| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dale" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2005 02:36:56 AM |
| Object: |
Schiavo Paradox |
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to liquid.
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 04:20:48 PM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> writes:
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to liquid.
Answer to (A): Nobody believes that. Terri isn't suffering. "Terri"
doesn't exist anymore. Michael Schiavo, who has visited Terri more
often than even her parents, is suffering. The legal system, which has
had a procedure in place for thirty years to deal with this and is now
being warped horribly by opportunistic politicians, is suffering. You
and I are suffering, as government-by-the-strongest-will, also known as
facism, comes into play.
Answer to (B): It's also inefficient. If we agree that Terri should
die, shoot her full of opiates and be done with it.
(C) is true.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACE" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
24 Mar 2005 09:39:31 PM |
|
|
This case is made all the more complex, simply due to Fundamentalist's
willful ignorance of basic biology.
This is in no small way aggravated by their embarrassing refusal to
admit the over-simplistic symbolism of the "Sacred Heart of Jesus"
To these fundies, the Heart is the seat of life. They've a vested
interest in keeping this symbol intact.
It's at the "heart" of the Abortion Issue, and it's the central theme
here.
FUNDIES!!! *knock* - *knock*
Personality and Identity, are found in the Cortex. NOT THE HEART.
-ACE
"Because, let's face it. The Sacred Cortex of Jesus, is just not as
appetizing a symbol now, is it?"
Or is it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 03:22:55 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY, disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death, she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 07:34:02 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:jcM%d.14913$UV2.4311@trnddc04:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to
death, she has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
This whole thing is just like that whole affair about that kid that was
supposed to be retured to his father in Cuba a few years ago. Big deal
all over the place, eveyone all excited, and now that it is all over,
people barely remember his name.
This also reminds me of the Baby Sunaina case. Ms Berry made a series of
allegations about the death of her genetically deformed niece. It was
quite noisy in uk.legal for a long time. It finally came to a conclusion
with the issuance of a permanent restaining order. The restraining order
is quite clear and is the most demanding one I have read to date. It is
at http://www.perceptions.couk.com/ctorder.txt
Leave the whole mess to the parties involved and the courts. The people
directly involved will have to live with the results of their actions.
Don't believe half of what you read as the vast majority of Xtians lie.
As a matter of fact, every single fundamentalist Xtian lies. Every last
one. There are no exceptions.
rj
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 08:04:39 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 01:17:46 PM |
|
|
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 11:59:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
And did your God promise a painless life on Earth?
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 04:48:15 AM |
|
|
<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:8ac1415uhodrcp4dggbvl9float4c42rdh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
And did your God promise a painless life on Earth?
I didn't bring religion into this. Why are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
24 Mar 2005 02:05:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:48:15 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:8ac1415uhodrcp4dggbvl9float4c42rdh@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
And did your God promise a painless life on Earth?
I didn't bring religion into this. Why are you?
In case my previous response didn't get through, here's paste:
Just asking, wanting a straight answer.
And I thought you would supply one, that's why I responded to *you.
Without knowing the legalities of any will or other legal thingies she
may have had drawn up or willingly signed into, I can only think her
husband is acting in good will in having the tube removed. I thought
that before I heard the polls on the radio, saying 66 % agree, 27%
disagree. So far most of the judges have agreed.
I was also wondering if the government's extraordinary interest in
this one case, one person, was really, true human compassion, or an
example of the government beginning to act religiously. Passing an act
for one person doesn't sound very constitutional to me. What else was
passed in those midnight sessions? Any riders?
Or is there something hidden, like money or some little national
secret? I heard one report that the hubby stood to inherit $10m. The
tabloids will probably rake in millions and nobody will be any closer
to the truth.
And, I did not mean to insult you. In the past, I have said you're
looped, that referred to multiple laps around the same circumlocution,
calling for an end to a useless chase, but I do not remember directly
insulting you for being religious or referring to a religious
standpoint. I really do believe in freedom of religion, including
freedom from religion, meaning keep the government out of the faith
business - trusting that the faithful who do hold office keep their
faith to themselves and out of the power of government. At the same
time, making sure any atheists holding office keep their opinion out
of government power.
I really want to see what people say about this issue, see if there's
a religious slant (I think there is, you can flame me for that) and
point out the probable merging of church and state on a giant scale in
this case.
*-> As in, here it is, folks - no matter what the legalities, we're
pro life and must keep her alive, pay no attention to our death
penalty or killing thousands in war. We now administer Gods will.
My own parents drew up a will carefully worded so as not to
artificially sustain life, and as my Mother's dementia progressed
rapidly from last spring into summer, when it was determined she was
unrecoverable, we left her in a hospice with pain relief only until
the end. We are all comfortable with that. She lived a good, loving
life, and at the end, the end happened. My Father is still going
strong, convinced he did the right thing, and has the same provision
pertaining in his will.
Please don't argue what constitutes artificially sustaining life,
there isn't an answer, and *that* is why it must be left to the family
to decide, not congress, president, governor or the opinion of the
people to enforce.
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 12:15:23 AM |
|
|
In article <8ac1415uhodrcp4dggbvl9float4c42rdh@4ax.com> writes:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
And did your God promise a painless life on Earth?
But she's right about that: our halfway approach to
this sort of thing leaves us with a very un-pretty
way of letting people die when it's time.
Which is why we need to change things in this country so
that humans will have the same access to a simple
straightforward death -- when appropriate -- that
we all grant our pets, when appropriate.
As things stand, there are a number of compassionate
doctors who will risk the "oops, too much morphine"
gift for their patients who have nothing but
pain and suffering to look forward to, and that with
no hope whatsoever.
But we need to make that available as official
policy. And then hedge it about with all
appropriate safeguards.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 03:29:11 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <8ac1415uhodrcp4dggbvl9float4c42rdh@4ax.com>
drift@lost.net writes:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years.
She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has
turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but
NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to
death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
And did your God promise a painless life on Earth?
But she's right about that: our halfway approach to
this sort of thing leaves us with a very un-pretty
way of letting people die when it's time.
Which is why we need to change things in this country so
that humans will have the same access to a simple
straightforward death -- when appropriate -- that
we all grant our pets, when appropriate.
As things stand, there are a number of compassionate
doctors who will risk the "oops, too much morphine"
gift for their patients who have nothing but
pain and suffering to look forward to, and that with
no hope whatsoever.
Many doctors leave the morphine hooked up and tell the family, "if you
do this, morphine will be administered, and if you do it too much, then
she will OD. I am going to leave the room right now."
I fear that this was not able to happen in this case because of the
publicity and the parents. Morphine would have been better than her
sedated starvation, but sedated starvation is much, much better than
sepsis and organ failure.
But we need to make that available as official
policy. And then hedge it about with all
appropriate safeguards.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
24 Mar 2005 05:34:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:15:23 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <8ac1415uhodrcp4dggbvl9float4c42rdh@4ax.com> writes:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
And did your God promise a painless life on Earth?
But she's right about that: our halfway approach to
this sort of thing leaves us with a very un-pretty
way of letting people die when it's time.
Which is why we need to change things in this country so
that humans will have the same access to a simple
straightforward death -- when appropriate -- that
we all grant our pets, when appropriate.
That would be compassionate which is why it won't happen.
As things stand, there are a number of compassionate
doctors who will risk the "oops, too much morphine"
gift for their patients who have nothing but
pain and suffering to look forward to, and that with
no hope whatsoever.
But we need to make that available as official
policy. And then hedge it about with all
appropriate safeguards.
Fundies won't allow that, but they will pull the plug when someone's
insurance runs out.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 11:58:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
Where does your God tell you she belongs? Hospice or grave?
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 04:47:48 AM |
|
|
<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:m7c141tld9k5gc0mgqna20a7d2p36q7e5m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
Where does your God tell you she belongs? Hospice or grave?
My personal experience with this tells me that food and water are not
'extraordinary medical care'. You do not starve people to death.
I feel this way because I watched my husband die.
How convenient for you that you can simply dismiss that because my being a
theist trumps anything else I am, and makes it OK for you to behave in ways
that, had a theist tried 'em, would really get your insult engine going.
Hypocrite.
......and notice; *I* didn't bring religion into this. You did. Now you can
think about how much better you are than a theist is. How much more polite,
and caring, and sensitive, and logical, and all the virtues....hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
24 Mar 2005 02:02:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:47:48 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<drift@lost.net> wrote in message
news:m7c141tld9k5gc0mgqna20a7d2p36q7e5m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
Where does your God tell you she belongs? Hospice or grave?
My personal experience with this tells me that food and water are not
'extraordinary medical care'. You do not starve people to death.
I feel this way because I watched my husband die.
How convenient for you that you can simply dismiss that because my being a
theist trumps anything else I am, and makes it OK for you to behave in ways
that, had a theist tried 'em, would really get your insult engine going.
Hypocrite.
.....and notice; *I* didn't bring religion into this. You did. Now you can
think about how much better you are than a theist is. How much more polite,
and caring, and sensitive, and logical, and all the virtues....hypocrite.
Just asking, wanting a straight answer.
And I thought you would supply one, that's why I responded to *you.
Without knowing the legalities of any will or other legal thingies she
may have had drawn up or willingly signed into, I can only think her
husband is acting in good will in having the tube removed. I thought
that before I heard the polls on the radio, saying 66 % agree, 27%
disagree. So far most of the judges have agreed.
I was also wondering if the government's extraordinary interest in
this one case, one person, was really, true human compassion, or an
example of the government beginning to act religiously. Passing an act
for one person doesn't sound very constitutional to me. What else was
passed in those midnight sessions? Any riders?
Or is there something hidden, like money or some little national
secret? I heard one report that the hubby stood to inherit $10m. The
tabloids will probably rake in millions and nobody will be any closer
to the truth.
And, I did not mean to insult you. In the past, I have said you're
looped, that referred to multiple laps around the same circumlocution,
calling for an end to a useless chase, but I do not remember directly
insulting you for being religious or referring to a religious
standpoint. I really do believe in freedom of religion, including
freedom from religion, meaning keep the government out of the faith
business - trusting that the faithful who do hold office keep their
faith to themselves and out of the power of government. At the same
time, making sure any atheists holding office keep their opinion out
of government power.
I really want to see what people say about this issue, see if there's
a religious slant (I think there is, you can flame me for that) and
point out the probable merging of church and state on a giant scale in
this case.
*-> As in, here it is, folks - no matter what the legalities, we're
pro life and must keep her alive, pay no attention to our death
penalty or killing thousands in war. We now administer Gods will.
My own parents drew up a will carefully worded so as not to
artificially sustain life, and as my Mother's dementia progressed
rapidly from last spring into summer, when it was determined she was
unrecoverable, we left her in a hospice with pain relief only until
the end. We are all comfortable with that. She lived a good, loving
life, and at the end, the end happened. My Father is still going
strong, convinced he did the right thing, and has the same provision
pertaining in his will.
Please don't argue what constitutes artificially sustaining life,
there isn't an answer, and *that* is why it must be left to the family
to decide, not congress, president, governor or the opinion of the
people to enforce.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
24 Mar 2005 09:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:02:47 -0500, wrote:
[]
I was also wondering if the government's extraordinary interest in
this one case, one person, was really, true human compassion, or an
example of the government beginning to act religiously. Passing an act
for one person doesn't sound very constitutional to me. What else was
passed in those midnight sessions? Any riders?
Compassion? No.
Political games? Entirely.
Riders? Count on it.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 04:40:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:17:46 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111478679.861349.111980@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has
turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but
NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to
death,
she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Because we know what and what not a brain stem can do?
Ah, but you haven't watched someone almost die of dehydration and
starvation. I have.
And there is nothing gentle, or pretty, or painless about it.
Where does your God tell you she belongs? Hospice or grave?
Well if she stays in the Hospice, eventually they will have to start
amputating her limbs. And at some point in time her bed sores are going
to develope sepsis. She will be given antibiotics, wound cleaning, and
possibly some fluid draining. She will become a (possibly limbless)
mound of decaying flesh. Organ failure will begin and the sepsis will
have completed her death. If she were lucky, she would die of
repsiratoty illness instead, but after 15 years I wonder how likely
that is.
I find both circumstances to be inhumane, one just far more inhumane
(and strangely morbid) than the other.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 11:41:59 AM |
|
|
In article <jcM%d.14913$UV2.4311@trnddc04>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY, disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death, she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
And in this she will be no different than millions of other Americans
who die slow, agonizing and terrifying deaths from cancer, AIDS, ALS
and other diseases, and all because Christians in their infinite
compassion force them to endure this when many of them would choose
otherwise and select a quick death. Now why isn't that raising red
flags for you?
Assuming for the moment that the doctors are all wrong and she actually
retains some consciousness and can feel pain, do you imagine that she
hasn't been feeling pain for the last 15 years, and wishing for it all
to end?
As for removing people's feeding tubes, well, if someone wants to die,
or a decision to allow them to die has been made by a legal guardian,
than that person should be put to sleep with tranquilizers and then
given a lethal injection to make death quick and painless.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 01:24:24 PM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320050641595994%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
In article <jcM%d.14913$UV2.4311@trnddc04>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's
suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY,
disagrees
with that. Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death, she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
And in this she will be no different than millions of other Americans
who die slow, agonizing and terrifying deaths from cancer, AIDS, ALS
and other diseases, and all because Christians in their infinite
compassion force them to endure this when many of them would choose
otherwise and select a quick death. Now why isn't that raising red
flags for you?
It does, actually. You are talking to a woman who had to watch her husband
go through that. So put your assumptions somewhere the sun doesn't shine and
sit on them, because frankly, you don't know what you are talking about
here.
Assuming for the moment that the doctors are all wrong and she actually
retains some consciousness and can feel pain, do you imagine that she
hasn't been feeling pain for the last 15 years, and wishing for it all
to end?
I don't imagine that; it's up to Terri, and TERRI didn't leave us any
instructions. All we have is what her husband wants, and he is not a
disinterested party. After all, every other relative she has is convinced
that she has a life. Not much of one, especially considering the fact that
Schaivo hasn't allowed her any rehab or even much sensory stimulation, but a
life. Now, who are we going to believe, absent TERRI'S wishes?
As for removing people's feeding tubes, well, if someone wants to die,
or a decision to allow them to die has been made by a legal guardian,
than that person should be put to sleep with tranquilizers and then
given a lethal injection to make death quick and painless.
If someone wants to die, they can do that. I have a real problem with such a
decision being made by a gaurdian, especially when that gaurdian stands to
gain by the death. Living wills, people. Living wills. My husband had one. I
have one. There will be no question about what I want to happen in similar
circumstances, because they will know what I want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 06:12:10 PM |
|
|
In article <c0V%d.6766$uw6.5543@trnddc06>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
And in this she will be no different than millions of other Americans
who die slow, agonizing and terrifying deaths from cancer, AIDS, ALS
and other diseases, and all because Christians in their infinite
compassion force them to endure this when many of them would choose
otherwise and select a quick death. Now why isn't that raising red
flags for you?
It does, actually. You are talking to a woman who had to watch her husband
go through that. So put your assumptions somewhere the sun doesn't shine and
sit on them, because frankly, you don't know what you are talking about
here.
So you acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of pro-life Christians who
bemoan an unconscious woman starving to death when they oppose allowing
anyone else to have a quick and painless death?
Assuming for the moment that the doctors are all wrong and she actually
retains some consciousness and can feel pain, do you imagine that she
hasn't been feeling pain for the last 15 years, and wishing for it all
to end?
I don't imagine that; it's up to Terri, and TERRI didn't leave us any
instructions. All we have is what her husband wants, and he is not a
disinterested party. After all, every other relative she has is convinced
that she has a life.
They are clearly wrong. If the doctors are correct, she is already
dead, and should be allowed to go. If they are wrong, and she has
consciousness, then she is in hell. Anyone with an iota of
understanding of human nature knows, and I mean *knows*, that few if
any human beings could possibly be happy in those circumstances. Her
family can believe she's in some kind of religious wonderland or
matrix-like dreamworld where she's as happy as can be, but that is
delusional. Her family needs to come to grips with reality, stop being
so self-serving, and allow her to find peace.
Not much of one, especially considering the fact that
Schaivo hasn't allowed her any rehab or even much sensory stimulation, but a
life. Now, who are we going to believe, absent TERRI'S wishes?
He most certainly *has* allowed her rehab and external stimulation,
even directing that she be taken outdoors to museums and such in an
effort to effect some kind of response. There just came a point where
he recognized all of this was futile, and focused his efforts on
setting her free.
As for removing people's feeding tubes, well, if someone wants to die,
or a decision to allow them to die has been made by a legal guardian,
than that person should be put to sleep with tranquilizers and then
given a lethal injection to make death quick and painless.
If someone wants to die, they can do that.
No they can't, not unless they are willing to commit suicide.
I have a real problem with such a
decision being made by a gaurdian, especially when that gaurdian stands to
gain by the death.
What, precisely, does he stand to gain in this case? if he wanted to be
free of her, he could just turn her "care" over to her parents. As for
the money, that's pretty much gone.
Living wills, people. Living wills. My husband had one. I
have one. There will be no question about what I want to happen in similar
circumstances, because they will know what I want.
Living wills are not always enforced, and even if they are, it hardly
means they are going to put you to sleep gently. At best, a living will
will allow someone to die a *natural* death. And if there is any
vestige of consciousness in you in those circumstance, you will die a
horrible death, as euthanasia is not permitted, regardless of your
wishes.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 10:16:57 PM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320051312100665%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
In article <c0V%d.6766$uw6.5543@trnddc06>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
And in this she will be no different than millions of other Americans
who die slow, agonizing and terrifying deaths from cancer, AIDS, ALS
and other diseases, and all because Christians in their infinite
compassion force them to endure this when many of them would choose
otherwise and select a quick death. Now why isn't that raising red
flags for you?
It does, actually. You are talking to a woman who had to watch her
husband
go through that. So put your assumptions somewhere the sun doesn't shine
and
sit on them, because frankly, you don't know what you are talking about
here.
So you acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of pro-life Christians who
bemoan an unconscious woman starving to death when they oppose allowing
anyone else to have a quick and painless death?
I acknowledge that starving to death and dying of dehydration is not a
'painless' or 'peaceful' way to go, yeah. I acknowledge that 'extraordinary
medical care' include the catagory 'food' and 'water'. I acknowledge that
Terri Schaivo has NOT told us what she wanted.
Assuming for the moment that the doctors are all wrong and she actually
retains some consciousness and can feel pain, do you imagine that she
hasn't been feeling pain for the last 15 years, and wishing for it all
to end?
I don't imagine that; it's up to Terri, and TERRI didn't leave us any
instructions. All we have is what her husband wants, and he is not a
disinterested party. After all, every other relative she has is convinced
that she has a life.
They are clearly wrong.
That is, evidently, a matter of opinion. They have as many medical experts
on their side as Michael Schaivo has on his.
If the doctors are correct, she is already
dead, and should be allowed to go. If they are wrong, and she has
consciousness, then she is in hell. Anyone with an iota of
understanding of human nature knows, and I mean *knows*, that few if
any human beings could possibly be happy in those circumstances.
Too bad she didn't leave us any instructions....and too bad that HER HUSBAND
has seen to it that those years have been spent with absolutely no sensory
stimulation; no attempt at rehab, no pictures, no TV, no radio....nothing.
Her
family can believe she's in some kind of religious wonderland or
matrix-like dreamworld where she's as happy as can be, but that is
delusional. Her family needs to come to grips with reality, stop being
so self-serving, and allow her to find peace.
You mean, to disappear so that her husband is free to marry his mistress,
the mother of his two children?
Not much of one, especially considering the fact that
Schaivo hasn't allowed her any rehab or even much sensory stimulation,
but a
life. Now, who are we going to believe, absent TERRI'S wishes?
He most certainly *has* allowed her rehab and external stimulation,
even directing that she be taken outdoors to museums and such in an
effort to effect some kind of response. There just came a point where
he recognized all of this was futile, and focused his efforts on
setting her free.
Sure, he recognized this very early indeed. You DO realize that he stopped
any such efforts the day after he won his lawsuit, yes?
As for removing people's feeding tubes, well, if someone wants to die,
or a decision to allow them to die has been made by a legal guardian,
than that person should be put to sleep with tranquilizers and then
given a lethal injection to make death quick and painless.
If someone wants to die, they can do that.
No they can't, not unless they are willing to commit suicide.
Er....that's the definition of arranging for one's own death.
I have a real problem with such a
decision being made by a gaurdian, especially when that gaurdian stands
to
gain by the death.
What, precisely, does he stand to gain in this case? if he wanted to be
free of her, he could just turn her "care" over to her parents. As for
the money, that's pretty much gone.
And what would his reputation be, what would others think of him, if he did
this? Can he divorce Terri? No, Schaivo has to win this, or to lose this. He
can't be seen to have willingly given her care to others.
Living wills, people. Living wills. My husband had one. I
have one. There will be no question about what I want to happen in
similar
circumstances, because they will know what I want.
Living wills are not always enforced, and even if they are, it hardly
means they are going to put you to sleep gently. At best, a living will
will allow someone to die a *natural* death. And if there is any
vestige of consciousness in you in those circumstance, you will die a
horrible death, as euthanasia is not permitted, regardless of your
wishes.
Again, unless you have been where I have been, you haven't got a clue.
Please do not tell me what is, and is not, abided by regarding 'living
wills'. Unless you have been where I have, it is idiocy in you to say you
know; because you don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 01:11:46 AM |
|
|
In article <tP00e.17809$UV2.6203@trnddc04>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320051312100665%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
So you acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of pro-life Christians who
bemoan an unconscious woman starving to death when they oppose allowing
anyone else to have a quick and painless death?
I acknowledge that starving to death and dying of dehydration is not a
'painless' or 'peaceful' way to go, yeah. I acknowledge that 'extraordinary
medical care' include the catagory 'food' and 'water'. I acknowledge that
Terri Schaivo has NOT told us what she wanted.
That isn't whatI asked, now is it? It's a simple question: is it
hypocritical for pro-life Christians to rant and rave about how someone
in a vegetative state must be suffering while opposing any and all
forms of euthanasia, thus condemning millions who *do* have
consciousness and would prefer otherwise to similar or worse suffering?
Simple yes or no answer, please.
I don't imagine that; it's up to Terri, and TERRI didn't leave us any
instructions. All we have is what her husband wants, and he is not a
disinterested party. After all, every other relative she has is convinced
that she has a life.
They are clearly wrong.
That is, evidently, a matter of opinion. They have as many medical experts
on their side as Michael Schaivo has on his.
Like hell they do. They have a handfull of hacks on their side paid to
give the "right" opinion. Pretty much the rest of the medical
establishment thinks otherwise.
If the doctors are correct, she is already
dead, and should be allowed to go. If they are wrong, and she has
consciousness, then she is in hell. Anyone with an iota of
understanding of human nature knows, and I mean *knows*, that few if
any human beings could possibly be happy in those circumstances.
Too bad she didn't leave us any instructions....and too bad that HER HUSBAND
has seen to it that those years have been spent with absolutely no sensory
stimulation; no attempt at rehab, no pictures, no TV, no radio....nothing.
Wrong again. She was given rehab, but the fact is it wouldn't have done
her any good. She is and has been too far gone. Stop trying to blame
the husband, he did what he could in the beginning.
Her
family can believe she's in some kind of religious wonderland or
matrix-like dreamworld where she's as happy as can be, but that is
delusional. Her family needs to come to grips with reality, stop being
so self-serving, and allow her to find peace.
You mean, to disappear so that her husband is free to marry his mistress,
the mother of his two children?
He was free to marry his "mistress" as you put it, from day one. There
is and has been no motivation for hism to stick with this for so long
other than he wants to see her free, so that he can be free also. If he
didn't care about her, he could have easily abandoned her after he got
the bucks and moved on. Instead, he put all that time and money into
trying to set her free.
He most certainly *has* allowed her rehab and external stimulation,
even directing that she be taken outdoors to museums and such in an
effort to effect some kind of response. There just came a point where
he recognized all of this was futile, and focused his efforts on
setting her free.
Sure, he recognized this very early indeed. You DO realize that he stopped
any such efforts the day after he won his lawsuit, yes?
Cite?
As for removing people's feeding tubes, well, if someone wants to die,
or a decision to allow them to die has been made by a legal guardian,
than that person should be put to sleep with tranquilizers and then
given a lethal injection to make death quick and painless.
If someone wants to die, they can do that.
No they can't, not unless they are willing to commit suicide.
Er....that's the definition of arranging for one's own death.
You stated that if someone wants to die, they can. Suicide is not
"arranging for one's own death" since there is no way you can legally
arrange for your own death in this or most other societies. You can
kill yourself, but you cannot legally arrange for someone else to do
so, or to assist you in your own attempt, with few exceptions anywhere
in the world. You also cannot legally obtain the drugs necessary to
allow you a quick, certain and painless death--not without a
doctor--though you can usually buy an AK-47 and open up on anyone else
you might wish dead.
I have a real problem with such a
decision being made by a gaurdian, especially when that gaurdian stands
to
gain by the death.
What, precisely, does he stand to gain in this case? if he wanted to be
free of her, he could just turn her "care" over to her parents. As for
the money, that's pretty much gone.
And what would his reputation be, what would others think of him, if he did
this? Can he divorce Terri? No, Schaivo has to win this, or to lose this. He
can't be seen to have willingly given her care to others.
Why not? From day one, he could have turned her care over to her
parents, and moved on. He could have done so after the lawsuit. At no
point did he *have to* do anything to try and rescue her from her fate.
That he has done so in the face of death threats and enormous
expenditure of time and emotional energy displays a degree of
commitment and concern that the people determined to demonize him seem
wholly incapable of understanding.
Living wills, people. Living wills. My husband had one. I
have one. There will be no question about what I want to happen in
similar
circumstances, because they will know what I want.
Living wills are not always enforced, and even if they are, it hardly
means they are going to put you to sleep gently. At best, a living will
will allow someone to die a *natural* death. And if there is any
vestige of consciousness in you in those circumstance, you will die a
horrible death, as euthanasia is not permitted, regardless of your
wishes.
Again, unless you have been where I have been, you haven't got a clue.
Please do not tell me what is, and is not, abided by regarding 'living
wills'. Unless you have been where I have, it is idiocy in you to say you
know; because you don't.
This is a simple, indisputable fact: living wills are not always
enforced. Now what your personal experience has to do with whether or
not living wills get enforced is beyond me, but here's a free clue:
it's not all about you. As for being where you've been, you should know
from our previous discussions of the subject of euthanasia that my
family has been through this twice, first with my mother, and again
with my uncle, where they were put on life-support and we had to endure
waiting for them to die. I know *exactly* how Michael Schiavo must
feel, because I have been there, suffering the agonizing torment of not
knowing whether my mother was really gone, or if some vestige of
consciousness remained and she was suffering in unspeakable torment.
Forget about the shiny-happy Christians who think people in this state
are experiencing some kind of religion-induced wonderland, or the
rationalistic atheists who insist that science knows when consciousness
ceases to exist. When you're in the position of seeing a family member
go through this, reason goes out the window, and the doubts and
uncertainty of not truly knowing what that family member is
experiencing can drive you to utter despair.
So having been through this, and knowing how someone who truly loves a
family member must feel when something like this happens, I think I
know how where Michael Schiavo is coming from, and why he has fought
this thing for so long. If he didn't care, he could have escaped a long
time ago. On the other hand, I cannot begin to understand the
motivations of Schiavo's parents, and can only conclude that they are
either deluded, or have more questionable motives. In either case,
there is little doubt in my mind that they are self-absorbed, for if
they had any empathy--and given that they believe that their daughter
still has consciousness--they would be wondering just what she is
really going through in there and would want it to stop, one way or the
other.
--Sean C
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
23 Mar 2005 05:08:34 AM |
|
|
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320052011461312%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
In article <tP00e.17809$UV2.6203@trnddc04>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320051312100665%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
So you acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of pro-life Christians who
bemoan an unconscious woman starving to death when they oppose allowing
anyone else to have a quick and painless death?
I acknowledge that starving to death and dying of dehydration is not a
'painless' or 'peaceful' way to go, yeah. I acknowledge that
'extraordinary
medical care' include the catagory 'food' and 'water'. I acknowledge that
Terri Schaivo has NOT told us what she wanted.
That isn't whatI asked, now is it?
No. You asked one of those cute little 'have you quit beating your wife?"
questions, setting up a false dichotomy. You asked me a yes/no question that
doesn't have a yes or no answer, and if you don't like my response, I
suggest that you ask better questions.
It's a simple question: is it
hypocritical for pro-life Christians to rant and rave about how someone
in a vegetative state must be suffering while opposing any and all
forms of euthanasia, thus condemning millions who *do* have
consciousness and would prefer otherwise to similar or worse suffering?
Simple yes or no answer, please.
That doesn't have a yes or no answer. False dichotomies never do.
I don't imagine that; it's up to Terri, and TERRI didn't leave us any
instructions. All we have is what her husband wants, and he is not a
disinterested party. After all, every other relative she has is
convinced
that she has a life.
They are clearly wrong.
That is, evidently, a matter of opinion. They have as many medical
experts
on their side as Michael Schaivo has on his.
Like hell they do. They have a handfull of hacks on their side paid to
give the "right" opinion. Pretty much the rest of the medical
establishment thinks otherwise.
Oh, really? And you have access to all the opinions, do you?
If the doctors are correct, she is already
dead, and should be allowed to go. If they are wrong, and she has
consciousness, then she is in hell. Anyone with an iota of
understanding of human nature knows, and I mean *knows*, that few if
any human beings could possibly be happy in those circumstances.
Too bad she didn't leave us any instructions....and too bad that HER
HUSBAND
has seen to it that those years have been spent with absolutely no
sensory
stimulation; no attempt at rehab, no pictures, no TV, no
radio....nothing.
Wrong again. She was given rehab, but the fact is it wouldn't have done
her any good. She is and has been too far gone. Stop trying to blame
the husband, he did what he could in the beginning.
And he stopped doing it IMMEDIATELY after he got the money. This is a matter
of public record.
Her
family can believe she's in some kind of religious wonderland or
matrix-like dreamworld where she's as happy as can be, but that is
delusional. Her family needs to come to grips with reality, stop being
so self-serving, and allow her to find peace.
You mean, to disappear so that her husband is free to marry his mistress,
the mother of his two children?
He was free to marry his "mistress" as you put it, from day one.
Evidently not. Getting a divorce would have lost him gaurdianship rights
over her.
There
is and has been no motivation for hism to stick with this for so long
other than he wants to see her free, so that he can be free also. If he
didn't care about her, he could have easily abandoned her after he got
the bucks and moved on. Instead, he put all that time and money into
trying to set her free.
What a remarkable euphemism from an atheist; 'set her free'? What is
killing her setting her free to do, exactly?
He most certainly *has* allowed her rehab and external stimulation,
even directing that she be taken outdoors to museums and such in an
effort to effect some kind of response. There just came a point where
he recognized all of this was futile, and focused his efforts on
setting her free.
Sure, he recognized this very early indeed. You DO realize that he
stopped
any such efforts the day after he won his lawsuit, yes?
Cite?
Matter of public record, in about every news story about this, including
those who are blatantly supportive of his efforts to kill her. They
concentrate on the rehab efforts he made; until....
As for removing people's feeding tubes, well, if someone wants to
die,
or a decision to allow them to die has been made by a legal
guardian,
than that person should be put to sleep with tranquilizers and then
given a lethal injection to make death quick and painless.
If someone wants to die, they can do that.
No they can't, not unless they are willing to commit suicide.
Er....that's the definition of arranging for one's own death.
You stated that if someone wants to die, they can. Suicide is not
"arranging for one's own death" since there is no way you can legally
arrange for your own death in this or most other societies.
I didn't say anything about 'legal'.
You can
kill yourself, but you cannot legally arrange for someone else to do
so, or to assist you in your own attempt, with few exceptions anywhere
in the world. You also cannot legally obtain the drugs necessary to
allow you a quick, certain and painless death--not without a
doctor--though you can usually buy an AK-47 and open up on anyone else
you might wish dead.
I have a real problem with such a
decision being made by a gaurdian, especially when that gaurdian
stands
to
gain by the death.
What, precisely, does he stand to gain in this case? if he wanted to be
free of her, he could just turn her "care" over to her parents. As for
the money, that's pretty much gone.
And what would his reputation be, what would others think of him, if he
did
this? Can he divorce Terri? No, Schaivo has to win this, or to lose this.
He
can't be seen to have willingly given her care to others.
Why not? From day one, he could have turned her care over to her
parents, and moved on. He could have done so after the lawsuit. At no
point did he *have to* do anything to try and rescue her from her fate.
That he has done so in the face of death threats and enormous
expenditure of time and emotional energy displays a degree of
commitment and concern that the people determined to demonize him seem
wholly incapable of understanding.
It displays an incredible amount of desperation and stubborness. C'mon;
suppose that the parents actually get her and she DOES improve? What happens
to Michael then? No, he has a vested interest in seeing her dead.
Consider; if she is as much an unfeeling vegetable as you claim she is, what
difference does it make whether she's a buried vegetable or one that
breaths....and that her parents take care of? If you are right, TERRI
doesn't know.
Living wills, people. Living wills. My husband had one. I
have one. There will be no question about what I want to happen in
similar
circumstances, because they will know what I want.
Living wills are not always enforced, and even if they are, it hardly
means they are going to put you to sleep gently. At best, a living will
will allow someone to die a *natural* death. And if there is any
vestige of consciousness in you in those circumstance, you will die a
horrible death, as euthanasia is not permitted, regardless of your
wishes.
Again, unless you have been where I have been, you haven't got a clue.
Please do not tell me what is, and is not, abided by regarding 'living
wills'. Unless you have been where I have, it is idiocy in you to say you
know; because you don't.
This is a simple, indisputable fact: living wills are not always
enforced. Now what your personal experience has to do with whether or
not living wills get enforced is beyond me, but here's a free clue:
it's not all about you. As for being where you've been, you should know
from our previous discussions of the subject of euthanasia that my
family has been through this twice, first with my mother, and again
with my uncle, where they were put on life-support and we had to endure
waiting for them to die. I know *exactly* how Michael Schiavo must
feel, because I have been there, suffering the agonizing torment of not
knowing whether my mother was really gone, or if some vestige of
consciousness remained and she was suffering in unspeakable torment.
Forget about the shiny-happy Christians who think people in this state
are experiencing some kind of religion-induced wonderland, or the
rationalistic atheists who insist that science knows when consciousness
ceases to exist. When you're in the position of seeing a family member
go through this, reason goes out the window, and the doubts and
uncertainty of not truly knowing what that family member is
experiencing can drive you to utter despair.
I watched my husband die. I watched him ALMOST die of starvation/dehydration
before the doctors put a feeding tube, exactly like Terri's, in. Nine months
later, when he lapsed into unconsciousness, and we knew that there was no
coming back, we took him off life support. That is, the resperator. I
watched him suffer from lack of water and food. He was fully conscious for
the first two or three days of this, during his chemo, and about five days
in he became comatose before the docs put in the feeding tube. He very
rapidly improved and had eight pretty good months after that. But neither
he, nor I, having seen what that experience of going with out food and water
is really like, figured that this was the way to deal with it. I am sorry
about your mother, and your uncle...but they were on LIFE SUPPORT, not just
a feeding tube, as Jim was at the very end of his life.
Better you should shoot Terri than this.
So having been through this, and knowing how someone who truly loves a
family member must feel when something like this happens, I think I
know how where Michael Schiavo is coming from, and why he has fought
this thing for so long.
No. You think you do. But you do not. Unless by 'life support' your mother
and uncle were breathing on their own and only had feeding tubes...
If he didn't care, he could have escaped a long
time ago. On the other hand, I cannot begin to understand the
motivations of Schiavo's parents, and can only conclude that they are
either deluded, or have more questionable motives. In either case,
there is little doubt in my mind that they are self-absorbed, for if
they had any empathy--and given that they believe that their daughter
still has consciousness--they would be wondering just what she is
really going through in there and would want it to stop, one way or the
other.
Why, you are quite willing to ascribe heroism to a man willing to watch his
wife (even as he has a mistress and two kids) die of starvation and
dehydration, but not to the parents who are quite willing to take over the
care, including the financial care, of a child they honestly think can be
helped.
Tell me; if you honestly thought that your child's husband were trying to
kill her, and the state is letting him do it, what would YOU do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
24 Mar 2005 03:47:35 AM |
|
|
In article <mR60e.40895$hA3.6421@trnddc09>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320052011461312%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
In article <tP00e.17809$UV2.6203@trnddc04>, DianaC
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Sean C" <redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote in message
news:220320051312100665%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com...
No. You asked one of those cute little 'have you quit beating your wife?"
questions, setting up a false dichotomy. You asked me a yes/no question that
doesn't have a yes or no answer, and if you don't like my response, I
suggest that you ask better questions.
There is no false dichotomy here. It's a very straightforward question
based on two undeniable facts: The majority of pro-lifers are against
allowing Terri Schiavo to die as they feel starving her to death would
be barbaric. They are also against allowing people who are suffering
unspeakable pain dying from illnesses like AIDS, cancer, etc to choose
to end their suffering by hastening their death. Now, as far as being
"pro-life" is concerned, this is a consistent position. But as far as
allegedly being concerned with human suffering, it clearly isn't. Given
this inconsistency, the question arise whether or not this stance is
hypocritical. I am simply asking for your opinion whether it is or not.
It's a simple question: is it
hypocritical for pro-life Christians to rant and rave about how someone
in a vegetative state must be suffering while opposing any and all
forms of euthanasia, thus condemning millions who *do* have
consciousness and would prefer otherwise to similar or worse suffering?
Simple yes or no answer, please.
That doesn't have a yes or no answer. False dichotomies never do.
Try and look up the meaning of "false dichotomy." Your use of the term
doesn't apply here. If I asked you do you support euthanasia, or do you
believe in torturing patients to death, that would be a false
dichotomy, even though the torture many such people face is quite real.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who claim to be concerned with
individual rights and human suffering but lose that concern when it
comes to ending the suffering of millions by hastening their death is
not.
I don't imagine that; it's up to Terri, and TERRI didn't leave us any
instructions. All we have is what her husband wants, and he is not a
disinterested party. After all, every other relative she has is
convinced
that she has a life.
They are clearly wrong.
That is, evidently, a matter of opinion. They have as many medical
experts
on their side as Michael Schaivo has on his.
Like hell they do. They have a handfull of hacks on their side paid to
give the "right" opinion. Pretty much the rest of the medical
establishment thinks otherwise.
Oh, really? And you have access to all the opinions, do you?
I see only a handful of hacks, some of whom have already been
discredited, on the parent's side. The view that someone in a persitant
vegitative state for 15 years is unlikely to recover is based on
observed facts, which the majority of doctors tend to base their
opinions on.
Wrong again. She was given rehab, but the fact is it wouldn't have done
her any good. She is and has been too far gone. Stop trying to blame
the husband, he did what he could in the beginning.
And he stopped doing it IMMEDIATELY after he got the money. This is a matter
of public record.
The please provide a cite.
You mean, to disappear so that her husband is free to marry his mistress,
the mother of his two children?
He was free to marry his "mistress" as you put it, from day one.
Evidently not. Getting a divorce would have lost him gaurdianship rights
over her.
Given that your point was that he wanted to get rid of her, he would
have lost his guardianship if she ended up dead, as well.
There
is and has been no motivation for hism to stick with this for so long
other than he wants to see her free, so that he can be free also. If he
didn't care about her, he could have easily abandoned her after he got
the bucks and moved on. Instead, he put all that time and money into
trying to set her free.
What a remarkable euphemism from an atheist; 'set her free'? What is
killing her setting her free to do, exactly?
It's not a euphemism. She is literally being liberated from her
suffering, assuming that she does in fact possess consciousness. What
is keeping her alive supposed to accomplish, exactly?
Sure, he recognized this very early indeed. You DO realize that he
stopped
any such efforts the day after he won his lawsuit, yes?
Cite?
Matter of public record, in about every news story about this, including
those who are blatantly supportive of his efforts to kill her. They
concentrate on the rehab efforts he made; until....
....until what?
You stated that if someone wants to die, they can. Suicide is not
"arranging for one's own death" since there is no way you can legally
arrange for your own death in this or most other societies.
I didn't say anything about 'legal'.
Most people are not going to be able to obtain "illegal" means of
killing themselves, either. I'm not sure where you go to get a hit-man
to shoot you or get a few grams of pentobarbitol, but I'm sure most
people wishing to die have no clue.
Why not? From day one, he could have turned her care over to her
parents, and moved on. He could have done so after the lawsuit. At no
point did he *have to* do anything to try and rescue her from her fate.
That he has done so in the face of death threats and enormous
expenditure of time and emotional energy displays a degree of
commitment and concern that the people determined to demonize him seem
wholly incapable of understanding.
It displays an incredible amount of desperation and stubborness. C'mon;
suppose that the parents actually get her and she DOES improve? What happens
to Michael then? No, he has a vested interest in seeing her dead.
There is next to no chance of that happening. And even if she did, so
what? Does this mean he's going to die? he could have takne the money
and run a long time ago, since the parents offered to assume all
expenses. He could have been divorced, a lot richer, and free of her a
long time ago if that was his desire. Clearly, it wasn't.
Consider; if she is as much an unfeeling vegetable as you claim she is, what
difference does it make whether she's a buried vegetable or one that
breaths....and that her parents take care of? If you are right, TERRI
doesn't know.
I didn't claim any such thing. Though the science is very clear on this
issue in that no has ever recovered from such a state after such a long
time, her brain is partially destroyed, and no serious researcher
anywhere thinks she has a chance, I still entertain enough doubt to
wonder whether she is or is not suffering in there. I don't for a
second thinks she has a chance of any kind of meaningful recovery, but
I wonder if she is aware of any of what's happening to her. My position
is based on that uncertainty. But at the same time, I understand that
Michael Schiavo will not have colsure until he knows her suffering has
ended.
I watched my husband die. I watched him ALMOST die of starvation/dehydration
before the doctors put a feeding tube, exactly like Terri's, in. Nine months
later, when he lapsed into unconsciousness, and we knew that there was no
coming back, we took him off life support. That is, the resperator. I
watched him suffer from lack of water and food. He was fully conscious for
the first two or three days of this, during his chemo, and about five days
in he became comatose before the docs put in the feeding tube. He very
rapidly improved and had eight pretty good months after that. But neither
he, nor I, having seen what that experience of going with out food and water
is really like, figured that this was the way to deal with it. I am sorry
about your mother, and your uncle...but they were on LIFE SUPPORT, not just
a feeding tube, as Jim was at the very end of his life.
Better you should shoot Terri than this.
Better you let her die that let her continue to live what must surely
be a living hell if she is still conscious. Is it better that she
experiences the wonders and terror of a quadruple amputation?
So having been through this, and knowing how someone who truly loves a
family member must feel when something like this happens, I think I
know how where Michael Schiavo is coming from, and why he has fought
this thing for so long.
No. You think you do. But you do not. Unless by 'life support' your mother
and uncle were breathing on their own and only had feeding tubes...
It's irrelevant what they were on.
If he didn't care, he could have escaped a long
time ago. On the other hand, I cannot begin to understand the
motivations of Schiavo's parents, and can only conclude that they are
either deluded, or have more questionable motives. In either case,
there is little doubt in my mind that they are self-absorbed, for if
they had any empathy--and given that they believe that their daughter
still has consciousness--they would be wondering just what she is
really going through in there and would want it to stop, one way or the
other.
Why, you are quite willing to ascribe heroism to a man willing to watch his
wife (even as he has a mistress and two kids) die of starvation and
dehydration, but not to the parents who are quite willing to take over the
care, including the financial care, of a child they honestly think can be
helped.
I never called him a hero, just noted that it takes a high degree of
commitment to do what he has done. As for the parents, at best they are
deluded, at worst, they are manifesting behavior that in many ways is
similar to those with Munchausen-by-Proxy Syndrome, in that they are
prolonging their daughter's suffering for no apparent reason other than
to honor their religious beliefs and garner attenrtion, support and no
doubt money from well-wishers.
Tell me; if you honestly thought that your child's husband were trying to
kill her, and the state is letting him do it, what would YOU do?
If I honestly thought my daughter retained any consciousness and was
existing in little more than a broken shell of a body, I would kill her
myself, and would hope she'd do the same for me.
Sean C
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 08:29:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 03:22:55 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cxL%d.1848$yq2.254@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
A: Pull the tube, the lady has been a vegetable 15 years. She's suffered
long enough.
B: But starving is such a horrible way to go.
A: That's okay, she won't suffer, her cerebral cortex has turned to
liquid.
Except that this is false. She DOES feel pain. Nobody, but NOBODY, disagrees
with that.
Ah, but somebody does. The brain stem functions. The body reacts
automatically. But Terri feels nothing. She isn't there.
Ooops. Indeed, in order to handle this starving to death, she
has to be very heavily sedated.
Now WHY isn't THAT raising red flags for you folks?
Umm...because we know the difference between an autonomic response and
a conscious reaction?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Schiavo Paradox |
22 Mar 2005 11:56:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:36:56 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
A: Pull the tube, the lady has | |
