[Cody Dawg]

by saddino
OMG Cody, do you lie on purpose or by accident? It really boggles the mind that you don't seem to check on the things you submit as "fact."

[Hint: Stephen Hawking breathes just fine.]

Oh really?

I think you just showed your stupidity. Read here.

The brilliant British theoretical physicist Stephen W. Hawking, who is probably best known to the general public as the author of A Brief History of Time, is one of a very few people who have survived for many years with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Hawking, now 54, was diagnosed with ALS in 1963 when he was a 21-year-old graduate student at Cambridge University in England.

Hawking's life demonstrates that ALS impairs neither intellect nor sexual function. His work on the origin and nature of the universe has been, in the words of biographers Michael White and John Gribbin, "ground-breaking and revolutionary." Hawking also married and fathered three children after his diagnosis.

In 1985, after suffering a windpipe blockage, Hawking had a breathing device surgically implanted in his throat. The surgery resulted in the loss of his voice. He now "speaks" by using a voice synthesizer connected to a computer that he operates by squeezing a switch in his hand.

In Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science, White and Gribbin write that Hawking has a very strong personality and has "never [given] in to the symptoms of ALS more than he is physically compelled to."

Next time get your facts straight before you call someone a "liar."

But, that's okay. You just sabotaged your own credibility to not only report correct facts, but also your credibility in calling other people "liars."

[porieux]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Okay, here's one for you:

What if the Pope was in the same situation at Terri Schiavo? I mean, it's not too difficult to imagine considering that he has Parkinson's.

So, who would be spouting off about starving the Pope to death?

Answer: No one.

I think the pope should be starved to death anyway.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes, I agree with Cody. Let's give this schiavo woman a voice synthesizer and a motorized wheelchair and let her finally get back to her normal life, not giving in to the the symptoms of brainectomy.

[Cody Dawg]

I never said that did I?

Show me where I said that, will you Uncle Skeleton?

Because if that's all you can say or come up with, trying to make it seem as if I have said that, then you should go post somewhere else because you obviously cannot develop intelligent and thoughtful posts.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Settle down there, champ.

You said it right in the title. You said there's no difference between Schiavo's condition and Hawking's. Which implies that since Hawking can lead a normal life with his technology, we should offer the same consideration to Schiavo. Right? Am I missing something?

-----

"Pull the old switcheroo."
"I think that's 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander.'"
"What the hell is a gander anyway?"
"It's a goose that's had the old switcheroo pulled on her."

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:

But, Stephen Hawking is bionic compared to her, remember? Hawking would be dead if it were not for machines. Does that make him worth any less?

Professor Hawking still has a fully intact brain. Terry Schiavo has one which is mostly liquid. That is the fundamental difference which you so easily seem to forget.

I don't think a life is worth less because a person lives with the help of a machine. People who are dependent on machines also consist of doctors and scientists who are helping to research diseases and develop pharmaceuticals and cures for the same diseases that render people helpless.

However, in the Schiavo case, there will never be any cure or recovery. Her brain is liquid. Are *you* about to remold that into brain matter?

Why the rush to let Terri Schiavo die? By the way, her death is not natural until she dies because her body fails. Like a heart attack. Pneumonia. Organ failure that is not induced or precipitated by starvation. Etc.

You call 15 years of this poor woman suffering in a state which she clearly expressed she would never want to live in a rush? You have an odd sense of time.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by bstone:
You call 15 years of this poor woman suffering in a state which she clearly expressed she would never want to live in a rush?

When she's suffering then her brain is clearly alive and able to feel. Killing her (starving her to death!) is homicide.

[Cody Dawg]

Who are YOU or ANYONE to judge her quality of life?

Seriously?

THAT is the point!

You sit there in your comfortable chair and type smug responses regarding someone else's quality of life. Because YOU don't think YOU would want to live that way, YOU want to pull the plug and let her die.

(I'm not saying YOU, I'm saying "YOU" in reference to anyone who wants to let her starve to death.)

Yes, it may be that her brain is mostly gone and she will never "recover" per se.

But, if she's dead, as you say, then what's the problem with letting her parents decide what they want to do with her body?

Again, I'm 100% for respecting a person's wishes regarding their end of life situations and death. But, what she wanted was clearly not written down and it was not expressed to anyone except to her husband - the husband who was having an affair while they were married and the same husband that now has another wife and two children with that woman.

The ONE person who is deciding whether she lives or dies has a conflict of interest in this case.

I'll tell you what. Michael Schiavo should be removed as her guardian and a guardianship team appointed by the court. They should try to give her some rehabilitation, something Michael Schiavo has denied her for fifteen years. (Why did he not want her to receive any rehab? That just boggles the mind.) If the team determines that she is TRULY vegetative then, and only then, should she be allowed to pass away. This issue should probably be taken out of the hands of people who are emotionally attached, Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents, and let neutral and objective medical professionals take over.

But she does deserve the benefit of doubt first.

[SimpleLife]

She is brain dead, right?

But some would say to let her live is accomplishing God's will.

How about Iraq? Wouldn't that not have been accomplishing God's will to let them be suffer under Saddam Hussein?

I mean, aren't the same principles, the same values underneath this issue?

Just a thought.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
She is brain dead, right?

No, she's not.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
No, she's not.

Let's say she is not then.

Let's say she is totally comatose without any hope of recovering consciousness.

I ask the same question again; in what way is her condition any diferent than people living under the rule of a dictator that some would have removed?

[Cody Dawg]

Gee, you people cannot stop bringing Iraq up in everything can you?

For the record, Iraq has NOTHING to do with Terri Schiavo.

Try again.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Gee, you people cannot stop bringing Iraq up in everything can you?

For the record, Iraq has NOTHING to do with Terri Schiavo.

Try again.

Neither does Stephen Hawking.

[Cody Dawg]

That's not true.

1. They are both human.
2. Both are incapcitated physically

[Randman]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
That's not true.

1. They are both human.
2. Both are incapcitated physically

1. They you can compare 6 billion others to either.
2. No, you are wrong. Hawking is physically disabled. Schiavo is brain dead.

[Cody Dawg]

"Brain dead" is a matter of opinion.

One person's "brain dead" is another person's "brain viable."

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
"Brain dead" is a matter of opinion.

No, it's not. There are hard criteria for brain dead.

She is as an objective fact not brain dead.

[saddino]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Oh really?

Yes, really.

Stephen Hawking uses a breathing device to assist his breathing. If this device were removed he would still be able to breathe, albeit poorly.

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
and in fact, cannot breathe on his own

You seem to have a problem accepting your statement is a mistruth. If you don't like the word "lie" how about:

- misrepresentation
- falsehood
- exaggeration

But the question is not what to call your statement: that is just semantics. The real question (one that you refuse to answer time and time again) is: do you make these statements on purpose, or are they just innocent mistakes.

Maybe it's just me, but given that you like to add a at the end of just about every point you make, I'm suspicious of your motives.

[Cody Dawg]

You make me laugh. You have no credibility at all.

First you said he breathes fine on his own.

Then when someone else points out that he does NOT breathe fine on his own - and REQUIRES some sort of assistance with breathing - you try to pretend like you knew it all along.

Sad, sad, sad.

[d4nth3m4n]

can we lock this already so cody can move on to another thread?

[Cody Dawg]

I'm glad you love me so much.

[bstone]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
When she's suffering then her brain is clearly alive and able to feel. Killing her (starving her to death!) is homicide.

Circular logic. By suffering I mean her persisting in a state in which she clearly demonstrated she never, ever wanted to be in. If she had any feeling or knowledge of what is going on then she would express suffering.

Sadly, her brain is mostly liquid and as such as feels nothing. She has no cognitive thought. No actual feeling.

[bstone]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
She is brain dead, right?

While her medulla functions and she has some minor brain activity, she has utterly no cognitive or higher brain functioning. She is, ineffect, mostly brain dead.

Note: not much of her brain remains. Most of it, including the cortex, has liquified.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Gee, you people cannot stop bringing Iraq up in everything can you?

For the record, Iraq has NOTHING to do with Terri Schiavo.

Try again.

You got it wrong. It is all about human condition and the reasons to act upon it.

Being submitted to the oppression of an external/internal agent interfering with quality of life.

On one side, there was a ruthless dictator keeping people from enjoying life.
On the other side, there is a physical condition keeping a person from enjoying life.

The last one is a most extreme case, because that person cannot fight it back. The first case is less extreme, and even more so, considering people are capable of working together to remove a dictator.

But amazingly enough, in the case of a dictator, although the possibility of removing him by the concerted action of the oppressed is higher, we would still let someone totally incapable of fighting its own irremediable condition on her own.

In both cases, God's will is at work, but humans will act on the easiest one for the greater good of all, but in the second case, we will let it stay it's own course, regardless of that individual's good.

What is humane in that?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by bstone:
While her medulla functions and she has some minor brain activity, she has utterly no cognitive or higher brain functioning. She is, ineffect, mostly brain dead.

Note: not much of her brain remains. Most of it, including the cortex, has liquified.

Exactly: 0 IQ.

A bunch of nerves twitching through the autonomic system.

We treat animals better than that. Let's honor the person and ease her exit to - hopefully - a better world than the one she lived in.

[bstone]

There is no "battle" in Terry Schiavo's case. There is no recovery. There is no cure. There is no rehabilitation. There is, however, a compassionate and caring husband who has been going to every length to carry out the wishes of his wife- to never let her persist in such a state.

Then there is a group of looney religious fanatics who are trying to impose "god's will". They have succeeded in spending millions of tax payer dollars. Money which could have gone to homless children, education programs, prescription drugs for the elderly.

[bstone]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Exactly: 0 IQ.

A bunch of nerves twitching through the autonomic system.

We treat animals better than that. Let's honor the person and ease her exit to - hopefully - a better world than the one she lived in.

Amen.

How horrible it is that the Christian fundamentalists have made this family's personal tragedy into a national political issue. How sad, sick, twisted and terrible.

[zigzag]

It's time to put an end to some of the falsehoods that keep getting repeated about this case.

1) The court decision did not - I repeat, did not - turn on the testimony of Michael Schiavo alone. In fact, his testimony wasn't even the main evidence - at least two other people testified in a credible manner about two separate incidents (one at a funeral) in which Terry Schiavo expressed the same sentiment that everyone here has expressed: I don't want to be kept alive like that. Therefore, anyone who repeats the falsehood that this whole case turned on the testimony of only one person with a conflict of interest has no excuse for doing so. [In fact, a Catholic priest was brought in to testify, so you can also cut the crap about no consideration being given to her religious beliefs.]

2) The court has tried the issue of Terry Schiavo's medical condition twice. Both times, independent medical experts concluded that her brain had fluidized, that there was no cognitive or emotional functioning, and that there is no chance of recovery. The court also found that the crap about her responding to stimuli is just that: crap. The entirety of the video, and independent medical examinations, have established beyond any doubt that her movements are strictly reflexive and involuntary. Therefore, anyone who repeats the crap about her responding to stimuli and that she might be rehabilitated and that she hasn't been independently examined has no excuse.

3) It was uncontroverted, even by her parents, that after Terry's heart attack, Michael Schiavo made every effort to treat and rehabilitate her for an extended period of time, until her doctors told him that nothing more could be done. Even the Court of Appeals remarked upon the level of love and care that he showed for her - not something appellate courts are usually concerned with. Therefore, anyone who argues that Schiavo is just a selfish ghoul who never cared about her has no excuse.

4) The decision to remove the feeding tube was not Michael's - it was the court's, which held a trial to discern Terry's wishes, not Michael's. Indeed, Michael put it in the hands of the court, where it remains. Therefore, anyone who argues that he is personally responsible for killing his wife has no excuse.

5) We don't know if Michael was a good husband or not; indeed, we don't know if Terry was a good wife or not. But that isn't the issue, and people should stop repeating rumors about things that they do not know and that aren't germane. It is uncontroverted that Michael made every effort to treat and rehabilitate his wife until her doctors, whom we have no reason to doubt, concluded that nothing more could be done.

6) Michael is not the only person with a conflict of interest - the parents have also sought money damages, and stood to inherit Terry's estate if Michael divorced her, which they apparently encouraged him to do. Michael appears to have turned down offers of millions of dollars to remove himself from the case. I can't read the parties' minds - money changes everyone - but it is presumptuous to assume that Michael is just a cruel, greedy bastard, especially when there is considerable evidence to the contrary. It is very possible that he is doing exactly what Terry would have wanted him to do; indeed, the courts have repeatedly agreed that this is so.

I've tried to give the oppposition the benefit of the doubt, but the more I look at the facts of the case as opposed to the crap being spread in the media by the parents and right-to-life groups, the more I conclude that it is them, not Michael Schiavo or the judge, who are the ghouls and who are exploiting this tragedy for their own self-serving purposes. Indeed, I strongly suspect that Terry Schiavo would be appalled and disgusted at the way they've portrayed her condition in a false light and paraded that phony video around. Not a single one of us would want that for ourselves, and people in her condition are allowed to die on a daily basis for perfectly humane reasons, which we all admit we would want for ourselves, yet because her parents and others refuse to come to terms with the reality of her condition and believe everything they see and hear in the media, those of us who agree with the court's findings are characterized as killers, murderers, sadists and so forth. IMO the truly humane thing would be accept the court's decision and let her die (indeed, the truly humane thing to do would be to hasten her death, but that can't happen because the right-to-lifers are out of touch with reality and would prosecute). The inhumane thing is to mischaracterize her condition and parade her pathetic image around in the circus-like fashion that her parents and so-called supporters have done in order to satisfy their narcissistic delusions.

[bstone]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's time to put an end to some of the falsehoods that keep getting repeated about this case.

Fantastic post, Zigzag. I can only hope and pray that your rational, logical and intelligent post reaches more people.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's time to put an end to some of the falsehoods that keep getting repeated about this case.
(...)
The inhumane thing is to mischaracterize her condition and parade her pathetic image around in the circus-like fashion that her parents and so-called supporters have done in order to satisfy their narcissistic delusions.

Exactly.

[Cody Dawg]

Link - good reading info. Or for those who are too "brain-dead" to click on the link, here you go:

By Andrew McCarthy

A few months back, I wrote an article for Commentary arguing that we ought to reconsider our anti-torture laws. The argument wasn�t novel. It echoed contentions that had been made with great persuasive force by Harvard�s Professor Alan Dershowitz: that under circumstances of imminent harm to thousands of moral innocents (the so-called �ticking bomb� scenario), it would be appropriate to inflict, under court-supervision, intense but non-lethal pain in an effort to wring information from a morally culpable person � a terrorist known to be complicit in the plot.


As one might predict with such a third rail, my mail was copious and indignant. Opening the door by even a sliver for torture, I was admonished, was the most reprehensible of slippery slopes. No matter how well-intentioned was the idea, no matter the lives that might be saved, no matter how certain we might be about the guilt of the detainee, the very thought that such a thing might be legal would render us no better than the savages we were fighting.

Well, lo and behold, a court-ordered torture is set to begin in Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.

It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person � the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.

On Friday afternoon, unless humanity intervenes, the state of Florida is scheduled to begin its court-ordered torture-murder of Terri Schiavo, whose only crime is that she is an inconvenience. A nuisance to a faithless husband grown tired of the toll on his new love interest and depleting bank account � an account that was inflated only because a jury, in 1992, awarded him over a million dollars, mostly as a trust to pay for Terri�s continued care, in a medical malpractice verdict.

In this instance, though, deafening is the only word for the silence of my former interlocutors � -civil-liberties activists characteristically set on hysteria auto-pilot the moment an al Qaeda terrorist is rumored to have been sent to bed without supper by Don Rumsfeld or Al Gonzales (something that would, of course, be rank rumor since, if you kill or try to kill enough Americans, you can be certain our government will get you three halal squares a day).

Not so Terri Schiavo. She will be starved and dehydrated. Until she is dead. By court order.

Terri is a 40-year-old woman who suffered brain damage after a diagnosed heart attack when she was 26. In state legal proceedings dominated by macabre right-to-die activists, a judge found her to be reduced to a permanent vegetative state (PVS), drawing on examinations that appear grossly inadequate to the task of what objective specialists say is a complex diagnosis. Whether she would technically be found a PVS case by a court that was honestly interested in getting a real fix on her condition � rather than breaking new ground in just how far the Left can go in deciding whose life has value � is beside the point. She is alive and, periodically, both alert and responsive.

Her parents love her and want to care for her. Imagine if you had a child who was defenseless, dependent, and vulnerable � many of us, indeed, need not imagine � and the state told you not only to step aside but that you had to watch, helpless, while it took two weeks to kill her. That�s what�s happening in Florida. Starting Friday.

On another Friday, seven years ago, Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 240 people. They were brought to the United States for trial. They were given, at public expense, multiple, highly experienced capital lawyers, and permitted extensive audiences to plead with the Justice Department not to seek the death penalty. When a capital indictment nevertheless was filed, they were given weeks of voir dire to ensure a jury of twelve people open to the notion that even the lives of mass-murderers have value. They were then given seven months of trial and sentencing proceedings, suffuse with every legal and factual presumption that their lives had worth and should be spared. And so they were.

That�s what the law says we must do for terrorists seeking to destroy our country and to slaughter us indiscriminately.

What is the law doing for Terri Schiavo?

What kind of law is it, what kind of society is it, that says the lives of Khalfan Khamis Mohammed and Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali�s have value � over which we must anguish and for the sustenance of which we must expend tens of thousands annually � but Terri Schiavo�s is readily dispensable? By court-ordered torture over the wrenching pleas of parents ready and willing to care for her?

What kind of society goes into a lather over the imposition of bright lights and stress positions for barbarians who might have information that will save lives, but yawns while a defenseless woman who hasn�t hurt anyone is willfully starved and dehydrated? By a court � the bulwark purportedly protecting our right to life?

The torture starts Friday, at 1 P.M. Unless we do something to stop it.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Link - good reading info. Or for those who are too "brain-dead" to click on the link, here you go:

Yet another article which avoids the fact of the matter: Terry Schiavo expressed her desire to her husband and others to never be kept in such a situation. The court is only confirming and protecting her right to choose.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Link - good reading info. Or for those who are too "brain-dead" to click on the link, here you go:

That piece simply repeats the usual falsehoods being spread by people like yourself who have never read the court opinions and mostly want to politicize the issue. Among other things, the statements that the court proceedings were "dominated by right-to-die activists" (in the court of a conservative Christian judge?) and that the multiple independent medical examinations that were conducted were "grossly inadequate" are shameful lies, yet you keep repeating them. It's misinformation masquerading as compassion. Shameful.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
When she's suffering then her brain is clearly alive and able to feel.

I was thinking the same thing.
A person cannot be brain dead, or have a liquid brain and be suffering.

Unless of course you are speaking about a soul.. and that has probably long gone.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bstone:


Yet another article which avoids the fact of the matter: Terry Schiavo expressed her desire to her husband and others to never be kept in such a situation. The court is only confirming and protecting her right to choose.

Now did she leave a memo saying it? Or was it strictly by word of mouth?

[bstone]

Her soul suffers as it sees just how many people wish to counter her wishes.

Her soul suffers as she sees her a personal family tragedy has been given such effort and energy. Had that same enery been invested in solving REAL problems- disease, homlessness, hunger, AIDS- would actually save and effect people who are in much more desperate of a need.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bstone:
Her soul suffers as it sees just how many people wish to counter her wishes.

How do you know what her soul is doing? No one does.

This is all pure speculation.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Now did she leave a memo saying it? Or was it strictly by word of mouth?

She told her husband and at least two others (look above at ZigZag's posting of court info).

16 years ago, at her young and tender age of 26, she could not have possibly considered this would occur. We're talking 1989- Living Will, Power of Attorney, etc were things which people weren't so heavily into.

How many people, afterall, look at their loved one one day and say "I never want to be kept "alive" in that way." The numebr is very high, but the actual number of those who record it as such is small. Which is why, in such tragic cases, the decision rest SOLELY int he hands of the next of kin- her husband.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How do you know what her soul is doing? No one does.

This is all pure speculation.

Thank you, Zimphire! You clearly demonstrated the point which I was hoping would be made- nobody knows what she wants NOW. But one person (at least) she did tell- her husband.

Since none of these right-wing, fundamentalist Christians know what she said I find it shameful and sad that they invest such effort in countering her wishes.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bstone:
She told her husband and at least two others (look above at ZigZag's posting of court info).

At least they claim she told them. They have no proof.

I am not siding either way BTW, I don't think anyone should have the "right" to let someone die, but then again, I don't think she should be kept alive just with machines.

Esp for that long. I know I personally would want them to take me off of the machines, and if I die I die. If I don't, I don't.

Sometimes it's better to let "nature" take it's course. No matter how hard it is to let go.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Stop disagreeing, you macabre right-to-die murderers! It's just plain torture to remove someone's feeding tube when they have no information to offer about how to kill brown people. In fact, it's even equally wicked to refuse a feeding tube to the millions of homeless and hungry in this country, brown or otherwise. Now that I think about it, I demand feeding tubes for all the homeless and hungry people all over the world. And blankets and hospital beds too. And nightly turn-down service.

[Cody Dawg]

Uncle Skeleton
It's just plain torture to remove someone's feeding tube when they have no information to offer about how to kill brown people.

"Brown people?"

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Oh really?

I think you just showed your stupidity. Read here.

No... you showed your lack of medical knowledge here.

He has a tracheostomy. A hole in his neck through which he breathes (instead of breathing through his mouth or nose). Just like many people who've had trauma or disease of the neck. He does not require the assistance of a ventilator.

Please give up the comparison between Hawking and Schiavo, Cody Dawg. At least try to find a better example, ok.

Oh, by the way. I really don't mean to use your father in law as an example... but I will. It sounds like he's very depressed. This is probably why he's given up and wants to die. Perhaps if he were treated with anti-depressants, he would want to live. So I think before he's allowed to give up (since he may not be of sound mind due to suffering from a mental disorder), he should be force-fed and hydrated, and forcibly given anti-depressants until the court is convinced he's of sound mind before he be allowed to refuse treatment. We should presume everyone would choose to live no matter what, right? Government interfering in your father in law's life is out of the question, right?? Just you wait.

And if you tell me that your father in law's situation is not the same thing, then I'll refer you back to your Hawking comparison...

(Edited for typos)

[bstone]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

At least they claim she told them. They have no proof.

I am not siding either way BTW, I don't think anyone should have the "right" to let someone die, but then again, I don't think she should be kept alive just with machines.

Esp for that long. I know I personally would want them to take me off of the machines, and if I die I die. If I don't, I don't.

Sometimes it's better to let "nature" take it's course. No matter how hard it is to let go. [/B]

I hear what you say. Only thing is, the only "proof" required is her husband. He is the only person who can verify or deny her wishes in such a situation.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Link - good reading info. Or for those who are too "brain-dead" to click on the link, here you go:

[snip]

That piece is utterly disgusting. I am not even going to rehash what many have already stated about Terri's condition, nor about how some are trying to use it for their politial interests. But talking so lightly about torture is beyond immoral.

Cesare Beccaria gave, more than two hundred years ago, a far better answer than whatever I might come up with now.

� cos� poco libero il dire la verit� fra gli spasimi e gli strazi, quanto lo era allora l'impedire senza frode gli effetti del fuoco e dell'acqua bollente. Ogni atto della nostra volont� � sempre proporzionato alla forza della impressione sensibile, che ne � la sorgente; e la sensibilit� di ogni uomo � limitata. Dunque l'impressione del dolore pu� crescere a segno che, occupandola tutta, non lasci alcuna libert� al torturato che di scegliere la strada pi� corta per il momento presente, onde sottrarsi di pena. Allora la risposta del reo � cos� necessaria come le impressioni del fuoco o dell'acqua. Allora l'innocente sensibile si chiamer� reo, quando egli creda con ci� di far cessare il tormento. Ogni differenza tra essi sparisce per quel mezzo medesimo, che si pretende impiegato per ritrovarla.

My somewhat limited translation (I assume you haven't got the slightest idea of italian), would be along these lines:

There is as little freedom now to tell the truth under spasms and dismemberment, as there was then to fraudlessly avoid the effects of fire and boiling water. All and every single act of our will is proportional to the force by which it is commanded; and every man's strength is limited. Therefore, harm might grow to such a point where, leaving no space, allows no more freedom to the totured but to choose the easiest and shortest path to avoid punishment. His answer is then as necessary as the ones produced by fire and water. And so, the innocent will claim himself guilty if by that means shall the torments come to an end. All and any differences beween them -- the innocent and the guilty -- vanishes because of the very same means employed to find guilt.

I'm sorry to derail the thread (maybe I should had sent a note to Cody) but I despise that sort of pamphlets.

I promise to not do it again, so you can keep on discussing this nonsense.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bstone:
I hear what you say. Only thing is, the only "proof" required is her husband. He is the only person who can verify or deny her wishes in such a situation.

Actually more proof is required than that.

Say someone dies and leaves no will. The person's spouse can't just say "Oh he or she meant to leave it all to me, he told me. "

[Cody Dawg]

Just for the record, my FIL is doing much better. He's eating again. Drinking again. He is now accepting treatment for pneumonia and pain. He is 100% better with family intervention and love. Yes, he was/is depressed, but now he seems to be in much better spirits. Thank you for asking.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Actually more proof is required than that.

Say someone dies and leaves no will. The person's spouse can't just say "Oh he or she meant to leave it all to me, he told me. "

It is all that the court have repeatedly ruled is required.

[Cody Dawg]

Hi Zimphire, how are you?

Say someone dies and leaves no will. The person's spouse can't just say "Oh he or she meant to leave it all to me, he told me. "

Actually, Zimph, that's what the basis of having her feeding tube removed is: Michael Schiavo says that she told him that she would not want to live that way while watching the Wednesday night evening movie.

[Zimphire]

Wow really? Got a copy of that ruling?