Look up "tool" in the dictionary...

pedxing · Jun 20, 2005

While it is conceivably possible that Terry's wishes were not correctly interpreted, it is highly unlikely. Furthermore, her rights were not trampled on. An exhaustive and objective effort was made to determine what her wishes were and what her best interests were in this matter. The courts succeed in taking an extended and objective view of the situation. They heard loads of expert testimony, viewed film footage and made clear rulings again and again. The system actually worked very well, and a group of zealots repeatedly got in the way.

The autopsy was not necessary for objective people to reach a clear and certain conclusion... only to put a hole in the wall of denial built by zealots and by grieving blinded parents who would have been better served if their friends and allies had helped them see reality.

There is something ironic about the man who signed the Texas futile care law (and his brother) being champions of rights of a patient in a persistent vegitative state.

dmc · Jun 20, 2005

pedxing said:
There is something ironic about the man who signed the Texas futile care law (and his brother) being champions of rights of a patient in a persistent vegitative state.

If I had a dollar for all the irony surrounding these guys in the Whitehouse...
I'd have a lot of dollars....

ctenidae · Jun 20, 2005

The big deal on the whole case has nothing to do with Terry, or even the right to live or die.
The big deal comes from a governor trying to get the legislature to overturn a court ruling, then teh President doing the same thing. Florida's States Rights got beat up, the Schiavo family's individual rights got beat up, the Judiciary got smacked around, the US Congress wasted time and energy on hearings about something over which they have no legal jurisdiction, the Florida legislature wasted time and energy on a case over which they had no legal jurisdiction, and so on and so forth.

The question then isn't really do you have the right to die, but does the federal government have the legal and constitutional authority to get involved in private citizens decisions when those decisions are supported by the state's laws and upheld by all levels of the state's judiciary? I say no. Jeb was within his rights and powers, though outside what I'd consider his moral authority, to move for a reformation of Florida's laws. He was well outside his rights and powers to get his brother involved. The will of the people, as shown by Florida state laws, was questioned and nearly overturned by the federal government. That's the problem I have with the whole case.

What ever happened to the old Conservative mantra of small governemnt and private citizenship?

SkiDog · Jun 20, 2005

ctenidae said:
The question then isn't really do you have the right to die, but does the federal government have the legal and constitutional authority to get involved in private citizens decisions when those decisions are supported by the state's laws and upheld by all levels of the state's judiciary? I say no.

Could not have said this better myself..."we the people" should never have been involved in the first place...

M

Stephen · Jun 20, 2005

When a state abdicates it's responsibility to preserve the rights of an individual, then the federal government must step in to protect that individual.

If the states were allowed 100% to maintain their domain without involvement of the federal goverment, we'd still have segregation. The same "we the people" and state's right arguments were used by the segregationists. Thank goodness they were wrong too.

-Stephen

ctenidae · Jun 20, 2005

Florida was protecting Terry Schiavo's rights.
At least, its courts were.

Stephen · Jun 20, 2005

ctenidae said:
Florida was protecting Terry Schiavo's rights.
At least, its courts were.

The irony of all this is... I really do agree with you. State law says that the spouse makes the call, not the parents.

-Stephen

dmc · Jun 20, 2005

Stephen said:
ctenidae said:

Florida was protecting Terry Schiavo's rights.
At least, its courts were.

Click to expand...

The irony of all this is... I really do agree with you. State law says that the spouse makes the call, not the parents.

-Stephen

Why is that ironic? He DID make the call..

Stephen · Jun 20, 2005

The irony is that I think the US Congress also made a correct call. While legally, the spouse's call is what counts, there were enough mitigating circumstances that called his motives into question. Congress' actions were related to this one case, not a sweeping change across all the country. (Such a change would be extremely out of place and not well planned).

-Stephen

ctenidae · Jun 20, 2005

I hear you, Stephen, but that's exactly what bothers me- the US Congress should not be doing anything, at all, that involves one single person (except for impeaching and that sort of thing). The US Congress should never, ever be involved in a case centering on one person in Florida. It's not Congress's place to consider mitigating circumstances in the Schiavo case. That is the job of the state courts,a function they carried out just fine, despite the efforts of Florida's governor.
If Congress decided to revamp federal right to doe statutes, then, while I would whole-heartedly oppose any move to limit a person's right to die peacefully, I would accept that as a proper function.
Issuing a subpeona for a woman in a persistent vegitative state as a way to keep the doctors from carrying oout the wishes of the husband and the order of the courts is in no way an appropriate use of Congress's power and authority.

pedxing · Jun 20, 2005

The fact that the right wing critics keep ignoring is that the courts didn't just rule that the husband can decide. They took an exhaustive and careful look at the medical evidence and other evidence available regarding what Terry might have wanted. The mud slingers, who wrongly trashed the husband, got to raise their accusations in court already.

Like angry self-righteous teenagers, the right kept confusing not being heard with not being agreed with. They had their days in court, they just wanted a different decision.

SkiDog · Jun 21, 2005

pedxing said:
Like angry self-righteous teenagers, the right kept confusing not being heard with not being agreed with. They had their days in court, they just wanted a different decision.

Seems they don't like the answers they got and will keep going until they CAN get those answers they want..."ok this Dr said she was brain dead...NEXT dr please...oops he says the same thing.." eventually..you'll ALWAYS find one guy to disagree..

Unbelievable...IMO

M

dmc · Jun 21, 2005

SkiDog said:
Seems they don't like the answers they got and will keep going until they CAN get those answers they want..."ok this Dr said she was brain dead...NEXT dr please...oops he says the same thing.." eventually..you'll ALWAYS find one guy to disagree..

Unbelievable...IMO

M

At least Bill Frist isn't remotely diagnosing anymore

"I have looked at the video footage. Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond."
Bill Frist from the Senate floor in March

SkiDog · Jun 21, 2005

dmc said:
At least Bill Frist isn't remotely diagnosing anymore

"I have looked at the video footage. Based on the footage provided to me, which was part of the facts of the case, she does respond."
Bill Frist from the Senate floor in March

Yeah seriously....i wonder how many hours of video were left on a cutting room floor for those few minutes of footage that led some to believe she was responding..?

M

Stephen · Jun 21, 2005

Maybe this video were from the clippings left over from the OTHER side's video to show she isn't responsive?

Deception works both ways.

-Stephen

ctenidae · Jun 21, 2005

You guy's see what he put on her tombstone?

"I kept my promise"

Ouch.

JimG. · Jun 21, 2005

Wow, talk about arguing for arguments sake :roll: . The tapes mean NOTHING; the autopsy revealed her brain had wasted to half of it's normal size, and her cognitive areas were completely gone. This only verifies what CAT scans had shown for years, and what doctors had been saying all along...she was brain dead.

jjmcgo · Jun 21, 2005

Rest in peace

One after another of the pro-death lobby urges us to "let her rest in peace."
For God's sake people, a disabled woman who wasn't dying was starved to death at the request of her bigamist husband, now officially a suspect in her collapse.
Here's hoping justice prevails so that Theresa Marie Schindler can rest in peace.

dmc · Jun 21, 2005

Re: Rest in peace

jjmcgo said:
One after another of the pro-death lobby urges us to "let her rest in peace."
For God's sake people, a disabled woman who wasn't dying was starved to death at the request of her bigamist husband, now officially a suspect in her collapse.
Here's hoping justice prevails so that Theresa Marie Schindler can rest in peace.

Was he a bigamist?

jjmcgo · Jun 21, 2005

Watch for the engagement notice

He has a girlfriend and two kids and she wants to get married in a Catholic church so he couldn't divorce Terri.
One area I'd like to see addressed is whether Michael Schiavo met Jody before Terri's collapse and whether Jody sold him a life-insurance policy on Terri before her collapse.
There were numerous broken bones in Terri's body, not explainable by a fall. There was a medical report to that effect that he kept from her parents for 10 years.
There were a lot of aspects to this case that weren't examined by the mainstream media.

Look up "tool" in the dictionary...

Member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads