|
( OT ) The Politicization of Terri Schiavo
Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has
struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p01s03-uspo.html) -- a severely brain-damaged woman who has been incapacitated for the past 15 years -- as an opportunity for political grandstanding. A memo, which the AP reports was distributed by Senate leadership (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...28_memo20.html) to right-wing members, called Schiavo "a great political issue" and urged senators to talk about her because "the pro-life base will be excited." Over the weekend, DeLay and Frist held special sessions of Congress to facilitate passage of a bill that would allow a federal court to overturn years of Florida jurisprudence (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines) -- encompassing seven courts and 19 judges -- and intervene in the Schiavo case. (Underscoring that this was about the politics of the Schiavo case and not policy, the bill was written explicitly to apply only to Terri Schiavo (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3094136) .) President Bush played his part in the spectacle, flying to Washington from his ranch in Crawford to sign the bill, even though waiting a few hours for the bill to be flown to him would likely " have made no difference (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/politics/21bush.html) in whether Ms. Schiavo lives." BUSH SIGNED LAW ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO DISCONTINUE LIFE SUPPORT: In a statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will "continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050321.html) ." But the facts make it hard to believe that Bush is standing on principle. In 1999, then Gov. Bush signed a law that " allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3084934) , even if patient family members disagree." Just days ago the law permitted Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a 6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove life support (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7201470/) from Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. Bush has not commented on either case. DELAY VOTED TO SLASH FUNDING THAT PAID FOR SCHIAVO'S CA At every opportunity, Tom DeLay has sanctimoniously proclaimed his concern for the well-being of Terri Schiavo, saying he is only trying to ensure she has the chance " we all deserve (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44638) ." Schiavo's medications are paid for by Medicaid (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGPVBSH331.DTL) .. Just last week, DeLay marshaled a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion (http://www.cbpp.org/3-10-05health.htm) , threatening the quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo. Because the Senate voted to restore the funding, DeLay is threatening to hold up the entire budget process (http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0425-5793r.htm) if he doesn't get his way. FRIST FIGHTING AGAINST FINANCIAL RECOVERY FOR PEOPLE LIKE SCHIAVO: Bill Frist has been positioning himself in the media as a champion for Schiavo's interests. Yet, much of Schiavo's medical care has been financed by $1,000,000 from two medical malpractice lawsuits (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true) Schiavo won after her heart attack 15 years ago. Frist has been leading the charge to limit recovery (http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fu...il&Issue_id=30) for people like Schiavo who are severely debilitated. If Frist is successful, people like Schiavo would not be able to recover any punitive damages no matter how severe their injuries. |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? |
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? Would this one cover it? AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
:) |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? Would this one cover it? AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And that's EXACTLY what it is. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? Would this one cover it? AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." John, thanks for answering Kanter. He has once again shown why he lives with the catfish and other bottom feeders by showing his ignorance of the Constitution and replying with an insult. I have him killfiled. You can now see why. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? Would this one cover it? AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." John, thanks for answering Kanter. He has once again shown why he lives with the catfish and other bottom feeders by showing his ignorance of the Constitution and replying with an insult. I have him killfiled. You can now see why. Bull****. You have killfiled me and other plenty of times, but you keep coming back to eat the insects off our asses, you dolt. |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:41:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? Would this one cover it? AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And that's EXACTLY what it is. "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." *You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19 Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is always right. Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure. Why are there no complaints against them? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
So riddle me this:
Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba. Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering. Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it. What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions? Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation? Values should be consistent, not merely expedient. |
Welcome to politics 101.
wrote in message ups.com... So riddle me this: Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba. Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering. Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it. What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions? Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation? Values should be consistent, not merely expedient. |
|
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:41:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:50:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." It was some of the Democrats who chose to make it political. The same sort of thing was seen here in this NG when I posted about her demise on Friday. It is a shame some see this as a political thing when it should be simply seen as trying to save a life by affording a person their Constitutional rights. Which constitutional rights would those be, moron? Would this one cover it? AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And that's EXACTLY what it is. "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." *You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19 Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is always right. Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure. Why are there no complaints against them? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Don't forget the 5th Amendment: ";nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:51:48 -0500, HKrause wrote: John H wrote: On 21 Mar 2005 18:13:59 -0800, wrote: So riddle me this: Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba. Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering. Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it. What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions? Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation? Values should be consistent, not merely expedient. Anything that is bad for the other side is good. Anything good (or potentially good) for the other side is bad. Simple values. It's the same rationale used for the posting of soldiers getting killed in Iraq. That's right. We shouldn't reminded that US men and women are dying almost daily in Iraq, fighting Bush's dirty war. BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal official with a backbone. Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta... Stay tuned. I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so necessary. Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not overturned sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high? She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Krause is once again taking joy in reporting about death, this time of not only of our troops but also of the death sentence of just handed down to Terri Shiavo. |
"John H" wrote in message
... Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And that's EXACTLY what it is. "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." *You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19 Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is always right. Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure. Why are there no complaints against them? The party affiliation of those who voted for it is irrelevant. It is an intrusion. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:51:48 -0500, HKrause wrote: John H wrote: On 21 Mar 2005 18:13:59 -0800, wrote: So riddle me this: Democratic administration. Elio Gonzales is living with some relatives in FLA. Father is demanding return of Elio to his home in Cuba. Democratic AG Janet Reno steps in and says the federal government has the power to intervene in this family issue between the Dad and the FLA relatives.......and the conservatives are so po'd they can't see straight. The right wing says this is a family matter, should be covered by state law, and the FEDGOV has no business interfering. Republican administration. Terri Sciavo's husband and *nineteen* judges in FLA state courts have said her brain dead body should no longer be kept alive with a feeding tube. Congress passes an emergency bill overriding the husband and the nineteen decisions made by FLA state judges, and Bush flies back from Texas, in his pajamas at 1:00 AM, to sign it. What happened to being PO'd at the Federal government for intervening in a family matter and the insistence that this should be decided at the state level, not federal? Why is BIGGUMINT suddenly better than carefully considered local decisions? Could it be that there was political hay to be made by opposing the FEDGOV in the Gonzales case, but that political haymaking is more lucrative on the other side of the issue in the Sciavo situation? Values should be consistent, not merely expedient. Anything that is bad for the other side is good. Anything good (or potentially good) for the other side is bad. Simple values. It's the same rationale used for the posting of soldiers getting killed in Iraq. That's right. We shouldn't reminded that US men and women are dying almost daily in Iraq, fighting Bush's dirty war. BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal official with a backbone. Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta... Stay tuned. I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so necessary. Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not overturned sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high? She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Krause is once again taking joy in reporting about death, this time of not only of our troops but also of the death sentence just handed down to Terri Shiavo. edit |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause
wrote: It was her wish to die. Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and you would have the same situation you have now. It also is a matter of spousal perogative. Sort of actually, but I won't argue the merits of that because it's much to complicated for the sake of this argument.. More important though is that Ms. Schiavo has not, nor is, having her interests protected by her own separate attorney. It would seem to me that having her own attorney in this situation would speed things up considerably. Also, note that Ms. Schiavo's husband initiated all this long after her initial treatment with a feeding tube. There is a rather large settlement, he suddenly remembers about her wanting to die. It would seem to me that if she had said to him about her desire to pass over, he wouldn't have done the feeding tube bit to begin with. I still am uncomfortable about the fact that she does not have her own representation. The right wing is, as usual, pandering to rile up its simple-minded masses. No, Harry, they aren't. They are reacting to their constituencies much like their Democrat brethren - like me in fact. I am represented by Democrats and I made my thought known to them on this subject. Are you going to call me simple? I don't know if any of you have ever experienced something called sleep paralysis, but it's a condition in which the mind wakes up, but the body is still asleep. It's both fascinating, awesome and very scary at the same time. You have no mouth and you must scream - if only to wake yourself up. I would hate to think that there is a mind in there trying to scream. For me, I would error on the side of hope and life. Later, Tom |
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause wrote: It was her wish to die. Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and you would have the same situation you have now. It also is a matter of spousal perogative. Sort of actually, but I won't argue the merits of that because it's much to complicated for the sake of this argument.. More important though is that Ms. Schiavo has not, nor is, having her interests protected by her own separate attorney. It would seem to me that having her own attorney in this situation would speed things up considerably. I believe that at some point she had a court appointed attorney Also, note that Ms. Schiavo's husband initiated all this long after her initial treatment with a feeding tube. There is a rather large settlement, he suddenly remembers about her wanting to die. It would seem to me that if she had said to him about her desire to pass over, he wouldn't have done the feeding tube bit to begin with. She was sent to California for treatment, upon return several other treatments were attempted. The husband gave up roughly 1 year after it became apparent nothing else going to help. I SUSPECT that during that year much agonized discussion between the husband and parents. See http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html for a good unbiased summary of the case I still am uncomfortable about the fact that she does not have her own representation. I believe that at some point she had a court appointed attorney The right wing is, as usual, pandering to rile up its simple-minded masses. No, Harry, they aren't. They are reacting to their constituencies much like their Democrat brethren - like me in fact. I am represented by Democrats and I made my thought known to them on this subject. Are you going to call me simple? I don't know if any of you have ever experienced something called sleep paralysis, but it's a condition in which the mind wakes up, but the body is still asleep. It's both fascinating, awesome and very scary at the same time. You have no mouth and you must scream - if only to wake yourself up. I would hate to think that there is a mind in there trying to scream. For me, I would error on the side of hope and life. That's what bush SAID, but read the following BUSH SIGNED LAW ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO DISCONTINUE LIFE SUPPORT: In a statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will "continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050321.html) ." But the facts make it hard to believe that Bush is standing on principle. In 1999, then Gov. Bush signed a law that " allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3084934) , even if patient family members disagree." Just days ago the law permitted Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a 6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove life support (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7201470/) from Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. Bush has not commented on either case. Later, Tom |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause wrote: It was her wish to die. Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and you would have the same situation you have now. The flip side is that if she could speak, she could insist that she be given NO care whatsoever after a certain point. No food, no medicine, no water, no nothing. By law, nobody can override that request from the patient. Period. It should have at least been in writing, and she should've had a long discussion with her doctor, the lawyer who handled her will, and one or two trusted "others". |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:44:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?" One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And that's EXACTLY what it is. "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." *You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19 Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is always right. Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure. Why are there no complaints against them? The party affiliation of those who voted for it is irrelevant. It is an intrusion. When Jimcomma started this, he stated, "Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo..." I assumed you agreed with his position. My question to you would be, "Why should Scott Peterson get a Supreme Court hearing, and Schiavo not? Apparently some judges felt their was enough doubt about the husbands motives and her desires to rule for leaving the feeding tube in place. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause wrote:
John H wrote: BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal official with a backbone. Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta... Stay tuned. I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so necessary. Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not overturned sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high? She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson. Death row cases routinely are "reviewed" by a partial panel of the Supreme Court and just as routinely returned without action. Once in a great while the Supremes take on a death penalty case. Not often. Mrs. Schiavo got her due process. Further, there are witnesses who heard her say at two famioy funerals that she never wanted extreme measures taken to keep her around if she lapsed into a non-reversible coma or if she were dying of some dread disease. It was her wish to die. It also is a matter of spousal perogative. The right wing is, as usual, pandering to rile up its simple-minded masses. Unless you have all the testimony given to all the judges in this case, you have no basis for your statements. Whether or not she wished to die seems to be the crux of the matter. How do *you* know what she wished? From whence comes, "It is also a matter of spousal perogative." Have you researched the Florida laws to make that determination? If so, show us. Do you forget all Democrats who either went along with or voted *for* the measure (almost half of those who voted in the House)? In the Senate, *one* Democrat could have put the measure on hold. Not *one* Democrat desired to do so. Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what cause the comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe that people are 'obsessed' with you. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:51:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause wrote: It was her wish to die. Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and you would have the same situation you have now. The flip side is that if she could speak, she could insist that she be given NO care whatsoever after a certain point. No food, no medicine, no water, no nothing. By law, nobody can override that request from the patient. Period. It should have at least been in writing, and she should've had a long discussion with her doctor, the lawyer who handled her will, and one or two trusted "others". You'e right. She *could have*... As she didn't, the courts must make a determination. She is getting her shot at due process. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:16:53 -0500, HKrause wrote:
Yawn. Exactly. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:47:07 GMT, WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:22 -0500, John H wrote: Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what cause the comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe that people are 'obsessed' with you. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Actually John, if you killfiled crouse, the newsgroup would be one step close to a boating group. Just a suggestion. There is a reason you reply to him, ask yourself what that reason is. Up until this point the discussion was not at all contentious. But, you're right. Back in he goes. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:47:07 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:22 -0500, John H wrote: Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what cause the comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe that people are 'obsessed' with you. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Actually John, if you killfiled crouse, the newsgroup would be one step close to a boating group. Just a suggestion. There is a reason you reply to him, ask yourself what that reason is. Up until this point the discussion was not at all contentious. But, you're right. Back in he goes. -- John H Me too, please. |
but also of the death sentence of just handed down to
Terri Shiavo. *********** According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home. The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human being died 15 years ago. You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp, and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit of a sad, wry smile? |
On 23 Mar 2005 08:27:08 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:
John H wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:47:07 GMT, WaIIy wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:22 -0500, John H wrote: Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what cause the comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe that people are 'obsessed' with you. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Actually John, if you killfiled crouse, the newsgroup would be one step close to a boating group. Just a suggestion. There is a reason you reply to him, ask yourself what that reason is. Up until this point the discussion was not at all contentious. But, you're right. Back in he goes. -- John H Me too, please. No. You're too funny. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
|
To whom are you addressing this?
********** The the party who said Terry S. has been "sentenced to die." If death can be identified as the moment when the personality, intellect, emotions, and everything that makes one a human being, rather than a snail or a polliwog, is no longer associated with the body then Terry S. died 15 years ago. Medical science can keep her body functioning almost indefinitely, but I'd like to think that a merciful God would have picked up his child from that dysfunctional daycare years and years ago. Terri is long gone. Do we keep supplying utilities to her vacant house? Nah. One cannot be "sentenced to die" when already dead. I am anti abortion, and very skeptical about euthenasia. Abortion snuffs a real or developing life (depending on perspective) and euthenasia is wrong if it is against the patient's wishes or there is a potential for the restoration of at least a minimally functional person. Neither applies in the sad, sad, case of this poor, brain dead woman. No blood to the cerebral cortex will kill you almost right away. No blood to to cerebral cortex for 15 years? That's beyond hope. |
wrote in message oups.com... but also of the death sentence of just handed down to Terri Shiavo. *********** According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home. The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human being died 15 years ago. You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp, and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit of a sad, wry smile? NPR interview yesterday with a doctor who's considered one of the country's foremost experts on head injuries. He said that when the damage is the result of impact, like falls or car accidents, the chances for recovery from a vegetative state are pretty good, and predictable. But, when based on oxygen deprivation or chemical damage, prospects are lousy. It's funny how some people can't accept what doctors know about this woman's condition, but they're OK with meddling by a president whose condition is pretty much identical, except that he can be propped up behind a podium and programmed to say things when necessary. |
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:37:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com... but also of the death sentence of just handed down to Terri Shiavo. *********** According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home. The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human being died 15 years ago. You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp, and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit of a sad, wry smile? NPR interview yesterday with a doctor who's considered one of the country's foremost experts on head injuries. He said that when the damage is the result of impact, like falls or car accidents, the chances for recovery from a vegetative state are pretty good, and predictable. But, when based on oxygen deprivation or chemical damage, prospects are lousy. It's funny how some people can't accept what doctors know about this woman's condition, but they're OK with meddling by a president whose condition is pretty much identical, except that he can be propped up behind a podium and programmed to say things when necessary. On the other hand, Hannity had some doctor who had been nominated for a Nobel Prize (if that means anything) who stated that her chances of recovery were good, with the proper treatment. Which doctor(s) does one believe? I would probably agree with the NPR doctor, but again, that's based only on what I've heard or seen. Except for NYOB, who sticks needles into people's cortex for the fun of it, who knows (besides The Shadow, that is)? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:37:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... but also of the death sentence of just handed down to Terri Shiavo. *********** According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home. The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human being died 15 years ago. You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp, and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit of a sad, wry smile? NPR interview yesterday with a doctor who's considered one of the country's foremost experts on head injuries. He said that when the damage is the result of impact, like falls or car accidents, the chances for recovery from a vegetative state are pretty good, and predictable. But, when based on oxygen deprivation or chemical damage, prospects are lousy. It's funny how some people can't accept what doctors know about this woman's condition, but they're OK with meddling by a president whose condition is pretty much identical, except that he can be propped up behind a podium and programmed to say things when necessary. On the other hand, Hannity had some doctor who had been nominated for a Nobel Prize (if that means anything) who stated that her chances of recovery were good, with the proper treatment. Then again, there are doctors who know when it's time to stop playing god, and satisfying their need to become famous, rather than serve their customers. |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:45:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:37:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message egroups.com... but also of the death sentence of just handed down to Terri Shiavo. *********** According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home. The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human being died 15 years ago. You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp, and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit of a sad, wry smile? NPR interview yesterday with a doctor who's considered one of the country's foremost experts on head injuries. He said that when the damage is the result of impact, like falls or car accidents, the chances for recovery from a vegetative state are pretty good, and predictable. But, when based on oxygen deprivation or chemical damage, prospects are lousy. It's funny how some people can't accept what doctors know about this woman's condition, but they're OK with meddling by a president whose condition is pretty much identical, except that he can be propped up behind a podium and programmed to say things when necessary. On the other hand, Hannity had some doctor who had been nominated for a Nobel Prize (if that means anything) who stated that her chances of recovery were good, with the proper treatment. Then again, there are doctors who know when it's time to stop playing god, and satisfying their need to become famous, rather than serve their customers. Agreed. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
wrote in message oups.com... To whom are you addressing this? ********** The the party who said Terry S. has been "sentenced to die." If death can be identified as the moment when the personality, intellect, emotions, and everything that makes one a human being, rather than a snail or a polliwog, is no longer associated with the body then Terry S. died 15 years ago. Medical science can keep her body functioning almost indefinitely, but I'd like to think that a merciful God would have picked up his child from that dysfunctional daycare years and years ago. Terri is long gone. Do we keep supplying utilities to her vacant house? Nah. One cannot be "sentenced to die" when already dead. I am anti abortion, and very skeptical about euthenasia. Abortion snuffs a real or developing life (depending on perspective) and euthenasia is wrong if it is against the patient's wishes or there is a potential for the restoration of at least a minimally functional person. Neither applies in the sad, sad, case of this poor, brain dead woman. No blood to the cerebral cortex will kill you almost right away. No blood to to cerebral cortex for 15 years? That's beyond hope. Well said. Some "Experts" say she could be rehabilitated somewhat. 15 years, no way. The politico's are just pandering to their voter base. |
Best quote I've seen:
"Her heart failure deprived her Cerebral Cortex of oxygen causing it to die. The dead brain cells were absorbed into her system and replaced with cerebral fluid. So we don't have a case where there is a brain that might suddenly kick into life and she recovers. The brain is gone... absent... a void. Her recovery, assuming brains are important, would require divine intervention and creation of a new brain. Some day they may be able to transplant a new brain... but then there would be someone else in her head. She's dead and they are keeping her body alive artificially to play with and pretend it's their daughter. This is not only wrong in many ways, it's macabre... like the movie Psycho." "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:37:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: wrote in message roups.com... but also of the death sentence of just handed down to Terri Shiavo. *********** According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home. The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human being died 15 years ago. You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp, and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit of a sad, wry smile? NPR interview yesterday with a doctor who's considered one of the country's foremost experts on head injuries. He said that when the damage is the result of impact, like falls or car accidents, the chances for recovery from a vegetative state are pretty good, and predictable. But, when based on oxygen deprivation or chemical damage, prospects are lousy. It's funny how some people can't accept what doctors know about this woman's condition, but they're OK with meddling by a president whose condition is pretty much identical, except that he can be propped up behind a podium and programmed to say things when necessary. On the other hand, Hannity had some doctor who had been nominated for a Nobel Prize (if that means anything) who stated that her chances of recovery were good, with the proper treatment. Which doctor(s) does one believe? I would probably agree with the NPR doctor, but again, that's based only on what I've heard or seen. Except for NYOB, who sticks needles into people's cortex for the fun of it, who knows (besides The Shadow, that is)? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:51:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote: Just like countless other families, the family of Terri Schiavo has struggled for years with the intensely difficult decision of how to match her course of treatment to her wishes. Now President George W. Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the tragic case of Schiavo You seem to totally disregard the Democrats who voted for the measure (in the House) or allowed the measure to pass *without* objection in the Senate. Any good reason for that? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Take a listen to the Suzanne and Bobby Schindler interviews on this site: http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml Maybe then you can see a different perspective of what this is all about. There is more to this sad story than you think. Something is rotten in Denmark. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com