[OldManMac]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
How do you know for a fact what she can and can not feel? If this woman doesn't have a working brain, how is it that she is able to move at all and blink?

It's all been explained here, and elsewhere, ad nauseum, but once more, her moving and blinking are not under her control. More than a couple of medical experts have stated that she has very little of her brain left, and what motions she does are simple reflexive motions, which she has no control over. This has gone through a number of courts, with a number of medical experts concluding that she is in a persistant vegetative state.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
How do you know for a fact what she can and can not feel? If this woman doesn't have a working brain, how is it that she is able to move at all and blink?

She's becoming a zombie.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
...If this woman doesn't have a working brain, how is it that she is able to move at all and blink?

why don't you ask cody dawg?

*SCNR*

[Ω]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
why don't you ask cody dawg?

*SCNR*

ZING!

[badidea]

Originally posted by His Dudeness:
...If this woman doesn't have a working brain, how is it that she is able to move at all and blink?

...how many blinks have you scheduled for today?
If you don't plan your blinks, you can do one simple test: Try to stop blinking for the next 10 minutes and if your working brain can really control this then you might have a point!





oh and Mr. Blanco: pretty low but

[Wiskedjak]

Looks as though the federal court judge is in on the conspiracy ...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

[Cody Dawg]

It's all been explained here, and elsewhere, ad nauseum, but once more, her moving and blinking are not under her control.

When you say things like that I say again, have you SEEN the videos of her at their site: HERE?

Go down to one of six - go to the one where she is sleeping and her father walks in and asks her to open her eyes. Not only does she open her eyes as her father asks (when she wakes up), but she opens them EXTRA WIDE.

When her mother comes into the room and asks how her cold is, she tries to talk.

Why is it that everyone refuses to understand that?

Honestly, this entire issue is horrifying to me, terrible. It is extremely disturbing.

We are basing her death on one man's word: That of her adulterous husband who has another wife and two children. If that is not a conflict of interest I do not know what is.

Why this country allows one man's word - hearsay - to dictate whether or not a person has a living will or DNR (do not resuscitate) order is unbelievable.

As I said again, watch the videos then post here with your informed opinions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
When you say things like that I say again, have you SEEN the videos of her at their site: HERE?

Go down to one of six - go to the one where she is sleeping and her father walks in and asks her to open her eyes. Not only does she open her eyes as her father asks (when she wakes up), but she opens them EXTRA WIDE.

When her mother comes into the room and asks how her cold is, she tries to talk.

Why is it that everyone refuses to understand that?

Honestly, this entire issue is horrifying to me, terrible. It is extremely disturbing.

We are basing her death on one man's word: That of her adulterous husband who has another wife and two children. If that is not a conflict of interest I do not know what is.

Why this country allows one man's word - hearsay - to dictate whether or not a person has a living will or DNR (do not resuscitate) order is unbelievable.

As I said again, watch the videos then post here with your informed opinions.

Is this you accepting the decisions of the federal court? Obviously, judges are not agreeing with you. Why do you suppose that is? Can it not be assumed that their opinions are informed?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Conflict of interest? He's her husband.

Also common-law married with children to another woman, who he cannot legally marry unless he divorces Terri or she dies. If he divorces her, it is unclear what will happen in terms of alimony or other financial support, but if she dies that not only does this not occur but he stands to gain a significant amount from her insurance.

This is someone with extremely strong emotional and financial reasons for wanting her to die, and you say this is not a conflict of interest?

He's the one who's been by her side for these dozen or so years.

His treatment of her -and I don't mean in the medical sense- has been sketchy at best.

He's the one she expressed her wish not to be kept like this.

That's what's in question. Bringing up something in dispute as its own evidence isn't good form.

How is their commitments to each other and their bond of marriage a conflict of interest now?

Because they provide the other side of the conflict.

I guess all this 'sanctity of marriage' rhetoric we've been hearing means nothing. If you agree with the Religious Right than you're a loving spouse if you don't then you're just another suspect.

Tell that to the guy who didn't bother to dissolve his first marriage before entering into another one.

[badidea]

I looked at her site but can't watch RealPlayer movies here at work - can someone tell me when those two moments of reaction were recorded in her 15 years of coma?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
This is someone with extremely strong emotional and financial reasons for wanting her to die, and you say this is not a conflict of interest?

The judges who have reviewed this case appear not to think there is a conflict of interest ...

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
but she opens them EXTRA WIDE.

If you tell a dog to sit and it does, is it because you told it so? I think it was mere coincidence really. But just before the video ends it seems that he asks her to do something else besides the eye trick.... so does she do that to? We don't know because if she didn't, showing it would ruin their proof. The videos are selective at best.

[waxcrash]

The Appeals Court in Atlanta voted to NOT reinstate the feeding tube. One court left - the Supreme Court.

[bstone]

The Supreme Court has a history of upholding personal liberties in this regard. It is with hope that I turn my eyes to the Supreme Court and hope that it quickly and speedily dismisses this issue, and hopefully admonishes Congress and the Christian right for attempting to infringe on personal liberties.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
When you say things like that I say again, have you SEEN the videos of her at their site: HERE?

Give me a few hours and a video camera, and I'll show you evidence that my sea monkeys respond to my commands, going up when I say up, doing somersaults when I say to somersault.

Did anyone else listen to the touching and sweet conversation she had with her father yesterday? (This was posted on the Family Research Council website)

--

Too bad how the evil culture of death appeals court, like the twelve other courts involved in this case, hate life and are part of a left-wing conspiracy to undermine decency in this country! Truly, as Santorum said, we have judicial tyranny in this country. The Congress clearly preferred a particular outcome to the rulings, and the courts have utterly ignored those preferences!

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Also common-law married with children to another woman, who he cannot legally marry unless he divorces Terri or she dies. If he divorces her, it is unclear what will happen in terms of alimony or other financial support, but if she dies that not only does this not occur but he stands to gain a significant amount from her insurance.

This is someone with extremely strong emotional and financial reasons for wanting her to die, and you say this is not a conflict of interest?

His treatment of her -and I don't mean in the medical sense- has been sketchy at best.

http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...0503211140.asp

What's really going on here � and I don't think we can afford to kid ourselves about this � is that Terri's husband has decided that hers is a life not worth having. In his opinion, her continued existence is nothing but a burden � a burden to herself, to him, to society. He has presumed to decide that his wife is better off dead.

Even if we were to credit Michael Schiavo's account of his conversation with Terri before her injury � which I am not inclined to do � it is a mistake to assume that people can make decisions in advance about whether to have themselves starved to death if they eventually find themselves disabled. That's why living wills have proven to be so often unreliable. One does not know how one will actually feel, or how one will feel about one's life and the prospect of death, or whether one will retain a desire to live despite a mental or physical disability, when one is not actually in that condition and when one is envisaging it from the perspective of more or less robust health.

Consider the case of a beautiful young woman � an actress or fashion model perhaps � who is severely burned in a fire. Prior to actually finding herself in such a condition, she might have supposed � and even said, if the subject had come up in a conversation � that she would rather be dead than live with her face grotesquely disfigured. But no one would be surprised if in the actual event she did not try to kill herself by starvation or some other means, and did not want to die.

In any event, it is clear that the only reason for Michael Schiavo's decision is that he considers Terri's quality of life to be so poor that he wants her to be dead. He claims that she would want that too, which I don't grant, but even if he's right about that, we should treat her like anyone else who wants to commit suicide. We rescue, we care. We affirm the inherent value of the life of every human being. Our governing principle should be always to care, never to kill.

...

The fact is that, under color of law, Michael Schiavo is seeking to deprive Terri of sustenance because of her disability. Under federal civil-rights statutes, this raises a substantial issue. It cannot be waved away by invoking states' rights.

...

The other thing that Congress is being accused of is interfering in a family decision. Now look: Terri Schiavo has been abandoned by her husband. Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful to Terri "in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, 'til death do us part." But he has not been faithful; he has not forsaken all others. He has set himself up in a marriage in all-but-name with someone else, a woman with whom he already has two children. He has disrespected Terri and, indeed, forsaken her. Now he is seeking to bring about her death by starvation. Notice something wrong with this picture? Terri's parents and siblings, by contrast, have never abandoned her. They are prepared to shoulder all the burdens, including the financial burdens, of caring for her. They want to provide the therapy that many medical people who have observed Terri, whether at the bedside or by videotape, believe can help her. No one expects a full recovery, but it may be possible for her to make genuine progress. That possibility will be foreclosed, however, if she is killed by deliberate starvation before it can begin.

- Robert P. George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics

[Cody Dawg]

We're not talking about sea monkeys but heck, why don't you go ahead and give that sea monkey a command and let us watch them respond. The point is that that is a ridiculous comment.



The truth is that a lot of people here seem to have a culture of death mentality, unfortunately.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Truly, as Santorum said, we have judicial tyranny in this country. The Congress clearly preferred a particular outcome to the rulings, and the courts have utterly ignored those preferences!

I didn't know that a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter could talk.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The truth is that a lot of people here seem to have a culture of death mentality, unfortunately.

Yeah, because we are all axe murderers by heart.
Get a grip.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:

The truth is that a lot of people here seem to have a culture of death mentality, unfortunately.

Not doctors. We are charged with the most paramount and huge responsibility to preserve and save lives. However doctors from around the world all register with the same theme (except for your one charlatan) that Mrs Schiavo has no higher/cognitive brain function (mostly in due to her cortex being LIQUIFIED) but rather her "interactions" being nothing more than neuron action potentials on and around the medulla.

In this case, doctors agree that unless there is a Divine act, Mrs Schiavo will continue in this state of being. According to her husband and others this is not at all what she wanted.

2 more federal courts examine the issues and rule on behalf of personal liberties. I applaud the judicial system.

Culture of death? No. Culture of compassion? Yes.

[Cody Dawg]

Why do you post here if all you have to say are things that ridicule people?

Seriously, go find somewhere else to post childish nonsense, demograph.

You obviously aren't having fun here and/or you're in over your head because you can't even make salient comments.

[demograph68]

The fact is that, under color of law, Michael Schiavo is seeking to deprive Terri of sustenance because of her disability. Under federal civil-rights statutes, this raises a substantial issue.

Sustenance my ass. Being brain dead is such a rewarding experience... right.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by bstone:
The Supreme Court has a history of upholding personal liberties in this regard. It is with hope that I turn my eyes to the Supreme Court and hope that it quickly and speedily dismisses this issue, and hopefully admonishes Congress and the Christian right for attempting to infringe on personal liberties.

The Supreme Court also has a history of dismissing this issue

Appeals court denies request to reinsert tube
An emergency filing to the high court would go first to Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who has staked a moderate position on social issues.

Mr. Kennedy would have the option to act on the petition alone, although on previous emergency requests involving Mr. Schiavo he has referred the matter to the full nine-member court.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
As I said again, watch the videos then post here with your informed opinions.

I've seen much video of Theresa Schiavo including her head and eyes following a balloon as her brother moves it to and fro above her head. She's severely handicapped no doubt, but certainly not on life-support. She's cognitive, alert, and aware. Perhaps more aware than we know. Had the "husband" (who is actually in breech of the contract of marriage being common-law married to another women with children in Florida) used the money awarded him to rehabilitate his wife instead of spending it in legal fees to deny her rehabilitation during the time it was needed most and could've had the most positive effect, she might not be as "vegetative" as she is today. This will likely end in a tragic death not legal for a household pet, and the evidence of any wrong-doing and perhaps the only one to blow the whistle will be cremated soon.

I've seen blogs from both sides and there are some misunderstandings regarding the issue;
"Terri Schiavo is in a vegetative state, she feels no pain." If this were the case, we should probably stop mentioning how cruel this is to Terri as she is in a vegetative state, does not feel pain, and does not know any better.

"I wouldn't want to live like this, Terri shouldn't have to live like this." Truth be told, I could mention several hundred million people who I'd not like to trade places with, this doesn't warrant death for them. I see smiles at the Special Olympics as a positive thing, I see Terri Schiavo's smile as a positive thing as well.

Michael Schiavo was awarded $1.3 million dollars to rehabilitate his wife. The reason for such a large jury-awarded amount of money was because Michael had several lawyers arguing that she'd live a long life this way and he needed these funds to be a good husband in caring for ALL her needs. He failed to mention anything about his wife's desire to not want to live this way at the time. How could this be? He loves her. He wants only to carry through with her wishes. So...did she not want to live in a vegetative state the whole time, just after the successful $1.3million dollar case, or just now??? Well at least he did spend the money on rehabilitating his wife...Wait! He didn't? Let's look at this for a moment;
She only received rehabilitation until her insurance coverage ran dry, just about the time the malpractice case was firing up. Once the case went in favor of Michael for rehabilitation, was the rehabilitation restarted immediately? no. In fact, he denied every single penny of the $750,000.00 to go to rehabilitation, including his addition of "do not resuscitate" on her chart. Why would he do this after a long, drawn-out malpractice court case awarding him over a million dollars for the care of his wife??? Why did he want her to live a long life prior to the million and ever since getting it wants her dead??? Was he fulfilling her wishes before or after the million dollars??? Would you deny antibiotics to a man you didn't know down the street? Why deny your wife of them??? This reminds me of when they asked why not allow rehabilitation for her to swallow, George Felos; Michael Schiavo's attorney, contends that "she can't be allowed to swallow because food might get into her lungs." You mean, she might drown? I don't know about you, but if we're tying to put ourselves in Terri's position we might find that drowning to death is more humane than starving and thirsting to death for as long as two weeks. The lion-share of money awarded him, due in large part to his plee that much would be needed for the care of his wife has been spent in trying to end her life. How much of these funds were spent on Terri? Approximately $50,000.00 which y'all might know is cheap for several years room and board in a medical care facility. How much of the funds have gone into rehabilitation? Her insurance covered it in 90' and 91' when that ran out; $0. Since it's evident that he's not looking out for the best interest of his "wife" why not just give guardianship to the brother or parents of Terri?

Either she wanted to live or she wanted to die. You can't have it both ways just because there's a lot of money involved with malpractice cases. Generally, on an exam you're told to go with your first answer. If she wanted to live prior to the malpractice suit, she wants to live after as well.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If he divorces her, it is unclear what will happen in terms of alimony or other financial support, but if she dies that not only does this not occur but he stands to gain a significant amount from her insurance.

This is someone with extremely strong emotional and financial reasons for wanting her to die, and you say this is not a conflict of interest?

So by that reasoning, only spouses of people without life insurance should be allowed to make decisions regarding their treatment, correct??

And for people with insurance, we should allow congress to make the decisions then?

Is that what your telling me?

Show me ONE case where someone makes a decision about the medical treatment of his/her spouse WITHOUT a conflict of interest of some kind, and I'll disregard your incredibly short-sighted statement.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Why do you post here if all you have to say are things that ridicule people?

I tried but who cares anyway. (The videos you mentioned)

[bstone]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I've seen much video of Theresa Schiavo including her head and eyes following a balloon as her brother moves it to and fro above her head. She's severely handicapped no doubt, but certainly not on life-support. She's cognitive, alert, and aware. Perhaps more aware than we know.

What is with it with all the broken records? Sheesh. You would think that after 13 pages of posts and innumerable testimonies on every public forum known to mankind some people might actually open their ears and listen.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Sustenance my ass. Being brain dead is such a rewarding experience... right.

Uh, she's not braindead brah'. She's being fed through a tube, she's not on life-support.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Uh, she's not braindead brah'. She's being fed through a tube, she's not on life-support.

Ok, she's 1/3 brain dead.

[bstone]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Uh, she's not braindead brah'. She's being fed through a tube, she's not on life-support.

Do you know anything about medicine? I'll assume no for your comments demonstrate just this.

You're right. She isn't brain dead. It's just that a large chunk of her brain is gone. *poof* Bye bye. Look on the CT scan. Those huge, gaping black spots in the middle of her brain are pools of fluid. It's also where her cortex *used to be*. The cortex is responsible for cognitive thinking and higher brain functions. She doesn't have one. So guess what- she doesn't think or have cognitive actions.

Second, you're also right. She isn't on life-support, because the g-tube has been removed. Had it still been in there she would, however, be on life support.

[Cody Dawg]

So, there are a lot of people whose brains are partially gone. Look at brain cancer victims. Accident victims. There are millions of people who live or have lived fine with a partial brain.

Doesn't mean that we should let them die.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by bstone:
Do you know anything about medicine? I'll assume no for your comments demonstrate just this.

You're right. She isn't brain dead. It's just that a large chunk of her brain is gone. *poof* Bye bye. Look on the CT scan. Those huge, gaping black spots in the middle of her brain are pools of fluid. It's also where her cortex *used to be*. The cortex is responsible for cognitive thinking and higher brain functions. She doesn't have one. So guess what- she doesn't think or have cognitive actions.

Second, you're also right. She isn't on life-support, because the g-tube has been removed. Had it still been in there she would, however, be on life support.

You're either saying anyone with a IV attached to them is also on life support, or there is something extraordinary about food and water.

[SimeyTheLimey]

zig zag: you have successfully browbeaten me into reading Judge Greer's order. Based on that, I will correct two mistakes of fact where I was under a mistaken impression about the case and where you were right. You can treat this as an apology if you wish. However, neither fundamentally changes my opinion. I have also been doing some thinking about the wider implications, and I will try to put those into words.

First, yes, I was wrong about when the guardian ad litem was dismissed by the Fl. SCT. He was there during the hearings. I'm not sure, though, how effective he was. Judge Greer doesn't seem to rely on him.

Second, Judge Greer examined four pieces of hearsay (or technically, exceptions to hearsay) evidence, not just one. He dismisses the mother's, and credits the husbands, as well as the sister and brother in law. Here is why I still don't think that could rise to clear and convincing evidence (or at least, why there is in my mind substantial doubt that another factfinder would find it rises to that level).

First, Judge Greer admits that there is a financial conflict of interests relating to the disposition of the remaining monies from the medical settlement (and I have some general thoughts on that topic below). But then he says that the family has the same conflict -- forgetting that they want to spend it on Terri's care, where Michael wants to terminate her care, which would cause the remaining money to go into his pocket. The conflicts are therefore not, as Judge Greer implies, a wash.

Secondly, Judge Greer dismisses the non-financial conflicts out of hand as "irrelevant." I simply disagree with that, and I think a different finder of facts could as well. In addition, while three hearsay witnesses are better than one, the other two also suffered from much the same conflict as Michael. They weren't neutral either. And while their evidence overlapped with his, it didn't corroborate it -- none of them from what I understood testified to the same words.

Now, as I have said all along, the finder of facts determinations get a lot of deference. I don't think any of these errors would be reversible on appeal -- and indeed, they were not reversed. What could reverse it, or at least wipe it out, was what Congress tried to do by creating a federal venue. I think that would have been a good idea from a certainty point of view. However, the federal courts, as the dissenting judge in the 11th Circuit points out, ignored Congress' intent and treated the matter as essentially a habeas appeal. I think the dissenter was right, and that the federal courts have been wrong too. But I can understand why they wouldn't want to get involved.

Now general thoughts. First, as we have discussed, this issue is inherently federal, and therefore Congress did not act improperly by trying to give one last opportunity for a hearing. But that failed, and I am not surprised.

Second, however, because there are federal guarantees at stake, we may need to look at this deliberately from a federal point of view. Florida required a clear and convincing standard (as upheld in the Cruzan case), but other states will allow helpless people to be killed based on only a preponderance of the evidence standard. I think that is intolerable.

States may also have to look at these issues. I don't think it is satisfactory for a judge alone to be the finder of facts. If we are going by the wishes of the incapacitated person, then it is inevitable that the cases will turn on hearsay. I'd like a jury of some sort to look at that.

States could also reduce the financial conflicts of interests families have in these cases by requiring medical trusts instead of cash settlements or awards when the victim is compensated fo rthe injury that leads to the incapacity. I have some professional exposure to this which I will not go into, but suffice to say, families often begin to see green when large amounts of money are given to tort victims for their medical care. They have a conflict because the earlier the victim dies, the more money will be left to inherit, and the quicker they will get it. Trusts can remove this by either reverting the corpus of the trust to the tortfeasor, or giving it to someone other than the estate (usually by giving ownership of the trust to a third party with reversion to that party). Trusts can also provide a neutral administrator without a financial stake in the care, and who could prevent medical settlements from being used to pay attorney's fees.

As a society, I also think we need to confront what it is we are doing here. We are providing for euthanasia. I am distressed at the way that truth is being masked with soothing misleading language about "allowing people to die." We are killing them. That may be justified, and it may be the morally correct and humane thing to do. But we should step up to that responsibility by doing it by a humane means. Starving a living thing to death is not a humane means, period. I don't care how vegetative a person is, if they don't meet the Harvard definition of brain death, then they still feel pain stimuli.

Finally, the lesson we can all agree on is the need for each of us to think this through and write a living will, or better yet, a durable medical power of attorney. I am ashamed to say that I don't yet have one, but I will fix that.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by bstone:
Not doctors. We are charged with the most paramount and huge responsibility to preserve and save lives. However doctors from around the world all register with the same theme (except for your one charlatan) that Mrs Schiavo has no higher/cognitive brain function (mostly in due to her cortex being LIQUIFIED) but rather her "interactions" being nothing more than neuron action potentials on and around the medulla.
In this case, doctors agree that unless there is a Divine act, Mrs Schiavo will continue in this state of being. According to her husband and others this is not at all what she wanted.
2 more federal courts examine the issues and rule on behalf of personal liberties. I applaud the judicial system.
Culture of death? No. Culture of compassion? Yes.

Do you applaud the same Judicial system that awarded Michael Schiavo $1.3 million dollars because he stated he wanted to provide long-term care for his wife only to have turned around to spend the lion-share of that money on letting her die??? Compassion? Look, I respect your position in society, without your signature on a prescription I can't get the good stuff, but truth be told this has absolutely nothing to do with compassion. Compassion is consistent. Compassion doesn't shift and change according to the awarding of millions in malpractice suits. By the way, whose malpractice? The infallible doctor's malpractice or the judges?

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
So, there are a lot of people whose brains are partially gone. Look at brain cancer victims. Accident victims. There are millions of people who live or have lived fine with a partial brain.

Doesn't mean that we should let them die.

You are avoid the facts. Her cortex is completely liquified. This isn't a part or a section. It is *GONE*.

She is hardly "living". She is a lifeless husk. The "interactions" you see are merely action potentials passing from chemical synapse pre to post synaptic cells. Nothing more.

[Cody Dawg]

A lifeless husk doesn't try to speak in response to others speaking to her.

Watch the videos.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
A lifeless husk doesn't try to speak in response to others speaking to her.

Watch the videos.

Broken record.

[Cody Dawg]

Let's pay Michael Schiavo off.

We've got over $5 million in pledges. I myself have pledged $5000 to have him stop killing his wife and I'll honor it.

[ebuddy]

Ahhh, the "schlllupp" sound of tubes being pulled across the globe.

Is she on ACLS doc? Nope. Is she even on BLS? nope. So... by this reasoning catheters are life support? Those on dialysis? Goners.

[bstone]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ahhh, the "schlllupp" sound of tubes being pulled across the globe.

Is she on ACLS doc? Nope. Is she even on BLS? nope. So... by this reasoning catheters are life support? Those on dialysis? Goners.

There is much more to medicine than that. A g-tube is a catheter and it is only done under a doctors orders. Being that is provides for support of one's life, it indeed falls under the category of life support. Removing it removes one source of life support.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by bstone:
There is much more to medicine than that. A g-tube is a catheter and it is only done under a doctors orders. Being that is provides for support of one's life, it indeed falls under the category of life support. Removing it removes one source of life support.

It's hardly the level of life-support one would expect in a permanently vegetative state. Truth is, in this case it is simply depriving her of the nutrients necessary to buy her time for rehabilitation. There are several prominent therapists in this country alone who believe she has a strong chance of swallowing with therapy. The risk? She may drown. The reward? She may live.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Let's pay Michael Schiavo off.
We've got over $5 million in pledges. I myself have pledged $5000 to have him stop killing his wife and I'll honor it.

He won't be paid off at this point Cody that's just it. To do so would render him public enemy #1.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Let's pay Michael Schiavo off.

We've got over $5 million in pledges. I myself have pledged $5000 to have him stop killing his wife and I'll honor it.

He's already shown that he won't accept large sums of money to ignore the desires of his wife.

Sure, he's moved on. But, after 15 years of her being essentially dead, I can't blame him, but doesn't mean he has lost respect for her wishes.

Honor your promise to accept the federal court decisions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
To do so would render him public enemy #1.

Only if all the hearsay of the smear campaign is correct.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Let's pay Michael Schiavo off.

We've got over $5 million in pledges. I myself have pledged $5000 to have him stop killing his wife and I'll honor it.

[not directed at cody dawg but to the overzealous TS peeps in general]

geez!

use that money for your kid's college tuition fund! buy your mom a dream cruise for mother's day! buy your wife something nice!


no matter what you feel about these people, get your priorities straight. first of all, if you feel this strongly... learn from TS's mistakes. make a will right now and make sure you clearly identify on what you want to happen in this situation. Worry about 1. you and your direct family first. 2. your periphery family and friends second and then your own 3. town/laws. who is TS to you? why is she so important?

take your money and effort and use it for a more worthy cause.

CANCER KILLS much more than 1 person named Terry Schiavo per day!!!

[bstone]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
It's hardly the level of life-support one would expect in a permanently vegetative state. Truth is, in this case it is simply depriving her of the nutrients necessary to buy her time for rehabilitation. There are several prominent therapists in this country alone who believe she has a strong chance of swallowing with therapy. The risk? She may drown. The reward? She may live.

The chance? 0%

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Is this you accepting the decisions of the federal court? Obviously, judges are not agreeing with you. Why do you suppose that is? Can it not be assumed that their opinions are informed?

The judges are not seeing these videos. The closest thing they have to look at is a piece of paper (transcript) of a doctor saying "permanent vegetative state". They then look at Florida law, which states that PVS = you can pull the tube.

This is the one finding that I think the family should be fighting - like why did the courts accept the PVS words from a doctor who hardly ever saw Terry, or another who travels the nation deeming all his seen patients as PVS for the courts, over the opinion of doctors who deal with her regularly?

On another front, the family's arguments rooted in "her husband is a skumbag" are nowherenear enough to warrant a rehearing or reexamination of the case. I think that's what we've been hearing these last few judges say.

What sucks is that she has a family more than willing to take care of her, but the husband just wants her dead because it's a burden for him.

[Cody Dawg]

On top of which the first judge was/is LEGALLY BLIND.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The judges are not seeing these videos. The closest thing they have to look at is a piece of paper (transcript) of a doctor saying "permanent vegetative state". They then look at Florida law, which states that PVS = you can pull the tube.

Why are the judges not seeing the videos? Why are the doctors saying "permanent vegetative state" if the videos indicate otherwise?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
On top of which the first judge was/is LEGALLY BLIND.

Was the last judge legally blind?