor the courts, or politicians. It's MY LIFE, and therefore the decision is mine alone. But when an individual does not take that responsibility, then we see what can happen/evolve...

We now have family members at each other's throats and possibly a life-long hatred has been produced inwhich they may never reconcile. I don't think Terry would want this. I know I wouldn't.

As I have stated earlier - if this were to happen to me, there is no way that I would want to be kept alive, lying in that bed via a feeding tube, while family members hope for a miracle from God. IMO, and as a Christian, if God was going to perform a miracle, He would have done so by know. In fact, under the circumstances right now, with the intense national scrutiny that Terry is receiving, and with everyone's eyes on this situation, and the argument over "right to life" and "right to die" advocates, then this would be an opportune time for God to perform that miracle and put an end to this argument.

But that is simply my opinion, and I do not presume to speak for God.

But again, if I was in the same state that Terry was in, and if I believed that God wanted me to live/carry on in this state, then it would be up to Him to maintain my life as such and not medical science (via a feeding tube). Because as a believer I am one who believes that God will make His will known to me, even as I lie there in a vegetative state when no one else can communicate with me... God can. And that is all that matters. You place it in God's hands. Isn't that what He wants anyway? Even as everyone else is watching, and family members are surrounding/visiting my bedside, they will soon know what God's will is for me as far as the purpose and direction He wants my life to take. It's not something that needs guess work, speculation, or is left "up in the air" for one to try and figure out.

But as I stated before, how do we not know that medical science is not thwarting God's will with their technology? I'm one who believes in God's permissive will (what He allows), and His active will (what He directs).

dman
03-27-2005, 01:34 PM
I guess if nothing else, from the sounds of the reports, Michael Schiavo will be spending the remainder of the settlement on bodyguards instead of women once this is all over.

Sounds like Judge Greer could use some added protection also.

You reap what you sow.

I don't advocate physical harm to these two, I just find it hard to feel bad for them as a result of the threats that have been made against them.

westofyou
03-27-2005, 01:49 PM
Threats of violence over a ruling about life?

Logical eh?

dman
03-27-2005, 02:04 PM
Threats of violence over a ruling about life?

Logical eh?
Like I said, I don't advocate it nor do I agree with it, but it was to be expected.

RBA
03-27-2005, 02:59 PM
I guess if nothing else, from the sounds of the reports, Michael Schiavo will be spending the remainder of the settlement on bodyguards instead of women once this is all over.

Sounds like Judge Greer could use some added protection also.

You reap what you sow.

I don't advocate physical harm to these two, I just find it hard to feel bad for them as a result of the threats that have been made against them.

When liberal extremist don't respect the rule of law they are wachos. When right wing extremist do it, it's expected?

RBA
03-27-2005, 06:28 PM
What do you mean? Just because most republicans are for sending other people's kids to Iraq but when it came time for them to do their duty they had "other priorities". Just because they are opposed to large malpractice awards but they applaud the use of a large malpractice award to keep Terri alive. Just because they are all for "states rights" and limited federal intervention unless they don't like the ruling of the stae court and then they're all for federal intervention. Just because the president is all for "life" but when he was governor of Texas he signed a law withdrawing life support from those too poor to pay for it. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Are you saying these Republicans are hypocrites? Are you sure you have enough evidence to make that claim.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE

DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads

Family of the lawmaker involved in the Schiavo case decided in '88 to let his comatose father die.

By Walter F. Roche Jr. and Sam Howe Verhovek
Times Staff Writers

March 27, 2005

CANYON LAKE, Texas — A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal — without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman — Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors.

Today, as House Majority Leader, DeLay has teamed with his Senate counterpart, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), to champion political intervention in the Schiavo case. They pushed emergency legislation through Congress to shift the legal case from Florida state courts to the federal judiciary.

And DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping the woman, who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew — we all knew — his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."

"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for the majority leader, who declined requests for an interview.

"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's press aide.

There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.

This previously unpublished account of the majority leader's personal brush with life-ending decisions was assembled from court files, medical records and interviews with family members.



It was a pleasant late afternoon in the Hill Country of Texas on Nov. 17, 1988.

At Charles and Maxine DeLay's home, set on a limestone bluff of cedars and live oaks, it also was a moment of triumph. Charles and his brother, Jerry DeLay, two avid tinkerers, had just finished work on a new backyard tram — an elevator-like device that would carry family and friends down a 200-foot slope to the blue-green waters of Canyon Lake.

The two men called for their wives to hop aboard. Charles pushed the button and the maiden run began. Within seconds, a horrific screeching noise echoed across the still lake — "a sickening sound," said a neighbor. The tram was in trouble.

Maxine, seated up front in the four-passenger trolley, said her husband repeatedly tried to engage the emergency brake, but the rail car kept picking up speed. Halfway down the bank, it was free-wheeling, according to accident investigators.

Moments later, it jumped the track and slammed into a tree, scattering passengers and debris in all directions.

"It was awful, just awful," recalled Karl Braddick, now 86, the DeLays' neighbor at the time. "I came running over, and it was a terrible sight."

He called for emergency help. Rescue workers had trouble bringing the injured victims up the steep terrain. Jerry's wife, JoAnne, suffered broken bones and a shattered elbow. Charles, who had been thrown head-first into a tree, was in grave condition.

"He was all but gone," said Braddick, gesturing at the spot of the accident as he offered a visitor a ride down to the lake in his own tram. "He would have been better off if he'd died right there and then."

But Charles DeLay hung on. In the ambulance on his way to a hospital in New Braunfels 15 miles away, he tried to speak.

"He wasn't making any sense; it was mainly just cuss words," recalled Maxine with a faint, fond smile.

Four hours later, he was airlifted by helicopter to the Brooke Army Medical Center at Ft. Sam Houston. Admission records show he arrived with multiple injuries, including broken ribs and a brain hemorrhage.

Tom DeLay flew to his father's bedside, where, along with his two brothers and a sister, they joined their mother. In the weeks that followed, the congressman made repeated trips back from Washington, his family said. Maxine seldom left her husband's side.

"Mama stayed at the hospital with him all the time. Oh, it was terrible for everyone," said Alvina "Vi" Skogen, a former sister-in-law of the congressman. Neighbor Braddick visited the hospital and said it seemed very clear to everyone that there was little prospect of recovery.

"He had no consciousness that I could see," Braddick said. "He did a bit of moaning and groaning, I guess, but you could see there was no way he was coming back."

Maxine DeLay agreed that she was never aware of any consciousness on her husband's part during the long days of her bedside vigil — with one possible exception.

"Whenever Randy walked into the room, his heart, his pulse rate, would go up a little bit," she said of their son, Randall, the congressman's younger brother, who lives near Houston.

Doctors conducted a series of tests, including scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen. They checked for lung damage and performed a tracheostomy to assist his breathing. But they could not prevent steady deterioration.

Then, infections complicated the senior DeLay's fight for life. Finally, his organs began to fail. His family and physicians confronted the dreaded choice so many other Americans have faced: to make heroic efforts or to let the end come.

"Daddy did not want to be a vegetable," said Skogen, one of his daughters-in-law at the time. "There was no decision for the family to make. He made it for them."

The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena — and "Tom went along." He raised no objection, said the congressman's mother.

Family members said they prayed.

Jerry DeLay "felt terribly about the accident" that injured his brother, said his wife, JoAnne. "He prayed that, if [Charles] couldn't have quality of life, that God would take him — and that is exactly what he did."

Charles Ray DeLay died at 3:17 a.m., according to his death certificate, 27 days after plummeting down the hillside.



The family then turned to lawyers.

In 1990, the DeLays filed suit against Midcap Bearing Corp. of San Antonio and Lovejoy Inc. of Illinois, the distributor and maker of a coupling that the family said had failed and caused the tram to hurtle out of control.

The family's wrongful death lawsuit accused the companies of negligence and sought actual and punitive damages. Lawyers for the companies denied the allegations and countersued the surviving designer of the tram system, Jerry DeLay.

The case thrust Rep. DeLay into unfamiliar territory — the front page of a civil complaint as a plaintiff. He is an outspoken defender of business against what he calls the crippling effects of "predatory, self-serving litigation."

The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship.

Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability law.

The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system, accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his brother Randall, an attorney.

Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American businesses from what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance premiums and "kill jobs."

Last September, he expressed less than warm sentiment for attorneys when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he said, "get fat off the pain" of plaintiffs and off "the hard work" of defendants.

Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of its final outcome.

The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum, said to be about $250,000, according to sources familiar with the out-of-court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds to his mother, said his aides.

Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for product sellers.

The 1996 bill was vetoed by President Clinton, who said he objected to the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."



After her husband's death, Maxine DeLay scrapped the mangled tram at the bottom of the hill and sold the family's lake house.

Today, she lives alone in a Houston senior citizen residence. Like much of the country, she is following news developments in the Schiavo case and her son's prominent role.

She acknowledged questions comparing her family's decision in 1988 to the Schiavo conflict with a slight smile. "It's certainly interesting, isn't it?"

She had a new hairdo for Easter and puffed on a cigarette outside her assisted-living residence as she sat back comparing the cases.

Like her son, she believed there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what made her family's experience different, she said. Charles had no hope.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said.

*

Verhovek reported from Canyon Lake, Texas; Roche reported from Washington. Also contributing to this report were Times researchers Lianne Hart in San Antonio and Nona Yates in Los Angeles.

dman
03-27-2005, 06:44 PM
RBA, your stories are meaningless. We can go tit for tat all day long on news blogs that substantiate one side or the other's points of view. Right now, the bottom line is that barring divine intercession from Almighty God, Terri will most likely die. That galls me to no end.

What I would like to see after all is said and done is to see some light shined on the perpetual cockroaches known as Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and former Pinellas County Sheriff Evrett Rice. And just like when light is shined on a roach, they run for cover, you will see these four individuals running for cover.

RBA
03-27-2005, 07:02 PM
That's not a news blog. That's the LA Times.

We all know what's going on here. It's politicians doing what politicians do and that is to exploit anything and everything.

As far as your comments about the cockroaches, I don't agree with your assessment.

traderumor
03-27-2005, 07:51 PM
Schiavo, 41, passed her ninth day without nourishment and Gibbs said she was declining rapidly. "They've begun to give her morphine drip for the pain. And at this point, we would say Terri has passed the point of no return," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050327/ts_nm/rights_schiavo_dc

Say what? I thought she had no idea she was starving, ergo was not "conscious" of pain. Get out the tap shoes, I want to hear this one explained.

GAC
03-27-2005, 07:55 PM
Threats of violence over a ruling about life?

Logical eh?

Ain't it insane.

GAC
03-27-2005, 07:57 PM
When liberal extremist don't respect the rule of law they are wachos. When right wing extremist do it, it's expected?

I don't think anyone is saying or implying that at all. Both are wackos. ;)

GAC
03-27-2005, 08:02 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050327/ts_nm/rights_schiavo_dc

Say what? I thought she had no idea she was starving, ergo was not "conscious" of pain. Get out the tap shoes, I want to hear this one explained.

It just validates a point I made earlier that even with all the advances that medical science has made, they still don't know what a person in this state is going thru physically or enduring.

I'm assuming the morphine drip is simply a precaution.... a "just in case" scenario. Again, because they just don't know IMO.

dman
03-27-2005, 11:26 PM
I was reading on the Columbus Dispatch's website that her family was at least given the decency of having her last Communion given to her.

Mutaman
03-28-2005, 01:42 AM
When liberal extremist don't respect the rule of law they are wachos. When right wing extremist do it, it's expected?


This sounds like the motto of the mainstream media. Some nut encourages his kids to get arrested protesting the Schiavo case, and CNN calls it "poingnant".

Mutaman
03-28-2005, 01:45 AM
RBA, your stories are meaningless. We can go tit for tat all day long on news blogs that substantiate one side or the other's points of view. Right now, the bottom line is that barring divine intercession from Almighty God, Terri will most likely die. That galls me to no end.

What I would like to see after all is said and done is to see some light shined on the perpetual cockroaches known as Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and former Pinellas County Sheriff Evrett Rice. And just like when light is shined on a roach, they run for cover, you will see these four individuals running for cover.


Why don't you explain to us, in your opinion, just what did Judge Greer do wrong. What Florida law did his misapply? What legal errors did he commit? And if he was wrong, why was he upheld on appeal? In educating us, please cite from Judge Greer's various decisions.

dman
03-28-2005, 04:13 AM
Why don't you explain to us, in your opinion, just what did Judge Greer do wrong. What Florida law did his misapply? What legal errors did he commit? And if he was wrong, why was he upheld on appeal? In educating us, please cite from Judge Greer's various decisions.
He wasn't upheld in an appeal, the U.S. Courts just didn't want to touch the case.

GAC
03-28-2005, 08:48 AM
Why don't you explain to us, in your opinion, just what did Judge Greer do wrong. What Florida law did his misapply? What legal errors did he commit? And if he was wrong, why was he upheld on appeal? In educating us, please cite from Judge Greer's various decisions.

I don't know if I have the right judge or not (there have been so many on this case with all the appeals and motions); but what bothered me, as far as from a legal perspective, is that he basically takes Michael's word that he said she had told him sometime in the past that she wouldn't want to left in this state. Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. It seems like pretty flimsy evidence IMO. And yet at the same time, this judge states that her parents have not presented enough evidence to substantiate their claims. And Michael did?

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 09:25 AM
"let no man rend asunder...."

Spring~Fields
03-28-2005, 09:58 AM
I was confused as to how the courts had the power:

to remove a feeding tube or device

when the courts did not have the power:

to install the feeding tube or device

and thus effectively starve :confused: a living creature in a land of laws

that even protects dogs from such owners neglect, refusing to feed or water their animals.

NDRed
03-28-2005, 10:34 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050327/ts_nm/rights_schiavo_dc

Say what? I thought she had no idea she was starving, ergo was not "conscious" of pain. Get out the tap shoes, I want to hear this one explained.


The morphine drip, in reality, is done for sedation- from my medical friend.

RBA
03-28-2005, 10:54 AM
I was confused as to how the courts had the power:

to remove a feeding tube or device

when the courts did not have the power:

to install the feeding tube or device

and thus effectively starve :confused: a living creature in a land of laws

that even protects dogs from such owners neglect, refusing to feed or water their animals.

Show me a case where a dog owner was charged with neglect because he did not feed that dog thru a feeding tube. If you want to compare apples and oranges. A dog in the state that this woman is in that cannot eat or drink normally and has to be fed thru a feeding tube. And the dog can never do again what Dogs normally do. This dog is kept alive? Do you see that happening? I don't.

Most humane people would of put that dog to sleep within the first days of this.

traderumor
03-28-2005, 11:33 AM
The morphine drip, in reality, is done for sedation- from my medical friend.
Thanks for the info and I don't wanna kill the messenger, so this isn't directed at you, just fyi...

but that does not answer the question because the arguments I have heard would make morphine unnecessary either for pain or sedation. A person without consciousness, as has been asserted, does not need sedated. Also, since sedation is using chemicals to alter consciousness, I'm thinking that altering the consciousness of someone that supposedly has no consciousness nor the ability for a conscious experience would be akin to giving morphine to a dead person in the morgue.

I know that GAC's "just in case" is the medical answer I'd expect, but it sure does highlight the uncertainty, when the arguments I've heard for this being a humane, moral thing to do have higlighted the certainty of her condition.

traderumor
03-28-2005, 11:37 AM
Show me a case where a dog owner was charged with neglect because he did not feed that dog thru a feeding tube. If you want to compare apples and oranges. A dog in the state that this woman is in that cannot eat or drink normally and has to be fed thru a feeding tube. And the dog can never do again what Dogs normally do. This dog is kept alive? Do you see that happening? I don't.

Most humane people would of put that dog to sleep within the first days of this.

Again, the dog comparisons are not saying that dogs should be kept alive through feeding tubes, they are showing how there are certain laws that require we treat animals better than we treat human beings, at times. This is another one that is not comparing feeding tubes, but the value placed on people and animals.

RBA
03-28-2005, 11:50 AM
If I didn't feed my healthy (or even imparied physical/mentally) child like someone did not feed their healthy dog, I would be going to the pokey. And people would be screaming to throw the book at me. Some would even be screaming for the Death Penalty.

I fail to see the comparisons with this unfornate woman.

Mutaman
03-28-2005, 12:20 PM
He wasn't upheld in an appeal, the U.S. Courts just didn't want to touch the case.


Wrong. Judge Greers rulings have been consitently upheld on appeal by the Florida Appellate courts. The Federal District court did not rule that it wouldn't "touch the case", they ruled that Schiavo's parents did not meet the standards necessary for the granting of a Temporary Restraining Order. This ruling was upheld by the US Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court would not change the denial of the request for the TRO.

A review of Judge Greer's decisions showed that he held numerous hearings to arrive at his decision, leaned over backwards to make sure everyone was heard, and carefully weighed all of the evidence, particularly the kind of person Ms. schiavo was (sociable, outgoing) and whether such a person would want to be kept alive in a vegitative state. Once can intelligently dispute the decision arrived at by judge Greer, but to personally attack him or insinuate that he was biased is absurd. The man clearly did his job properly, and put in a lot of work in making his decision.

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 01:28 PM
"let no man rend asunder....(except Bush, DeLay, and Frist, because they're extraspecial 'moral' men, clearly above the dictates of our great country's Constitution)."

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 01:40 PM
I think court decisions should come down to rock, paper, scissors--not the law.

traderumor
03-28-2005, 01:50 PM
"let no man rend asunder....(except Bush, DeLay, and Frist, because they're extraspecial 'moral' men, clearly above the dictates of our great country's Constitution)."

Since you are obviously touting the committment of marriage, would that include the husband's adultery here?

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 02:01 PM
Since you are obviously touting the committment of marriage, would that include the husband's adultery here?

Red herring.

Yachtzee
03-28-2005, 02:01 PM
I don't know if I have the right judge or not (there have been so many on this case with all the appeals and motions); but what bothered me, as far as from a legal perspective, is that he basically takes Michael's word that he said she had told him sometime in the past that she wouldn't want to left in this state. Maybe she did, and maybe she didn't. It seems like pretty flimsy evidence IMO. And yet at the same time, this judge states that her parents have not presented enough evidence to substantiate their claims. And Michael did?

I don't know for sure, so I don't want to sound like I'm quoting law. Without going into legal guardianship laws, I would speculate that FL law might presume that the husband is more likely to know the wishes of his wife, for various policy reasons (husband is in a better position to know wife's wishes, sanctity of marriage, etc.). To overcome the presumption of "husband (or wife) knows best," parents or others would bear the burden of proving that the husband is is not acting in the best interest of their incapacitated spouse. The parents' legal rights to speak for their daughter might be less because marriage might be seen as "cutting the apron strings."

Even if you don't agree with the result in this case, you have to think about what the consequences would be if people were not given the presumption of knowing the wishes of their spouse in such cases. Any decision anyone makes concerning their spouse could be challenged in court, causing a significant rise in litigation. For those of you who are married, imagine if your in-laws could challenge you in court everytime you did something they didn't like...or imagine your own parents being able to challenge your spouse. By giving the presumption to the husband or wife, courts can limit frivolous lawsuits by requiring those who wish to challenge their authority to provide evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption.

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 02:04 PM
I don't know for sure, so I don't want to sound like I'm quoting law. Without going into legal guardianship laws, I would speculate that FL law might presume that the husband is more likely to know the wishes of his wife, for various policy reasons (husband is in a better position to know wife's wishes, sanctity of marriage, etc.). To overcome the presumption of "husband (or wife) knows best," parents or others would bear the burden of proving that the husband is is not acting in the best interest of their incapacitated spouse. The parents' legal rights to speak for their daughter might be less because marriage might be seen as "cutting the apron strings."

Even if you don't agree with the result in this case, you have to think about what the consequences would be if people were not given the presumption of knowing the wishes of their spouse in such cases. Any decision anyone makes concerning their spouse could be challenged in court, causing a significant rise in litigation. For those of you who are married, imagine if your in-laws could challenge you in court everytime you did something they didn't like...or imagine your own parents being able to challenge your spouse. By giving the presumption to the husband or wife, courts can limit frivolous lawsuits by requiring those who wish to challenge their authority to provide evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption.

You're not quoting law, but you've summed it up fairly well.

traderumor
03-28-2005, 02:43 PM
Red herring.
How so? If the lawmakers violated the legal marriage bond, which I assume is your contention, then so did he with his "moving on" prior to his wife's death. Plus, it is sometimes appropriate for the law to intercede and override spousal privileges, is it not?

traderumor
03-28-2005, 02:51 PM
I don't know for sure, so I don't want to sound like I'm quoting law. Without going into legal guardianship laws, I would speculate that FL law might presume that the husband is more likely to know the wishes of his wife, for various policy reasons (husband is in a better position to know wife's wishes, sanctity of marriage, etc.). To overcome the presumption of "husband (or wife) knows best," parents or others would bear the burden of proving that the husband is is not acting in the best interest of their incapacitated spouse. The parents' legal rights to speak for their daughter might be less because marriage might be seen as "cutting the apron strings."

Even if you don't agree with the result in this case, you have to think about what the consequences would be if people were not given the presumption of knowing the wishes of their spouse in such cases. Any decision anyone makes concerning their spouse could be challenged in court, causing a significant rise in litigation. For those of you who are married, imagine if your in-laws could challenge you in court everytime you did something they didn't like...or imagine your own parents being able to challenge your spouse. By giving the presumption to the husband or wife, courts can limit frivolous lawsuits by requiring those who wish to challenge their authority to provide evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption.


I don't think the contention has been against the presumption, I think the contention has been that the burden to overcome that presumption should have been met by the parents based on what folks have heard and observed in this highly publicized case.

RBA
03-28-2005, 03:07 PM
Based on innuedo?

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 04:38 PM
How so? If the lawmakers violated the legal marriage bond, which I assume is your contention, then so did he with his "moving on" prior to his wife's death. Plus, it is sometimes appropriate for the law to intercede and override spousal privileges, is it not?

Think about what you're saying for a moment: really, just step back, take a deep breath.

Lawmakers interceding on one of the LEGAL fundaments of our country and the Constitution

=

Infidelity (not illegal, frowned upon, but not illegal)

That's your contention. But even so, it's apples and oranges. Not only are they different in degree, they are different in kind. One is dissolving rights from OUTSIDE the marriage; one is dissolving fidelity WITHIN a marriage. Never the twain shall meet.

You Republicans wave the fiery sword of the "sanctity of marriage" to limit the rights of gays, but you're perfectly delighted to step in to a marriage and remove this man's right to perform his wife's will as he sees fit. You may not like Schiavo's decision, but you don't have to, cuz guess what, it's not just his privilege, it's his right.

traderumor
03-28-2005, 05:09 PM
FCB,

"You Republicans" is about as inflammatory as someone using SABR geek on the baseball board, just totally unnecessary.

There are times that "outsiders" have to violate the privacy afforded a marriage, so it is a bit much to suggest that there is some form of blanket exemption for a spouse to speak for another spouse. That is all I was trying to say. It doesn't matter whither my party affiliation, as I have none, but your portrayal of spousal "rights" is not unconditional. If that's not what you're implying, fine, but it sure sounds like you propose that a spouse is considered always to be the mouthpiece for the other spouse in their absence.

In this case, the lawmakers did not agree with the courts findings with respect to the husband's authority and tried to do something about it. Rather than bemoaning that this was done, how about celebrating that our nation's wise system of checks and balances was brought into play and the justice arm of the government did not succomb to the strong arming of the lawmakers. That's the way its supposed to work, isn't it? Now, if the lawmakers see a need for a law for approaching similar cases, then they can exercise that authority through the lawmaking process. If they were just playing toss with a political hot potato for their own personal gain, then they'll drop it as fast as they picked it up, so no worries.

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 05:12 PM
"Rather than bemoaning that this was done, how about celebrating that our nation's wise system of checks and balances was brought into play and the justice arm of the government did not succomb to the strong arming of the lawmakers."

Smile while someone takes a crap on the Constitution?

Not this American. Rather than saying "Phew, looks like he missed with his Hershey Squirts," it's time to bust out the censure stick and start tanning hides.

Mutaman
03-28-2005, 05:12 PM
I don't think the contention has been against the presumption, I think the contention has been that the burden to overcome that presumption should have been met by the parents based on what folks have heard and observed in this highly publicized case.

You don't know the law in Florida, you spent no time in the courtroom listening to and observing the witnesses, you have not reviewed any of the evidence , you have not read any of the briefs or any of the decisions. But you feel free to criticise the courts' decisions based on "what folks have heard and observed". Only in America. is this a great country or what?

traderumor
03-28-2005, 05:24 PM
"Rather than bemoaning that this was done, how about celebrating that our nation's wise system of checks and balances was brought into play and the justice arm of the government did not succomb to the strong arming of the lawmakers."

Smile while someone takes a crap on the Constitution?

Not this American. Rather than saying "Phew, looks like he missed with his Hershey Squirts," it's time to bust out the censure stick and start tanning hides.

Where was the Constitution violated?

Mutaman,

I was not stating a legal opinion before a judge, nor did I state an opinion on the due process in this case. I have come at this from the "shoulds," not whether or not the law of Florida, which certainly has no claims to infallibility, was followed. I wasn't aware that one needed to consult an attorney before posting an opinion on RedsZone.

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 05:52 PM
Where was the Constitution violated?

Mutaman,

I was not stating a legal opinion before a judge, nor did I state an opinion on the due process in this case. I have come at this from the "shoulds," not whether or not the law of Florida, which certainly has no claims to infallibility, was followed. I wasn't aware that one needed to consult an attorney before posting an opinion on RedsZone.

Only time will tell ultimately how tampered with the Constitution has become. This was a state issue, decided at the state level, and the President and his goons felt the need to override a state's decision and kick it up to the Supreme Court. There was no need, there was no precedent. Nothing. It was emotion and politics that conjured that special session of Congress--not law, not the Constitution. And damn every one of those Democrats who voted in favor of it; they should know better.

Mutaman
03-28-2005, 06:47 PM
Where was the Constitution violated?

Mutaman,

I was not stating a legal opinion before a judge, nor did I state an opinion on the due process in this case. I have come at this from the "shoulds," not whether or not the law of Florida, which certainly has no claims to infallibility, was followed. I wasn't aware that one needed to consult an attorney before posting an opinion on RedsZone.


Red Herring. of course you have the right to state an opinion, I'm saying your opinion is ill informed. Its like saying that the referee was wrong when he called the Villanova player for travelling even though I didn't watch the game and even though i don't know very much about basketball. I'm just going by what my friends at Villanova tell me. (Maybe not the best example since I did watch the game and it was a bad call, but you get my analogy). If you think the law is wrong, fine, but don't complain about the courts for applying the law as it now exists.

traderumor
03-28-2005, 07:35 PM
If you think the law is wrong, fine, but don't complain about the courts for applying the law as it now exists.
Funny thing is, I never did. Not once did I give an opinion on the case from a legal perspective, or make statements about the courts role in the case. You know why? For the very reasons you stated.

Maybe I'll change my screen name to Red Herring, though.

GAC
03-28-2005, 08:50 PM
"let no man rend asunder....(except Bush, DeLay, and Frist, because they're extraspecial 'moral' men, clearly above the dictates of our great country's Constitution)."

You seem to be real good at selective quoting (or editing). What does it say completely? ;)

"[b]Whom God hath brought together[b], let no man rend asunder"

So what do you think that means when read/kept in it's context?

I thoroughly agree that the federal governemtn had no business intervening in this matter. It can set a very dangerous precedent.

But I don't have much faith in how the courts handled this situation either.

RBA
03-28-2005, 08:57 PM
Schiavo to Undergo Autopsy to End Debate -- Lawyer
Mon Mar 28, 2005 07:34 PM ET

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/w148/2005-03-28T213326Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF910498_RTRIDSP_1_NEWS-RIGHTS-SCHIAVO-DC.jpgBy Jane Sutton



PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - The husband of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo has ordered an autopsy after she dies to silence allegations his plan to cremate her body is aimed at hiding something, his lawyer said on Monday.

As supporters of Schiavo's parents took their fight to prolong her life to Washington 10 days after her feeding was stopped, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, said her pulse had become "thready" and she had not passed urine for a while -- a possible sign of approaching death.

He said Michael Schiavo, who has been pitted against the parents in a seven-year legal conflict over whether to allow Schiavo to die, requested an official autopsy to show the "massive" extent of the brain damage she suffered in 1990.

"We didn't think it was appropriate to talk about an autopsy prior to Mrs. Schiavo's death," Felos told reporters outside his law office in Dunedin, Florida.

"But because claims have been made by, I guess, opponents of carrying out her wishes that there was some motive behind the cremation of Mrs. Schiavo we felt it was necessary to make that announcement today."

Disagreement over the planned cremation rather than the full burial demanded by Schiavo's Roman Catholic parents has been a subplot to the long legal battle.

The fate of the woman, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since suffering cardiac arrest, has become a cause for Christian conservatives and drawn in Congress, President Bush and his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

State courts have accepted testimony from Michael Schiavo and others that she did not want to be kept alive artificially, but her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, disagree, and maintain she tries to communicate with them.

Pressured by the Christian right, Congress passed a special law that allowed the Schindlers to take their case to federal court, and President Bush cut short a vacation to sign it.

The effort proved in vain as court after court -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- rejected a flurry of petitions since the feeding tube was disconnected on March 18.

Nevertheless, supporters of Bob and Mary Schindler again appealed for federal or state intervention.

"This is about the soul of our nation, the soul of our church," said Michael McMonagle, spokesman for the Pro-Life Union of Southeastern Pennsylvania, as around two dozen protesters gathered in a park across from the White House.

Outside the hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, where Schiavo is being cared for, the protesters were dismissive of Michael Schiavo's plans for an autopsy.

"It's a way to cover his behind," said Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist speaking for the Schindlers.

Bob Schindler, who has at times asserted his daughter was in her final hours and at others maintained that it was not too late to intervene, said earlier she was "fighting like hell."

Doctors said when the feeding tube was disconnected that she would likely last for up to two weeks without sustenance.

Schindler said Schiavo was beginning to look like a Nazi "concentration camp" survivor and voiced a fear that hospice staff might try to hasten her end by giving her an overdose of morphine.

"We do not hasten death in any way, nor do we prolong life. That is not our role," said Louise Cleary, a spokeswoman for the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast.

Felos said Schindler's fears were misplaced. He said Schiavo was not on a morphine drip but had received two "minuscule" 5 milligram doses of the opiate since March 18.

He said he visited her on Monday and she looked peaceful and calm.

"Mrs. Schiavo's pulse is described by the nursing staff as thready. Also she has had no urine output since last night," Felos said. Doctors say a lack of urine would be an early indication that Schiavo's kidneys are shutting down.

"I saw no evidence of any bodily discomfort whatsoever. It doesn't appear from at least me seeing her, and you know I'm not a doctor by any means, but it doesn't appear her death is imminent but it's just impossible to say," Felos said. (Additional reporting by JoAnne Allen and Tabassum Zakaria in Washington, and Robert Green in Pinellas Park)

GAC
03-28-2005, 09:10 PM
How so? If the lawmakers violated the legal marriage bond, which I assume is your contention, then so did he with his "moving on" prior to his wife's death. Plus, it is sometimes appropriate for the law to intercede and override spousal privileges, is it not?

That's a very interesting point that you have brought up. People have been quoting the supreme importance of the law in this situation. So, from a legal standpoint, aren't they still married? Show where the law, or even Florida law, shows that if one spouse is in a vegetaive state, or a situation like we currently have, that that marriage is legally is null and void?

Isn't the marriage vow, even when performed in the church, which includes "till death do us part" recognized by the courts as binding?

Where's the death certificate on Terry that would release Michael from that marriage/vow?

Now here is an area where I'm not sure what the law says (or if it even does)... did Michael have the option to divorce his wife while in this state?

Now some would contend that that would show him, or any spouse, to be cold and uncaring, and a terrible thing to do. Maybe so. But isn't having a relationship (with children) while your wife is in this condition also appear to demonstrate the same?

And doesn't that relationship also give evidence that he is not thinking of her best interests, and that it raises reasonable doubt?

It's interesting, a couple of the Catholic priests that have been afforded visitation to Terry to administer last rites have stated that when they talk to Terry there is interaction by her when they speak to her (she smiles, blinks, and at times has tried to mouth words to respond).

I also find it interesting that the families are now fighting over burial. Michael wants her cremated, while Terry's family want her body present for a full Catholic ceremony.

I feel sorry for both of these families, and that they can't seem to come together and reconcile on anything involving this woman.

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 10:36 PM
That's a very interesting point that you have brought up. People have been quoting the supreme importance of the law in this situation. So, from a legal standpoint, aren't they still married? Show where the law, or even Florida law, shows that if one spouse is in a vegetaive state, or a situation like we currently have, that that marriage is legally is null and void?

Isn't the marriage vow, even when performed in the church, which includes "till death do us part" recognized by the courts as binding?

Where's the death certificate on Terry that would release Michael from that marriage/vow?

Now here is an area where I'm not sure what the law says (or if it even does)... did Michael have the option to divorce his wife while in this state?

Now some would contend that that would show him, or any spouse, to be cold and uncaring, and a terrible thing to do. Maybe so. But isn't having a relationship (with children) while your wife is in this condition also appear to demonstrate the same?

And doesn't that relationship also give evidence that he is not thinking of her best interests, and that it raises reasonable doubt?

It's interesting, a couple of the Catholic priests that have been afforded visitation to Terry to administer last rites have stated that when they talk to Terry there is interaction by her when they speak to her (she smiles, blinks, and at times has tried to mouth words to respond).

I also find it interesting that the families are now fighting over burial. Michael wants her cremated, while Terry's family want her body present for a full Catholic ceremony.

I feel sorry for both of these families, and that they can't seem to come together and reconcile on anything involving this woman.


Michael Schiavo can have sex with an elephant, twenty chocolate donuts, a fried pork sandwich, and it has NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the breach of faith against the American public committed by the President and Congress to intercede in a state court's decision with no cause.

And, again, RED HERRING (specifically straw man). When Michael Schiavo BREAKS THE LAW, then yes, the courts have cause to intercede. Until then, Congress and the Pres. need to go jump in a lake.

Spring~Fields
03-28-2005, 10:40 PM
I am still confused on the law regarding the following that no one seems to have noticed or knows the answer to.


I was confused as to how the courts had the power:

to remove a feeding tube or device

when the courts did not have the power:

to install the feeding tube or device

RBA,
By the way, I left the dog out for you this time, maybe you can respond in full context yet!.

Falls City Beer
03-28-2005, 10:44 PM
I am still confused on the law regarding the following that no one seems to have noticed or knows the answer to.


I was confused as to how the courts had the power:

to remove a feeding tube or device

when the courts did not have the power:

to install the feeding tube or device

RBA,
By the way, I left the dog out for you this time, maybe you can respond in full context yet!.

Question 1: The courts don't. They are merely upholding the law. Michael Schiavo, as her husband, has the right.

Question 2: See question 1.

RBA
03-28-2005, 10:56 PM
I did not attend any of the court cases. I can only surmise that the court deferred to Terry's next of kin (her husband). Her husband related Terry would not want to be left in just a hopeless state. The court ruled accordingly.

Mutaman
03-29-2005, 02:18 AM
What do you mean? Just because most republicans are for sending other people's kids to Iraq but when it came time for them to do their duty they had "other priorities". Just because they are opposed to large malpractice awards but they applaud the use of a large malpractice award to keep Terri alive. Just because they are all for "states rights" and limited federal intervention unless they don't like the ruling of the stae court and then they're all for federal intervention. Just because the president is all for "life" but when he was governor of Texas he signed a law withdrawing life support from those too poor to pay for it. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Are you saying these Republicans are hypocrites? Are you sure you have enough evidence to make that claim.



"Almost parody. From a 1999 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ...

A Virginia jury last night awarded the wife of Sen. Rick Santorum $350,000 in damages after she charged in a lawsuit that a Virginia chiropracter's negligence caused her permanent back pain.

Deliberating more then six hours after a four-day trial in which Santorum, R-Pa., testified, the Fairfax County Circuit Court jury unanimously ruled for Karen Santorum. She had sought $500,000 against Dr. David Dolberg of Virginia, because of pain from his 1996 treatment of her.

"Mrs. Santorum has been vindicated," said her Pittsburgh attorney Heather Heidelbaugh. "She was injured permanently through the actions of a chiropractor who acted negligently."

Heidelbaugh, with the Pittsburgh law firm of Burns, White & Hickton, said Mrs. Santorum has "permanent back pain" and "permanent numbness" in one leg.

Throughout the trial, Santorum aides declined to provide details. Yesterday, they issued a brief statement from the senator saying: "The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."

But Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, reported that Santorum testified Monday that his wife might not be able to actively campaign for his re-election next year because of her pain. "She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns," he testified.

This I found out aboutfrom MKV."
-- Josh Marshall

GAC
03-29-2005, 08:39 AM
Michael Schiavo can have sex with an elephant, twenty chocolate donuts, a fried pork sandwich, and it has NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the breach of faith against the American public committed by the President and Congress to intercede in a state court's decision with no cause.

I'm not referring to that at all. I have already agreed that the federal government had no justification to try and intervene.



And, again, RED HERRING (specifically straw man). When Michael Schiavo BREAKS THE LAW, then yes, the courts have cause to intercede. Until then, Congress and the Pres. need to go jump in a lake.

And yet the state courts interceded, and you agree with this. Isn't that also government?

I agree with what SF contends.... If the state court didn't order the feeding tube put in, then how can they order it removed?

You quoted this phrase twice before (partially), yet have avoided addressing it when I showed you the phrase in it's entirety...

"Whom God hath brought together, let no man rend asunder"

So AGAIN, what do you think that means when read/kept in it's true context?

And doesn't the "let no man render asunder" in that phrase also refer to the state courts/judge? The reference is to mankind in general you know?

The fact is that Michael is still legally married to Terry. And yet, he chose not to honor that bound... the sanctity of marriage, and "in sickness and in health" vow that he swore before God... which is legally recognized in our court system.

Maybe, as you say, infidelity is not illegal; but it should be heavily weighed in a judge's decision-making process when it comes to a husband, in this circumstance, wanting to exercise the right to make the decision to end his disabled wife's life, and that he may not be looking after her best interests.

And here is another issue that bothers me. Everyone says that she is PVS. Yet there is another test called the PET, that is more extensive and would determine if this is true, and that Terry is in fact in this state. Her husband refused to give permission to perform this test? Why?

traderumor
03-29-2005, 10:06 AM
FCB,

While adultery is not "illegal," it is still a legitimate grounds for divorce and normally results in punishment from the court in the form of favoring the other spouse with marital assets, alimony, and child custody issues. In other words, no, it will not get you in jail, but yes you are in a world of hurt if you end up in court with your spouse seeking to divorce with clear evidence of adultery. That same principal should have been taken into account by any judge hearing this case, as GAC stated. At the risk of getting the wrath of Mutaman for that statement, I don't know if the judges considered that as a factor in their decisions or not, just saying I would ASSUME they SHOULD have if Florida law is normative in this area.

Dom Heffner
03-29-2005, 10:43 AM
Michael Schiavo was encouraged by her parents to date and to not wait around.

And many here would do the same thing with or without her parent's blessing.

traderumor
03-29-2005, 11:00 AM
Michael Schiavo was encouraged by her parents to date and to not wait around.

And many here would do the same thing with or without her parent's blessing.

Ah, situational ethics.

Conspiracy theory-if they got him with someone else, then maybe he'd be distracted and eventually disinterested and move on and relinquish this battle. :mhcky21:

Conspiracy theory aside, just because "many here would do the same thing with or without her parent's blessing" is irrelevant to what the proper course of action is. The proper course of action would have been to divorce her if he wanted "to move on with his life." The proper course of action for a person who is still married is to not commit adultery, regardless of the circumstance. But then he would have relinquished his rights in this situation. It is not hard for me to understand why folks consider that a little bit slimy and a clear indication that we are not likely dealing with a person that is capable of making a rational, unbiased relaying of his wife's wishes. That has been the head scratcher with the court rulings in this case all along.

RBA
03-29-2005, 11:14 AM
But then he would have relinquished his rights in this situation. It is not hard for me to understand why folks consider that a little bit slimy and a clear indication that we are not likely dealing with a person that is capable of making a rational, unbiased relaying of his wife's wishes. That has been the head scratcher with the court rulings in this case all along.

I have not read the courts opinion. But I am on the understanding that the court ruled that Terry would rather be taken off support (feeding tube) than to be in the state she is/was in. So why would the court reverse that decision if her husband was granted a divorce?

traderumor
03-29-2005, 11:18 AM
I have not read the courts opinion. But I am on the understanding that the court ruled that Terry would rather be taken off support (feeding tube) than to be in the state she is/was in. So why would the court reverse that decision if her husband was granted a divorce?
Because my understanding is that the decisions centered around not having compelling evidence to override his spousal authority which gave rise to the notion that those were her wishes. If they were divorced and no longer the spouse when the decisions by the courts were made, it would seem that the parents would have become the decision makers, who have differing ideas of what she wanted and what should be done.

Falls City Beer
03-29-2005, 11:22 AM
FCB,

While adultery is not "illegal," it is still a legitimate grounds for divorce and normally results in punishment from the court in the form of favoring the other spouse with marital assets, alimony, and child custody issues. In other words, no, it will not get you in jail, but yes you are in a world of hurt if you end up in court with your spouse seeking to divorce with clear evidence of adultery. That same principal should have been taken into account by any judge hearing this case, as GAC stated. At the risk of getting the wrath of Mutaman for that statement, I don't know if the judges considered that as a factor in their decisions or not, just saying I would ASSUME they SHOULD have if Florida law is normative in this area.

I'm aware that infidelity has legal repercussions, yes. Of course. But divorce is NOT the issue here. This is not a smear Michael Schiavo case; this is about upholding his rights as a spouse. Any more apples to dump trucks analogies?

traderumor
03-29-2005, 11:32 AM
I'm aware that infidelity has legal repercussions, yes. Of course. But divorce is NOT the issue here. This is not a smear Michael Schiavo case; this is about upholding his rights as a spouse. Any more apples to dump trucks analogies?

No, the credibility of an adulterous spouse is in question. I would think that since infidelity would automatically make an adulterous spouse a suspect were his or her spouse to turn up murdered, that a court would take that into account in a proceeding whereby an adulterous spouse is deciding the destiny of his betrothed. You just acknowledged potential legal repurcussions of committing adultery, so apparently we have two dump trucks filled with apples.

Falls City Beer
03-29-2005, 11:38 AM
No, the credibility of an adulterous spouse is in question. I would think that since infidelity would automatically make an adulterous spouse a suspect were his or her spouse to turn up murdered, that a court would take that into account in a proceeding whereby an adulterous spouse is deciding the destiny of his betrothed. You just acknowledged potential legal repurcussions of committing adultery, so apparently we have two dump trucks filled with apples.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

It's like arguing with someone who says, "Cuz God says so."

Where the h*** do you go from there? Rationality dissolves.

I mean, should we continue to dig further and further in Schiavo's closet, looking for things to discredit him before he's able to exercise his RIGHT as a spouse? Should we hold a witch trial? Should this case be about discrediting someone who has not broken the law? If you're into smear, great. Have at it. I'm into upholding people's rights.

traderumor
03-29-2005, 11:58 AM
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

It's like arguing with someone who says, "Cuz God says so."

Where the h*** do you go from there? Rationality dissolves.

I mean, should we continue to dig further and further in Schiavo's closet, looking for things to discredit him before he's able to exercise his RIGHT as a spouse? Should we hold a witch trial? Should this case be about discrediting someone who has not broken the law? If you're into smear, great. Have at it. I'm into upholding people's rights.

FCB,

I will answer this and that's it, had enough of the insults. You are arguing from what you understand the law to be and consider that to be the authority of what is rational vs. irrational. I don't know your background, you may even be an attorney, I don't know, but you seem to indicate some kind of condescending superior knowledge with respect to legal matters. As such, you should understand that what is law is not always rational but has been wrought through expedience, at times, or needs updated. Laws come from many places in our country, so to assume that they are the benchmark for rationality, well, as the expert, you should know better.

So it is irrational to assume that the court considered the credibility of a spouse wanting to allow his wife to die of starvation, and not waiting for his wife's life to end before pursuing other relationships is irrational. I'm not sure everyone would agree with your conclusions. I know I don't. Feel free to have the last word as far as our dialogue goes, I will not respond to you any further on the subject.

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 01:36 PM
Wow...this entire thread is sad.

There seems to be a lot of people who think she is "Brain Dead"...she is not. She can breath on her own...she can swallow...she can follow with her eyes..she can breath on her own and if she is given nutrition...she can live.

The quality of life???? I wouldn't want it.

According to most who are involved with the case, Terri actively embraced and believed in the sactity of life and because of her active Christian/Catholic faith it is hard to imagine that she would want to die via starvation.

If starvation is such a swell and peaceful way to die and if Terri can't feel pain why are they giving her a moraphine drip?

In the Catholic and Christian tradition, marriage is "until death do us part"...Terri is not dead...not even brain dead...according to the input of nearly 200 medical professionals Terri does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state.

Why?

Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

Terri...is alive...she feels the pain of being slowly murdered and it is wrong...no if ands or buts about it...this is WRONG.

I can't say why her husband won't divorce her...incredibly selfish and sad.

RBA
03-29-2005, 01:42 PM
I think you should review an A&E documentary where they showed the lenghts they went to get just the right video of her to have anyone watching to believe she is interatcting. They literally went through hundreds of hours of video to produce less than 2 minutes heavily edited video.

Redsfaithful
03-29-2005, 01:43 PM
Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

No, she doesn't. You've apparently been lied to at some point.

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 01:45 PM
I think you should review an A&E documentary where they showed the lenghts they went to get just the right video of her to have anyone watching to believe she is interatcting. They literally went through hundreds of hours of video to produce less than 2 minutes heavily edited video.


Interesting...perhaps if she had been given the needed therapy that was ended in 1991 she would be mor alert for the cameras?

And just to make it clear...I see both sides of the coin in this...I would not want to live in this situation but there is nothing written, the family is willing to take on the care and her husband has already started another family...why doesn't he just divorce her and make this a non-issue?

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 01:47 PM
No, she doesn't. You've apparently been lied to at some point.

Ummm...according to her sister, brother, mother, father and legal reps she does....but perhaps you know better.

RBA
03-29-2005, 01:49 PM
Ummm...according to her sister, brother, mother, father and legal reps she does....but perhaps you know better.

According to the Medical officials, she does not.

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 01:50 PM
According to the Medical officials, she does not.

That's not correct...there are nearly 200 of them who say she does.

RBA
03-29-2005, 01:52 PM
That's not correct...there are nearly 200 of them who say she does.

Source?

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 01:53 PM
Hang on...I am getting it for you...

Redsfaithful
03-29-2005, 01:56 PM
That's not correct...there are nearly 200 of them who say she does.

You have a link to back that up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/27/wschi127.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/27/ixnewstop.html


The Schindlers believe that a few short grainy videos encapsulate what the public, the courts and the political powers in America should know about their daughter. One shows Terri propped on a pillow, turning her head and eyes to follow a balloon being trailed above her by a doctor, a low moan on her lips. Further footage shows her reacting to music and screwing up her lips, scowling and turning her head away as if to protest as someone dabs a cotton wool bud into her mouth. In another scene, she is asked to open her eyes - and does so.

The Schindlers say that the videos, shot four years ago, are proof that their daughter is responsive and that her condition is what is known as "minimally conscious" rather than "persistent vegetative state".

But Dr Ron Cranford, a professor of neurology at the University of Minnesota and a self-declared "right to die" advocate called in by Mr Schiavo to examine Terri, concluded that her reactions were nothing but primitive, involuntary reflexes, with no awareness or integrated brain function behind them.

Dr Cranford subsequently convinced a Florida court that Terri was indeed in PVS. It is that diagnosis - coupled with the debate over whether or not Terri really did tell her husband that she would not wish to be kept alive in such a condition, as Mr Schiavo claimed in court eight years after her collapse - that is at the core of the controversy over her fate.

Medical opinion on the issue remains hopelessly divided - and, in this case, often seems to be shaped by the religious and ethical beliefs of the doctor giving it.

Judge Greer has repeatedly rejected the Schindlers' protestations that the diagnosis is wrong, denied their pleas for new testing and rebuffed affidavits from 15 other neurologists expressing doubts that she is in PVS. In recent weeks, 33 more doctors have come forward to say that they too would be prepared to testify that Terri's condition requires substantial re-evaluation.
...
"The Schindlers can line up 50, 100, 200 doctors with pro-life credentials like Dr Cheshire to make their case. The Schindlers' people are the right-to-lifers, the Right-wing, Christian fundamentalists with an agenda," said Dr Cranford.

He openly admits, however, to being a "right-to-die" advocate "so I suppose you could say a similar thing about me". He is just as unequivocal in his beliefs, arguing: "This has been presented like a moral Armageddon, a battle of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, religion versus secularism. It had nothing to do with Terri Schiavo after a while. And it looks like what was portrayed as 'good' has lost"

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 02:07 PM
I am working on documentation of the nearly 200 physicians...I will post it as soon as I get it.

I can tell you were I got the information though...from Terri Schiavos brother in an interview today on Focus on The Family with Dr. James dobson...I never liste to it and happened to be flipping through the dial when I heard them talking about Terri Schiavo...I stopped and listened for a bit...I was in the car...I went to the FOF website and they only have the show that was supposed to run today up on their site...I guess this was a "special" show because it was off the cuff...a phone conversation with her brother, sister and a pro-life advocate from the area.

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 02:10 PM
Much of the facts from my initial post can be found at http://www.terrisfight.org/

Redsfaithful
03-29-2005, 02:12 PM
James Dobson? The guy that thinks Sponge Bob is teaching our children to be homosexual.

I'm not trying to be snide, but I think I'd rather trust the court's opinion and the doctors who helped the court form that opinion on this one.

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 02:20 PM
It is not his opinion...simply a phone interview with Terri Schiavos brother, sister and a pro life advocate in Florida.

Regarding the Sponge Bob thing...look into it...I took issue with Dobson myself on my blog...but I followed that up with a request of clarification from Dobson...do the same...you will find that the statement was not made and that the reporter was off on Dobsons statement and dobson has the tapes to prove it.

Test the media...they lie as bad as any liberal, conservative, GOP, DNC, Pro-Life, Anti War...if you have it within your means investigate stories by going to the source instead of examining what one after another paper or blog says.

Redsfaithful
03-29-2005, 02:21 PM
I know the entire story about Dobson, and I know his comment wasn't exactly what the media portrayed it as, but that doesn't mean what he actually said was any less ignorant.

/sorry for the derail

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 02:25 PM
Okay...I have searched the website for the "nearly 200" and found that I was wrong.

It is 17...he must have said nearly 20...I am sorry, I did not mean to be misleading...nonetheless here is a link to their affidavits.

http://www.terrisfight.org/press/030405medaff.html

RBA
03-29-2005, 02:31 PM
Okay...I have searched the website for the "nearly 200" and found that I was wrong.

It is 17...he must have said nearly 20...I am sorry, I did not mean to be misleading...nonetheless here is a link to their affidavits.

http://www.terrisfight.org/press/030405medaff.html

Out of the 17, how many of them have personnally examined Terri?

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 02:34 PM
Out of the 17, how many of them have personnally examined Terri?

That I don't know.

RBA
03-29-2005, 02:43 PM
In an interview with MSNBC host Chris Matthews on the March 20 edition of Hardball, Schindler family attorney David Gibbs III claimed that "some of" the doctors had examined Schiavo:

GIBBS: [W]e did provide the United States Congress the 33 sworn medical statements from neurologists and other doctors across the nation, that all testified that Terri Schiavo was far beyond a vegetable. She was --

MATTHEWS: Did those doctors -- did those doctors get to examine her?

GIBBS: Some of them, yes.

But according to the available evidence, "some of" the doctors apparently amounts to only two who actually examined Schiavo and determined that her condition could improve, one of whom was Hammesfahr. As Media Matters has noted, a Florida appellate court ruled in October 2001 that five doctors should examine Terri Schiavo -- two chosen by the Schindlers, two by Michael Schiavo, and one by the court. As the Associated Press noted on October 22, 2002, while Hammesfahr and the other doctor chosen by the Schindlers said that Terri Schiavo could be helped, her attending physician, the court-appointed physician, and the two doctors selected by Michael Schiavo all stated that her condition would not improve. The other doctors and medical professionals submitting filings included in the 33 affidavits relied solely on photographs, video footage, or medical records, according to their sworn testimony.

1. Dr. William Hammesfahr (http://mediamatters.org/items/itembody/200503220009), was disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine and has falsely boasted of being a Nobel Prize nominee.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503280008

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 02:52 PM
In an interview with MSNBC host Chris Matthews on the March 20 edition of Hardball, Schindler family attorney David Gibbs III claimed that "some of" the doctors had examined Schiavo:

GIBBS: [W]e did provide the United States Congress the 33 sworn medical statements from neurologists and other doctors across the nation, that all testified that Terri Schiavo was far beyond a vegetable. She was --

MATTHEWS: Did those doctors -- did those doctors get to examine her?

GIBBS: Some of them, yes.

But according to the available evidence, "some of" the doctors apparently amounts to only two who actually examined Schiavo and determined that her condition could improve, one of whom was Hammesfahr. As Media Matters has noted, a Florida appellate court ruled in October 2001 that five doctors should examine Terri Schiavo -- two chosen by the Schindlers, two by Michael Schiavo, and one by the court. As the Associated Press noted on October 22, 2002, while Hammesfahr and the other doctor chosen by the Schindlers said that Terri Schiavo could be helped, her attending physician, the court-appointed physician, and the two doctors selected by Michael Schiavo all stated that her condition would not improve. The other doctors and medical professionals submitting filings included in the 33 affidavits relied solely on photographs, video footage, or medical records, according to their sworn testimony.

1. Dr. William Hammesfahr (http://mediamatters.org/items/itembody/200503220009), was disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine and has falsely boasted of being a Nobel Prize nominee.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503280008

Interesting that Dr. William Hannefahr is not mentioned in the list of affidavites

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 03:37 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050329/ts_nm/rights_schiavo_dc&e=1

Jesse Jackson Urges Fla. Woman Be Kept Alive
Reuters
By Jane Sutton

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - The Rev. Jesse Jackson pleaded on Tuesday for Terri Schiavo to be kept alive as the brain-damaged Florida woman at the center of a bitter family and political dispute slipped toward death.


Reuters Photo


AFP
Slideshow: Terri Schiavo Case

Reports of Schiavo's Condition Differ
(AP Video)



"She is being starved to death, she is being dehydrated to death. That's immoral and unnecessary," the civil rights leader told reporters after meeting Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, near the hospice where she is being cared for.


Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on March 18 after a protracted court battle between Schiavo's husband, who is her legal guardian, and the Schindlers that galvanized many U.S. religious conservatives.


The case prompted the Republican-led U.S. Congress to pass a special law pushing the case into the federal courts, and President Bush cut short a vacation to sign it.


Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has also intervened in the case.


But recent polls have shown most Americans felt Congress should have stayed out of Schiavo's case, and that the government should stay out of families' life and death decisions. A CBS poll last week found that 82 percent of Americans felt Congress should have stayed out of the case.


'PROFOUND MORAL ISSUES'


The Schindler's invited Jackson to visit to boost their effort to keep their daughter alive against court orders and her husband's wishes. Michael Schiavo believes his wife, 41 and severely brain-damaged for 15 years, would never have wanted to live in this state.


"This is one of the profound moral issues of our time," said Jackson, adding he was in touch with members of the Florida legislature to try to get them to intervene.


"We ask today for some hard hearts to be softened up."


But last-ditch action by state lawmakers appeared highly unlikely after a flurry of efforts by supporters of the Schindlers failed to get a reversal of the state court order for Schiavo's feeding tube to be removed.


Schiavo's artificial feeding was halted under order from a state court that has long sided with Michael Schiavo in ruling that a 1990 cardiac arrest left her in a persistent vegetative state from which she would not recover, and that she would not want to live in this condition.


Doctors have said Schiavo, 41, would likely live up to two weeks without the tube.


Jackson was spending time with the Schindlers near the Pinellas Park hospice, but was not going to visit Schiavo. His urgings to the Florida legislature came after state lawmakers failed to pass a law to intervene despite being urged to do so by Gov. Bush.


Gov. Bush also failed in an effort to be allowed to have the state welfare agency take custody of Schiavo and has stressed he believes there is nothing more in his powers he can do to prolong Schiavo's life.


'NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE HER'


Bob Schindler has veered in recent days between saying his daughter is near death and battling for life.





"She's failing. She still looks pretty darn good under the circumstances," he said on Tuesday. "Her body functions are still working and she's alert. It's not too late to save her."

Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, said on Monday Schiavo's pulse had become "thready" and she had not passed urine for a while -- a possible sign of approaching death.

Felos also said his client had ordered an autopsy after Schiavo's death to silence allegations his plan to cremate her -- her parents want a burial -- is aimed at hiding something.

Jackson apart, politicians have largely backed away from the case in recent days as it became clear the parents had run out of judicial options.

State courts had long backed Michael Schiavo's position and federal courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court have rebuffed appeals to have the feeding tube restored.

traderumor
03-29-2005, 04:12 PM
"She is being starved to death, she is being dehydrated to death. That's immoral and unnecessary,"

I just couldn't help but read that quote with the voice of Kramer's attorney Jackie Chiles going through my head.

At the risk of poor taste, "Who told you to pull the tube? Did I tell you to pull the tube? I didn't tell you to pull the tube."

Falls City Beer
03-29-2005, 04:20 PM
Jesse Jackson's an idiot. He may stand for some things I believe in, but he's way off here. But then I'm always leery of people trying to palm off religion as legal doctrine.

Morality and religion are perfectly separable notions. Why is this so hard to grasp?

MartyFan
03-29-2005, 04:26 PM
Jesse Jackson's an idiot. He may stand for some things I believe in, but he's way off here. But then I'm always leery of people trying to palm off religion as legal doctrine.

Morality and religion are perfectly separable notions. Why is this so hard to grasp?


I agree, Jackson is as opportunistic as the GOP in this case and while he stands for some of the issues I do, this is disapointing.

Morality and religion are indeed perfectly able to be seperated however I think of you look at the root of most legal doctrine it is rooted in religion...you know, universal truth type stuff.

As for Jesse being an idiot...he's been an idiot for an awful long time...he must know something you and I don't...

Mutaman
03-29-2005, 06:09 PM
I just couldn't help but read that quote with the voice of Kramer's attorney Jackie Chiles going through my head.

At the risk of poor taste, "Who told you to pull the tube? Did I tell you to pull the tube? I didn't tell you to pull the tube."


Poor taste? Is that what they're calling it these days?

GAC
03-29-2005, 09:01 PM
No, she doesn't. You've apparently been lied to at some point.

Then talk to many of the nurses who have tended to Terry. They say differently. Their testimony is quite compelling. Also, several doctors who have done testing on Terry (one a Noble prize winner) say they don't think she is PVS. So when you have two groups of doctors coming to different conclusions, then isn't that enough evidence to show reasonable doubt? Or do you just pick the one you want to side with?

If one must err, then err to the side of life.

And again I ask... why, when one doctor recommended the PET test to be done, which is quite extensive and would have proven once and for all is she is PVS, did her husband refuse to grant permission?

But the bottomlne for me is that this country is in a sad state of affairs when they allow a person to be starved to death, regardless of what state they are in.

And to use the excuse that it's because we don't have euthanasia laws in this country is some lousy reasoning IMO. So we deny them food and water. It is immoral.

Redsfaithful
03-29-2005, 09:05 PM
1. Dr. William Hammesfahr, was disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine and has falsely boasted of being a Nobel Prize nominee.


Also, several doctors who have done testing on Terry (one a Noble prize winner)

Heh.

RBA
03-29-2005, 09:05 PM
Who is that "Nobel Prize" winnner you speak of?

GAC
03-29-2005, 09:14 PM
Who is that "Nobel Prize" winnner you speak of?

Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-renowned expert in cases such as Terri’s — and a Nobel Prize nominee — testified that Terri is not in a PVS. He also testified that he believes he could help her improve her circumstances through proper medical treatment.

Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work in Medicine and Physiology in 1999.

So should his testimony have been listened to or considered by the judge in his decision in this case? (who is no expert in medicine)

Here is his website also...

http://www.hni-online.com/

RBA
03-29-2005, 09:20 PM
News outlets ignored questions about doctor who claimed Schiavo can be helped

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/william-hammesfahr.jpg Dr. William Hammesfahr (http://www.hni-online.com/), a Florida neurologist who claims that he can help Terri Schiavo, has promoted his treatment plan on Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and has been cited by anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, a spokesman for Schiavo's parents, in newspaper articles. But questions have been raised about Hammesfahr, who was disciplined by the Florida Department of Health in 2003, and news outlets that have repeated Hammesfahr's claims have ignored those questions.

On the March 18 edition of The 700 Club, senior reporter Wendy Griffith (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/Staff/wendy_griffith.asp) described Hammesfahr as "a Nobel Prize nominee for his work in helping people with severe brain injuries" and said Hammesfahr claims that "about 40 percent of his patients are worse than Terri, yet have seen remarkable progress. He says Terri would do just as well." Hammesfahr appears on screen saying: "Oh, absolutely. She'll definitely be able to communicate. She'll probably be able to communicate verbally over the course of about two years of treatment with medication. And then as far as being able to use her arms and use her legs, she'll be able to use those. This woman is not in a coma. She's not in PVS [persistent vegetative state]. She's not that bad."

Terry touted Hammesfahr's proposed treatment in a March 21 Los Angeles Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scene21mar21,1,1944492.story?coll=la-home-headlines), saying that Hammesfahr would try to persuade state senators by using a recording that showed Schiavo responding to commands and attempting to speak. "Dr. Hammesfahr is going to tell them, 'I can treat this woman,' " Terry said. Terry also cited Hammesfahr's contentions in a February 25 St. Petersburg Times article (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/798470821.html?MAC=501746d061c25600eac0ab4d4fa950d 7&did=798470821&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=Feb+25%2C+2005&author=LISA+GREENE&printformat=&desc=In+Kansas+recovery%2C+hope+for+Schiavo%3F). Neither article addresses Hammesfahr's controversial past.

In February 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine ruled (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/FinalOrders/03-17-03/DOH-03-0182.pdf)http://mediamatters.org/static/img/pdf.gif that he violated state law by charging a patient for services that were not provided (Finding of Fact No. 71, PDF p. 40). The board fined Hammesfahr $2,000, placed him on probation for six months, and ordered him to pay approximately $52,000 in administrative costs and to perform 100 hours of community service. While the board also ruled that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients, using a procedure he has claimed could help Terri Schiavo, was "not within the generally accepted standard of care" (Finding of Fact No. 55, PDF p. 33), it declined to rule that the treatment was harmful to his patients and noted that some patients improved after treatment.

An October 23, 2002, Tampa Tribune article reported that during an October 2002 hearing, George Felos, attorney for Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, questioned Hammesfahr's qualifications, noting that he "charges cash for treatments and advertises himself as a nominee for a Nobel Prize based on a letter his congressman wrote to the Nobel committee." An October 25, 2003, St. Petersburg Times article noted that Greer, who presided over the hearing, called Hammesfahr a "self-promoter" who "offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim" that he had treated patients worse off than Terri Schiavo.

In October 2001, a Florida appellate court ruled that five doctors should examine Terri Schiavo, all of whom testified at the October 2002 hearing, along with her attending physician. Hammesfahr was one of two doctors chosen by Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. Two others were chosen by Michael Schiavo, and one was appointed by the court. An October 17, 2002, Philadelphia Inquirer article noted that while Hammesfahr and the other doctor chosen by the Schindlers claimed that Terri Schiavo could be helped, her attending physician, the court-appointed physician, and the doctors selected by Michael Schiavo all stated that her condition would not improve.

In addition to his appearance on The 700 Club, Hammesfahr has discussed the case on the October 27, 2003, edition (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101458,00.html) of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during which he repeated his claim that Terri Schiavo is "not in a coma." Co-host Sean Hannity did not note Hammesfahr's disciplinary action by the Florida Board of Medicine, and he encouraged Hammesfahr to speculate on other aspects of the Schiavo case. A clip of Hammesfahr from his Fox News appearance was played on the November 9, 2003, edition of CBS' Sunday Morning.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220002

Larkin Fan
03-29-2005, 09:23 PM
Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-renowned expert in cases such as Terri’s — and a Nobel Prize nominee — testified that Terri is not in a PVS. He also testified that he believes he could help her improve her circumstances through proper medical treatment.

Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work in Medicine and Physiology in 1999.

Here is is website also...

http://www.hni-online.com/

Dr. Hammesfahr's testimony, as well as that of the other physician that was chosen by Terri's parents, was nothing but unsubstantiable claims that when asked to produce medical evidence to back up their claims, they could not provide. However, EVERY SINGLE other physician that has testified in the case has been able to back up their claims solidly with existing medical literature.

Perhaps you should read through the report made to Governor Bush by the Guardian Ad Litem on the case, instead of relying on third party information. It's easily accessable on Findlaw.com.

Falls City Beer
03-29-2005, 09:25 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

GAC
03-29-2005, 09:26 PM
So that means he is unqualified and a nutcase then right? Just because these two networks decided he was worth listening to? I doubt it.

You're not proving anything RBA. IMO, the man has the resume and credentials in the field of medicine (Nobel Prize nominee - remember?), that make whoever broadcast his testimony inconsequential.

Can you prove somehow that he is unqualified in this field, other then that Fox and CBN broadcast him?

Redsfaithful
03-29-2005, 09:28 PM
GAC he's never been a Nobel Prize nominee.

Larkin Fan
03-29-2005, 09:29 PM
So that means he is unqualified and a nutcase then right? Just because these two networks decided he was worth listening to? I doubt it.

You're not proving anything RBA. IMO, the man has the resume and credentials in the field of medicine (Nobel Prize nominee - remember?), that make whoever broadcast his testimony inconsequential.

Can you prove somehow that he is unqualified in this field, other then that Fox and CBN broadcast him?

I just proved it. A true expert can easily substantiate his opinions and bases them on sound medical evidence, not hyperbole.

M2
03-30-2005, 01:29 AM
I feel for the Schindlers, but they're nuts. I might be nuts in similar circumstances. It's a shame that snakeoil salesmen like this Hammesfahr quack have prodded them into this corner, but the medicine on this is clear. Terri has no cerebral cortex. Her brain records no electrical impulses when introduced to outside stimuli. She does not interact or think because the parts of her brain that would do that have shut down and, in many cases, liquified. She has neither outside nor self awareness.

She's gone and she's not coming back. Her parents desperately want to believe a fiction that this isn't so, but it is. The question comes down to whether she'd have wanted to be kept around as an unsentient, but breathing piece of meat. Her husband says she wouldn't have, which I tend to believe because everyone I know says they'd want that feeding tube out. Certainly her guardian at litem reached a similar conclusion.

I'd never advocate taking steps that caused someone pain or even discomfort, but she's incapable of experiencing pain or discomfort. What we've got here is a battle here between responsible, thoughtful professionals and a radical political agenda which will employ charlatans and hucksters while manipulating the faith of otherwise good people.

GAC
03-30-2005, 08:57 AM
Dr. Hammesfahr's testimony, as well as that of the other physician that was chosen by Terri's parents, was nothing but unsubstantiable claims that when asked to produce medical evidence to back up their claims, they could not provide. However, EVERY SINGLE other physician that has testified in the case has been able to back up their claims solidly with existing medical literature.

Perhaps you should read through the report made to Governor Bush by the Guardian Ad Litem on the case, instead of relying on third party information. It's easily accessable on Findlaw.com.

Are you referring to this report?

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf

As to the disciplinary charges against the doctor (which I did not know about), I found this also...

He was disciplined by the state medical board. But he did get an “administrative law judge” to overturn that judgment. The court noted that “Based on testimony from four expert witnesses on behalf of the Department, the ALJ concluded that Dr. Hammesfahr’s unconventional stroke treatment is not within the generally accepted standard of care. Nonetheless, the ALJ found that Dr. Hammesfahr’s practice of alternative medicine in the treatment of strokes did not constitute grounds for discipline because the Department did not present clear and convincing evidence that it is harmful to his patients, that the patients did not make an informed decision to obtain the treatment, or that Dr. Hammesfahr used fraud or deception to convince the patients they would improve with the treatment.” The court also found that the financial exploitation by overcharging might have been accidental.

As to him being a Nobel nominee, I see where that is very dubious.

My only exposure to who this Dr Hammesfahr is was the below report, and a few other articles that I found on the internet the other day. It wasn't through Fox.

And I think that if any of us who ran across and read this report, and who are not trained/experienced in the neurologocal/medical fields, would have a hard time refuting it upon reading it and not knowing beforehand the "history" or current accusations surrounding this doctor.

Complete report of Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-reknowned neurologist

September 12, 2002

Re: Terri Schiavo

I was asked to examine Terri Schiavo per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. They requested that current information about her present medical condition be obtained. They also requested that an evaluation be performed to ascertain treatment options.

HPI:

Ms Schiavo was in her usual state of good health until 2/25/90, when her husband reported that he was awakened from sleep approximately 6 Am by her falling. He reports that she was unresponsive.

Paramedics were called, and aggressive resuscitation was performed with 7 defibrillations en route.

In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown. Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level, and a normal toxic screen without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines.

The abnormal potassium level and sugar level were found on admission to the Emergency Room and were successfully corrected by the hospital staff over the next several days. The patient had a difficult hospital course with the development
of poorly controlled seizures and prolonged coma state requiring, for a time, ventilator support. However, the staff noted improvement, and it was recommended by several physicians that she be discharged to an intensive rehabilitation center.

She was eventually transferred to Mediplex in Bradenton for intensive rehabilitation. She was poorly responsive. However, after a brain stimulator was placed in 11/90, the staff started to report greater interactions of the patient with her environment, including intermittently apparently following commands, turning her head to voice, tracking visually, etc.

This pattern continued even after discharge to a nursing home, although her course from that time on included multiple medical problems including recurrent urinary tract infections and hospitalizations, at times with severely low episodes of blood pressure due to a lack of treatment of urinary tract infections ordered by the husband and subsequent urinary sepsis requiring hospitalization.

During 1998, she was evaluated by Dr. James Barnhill, neurologist, who testified that he examined her for ten minutes and determined that she had no chance for recovery, and was in a persistent vegetative state. He also identified that her skull was filled with spinal fluid; there was no brain present on the scans. All responses he identified were reported as "reflexes." He obtained no blood pressure nor did anyone else, apparently, on the day of his exam, the closest documented blood pressures being obtained two days earlier and five days later. No tests including Urinary Tract infection evaluations, blood tests, EEGs, evoked potentials, or new CT/MRI exams were ordered.

One year later he again reconfirmed his earlier diagnosis. He felt no tests of any sort were needed for evaluation. In the spring of 2000, three physicians, including Dr. Jay Carpenter, who is a former Chief of Medicine at Morton Plant Hospital, filed affidavits after observing Ms. Schiavo. All three physicians stated that it is visually apparent that Ms Schiavo is able to swallow and, in fact, does swallow her own saliva.

The patient continued with no physical therapy, communication or speech therapy, or routine medical screening evaluations and treatment such as dental care, mammography, gynecological exams or pap smears during this time.

In May 2002, access to the patient was allowed for two physicians appointed by the family. At that time, my observation of Terri Schiavo in person occurred, having previously viewed videotape that was first shown at her first trial.

The examination

Medical examination and evaluations were performed on Ms Schiavo on September 3 and 4 with videographers present. Medical reviews of the charts provided were carried out, from which the above history is obtained.

On September 3, I spent from approximately 11AM until 4PM with Ms. Schiavo, returning the next day to also observe Dr. Maxfield and complete my portion of the exam (which duplicated that of Dr. Maxfield, so I observed without myself specifically repeating that part of the exam that same day).

The exam was videotaped at my request.

The exam started with the setting up of the video camera by the videographers, with Mr. Michael Schiavo present. I then came into the room and introduced myself to Ms. Schiavo. The patient was looking at the ceiling in a chair. She had a wide-eyed look to her. She appeared to be aware of my presence with slight facial changes and tone changes in her body, She did not look at me, or turn to look in the direction of my voice, continuing instead to look directly forward. Her mother then entered the room, coming toward her and speaking her name. The daughter immediately showed awareness of the presence of her mother, looking for her, then finding her visually when the mother was approximately 8 inches from her face. She then smiled and made sounds. Her father also entered the room with further apparent recognition by the daughter.

The first part of this exam included observing her interactions with her mother and her father. Here she clearly was aware of them and attempted to interact with them: the sounds, facial expressions, and searching out and tracking them. There are several previous reports by medical personnel and others of her responding to live piano music. Accordingly, I asked the mother to bring a tape of piano music. Two separate pieces were listened to. The first she appeared aware of the sound, but would not sing or interact significantly. The second she did interact making sounds with the music. She stopped making these sounds, when the music stopped.

During this time, she would move her head and track her head and eyes to the sound of music, or her mother's voice. I started my exam first on her right side, introducing myself and then examined her contracted right arm, the goal being to get a blood pressure, as neurological abilities are very sensitive to blood pressure. She looked at me and would track me with voluntary facial and upper torso movements. I later moved to the left arm and attempted to release contractures there. In order to get significant relaxation of the arm to a degree necessary to obtain a blood pressure, I worked for approximately 35 minutes to release the contractures enough to get arm extension to approximately 140 degrees. During this time, the patient would track the mother or the father, depending on who was interacting with her. Interestingly, she appeared to respond to her mother or father by tone of voice. At one time, after working on her arm for approximately 20 minutes, and no further extension of the elbow was to be had, the father walked up and started speaking reassuringly to his daughter. The elbow immediately extended approximately another 20 degrees. This was during a time period that I had been talking with Ms. Schiavo, and the music was also running. Yet with neither the addition of the music nor my voice did the elbow extend. With the father coming to his daughter and speaking, she immediately extended the arm further. At other times, he would speak more sharply to her, and she would immediately tighten, and appear to lose her spot of visual focusing, and her expressions would change. At times during and immediately after this part of the exam, she would also appear to voluntarily move her right upper extremity.

Multiple takes of her blood pressure were taken, and there were several readings of "error." During the reading of her blood pressure, I also palpated the median artery at the wrist. In general, the systolic readings on the blood pressure cuff correlated well with the wrist palpations. Thus, the systolic readings are probably fairly accurate, although the diastolic readings cannot be independently confirmed. Three readings were successfully obtained 96/65 pulses of 70, 107/78 pulse of 72, and 101/71 pulse of 70. The pulse was erratic by both machine and palpation. The blood pressure errors occurred due to spasticity in the arm being evaluated.

A general physical exam was also performed, although pelvic, breast, rectal, fundoscopic, sinus and ear exams were not performed. Technical difficulties prevented the fundoscopic exam from being performed.

The general physical examination and the neurological examination tended to be performed in an extremity-by-extremity fashion, as her cooperation was best by focusing on specific regions, and then not coming back to those regions at a later time. Moving rapidly and from side to side tended to result in apparent confusion and stress in the patient, manifested by increased tone and less facial interactions, eye contact, and less accessibility to her limbs due to the increased tone causing contractures to redevelop.

The general facial exam was significant for acne, probably due to a chronic stress induced steroid responses. No bruits were identified. Cranial nerves were intact, and the patient was able to swallow and handle all secretions.

The neck exam was abnormal. She had severe limitation of range of motion in the flexion, and to a lesser degree in extension. Indeed, I was able to pick up her entire torso and head and neck area with pressure on the back of her neck in the suboccipital region. These findings of cervical spasm and limitation of range of motion are consistent with a neck injury. No bruits were identified.

Lung exam showed scattered wheezes in the right lung fields. No rhonchi or rales were identified. Cardiac exam was normal to my exam. Interestingly, the significant arrhythmias identified by the electronic cuff, as well as my palpation of her wrist exam was not identified during this cardiac portion of the exam, suggesting the arrhythmia is intermittent.

Abdominal exam showed good GI sounds throughout, and was non-tender. No masses or aneurysms were palpated.

Extremities exam showed severe contractures in all four extremities. On the left upper extremity, she initially showed 4/4 on the Allen's spasticity scale about the wrist, fingers, and the elbow. However, with approximately 40 minutes of massage and release, the exam in this upper extremity showed spasticity on the Allen's scale, and at times, later in the exam, would show 2/4 on the Allen's exam.

The right upper extremity also showed 4/4 on the Allen's scale, and also improved with efforts at muscular tension release. However, time did not allow me the same degree of effort on her right upper extremity, and thus I am unsure of the degree of relaxation available in this area.

In the lower extremities, she has 2/4 about the hips and the knees, meaning full range of motion, but spasticity still present. However, about the ankles, she is 4/4 and I could obtain no improvement in the range of motion.

With levels of 3/4 and 4/4 spasticity, it is frequently difficult to determine the degree of voluntary control if any a patient has over an extremity. The internal spasticity and stiffness of the limb, makes gauging voluntary efforts very difficult.

Efforts that may be easily seen or felt in a patient with no spasticity may be completely missed or only able to be identified from sophisticated testing in a patient with 3/4 or 4/4 levels of spasticity.

Spasticity generally is due to neurological injuries, and is aggravated by lack of physical therapy and muscle stretching. To understand spasticity, it is important to understand what is normal with muscle activity

In a normal person, a leg, arm, or other part of the body moves because a muscle contracts and moves a nearby bone. However, muscles exist on both the front and the back of joints. When the muscles in the front of the joint move, the bone moves forward. When the muscles on the back of the joint move, the bone moves backwards. If the bone is your arm, then when the biceps contracts, the arm bends. When the triceps contracts, the arms straightens. Another characteristic of normal is that when one set of muscles contracts, the opposite muscles relax. Thus, when the biceps contracts, the triceps relaxes and vice versa.

In spasticity, that relaxation of opposing muscles does not occur. Thus, even if the biceps tries to contract to move a muscle, the opposing contractures of the triceps, prevents motion. In severe cases, like Ms. Schiavo, the contractures of the opposing muscles may be so severe, that voluntary motion appears very weak or non-existent. In fact, in some of her muscle groups, the severity of the contractures has grown so severe, that even an outsider cannot move the joint.

The Allen's scale is a 0-4 scale with 0 as normal or no spasticity. The scale is as follows:

0 Normal, no spasticity

1 Slight spasticity, palpated by the physician, but full range of motion of a joint.

2 Moderate spasticity, but full range of motion. Here the examiner may be allowed to use a great deal of his own muscle contraction to straighten a joint. If the joint can be straightened to its full range of motion, this is a 2.

3 Severe spasticity, but some motion can be identified. Full range of motion does not exist.

4 Severe spasticity, no range of motion.

Pulses in these extremities were symmetrical. Skin was intact in these areas.

The patient wore a diaper, and this was not removed for the exam.

Back exam was carried out and there were no evident areas of tenderness, masses, or other abnormalities seen.

The first two hours of the exam, focusing on cognitive awareness of her surroundings, was carried out in a chair. The last one hour on videotape was carried out in her bed. In neither position did she have difficulty handling any saliva or secretions. Only briefly, for a few minutes at a time, did she appear to tire and lose the ability to respond, track or interact with her surroundings.

She had no tube feedings or water during the entire time of the exam.

Alertness: The patient was alert throughout essentially the entire exam.

Responsiveness:

The patient would immediately respond to sound, tone of voice and to touch and pain. With respect to responding to those around her, she had limited responsiveness to me personally until approximately 45 minutes into the exam. She started to look at me, against her traditional right gaze preference, about the same time that we started getting significant relaxation in her contracted left arm (the arm that had been contracted for several years.) She appeared to identify the sound of my voice, with the relaxation of the arm. From that point, she would generally look toward the sound of my voice when heard, attempt to find me visually, then track the sound of my voice in its movements, or track me if I was within approximately one foot of her eyes. Prior to that time, she did not track me, or try to locate me visually. When playing music, she had a clear preference to the specific sound track played, and would listen to piano music, but change levels of listening depending on the track played. Her attention to the music would not wander during the track she preferred. She would pick out her mother's voice or her father's voice separate from the music or other voices or sounds in the room, and re-fix her gaze to those people. She would tend not to blink when watching those people. She ignored her husband's loud foot-tapping that went on for approximately five minutes at one point. She also ignored his voice and did not try to seek him out visually when he would at times interject comments during the exam or immediately afterwards.

During various portions of the exam, she would be moved or have her position readjusted. She continued to handle her saliva during this time, never being observed to choke on her saliva.

Following Commands: At various times during the exam, I asked her to close her eyes, or open her eyes widely, look towards her mother, or look towards me. At times, she appeared to properly follow these commands. Interestingly, some of the commands, such as close your eyes, open your eyes, etc. she tended to do several minutes after I gave her the command to do so. She had a delay in her processing of the action. However, when praised for the action, she would then continue to do the action repetitively for up to approximately 5 minutes. As we had moved on to other areas of the exam, at times she was continuing to do the previous command, then at inappropriate times since the focus of the exam had changed. During different portions of the exam, I would ask her to squeeze my hand on command, or, in the lower extremities, to pick up her right lower leg to command.

The upper extremities are contracted and weak. She appeared to squeeze my hand, and then relax her grip, in the upper right extremity, possibly in the upper left extremity. I am unsure if she was doing it to verbal command, or in response to body language; however, it was voluntary activity and not reflex. In the lower extremities, she showed these same abilities, marked on the right and to a lesser degree on the left (voluntary control over the ankles could not be determined due to the severity of the contractures there). However, in the right lower extremity, I again gave verbal commands, but also noted that she would oppose activity voluntarily. Thus, moving a hand against a thigh would elicit an equal and opposite reaction from her. She would gauge the degree of pressure, and counteract it equally. This is not a reflexive movement. With respect to her lower leg, we were able to clearly show that on videotape. I had her push her lower leg against my hand; my hand was on the top of her leg. Removing my hand suddenly, allowed her leg to suddenly continue voluntarily rising up and be seen on videotape. We had her do this repetitively on videotape.

Her right lower leg is quite strong. Other areas are either not as strong, or have such high spasticity brought on by neglect that voluntary activities are able to be felt, but difficult to show large degree of motion that are represented on videotape so well. The voluntary control is there, but does not show up well on videotape, as the range that the motion goes through is less.

Cranial Nerve Exam: Cranial nerve function is present and appears normal in all groups tested. The fundoscopic exam and ophthalmic nerve function could not be tested directly. She tracks well and voluntarily. She does not exhibit "Doll's Eye" motion, an abnormality seen in coma patients whose eyes move back and forth like a doll's when their head is moved.

Coma patients cannot direct their gaze to specific things and maintain their gaze on those things regardless of head motion or motion of the object.

She can do these things. She appears to see things best at approximately the.8-12 inch area. She was best able to track large reflective objects like aluminum balloons or sparkling lights (for which a focal length limitation is not an issue.)

This is a patient who has very poor language abilities. Her interactions with the world, as well as her ability to convey thought will depend in large part on her visual abilities and limitations. Thus a complete opthamological exam and evoked potential exam needs to be performed. This needs to be performed in comfortable situation and the patient needs to be comfortable with the examiner and the examinations. I would estimate that at least one day should be allotted for the exam and should be carried out her in room.

Sensory Exam: The patient was tested to light touch, pressure, and sharp touch and pain in all four extremities and on her face. The pain portion in the extremities was conducted by pinching the nail beds of her hands and feet. She clearly feels pain as the videotapes show.

On the face, noxious stimulation including cotton swab up the nose and gag sensation and papillary touch with cotton evidenced a pain response. These were more than just reflexes, as she appeared to be annoyed by these painful responses long after they had stopped, and would not smile at me again for the rest of the day.

She certainly feels pressure, as was discussed earlier, and opposes pressure with voluntary motor activity. When using a sharp piece of wood, which she found uncomfortable, and going over her entire body (except diapered areas and breast areas), we found that sensation is present everywhere. Sensation on the right side as evidenced by moaning or tightening up muscles or withdrawal and was more prevalent than on the left.

We found that she had two sensory levels. The first is the side-to-side asymmetry, where she feels more on the right than the left. The second is a major increase in pain approximately C4 and cephalic to the head. This is consistent with a spinal injury and spinal cord injury near this level.

Motor Exam: As discussed earlier, it is difficult to measure motor strength on the classical scales. The classical motor strength scale is a 0-5 scale and is described as patient's voluntary motor strength score /normal which is represented as a 5. Thus a person with no voluntary motion would be 0/5 and a person with normal voluntary motion is a 5/5. Normal motor strength requires relaxation of the muscles around the muscle being tested. Thus, if grip squeeze is being tested, the muscles that straighten the fingers must relax in order to have a good squeeze. Ifthose muscles don't relax, they tend to keep the fingers straight, and thus give a weaker squeeze than if they did relax. When the muscles near the area being tested don't relax, that is called spasticity, and makes the exam less accurate. At times the spasticity is so severe that a muscle tested may not be strong enough to overcome the opposing muscles, and no evidence of voluntary muscle movement is seen even though there is in fact voluntary control over those muscles.

This is the problem that we have with Ms. Schiavo. She clearly has voluntary control that is good control over her facial musculature. Formal testing of those cranial nerves showed no weakness or facial asymmetry.

In the upper and lower arms, however, the spasticity is severe. She at times would voluntarily move her right arm/ hand complex against gravity, which is considered a strength of 3/5 or greater by convention. When squeezing my hand and relaxing on the right side, she had approximately a 2-3 (-)/5 but range of

activity was severely limited by spasticity. On the left side, it appeared weaker. In the upper extremities, she would oppose pressure on her, or try to move her arms with approximately 3/5, but not to command (probably due to the aphasia). The right side was stronger than the left.

The leg motion on the right was generally approximately 2-3/5 in all groups except around the ankle. However, when opposing my hand in the lower leg, she was 3+ -4-/5 and the voluntary action caught on videotape was clearly a strong 3/5 or better. On the left side the strength appeared to be more of a 2/5 range in all groups, but due to the difficulty of the exam, may actually have been stronger than this.

The convention of the 0-5 scales for testing voluntary motor strength is as follows:

0 No voluntary movement

1 Trace movement able to be felt

2 Movement of an extremity if gravity is removed. Thus if movement of a leg occurs in a bed while a patient is lying down, but he cannot move that same area up off of the bed, this is considered 2/5.

3 Movement against gravity

4 Movements against examiner's actively resisting the patient's muscular activity

5 Normal

The scale has some additional aspects, in that a - or + sign may further allow an examiner to delineate a specific number into sub-gradations. Reflexes: Were 2+ throughout on the left side, and slightly brisker on the right side.

The reflexes to my exam were slightly brisker in the upper extremities than in the lower extremities. These reflex findings may be related in part to differing level of tone due to spasticity. No clonus was identified. The reflexes at the pectoralis muscles were 2++ and symmetrical. Reflexes at the ankles could not be obtained due to the severe contractures. Babinski exam did not show abnormal reflexes, probably due to the severity of the contractures in the feet. Both glabellar and palmomental reflexes were mildly abnormal.

Impression:

The patient is not in coma.

She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best.

She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.

She responds negatively to poor tone of voice.

She responds to music.

She differentiates sounds from voices.

She differentiates specific people's voices from others.

She differentiates music from stray sound.

She attempts to verbalize.

She has voluntary control over multiple extremities

She can swallow.

She is partially blind

She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.

She can feel pain.

On this last point, it is interesting to observe that the records from Hospice show frequent medication administered for pain by staff.

With respect to specifics and specific recommendations in order to carry out the instructions of the Second District Court of Appeal:

From a neurological standpoint: The patient appears to be partially blind.

She needs a full opthamological evaluation and visual evoked potentials done to flash and checkerboard patters. The opthamological examination is to evaluate her retina and her ophthalmic nerve to try to determine the cause of her visual limitations and if any treatment exists. The evoked potentials looks at the nerve between the eye and the visual centers in the brain, to see if there is treatable damage and the type of damage, if any in these areas. This is important, as for individuals to interact with her, and possibly teach her better ways of communicating with others, they must know what sort of limitations she has. This even extends to whether she can see people or objects in specific areas of her vision, and what size objects need to be to be accurately seen. Additionally, if one were to properly examine her, it would help if one knew the full extent of these test results.

Communication: She can communicate. She needs a Speech Therapist, Speech Pathologist, and a communications expert to evaluate how to best communicate with her and to allow her to communicate and for others to communicate with her. Also, a treatment plan for how to develop better communication needs to be done.

Rehabilitation Medicine: The patient has severe contractures. She needs a specialist to evaluate these and develop a treatment plan.

Endocrine: The patient has clinical evidence of an abnormally functioning endocrine system. Her blood pressure is abnormally low. Many patients with severe neurological injury have low blood pressure due to an abnormally functioning endocrine system. The reason for this should be determined and corrected, as with a more normal blood pressure, she is likely to have even better neurological functioning. She has facial acne consistent with hormonal abnormalities.

ENT: The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Mammography needs to be performed.

Spinal Exam: The patient's exam from a spinal perspective is abnormal. The degree of limitation of range of motion, and of spasms in her neck, is consistent with a neck injury. The abnormal sensory exam, that shows evidence of her hypoxic encephalopathic strokes (right side sensory responses are different from left) also suggests a spinal cord injury at around the level of C4. Her physical exam and videotapes also suggest a spinal cord injury is also present, as she has much better control over he face, head, and neck, than over her arms and legs. This reminds one of a person with a spinal cord injury who has good facial control, but poor use of arms and legs. It is possible that a correctable spinal abnormality such as a herniated disk may be found that could be treated and result in better neurological functioning. This should be looked for, as may be treatable. Thus, there may be an injured disk or spinal cord; the disk injury is more treatable, the spinal cord injury, if present without a disk injury, may be more difficult to treat. A person with a spinal cord injury and hypoxic encephalopathy will need different treatment and rehab recommendations than one who just has a hypoxic encephalopathic.

Interestingly, I have seen this pattern of mixed brain (cerebral) and spinal cord findings in a patient once before, a patient who was asphyxiated.

A urological consultation should be obtained: I disagree with Dr. Gambone's view that the patient's bacteria in the urine may be ignored. In my experience, colonization of the bladder can very distinctly affect the patient's neurological status and affect their rehabilitation. The patient needs a urological consultation both to examine the bladder issue, resolve if there are possibly colonized and kidney stones (that may be the source of recurring bladder infections). Also, one significant mechanism of diagnosing and finding and diagnosing spinal cord injuries is through sophisticated bladder EMG and other testing. This should be done.

The neurosurgeon who placed the implant should be contacted for recommendations. A neurological examination can only be carried out in the context of a complete understanding of the patient's physiology, including current blood tests. Thus the tests that Dr. Gambone did months ago, before we had access to the patient, should immediately be repeated.

EEG: I have reviewed the EEG recently obtained. The EEG has large amounts of artifact. The technician's attempted to remove artifact by filtering. Unfortunately, filtering also affects and reduces evident brain electronic activity. This EEG is not adequate and should be repeated. It should be repeated at the patient's bedside, with the patient in a non-agitated state.

SPECT scan: A SPECT scan prior to and after several days of Hyperbaric Trial should be obtained. Such a Hyperbaric Oxygen trial does not constitute treatment, as the length of time of such hyperbaric is inadequate to render any treatment. However, it is a useful technique to assess the likelihood of improvement using hyperbaric oxygen. I would defer to Dr. Maxfield on the specifics of testing, but believe that it is generally accepted by those in the field who have experience with hyperbaric treatment, that Dr. Maxfield's recommendations in this area are accurate.

____________________________

William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.

MartyFan
03-30-2005, 09:00 AM
M2 Boy, you make some pretty decent points...a couple I agree with.

I believe as long as there is breath there is hope...maybe not based on medicine or technology or other science but based squarely on my belief in God.

If providing nutrition is the only thing required to keep hope alive...I'd do it...regardless of cerebral cortex...to me this is no small obstacle but remember I also believe in God through a faith that says there was a dead guy in a tomb who was brought back to life...then the guy who reportedly brought this guy (Lazarus) out of his tomb did the same thing himself a year or two later...So even when breath and life goes from the body there is still hope.

As for her ability to feel pain??? If she feels no pain why the moraphine drip?

Larkin Fan
03-30-2005, 10:21 AM
No, GAC, his opinion means nothing because it's not based on substantiable medical fact.

This is what I'm referring to:

http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf

Larkin Fan
03-30-2005, 10:22 AM
I feel for the Schindlers, but they're nuts. I might be nuts in similar circumstances. It's a shame that snakeoil salesmen like this Hammesfahr quack have prodded them into this corner, but the medicine on this is clear. Terri has no cerebral cortex. Her brain records no electrical impulses when introduced to outside stimuli. She does interact or think because the parts of her brain that would do that have shut down and, in many cases, liquified. She has neither outside nor self awareness.

She's gone and she's not coming back. Her parents desperately want to believe a fiction that this isn't so, but it is. The question comes down to whether she'd have wanted to be kept around as an unsentient, but breathing piece of meat. Her husband says she wouldn't have, which I tend to believe because everyone I know says they'd want that feeding tube out. Certainly her guardian at litem reached a similar conclusion.

I'd never advocate taking steps that caused someone pain or even discomfort, but she's incapable of experiencing pain or discomfort. What we've got here is a battle here between responsible, thoughtful professionals and a radical political agenda which will employ charlatans and hucksters while manipulating the faith of otherwise good people.

It's a shame that more people don't understand that, M2.

MartyFan
03-30-2005, 10:51 AM
LarkinFan

Wow...So, faith serves no purpose from your worldview? And those who regard our faith in higher light than what has been learned by men to this point have nothing legitimate to add to this conversation?

Reds/Flyers Fan
03-30-2005, 11:15 AM
Jesse Jackson Urges Fla. Woman Be Kept Alive


Wow...I never thought I would ever EVER agree with the good Rev. on anything. But he's absolutely right.

MartyFan
03-30-2005, 11:21 AM
Reds/Flyers Fan

Just like President Bush and the rest of the politicians around this he sees an opportunity to raise his profile..I mean, first the Michael Jackson interview on his radio program and now this? This is all PR which is just fine because every cause needs PR to be put on the table for conversation by the "at large" public.

But kudos to you for seeing where you can agree with the guy!

M2
03-30-2005, 12:01 PM
LarkinFan

Wow...So, faith serves no purpose from your worldview? And those who regard our faith in higher light than what has been learned by men to this point have nothing legitimate to add to this conversation?

I'm not Larkin Fan, but let me take a run at this one.

I don't think this is so cut and dried from a theological standpoint. You could make a solid religious argument that Terri Schiavo passed from life over a decade ago and that what's happening now is that her body's being kept around as a doppelganger.

It's only a recent phenomenon, historically speaking, that someone like her would have survived at all after her initial episode. Science enabled us to put a feeding tube in her in the hopes that maybe she could emerge from the state she's in. Now, 15 years later, that same science is telling us in no uncertain terms that it cannot happen. There's been a lot of talk about respect for life, but Terri Schiavo's never going to have a life. She's going to lie in bed and breathe without so much as the germ of a thought passing through her head. Frankly, the Bible didn't see this one coming and, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't think anyone can claim to truly know God's will in this one.

My position is let her be with God because she can't be with us.

Johnny Footstool
03-30-2005, 12:19 PM
Maybe God is trying to tell the family that it's time to let Terri go.

savafan
03-30-2005, 12:23 PM
I believe, and I have nothing to back this up, that the only chance for recovery Ms. Schiavo would ever have is through the use of stem cell research, which those who oppose her feeding tube removal also oppose. Seems somewhat hypocritical in the grand scheme of things to me.

Johnny Footstool
03-30-2005, 12:25 PM
believe, and I have nothing to back this up, that the only chance for recovery Ms. Schiavo would ever have is through the use of stem cell research, which those who oppose her feeding tube removal also oppose. Seems somewhat hypocritical in the grand scheme of things to me.

Very interesting, sava. Something to ponder.

traderumor
03-30-2005, 12:48 PM
I believe, and I have nothing to back this up, that the only chance for recovery Ms. Schiavo would ever have is through the use of stem cell research, which those who oppose her feeding tube removal also oppose. Seems somewhat hypocritical in the grand scheme of things to me.

Nothing hypocritical at all, savafan. Both positions are consistent with the idea that each individual creature was knit together in the mother's womb by their Creator, and as such, have individual dignity and worth. "Growing" human beings for the purpose of "harvesting" stem cells is where the line is crossed, so if it would be necessary to do so to save anyone's life, it is wrong to create life for that sole purpose. That is my understanding of the wrong use of stem cells that Bible believing Christians object to, generally speaking.

As you know, I am not shy about announcing my Christianity, and we allowed for our daughter's umbilical cord blood to be used for its stem cells because there is nothing wrong with stem cell research in and of itself. Unfortunately, it could not be used because of merconium (sp), but nonetheless it was made available. To me, it was no different than allowing one's organs to be donated for transplant purposes, which I do not object to Biblically. It's the source of the stem cells that raises the issue.

Rojo
03-30-2005, 01:20 PM
So when you have two groups of doctors coming to different conclusions, then isn't that enough evidence to show reasonable doubt? Or do you just pick the one you want to side with?

Is there a reasonable doubt about the Holocaust because some nutcase claims it didn't happen?

Larkin Fan
03-30-2005, 01:33 PM
I'm not Larkin Fan, but let me take a run at this one.

I don't think this is so cut and dried from a theological standpoint. You could make a solid religious argument that Terri Schiavo passed from life over a decade ago and that what's happening now is that her body's being kept around as a doppelganger.

It's only a recent phenomenon, historically speaking, that someone like her would have survived at all after her initial episode. Science enabled us to put a feeding tube in her in the hopes that maybe she could emerge from the state she's in. Now, 15 years later, that same science is telling us in no uncertain terms that it cannot happen. There's been a lot of talk about respect for life, but Terri Schiavo's never going to have a life. She's going to lie in bed and breathe without so much as the germ of a thought passing through her head. Frankly, the Bible didn't see this one coming and, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't think anyone can claim to truly know God's will in this one.

My position is let her be with God because she can't be with us.

I couldn't have said it better, M2.

traderumor
03-30-2005, 02:12 PM
Frankly, the Bible didn't see this one coming

Perhaps there is no specific Scripture verse that applies to this case, but there are principals contained in Scripture that apply and can be used to arrive at a Biblical conclusion on this issue. Of course, one's view of Scripture's inerrancy and infallibility would influence one's agreement or disagreement with my position, but regardless, Scripture says that the Author of the Bible did see this one coming and has provided divinely inspired Scripture that "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

RBA
03-30-2005, 02:37 PM
Which republican campaign is going to roll out this photo in the 2008 primaries?





http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/BRAIN_DAMAGED_WOMAN.sff_FLSC106_20050330130405.jpg

RFS62
03-30-2005, 02:39 PM
Perhaps there is no specific Scripture verse that applies to this case, but there are principals contained in Scripture that apply and can be used to arrive at a Biblical conclusion on this issue. Of course, one's view of Scripture's inerrancy and infallibility would influence one's agreement or disagreement with my position, but regardless, Scripture says that the Author of the Bible did see this one coming and has provided divinely inspired Scripture that "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"



Now I consider myself a spiritual person, probably not the way you would describe it, but that passage scares the heck out of me.

Sounds like an open-ended endorsement for whatever you want to believe.

traderumor
03-30-2005, 03:09 PM
Now I consider myself a spiritual person, probably not the way you would describe it, but that passage scares the heck out of me.

Sounds like an open-ended endorsement for whatever you want to believe.

I think its a statement of Scripture's origin and purpose and assumes that one can, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, properly arrive at conclusions regarding correct doctrine, correction, and "rightwiseness" (the concept of righteousness) by using Scripture. It also gives rise to one of the Protestant Reformation's five solas, sola scriptura, or Scripture alone to determine matters of faith, of which I believe this issue is one, in the big picture.

And in relation to being open-ended, that only happens when one attempts to misuse Scripture to promote their own doctrines. True Biblical dogma is usually criticized for being too narrow rather than too open ended.

RFS62
03-30-2005, 05:04 PM
properly arrive at conclusions regarding correct doctrine


Traderumor, I would never, ever mock or make light of one's religious beliefs. I'm all for it if you're seeking enlightenment, however you describe it.

But this phrase just screams out the reason we have so many different versions of "the truth". Everybody is completely sure that their version is the "one true version".

traderumor
03-30-2005, 07:07 PM
Traderumor, I would never, ever mock or make light of one's religious beliefs. I'm all for it if you're seeking enlightenment, however you describe it.

But this phrase just screams out the reason we have so many different versions of "the truth". Everybody is completely sure that their version is the "one true version".

By definition, there can only be one truth, of which I never got around to making a personal truth claim. All I did was point out that was the intent of the passage of Scripture. I'll leave you to decide if you accept it as such.

GAC
03-30-2005, 09:04 PM
Is there a reasonable doubt about the Holocaust because some nutcase claims it didn't happen?

You always provide some of the most humorous, and ridiculous, analogies that go nowhere.

Let me share something with you Rojo.

Dr. Hammesfahr, who practices neurology in Clearwater, Florida, advocates aggressive treatment of stroke patients with drugs to open the constricted blood vessels in an attempt to improve blood flow to the affected areas. He also recommends using TCD to monitor the progress of stroke patients. Yes, Dr. Hammesfahr’s unconventional stroke treatment is not widely accepted within the general area of standard of care/treatment for stroke patients.

Wow! Has there ever been a doctor or scientist who experimented with radical treatments or procedures in the past, who were shown skepticism by others within the medical community, only to see that years later it proved beneficial or a breakthrough?

For example- Aren't there radical treatment for AIDs and cancer that can prove beneficial, and are available in other countries, yet banned in the U.S.?

It just so happens, and I didnt know this at the time because I never heard of this Hammesfahr, nor this experimental treatments he was working on with stroke patients, until a week or so ago; but a close friend of mine had a pretty bad stroke right after Christmas. He's in his late 50's, and he had the first stroke in his home, and then another in the hosptial (St Rita's In Lima, Ohio). He was in a bad way for the first week, and they weren't sure he was gonna make it. They were having a hard time stabilizing him due to an aneurysm.

They utilized this very same procedure - drugs to open the constricted blood vessels in an attempt to improve blood flow to the affected areas, while using TCD to monitor the progress. His wife told us in great detail all aout this procedure which was new, experimental, and yes, there was some risk involved; but with the shape he was in, the doctors felt it was worth it.

To make a long story short, he came into work the other day to visit us all. He is looking good. The only efffects of the stroke left is stiffness in his left elbow and hand (gripping). And they are working on that via aggressive physical therapy three times a week. They project he will be back to work (and on the golf courses) by the end of summer.

Dr. William Hammesfahr's opinions are well supported by others in the field of neurology and medicine. Over 30 affidavits were filed two weeks ago by physicians mirroring his assessment that the patient is not in PVS or coma and can improve. And Judge Greer wouldn't even allow the motion to examine them. Among the motions Judge Greer denied was a request for new testing and examination of Terri by independent and qualified specialists. David Gibbs, attorney for the Schindlers, submitted 33 affidavits from doctors and other medical professionals contending that Terri’s condition should be reevaluated. About 15 of these affidavits are from board-certified neurologists. Some of these doctors also say that Terri could benefit from therapy.


Physician Richard Neubauer, a recognized expert in hyperbaric oxygen therapy, states, "Dr. William Hammesfahr is an excellent scientist. His treatment of brain injuries by increasing blood flow to the brain is not only scientifically sound, he has the results to prove so. Patients of Dr. Hammesfahr, in conditions more dire than Terri Schiavo, have improved remarkably well."

So is Neubauer a nutcase too?

So, while I agree that there is some controversy surrounding this doctor. And he may be a "charismatic" type of individual who is looking for attention. I wouldn't be so quick to label him a nutcase.

I find it interesting that some on here were upset that there was a campaign to discredit and smear Michael Schiavo. And I agreed with it too. It was wrong. I had my doubts about Michael, but I did my own research and found that while I may doubt his motivation, and have my own questions as to some of his previous behavior, I don't agree with the way some have tried to smear him. Yet some are attempting to possibly do the same thing with this doctor.

I'm not hip on the procedures for nominating one for a Nobel prize. So I'm not sure whether he has or hasn't been. But are individuals, who are determined to discredit Dr. Hammesfahr, attempting to muddy his nomination by misstating rules and procedural changes in the nomination process?

So Congressman Bilirakis' letter of nomination is not a valid part of that procedure? I don't know - I'm asking anyone who does know.

I have already stated earlier my position if I were in Terry's situation. I wouldn't be in it, because they wouldn't have hooked me up and kept me alive. I believe sometimes medical science intervenes when they shouldn't.

I believe in "DNR" (Do not resuscitate) if that person so orders it.

But I thoroughy oppose euthanasia.

IMO, Terry's fate is pretty much sealed.

What bothers me, and so many others in this country, is the ramifications that may set in in this country from this (if any). Where is it gonna lead us?

Dr. Ronald Cranford, one of the lead neurologists, gave Terry a pretty superficial examination. He saw her for 45 minutes. Hammesfahr examined her for 10 hours over 3 months. Cranford, who is also a leading euthanasia advocate wrote a medical paper in the past where he states that people in a vegetative state and people with advanced Alzheimer’s disease have no constitutional rights. He is often sought after as a speaker for the Hemlock Society, and is on the board of "Choice in Dying," a group that advocates euthanasia.

In 1997, Cranford wrote an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled: "When a feeding tube borders on barbaric." He explained that while landmark legal cases like those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan demonstrated it was "sensible to stop treatment in patients lingering in permanent vegetative states," it was now time to look beyond those cases.

"The United States has thousands or tens of thousands of patients in vegetative states; nobody knows for sure exactly how many," he wrote. "But before long, this country will have several million patients with Alzheimer's dementia. The challenges and costs of maintaining vegetative state patients will pale in comparison to the problems presented by Alzheimer's disease."

The answer, he suggested, was physician-assisted suicide.

"So much in medicine today is driving the public towards physician-assisted suicide," he wrote. "Many onlookers are dismayed by doctors' fear of giving families responsibility in these cases; our failure to appreciate that families suffer a great deal too in making decisions; our archaic responses to pain and suffering; our failure to accept death as a reality and an inevitable outcome of life; our inability to be realistic and humane in treating irreversibly ill people. All of this has shaken the public's confidence in the medical profession."

He blamed "right-to-lifers" and "disability groups" for discouraging families from making the choice for euthanasia. He applauded European values that embrace euthanasia.

"But here in the United States, many caregivers wouldn't consider not placing a feeding tube in the same patients," he wrote. "It's hard to understand why. If we want our loved ones to live and die in dignity, we ought to think twice before suspending them in the last stage of irreversible dementia. At it is, it seems that we're not thinking at all."

GAC
03-30-2005, 09:07 PM
Perhaps there is no specific Scripture verse that applies to this case, but there are principals contained in Scripture that apply and can be used to arrive at a Biblical conclusion on this issue. Of course, one's view of Scripture's inerrancy and infallibility would influence one's agreement or disagreement with my position, but regardless, Scripture says that the Author of the Bible did see this one coming and has provided divinely inspired Scripture that "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

How about when Jesus said "when I was sick, you visited me" (not "you pulled my plug and allowed me to die from thirst and starvation) ;)

WebScorpion
03-30-2005, 10:29 PM
By definition, there can only be one truth,

And thus, wars are waged and innocent lives are sacrificed in the defense of the many 'one truth's. My guess is that the ultimate solution to all our overpopulation, ravaging or destroying natural resources, rampant hunger and disease, etc. is at some point all the people defending their 'one truth' will kill each other off and voila! ... the meek shall truly inherit the earth.

I'm with TC, the rest of humanity has no business in Ms. Schiavo's personal life. The person with legal responsibility for her life/death decision should make the decision privately without having their personal lives dragged through the muck to support other people's personal truth...even if it is her parents'.

WVRed
03-30-2005, 10:48 PM
Did anyone watch tonights South Park?