Religions > Atheism > Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MarkA" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2005 06:23:29 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others will try
to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be taken to the
courts, and the law will either apply for all Americans or no Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily. Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and it costs
$80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the cheapest
facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid? I
thought they won a multi-million dollar lawsuit to provide for her
life-long medical expenses.
Republicans are making a mockery of this nation.
The party of "smaller government", indeed. We wouldn't need all these
laws if people would just do the *right thing* ;)
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
21 Mar 2005 09:21:03 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.21.12.23.00.984569@stopspam.net>,
manthony@stopspam.net says...
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others will try
to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be taken to the
courts, and the law will either apply for all Americans or no Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily. Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and it costs
$80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the cheapest
facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid?
If she qualifies for it, which she apparently does, then I'm sure it
will be used. My understanding was that the malpractice settlement was
around $1.2 million. However, first of all, lawyers could have taken up
to about a third of that. Then there's about a decade more of legal
fighting he's been through afterward. Also, my understanding was that
initially Michael was spending extravagantly on expensive "therapy",
until it became clear that there was that could be medically done to
reverse the damage done to her brain. Now with the money that might be
left, even if invested aggressively, it's doubtful that it would return
more than 80,000 after taxes.
Also, I'd comment that it's actually not that uncommon for people to get
million dollar settlements, or million dollar life insurance awards,
etc. Most people who get them are broke in about three to four years.
The crooks and lost relatives descend on them and take them for
everything they're worth. Plus, most people don't know how to manage
money, or they trust people who they shouldn't trust to manage it. If
Michael has managed to hang onto a good part of the money then it's
pretty rare.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
21 Mar 2005 10:49:35 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <pan.2005.03.21.12.23.00.984569@stopspam.net>, MarkA
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others will
try to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be taken to
the courts, and the law will either apply for all Americans or no
Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily. Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and it
costs $80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the cheapest
facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid? I
thought they won a multi-million dollar lawsuit to provide for her
life-long medical expenses.
Seen how much long term medical care costs lately? A million doesn't go
very far anymore. Particularly after you subtract all the lawyer fees...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
21 Mar 2005 04:29:38 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:zKidnd97-uGCZqPfRVn-tw@megapath.net...
In our last episode <pan.2005.03.21.12.23.00.984569@stopspam.net>, MarkA
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others will
try to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be taken to
the courts, and the law will either apply for all Americans or no
Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily.
Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and it
costs $80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the cheapest
facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid? I
thought they won a multi-million dollar lawsuit to provide for her
life-long medical expenses.
I think it was $700,000. It was all used to take excellent care of her and
her
husband has visited her and seen to her well-being more than anyone else,
including her parents. In fact, according to the court papers, the original
dispute between Terri's parents and her husband was that they wanted
part of the $700,000 themselves. He insisted on using it all for her upkeep.
The parents haven't spoken to him since then. My support goes to the
husband. He's trying to give her the release his wife wanted and, until she
gets it, he's taking the best care of her he can.
Seen how much long term medical care costs lately? A million doesn't go
very far anymore. Particularly after you subtract all the lawyer fees...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
21 Mar 2005 05:17:14 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <L6CdnVmNP-le16LfRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Michelle Malkin
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:zKidnd97-uGCZqPfRVn-tw@megapath.net...
In our last episode <pan.2005.03.21.12.23.00.984569@stopspam.net>, MarkA
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others will
try to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be taken to
the courts, and the law will either apply for all Americans or no
Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily.
Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and it
costs $80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the
cheapest facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid? I
thought they won a multi-million dollar lawsuit to provide for her
life-long medical expenses.
I think it was $700,000. It was all used to take excellent care of her and
her
husband has visited her and seen to her well-being more than anyone else,
including her parents. In fact, according to the court papers, the
original dispute between Terri's parents and her husband was that they
wanted part of the $700,000 themselves. He insisted on using it all for
her upkeep. The parents haven't spoken to him since then. My support goes
to the husband. He's trying to give her the release his wife wanted and,
until she gets it, he's taking the best care of her he can.
That's one part the parents don't like mentioned. That they tried suing
him TO GET THE MONEY...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Casey Kerrigan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
22 Mar 2005 10:55:19 AM |
|
|
In article <bZ-dne2ORudmyKLfRVn-oA@megapath.net>, Mark K. Bilbo
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <L6CdnVmNP-le16LfRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Michelle Malkin
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:zKidnd97-uGCZqPfRVn-tw@megapath.net...
In our last episode <pan.2005.03.21.12.23.00.984569@stopspam.net>, MarkA
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others will
try to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be taken to
the courts, and the law will either apply for all Americans or no
Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily.
Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and it
costs $80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the
cheapest facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid? I
thought they won a multi-million dollar lawsuit to provide for her
life-long medical expenses.
I think it was $700,000. It was all used to take excellent care of her and
her
husband has visited her and seen to her well-being more than anyone else,
including her parents. In fact, according to the court papers, the
original dispute between Terri's parents and her husband was that they
wanted part of the $700,000 themselves. He insisted on using it all for
her upkeep. The parents haven't spoken to him since then. My support goes
to the husband. He's trying to give her the release his wife wanted and,
until she gets it, he's taking the best care of her he can.
That's one part the parents don't like mentioned. That they tried suing
him TO GET THE MONEY...
Also interesting, it was Terri's parents who encouraged the husband to
start seeing other women and get on with his life. Terri's parents
event set the husband up with some dates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
22 Mar 2005 09:48:00 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <220320050855197099%casey@caseykerrigan.com>, Casey
Kerrigan pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
In article <bZ-dne2ORudmyKLfRVn-oA@megapath.net>, Mark K. Bilbo
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <L6CdnVmNP-le16LfRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Michelle
Malkin pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:zKidnd97-uGCZqPfRVn-tw@megapath.net...
In our last episode <pan.2005.03.21.12.23.00.984569@stopspam.net>,
MarkA pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:36:15 -0800, Barney Lyon wrote:
The bill is worded to affect Terri Schiavo only, although others
will try to use it and clog the federal courts. The case will be
taken to the courts, and the law will either apply for all
Americans or no Americans.
Thousands of Americans are taken off food and hydration daily.
Americans
who are in better shape than Terri Schiavo.
Who is going to pay for this? Terri Schiavo is on Medicaid, and
it costs $80,000/year to keep her in a hospice. Hospices are the
cheapest facilities for such care.
Not to change the subject or anything, but why is she on Medicaid?
I thought they won a multi-million dollar lawsuit to provide for
her life-long medical expenses.
I think it was $700,000. It was all used to take excellent care of her
and her
husband has visited her and seen to her well-being more than anyone
else, including her parents. In fact, according to the court papers,
the original dispute between Terri's parents and her husband was that
they wanted part of the $700,000 themselves. He insisted on using it
all for her upkeep. The parents haven't spoken to him since then. My
support goes to the husband. He's trying to give her the release his
wife wanted and, until she gets it, he's taking the best care of her
he can.
That's one part the parents don't like mentioned. That they tried suing
him TO GET THE MONEY...
Also interesting, it was Terri's parents who encouraged the husband to
start seeing other women and get on with his life. Terri's parents event
set the husband up with some dates.
And are now bashing him in the press for having done so...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
21 Mar 2005 04:29:30 PM |
|
|
It's mostly what quibbler stated.
Terri Schiavo had been undergoing therapy in the first few years after
the heart attack. With no improvement to her condition, Michael
Schiavo took her to California for experimental =93thalamic stimulator
implant=94 surgery in her brain. The protocol called for 3 months of
treatment, but Michael Schiavo wouldn't give up on it for a year.
Michael Schiavo, in case you didn't know, went back to school to become
an emergency room nurse after his wife's heart attack. From the
Orlando Sentinel:
"All but a few doctors who have examined Terri say it is only her
reflexes that appear to respond to light, sound and touch. Those
doctors say Terri died 15 years ago. Michael Schiavo's friends and
family say it took him seven years (after the heart attack) to come to
grips with that.
He kept vigil at her side and, according to court records, sought
aggressive
rehabilitative therapy. He took her to California for experimental
surgery, admitted her
to a brain-injury center in Bradenton and hired an aide to take her to
parks, to museums,
to the beauty shop - anything to stimulate her.
He took classes at St. Petersburg Community College in 1991 and began
studying nursing -
so he could better care for his wife. Today, Michael Schiavo is a
respiratory therapist
and an emergency-room nurse at a Pinellas County hospital.
But there was nothing Michael Schiavo could do to draw Terri out of her
silent cocoon and,
over time, her husband accepted her doctors' prognosis. Her cerebral
cortex was gone. She
could not think, talk or reason and never would again.
"It was his mother's death in 1997 that made him realize Terri needed
to be allowed to die.
In 1998, he asked Pinellas Circuit Judge George W. Greer to order his
wife's twice-a-day
artificial feedings halted, and after an emotional trial, Greer agreed,
setting off an
endless round of appeals by her parents."
This has been going on for 15 years. Changing her diapers in a
hospice costs $80,000/year - the first 7 years was not just board &
care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
22 Mar 2005 12:36:02 PM |
|
|
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111444170.871269.302240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It's mostly what quibbler stated.
Terri Schiavo had been undergoing therapy in the first few years after
the heart attack. With no improvement to her condition, Michael
Schiavo took her to California for experimental thalamic stimulator
implant surgery in her brain. The protocol called for 3 months of
treatment, but Michael Schiavo wouldn't give up on it for a year.
Michael Schiavo, in case you didn't know, went back to school to become
an emergency room nurse after his wife's heart attack. From the
Orlando Sentinel:
"All but a few doctors who have examined Terri say it is only her
reflexes that appear to respond to light, sound and touch. Those
doctors say Terri died 15 years ago. Michael Schiavo's friends and
family say it took him seven years (after the heart attack) to come to
grips with that.
He kept vigil at her side and, according to court records, sought
aggressive rehabilitative therapy. He took her to California for
experimental
surgery, admitted her to a brain-injury center in Bradenton and hired an
aide
to take her to parks, to museums, to the beauty shop - anything to
stimulate her.
He took classes at St. Petersburg Community College in 1991 and began
studying nursing - so he could better care for his wife. Today, Michael
Schiavo
is a respiratory therapist and an emergency-room nurse at a Pinellas County
hospital.
But there was nothing Michael Schiavo could do to draw Terri out of her
silent cocoon and, over time, her husband accepted her doctors' prognosis.
Her cerebral cortex was gone. She could not think, talk or reason and never
would again.
"It was his mother's death in 1997 that made him realize Terri needed
to be allowed to die. In 1998, he asked Pinellas Circuit Judge George W.
Greer to order his wife's twice-a-day artificial feedings halted, and after
an
emotional trial, Greer agreed, setting off an endless round of appeals by
her parents."
This has been going on for 15 years. Changing her diapers in a
hospice costs $80,000/year - the first 7 years was not just board &
care.
If *anything* you and quibbler report is true (and I have no reason to doubt
either of you), it sounds like Michael Shaivo has been a real trooper and
nobody in their right mind can impune his behavior over the years.
Your information is new to me and very enlightening. Thank you for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
22 Mar 2005 04:12:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:36:02 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111444170.871269.302240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It's mostly what quibbler stated.
Terri Schiavo had been undergoing therapy in the first few years after
the heart attack. With no improvement to her condition, Michael Schiavo
took her to California for experimental thalamic stimulator implant
surgery in her brain. The protocol called for 3 months of treatment, but
Michael Schiavo wouldn't give up on it for a year.
Michael Schiavo, in case you didn't know, went back to school to become
an emergency room nurse after his wife's heart attack. From the Orlando
Sentinel:
"All but a few doctors who have examined Terri say it is only her
reflexes that appear to respond to light, sound and touch. Those doctors
say Terri died 15 years ago. Michael Schiavo's friends and family say it
took him seven years (after the heart attack) to come to grips with that.
He kept vigil at her side and, according to court records, sought
aggressive rehabilitative therapy. He took her to California for
experimental
surgery, admitted her to a brain-injury center in Bradenton and hired an
aide
to take her to parks, to museums, to the beauty shop - anything to
stimulate her.
He took classes at St. Petersburg Community College in 1991 and began
studying nursing - so he could better care for his wife. Today, Michael
Schiavo
is a respiratory therapist and an emergency-room nurse at a Pinellas
County
hospital.
But there was nothing Michael Schiavo could do to draw Terri out of her
silent cocoon and, over time, her husband accepted her doctors'
prognosis. Her cerebral cortex was gone. She could not think, talk or
reason and never would again.
"It was his mother's death in 1997 that made him realize Terri needed to
be allowed to die. In 1998, he asked Pinellas Circuit Judge George W.
Greer to order his wife's twice-a-day artificial feedings halted, and
after
an
emotional trial, Greer agreed, setting off an endless round of appeals by
her parents."
This has been going on for 15 years. Changing her diapers in a hospice
costs $80,000/year - the first 7 years was not just board & care.
If *anything* you and quibbler report is true (and I have no reason to
doubt either of you), it sounds like Michael Shaivo has been a real
trooper and nobody in their right mind can impune his behavior over the
years.
Remember, you are talking about the people who managed to denigrate the
service record of Kerry, a decorated veteran, while lauding the patriotism
of a National Guardsman who can't produce any evidence to show that he
ever showed up for duty. These people know how to do Public Relations.
Your information is new to me and very enlightening. Thank you
for it.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
23 Mar 2005 03:27:22 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.22.22.11.37.972798@stopspam.net...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:36:02 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
Remember, you are talking about the people who managed to denigrate the
service record of Kerry, a decorated veteran, while lauding the patriotism
of a National Guardsman who can't produce any evidence to show that he
ever showed up for duty. These people know how to do Public Relations.
Irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zenin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
23 Mar 2005 04:35:25 PM |
|
|
In ba.politics The Pervert <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:36:02 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
Remember, you are talking about the people who managed to denigrate the
service record of Kerry, a decorated veteran, while lauding the
patriotism of a National Guardsman who can't produce any evidence to show
that he ever showed up for duty. These people know how to do Public
Relations.
Irrelevant.
Mark's point as I read it was noting the fact that the republicans have
a long and "proud" history of using their public relations skills to
twist the true demons into saints and vis-versa. The example he gave
was just one instance, but the record (especially from about 1980 on) is
as clear as it is long.
The connection here is that they are now attempting to demonize the
husband and twist the parents into champions, all in an attempt to
further their own political interests. Never mind that in doing so they
are also being extremely hypocritical on a long list of issues:
Cutting Medicade funding... (it's paying for her care)
Cutting Malpractice suits... (also paying for her care)
States rights/federalism... (throwing out the state's jurisdiction)
Fighting Big Government... (it doesn't get much more heavy handed
then the Congress of the USA butting into a specific family's
issue).
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the rules
and try again).
Sanctity of Marriage... (overruling the husband's wishes)
Individual freedom... (overruling her own wishes)
-Zenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 01:22:35 AM |
|
|
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
news:1111617225.221523@news.rhps.org...
In ba.politics The Pervert <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:36:02 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
Remember, you are talking about the people who managed to denigrate the
service record of Kerry, a decorated veteran, while lauding the
patriotism of a National Guardsman who can't produce any evidence to
show
that he ever showed up for duty. These people know how to do Public
Relations.
Irrelevant.
Mark's point as I read it was noting the fact that the republicans
have
a long and "proud" history of using their public relations skills to
twist the true demons into saints and vis-versa. The example he gave
was just one instance, but the record (especially from about 1980 on)
is
as clear as it is long.
The connection here is that they are now attempting to demonize the
husband and twist the parents into champions, all in an attempt to
further their own political interests. Never mind that in doing so
they
are also being extremely hypocritical on a long list of issues:
Cutting Medicade funding... (it's paying for her care)
Cutting Malpractice suits... (also paying for her care)
States rights/federalism... (throwing out the state's
jurisdiction)
Fighting Big Government... (it doesn't get much more heavy handed
then the Congress of the USA butting into a specific family's
issue).
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the rules
and try again).
Sanctity of Marriage... (overruling the husband's wishes)
Individual freedom... (overruling her own wishes)
-Zenin
That's pretty much *****, too. Sure, I disagree with many of the
policies of this administration. But I have a rational and open mind.
Unlike you and Mark, I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals.
And that's as much ***** as anything you oppose on the right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 06:47:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:22:35 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
news:1111617225.221523@news.rhps.org...
In ba.politics The Pervert <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:36:02 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
Remember, you are talking about the people who managed to denigrate
the service record of Kerry, a decorated veteran, while lauding the
patriotism of a National Guardsman who can't produce any evidence to
show
that he ever showed up for duty. These people know how to do Public
Relations.
Irrelevant.
Mark's point as I read it was noting the fact that the republicans
have
a long and "proud" history of using their public relations skills to
twist the true demons into saints and vis-versa. The example he
gave was just one instance, but the record (especially from about
1980 on)
is
as clear as it is long.
The connection here is that they are now attempting to demonize the
husband and twist the parents into champions, all in an attempt to
further their own political interests. Never mind that in doing so
they
are also being extremely hypocritical on a long list of issues:
Cutting Medicade funding... (it's paying for her care)
Cutting Malpractice suits... (also paying for her care)
States rights/federalism... (throwing out the state's
jurisdiction)
Fighting Big Government... (it doesn't get much more heavy
handed then the Congress of the USA butting into a specific
family's issue).
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the
rules and try again).
Sanctity of Marriage... (overruling the husband's wishes)
Individual freedom... (overruling her own wishes)
-Zenin
That's pretty much *****, too. Sure, I disagree with many of the
policies of this administration. But I have a rational and open mind.
Unlike you and Mark, I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that
are little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals.
And that's as much ***** as anything you oppose on the right.
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational." Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
Part of the public relations campaign to get public opinion on the side of
the "keep Terri alive at all costs" crowd involves impugning the motives
of her husband. He doesn't want her to die because there is no hope for
her recovery, and she clearly stated that she would never want to be kept
alive in this condition. No, he wants to spend her money, marry his
sweetie, and party like there is no tomorrow.
Anyone who takes the time to research the facts finds that Michael has
done *everything* that a loving, dedicated husband could be reasonably
expected to do. It is Terri's parents who are deluded into thinking that
she may still get better.
Ten years ago, I would have thought that nobody could twist such a story
180 degrees, and make the good guy look bad, and vice versa. I would have
thought that even if such a Public Relations coup were *possible*, nobody
would be so wicked and cruel to actually do it. The events of the last
two Presidential elections, and the current situation with TS, have been
very educational for me.
Make no mistake: I don't think the Dems are saints and the Repubs are
villains in all this. I think the Repubs have really pushed the envelope
of smear tactics, but the Dems will be catching up soon, and possibly
surpassing them. I cited the Kerry/Swift Boat Veterans as an example of
how a well-run PR campaign can convince a lot of people that black is
white.
I see nothing that would constitute "ridiculously sweeping statements
that are little more than biased *****" in the above paragraphs. I am
not "demonizing the Repubs and deifying the ultra liberals", as you claim.
I am stating my opinion, and a few of the facts on which it is based. If
you disagree, let's hear the rationale.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 10:38:41 AM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.24.12.47.16.832542@stopspam.net...
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:22:35 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
news:1111617225.221523@news.rhps.org...
In ba.politics The Pervert <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:36:02 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
Remember, you are talking about the people who managed to denigrate
the service record of Kerry, a decorated veteran, while lauding the
patriotism of a National Guardsman who can't produce any evidence to
show
that he ever showed up for duty. These people know how to do Public
Relations.
Irrelevant.
Mark's point as I read it was noting the fact that the republicans
have
a long and "proud" history of using their public relations skills
to
twist the true demons into saints and vis-versa. The example he
gave was just one instance, but the record (especially from about
1980 on)
is
as clear as it is long.
The connection here is that they are now attempting to demonize the
husband and twist the parents into champions, all in an attempt to
further their own political interests. Never mind that in doing so
they
are also being extremely hypocritical on a long list of issues:
Cutting Medicade funding... (it's paying for her care)
Cutting Malpractice suits... (also paying for her care)
States rights/federalism... (throwing out the state's
jurisdiction)
Fighting Big Government... (it doesn't get much more heavy
handed then the Congress of the USA butting into a specific
family's issue).
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if
you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the
rules and try again).
Sanctity of Marriage... (overruling the husband's wishes)
Individual freedom... (overruling her own wishes)
-Zenin
That's pretty much *****, too. Sure, I disagree with many of the
policies of this administration. But I have a rational and open mind.
Unlike you and Mark, I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that
are little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals.
And that's as much ***** as anything you oppose on the right.
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational." Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if
you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the
rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 02:59:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:38:41 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational." Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if
you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the
rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
I won't quibble about the fact that that quote is from Zenin's post, not
mine, because I agree with it. In the USA, Congress makes the laws, and
the Judicial Branch applies to cases brought before it. In the case of
Terri Schiavo, the court has made a ruling based on *years* of testimony
from witnesses on both sides. There is no indication that the court is
being reckless or unfair. Yet, the President and the Legislature are
trying to circumvent the judgment of the court, because they don't agree
with the decision. If that isn't disregarding the "rule of law", I don't
know what is.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 06:25:35 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.24.20.58.50.849444@stopspam.net...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:38:41 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational."
Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if
you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change the
rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
I won't quibble about the fact that that quote is from Zenin's post, not
mine, because I agree with it. In the USA, Congress makes the laws, and
the Judicial Branch applies to cases brought before it. In the case of
Terri Schiavo, the court has made a ruling based on *years* of testimony
from witnesses on both sides. There is no indication that the court is
being reckless or unfair. Yet, the President and the Legislature are
trying to circumvent the judgment of the court, because they don't agree
with the decision. If that isn't disregarding the "rule of law", I don't
know what is.
Essentially I don't disagree with both of you regarding the outcome of the
Sciavo case. What I disagree with is the cavalier trashing of anybody who
disagrees with you, especially those who happen to be Republican. That
seems to be the popular/required sport among those who have been losing
(politically) for the past several years. But it's a ***** game played
by ***** people.
Congress passed a law that didn't get through the courts. It happens all
the time. Members of Congress know, and freely admit, that they pass
unconstitutional laws all the time. Would you characterize that as
"disregarding the rule of law?" Or is it playing the game the way the game
is played. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. This one didn't bully
through and the conservative Supreme Court declined to get involved.. Thus,
the process works.
That, actually, seems to be a pretty good sign.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
25 Mar 2005 06:32:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:25:35 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.24.20.58.50.849444@stopspam.net...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:38:41 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational."
Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear,
if
you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change
the rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
I won't quibble about the fact that that quote is from Zenin's post, not
mine, because I agree with it. In the USA, Congress makes the laws, and
the Judicial Branch applies to cases brought before it. In the case of
Terri Schiavo, the court has made a ruling based on *years* of testimony
from witnesses on both sides. There is no indication that the court is
being reckless or unfair. Yet, the President and the Legislature are
trying to circumvent the judgment of the court, because they don't agree
with the decision. If that isn't disregarding the "rule of law", I
don't know what is.
Essentially I don't disagree with both of you regarding the outcome of the
Sciavo case. What I disagree with is the cavalier trashing of anybody who
disagrees with you, especially those who happen to be Republican. That
seems to be the popular/required sport among those who have been losing
(politically) for the past several years. But it's a ***** game played
by ***** people.
Congress passed a law that didn't get through the courts. It happens all
the time. Members of Congress know, and freely admit, that they pass
unconstitutional laws all the time. Would you characterize that as
"disregarding the rule of law?" Or is it playing the game the way the
game is played. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. This one didn't
bully through and the conservative Supreme Court declined to get
involved.. Thus, the process works.
That, actually, seems to be a pretty good sign.
I am a generally forgiving person, but I think you are giving Congress too
much "benefit of the doubt." This isn't a case of Congress passing a law
that is going to test the limits of constitutionality. This was Congress
passing a law specifically intended to usurp the authority of the State
Court in a specific case, because a particularly vocal religious faction
in this country is enjoying a degree of influence in government that it
has not seen in decades.
I think it is that religious influence in government that concerns me
most, and this is just the latest, most egregious example. It started
during Bush's first week in office, when he withdrew foreign aid to any
country that made abortion services available to its people. It continued
with the National Cancer Institute posting on its website that having an
abortion increases the risk of contracting breast cancer. Of all the
people writing papers on breast cancer, there was only one who held that
view, and he was (big surprise), an devout opponent of abortion. There
are many scientists, well respected in their fields, who have had their
advice dismissed because it didn't fit with GW's ideology.
Bush doesn't use scientific information to make informed decisions. He
makes decisions based on his own pre-existing beliefs, then digs up a
fringe scientist who is willing to support his decision. That is really
stupid, and dangerous.
FWIW, I am a Republican, but I am embarrassed by what my party has become.
Of course, the Dems are not much better. I am hoping that the current
trend of trying to roll back the secularization of government is a
short-lived one.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
25 Mar 2005 10:17:40 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.25.12.31.39.174169@stopspam.net...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:25:35 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.24.20.58.50.849444@stopspam.net...
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:38:41 -0800, The Pervert wrote:
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational."
Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear,
if
you
don't like how the law decided your case...simply change
the rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that
are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
I won't quibble about the fact that that quote is from Zenin's post,
not
mine, because I agree with it. In the USA, Congress makes the laws,
and
the Judicial Branch applies to cases brought before it. In the case of
Terri Schiavo, the court has made a ruling based on *years* of
testimony
from witnesses on both sides. There is no indication that the court is
being reckless or unfair. Yet, the President and the Legislature are
trying to circumvent the judgment of the court, because they don't
agree
with the decision. If that isn't disregarding the "rule of law", I
don't know what is.
Essentially I don't disagree with both of you regarding the outcome of
the
Sciavo case. What I disagree with is the cavalier trashing of anybody
who
disagrees with you, especially those who happen to be Republican. That
seems to be the popular/required sport among those who have been losing
(politically) for the past several years. But it's a ***** game
played
by ***** people.
Congress passed a law that didn't get through the courts. It happens
all
the time. Members of Congress know, and freely admit, that they pass
unconstitutional laws all the time. Would you characterize that as
"disregarding the rule of law?" Or is it playing the game the way the
game is played. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. This one didn't
bully through and the conservative Supreme Court declined to get
involved.. Thus, the process works.
That, actually, seems to be a pretty good sign.
I am a generally forgiving person, but I think you are giving Congress too
much "benefit of the doubt." This isn't a case of Congress passing a law
that is going to test the limits of constitutionality. This was Congress
passing a law specifically intended to usurp the authority of the State
Court in a specific case, because a particularly vocal religious faction
in this country is enjoying a degree of influence in government that it
has not seen in decades.
I did not give Congress ANY benefit of the doubt. I gave credit to the
system.
I think it is that religious influence in government that concerns me
most, and this is just the latest, most egregious example. It started
during Bush's first week in office, when he withdrew foreign aid to any
country that made abortion services available to its people. It continued
with the National Cancer Institute posting on its website that having an
abortion increases the risk of contracting breast cancer. Of all the
people writing papers on breast cancer, there was only one who held that
view, and he was (big surprise), an devout opponent of abortion. There
are many scientists, well respected in their fields, who have had their
advice dismissed because it didn't fit with GW's ideology.
Agreed that religion is allowed far too much influence in public policy.
Bush doesn't use scientific information to make informed decisions. He
makes decisions based on his own pre-existing beliefs, then digs up a
fringe scientist who is willing to support his decision. That is really
stupid, and dangerous.
FWIW, I am a Republican, but I am embarrassed by what my party has become.
Of course, the Dems are not much better. I am hoping that the current
trend of trying to roll back the secularization of government is a
short-lived one.
Once again, I have to agree with you. I, too, am a Republican who sees the
undue influence of the Religious Right to be detrimental to both the
Republican Party and the country.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zenin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 04:52:08 PM |
|
|
In ba.politics MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
The Pervert wrote:
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational." Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear, if
you don't like how the law decided your case...simply change
the rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
I won't quibble about the fact that that quote is from Zenin's post, not
mine, because I agree with it. In the USA, Congress makes the laws, and
the Judicial Branch applies to cases brought before it. In the case of
Terri Schiavo, the court has made a ruling based on *years* of testimony
from witnesses on both sides. There is no indication that the court is
being reckless or unfair. Yet, the President and the Legislature are
trying to circumvent the judgment of the court, because they don't agree
with the decision. If that isn't disregarding the "rule of law", I don't
know what is.
It's also worth noting that this is basically the position of the
Supreme Court, who has now...for the fifth time...declined to hear the
case.
-Zenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 06:29:06 PM |
|
|
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
news:1111704620.675137@news.rhps.org...
In ba.politics MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
The Pervert wrote:
It's funny how one's own opinion always seems the most "rational."
Here
is the point I am trying to make; tell me where it is wrong:
We'll start with this one
Rule of Law... (thrown out wholesale... Message is clear,
if
you don't like how the law decided your case...simply
change
the rules and try again).
Like I said, : "I don't make ridiculously sweeping statements that are
little more than biased ***** intending absolutely nothing but to
demonize Republicans and deify ultra liberals."
I won't quibble about the fact that that quote is from Zenin's post, not
mine, because I agree with it. In the USA, Congress makes the laws, and
the Judicial Branch applies to cases brought before it. In the case of
Terri Schiavo, the court has made a ruling based on *years* of testimony
from witnesses on both sides. There is no indication that the court is
being reckless or unfair. Yet, the President and the Legislature are
trying to circumvent the judgment of the court, because they don't agree
with the decision. If that isn't disregarding the "rule of law", I
don't
know what is.
It's also worth noting that this is basically the position of the
Supreme Court, who has now...for the fifth time...declined to hear the
case.
-Zenin
Yes, it is. Good for the Supremes, five times over. I don't see how
anybody can say that the case didn't get a fair and thorough hearing.
Everybody did what they thought was right in a tragic situation.
Some times there are no bad guys. And in this case, everybody loses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zenin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
25 Mar 2005 01:42:59 PM |
|
|
In ba.politics The Pervert <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote:
snip<
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
It's also worth noting that this is basically the position of the
Supreme Court, who has now...for the fifth time...declined to hear the
case.
Yes, it is. Good for the Supremes, five times over. I don't see how
anybody can say that the case didn't get a fair and thorough hearing.
Everybody did what they thought was right in a tragic situation.
Some times there are no bad guys. And in this case, everybody loses.
I would have agreed with you, until a certain majority party decided to
twist one family's tragedy into a cheap political vehicle.
Thank goodness at least so far it appears to be backfiring for the most
part.
-Zenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
26 Mar 2005 03:49:25 AM |
|
|
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote in message
news:1111779662.369640@news.rhps.org...
In ba.politics The Pervert <pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com> wrote:
snip<
"Zenin" <zenin@rhps.org> wrote:
It's also worth noting that this is basically the position of the
Supreme Court, who has now...for the fifth time...declined to hear
the
case.
Yes, it is. Good for the Supremes, five times over. I don't see how
anybody can say that the case didn't get a fair and thorough hearing.
Everybody did what they thought was right in a tragic situation.
Some times there are no bad guys. And in this case, everybody loses.
I would have agreed with you, until a certain majority party decided
to
twist one family's tragedy into a cheap political vehicle.
Thank goodness at least so far it appears to be backfiring for the
most
part.
You're just as bad trying to gain political capital from a woman's and a
family's tragedy. Not much difference between you and Tom DeLay, is there.
No, there isn't... except that he has some power.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
23 Mar 2005 08:03:22 PM |
|
|
The Pervert wrote:
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111444170.871269.302240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It's mostly what quibbler stated.
Terri Schiavo had been undergoing therapy in the first few years
after
the heart attack. With no improvement to her condition, Michael
Schiavo took her to California for experimental thalamic stimulator
implant surgery in her brain. The protocol called for 3 months of
treatment, but Michael Schiavo wouldn't give up on it for a year.
Michael Schiavo, in case you didn't know, went back to school to
become
an emergency room nurse after his wife's heart attack. From the
Orlando Sentinel:
"All but a few doctors who have examined Terri say it is only her
reflexes that appear to respond to light, sound and touch. Those
doctors say Terri died 15 years ago. Michael Schiavo's friends and
family say it took him seven years (after the heart attack) to come
to
grips with that.
He kept vigil at her side and, according to court records, sought
aggressive rehabilitative therapy. He took her to California for
experimental
surgery, admitted her to a brain-injury center in Bradenton and
hired an
aide
to take her to parks, to museums, to the beauty shop - anything to
stimulate her.
He took classes at St. Petersburg Community College in 1991 and
began
studying nursing - so he could better care for his wife. Today,
Michael
Schiavo
is a respiratory therapist and an emergency-room nurse at a Pinellas
County
hospital.
But there was nothing Michael Schiavo could do to draw Terri out of
her
silent cocoon and, over time, her husband accepted her doctors'
prognosis.
Her cerebral cortex was gone. She could not think, talk or reason
and never
would again.
"It was his mother's death in 1997 that made him realize Terri
needed
to be allowed to die. In 1998, he asked Pinellas Circuit Judge
George W.
Greer to order his wife's twice-a-day artificial feedings halted,
and after
an
emotional trial, Greer agreed, setting off an endless round of
appeals by
her parents."
This has been going on for 15 years. Changing her diapers in a
hospice costs $80,000/year - the first 7 years was not just board &
care.
If *anything* you and quibbler report is true (and I have no reason
to doubt
either of you), it sounds like Michael Shaivo has been a real trooper
and
nobody in their right mind can impune his behavior over the years.
Your information is new to me and very enlightening. Thank you
for it.
You're welcome.
I have to tell you, if it was me in Michael Shiavo's shoes I think I
might be in a murderous rage over how politicians were using my wife to
their own ends. As a liberal democrat, I'm including all of the
Democrats in Congress in that indictment. I don't see how any
politician can call himself a patriotic American and disrupt the rule
of law as they're doing. You either give yourself over to the system
and agree to abide by the rules as we know them or you are for anarchy
(or fascism) - but you're not for a democratic republic.
If the rightwingers who are trying to worm their way into this
situation stuck to this issue: "Should withdrawing nutrition and
hydration be included in 'refusing life support'", I could understand
what they're doing. The whole subject of end-of-life situations, for
anybody and everybody. But not this.
We know that Bush and conservative politicians have made end-of-life
options a zero-sum game - if you're poor and on Medicaid, despite your
family's wishes the hospital can withdraw life support (including
nutrition and hydration). If you have money, private insurance, you
can be kept on life support (until the money runs out). That's why I'm
so cynical about their actions this last week. Their actions this
last week isn't about Terry Schiavo or her family - it's about playing
to the base fundamentalist Christians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
24 Mar 2005 01:51:43 AM |
|
|
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111629802.708371.219530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The Pervert wrote:
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111444170.871269.302240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It's mostly what quibbler stated.
Terri Schiavo had been undergoing therapy in the first few years
after
the heart attack. With no improvement to her condition, Michael
Schiavo took her to California for experimental thalamic stimulator
implant surgery in her brain. The protocol called for 3 months of
treatment, but Michael Schiavo wouldn't give up on it for a year.
Michael Schiavo, in case you didn't know, went back to school to
become
an emergency room nurse after his wife's heart attack. From the
Orlando Sentinel:
"All but a few doctors who have examined Terri say it is only her
reflexes that appear to respond to light, sound and touch. Those
doctors say Terri died 15 years ago. Michael Schiavo's friends and
family say it took him seven years (after the heart attack) to come
to
grips with that.
He kept vigil at her side and, according to court records, sought
aggressive rehabilitative therapy. He took her to California for
experimental
surgery, admitted her to a brain-injury center in Bradenton and
hired an
aide
to take her to parks, to museums, to the beauty shop - anything to
stimulate her.
He took classes at St. Petersburg Community College in 1991 and
began
studying nursing - so he could better care for his wife. Today,
Michael
Schiavo
is a respiratory therapist and an emergency-room nurse at a Pinellas
County
hospital.
But there was nothing Michael Schiavo could do to draw Terri out of
her
silent cocoon and, over time, her husband accepted her doctors'
prognosis.
Her cerebral cortex was gone. She could not think, talk or reason
and never
would again.
"It was his mother's death in 1997 that made him realize Terri
needed
to be allowed to die. In 1998, he asked Pinellas Circuit Judge
George W.
Greer to order his wife's twice-a-day artificial feedings halted,
and after
an
emotional trial, Greer agreed, setting off an endless round of
appeals by
her parents."
This has been going on for 15 years. Changing her diapers in a
hospice costs $80,000/year - the first 7 years was not just board &
care.
If *anything* you and quibbler report is true (and I have no reason
to doubt
either of you), it sounds like Michael Shaivo has been a real trooper
and
nobody in their right mind can impune his behavior over the years.
Your information is new to me and very enlightening. Thank you
for it.
You're welcome.
I have to tell you, if it was me in Michael Shiavo's shoes I think I
might be in a murderous rage over how politicians were using my wife to
their own ends. As a liberal democrat, I'm including all of the
Democrats in Congress in that indictment. I don't see how any
politician can call himself a patriotic American and disrupt the rule
of law as they're doing. You either give yourself over to the system
and agree to abide by the rules as we know them or you are for anarchy
(or fascism) - but you're not for a democratic republic.
Up to this point, I agree with you.
If the rightwingers who are trying to worm their way into this
situation stuck to this issue: "Should withdrawing nutrition and
hydration be included in 'refusing life support'", I could understand
what they're doing. The whole subject of end-of-life situations, for
anybody and everybody. But not this.
We know that Bush and conservative politicians have made end-of-life
options a zero-sum game - if you're poor and on Medicaid, despite your
family's wishes the hospital can withdraw life support (including
nutrition and hydration). If you have money, private insurance, you
can be kept on life support (until the money runs out). That's why I'm
so cynical about their actions this last week. Their actions this
last week isn't about Terry Schiavo or her family - it's about playing
to the base fundamentalist Christians.
I'd like to stay non-partisan and apolitical on this issue as much as
reasonably possible. At the very least, I want to avoid the standard
anti-Bush anti-Republican rhetoric. I understand you're a liberal Democrat
and that's fine. But I'll have to withold written support for these
pragraphs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barney Lyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
25 Mar 2005 01:31:40 AM |
|
|
I think that there is room for agreement between us. I think that you
can be on either side of this case and leave the husband and parents
out of this. I think that Conservatives, particularly those in the
media, have misrepresented the facts and slandered the husband so
egregiously that they should be drummed out of the business. At the
top of the list (of those that I've personally heard) are Joe
Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Chris Smith (Congressman
from N.J.). It goes without saying that Tom Delay and Bill Frist
should be admonished and censured. Their contribution to this circus
should remove them from having power in govt. What they did these last
two weeks has been beyond cynical - it's been treasonous. To divide
the nation like this, for political gain is, I don't even have the
words strong enough to condemn them.
Yes, I am a liberal democrat and I'm disgusted with Democrats in
Congress who voted for this bill. I'm disgusted with Democrats in
Congress generally - I'd like to see everybody on both sides of the
aisle tossed out and let's start fresh with new representatives.
I've been in a situation similar to this, although my family was all on
the same page as to what to do. I've heard in the last two weeks
ignorance from people in leadership positions in this country that
indicates that they shouldn't be anywhere close to power or influencing
the public. Joe Scarborough is one of those people. He demonstrated
this week that he doesn't even know practice and procedure of
end-of-life issues in his own state. Of all of the states and their
end-of-life laws, for a Floridian who was a representative of the
people to the U.S. Congress to not know the circumstances of the
retired and elderly is grave.
Rightwing hate radio has never been more dangerous than this past week.
Their programs have been the equivalent of shouting fire in a movie
theater.
I think that there is a valid and needed public debate over what
"removing life support" means in living wills. I've seen it done to
patients who are in better mental condition than Terry Schiavo, but
have no chance of meaningful recoveries. It's what is done with
Alzheimer's cases at end stage. There's no pain because they're given
powerful drugs to make them comfortable. I'm uncomfortable talking
about it because when it comes to palliative care in the U.S., we under
prescribe for pain, and that may be what's going to come out of this -
keeping people alive who are suffering debilitating and terminal
illnesses and not giving them meds to stop their pain.
Doctors are so afraid of having the govt come down on them for over
prescribing pain meds that they under prescribe for people's pain.
There's no reason that anybody should live life or end their life in
pain. That's cruel and unusual punishment.
It may well be that Terri Schiavo is not getting morphine because the
hospice is afraid that if the rightwingers were to find out, they would
run to the media and argue "If they're giving her morphine, she's in
pain, and if she's in pain, she's not in a persistent vegetative
state."
That's the problem with having people with no medical expertise run
the case. It could very well be that if she appears in some state of
discomfort, it has nothing to do with her suffering, but more to do a
behavioral reaction that is really just a learned reflex response.
Whatever it is, morphine would help.
Out of this circus I would like to see the withdrawal of nutrition and
hydration and antibiotics removed from the standard list of "life
support" in living wills and handled in a separate document. I'd like
for the American people to engage in a public debate about end-of-life
issues for indigent (on public assistance) patients. Can the state
yank the plug, over the wishes of the both the patient and the
patient's family? Should doctors be allowed to deny care, such as
antibiotics, to patients who may be terminal but not imminently? When
antibiotics can cure a secondary problem, but the patient is still
going to die, but not for a few weeks/months. As it stands now,
doctors can make that call and deny a patient antibiotics for a minor
infection if they've got terminal cancer but aren't going to die for a
while. The withholding of the antibiotics means that the patient is
going to die within days/a couple of weeks of an infection.
I think having a public debate about this would have made this circus
and Schiavo's death worthwhile.
Any common ground, Pervert?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pervert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There Any Doubt that If The Terri Schiavo Bill Passes, it won't be Overturned in Court? |
25 Mar 2005 11:10:22 PM |
|
|
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111735900.645627.286600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I think that there is room for agreement between us. I think that you
can be on either side of this case and leave the husband and parents
out of this.
Actually, I think you can talk about the case and leave everybody else out
of it. Neither of them are the bad guys.
I think that Conservatives, particularly those in the
media, have misrepresented the facts and slandered the husband so
egregiously that they should be drummed out of the business.
Likely many on both sides have misrepresented the facts.
At the top of the list (of those that I've personally heard) are Joe
Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Chris Smith (Congressman
from N.J.).
Okay, so you're a kneejerk anti-Republican. I take your bias and prejudice
for what it is worth. Nothing.
It goes without saying that Tom Delay and Bill Frist
should be admonished and censured.
More of your biased and uninformed *****. There are absolutely no
grounds for admonision or censure.
Their contribution to this circus should remove them from having power in
govt.
More of that prejudiced ***** not worth anything. Your tantrum will
never come to fruition and means nothing.
What they did these last two weeks has been beyond cynical - it's been
treasonous.
Get serious! Clearly you have absolutely NO idea what treason is!
To divide the nation like this, for political gain is, I don't even have
the
words strong enough to condemn them.
That's okay. Your words about them so far are pretty ridiculous, not to
mention completely meaningless.
Many had a strong and legitimate difference of opinion long before the
politicians got involved. The Republic will survive. It has survived far
worse than this. Save the ***** rhetoric for somebody dumb enough to buy
into it. That, of course, would not include me.
Yes, I am a liberal democrat and I'm disgusted with Democrats in
Congress who voted for this bill. I'm disgusted with Democrats in
Congress generally - I'd like to see everybody on both sides of the
aisle tossed out and let's start fresh with new representatives.
You seem to have a lot invested in being disgusted. Sounds like a personal
problem.
Being a liberal Democrat is not yet against the law. People are allowed a
difference of opinion and I know of no requirement for absolutely every
member of a particular party being required to vote as their party
leadership wants them to. If that were the case, there would be no need for
debate. Republicans would always win and you would ***** about everything
until Democrats stop losing seats in Congress. And if you don't like how
your Democratic representative votes, vote him out. Of course, that may
result in a Republican taking his or her place, but that's the risk you
take.
I've been in a situation similar to this, although my family was all on
the same page as to what to do. I've heard in the last two weeks
ignorance from people in leadership positions in this country that
indicates that they shouldn't be anywhere close to power or influencing
the public.
You are not the arbiter of what level of approved (by you) knowledge an
elected official is required to have. All you really have is a difference
of opinion with people you believe to be misinformed. That's all. Nothing
more. What should or shouldn't be allowed is not up to you. One might just
as easily say that the views of liberal Democrats are so ignorant and so far
out of the mainstream of American thinking "indicates that they shouldn't be
anywhere close to power or influencing the public." Sounds pretty dumb,
doesn't it? So did what you pontificated, and for the same reasons.
< Joe Scarborough is one of those people. He demonstrated
this week that he doesn't even know practice and procedure of
end-of-life issues in his own state. Of all of the states and their
end-of-life laws, for a Floridian who was a representative of the
people to the U.S. Congress to not know the circumstances of the
retired and elderly is grave.
Save the hyperbole for somebody who is impressed by it. That wouldn't
include me. If the guy is wrong, fine. Disagree with him or her and don't
get all in a tizzy about it. In California, Barbara Boxer is usually wrong
and almost always an embarrassment to the state, the Democratic party, and
to anybody who can actually think. But I don't waste my time getting too
bent out of shape about her. I'll express my informed and articulate
opposition to her *****, ridicule and humiliate those raging idiots who
stupidly and blindly support her, and then calmly go on to the next fight.
Rightwing hate radio has never been more dangerous than this past week.
Their programs have been the equivalent of shouting fire in a movie
theater.
I see no danger, but then, you are the one showing the hatred, not them.
Differing ideas don't bother or scare me. I disagree with some of the talk
radio people, and I particularly disagree with Sean Hannity's position on
this one finding his righteous indignation to be rather offensive. But do
you really need to hate somebody just because you think they're wrong?
I think that there is a valid and needed public debate over what
"removing life support" means in living wills. I've seen it done to
patients who are in better mental condition than Terry Schiavo, but
have no chance of meaningful recoveries. It's what is done with
Alzheimer's cases at end stage. There's no pain because they're given
powerful drugs to make them comfortable. I'm uncomfortable talking
about it because when it comes to palliative care in the U.S., we under
prescribe for pain, and that may be what's going to come out of this -
keeping people alive who are suffering debilitating and terminal
illnesses and not giving them meds to stop their pain.
Alzheimers shows many signs. Sometimes a person feels no pain since that
part of their brain is no longer functioning. When there is sever pain,
whether it is for Alzheimers, cancer, or anything, I'm all for doping the
person up and letting them go out with a smile.
Doctors are so afraid of having the govt come down on them for over
prescribing pain meds that they under prescribe for people's pain.
There's no reason that anybody should live life or end their life in
pain. That's cruel and unusual punishment.
Agreed.
It may well be that Terri Schiavo is not getting morphine because the
hospice is afraid that if the rightwingers were to find out, they would
run to the media and argue "If they're giving her morphine, she's in
pain, and if she's in pain, she's not in a persistent vegetative
state."
As soon as you use ***** terms like "rightwingers" you lose me.
I haven't heard the doctors chime in on this point, but it may be that the
part of her brain that feels pain is already atrophied so the point is
academic. It happens with those with Alzheimers.
That's the problem with having people with no medical expertise run
the case. It could very well be that if she appears in some state of
discomfort, it has nothing to do with her suffering, but more to do a
behavioral reaction that is really just a learned reflex response.
Whatever it is, morphine would help.
Maybe, maybe not. It could be that only her autonomic nervous system is
functioning and she doesn't feel anything. Thus, what she appears to be
experience, and what she may be experiencing in fact, may be two very
different things. Morphine might do nothing but depress those aspects
(specifically resperation, which is what opiates do) that would hasten her
death.
Out of this circus I would like to see the withdrawal of nutrition and
hydration and antibiotics removed from the standard list of "life
support" in living wills and handled in a separate document. I'd like
for the American people to engage in a public debate about end-of-life
issues for indigent (on public assistance) patients. Can the state
yank the plug, over the wishes of the both the patient and the
patient's family? Should doctors be allowed to deny care, such as
antibiotics, to patients who may be terminal but not imminently? When
antibiotics can cure a secondary problem, but the patient is still
going to die, but not for a few weeks/months. As it stands now,
doctors can make that call and deny a patient antibiotics for a minor
infection if they've got terminal cancer but aren't going to die for a
while. The withholding of the antibiotics means that the patient is
going to die within days/a couple of weeks of an infection.
But if you want doctors to be free to make such calls, doesn't passing more
laws regulating the behavior of doctors acomplish nothing but what the
emergency legislation was trying to do? As you describe it, I don't agree
with this point.
I think having a public debate about this would have made this circus
and Schiavo's death worthwhile.
Legitimate public debate is usually worthwhile.
Any common ground, Pervert?
Of course. Why do we expect everything to be so polarized to where there is
no common ground?
.
|
| | | | | | | |
