|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 21, 2005 8:52:12 GMT -5
19 Judges have ruled on this case & dozens of Doctors have testified that any response that this poor women has is purely from reflex. Her Cerebral cortex is liquefied thus she feels no pain. As Ruffda so apply put it "she's not much different then a house plant" accept she provides her on soil, not a nice picture.
Let's talk about the pain one feels who is bedridden. My father, who too had a stroke, has been in his bed for 10 years but is fully there mentally & can carry on conversation with anyone. He must be turned & moved many times a day to prevent bed sores. Plus a person in this state gets horrible cramps & as the muscles deteriorate or become atrophied the pain never stops, my Father is on a lot of pain killers for this. Its not even a question among any in my family that if he was being kept alive by a feed tube or a ventilator that no way would he want that.
Now, with that in mind 1) If your concern is that removing the feeding tube would be a painful way for her to die and that she would not be able to communicate that then you must also assume she can't tell anyone the pain she must be in now for the reasons I listed above. So is it humane to allow her to suffer the horrible pain of being in a bed 24hrs a day??? 2) Do you want Congress to be knocking on your door anytime you have to make a serious medical decision for a loved one?
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 21, 2005 9:01:05 GMT -5
Some interesting things to note..
Being born and dieing re related....it called the life process...
I believe the republican right agenda IS using this against the democrats..(I dont agree)
The way of death is against any civilized rules...we kill our pets..our goldfish...and our death row inmates more calmly and with leathal injections.
Its the quality of life that can be determined by a living will...including ANY Machines.. My dad who died of terminal cancer wanted NO hospitals.....no radical new tests or treatments.. It was in his living will....I am sure he could have been kept alive ..but to what end..? He believed in GOD and that life after death was something of a reward...not punishment.
I dont care what the nurses said...the parents say...or what the government says...its the patient and the spouse that say in option of treatments. And its about states rights...
and the fact out government can move so quickly to do what they did ..scares me. Why cant they move so quickly to fix our roads...our schools and our SS problems? Its only Taxes and new laws governing and limiting freedoms that get acted on so fast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2005 23:51:07 GMT -5
At least we now know what it takes to get W off his ranch and back to the White House. A tsunami? No way. Political grandstanding? You bet.
More priceless tidbits? Tom DeLay calling Michael Schiavo a terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 23, 2005 2:39:21 GMT -5
By William Douglas, Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The federal law that President Bush signed early Monday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists.
In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.
Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected.
"The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.
While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile.
"The mother down in Texas must be reading the Schiavo case and scratching her head," said Dr. Howard Brody, the director of Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences. "This does appear to be a contradiction."
Brody said that, in taking up the Schiavo case, Bush and Congress had shattered a body of bioethics law and practice.
"This is crazy. It's political grandstanding," he said.
Bush's apparent shift on right-to-die decisions wasn't lost on Democrats. During heated debate on the Schiavo case, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., accused Bush of hypocrisy.
"It appears that President Bush felt, as governor, that there was a point which, when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made, even over the objection of family members," Wasserman Schultz said. "There is an obvious conflict here between the president's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was governor of Texas."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan termed Wasserman Schultz's remarks "uninformed accusations" and denied that there was any conflict in Bush's positions on the two laws.
"The legislation he signed (early Monday) is consistent with his views," McClellan said. "The (1999) legislation he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients ... prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections."
Wasserman Schultz stuck by her remarks when told of McClellan's comments.
"It's a fact in black and white," she said. "It's a direct conflict on the position he has in the Schiavo case."
Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University Law School associate professor who helped draft the Texas law, said he saw no inconsistency in Bush's stands.
"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."
Bush himself framed the Schiavo decision this way Monday.
"This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life," the president said during a Social Security event in Tucson, Ariz. He didn't mention the 1999 Texas law.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 23, 2005 3:53:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 23, 2005 9:33:53 GMT -5
I am no where near the Republicans on this one...it could drive me back home to the democrats if they continue to make morality..(theirs) a major part of his 2nd term while letting the hard choices over budget,SS ..health care..jobs and inflation fester.
They whine about big government controlling the personal lives when it comes to money and taxes yet WANT big government to play a bigger role in personal morality?
I think they and the parents need more schooling in CIVICS ..what the congress can and should do.
Congress believed it can order the courts? NEVER!
Notice it didnt matter who appointed the judges...Clinton or Republican...both knew that judges will operate independently...
Lets see congress and the president solve the ss and tax codes so easily. Solve the energy crisis..and get affordable health care for everyone . Lets see the liberals give more power back to teachers so they can dicipline kids in schools...and how bout arming that poor security officer with at least a tasergun? Maybe spanking our kids wasnt that bad...kids are quick to adapt and know where and what they can get away with....
In every argument against Bush we are asked if we are better off now compared to then...are the arguments against stronger dicipline leading to a stronger or weaker society?
Would our society be better off if congress and the president could control the courts and judges? I pray we never find out. (and I dont pray that much)
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 23, 2005 11:04:32 GMT -5
Bill, become either an "Independant" or a "Libertarian".
Libertarians are Fiscally conservative & Socially liberal.
I've been Independant for over 20 years as I hate both parties, I just hate the Repubs more.
The Republican party has truely become hijacked by the evangelicals.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Mar 24, 2005 8:45:03 GMT -5
When I was young(er) I voted democrat When I got older I voted Republican In between I voted Independant..supporting Jesse..
How ever with No viable candidates I need to work within the 2 party system...voting for libertarian or independant.. IS throwing your vote away. Working within party structures to show approval or disapproval is better than appearing to not vote or voting for some idealog who has never held public office.
I believe if elected the power would just corrupt the independant as easily has it has the other 2 parties.
Notice most elected politicans are lawyers....rich corporate types.and thats why we feel there is no connection with most middle American voters.
How can congress solve SS when they have a fully funded private system..its not high on their radar. They can afford health care... Both parties sell their votes to those who contribute more...not to society but to their re-elections.
Your thread is an example....emotions not facts drive the case against MR. Shiavo.... Its the way she is not living that living wills protect against...
When she dies ,look for the parents to file an wrongfull death case against all those who supported the husband.
And lost in the shuffle....Do you think Tv and papers are not using this passion to exploit ratings and proffits?
|
|
|
Post by norwis on Mar 24, 2005 14:44:38 GMT -5
She is not on life support. She merely needs to be fed via a feeding tube. What is your definition of life support? I am a Christian and if this were my daughter I would want to to be in a better place where her suffering would be over.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 25, 2005 20:01:47 GMT -5
What is your definition of life support? I am a Christian and if this were my daughter I would want to to be in a better place where her suffering would be over. I like what Pope John Paul II says: Nutrition/hydration for ill/aged Pope John Paul II address to health care providers Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II spoke to the International Congress sponsored by World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy of Life. His address, entitled “Life sustaining treatments and the vegetative state,” clearly stated removing the feeding tube of a disabled patient is immoral and amounts to “euthanasia by omission.” He also rejected language used to describe disabled persons as “vegetables,” calling such terms “degrading.”<br> He spoke of the right of a sick person, whether awaiting recovery or natural end of life, to receive basic health care, i.e. “nutrition, hydration, cleanliness. warmth, etc.” He stressed that water and food, even when given by artificial means, always are considered natural means rather than medical acts. Since withdrawal of water and food can cause death by starvation/dehydration, their withdrawals cannot be ethically justified. Considerations about the “quality of life” often dictated by “psychological, social and economic pressures” were rejected by the Pope. He acknowledged pressures placed on families to withdraw hydration and nutrition. He called for support of those families. He gave examples of programs and facilities which help the patients and families and encouraged medical staff and family teaming. The Pope concluded: “I exhort you, as men and women of science, responsible for the dignity of the medical profession, to guard jealousy the principle according to which the true task of medicine is “To cure if possible, always to care.” And...seeing as how Terry Schiavo and her parents are Catholic, it would seem that this opinion would be consistent with their desires. We have nothing but Michael Schiavo's unverified testimony that his wife would want this, to be starved to death. Human life is precious. Terry Schiavo is not on a ventilator, she has enough brain function for her body to perform independently, with the exception of eating/drinking. Where is the compassion in allowing someone to starve to death?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2005 20:57:09 GMT -5
It comes down to this: She can no longer think, let alone speak, for herself. Someone must make decisions for her, to ensure she is not mistreated. (And many think she is being mistreated by keeping her body alive.) The courts--in decision after decision--have ruled that that someone is Michael Schiavo.
No one else gets to decide now. Not the Pope, not Tom DeLay, not one of the Bush contingent, not her parents, not SoBB.
Just let her body die, please, as her mind did so long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 25, 2005 21:10:17 GMT -5
Michael Schiavo is a murderer plain and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2005 21:17:56 GMT -5
[quote author=BiK link=board=news&thread=1111177363&start=26#1 date=1111803017]Michael Schiavo is a murderer plain and simple.[/quote]
Which, of course, is as stupid a thing to say as "The Schindlers are sadists."
Remember, BiK, THINK before you post...
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 25, 2005 21:28:01 GMT -5
Which, of course, is as stupid a thing to say as "The Schindlers are sadists." Remember, BiK, THINK before you post... Like I was saying, he IS a murderer. He wants to kill her off so he can move on with his life and save himself the guilt. He is a despicable individual.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 25, 2005 21:52:21 GMT -5
I don't believe Michael Schiavo is a murderer. I just wish he had a little bit more compassion for others who also care deeply about Terry Schiavo.
I think the legal system in this country is messed up, in terms of legal guardianship. When the fact is that the people who have known you the longest (and most probably the best) are denied the right to act on your behalf simply because your spouse is now your legal guardian is particularly messed up, when you consider how many couples in this country genuinely don't care about each other, based on the current rate of divorce and re-marriage.
|
|