2600 in 2006

IIRC her brain was complete dead for years, wasn't it?

Yes, and in any other case that probably would have mattered, but it looks like Michael Schiavo just wanted to get rid of his wife so he wouldn't be married anymore and could marry his mistress. Basically, the fact that she was in a persistent vegetative state (whether she was or not) was just his excuse for getting rid of her...

 

at least, that's how it looked to me. Had he not had a mistress or any of those other things, and "remembered" his conversations with Terri immediately rather than seven years down the line, the situation would have been different.

I don't really have any strong opinions about this case.

 

But, after this case, lots of people realized that they really needed to bring up the subject with their families - i.e. to make it clear to everyone if they should pull the plug or not. I made sure to bring up the subject. I encourage all of you to do the same. Few things are harder on a family than being forced to decide for you when you are unable to.

Yes, and in any other case that probably would have mattered, but it looks like Michael Schiavo just wanted to get rid of his wife so he wouldn't be married anymore and could marry his mistress.

I was under impression that her family together with some willing parts of media made him look so.

The media are liars.

Cool! We agree on something. I haven't paid much attention to the Terry Schiavo case, but I'll be sure to follow your thread.

I was under impression that her family together with some willing parts of media made him look so.

 

That could be just as possible. I doubt we'll ever hear the truth about the case; it'll always be slanted at least slightly in one way or the other.

Wow. I was expecting a flame war already.

 

To me, that is the crucial fact of the case: the husband had forfeited his rights as husband by taking a mistress.

 

It was a weird, weird case.

 

EDIT: Just listened to the song (.mp3) and it sounds good but I think it was recorded too fast (i.e., tempo too fast).

Wow. I was expecting a flame war already.

I didn't, actually. Here's why:

 

For the side that wished to keep her feeding tube in: it's a deeply-held belief. They believe that people do not have the right to decide whether a person lives or dies. (Unless these people are a jury, and the person in question has been really bad, and happens to reside in Texas. But that's another issue.)

 

For the other side: It's not a deeply-held belief. They think it's pointless to keep a brain-dead person alive, and simply think it's a waste of money/time/resources to do so (but other than that, no real harm done, so why bother pissing off the other side?)

 

Well, I could be wrong...

Wow. I was expecting a flame war already.

I didn't, actually. Here's why:

 

For the side that wished to keep her feeding tube in: it's a deeply-held belief. They believe that people do not have the right to decide whether a person lives or dies. (Unless these people are a jury, and the person in question has been really bad, and happens to reside in Texas. But that's another issue.)

 

For the other side: It's not a deeply-held belief. They think it's pointless to keep a brain-dead person alive, and simply think it's a waste of money/time/resources to do so (but other than that, no real harm done, so why bother pissing off the other side?)

 

Well, I could be wrong...

You obviously haven't seen the threads in the P&R forum about this.

You obviously haven't seen the threads in the P&R forum about this.

 

I don't subscribe to the P&R forum, but the issue certainly is contentious in other places I've seen it discussed.

 

To my mind, there were a huge number of things that seemed wrong with this case, any one of which should have been sufficient basis to block Michael's action.

 

If a lot of things things were different, I might not have opposed Michael's actions...

• If there were a decent explanation for the brain damage (Michael's contradictory stories about that night lead me to believe he's hiding something; the 'bulemia' story was fishy at best, and is basically disproven by the autopsy)
  
• If Michael hadn't testified before a malpractice jury that he'd give his wife the best rehab he could, and then immediately forbidden all rehabilitation attempts once the jury awarded $600,000+ to a trust fund for that purpose (notes: (1) michael stood to inherit the trust fund upon Terri's death; (2) Michael received $300,000 of personal money for loss of consortium and thus had no moral claim to any of the $600,000);
  
• If there had been some evidence of Terri's supposed wishes prior to testimony given many years after Michael had reason for wanting his wife dead.
  
• If Judge Greer had not acted in ways that were clearly biased.
  
• If Michael had not admitted that he wanted revenge on Terri's parents.
  
• If Michael had not melted his wife's wedding rings (he admitted in court to doing this)
  
• If Michael still acted as though Terri was the love of his life (bedding another woman and pledging to marry her doesn't qualify)
  
• If Michael hadn't discussed his wife's gynecological issues on national television (making his claimed concern for his wife's privacy rather dubious).
  
• If I had confidence that Terri was being evaluated fairly (five doctors were appointed to examine her: two chosen by Michael, two chosen by the parents, and one chosen by the judge who had already openly expressed a desire that Terri die); the doctors' findings were split along predictable lines.
  
• If I hadn't seen video which, regardless of whether it shows cognition, shows a level of activity which contradicts the supposed observations of the doctors who claimed Terri was brain-dead.
  
• If there wasn't anyone who wanted to provide care for Terri.
  

Personally, I suspect Terri's 'collapse' in 1990 was the result of something Michael did to her; the autopsy evidence suggests to me a 'sleeper hold'. Somehow Michael figured out how to turn his crime into a source of profit. When much of the malpractice money was put into a trust fund which Michael couldn't claim as his own until Terri's death, he first hoped to have her die of neglect. She refused to die, but Michael, with the aid of George Felos, a very seriously deranged lawyer (per his book 'Litigation as Spiritual Practice', he claims telepathic and telekinetic powers including the ability to crash airplanes with his mind) he sandbagged her condition so she could be declared PVS. George Felos also pushed through the legislation to allow PVS patients to be fatally dehydrated. Using Terri's trust fund to pay George Felos, Michael was eventually able to have Terri put to death.

 

Could Terri have gotten better given proper care? I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. On the other hand, IMHO, Michael's actions suggest strongly that he thought she would, which is why he had to make sure she didn't receive any. Michael likes to hold up what he claims is a CT scan as proof that Terri's condition was terminal. CT scans, however, have limited utility at ascertaining a patient's condition. I've seen video of people walking and talking whose CT scans would indicate that they are clearly and unambiguously dead. Although certain areas of the brain have certain functions in 99.9% of people, the loss of those areas of the brain does not always imply a permanent loss of those functions. The brain has some remarkable abilities to rewire itself, given a chance.

Wow. I was expecting a flame war already.

I didn't, actually. Here's why:

 

For the side that wished to keep her feeding tube in: it's a deeply-held belief. They believe that people do not have the right to decide whether a person lives or dies. (Unless these people are a jury, and the person in question has been really bad, and happens to reside in Texas. But that's another issue.)

 

For the other side: It's not a deeply-held belief. They think it's pointless to keep a brain-dead person alive, and simply think it's a waste of money/time/resources to do so (but other than that, no real harm done, so why bother pissing off the other side?)

 

Well, I could be wrong...

You obviously haven't seen the threads in the P&R forum about this.

No - I don't subscribe to P&R. Somehow it seems a little silly to me to get upset by someone's post on a video game website.

 

I wonder, though, if some don't really care about the issue, but do enjoy pissing off the other side.

For the other side: It's not a deeply-held belief. They think it's pointless to keep a brain-dead person alive, and simply think it's a waste of money/time/resources to do so (but other than that, no real harm done, so why bother pissing off the other side?)

 

Many people have been involved with other people's death, some in entirely appropriate ways and others in inappropriate (albeit legal) ones. Such people see any claim that Terri's starvation was improper as being an indictment of their own actions; to defend their own actions, they feel they must defend Michael's.

 

It doesn't matter to such people that Michael's treatment of Terri was exceptionally evil (and thus probably wouldn't reflect upon them at all). Indeed, some of the people who feel 'indicted' by Terri's supporters did nothing wrong. It's perfectly right and proper, for example, to discontinue giving food and hydration to a dying person in cases where they would neither prolong the person's life nor provide comfort. But Terri wasn't dying until she was fatally dehydrated. If she had been, it wouldn't have taken thirteen days to kill her.

 

What's perhaps most unfortunate about people who are feeling guilty about their involvement in others' death that while they try to ease their guilt by declaring that it's right and proper for others to do the same thing, it will never work. Such people are only going to find atonement if they recognize that what they did was wrong, and they were foolish to have been talked into it, but that they should be wiser in future and counsel others to avoid their mistakes.

 

At least some people I've talked to about the case seem to have an odd sort of logic: (1) if half the arguments Terri's supporters were using were true, Michael would have to be an unbelievably evil person; (2) nobody could be THAT evil; (3) therefore, Terri's supporters' arguments can't be true. While conclusion (3) would logically follow from (2), I would consider (2) to be a very unsound premise. EVIL PEOPLE EXIST. I don't know why some have trouble accepting that fact.

EDIT: Just listened to the song (.mp3) and it sounds good but I think it was recorded too fast (i.e., tempo too fast).

 

I should probably have added a little variation to the tempo (it's constant except at the very end; adding a slight ritard and break at the end of each chorus would have been good) but it doesn't seem overly fast. If I'd done things much slower, the song would have started out okay, but would have gone on too long (as it is, the running time is 3:45 for three verses and three choruses). I really didn't want to cut any verses, and structurally it wouldn't really work if I left out a chorus.

 

Interestingly, of the four tracks in the final mix, the vocals were recorded first. They were done in one continuous take (take 24 I think--the first take I actually got all the way through). I actually wasn't planning on doing a full run-through; I was still experimenting with pitches and transposition, and for each take I'd simply go until I messed up. But on take 24, I got lucky: not only did I make it all the way through, but I also stumbled upon a combination of pitch and transposition that nailed the effect I was trying to achieve.

 

Unfortunately, in Magix 7, transposing up or down seems to drop the tempo tempo by about 0.25%; not enough to be directly noticeable, but enough that when I took my recorded instrumental tracks, transposed them down, sang to them, and then transposed the vocals back up, they were no longer in sync with the original instrumental tracks. I could make the instrument tracks sync up by either transposing them down and back up, or by time-stretching them by 0.25%, but both courses of action made the tracks sound "fuzzy". Although I posted the recording as soon as it was done despite the fuzzy instrument tracks, the next day I hooked up my synth, remastered the instrument tracks 0.5% slower than they were before, re-synced them with the vocals, and generated a new stereo mix.

 

I'm really quite happy with the result. The voice isn't perfect, but I think it's surprisingly natural given that I'm a baritone and I was dead tired when I performed it. The text fits the music beautifully, with natural stress and rhythmic patterns. There's only one forced word stress ("They're not try'ng to starve her because she's dy-ING") and that's there for emphasis. There are a few wrong notes, but they pretty much fit. Indeed, I don't know whether I like the chorus melody on "No pictures no MUSIC" better as I wrote it and sang it on the second and third choruses, or the way I sang it ("wrongly") on the first chorus.

But Terri wasn't dying until she was fatally dehydrated.

Correction:

Terri was dead for years. It was her body which wasn't dying until it was fatally dehydrated. Using the terms "Terri" and "she" for her physical remains is introducing a stong bias to the discussion.

But Terri wasn't dying until she was fatally dehydrated.

Correction:

Terri was dead for years. It was her body which wasn't dying until it was fatally dehydrated. Using the terms "Terri" and "she" for her physical remains is introducing a stong bias to the discussion.

 

People without a strong will to live don't survive twelve+ days without water.

 

Terri's CT scans clearly showed significant brain damage, but I've seen video of a guy whose brain was mostly GONE as a result of a .357 bullet and yet with therapy he'd redeveloped the abilities to walk and talk. I believe Michael was deliberately sandbagging Terri's condition for the purpose of having her killed. Not that Michael's actions were designed to prevent distinguishing a minimally-concious state from a persistent vegetative state.

As supercat has pointed out, at least in the Schiavo case, there was a lot going on besides the PVS debate. I wouldn't want to be kept alive in that state either, but... I don't know.

 

Flame on, I guess

Terri's CT scans clearly showed significant brain damage

IIRC the autopsy proved that the significant parts of the brain where completely dead.

 

Everything else is speculation.

IIRC the autopsy proved that the significant parts of the brain where completely dead.

 

Everything else is speculation.

 

True. The claim that the autopsy and/or CT scans proved that she could never recover was bunk: people have somehow managed to recover from damage that was just as bad as Terri's could be proven by those methods to have been.

 

There was a test that that would have been quite informative and useful had it been done while Terri was alive: a PET scan. Unlike CT scans, MRIs, and autopsies which can only show the 'mechanical' structure of the brain, PET scans can provide insight into its functioning. For example, it's possible to judge a patient's ability to detect a certain type of stimulus by watching for changes in the brain's electral patterns in response to that stimulus. Even if the changes happen in a part of a brain not typically associated with that stimulus, a PET scan can detect them. A PET scan can also provide some measure of cognitive functioning by observing whether a patient responds differently to various types of superficially-similar stimuli. For example, if a the brain responds differently to intellegible words than to nonsense syllables delivered with similar pitch and volume, that would suggest not only an ability to hear, but also the ability to process what is heard.

 

If Michael had allowed the Schindlers to hire a doctor to give Terri a PET scan, that would have answered a lot of questions. Indeed, if Michael were confident that Terri was "nothing but a vegetable", he'd lose nothing by letting them do it. If nothing else, any money they spent on the testing would be money they couldn't spend on legal fees against him. Why do you suppose Michael refused to allow any such testing?

True. The claim that the autopsy and/or CT scans proved that she could never recover was bunk: people have somehow managed to recover from damage that was just as bad as Terri's could be proven by those methods to have been.

AFAIK an autopsy is far more reliable than any diagnose while someone is still alive. So how does anybody know how badly damaged the brain of those who recovered was?

AFAIK an autopsy is far more reliable than any diagnose while someone is still alive. So how does anybody know how badly damaged the brain of those who recovered was?

 

Dissection may provide more accurate insight into the amount of damage than e.g. a CT scan, but what matters is not the amount of damage but the amount of functionality remaining. There are people who can walk and talk despite the fact that parts of the brain that would normally be necessary for such functions are completely gone. The brain is sometimes amazingly capable of adapting to damage, but there is no way someone looking at autopsy sections can determine to what extent it has done so.<p>

 

To use a crude analogy, suppose a power surge hits a crossbar telephone switching office knocking out a lot of the equipment. Some technicians come in and try to patch around things. Which will be a more accurate way of determing the extent to which the equipment could be made at least somewhat functional: (1) attempt to use it, assisting technicians as necessary, or (2) rip it all apart and subject various bits and pieces of it to analysis. The latter type of analysis might be better able to quantify the damage ("1,531 blown J7 relays, 41 blown QZ7 control modules, etc.") but would in many cases be incapable of assessing its functional condition. A switching office might be capable of limited operation even with 90% of its circuits blown, if the technician can route around them. On the other hand, a switching office might be totally incapacitated and unsalvageable even with 75% of its circuits working if there are critical circuits that can't be routed around.<p>

 

Nobody really knows what types of damage the brain can and cannot route around. The only way to determine in many cases whether the brain has routed around damage is by functional testing. But that only works on live patients.

Repost from this thread

 

Did they suggest that a married man who has bedded, sired children by, and openly pledged to marry another woman should not be trusted to accurately represent his wife's wishes, nor be trusted not to sandbag her condition?

Please. She was legally brain dead YEARS before all that happened with NO hope for recovery or rehabilitation. Only the religious nutjobs believed GOD was suddenly going to save her. What, Michael Schivo was supposed to just sit by and wait for her to die and not live on himself?

 

He could have gone to court and received a divorce any time after the third anniversary of his wife's collapse. Why didn't he?

 

Michael Schiavo overtly acted to try to prevent Terri's recovery as soon as he stood to inherit a trust fund upon her death. I see no particular reason he did not take advantage of opportunities alone with her to sandbag her condition as well.

 

Again, there was NO POSSIBLITY of rehabilitation or recovery.

 

How do you know? Before the malpractice trial, the doctors who examined Terri uniformly indicated that she seemed to be recovering, and recommended that Michael take her to see certain specialists who, at the time, he could not afford. At the malpractice trial, Michael testified to his intentions to take Terri do see such therapists, and she was awarded money for that purpose. Once the money was awarded, rather than using the money to improve Terri's therapy, Michael ordered it discontinued altogether.

 

Since 1993, when Michael ordered therapy discontinued, some major new technologies have been developed for the diagnosis and rehabilitation of brain-injured people. Many people have made substantial recoveries using such techniques, even though they would have been considered hopeless cases in 1993. I hardly think one has to be a religious zealot to suggest that Michael should have allowed Terri to receive the benefit of such technologies, especially since it wouldn't cost him a dime of his own money.

 

If Michael Schiavo had spent most of the malpractice money awarded for Terri's rehab on that purpose before declaring her condition hopeless, he might reasonably have been considered sincere. But since he didn't spend any on that purpose, his motives are as transparent as cellophane.

Or, looking at it another way, if he hadn't had to fight her nutjob parents in court and spend the money there, she would have been able to die (as she had wished would happen if she ever became brain dead) and he also wouldnt have had to psend money on worthless hospital stays.

 

How do you know that's what she wished? Do you have some information on the subject I do not?

 

Further, the autopsy found that Terri's "collapse" in 1990 was not caused by bulemia. Choke holds do not always leave visible marks, but can result in both localized ischemia in the brain (as was observed at autopsy); an associated struggle may result in hypokalemia (as was observed by the doctors trying to revive Terri in 1990).

 

So, your hypothesis is that he killed her? Funny how "theories" can stand up but how easily you forget the autopsy also concluded what was known ALL ALONG and that is that her brain functions had ceased YEARS AGO, in fact she was even WORSE than they had originally thought. Funny how the "liberal" media hardly publicized that info huh?

 

I have seen on teleivison a man walking around and talking whose brain was more than 60% GONE as a result of a gunshot injury. A doctor or medical examiner looking at the amount of damage to the person's brain would have concluded that the brain damage was certainly fatal, but the fact that the person was capable of walking and talking (not smoothly, but understandably) would imply that it obviously wasn't.

 

One very useful technology which has appeared in the last decade is the PET scan. Rather than merely identifying the locations of various fleshy bits of the brain, the PET scan can detect electrical activity. One of the things doctors have discovered is that while most people have roughly the same brain layout (a certain area handles sight, another hearing, etc.), people with brain damage can sometimes "route around" the damaged areas. If someone's visual center is destroyed, for example, its role can sometimes be taken over by other parts of the brain. The PET scan allows for much better diagnosis than CT or MRI scans, because rather than looking to see if e.g. the visual center of someone's brain seems to be intact, they can instead see if any part of the brain reacts to visual stimuli.

 

The improvements in diagnostic accuracy made possible by PET scans also allow for improved regimens of therapy. In brain-injured patients, it can be difficult to determine what sorts of therapy will be effective. PET scans allow therapies to be more effectively focused than was previously possible.

 

The ME who performed the autopsy explicitly said that the autopsy could not determine with certainty that Terri was in an unrecoverable vegetative state. Why do you maintain that it could?

 

True choke holds dont leave visible marks, but neither do alien ray guns, or stangulation methods used by Sith lords by way of the force (hey were speculating here, why not go all out?)

Something caused Terri to collapse. It wasn't bulemia, nor was it any condition that reappeared in the succeeding years. I don't think it was an alien ray gun, nor the Force. Michael indicated that Terri seemed fine a few hours before her "collapse". A choke hold is the only sensible explanation I can figure that fit with the evidence. What would you suppose would have caused the collapse?

 

I must comment Mr. Schiavo for the almost perfect crime. Not only getting away with murder, but picking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bargain. Unfortunately for him, even getting away with a crime in this world won't help in the next.

 

I think those words speak for themselves about the phallacy of "divine intervention". Yeah god decided to let this woman sit brain dead for YEARS against her wishes, allowed religious crazies to convince the parents that the doctors were wrong and god would save her, and her husband, is painted as a murderer.

 

Believe what you will. Actually, I believe Michael may well get his comeuppance in this world if he continues to be a blabbermouth. The Schindler's attourney, Patricia Fields Anderson, indicated that if she could get Michael to actually stand for a deposition his case would collapse (which is probably why he never bothered to show up when they were scheduled). Since his lawyer George Felos isn't with him on talk shows anymore, he may yet slip up.

 

You might want to read this so as to learn a little truth of the matter as opposed to what the conservative media told us about her condition...

 

I'll check out those links, though I have read quite a bit about the case. Often I'll see a liberal piece suggest something, a conserative one rebut it, and nothing to counteract the rebuttal.

 

Let me ask you a few questions:

 

-1- Are there any doctors who wanted Terri to get better, who examined her after 1994 and did not believe she had prospects for improvement? Names, dates, and references would be appreciated.

 

-2- Is it not true that PET scans and other new diagnostic tools have made possible the recovery of some patients whose condition was shown by 1993-era technology to be comparable to, or worse than, Terri's?

 

-3- What rebuttal has there been to the affidavits from health-care professionals who claim to have given Terri small amounts of food by mouth in the 1990's, before Michael prevented them from doing so? I don't think such professionals have ever been given a chance to take the stand.

 

-4- Is it not true that the function of a swallowing test is to determine whether a patient may be given food by mouth as safely as via g-tube, and that failing such a test merely means that attempting to feed a patient by mouth may be hazardous, rather than that such effort would be guaranteed to fail?

 

-5- What harm could have befallen Terri as a consequence of allowing the Schindlers to try to give her food and water once the g-tube was removed?

 

My belief that Terri Schiavo was wronged stems not from religious beliefs, but rather from a few secular beliefs:

 

-1- If someone states they want another person dead, they do not want the person to get better.

 

-2- Diagnoses given on behalf of someone who does not want the patient to get better should be suspect.

 

-3- There existed tools that would have allowed more accurate diagnosis of Terri's condition than any tools that have been used toward that end.

 

-4- Before the state orders someone put to death, it should be 100% certain that such action is not wrongful.

 

If someone is on death row, but reasonable doubts emerge about the person's guilt, the person should not be executed unless or until all such doubts are put to rest. I hope you would agree with that.

 

Is there any reason the same principles should not apply for a person who hasn't even been accused of any crime?

The whole Terri thing is a farce. There have been a number of cases since Terri where people who were concious,but needed life support were purposely removed from it because they couldn't pay the bills. Those people begged for their lives, and were put to death by the Texas government. No christians were out protesting their deaths. Why not? (partially because they were minorities), but mainly because this whole thing is to build the pretext for complete government control of women's bodies including life and death. This is a wedge issue on the abortion debate. Nothing else. If you want the government to control your body, then please support Terri. If you want to have even basic liberty and control of your body, then please support Michael. He may be a complete jerk, I don't know, but he is on the right side on this issue and I would back him 100% even if the first thing he does everyday is strangle 100 puppies and drink their blood.

 

Cheers!

The whole Terri thing is a farce. There have been a number of cases since Terri where people who were concious,but needed life support were purposely removed from it because they couldn't pay the bills. Those people begged for their lives, and were put to death by the Texas government.

 

If someone else had offered to pay the bills and care for the people, would the government have sought to prevent it? That IMHO is a major difference between Terri's case and some others such as you describe.

 

Terri's parents would have been willing to take their daughter into their home and care for her, and her siblings volunteered to help in that effort. As to whether they would have had the stamina to provide such care year after year, I don't know, but it wouldn't have had to cost taxpayers a dime.

 

Terri's primary needs were: (1) food and liquid: Ensure or similar product, at about $8/day, and (2) periodic change of diapers. Nothing high-tech; nothing particularly expensive (some teenagers probably cost more). People were willing to provide them. Why should they have been forbidden?

 

No christians were out protesting their deaths. Why not?

If someone had offered to pay for the equipment to keep the people alive, would the government have prevented it? That a person needs something does not imply that the government should compel taxpayers to provide it.

 

(partially because they were minorities), but mainly because this whole thing is to build the pretext for complete government control of women's bodies including life and death.

 

It was the government you love so much that insisted that Terri Schiavo be fatally dehydrated. Us EvilNastyHorribleChristianFascists wanted the government to allow Terri's parents to care for their daughter.

 

This is a wedge issue on the abortion debate. Nothing else. If you want the government to control your body, then please support Terri. If you want to have even basic liberty and control of your body, then please support Michael. He may be a complete jerk, I don't know, but he is on the right side on this issue and I would back him 100% even if the first thing he does everyday is strangle 100 puppies and drink their blood.

 

I do not want the government to control my body, which is why I supported the Schindlers. If I am incapacitated, I would hope to be cared for by those who love me. If it ever becomes clear that my caregiver (whoever it might be) does not love me, I would hope to be given over to someone else that does.

 

I would not want the government to allow someone who no longer loves me to order my death for his own selfish interests, even if he invents some supposed "wish" on my part not to live as I do.

 

In what way am I being unreasonable?

I should thank you for your post, Robert M. I'd not understood Michael's supporters, but you gave me some useful insight. Because many (though by no means all) of the people who happen to support Terri happen to be opposed to abortion, you feel that you must oppose them in this instance without regard for the merits of the case at hand. I guess that is understandable, though I find it rather sad.

 

I used to be a liberal once, btw, and would instinctively disbelieve anything certain conservative groups said. But once I started listening to what conservatives were actually saying, rather than dismissing it out of hand, I came to realize that there was a lot of truth to it. To be sure, I sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction against liberals, but there's a difference between my new style and the old: if the Washington Post says the sky is blue, I would expect to look out the window and find it pink, but if I looked out the window and observed that it really was blue, I wouldn't continue to believe that it was pink.

Terri's parents would have been willing to take their daughter into their home and care for her, and her siblings volunteered to help in that effort. As to whether they would have had the stamina to provide such care year after year, I don't know, but it wouldn't have had to cost taxpayers a dime.

 

Terri's primary needs were: (1) food and liquid: Ensure or similar product, at about $8/day, and (2) periodic change of diapers. Nothing high-tech; nothing particularly expensive (some teenagers probably cost more). People were willing to provide them. Why should they have been forbidden?

They were not forbidden from Terri. Terri did not want them and the court SUPPORTED TERRI'S RIGHT to not be forced to endure those actions to her body. You support forcing Terri to receive treatment she clearly stated to her husband that she did not ever want under any circumstances. Terri was an adult. That means she is free to control her own medical care. Being incapacitated, by law, that responsibility falls to her husband. This is no freak case here. We are talking about a situation that arises daily in America. There is a long legal standing that adults have the right to refuse medical treatments. We are talking about Liberty and Diginity. You can't put a price on those things, and we certainly do not let them be bought in the America for any damn price.

 

If a pregnant woman wants an abortion because she can not afford to raise the child, should her parents be able to force her to carry the child to term by putting up the cash to raise the kid? Is a person's body for sale to relatives with enough cash? I thought we outlawed slavery a long time ago in this country for good reasons. Terri did not wish to be on life support. That is her right. You need to respect Terri's right to die with dignity.

 

What is your alternative? Any relation, or maybe even a stranger, can take control of people with medical conditions that they do not want treated and force them to be treated? Is that what you support, because that is what this case is really about. You can slander Mr. Schiavo, but the court heard all the "evidence" and found it lacking. That is the law. If adults should not control their own bodies then who should?

 

No christians were out protesting their deaths. Why not?

If someone had offered to pay for the equipment to keep the people alive, would the government have prevented it? That a person needs something does not imply that the government should compel taxpayers to provide it.

 

I am not the pro-life person here arguing that every life is precious and must be protected at the expense of individual rights or treasure. I am arguing that Terri's supporters who gave plenty of money to Terri's legal fund suddenly became tight wads when another opportunity to save a life presented itself. Why couldn't a special law be written for those individuals?

 

Congress held a special session and President Bush flew in from his vacation in Texas to sign Terri's law. A law that applied only to Terri! Do you think that didn't cost the taxpayers anything?!!!?! A fucking law for a specific person. That has never ever been done in U.S. history BTW and it is a terrible precedent. Since corporations are individuals there is now a precendent for passing a law targeting a specific corporation. I suspect we will see one used to break a Union strike within our lifetimes, but I am drifting from the original topic and I am sorry for that.

 

If Terri's plight was so great, why hasn't there been a follow on law that applies to everyone? Terri's situation is not unique. Do you think family members of other families have not had similar disagreements? This stuff happens all the time. Its why the public approval ratings for this action by the Republicans are so low.

 

 

It was the government you love so much that insisted that Terri Schiavo be fatally dehydrated. Us EvilNastyHorribleChristianFascists wanted the government to allow Terri's parents to care for their daughter.

The judicial branch of the government (Thank the founders for checks and balances) did its job and protected Terri from being abused and violated by her parents, Congress, and the President. That was Terri's wish, and I am thankful that they did because it protected all of us even you terrible EvilNastyHorribleChristianFascists You guys wanted to strip Terri of her humanity and reduce her to a thing that can be bought. A teddy bear of sorts for Terri's parents so that they could cuddle her and feel all warm and fuzzy. I know you believe you knew what was best for Terri, but only Terri really did. You aren't allowed to control other people that way. Even parents are forbidden to control their adult children that way. That is the law. If the law is so bad, then why don't the Republicans change it to fit the view of Terri's supporters? They can pass any law they please since they control the whole government. I think the lack of a follow up law to apply to everyone highlights the politcal sham festival that this stunt really was. It was a shameful desecration of Terri, IMO.

 

 

I do not want the government to control my body, which is why I supported the Schindlers. If I am incapacitated, I would hope to be cared for by those who love me. If it ever becomes clear that my caregiver (whoever it might be) does not love me, I would hope to be given over to someone else that does.

 

The Republicans passed a freaking law to do exactly what you say you would never want to have done. They overruled Terri's wishes and turned her into a political tool. Was that love? Why should Congress and the President have had any say at all in Terri's medical affairs? Did they truly know and love Terri? If they can mess with Terri, they can do the same thing to anyone. How about forcing gays to attend reeducation camps so they can be cured? If Terri could be forced to live, then its only a small jump to force gays to be cured. After all we love them and they simply can't make their own decisions. I mean they chose to be gay right, and AIDS is a risk to their lives as gays, so they clearly are not rational adults that can make their own decisions. We would be protecting their lives First the gays, and then the jews and atheists, right?

 

I would not want the government to allow someone who no longer loves me to order my death for his own selfish interests, even if he invents some supposed "wish" on my part not to live as I do.

 

In what way am I being unreasonable?

 

You presume to judge how much love one person has for another and use that as a basis for determining the civil rights of person being loved. You presume to know what Terri and Michael shared in their most initimate and private conversations. Are you God? That is not how our law works. There isn't a love meter in the courtroom you have to squeeze and make the top lights turn on to prove you really love your spouse and be allowed to make a medical decision on their behalf. Terri was an adult. She was legally married. Her medical care decisions by law fall to her husband. The amount of "love" and "happiness" in the marriage can not be measured by you or anyone. It is irrelevant. That is one of the major tenets of the marriage contract. What's love got to do with it? Do you want to alter one of the most basic structures of our society? Her parents presented their arguments that he was an unfit husband many times, to many judges over fifteen damn years, they even had access to high powered attorney's paid for by the EvilNastyHorribleChristianFascists, and the judges still all said "No way". If Mr. Shiavo is truly as bad as you say, then how is that possible? Was there some vast conspiracy of judges out to kill poor Terri? What was their motive for forcing her to die?

 

Do you really want these sorts of very common legal battles to resolve down to who has the most love for the incapacitated person? How that hell do you judge that? Or worse, how about the party that brings the most money to the table. This is about basic principles of liberty and dignity. I am sorry her parents feel left out in the cold. They should have built a stronger relationship with Terri when she was capable of making her own decisions and created a living will with her. That is the law. It is precise, it is blind, and it is necessary to prevent total chaos and truly heinous crimes against people incapable of defending themselves. Terri's parents presented only circumstantial evidence that Terri would want life support. That just isn't good enough and we should all be thankful that the judges threw it out in court. Even you should be thankful, or else it very well may come to pass that someone who does not love you would get to make all your decisions for you if you became incapacitated. Do you have a living will? You should.

 

For fun. Let's assume that you are right and the best case scenario is true. Terri's parent's are sinless angels and Mr Shiavo is el Diablo. Terri is given to her parents and a miracle occurs and she becomes 100% healed! It sounds great, but now a precendent is set, and parents can override the medical decisions of their children at will. They just have to tell the court that they love their children and need to protect them. It worked for Terri by God, so the court must give parents control over their children at will for life. What a hellish world that would be and no I am not exaggerating the problem because you propose to use "love" as a standard for making judicial decisions. Holy hell, what a nightmare that would be.

 

JUDGE: So how much to you love this man.

 

Plaintiff1: I love him from my toes to my nose sir.

 

Plaintiff2: I love him from here to the sea, and all around the pretty moon. My love is ever so much bigger you see.

 

JUDGE: I see.

 

Cheers!

Rob