[entrox]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Are Terri's parents going to have to go on TV and beg Michael for Terri's body so they can have a proper burial?

Or is he going to honor her "wish" that she wanted to be pissed on, hacked into little pieces, and fed to sharks?

[xenu]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Brilliant, blame the Christians. Let�s put aside the fact that the majority of the judicial body in that circuit is made up of people who can be categorized as conservative Protestants. None of this has to do with religion. There is no legal cause for anyone to consider her religious affiliation in this matter. The proponents of keeping �it� alive are just using the issue to solicit support from the media. Hardly any people who consider themselves �Christians� want her to live like this. The fact that you and other people keep bringing it up religion just detracts from the real legal issue, which I said was what? Come on someone use the search function and you win a cookie!

Seriously, the only thing you were born with was a myopic attitude towards Christians and a limited intellectual capacity.

I just hope the stump doesn�t pass away until after the weekend so the lot of you don�t j|zz all over yourselves by igniting another discussion that relates to religion.

Being Captain Obvious, why don't you tell us all who is making the most noise against her death? Or is your superior intellectual capacity wasted on such a minor point? These people are using their religious beliefs to keep her alive. Why don't you use your superpowers to put 2 and 2 together.

Whether you like it or not this is a religious fight. The religious right is trying to stamp their authority on how we die.

Do all christians feel this way? No. Which is why I said some christians.

BTW, your last point - could you be a bigger ars*hole if you tried?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by goMac:
The ones hurting Terri are the ones keeping her alive.

But your cohorts just got done assuring everyone that she feels no pain. How can she be hurting?

Just let her go. Everyone dies eventually, and the person that was Terri is already dead.

That Terri died 15 years ago. The Terri who has been here for 15 years is still loved immensely by her family.

She dies when she dies. I didn't know her either way. I just didn't see the harm was in letting her parents take care of her.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Back to Falluja!

And don't forget Soros found guilty of insider trading

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by xenu:
Being Captain Obvious, why don't you tell us all who is making the most noise against her death? Or is your superior intellectual capacity wasted on such a minor point?

Well let's see. For the past 4 years she has been in this situation where the husband and parents were fighting over the right to decide its fate.
About a year ago this story really took off because the local FL media forced it on to television and then the people of average to below average intelligence picked up the story on Entertainment Tonight or whatever they watch. Since then the most attention to this story has come from people like you and iWrite who somehow believe that this case is something special. And they have tacked on their unrelated agendas (like religion, morality, made up "rights") to the story in an effort to bolster their arguments, which it hasn�t
Which leads to the assumption that the people who make the most noise, no matter their position, are the ones that know the least about the real issues in question.
It seems like the bulk of people who run in the medical, legal, and biological research circles are of similar mind. It is not a unique situation, it is not about religion, and the resolution of the matter is pretty straight forward. What�s taken this long was the normal appeals process made more cumbersome by the other people who got involved (the ones that don�t know jack) asking their legislators to get involved. Which they did, and not entirely without merit since that is their job. What went wrong with them was that they crossed the line and intervened instead of just petitioning on the �people�s behalf.�

So I guess the simple answer is: stupid people make the most noise.

And since you edited your original post because of its initial weakness of argument and to add more peanut gallery comments I will add that yes, yes I could be. And you are still incorrect

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
She dies when she dies.

You're right, of course. Then maybe we should have let Saddam Hussein do his thing until he dies too!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If she's in no pain, I don't see the harm in letting her parents take care of her.

The harm is to her memory, in the same way that dishonoring the last wishes of any dead person harms them.

I can see why the parents might be in a state of deep depression at the loss of their daughter, and having a husk of a human form around for them to live out a sick fantasy in which death is only temporary might give them something to focus their lives on. That would harm the husband, wouldn't it? Imagine for a moment that your spouse has been killed, but instead of being able to bury them you were forced to let someone else keep their body preserved in the parlor, pretending they're still alive. After 15 years, you have moved on with your life, but are still for some bizarre reason officially married to your dead spouse. You don't find any objection to that scenario?

[demograph68]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
You're right, of course. Then maybe we should have let Saddam Hussein do his thing until he dies too!

What?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by demograph68:
What?

My point exactly.

"She dies, she dies" refers to let life go on its course.

The Iraq intervention had for objective, among others, to free the Iraqi people from the dictator.

Here we have a woman under the dictatorship of life/destiny.

But the same asking for the intervention in Iraq are pulling back from Schiavo, on the principle that "life has to follow its course" so to speak.

These situations are both the same in their rationalizations: a political agenda that as nothing to do with the reality of the people living the tyranny.

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
She dies when she dies.

OK. I got an idea to make things fair then. We'll let her live naturally, and take her off all means of artificial support. Doesn't that sound fair? After all, she dies when she dies.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:


What�s taken this long was the normal appeals process made more cumbersome by the other people who got involved (the ones that don�t know jack) asking their legislators to get involved.

And since you edited your original post because of its initial weakness of argument and to add more peanut gallery comments I will add that yes, yes I could be. And you are still incorrect

And those people would be? Come on, your superpowers must be waning.
Who are taking cups of water to the hospice? Who are trying pass laws to keep her alive?
What lobby groups are applying pressure? The UN? The Red Cross?

For someone who claims to be caption obvious, you really seem to be having problems. I believe I have about 4 posts on this issue - half of them in reply to you. In 22 pages. What obvious conclusion does that suggest to you about me keeping this issue alive?

BTW, I don't believe this case is special. As I said, people drop dead for no apparent reason all the time. As I said, she should be allowed to die with whatever dignity she has left. I guess that wasn't obvious to you.

What is special is the fight the religious right are putting up to keep her alive. The implications should be obvious, even to you.

I edited my original post to add more stuff. That ok with you, or do we now need your approval to use the edit button?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
The harm is to her memory, in the same way that dishonoring the last wishes of any dead person harms them.

If indeed those were her wishes, it really shouldn't take the husband over 7 years to remember them.

I can see why the parents might be in a state of deep depression at the loss of their daughter, and having a husk of a human form around for them to live out a sick fantasy in which death is only temporary might give them something to focus their lives on.

Believe it or not, many parents would and do take care of their disabled children, not to mention the countless thousands of families who take care of their alheimer-ridden, elderly relatives.

That would harm the husband, wouldn't it? Imagine for a moment that your spouse has been killed, but instead of being able to bury them you were forced to let someone else keep their body preserved in the parlor, pretending they're still alive. After 15 years, you have moved on with your life, but are still for some bizarre reason officially married to your dead spouse. You don't find any objection to that scenario?

But that's not the scenario. Why create a scenario when we have the real deal in front of us?

The parents stated repeatedly, and with numerous lawyers, that they would gladly grant Michael a divorce. The marriage is over if they were to get custody. How did you miss that offer/development?

What really stands to hurt Michael in that scenario is the Terri Trust Fund. The fund, containing over a million dollars earmarked for Terri's care, defaults to him when she dies. If she is still alive, he doesn't get the cake.

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If indeed those were her wishes, it really shouldn't take the husband over 7 years to remember them.

Maybe her husband was trying to hold out hope too?

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What really stands to hurt Michael in that scenario is the Terri Trust Fund. The fund, containing over a million dollars earmarked for Terri's care, defaults to him when she dies. If she is still alive, he doesn't get the cake.

There's only $50k left. Of course, Terri's parents haven't ever cared at all about getting their piece of the pie, right?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by goMac:
Maybe her husband was trying to hold out hope too?

Well, why not, I suppose. He has taken everything else to absurd extremes this whole time; why not take that to an absurd extreme too? Then again, he didn't wait that long before starting his new life, so that's a hole in the theory; he, at least, seems to have given up hope before then.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
There's only $50k left. Of course, Terri's parents haven't ever cared at all about getting their piece of the pie, right?

In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today.

The financial records revealing how Terri�s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri�s medical fund on Schiavo�s attorney�s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo�s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Are Terri's parents going to have to go on TV and beg Michael for Terri's body so they can have a proper burial?

Or is he going to honor her "wish" that she wanted to be pissed on, hacked into little pieces, and fed to sharks?

. . . and the idiocy baton gets handed off from iWrite, to budster, to spacefreak . . . he's in his stride . . . coming down the stretch now . . . it's close . . . they're breathing down his neck . . . AND HE WINS!!! SETTING A NEW ALL-TIME INTELLECTUAL LOW!!! THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!!!

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
[quotation snipped]

Precisely because the proper medical care for Terri is to allow her to die, as determined by the court. But I don't know what your argument is. Are you saying that it's not worth spending the money to assure that the patient's wishes are honored?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's directly incompatible with every widely-accepted definition of human rights out there.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

According to the Declaration, you can't take away any rights because they are inalienable. So, if the right of life is inalienable, the lady in question can't deny herself that right. So even if she wills to die, to kill her would be a violation of her inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration.

Inalienable rights aren't dependant upon freedom, rather freedom is dependant upon inalienable rights. 'recognition... of the equal and inalienable rights... is the foundation of freedom'. Therefore, to deny her life, even if it is by her choice, is to undermine her freedom.

[Cody Dawg]

Michael Schiavo is a scumbag ad nauseam.

itai195: Give me a break about how Schiavo is "broke": He and his attorneys are going to rake in MILLIONS after Terri is DEAD. Books, movies, heck, probably even refrigerator magnets.

Or, how about this?

[itai195]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Michael Schiavo is a scumbag ad nauseam.

itai195: Give me a break about how Schiavo is "broke": He and his attorneys are going to rake in MILLIONS after Terri is DEAD. Books, movies, heck, probably even refrigerator magnets.

I didn't say he's broke, I said he doesn't stand to inherit all the money you and others are constantly saying that he is.

But if you believe he's going to exploit Terri after the ordeal is over, what makes you think Terri's parents won't? Oh I forgot, they're saints.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
. . . and the idiocy baton gets handed off from iWrite, to budster, to spacefreak . . . he's in his stride . . . coming down the stretch now . . . it's close . . . they're breathing down his neck . . . AND HE WINS!!! SETTING A NEW ALL-TIME INTELLECTUAL LOW!!! THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!!!

Thanks. I aimed high this year, and it looks as if all the hard work is finally paying off.

As for my post, the first part was actually a legitimate question: Is the family going to have to beg Michael for Terri's body?

[Deimos]

What a mess.

[Cody Dawg]

Let me tell you something: In my mind they ARE saints - a lot more saintly than most of the people here, including me. The love and commitment they have shown is greater than any I have seen except for one person that I personally know - his name is Ivan and he lives in Sarasota, Florida and his paintings that he paints with his teeth (because he is completely immobile) are in Christopher Reeve's calendar. His mother is a saint also. She has taken care of him 100% including wheeling him from class to class for four years when he went to college and got a college degree. She has always taken care of him (30 years since he got muscular dystrophy) and he is completely immobilized, on a ventilator, unable to breathe on his own or move a muscle. He can move his tongue and lips and he paints with his mouth. His mother is a saint also. Let me tell you something: He is a funny and talented and wonderful person inside of his body. But you'd never know it to look at him. Half of you here would declare him a "vegetable" and want to off him because it makes you uncomfortable to look at him or consider that maybe life and people aren't perfect.

Michael Schiavo is a selfish pig who has lied and manipulated people for years and he stands to gain a lot - including life with his "new model" wife and kids.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Michael Schiavo is a selfish pig who has lied and manipulated people for years and he stands to gain a lot - including life with his "new model" wife and kids.

Great, I guess as long as I can convince you that I'm a saint, I can also convince you that anyone I hate is a scumbag. Or maybe it works the other way around; as long as I can convince you someone I hate is a scumbag, you'll think I'm a saint.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by ironknee:
hmm explain please...if i had a wink smile, ...what would that mean?

and that i didn't have one...what does that mean?

this will be good i mean, no wait...

First you explain to me exactly what you meant by this:

Originally posted by ironknee:
at least i don't believe in invisible people who live in the clouds...

and then I'll explain what I meant.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
...I have seen except for one person that I personally know - his name is Ivan and he lives in Sarasota, Florida and his paintings that he paints with his teeth (because he is completely immobile) are in Christopher Reeve's calendar. His mother is a saint also. She has taken care of him 100% including wheeling him from class to class for four years when he went to college and got a college degree. She has always taken care of him (30 years since he got muscular dystrophy) and he is completely immobilized, on a ventilator, unable to breathe on his own or move a muscle. He can move his tongue and lips and he paints with his mouth. His mother is a saint also. Let me tell you something: He is a funny and talented and wonderful person inside of his body. But you'd never know it to look at him. Half of you here would declare him a "vegetable" and want to off him because it makes you uncomfortable to look at him or consider that maybe life and people aren't perfect.

No, he has a brain. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the human body.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Michael Schiavo is a scumbag ad nauseam.

itai195: Give me a break about how Schiavo is "broke": He and his attorneys are going to rake in MILLIONS after Terri is DEAD. Books, movies, heck, probably even refrigerator magnets.

Alot of people, on both sides of the fence, are going to be raking in money from books, movie deals, talk-show tours and refrigerator magnets over the "Terri Schiavo Story".

[budster101]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Alot of people, on both sides of the fence, are going to be raking in money from books, movie deals, talk-show tours and refrigerator magnets over the "Terri Schiavo Story".

I hope not.

Flashback to:

Joey Buttaf ucko et all the made-for-tv-crap...

[xenu]

Remind us Cody Dawg, you are pro death penalty, aren't you?

[goMac]

Originally posted by xenu:
Remind us Cody Dawg, you are pro death penalty, aren't you?

I'd be careful with that one. Death penalty is admittedly different than this.

[budster101]

Originally posted by xenu:
Remind us Cody Dawg, you are pro death penalty, aren't you?

How can you even make this comparison?
What did Terri Shiavo do? Are you equating her life with that of a convicted murderer on death row?

(I'm not pro death penalty by-the-way)

Even a convicted murderer gets more apeals and time to save his own life than she has had!

I have an idea. Starve convicted murderers to death! After-all, it is painless right???

[Link]

For the record, I'm anti death penalty, pro life sentence, pro choice, left democrat and catholic.. pro gay marriage and pro women's rights *I bet there are people anti such on this board*..

I also believe that Michael Schiavo is a scumbag. He sits here saying the essence of "I will not rest until my wife is dead", already has kids with some other woman, and you KNOW he's going to write a book.

'Cept he's too cheap to write "all proceeds go to the care of terri" -- try "All proceeds go to the survivor of terri and his family" -- oh yeah this is the biggest piece of BS ever.

Too bad it happens all the time

[xenu]

Originally posted by budster101:
How can you even make this comparison?
What did Terri Shiavo do? Are you equating her life with that of a convicted murderer on death row?

(I'm not pro death penalty by-the-way)

Even a convicted murderer gets more apeals and time to save his own life than she has had!

I have an idea. Starve convicted murderers to death! After-all, it is painless right???

I just want to confirm that Cody is a first class hypocrite. After all, the prisoner may actually be innocent. Now where have I read about innocent people being executed?

Best to err on the side of life, right Cody?

And no, I am not equating what is happening to Terri with the death penalty. Just exposing some hypocricy.

[shiny]

Originally posted by budster101:
How can you even make this comparison?
What did Terri Shiavo do? Are you equating her life with that of a convicted murderer on death row?

(I'm not pro death penalty by-the-way)

Even a convicted murderer gets more apeals and time to save his own life than she has had!

I have an idea. Starve convicted murderers to death! After-all, it is painless right???

This point is just wrong. A person on death row gets a chance to make appeals based upon the state law and Federal law. The deathrow inmate does not have any more right to appeal than what is granted to him by the Legislatures of the various states.

Terri Schiavo's parent's have exercised all of their legal appeals as granted under the law. The Courts have sided against them. Just as in the case of death row inmate that exhausts all of their appeals and is executed, Schiavo's parents have exhausted their appeals and now Schiavo will not have the feeding tube reinserted.

An important point to remember is that Schiavo is not the person appealing the rulings. It is Schiavo's parents. The state law in Flordia has designated Michael Schiavo as Terri's guardian and thus he speaks for her. Schiavo's parents have already litigated the guardianship point and lost. Thus, you cannot legally say that Schiavo is being denied any rights to appeal, because her guardian is not litigating that point, the parents are litigating this.

Finally, you may not like Michael Schiavo. You may hate the fact that the Florida law gives him the guardianship right. However, Judges have a duty to follow the law is it written. Schiavo's parent's have had every opportunity to both challenge the law in Court and appeal the decision of Judges that decided against them. In the end, we have to respect the decisions of our Court system. It may not be perfect, but it is the only system that we have.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by deej5871:
First you explain to me exactly what you meant by this:

--
quote:
Originally posted by ironknee:
at least i don't believe in invisible people who live in the clouds...
--

and then I'll explain what I meant.

ok...i'll try

i - don't - be - lieve - in - in - vis - i - ble - peo - ple - who - live - in - the - clouds.

your turn.

[shiny]

Originally posted by xenu:
I just want to confirm that Cody is a first class hypocrite. After all, the prisoner may actually be innocent. Now where have I read about innocent people being executed?

Best to err on the side of life, right Cody?

And no, I am not equating what is happening to Terri with the death penalty. Just exposing some hypocricy.

Don't even bother trying to argue this point. Although you are absolutely correct that the person may in fact be innocent and thus an innocent person would in fact be wrongly convicted and die, you will have people argue that it is not the same even though they are arguing that Terri did not want to die and thus her wishes are not being followed and she will be die even though that is not what she wanted.

Nope, those are not the same or even remotely alike. Nope, in each case it is not possible that a person who should not die will be put to death. Nope, we have to assume that all persons convicted of capital murder are guilty and new evidence can never come forward that could prove their innocence. But we also have to assume that new evidence can come forward in the Schiavo case and prove that she did want to die. Nope, they are not at all similar.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If indeed those were her wishes, it really shouldn't take the husband over 7 years to remember them.

You decide the standard for that now as well?

Remembering them and recalling them for the record are two different things. Impossible to know when he remembered. Verifiable that he mentioned them in 1993 in his conversation with Terri's primary physician, Dr Mulroy, about Terri's prospects. The doctor advises him to do the same as what millions of others are advised to do around that time post event. Place an extended DNR and stop treating infections so that the patient may die a natural death. For the court record her wishes can be found in Michael Schiavo's deposition taken for the guardianship challenge on November 19, 1993 when he is questioned about that conversation with Dr.Mulroy and subsequent treatment decisions. Before that date it is only asked and he only answered what he would like to do. Not what Terri Schiavo herself would like to do under the circumstances. Hope of recovery has by 1993 disappeared completely but his July 27 1992 depo and his November 5 1992 testimony already show that rehabilitation was not successful and would not be successful.

1993. That's roughly 3 years. That is not at all unreasonable when you compare that with the timing of decisions made in other cases. In fact rehabilitation attempts for Terri Schiavo continued longer than for comparable cases involving vegetative patients. (private decisions and public debate cases alike)

He files the petition for permission to stop treatment on May 11, 1998

As Greer wrote in his February 11, 2000 order:
""It has been suggested that Michael Schiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years to file the Petition which is under consideration. That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued."

[xenu]

Originally posted by shiny:
Don't even bother trying to argue this point. Although you are absolutely correct that the person may in fact be innocent and thus an innocent person would in fact be wrongly convicted and die, you will have people argue that it is not the same even though they are arguing that Terri did not want to die and thus her wishes are not being followed and she will be die even though that is not what she wanted.

Nope, those are not the same or even remotely alike. Nope, in each case it is not possible that a person who should not die will be put to death. Nope, we have to assume that all persons convicted of capital murder are guilty and new evidence can never come forward that could prove their innocence. But we also have to assume that new evidence can come forward in the Schiavo case and prove that she did want to die. Nope, they are not at all similar.

That is a mightly convoluted bit of logic there.

So, even though it can be proved that an innocent person has been executed, we must ignore that proof, and always assume they are guilty. Wow. I'm sure the innocent on death row are glad about that.

As I said, i am not equating the two, just exposing the hypocricy of those who would err on the side of life for Terri, while accepting that innocent people will die under the death penalty.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today.

The financial records revealing how Terri�s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri�s medical fund on Schiavo�s attorney�s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo�s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him.

Michael Schiavo did not have control over the fund but it was used for her care. Both medical and legal in accordance with the law and on court approval.

"744.108_ Guardian's and attorney's fees and expenses.--

(1)__A guardian, or an attorney who has rendered services to the ward or to the guardian on the ward's behalf, is entitled to a reasonable fee for services rendered and reimbursement for costs incurred on behalf of the ward.

(2)__When fees for a guardian or an attorney are submitted to the court for determination, the court shall consider the following criteria:

(a)__The time and labor required;

(b)__The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the services properly;

(c)__The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment of the person;

(d)__The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services;

(e)__The nature and value of the incapacitated person's property, the amount of income earned by the estate, and the responsibilities and potential liabilities assumed by the person;

(f)__The results obtained;

(g)__The time limits imposed by the circumstances;

(h)__The nature and length of the relationship with the incapacitated person; and

(i)__The experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the person performing the service.

(3)__In awarding fees to attorney guardians, the court must clearly distinguish between fees and expenses for legal services and fees and expenses for guardian services and must have determined that no conflict of interest exists.

(4)__Fees for legal services may include customary and reasonable charges for work performed by legal assistants employed by and working under the direction of the attorney.

(5)__All petitions for guardian's and attorney's fees and expenses must be accompanied by an itemized description of the services performed for the fees and expenses sought to be recovered.

(6)__A petition for fees or expenses may not be approved without prior notice to the guardian and to the ward, unless the ward is a minor or is totally incapacitated.

(7)__A petition for fees shall include the period covered and the total amount of all prior fees paid or costs awarded to the petitioner in the guardianship proceeding currently before the court.

(8)__When court proceedings are instituted to review or determine a guardian's or an attorney's fees under subsection (2), such proceedings are part of the guardianship administration process and the costs, including fees for the guardian's attorney, shall be determined by the court and paid from the assets of the guardianship estate unless the court finds the requested compensation under subsection (2) to be substantially unreasonable.

History.--ss. 18, 26, ch. 75-222; s. 11, ch. 89-96; s. 5, ch. 90-271; s. 2, ch. 96-354; s. 7, ch. 2003-57."

The funds were approved for a purpose clearly envisioned as an acceptable expense that may be drawn on the estate of the incapacitated patient.

[shiny]

Originally posted by xenu:
That is a mightly convoluted bit of logic there.

So, even though it can be proved that an innocent person has been executed, we must ignore that proof, and always assume they are guilty. Wow. I'm sure the innocent on death row are glad about that.

As I said, i am not equating the two, just exposing the hypocricy of those who would err on the side of life for Terri, while accepting that innocent people will die under the death penalty.

Read it closely. You will realize that I am agreeing with your point.

[xenu]

Originally posted by shiny:
Read it closely. You will realize that I am agreeing with your point.

Ok, on re-reading, it looks like you are trying to argue from their point of view. Am I correct in that interpretation? There really is something to be said about qualifying a statement.

I was right about the convoluted logic in getting to that position.

[Cody Dawg]

xenu: You're an a$$, you know? Quit trying to put words in my mouth or attribute things to me. You just make stuff up all the time it seems - but stop trying to attribute it to people.

For the record, I'm NOT pro death penalty. Pretty darn close to it, but I'm not.

So, you struck out on that "guess" of yours. Try again, creep.

[dillerX]

slightly off topic: What will the death certificate say? Suicide, homicide, what? Doesn't a death penalty certificate say homicide?

Just curious i guess..

[shiny]

Originally posted by xenu:
Ok, on re-reading, it looks like you are trying to argue from their point of view. Am I correct in that interpretation? There really is something to be said about qualifying a statement.

I was right about the convoluted logic in getting to that position.

Well I was being sarcastic. I was looking at the arguments that I have heard on the part of people advocating saving Terri's life and I was comparing those arguments with the arguments against capital punishment. What I was trying to demonstrate is how the two arguments are almost identical.

Sorry if it was not clear enough.

[shiny]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
xenu: You're an a$$, you know? Quit trying to put words in my mouth or attribute things to me. You just make stuff up all the time it seems - but stop trying to attribute it to people.

For the record, I'm NOT pro death penalty. Pretty darn close to it, but I'm not.

So, you struck out on that "guess" of yours. Try again, creep.

Seems to me that you are either for it or against it.

Is being "pretty darn close to it" referring to the death penalty, something like being almost pregnant?

[Cody Dawg]

Will they do an autopsy?

[shiny]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Will they do an autopsy?

Probably. What do you think they will find?

[shiny]

Actually, after reading the revised complaint filed by the parents, I believe that the Judge in the Federal Court would be justified in issuing a TRO to investigate the claims. Namely, Count 8 lays out some factual claims about violation of the Fourteenth Amendment that may give the Judge what he needs to issue the TRO.

Mind you, I am not saying that this is right or wrong. I am just saying that the Judge will be within the law if he were to issue the TRO on the basis of the newly pled allegations. Of course, I did not see the response, therefore, I can't speculate on what affect that the Response to the parents amended complaint will have on the Judge.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If indeed those were her wishes, it really shouldn't take the husband over 7 years to remember them.

This has been covered already, but in case you missed it... What would you say is the expected time period after which coma patients' living wills are addressed? Immediately? The next day? As I understand it she wasn't even in a coma for all that long. As I understand it, it took many years for the couple to exhaust all their options for diagnosis and treatment, including flying all around the country to try experimental procedures. As I understand it, even after 15 years the parents are still unwilling to accept the truth. It's perfectly understandable that the husband would hold out hope for 7 years. And during the period when you're holding out hope, you don't go around saying to people "yeah, I hope she pulls through, but if not she does have this wish to die with dignity, just so you know." WTF.

Believe it or not, many parents would and do take care of their disabled children, not to mention the countless thousands of families who take care of their alheimer-ridden, elderly relatives.

You appear to be misunderstanding the nature of her condition. We're not talking about a tumor or a lesion. She is missing 90% of the most important part of the brain; the cerebral cortex is the best part, it's responsible for all conscious thought, reason, perception, memory, everything that makes you a person. The rest of the brain is just for things that you often don't know you do, like breathe, sweat, blush, etc. Furthermore, there is absolutely no hope to repair or replace this or any other structure in the brain. Current medical science struggles just to coax single cells in vitro to differentiate into neurons. The idea of synthesizing or even transplanting a structure in the central nervous system is easily 100 years away, and that's just the idea of doing so, not having it work in any way.

But that's not the scenario. Why create a scenario when we have the real deal in front of us?

All I'm asking is that you try to imagine this case without all the spin introduced by the parents and their propaganda juggernaut. The husband has been vilified in this thread with no other evidence besides the "well why else would he do that?" argument. In the case of this quote I believe the issue was "what would it hurt to just keep her body alive forever?" The implication being that the obvious emotional burden on the husband by having the body of his late wife kept on display in a sick side-show attraction should be ignored by society, because the propaganda machine has already tainted our opinion of him. I know it's fun and exciting to assume foul play, but there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all his actions presented so far, and I object to the mob mentality to crucify someone in the press to propel their political agenda (up with christian morals, down with science, down with intellectual freedom).

The parents stated repeatedly, and with numerous lawyers, that they would gladly grant Michael a divorce. The marriage is over if they were to get custody. How did you miss that offer/development?

I didn't miss it, it's just not relevant. The value of marriage is a deeply personal issue. I don't presume to know how this man feels about it, and I take offense that the state or anyone here would do so either. And I know some jerk is going to say that he obviously doesn't value marriage because he married another woman or allegedly cheated on Terri; save your breath. Re the former, you have to give the benefit of the doubt that he believed (all the expert assessments) that Terri was already gone. And even if he did cheat on her, that is not the worst thing ever and it is not mutually exclusive with valuing the institution of marriage or being loathe to divorce. Especially if he cared for Terri as the courts have apparently found he does, and he didn't want her to be subjected to the ghoulish treatment in store if the parents have their way. Not to mention the done-to-death honoring her wishes refrain.

All I'm saying is try to see it from his side for a minute, and suddenly none of this looks like foul play. He might not be a likable guy, but none of this gossip adds up to him being criminal or even negligent.

What really stands to hurt Michael in that scenario is the Terri Trust Fund. The fund, containing over a million dollars earmarked for Terri's care, defaults to him when she dies. If she is still alive, he doesn't get the cake.

Woah wait wait woah woah. It's earmarked for Terri's care, but he gets it when she dies? Who's the genius that thought that one up?