Terri Schiavo

[Aelfwine]

I am surprised no one has created a topic for this. It has been all over the news of late.

Personally, I think they should let he die. All these wacko christians saying how barbaric it is to let this woman die from starvation. Yea, a better solution is to keep her alive in a (semi)vegetative state in which she has to be fed through a tube for the rest of her life is so dignified. There is something wrong with this country. We refuse to let people die when their time has come. Loved ones shelfishly hold on and keep people alive through artificial means in the (in this case very)slim hope they will recover. Let people die when their time has come. Being kept alive for a month or two through artificial means is one thing. 15 years? That is whats barbaric about this case. Her parents should be ashamed. Not that the husband is a saint, but they need to let go already.

[Allison]

I was just about to start a thread on this.

About the only thing I know for sure is that it's a shame this very private matter has become such a public circus. And, if you don't want to be kept alive by artificial means, make sure you have a living will.

Other than that, I can see both sides. I understand the position of those who believe a life is a life, no matter what. And I understand the position of those who believe that her wishes should be respected. But, I think these are private matters for the family to decide. And time and time again the courts have ruled that her husband has authority in that regard. So, I think everyone should just back off and let it be. The law is on his side.

Now, if the Florida legislature or Congress wants to pass some 11th hour legislation to have her feeding tube re-inserted (for the 3rd time) that's within their legal authority. But I think Congress was out of line to issue subpoenas today. It was a blatant attempt to delay the presiding judge's order by giving Terri the protection of a witness under subpoena. What's she going to be a witness to? It's absurd.

[Aelfwine]

I understand the position of those who believe a life is a life, no matter what.

I don't. If life cannot sustain itself then it is just artificial life. Who in their right mind would want to live this way? Again, I can see staying on life support for a few months in the case of a coma, but in a vegetative state? She will never recover! She may be able to move abit, and hear people talking to her, but living your whole life like that? I would rather die then live my life like that.

And I agree with you. These assholes in congress need to learn to stay out of bussiness that does not concern them. They dont give a damn about 1 person in a vegetative state. They just want to use this to either push some right wing agenda about uthinasia, or just to appease their constituency. These guys have way to much time on their hand.

[Grundy]

I think its actually a good thing that this case has so much attention because it tests your own convictions about life and death as well as the collision of many different legal rights and moral decisions.

Privacy Rights: Part of this is a right to privacy. Most conservatives love this issue and usually argue the govt should not be making decisions for an individual. However they are not making this argument here. Certainly I should be able to decide to "refuse medical treatment" without govt interference. In this case her husband claims she did refuse and he is just following her wish.

Spousal Rights: There is a legal tug of war between the parents and the spouse over who is the legal gaurdian. The law apparently gives your legally married spouse the right to be your Gaurdian. The parents are not her gaurdian and thus cannot make the choice. This case would be even more interesting if she was gay, in which case the parents would make the choice, not her spouse.

Right to Die: No one is using the word Euthenasia or assisted suicide even though when they remove her feeding tube she will certainly die. This is being called 'refusing medical treatment' by some and this is being called a 'barbaric murder' by others. I admit that starving to death is a bit difficult to fathom vs being put to sleep. Does she feel pain? Is she also getting morphine?

Law vs Medicine: The Judge is playing 'God' by allowing her to die. The Doctors are playing 'God' by artifically keeping her alive.


Oh and for the record: If I am in a similar vege state please don't hook me up to a machine. Just pump me up with everything fun you got and let me fly away with a goofy ass grin.

[malkovich]

no need for morphine , she cannot feel anything ...

no patient has ever recovered from the state she is in ...

pretty simple case of who gets to decide - her husband who says that she told him she would not want to live in this state , or her parents who say that she would never have said that ...

alli is right in that if there was a living will there would be no debate ...

[malkovich]

hmmm , after reading this ...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/03/18/dehydration.death.ap/index.html

... now im not certain that a person in a persistent vegetative state can absolutely not feel pain or discomfort , anyone know for sure ? i had a friend in college that was in a diving accident and my grandfather who suffered a stroke that were both in this state and i was told with absolute certainty that they had no ability to feel pain , maybe this is not always true tho ...

[Swifty_Johnson]

I think the laws should be changed. If she did not have a living will that expressed her intent, and her husband wants her to be off of it, but her parents on, then all responsibility should transfer from her husband to her parents. As long as her parents are willing to provide for their daughter and pay the bills, I see no problem with them taking over her care.

Swifty

[malkovich]

i would hope that if i was in his situation i would be able to let my wife's parents have their hope for recovery for her ... even if it was essentialy proven to be hopeless , tho that hinges on my above question ... if i knew for sure that my wife's wishes were to not continue living in that state , and i knew that she could possibly feel discomfort or pain , i might fight for her to be allowed to die too ...

[Sayj]

LoL[malkovich|mOO']... now im not certain that a person in a persistent vegetative state can absolutely not feel pain or discomfort , anyone know for sure ?

I believe the norm in medical care is to assure patients are painfree during the dying process. It is referred to as "comfort care only."

Now, as far as painfree for Terri Schiavo, the news piece I just read said that they had established already that she could not feel pain. Without really knowing facts about her case, my guess is that they scanned her brain for activity and determined that the parts that respond to sensors/stimuli are not functioning. I have also participated in the process of establishing brain death on a young man who fell from a moving car, and that was done by 1) watching him not initiate his own breaths, and 2) seeing unresponsiveness to several types of stimuli.

If you look at CNN.com, they have a survey going on about whether or not *you* would want to be kept in a vegetative state. The results are overwhelmingly leaning to the NO answer.

[Aelfwine]

Thats because it's not a dignified state of being. If life cannot be lived productivley it is not worth living.

[Allison]

Grundy has expressed to me many times that he would want me to "pull the plug," if it ever came to it. I know how much it means to him, and if I had to, I'd fight through hell and high water to make sure his wishes were carried out. That's his decision, not his parents' or his brother's or some random pro-life group's and certainly not the government's. I'd hold a pillow over his face if I had to. I might hate myself for it, but I'd do it because I love him, and because carrying out his wishes would be the last thing I could ever do for him.

[Grundy]

I'd hold a pillow over his face if I had to

Um..Im not a vege yet! But that's very sweet.

[Allison]

Sorry honey. But rest assured, the pillow is ready when you are!

[Grundy]

You have the pillow picked out and everything?

[Allison]

Wha? :uhoh:

[malkovich]

hehehe ... having never been married it is much more of a hypothetical to me , but since i value both of your opinions;

alli - lets say (maybe its true) you have a great relationship with grundys parents , and you know them to be very moral ethical super people , if you knew that grundy could feel no pain or mental anguish , and his parents came to you and pleaded with you to let them have their hope for his recovery - is there any doubt that you would stick to grundy's wishes ?

grundy - same scenario , for some reason your parents cannot be convinced or just cannot accept that you have no hope for recovery , you are completely devoid of any thought or feeling , is there any chance that you would want alli to let them have their dream of hope for you ?

[Allison]

Okay, back on topic.

To those who propose legislation to save Terri, I just don't know what sort of law could be passed without taking away a person's right to refuse medical treatment. What about DNR's? How is that different? Or what if I'm told I have to have surgery or I'll die? Should the government be able to force me to have it if I don't want it? Or chemo? Or anything? How far would it go?

The government has no business forcing medical treatment on someone if they don't want it. And something like 20 judges have ruled that Terri didn't want it. Congress needs to butt the hell out. They've had five years to try to pass legislation to prevent this if they had wanted. But they didn't. And the reason they didn't is because they know they have no business forcing medical treatment on someone who doesn't want it. They're only getting involved now to court voters.

[Allison]

That's a really interesting question, Malk. I'm glad you asked it because that's not something we've ever talked about.

I love Grundy's parents dearly, and value their opinions probably as much or more than my own parents'. Thankfully, since you've asked the question, I won't have to make that decision because I turned right around and asked Grundy what he'd want me to do in that case. He's going to give it some thought and let me know. :D

But, honestly, if I didn't know what Grundy would want in that situation, I'd have a hard time doing what Terri Shiavo's husband is doing, going to court and battling with the parents. I'd be inclined to at least give them a little more time to get used to the idea, but I think eventually I'd have to go ahead with Grundy's wishes, whether they agreed or not. I don't think it would come to that, though, because Grundy's parents would trust that I was telling the truth and they would want to respect his wishes, too.

But, I'm pretty sure I know what Grundy's final decision will be on this. When I asked him what I should do if his parents protested, he said, "What, you want me to be a martyr? I'm not gonna be some playtoy to eat french fries off of."

So there you have it.

[Sayj]

A discussion was going on here at my work (a hospital) about this topic. This nurse pointed out that, if her daughter married a guy, and something happened to the girl like it did to Terri, then the husband can have the legal right to do whatever... what bothered the nurse is that she raised the daughter x number of years, and the husband was the new guy in the picture. She resented a new face suddenly having full control over the daughter's life/death situation. All of this hypothetical, but certainly a valid viewpoint.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The government has no business forcing medical treatment on someone if they don't want it. And something like 20 judges have ruled that Terri didn't want it.

The problem is she didn't leave a living will and so we don't know what she wants. The battle comes down to, is her husband telling the truth? If she left a will stating that if she was ever in a vegative state, then no problem, pull the plug.

We are left with a fight between the parents, and the husband. Lacking a will the courts have decided and it's time. The issue of who makes the decision needs to be addressed though, as the parents are going to loose their daughter, and for some reason they have hope that she'll recover.

Swifty

[Allison]

The problem is she didn't leave a living will and so we don't know what she wants. The battle comes down to, is her husband telling the truth? If she left a will stating that if she was ever in a vegative state, then no problem, pull the plug.



Yes. If she'd had a living will, there'd be no debate. So the question becomes, what were her wishes? That matter has been heard repeatedly in the courts, and time and time again it's been determined that her wishes were as the husband (and I beleive others) claims. That's the best we're ever going to get.

[Figtoria]

I think it's a reflection of her husband's personality that he would >do< this to his wife's parents.

It's no skin off his nose to leave her where she is. He can divorce her and marry the mother of his children.

I feel so sorry for her poor parents.

I think the guy is a son-of-a-bitch.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I have seen some stories about the husband that were not too nice. I don't know if it was true, but he appearently demanded his wife be in perfect shape, and she got on these dangerous diets and she suffered a drop in potassium that casued her heart attack.

I'm like geeze guy accept your wife for who she is.

Swifty

[Allison]

Don't say that, Fig! After I said I'd do the same thing! Lol ... :(

Seriously though, this guy has been offered millions of dollars to give up the fight, and he's turned it down. He's in the middle of national controversy; he can't marry his new love; he has bastard children; he's getting death threats; and who knows what else he's had to endure. This can't be easy for him. He may not have been that great of a guy, but I have to believe this is a labor of love. He did leave it alone, showing respect for the parents wishes for what, ten years or so before he did anything. He gave the parents a lot of time to come to terms with letting her go. But at some point, doesn't he have to think of his wife and what she wanted?

I don't know. I'm basing this on what I would do. I'm not personally comfortable with the whole idea, and in fact I've told Grundy that if it were me, I fully expect him to sit with me in the hospital giving me kisses, massages, and reading me books every day until I die of old age. ;) But, he feels strongly in the opposite direction. He relies on me to act on his wishes if anything should happen to him. And I just couldn't betray him in that, especially at a time when he would be helpless to act for himself. And if Terri's husband feels the same way, I can't fault him for it.

I just think everyone is doing what they think is right here. And that's what makes it so heartbreaking. There are no villians to accuse and no easy answers. And no matter what happens, everyone is hurt.

[Ivyrielle]

I've heard enough myself to question the court's expert medical opinion. Dr. Cranford, IMO, is a loon. http://www.startribune.com/stories/779/23033.html He advocates killing alzheimer's patients as well! He's also ruled a PVT on a man who could pick out colored/shaped blocks as requested. He stated that although he (whacked/tapped/hit) her on the head through his testing of her, her grimace and moan did not mean that she could feel pain.

As for the "husband"... in name only, and only because he won't allow a divorce, despite having a relationship (engaged) with another woman, and fathering two children by her.

The family's medical doctors have ruled that there is hope for improvement, but despite 2 insurance settlements in her favor, Michael Schiavo has used minimal funds for her medical care, and has not *allowed* any therapy which might improve her state. The other portion of those settlements has been used for legal fees to end her life.

She had to have 4 teeth extracted. Why? Because Michael Shiavo prevented her *teeth being brushed.*

Myself, I am not convinced that Michael Shiavo is not motivated by personal greed. He has established a new life, and it's quite clear that there is not a place for Terri within that. Why he wouldn't have divorced her *years* before and allowed her parents to continue her care as they saw fit, if that's what they want to do (and obviously it is) is quite the bizarre situation, IMO. Of course, with 2 insurance settlements, and more on the horizon... well... I know what direction this seems to lean to me.

Is Terri in an unresponsive coma and hooked to life support machines?

Absolutely not! Terri is purposefully interactive, alert, curious, lovely young woman who lives with a very serious disability. She lives free of any life support machines and receives nutrition through a tube that is connected only at meal times.


I was going to keep this a bit more to my own opinions (I've loosely followed the case for the past year), but in doing a little more reading I came across commentary on an article which raises some very interesting medical questions. There was reference earlier in the thread to brain scans/testing which must have been done to determine her state. This article pertains to that. Some will question the source, but certainly in a case such as this, you will find bias inherent in all sources of information. I try to focus on the facts presented... I can filter out the bias as needed.

Medical Experts Talk About the Terri Schiavo Case

Finally, someone has written an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp)outlining the medical basis ( or lack thereof) for the judicial murder of Terri Schiavo. The Medical situation is atrocious - they have not done the normal tests necessary to come to a correct diagnosis.

The Rev. Robert Johansen has been trying to marshall the medical arguments against allowing Terri Schiavo to starve to death, and today he makes a remarkably persuasive case in the National Review Online. He notes that they have lined up almost 50 heavily qualified doctors, most of them board certified and/or professors of medicine, who are doubtful of the adequacy of the diagnosis of Persistent Vegitative state (PVS) that has been given to Terri. Yet the Judge in the case, George W. Greer, seems not to want to hear what they have to say: (emphasis supplied)
So how can Judge Greer ignore the opinions of so many qualified neurologists, some of whom are leaders in the field? The answer is that Michael Schiavo, his attorney George Felos, and Judge Greer already have the diagnosis they want. Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. [b]I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” [/b]He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the[b] CT is pretty useless [/b]unless there has been a massive stroke.”

[b]Other neurologists have concurred [/b]with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’” to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?”

But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has [b]claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” [/b]and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that[b] the available evidence can’t support them[/b]. Dr. Zabiega explained that “[b]a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement:[/b] “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.

So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so.

The most obvious possible explanation for what would otherwise be inexplicable behavior is that [b]Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer don’t want to admit any information that would upset the diagnosis they already have[/b]. [b]Dr. Morin, when told that Michael had refused an MRI, and that Judge Greer had confirmed the decision, said: “He refused a non-invasive test?[/b] People trying to do the right thing want the best and most complete information available. We don't have that in Terri’s case.” Dr. Bell agreed with this assessment, saying, “It seems as though [b]they’re fearful of any additional information.”[/b]

Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer and George Felos have relied on the diagnosis by their doctor, Ronald Cranford (http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/faculty/cranford_r.shtml)of the University of Minnesota. Ordinarily, it would take a long period of examining the patient to make a diagnosis of PVS. Days or weeks of observation is necessary. Yet Dr. Cranford made a diagnosis in only 45 minutes. Here is the story of that examination:
So, did Dr. Cranford, or any of the doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo, spend months evaluating Terri? No. To be fair, none of the doctors appearing for the Schindlers spent months with Terri either. But [b]it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS.[/b] The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy. In marked contrast, [b]Dr. Cranford examined Terri on one occasion, for approximately 45 minutes[/b]. Another doctor for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Peter Bambikidis of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, examined Terri for about half an hour. [b]When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” [/b]In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” [b]he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.” [/b]

"I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. "It's highly unlikely," he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri's reaction is not consistent with a reflex. [b]"A moan is not a reflex," Bell said. "A wince or grimace is not a reflex." "[/b]

By the very definition of Persistent Vegetative State, the patient must exhibit no “evidence of awareness of self or environment” or “ability to interact with others.” As one neurologist put it, if a patient shows “any response to the outside world, the patient isn’t in a PVS.” All it takes, according to Dr. Jones, is “only one examiner to discover the presence of higher brain function and the naysayers’ opinions are, by the very definition of PVS, null and void.”

Ronald Cranford's status as a doctor of death:
Doctors for Michael Schiavo have said that an MRI and PET are not necessary for Terri because PVS is primarily a “clinical” diagnosis, that is, one arrived at on the basis of examination of the patient, rather than by relying on tests. And the neurologists I have spoken to agree on the clinical nature of the diagnosis, while insisting that advanced tests nonetheless are a necessary part of it. But [b]the star medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota, has repeatedly dismissed calls for MRI testing, and his opinion has prevailed[/b]. [b]Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS[/b]. Judge Greer was obviously impressed by Cranford’s résumé: Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS. His clinical judgment has carried the day in many cases, so it is relevant to examine the manner in which he arrived at his judgment in Terri’s case. But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: [b]Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.[/b]

In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients.[b] He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life[/b]. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. [b]Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration. [/b]

In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, [b]Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives[/b]. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. [b]Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn. [/b]

In cases where other doctors don’t see it, [b]Dr. Cranford seems to have a knack for finding PVS.[/b] Cranford also diagnosed Robert Wendland as PVS. He did so [b]in spite of the fact that Wendland could pick up specifically colored pegs or blocks and hand them to a therapy assistant on request. He did so in spite of the fact that Wendland could operate and maneuver an ordinary wheelchair with his left hand and foot, and an electric wheelchair [/b]with a joystick, of the kind that many disabled persons (most famously Dr. Stephen Hawking) use. Dr. Cranford dismissed these abilities as meaningless. Fortunately for Wendland, the California supreme court was not persuaded by Cranford’s assessment.

Expert witnesses in court are [b]supposed to be unbiased[/b]: disinterested in the outcome of the case. Part of the procedure in qualifying expert witnesses is establishing that they are objective and unbiased. But given Dr. Cranford’s history of advocacy in the “right to die” and euthanasia movements, and given his track record of almost always coming down on the side of PVS and removal of nutrition and hydration, one might question his objectivity. Indeed, the Schindlers’ attorneys attempted to do so in the 2002 evidentiary hearing at which Cranford testified, but went unheard. Organizations such as the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide submitted amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the appellate proceedings in Terri’s case, demonstrating Cranford’s bias in detail. But these arguments also seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Some neurologists who also consult in legal cases were not surprised at the handling of Dr. Cranford’s expert testimony. In theory, they said, the expert witness is supposed to be objective, but, as Dr. Bell explained, “the way it really works is that an attorney carefully selects an expert that will give him the outcome he desires.” He related that he has been asked by attorneys to serve as an expert. “I have looked over medical records,” he said, “and told attorneys what I thought.” But on occasion, he said, his opinion was “obviously not what they wanted to hear” and “they moved on to another expert.” Bell acknowledged that Cranford is “a highly accomplished and experienced speaker,” but said that in him the court “likely found a highly prejudiced expert.”

And he discusses how PVS diagnoses are usually made:
Neurologists who are familiar with diagnosing and treating PVS and other brain injuries have told me that [b]PVS is a notoriously difficult diagnosis to make. It requires a great deal of time spent with the patient over several days or weeks[/b]. The reason for this, as Dr. Bell explained, is that brain-injured patients have severely disrupted sleep/wake cycles. Dr. Mack Jones, a neurologist in Ft. Walton Beach, Fla., added that patients with severe brain injury will have greatly varying levels of alertness: “Two independent examiners may get an entirely different impression depending on when and how long he/she has spent performing the examination. For example, one examiner may unknowingly attempt to evaluate the patient during a stage of sleep. Another examiner, by chance, may find a more responsive patient simply because [the patient is] now more aroused.” Dr. Morin concurred, saying that in his experience “the attention of brain-injured patients is very erratic,” and that because of this he has “seen inadequate assessments even by experienced neurologists.” Because of these difficulties, the American Academy of Neurology has made it clear that it can take months for a physician to establish with confidence the diagnosis of PVS. A 1996 British Medical Journal study, conducted at England’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, concluded that there was a 43-percent error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Inadequate time spent by specialists evaluating patients was listed as a contributing factor for the high incidence of errors.

To me, this is a terribly sad case all around. The media hoopla and political attention are unfortunate, but this is obviously a case that strikes close to home, no matter your position on it.

[MickeyFinn]

I, MickeyFinn (also known as Ron Jeremy), hereby state this while of sober mind and body, and with these forum members as my witnesses. If I am to ever for some reason end up in a vegetative state, please, hit me over the head with a shovel.

[Allison]

Well, I think there's a lot of mudslinging going on out there right now and a lot of people trying to make a villian out of Terri's husband. So, I'm pretty skeptical when I hear some of these accusations that have been made against him.

As for which doctor is right about what, all I can say is that this case had been adjudicated to death over the last five years, and each time, the court has made the same ruling. And each time, her parents were allowed to produce two doctors, her husband two, and the court appointed a neutral doctor. So, I can only assume that each side was equally represented and that the court fully considered all the opinions given. And that's about as much as we can expect.

[malkovich]

saying he advocates killing alzheimers patients is slightly inaccurate i think , he thinks they or their guardians should be able to refuse feeding tubes/life support measures just as PVS patients/guardians should ... i have quite a bit of experience here and i dont think you will find many family members of advanced alzheimers patients that would tell you that they have any doubt that their loved one would rather be medicated to a quick death ...

regarding all the medical info all i can say is that i have followed the case also and you can find just as many qualified experts on the other side and they have both had many chances to litigate this ...

on other points , i will argue the other side just for the sake of discussion , i certainly havent made up my mind ...

is it true that the parents openly admit to encouraging the husband to start dating ? and he only did so years after he had lost hope for his wife ?

is it true about all the efforts he made to get her treatment (even experimental) for the first few years ? and that he only stopped pursuing treaments and therapies after he had been told that there was no hope ? and that every court review of his effort and commitment to his wife has been along the lines of "exemplary , above and beyond ..." ?

if greed is the motivation , is it true that there is very little money left in the trust and that he was offered a million dollars to remove himself from the situation and refused ?

why would a guy that just wants his wife to die , that knows that she isnt really in a vegetative state , that is greedy and possibly was even abusive and the cause of this whole thing! a guy that just wants out and to be able to get on with life with his new wife and kids , why would a guy like that turn down a million bucks to just walk away ?

[malkovich]

oh , and if that doctor actually publicly compared PVS / alzheimers patients to animals then he is an idiot ... not that the comparison isnt valid in some ways , but he is an idiot not to realize that its just something you cant say ...

i have spent lots of time in alzheimers wards , several hours a day , several times a week , over the course of many years ... its the most horrible thing i have ever seen and i can relate to someone comparing the patients to wild animals ... but yeah , for a doctor to actually say that ? not too bright ...

[Rooster]

Just because a doctor's expert opinion doesn't agree with keeping patients alive once in a non-aware/non-cognitive state doesn't mean it's bias.

It's expert opinion.

That would be like saying that because I think that AMD has better CPUs out right now that I'm biased. I can back it up with facts - as that doctor can.

Does that mean every tech will agree? Does it mean it's a black & white issue? No. But it doesn't mean there's bias.

[Aelfwine]

Forget all this legal mumbo jumbo. The fact is it is not natural to be kept alive for 7+ years on a feeding tube. Thats why I don't understand the religous people making such a big deal over this. If she wasn't on the tube "God" would take her. It is the natural way to die. This is not a natural way to live. We should not be keeping vegetables alive indefinitley. That is barbaric and selfish in my mind. Let nature take its course. Why is it the most religous amongst us are the most scared to meet(or let others meet) God? Because choosing when someone dies is a sin? So fucking what! "God" or whatever put us here with free will to do what we want. If we cannot make a decision about something like this, it is on the closest living relative. It is not up to others, or the state, to regulate sin. That is between everyone and the diety they choose to believe in.

[Figtoria]

If Grundy feels that way Ailia - I hope he has something in writing. If that is so - then you would have every moral right to do as the husband is doing and I would hold your hand as you pull the plug.

It's not a decision that can ever be taken back. Without that pre-consent, it is my opinion that >both< sets of people who have some claim to her should agree about something as final and unreversable as death.

As a mother, I can tell you - it would feel UNBELIEVABLY unjust that some woman (my son's future wife), would have the right to control the life and/or death of the person I gave birth to and raised and loved for so many years.




I'm not personally comfortable with the whole idea, and in fact I've told Grundy that if it were me, I fully expect him to sit with me in the hospital giving me kisses, massages, and reading me books every day until I die of old age. ;) But, he feels strongly in the opposite direction. He relies on me to act on his wishes if anything should happen to him.

[malkovich]

quoting myself ... "why would a guy that just wants his wife to die , that knows that she isnt really in a vegetative state , that is greedy and possibly was even abusive and the cause of this whole thing! a guy that just wants out and to be able to get on with life with his new wife and kids , why would a guy like that turn down a million bucks to just walk away ?"

this was a poorly framed question by me , it would have been better to include less of the accusations that have been made against him rather than more ... so , take out the "knows" she isnt in a PVS , and the abuse part and then it is a more simple and appropriate question ... even tho all those things have been said about him , they just make it a more complicated question than it needs to be ...

absolutely fig , you would hope that you would trust your child's partner when they tell you what the persons wishes were , but even then when it comes to your own child , tough call ... i would imagine ...

it is a good thing that my mother and i own property together now , it forced us into making out wills so that potential ownership issues would be easy to deal with if one of us dies , and that forced us to deal with the whole DNR / living will area ...

[Allison]

Yeah, Fig. I'm not a mom, so my primary perspective is that of a spouse. But, even if I can't fully understand how a parent would feel, I do realize it would be very difficult for them, how it would seem unjust for a spouse to have more authority than them.

But no matter what, I just keep coming back to the same thing: It's not about what's wanted by the parents or the husband or anyone else. It's about what Terri would have wanted. That's something that no one will ever know with 100% certainty. And that's what makes it so difficult. But I think both parties are trying to do what they think Terri would have wanted, and that's why I can't really fault anyone here ... except of course those evil picketers and politicians trying to gain political ground on the backs of this poor family. Those guys, they're eeeevullll.

[Allison]

The more I hear about what's happening in Congress, the more annoyed I get.
ABC News obtained talking points circulated among Senate Republicans explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them, that it is an important moral issue and the "pro-life base will be excited," and that it is a "great political issue — this is a tough issue for Democrats." - Souce. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Schiavo/story?id=595905&page=1)

To be fair, the talking points could also include a lot of stuff about it being the right things to do, etc., and Tom "The Hammer" Delay claims to know nothing about these talking points (which I doubt because there's nothing that goes on in Congress that he doesn't know about), but I don't doubt for one minute that a major factor in this attempted intervention is to fire up the troops and score political points.

I really want to know what law they think they can pass that won't ultimately be ruled unconstitutional? The Florida legislature did their best to come up with one and it kept Terri alive until the Florida Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Did Congress act then to come up with a better law? No. Have they tried to intervene in any of the other cases that go on every day in this country? No. They wait until the last minute to act so they can keep this very public case going on as long as possible to get the most political mileage out of it. Hey, maybe if they're lucky they can drag it out until the 2008 elections.

They know it's a win-win situation for them. If they are unable to pass legislation, they can blame the Democrats who obviously will think it's just grand to murder innocent people. And, if they do pass legislation and it's struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, they can all go on about the "activist judges." And, I guess they figure since this case has played so well for Republicans in Florida, why not take it national so they all can reap the benefits?

It just burns me up. The federal government has no business interfering with the state of Florida in this matter. Tom Delay said, "No little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress." No little judge? Does he think he's God or something? And then Bill Frist is out giving his "expert medical opinion" that he thinks the Florida courts made the wrong determination about Terri being in a vegetative state. He based this not on an examination, or on medical records, but on a video from Terri's parents that showed only what they wanted it to show. How could he have possibly come to that conclusion based on that video alone? It was an absurd and irresponsible thing for him to say.

I know this is typical political fare. Both sides take advantage of whatever they can, exaggerating and making ridiculous statements to influence the public. I just can't believe they would do it in a situation like this. They're making a circus out of this family's pain. I just can't understand it. They are having such a grand time stirring the pot, and for what? To make a statement? They could have made a statement without trying to intervene. Ultimately, the law will be on Michael Shiavo's side. All they're doing is prolonging the inevitable while making a mockery of this family's pain.

Ugh... I don't know. Am I judging too harshly here? I just feel so strongly that the federal government has no business interfering in this. Maybe that's causing me to be unfair to Republicans. I don't know. If I'm missing something here, someone please tell me.

[Aelfwine]

Not unfair at all. They don't give a damn about Terri Schiavo or her family. They just care about getting their names in the headlines and scoring political points. Nobodies fault but our own I guess. We vote these assholes in.

[Allison]

I really want to know what law they think they can pass that won't ultimately be ruled unconstitutional?

Well, it looks like I was under the wrong impression about the sort of legislation Congress is trying to get passed. (And it looks like they may have just passed.) It's not something to change the law as to when it's legal to remove a feeding tube. From Senate Bill S.539: Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal judicial code to extend habeas corpus protections to persons who are subject to a court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the person's life.

So, they're extending habeus corpus, which, as I understand it, allows for federal review of a case in which the state is holding someone in its custody; it's basically part of an appeal process for prisoners.

So that means that, after years and years of adjudication in the lower courts and the state's supreme court, this case will now be heard in federal court, where they will once again decide if she is in a vegetative state and if it indeed was her wish not to remain that way.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not sure what the final version of this bill is. The House had passed a bill that would apply to all cases like Terri Shiavo's; the Senate passed a bill that would apply only to Terri Shiavo. I'm not sure what sort of compromise they made or in which direction in went.

[Hammer]

I hope I'm never in this situation. I think if it were me, I would probably give in to my in-laws wishes even knowing that my wife wanted to die. To me she would already be dead. I consider brain death to be death. I would probably just make an agreement to get a divorce and allow them to take over as legal gardians.

[Allison]

Okay, so the Senate passed a version of the bill, which the House has apparantly agreed to and hopes to pass today, that extends habeas corpus not to all persons in Terri's shoes as the House preferred, but just to Terri Schiavo.

On the one hand, that's not nearly as bad as what I had expected. And by "bad" I mean "interfering with states' rights." But on the other hand, first, it's still interference; and, second, how could a law that grants special protections to just one citizen be constitutional? Is that fair and equal treatment under the law?

[Rooster]

Since when has the House of Rep's cared about constitutionality?

[Post]

"But on the other hand, first, it's still interference; and, second, how could a law that grants special protections to just one citizen be constitutional?"

How did they make it specific to one person? If they did do it, so it couldn't apply to anyone else, then why in the hell is the federal government being involved at all? The federal government, when it does step in, makes a decision on a set of rules made by the states. The result of this decision may mean doing something special to a person, but they are never, ever supposed to skip the "set of rules" part and jump right to the person part.

[Allison]

I read an article yesterday that said it's not "uncommon" for Congress to pass laws that apply to only one person. And I guess that must be true because no one is really talking about that aspect of the bill.

But still, even if it happens, I don't see how it's not a violation of the Constitution.

Here's the bill, you want to look at it: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.653:

[Post]

That's lame. They're supposed to making calls on the rules of the ones they govern, not the people that they govern. By ruling on the people directly, they're skipping the the local governments WHICH WERE PUT IN PRECISELY FOR THAT REASON.

If they were making a ruling, stating that it was unconstitutional for her to die, then fine. I'd disagree with it, but that's the federal government's job - to decide if the local rules are breaking the federal rules. But to make a ruling that's basically not allowing the local government to follow their own rules without citing what federal rule it's breaking? Lame.

[Allison]

Yeah. It'll be interesting to see what happens. When this bill is signed, we'll see both parties rushing to the courthouse. The parents' attorney will be asking a federal judge to allow them to exercise the rights Congress just gave them, and Michael's attorney will be asking a federal judge to rule the new law unconstitutional.

I just still can't believe the audacity of it all. These congressmen could have just explained to their contituents that the law was followed, and that there was nothing they could do. Or, if they really thought that the law was lacking in some way, they could have taken steps to change it. But instead of accepting that responsibility, they just handed it over to a federal court so that they could cushion themselves against any political fallout from the end result, overstepping their authority in the process. It's mind-boggling.

[malkovich]

this case is bringing me perilously close to talking politics ... are you watching the live coverage tonight alli ? anyone ? these fuckin vultures latch onto individual cases that pluck at heartstrings so predictably ... whoops , there i go ...

i better go find a silly game link to post ...

[Allison]

Lol, yeah, Malk. Grundy and I are watching it right now. I'd love to have a 5 minute public Q&A with some of these guys.

[malkovich]

trent franks - "the killer of the little girl in florida is getting 3 square meals a day and yet we are starving this poor innocent woman"

what a clueless jackass ... or is scheming scumbag more appropriate ? do you think he really doesnt know that he is completely misstating the issue ? people have feeding tubes removed and life support machines turned off every day , a complete non-issue ... and bringing jessica lunsford into it , i cant even comment , i want to kick this man in the face , repeatedly ...

sickening and disturbing ... no matter what side you are on ...

[Allison]

Malk, were you reading my mind? I typed up something about the absurd and inflammatory things some of these guys were saying, but then deleted it because of various reasons.

But yeah, my jaw was on the ground a couple of times. I coudn't figure out if they were that shameless, or that ignorant.

[malkovich]

sorry if i appear to be mocking only one side of this issue but thats how things have struck me so far , if i see hypocrisy and bullshit from the other side i will point that out too ...

quote from the parents lawyer - "we have received letters from 8 year olds that cant understand why he (the husband) wont release terri to her parents ... little children cant even understand why he is doing this"

and this guy thinks that is a good point ? what the fuck does that even mean ?

not a quote from the parents lawyer - "we also have testimony from toddlers that dont understand either and we have every reason to believe that dogs also cannot fathom why he would do this"

but it wouldnt shock me if i did hear it ... sorry to joke ...

[Post]

Yep. What people should be arguing about is who has custody of her. People make decisions to pull the plug all the time, and no one mentions it at all. It's cold, but that's the way it is.

So is it going to be the "who has custody" argument that's going to take center stage? Nope. It's going to be turned into a life vs choice BS circus because that's what will get the most publicity. And the most ironic thing about all of it is that both sides will act like it's about respecting Terry, when making it this argument is doing the opposite.

[Swifty_Johnson]

It's politicans responding to the people who voted them into office. I've seen democrats attacking Republiancs claiming they are useing her parents as pawns, when in fact it's her parents using the politicals and public opinion to force the politicans to their will.

Someone interviewed her brother and asked him, "Her husband said it was her will to not remain in this state, why are you going aginst her will?"

He replied "He didn't state that was her wish until seven years after she slipped into a coma and he announced he was getting remarried."

Now, if she really did express a wish not to remain in this state, why did he wait 7 years to tell anyone, and why when he was looking to get remarried?

Swifty

[]LoL[Harm]

Now, if she really did express a wish not to remain in this state, why did he wait 7 years to tell anyone, and why when he was looking to get remarried?Maybe it took him that long to deal with letting her go, maybe he wants to start a new life and needs to remove both an emotional drain and an economical drain. There's lots of possible answers to that question.

[Swifty_Johnson]

maybe he wants to start a new life and needs to remove both an emotional drain and an economical drain. There's lots of possible answers to that question.

Except her parents are like divorse her and we'll take all responsibilty for her, pay all the bills, everything.

I agree with Fig, I can see no reason for this guy not to give her back to her parents. If she is brain dead like he thinks, she won't know, won't care, won't feel a thing, but it will take a large burden off her parents and make them feel better. Turning her back over to her parents casues him to loose nothing, and it gains them a ton of confort.

Swifty

[Post]

"Except her parents are like divorse her and we'll take all responsibilty for her, pay all the bills, everything.

I agree with Fig, I can see no reason for this guy not to give her back to her parents."

I absolutely agree. I think he should do that, because it's the right thing to do, and I can't see any reason he wouldn't do that, either. I do not agree that he should be legally bound to do that, though.

[Murrie]

Ill tell you what I want to see die:







This story.

[Allison]

I agree with Fig, I can see no reason for this guy not to give her back to her parents. If she is brain dead like he thinks, she won't know, won't care, won't feel a thing, but it will take a large burden off her parents and make them feel better. Turning her back over to her parents casues him to loose nothing, and it gains them a ton of confort.



I can totally respect if this is what people believe. I'd disagree, though. I mean, who says that her parents' suffering should be the primary concern? What if MIchael can't sleep at night, what if he's suffering daily because he hasn't honored his wife in the way she asked? What if he feels there is some part of Terri that is beggging him, "Please, please don't leave me like this." If you're going to consider the parents' suffering, you have to consider his too.

But, you know, it really doesn't matter what her parents want or what he wants. The Florida courts have determined, time and time again, that it was Terri's wish to die. There were more people than just Michael who testified to this. And that's what it's about, what she wants.

I'm curious Swifty, do you think that, in the absense of a living will, that the state shouldn't have the power to make determinations about a patient's wishes? Or when you say that the husband should just step aside, is it that you're speaking strictly about morals and not the law? And, lastly, do you agree that the law has been served and that Congress overstepped its bounds by calling a do-over?

[Allison]

But .. but .. but , Murrie. I've been waiting to hear your opinion, specifically. Out with it. :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

What if he feels there is some part of Terri that is beggging him, "Please, please don't leave me like this." If you're going to consider the parents' suffering, you have to consider his too.

I changed my mind after this weekend. When I learned that it took him seven years to come forth and say that it was her wish to die, and only after he decided to marry someone else, it raises a big red flag. How much suffering can he be in?

He's denied her an MRI.

He's denied her any treatment.

Like I said, if she is really brain dead, the MRI or any treatment won't cause her to suffer. The parents are willing to pay for it all, so I now have this real big red flag and alarms going off.

The Florida courts have determined, time and time again, that it was Terri's wish to die.

I need to see what the court ruling are, I'd be intrested in what else they are taking into consideration besides what the husband says.

Or when you say that the husband should just step aside, is it that you're speaking strictly about morals and not the law?

Morals, but the law should be changed and the parents wishs should get more say so. Like Figgy said, they raised their daughter for 18 years, now a guy who has been married only two is making all the decisions.

And, lastly, do you agree that the law has been served and that Congress overstepped its bounds by calling a do-over?

By making it apply to only one person, it's an overstepping. Had they applied it to all cases, then I'd have to look at it closer.

Swifty

[Post]

"Morals, but the law should be changed and the parents wishs should get more say so. Like Figgy said, they raised their daughter for 18 years, now a guy who has been married only two is making all the decisions."

I'm curious as to what else the parents should get. If he wanted her to stay alive, and the parents didn't, would the parents have any sayso at all? Like Figgy said, they raised their daughter for 18 years, now a guy who has been married only two is making all the decisions.

Or is this because they want her alive, therefore making this no longer a right to choose case, and instead, a right to live case, to which there are plenty of those decisions made and no one lifts a finger for?

[Allison]

I don't know Swifty, it's really not fair to the husband to believe every bad thing the parents have said about him, or to make assumptions about his motives. I mean, the parents have said that they wouldn't remove Terri's feeding tube even if they knew it was her wish. Should we assume from that that they don't really care about Terri and that they're just using her to further their own personal political agenda? No, that wouldn't be fair either.

There are lots of reasons why this person may have said or done this thing at this time. It's just not fair at this late date to make assumptions and to stir up old rumors when all of it has already been heard, repeatedly, and decided in various courts of law.

There's all this hateful, horrible stuff being said about the husband, some of which has been brought up in this thread. But, all of that stuff has been considered time and time again and none of it has stood up in court. The courts have repeatedly ruled that Michael has provided Terri with excellent care; they've determined that she is in a PVS; and they've determined it was her wish to deny medical treatment under those circumstances. What else is there to consider? Either we respect the rule of law or we don't.

[malkovich]

re: why he would not release her to her parents care;

because he believes that their intentions are not as pure as they let on , because he believes that his wifes wishes were to not continue in this condition , because the parents testified that they would amputate all her limbs if medically necessary to keep her alive , because right before every round of hearings her parents have accused him of all sorts of ghoulish things ...

he could be lying thru his teeth , i cant prove it to you , but that would be his position and if those things are true , and if i really believed my wife had told me she wouldnt want to live that way , i wouldnt stop fighting for her either ...

i guess that is why it is more beneficial to focus on the legality of the congrees stepping in at this point , it seems to be a much clearer debate ...

everything her parents say could be true , maybe he was abusive , forced her to go on dangerous diets , beat her the night she fell ill , is lying about what she supposedly said , and is just in this for some cash ...

but i know that every court review has said he; provided her with excellent care , was aggressive about getting her facilities to care for her , flew her cross country for experimental procedures , took her to museums and the salon ... and only stopped doing these things when he was told by all involved doctors that she was beyond hope for recovery , that no person had ever recovered one bit after remaining in her condition for over a year ... then he lost hope and stopped pursuing further treatment for her ...

[malkovich]

hehe alli , i am the one that keeps mentioning these things and probably confusing things ... :P ... it is a much better plan to focus on the legality of the current situation involving the courts and the congress ...

[Murrie]

But .. but .. but , Murrie. I've been waiting to hear your opinion, specifically. Out with it

my opinion?

1 - She is a vegetable, there is no "terri" in that meat bag in the hospital;

2 - husband has the legal power to do whatever he wants per Florida law.

3 - She should already be dead.

4 - get a living will

5 - She should be dead already.


This happens every day in hundreds of hospitals around the country there is absolutely nothing special about this case and absolutely no reason for it to be news.

[]LoL[Harm]

This happens every day in hundreds of hospitals around the country there is absolutely nothing special about this case and absolutely no reason for it to be news.And even less reason for congress to be dealing with any aspect of it.

[malkovich]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934

[Sayj]

http://www.komo4.com/stories/35857.htm

[Figtoria]

http://www.komo4.com/stories/35857.htm


Yeah now - THAT I agree with.


I generally agree that she should not be alive. I think medical science interferes way too much with lost causes. I don't think we should be saving every little 4 month premature crack baby either.

It's only that I feel sorry for her parents, and not so much for her husband.

[malkovich]

this is the report from the court appointed independent guardian ad litem for terri schiavo in 2003 ...

http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miami/news/0319schiavo_finalreport.pdf

[malkovich]

i just finished it , i had seen excerpts from it before but never the whole thing ... this is a must read for anyone that wants to comment on this case ...

[Hammer]

I think one aspect that makes this a little harder to deal with is that we're talking food and water and a long drawn out process. I doubt this would have ever made a single headline if she were hooked up to a heart/lung machine, in a coma, and the simple act of flipping the switch would kill her, quickly. But starving something, anything, seems cruel to me. I realize she probably would have zero awareness of her starvation but still, give her a damn lethal injection and be done with it.

[]LoL[Harm]

Some interesting bittids: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0320-07.htm

[Rooster]

The whole situation sucks.

But I did hear a reason why it doesn't go against conservatives death penalty.

When there is a reasonable doubt, tis better to err on the side of life.

In death penalty cases (or any crimes), it is determined, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (civil cases are "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Are they perfect? No. Are more guilty people acquitted than innocents convicted? By FAR. I do not know the % of innocents already put to death - it would be an infintismly small number I'm sure.

However, that being said: I agree with Murrie's statements above.

[Murrie]

But starving something, anything, seems cruel to me. I realize she probably would have zero awareness of her starvation but still, give her a damn lethal injection and be done with it.

Yea its really too bad that they have set up the laws so that the only legal way to end someones life is a natural one, be it starvation or suffocation, pain or not...

Ruling that Kevorkian was a murderer and that assisted suicides were illegal is one of the more fucked up things ive ever witnessed and the damn "pro-life" freaks that use anothers suffering to further their little pet project are some sick sons-of-bitches.

[Rooster]

Preach on brother Murrie!

[Post]

"When there is a reasonable doubt, tis better to err on the side of life.

In death penalty cases (or any crimes), it is determined, "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (civil cases are "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Are they perfect? No. Are more guilty people acquitted than innocents convicted? By FAR. I do not know the % of innocents already put to death - it would be an infintismly small number I'm sure."

I agree. I just feel that there isn't reasonable doubt to think anything other than she's a vegetable. The state she's in, no one has ever recovered from when in it more than a year. Ever. IMO, thinking that she may be able to recover is an unreasonable doubt.

Is it possible she may recover? Yes. As I've stated time and time again, rarely is anything 100% or 0%. And there has been people who have been sentenced to death with less room of error (and I'm ok with that, as long as from a "death sentence is legal" point of view atleast). It's an interesting point you give, though - I'm wondering if all of these "right to life" people feel the same away about convicted killers on death row.

[Aelfwine]

What if she isn't a vegetable? What if she realizes whats going on? What if she has lain there for 15 years trapped in a useless shell, unable to move, unable to communicate? That would be the worst punishment of all. I cannot believe that any person would choose to live this way.

This whole right to life slant is so fucking stupid. You have the right to live how you want, but you dont have the right to die the way you want. And these picketers have got to be the most useless human beings ever. Get a real cause.

[Post]

"What if she isn't a vegetable? What if she realizes whats going on? What if she has lain there for 15 years trapped in a useless shell, unable to move, unable to communicate?"

And that was decided. It's not as if it doesn't count, it's if that's what is really happening. It was decided that it wasn't. Again, I'm not stating it's impossible, but it has been decided that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is.

[Noleader]

btw it is unconstutional for Congress to pass laws effecting a single person. It violates the equality clause.

Just as a reminder the recount Gore pushed for was stopped for the same reason, because it gave preference to one group over the other.

From what I understand though the law they pass effects everyone. It basicly gives the contenders the ability to file in Federal Court.

[Post]

"From what I understand though the law they pass effects everyone. It basicly gives the contenders the ability to file in Federal Court."

From what I understand (and I'll fully admit I don't know the details of the bill), it seemed that although it applies to everyone, it was made specific enough to where it dealt with a scenario very specific to Terry.

[Murrie]

and they all should burn in political hell for it

god we need some forking libertarian minded polititians and fast!

[Allison]

When there is a reasonable doubt, tis better to err on the side of life.



That's probably a discussion that should be had, whether the legal standard in these cases should be raised. Right now, if I'm not mistaken, most civil cases fall under the burden of a preponderance of the evidence, with a few requiring a greater burden of clear and convincing evidence. But only criminal cases rise to the highest burden of reasonable doubt. (That's my limited understanding, anyway, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Something I have no idea about, though, and maybe someone can enlighten me, is what determines the burden to be used? Is it determined by statute, or by the court that's hearing the case, or is that left to the judge's discretion? And is that something that varies by state? Could two identical cases in two different states require a different burden?

Of course, even if someone answers all though questions, (and more) I don't feel anywhere near knowledgeable enough to comment very extensively about what I feel is the best burden of proof requirement for a particular type of case. It seems like there are a lot of things that need to be considered beyond the simple, and I think not that relevant, comparison to a capital punishment case.

But, again, I think it's a discussion worth having.

[Noleader]

From what I understand (and I'll fully admit I don't know the details of the bill), it seemed that although it applies to everyone, it was made specific enough to where it dealt with a scenario very specific to Terry.

Yea it was tailor made to apply to her and restrict its useage in other cases...

[Murrie]

Im gonna get a tattoo across my chest:


I AM NOT A PAWN
PULL THE FUCKING PLUG


or i would if Brigantia wouldnt kick me out of the house...

[Noleader]

That's probably a discussion that should be had, whether the legal standard in these cases should be raised. Right now, if I'm not mistaken, most civil cases fall under the burden of a preponderance of the evidence, with a few requiring a greater burden of clear and convincing evidence. But only criminal cases rise to the highest burden of reasonable doubt. (That's my limited understanding, anyway, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Something I have no idea about, though, and maybe someone can enlighten me, is what determines the burden to be used? Is it determined by statute, or by the court that's hearing the case, or is that left to the judge's discretion? And is that something that varies by state? Could two identical cases in two different states require a different burden?

Of course, even if someone answers all though questions, (and more) I don't feel anywhere near knowledgeable enough to comment very extensively about what I feel is the best burden of proof requirement for a particular type of case. It seems like there are a lot of things that need to be considered beyond the simple, and I think not that relevant, comparison to a capital punishment case.

But, again, I think it's a discussion worth having.

Preponderance of the Evidence = Civil Case (Non-Criminal Act)
Reasonable Doubt = Criminal Case (Criminal Act) (Can Be Jailed)

It is that clear cut... For everything outside a Criminal Case it is your responiblity to provide the most support for your side of the argument.

You will never have two like cases in two different states use different burdens of proof.

Preponderance of the Evidence is the best one to use for this case. The party that is best expressing her wishes should be able to provide the most evidence to support said wishes.

[Murrie]

Preponderance of the Evidence is the best one to use for this case. The party that is best expressing her wishes should be able to provide the most evidence to support said wishes.

its is the ONLY one that could be used for this case.
This is not the state trying someone this is a civil matter between two private parties.

"reasonable doubt" is specifically to make sure that the government does not have an easy time of depriving citizens of their rights.

[Noleader]

By rule of law, yes Murrie it is the only one that can be used... I was just answering Ally's question about what one I think best works for this case :)

[Cavan]

I'm now living in Florida... and the only reason this case made national news is because Jeb Bush was against removing the feeding tube... and he's been fighting the husband since day one of the ordeal...

Washington has only gotten involved because it's George's brother... I honestly don't see what the debate is about... the woman was married... she was NOT under the care of her parents... she was under the care of her husband... and it's her husband who makes the call... NOT the parents....

[Post]

"Preponderance of the Evidence is the best one to use for this case. The party that is best expressing her wishes should be able to provide the most evidence to support said wishes."

The way I feel about it, though, is once he was married to her, if there's no proof of neither a living will nor the ability to show that he's incapable of making the decision for her, then her husband makes the call. Not if someone's better capable of making the call than him, but that he is ineligible to make the call. That was the accusation, and the initial judgment and all appeals so far has made the conclusion that it isn't true.

If we open it up to a measurement of who's better capable of making the call, her husband or her parents, then you have to allow that call to go the opposite way as well - that her parents can decide that she should be able to die, despite the husband wanting her to live. And I believe that no one thinks that should be.

[Aelfwine]

and the only reason this case made national news is because Jeb Bush was against removing the feeding tube.

And thats the problem with politicians, lawyers, and judges today. On the right and left. It isn't about what they want. It's about upholding the law and executing it. Her husband has the right to make the decision. Do it already.

[Allison]

You know what's really interesting here is that we all pretty much agree on this. Sure, there are some minor disagreements about who is acting in whose interests, or whether the laws in these areas need some examining. But for the most part, we all agree that the parties have had the benefit of due process, that we are a nation of laws and that those laws have been properly served.

How often does that happen?

[Figtoria]

If we open it up to a measurement of who's better capable of making the call, her husband or her parents, then you have to allow that call to go the opposite way as well - that her parents can decide that she should be able to die, despite the husband wanting her to live. And I believe that no one thinks that should be.



Wrong. I'd be for that. Blood is thicker than water.

I agree with Hammer - one of the hard parts about this is the long, slow death thing.

We are civilized enough to offer our pets the dignity of euthanasia, but not those we love most.

It's crazy.

[Allison]

We are civilized enough to offer our pets the dignity of euthanasia, but not those we love most.



Not to open up a whole can of worms here -- but, my longstanding opinion in favor of legalizing assisted suicide has recently been shaken.

I was watching an episode of Real Time and they were talking about assisted suicide. Tucker Carlsen, with whom I often disagree but respect nonetheless, was making a case for not legalizing it. He said that in areas where assisted suicide is legal, studies have shown that a culture develops wherein old people are pressured into taking their lives when they otherwise wouldn't, because it's seen as selfish to allow yourself to become a burden to your family.

Now, I haven't looked into that claim or thought it through entirely, but the thought certainly makes me want to reexamine my convictions. I definitely support the "don't ask don't tell" policy that exists in probably every hospital in the country. (In fact when I heard a nurse today claim that Michael Schiavo had injected his wife with insulin, my first thought was, 'If it's true, good for him for trying to end it quickly.) But I wonder if I've considered all the other problems that could arise from legalization, (I certainly hadn't considered what Carlsen suggested) and whether those problems would be worse than the situation we have now.

Like I said, I haven't really taken the time to re-evaluate my opinoin after Carlsen threw a wrench in the works; maybe after I do, my opinion will be the same. But right now, my convictions aren't what they used to be in regards to legalization.

[Post]

"Wrong. I'd be for that. Blood is thicker than water."

So if the person you're married to slips into a coma, you think his parents have any right to say let him die? Interesting. I know if I loved someone, was close enough, and was legally bound to someone in marriage, I wouldn't want anyone to be able to take the rights away from me that I pledged responsibility for.

[Noleader]

Wrong. I'd be for that. Blood is thicker than water.

If that is the case give your parents Power of Attorney that becomes active upon your inability to make the desisons for yourself.

[Hammer]

That may be a problem Alli, but I don't think it's a reason to deny someone the right to assisted suicide. No law is perfect but if someone chooses to die then they should be able to get a painfree trip to nothingness. We have a right to abortion here, but I don't think our society is pressuring women to have abortions.

[Figtoria]

"Wrong. I'd be for that. Blood is thicker than water."

So if the person you're married to slips into a coma, you think his parents have any right to say let him die? Interesting. I know if I loved someone, was close enough, and was legally bound to someone in marriage, I wouldn't want anyone to be able to take the rights away from me that I pledged responsibility for.


There are rights and responsibilities which do not need to be "pledged". It's called "family."

Okay, I'll amend this - it depends on the family, but it also depends on the spouse.

I just don't agree that the spouse should automatically have all rights and the family none.

[Post]

"There are rights and responsibilities which do not need to be "pledged". It's called "family.""

Ethically, maybe. Not legally. As I stated before, I think he is ethically wrong for not turning over guardianship to her parents. He's not legally wrong, though.

For that matter, what other legal rights do you think a family should have? Visitation of their grandchildren? Not allowing the grandchildren to not go to a certain parent in the case of divorce, even if the state and the other parent says it's ok?

The parent-to-child link should be morally made, but at legal age and beyond, not legally made.

Edit:

"Okay, I'll amend this - it depends on the family, but it also depends on the spouse."

I'll agree with that. If the spouse is proven to not care for the best interests of his/her partner, then yes, the state should allow guardianship to be turned over to someone else. They tried that, though, and lost. They couldn't prove that.

"I just don't agree that the spouse should automatically have all rights and the family none."

That's what marriage is, though. When you're married, unless you specifically state otherwise in a will or whatever, it is assumed that you're giving all rights of attourney over to your partner. You're perfectly allowed to not do that, but you have to say something.

[Allison]

That may be a problem Alli, but I don't think it's a reason to deny someone the right to assisted suicide. No law is perfect but if someone chooses to die then they should be able to get a painfree trip to nothingness. We have a right to abortion here, but I don't think our society is pressuring women to have abortions.

You may be right about the conclusion that the "pressure to commit argument" isn't enough to prohibit legalizing assisisted suicide. I tend to agree with that.

But, I disagree with your last sentence there. Young women are under tremendous pressure to have abortions that they wouldn't be under if abortion were illegal. Ask a pregnant 15 year-old if she's not under pressure to have an abortion. I guarantee she is. Because right now, it's as socially acceptable, if not more acceptable, and way more common for a woman to have an abortion than to give her child away to adoption. I think it's safe to assume that that commoness wouldn't exist if abortions were illegal. And if we acknowledge that one side-effect of legalized abortions is the abortion of convenience, why would it be unreasonable to assume that a side-effect of legalized assisted suicide would be suicides of convenience?

But, in thinking about it, I think your main point was to say that even if there are unwanted side-effects of assisted suicide, that that's not necessarily enough reason for prohibition -- that the individual's right to die trumps those side-effects. And again, I tend to agree.

I'm not saying that assisted suicide should be illegal. A few weeks ago I would have said it most definitely should not be. But, I'm just saying that I heard a claim I hadn't heard before from the other camp, and now I need to examine that claim and see if there are others that I hadn't considered before (because quite frankly, this one was news to me and it made me wonder if I had fully examined both sides before coming to my conclusion) and then see if my position needs to be reconsidered. Most likely it won't change, but, it's worth discussing, I think. :)

[Hammer]

I thought there was always pressure to have them, and the legality of it had no real bearing on that. keep in mind I have nothing to back this up other than I hear it used by the pro-choice side of the debate. They will happen anyway, let's keep it safe, argument.

p.s. I'm pro-choice.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Someone made a good argument the other day. As soon as her husband starting seeing another women, and decided to marry that women, he ceased being Terri's husband. He didn't decide to pull the feeding tube until after he was engaged to someone else. Would there be any doubt as to weither or not she'd file for a divorse if her husband was seeing someone else?

Swifty

[Allison]

If it were me, I'd want Grundy to go on with his life. But that doesn't mean I'd want him to abandon me to live the rest of my life as a vegetable.

[Post]

"As soon as her husband starting seeing another women, and decided to marry that women, he ceased being Terri's husband."

That doesn't work for power of attorney. That can be used as evidence to show he possibly didn't have her best interests in mind, but that was already tried. And failed.

[malkovich]

appeals court just denied the request ...

[Sayj]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/23/MNGGABTH351.DTL Some medical input on the state of Terri

[Grundy]

I hope we all learn one thing from this: Republicans were right. Judges are evil! They have no right to 'make decisions' for us. Who do they think they are, God?

There is only one person we can trust: Tom Delay! because God is speaking thru him.

Tom Delay is the Right nut of God!

[Swifty_Johnson]

That doesn't work for power of attorney. That can be used as evidence to show he possibly didn't have her best interests in mind, but that was already tried. And failed.

As I judge, I would rule for the parents, as it is clear the husband does not have her best intrests at heart.

Lets look at the case.

Her parents have been trying to get her more treatments to make her better, and the husband has been refusing them, and now he wants her to die.

Lets take a look at some scenarinos.

Worst case for her with treatments. She dies. If the treatments fail, the worst possible outcome is her death. This is also the outcome of his actions.

Worst case for him with treatments. She has a partial recovery and can talk and make decisions for herself. She will not be a happy camper with him, and this will lead to a divorse. He will loose 1/2 of his stuff to her.

So we can see, the person who has the most to loose with her getting better, is her husband. This is not someone you want to have determin your fate.

Now, if the parents were trying to sue to keep the tube in, so she can stay in the same condition, no treatments at all, then I'd side with the husband.

Swifty

[Figtoria]

I dunno...seeing the people lining up on the other side of this debate I can only conclude that I am wrong and have to cross the floor.

Terry Randall is an asshat of the highest order.


PULL THE PLUG!!!!!!!!

[Post]

(Edit: to Swifty) Did you read the report that Malk gave a link to? Here (http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miami/news/0319schiavo_finalreport.pdf) it is again if you didn't. It addresses most of the things you present. To summarize:

- He did seek her trying to get better treatments up until the time where he wanted to pull the proverbial plug. He was very dilligent in the care for her, too - the administrator of the nursing home that she resided at called him "a nursing home administrator's nightmare" with how nitpicky he was.

- It was only after he was convinced that there was no hope for her from doctors that he decided to pull the plug; not vice versa. So it is illogical to act as if her best interests weren't persued by her husband.

- The parents nor doctors have a better treatment in mind; they just want to look for more treatments. There is nothing "new" to try that has ever worked before on anyone else anywhere near her condition.

- In past cases, the family has admitted to, if they had to make the decision, they would have her live, regardless of: having knowledge that she wanted to die, if she had to have all of her limbs cut off in order to live, and some fairly gruesome descriptions of what could happen while she's in her current state. Them having her live regardless of her not wanting to means they want her to live for her interests and not her own.

- He testified that he would refuse the fund put in her behalf had the plug been pulled, and he's refused a million dollars to drop the case. It is illogical to act as if getting only 1/2 from divorce is a motivation, because even if she does recover, he will get less money from pulling the plug than he would have letting her live.

Basically, everything you bring up, has been reviewed several times by several judges and panels with all of the facts on the table. He was proved to have her best interests until he decided to pull the plug, and he will have less financial benefit from doing so. And time and time again, it was decided that the parents' side didn't hold water. Could you (re)read the report, and let us know what specific parts you disagree with the judges?

[malkovich]

hey husband agressively , extremely aggessively by all accounts , sought treatment for her for 3+ years , including travelling cross country for experimental treatment ...

he has only refused more treatments after he was told by all involved doctors that she had no longer any hope for any recovery ...

the courts have never found any evidence for anything other than reflexive actions ...

some people might think that the worst case scenario for her is to live like this for another 15 years ...

people often mention the money/inheritance angle , he was offered 700k once and more recently a million dollars to just walk away and he refused , he stands to gain nothing by her death and he stands to lose nothing by her recovery ... your certain divorce theory is pulled out of the air ...

how do you know she wont be happy with him ? who knows how she might feel if she were ever to become the first person to ever recover even a tiny little bit from her condition ...

did you get a chance to review the guardian ad litem report swifty ?

[malkovich]

and post makes the more important point that - this has all been reviewed countless times and the law has been followed ...

[Sayj]

any idea what the guy is paying his legal team? seems to me that would add up to a lot all these years.

[Swifty_Johnson]

he was offered 700k once and more recently a million dollars to just walk away and he refused , he stands to gain nothing by her death and he stands to lose nothing by her recovery ... your certain divorce theory is pulled out of the air ...

I never stated he'd gain anything by her death, but he would loose 1/2 of all that he owns to her if she recovers enough to take over her own decision making process. That and he'd have to explain why he withheld treatments from here all these times.

- He did seek her trying to get better treatments up until the time where he wanted to pull the proverbial plug.

Why has he refused to give her a MRI. Many doctors have said that would show what is going on, he doesn't even have to pay for it, and that is a really low risk thing to do. A simple MRI would answer many questions.

Them having her live regardless of her not wanting to means they want her to live for her interests and not her own.

Noone knows what she wants, as she didn't leave a living will. What her husband has claimed she wants is debateable.

Anyone else find it a bit ironic that an eating disorder got her into the coma and she will end up starving to death?

Swifty

[Allison]

Swifty, the point is, all these things that you're bringing up, "Why would he do this ... why would he do that," it's all been heard over and over again in court after court, year after year, judge after judge. It's been hashed and rehashed. And the courts have decided time and time again that she is in a PVS; that there is no reasonable hope for recovery; and that it was her wish to not remain that way.

We are a nation of laws; those laws are decided in the judiciary; and the law has been served ad nauseam. That's it.

Now, if you were advocating changing the law so that it's illegal to remove feeding tubes in the absense of a living will; or if you wanted all cases such as these to have the right of federal appeal; or if you think the law should be changed so that it's illegal to remove a feeding tube as long as one family member wants to care for the patient -- if you advocate any of those things or any other changes to the law, that's one thing. But you're casually dismissing existing laws and the findings of every judge that's ever heard this case, and on what basis? Innuendo and rumor? Do you really have such a lack of faith in your Florida judicial system?

[Post]

"I never stated he'd gain anything by her death, but he would loose 1/2 of all that he owns to her if she recovers enough to take over her own decision making process."

Perhaps you didn't read the link. The amount he would have lost by giving up the fund set aside for her was more than the amount he would have lost just keeping her alive, even if by keeping her alive meant that she recovered, got a divorce, and only got half. No matter what would have happened, the bottom line was he walks away with less money pulling the plug than letting her die.

"That and he'd have to explain why he withheld treatments from here all these times."

So you think making the decision to pull the plug will hold less guilt than having to explain why he was not allowing more treatments after he decide to let her die? Exactly how little guilt do you think making the decision to let someone dies carries? And if you feel that he's just cold about that, then how in the heck can you argue that he's going to be guilty about the other thing?

"Why has he refused to give her a MRI."

After looking up on google "terri schiavo refuse mri", this is what I found:

An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri's brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG's were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty.

"Many doctors have said that would show what is going on, he doesn't even have to pay for it, and that is a really low risk thing to do."

The things they never addressed is why it would be better than the CT scan that was given to her. That concluded her frontal lobe had basically turned into mush. The only alternatives there are: (a) people can recover from having a frontal lobe of mush, or (b) the CT scan was faulty. None of the 17 doctors even mentioned the other test. To which they have to do in order to show that there is usefulness in future tests.

"A simple MRI would answer many questions."

No it wouldn't. Until a reason to show the CT scan was error'ed crops up, the questions have been answered.

"Noone knows what she wants, as she didn't leave a living will."

That's the point of the part of the paragraph you didn't quote: even if she did leave a living will, and she did say she wanted to die in that, they would still keep her alive if it were up to them. We may not be sure what she wants, but we are sure that they would keep her alive whether or not that's what she wanted. Again, that is not her best interests, that's their best interests.

"What her husband has claimed she wants is debateable."

To which it was debated. Many times. And never held up. I take that back - it did hold up once, when they neglected to mention earlier that he had waived his rights to her trust fund. When the decision was appealled and this data was given, it was overturned.

[Sayj]

[QUOTE=Post]An MRI was never recommended because, in this case and other patients in a permanent vegetative state, the CT scans were more than adequate to demonstrate the extremely severe atrophy of the cerebral hemispheres, and an MRI would add nothing of significance to what we see on the CT scans. Plus the MRI is contraindicated because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri's brain. A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG's were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty.


As a Respiratory therapist who works in a major medical hospital, I can say that we always transport head trauma patients to CT scanning and NOT to MRI. A CT scan is the essential, detailed reference for doctor's evaluating patients with possible brain damage. There's never any discussion about "maybe we should send him to MRI." The argument that Terri was denied a MRI is a really lame one. You could look at it another way. If my patient is on a ventilator, and we put the setting on spontaneous breathing... we can see that the lungs aren't moving adequately. We could take the patient to CT scanning, and find out the lungs aren't moving adequately because.... At that point, we don't just say, "how about an MRI, too?" Perhaps you need to understand the difference between the two types of scans. However, bottom line, a head injury requires the CT scan to get a full and detailed view of any damage which exists.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Perhaps you didn't read the link.

Yes I did.

The amount he would have lost by giving up the fund set aside for her was more than the amount

The link said he CLAIMED he'd do that, not that he actually did it, after all, she wasn't dead yet.

So you think making the decision to pull the plug will hold less guilt than having to explain why he was not allowing more treatments after he decide to let her die?

Yes, as he doesn't have to admit he was wrong and let her suffer all those years without treatment.

The things they never addressed is why it would be better than the CT scan that was given to her.

That's addressed in post 25 of this thread.

That's the point of the part of the paragraph you didn't quote: even if she did leave a living will, and she did say she wanted to die in that, they would still keep her alive if it were up to them.

That's irrelvant, as if she left a living will it would not be up to them.

But you're casually dismissing existing laws and the findings of every judge that's ever heard this case, and on what basis?

Not casually dismissing as there are red flags that I see that they should have.

Swifty

[Allison]

Not casually dismissing as there are red flags that I see that they should have.

Swifty

Those supposed "red flags" were seen, and debated, and decided in a court of law.

There are two and only two things that matter here: Is she in a PVS and was it indeed her wish to not remain that way? The courts have ruled "yes" to both of those questions, time and time again.

Tell me, why is it that every other case in this country recieves the benefit of due process under the law, to the extent to which the law allows, but this one case is suddenly immune from that normal due process? Facts are in dispute in every single case in this country. Conflicting evidence is presented and people disgree. But luckily, we have a system that allows for review so that we can be as sure as we can that the correct decisions are being made. And decisions are overturned on appeal every single day in this country. Why is it suddenly that the normal appeals process isn't good enough for this one single case? What's so special about it that it requires a special order of due process that no one else gets?

You may disagree with those decisions, but that's not how we do things in this country. We don't decide matters of law by taking an opinion poll of those who know only enough about a case and the law to have an opinion. We send our disputes to the judiciary where they can rule on all the facts and hear all the arguments of all the parties. If you want to change the laws, then fine, work toward that. But you can't just dismiss the rulings of the court just because you happen to not like the way the decision goes.

Again, please tell me why the normal course of due process is sufficient to decide disputes in the hundreds of thousands of other cases in this country, but not this one?

[Allison]

Just an update for those not able to keep up with the fast and furious decisions being handed down:

Since Congress gave Terri's parents the right of federal appeal on Monday: A federal judge has denied their request to have the feeding tube reinserted. They appealed to the appellate court in Atlanta, where a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals also denied that request. They appealed to the full 12-member Court of Appeals, who denied to review the panel's decision. Their last recourse is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, who previously denied a hearing of the case when it was at the state level.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I stumbled across this, in a sworn affidavit, registered nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who worked at the Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Fla., while Terri Schiavo was a patient there, testified: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

Humm, gets even more and more complicated.

Why is it suddenly that the normal appeals process isn't good enough for this one single case?

I said before that I did not agree with special handling for this ONE case. They should take a long hard look at the law and make some changes, so the husband AND family are represented.

Swifty

[Post]

"The link said he CLAIMED he'd do that, not that he actually did it, after all, she wasn't dead yet."

The link actually stated he made a formal to divest himself entirely (meaning legal action could be brought against him if he didn't after they pulled the plug, and it wasn't just hearsay), and note you neglect to mention the two money offers he's gotten to keep her alive, to which he refused. Bottom line - he walks away with more money keeping her alive than pulling the plug. It is not financially motivated.

"Yes, as he doesn't have to admit he was wrong and let her suffer all those years without treatment."

If he doesn't feel he's wrong, then that state of mind never gets that far. You state "admit he's wrong", yet if he felt he was right, then he's no longer not working for her best interests - he really did feel that this was the right thing to do.

If he did feel he was wrong, then letting her die will carry much more weight guiltwise than handing her guardianship over to her parents and having possible repercussions of her reviving.

Your theory has a catch-22 that cannot be gotten around. If he felt he was doing right, then he doesn't get the guilt.

"That's addressed in post 25 of this thread."

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT%20scan.png

That's her CT brain scan. And this same debate came up in court several times. And each time it was brought up, it was shown why this scan, while not giving as much detail as an MRI, gave enough to conclude what they felt about her condition.

"That's irrelvant, as if she left a living will it would not be up to them."

No it's not. You're questioning her husband's interests. I'm questioning the parents' interests, and there's proof that their primary concern is not about Terri wants, but what they want. That's entirely relevant to showing who is more likely to have Terri's interests in mind when making the decision to pull the plug.

"Not casually dismissing as there are red flags that I see that they should have."

They did. They've noted everything you've brought up. What you mean is that there are decisions that you have made that you feel they should have. There's nothing new that you've brought to the table that hasn't already been debated in court, though.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The link actually stated he made a formal to divest himself entirely

No, the like stated that He said he made the formal offer, there was no proof he did.

That's her CT brain scan. And this same debate came up in court several times. And each time it was brought up, it was shown why this scan, while not giving as much detail as an MRI, gave enough to conclude what they felt about her condition.


So? Will a MRI casue any damage to her? All an MRI will do then is confirm what the CT scan said, case closed. What are they trying to hide?

Swifty

[Murrie]

the salami?

[Allison]

I stumbled across this, in a sworn affidavit, registered nurse Carla Sauer Iyer ...

Yes. And that was heard by the court, along with a lot of other nurses who claimed just the opposite, that Michael was devoted to Terri's best interests. Conflicting opinions, decided on by the court in accordance with the law.



I said before that I did not agree with special handling for this ONE case. They should take a long hard look at the law and make some changes, so the husband AND family are represented.



The husband and the family were both represented. It's just that the husband prevailed in court. Even if the law stated that both husband and parents have equal rights in these cases, the dispute would have been the same, and the court findings would have been the same. The court didn't find that Terri is in a PVS because Michael has guardianship; it made that decision based on the medical evidence presented.

And again, I don't have a problem if you advocate changing the law. But existing laws have been served in this case. YOu can pull out any tidbit of evidence presented in court in support of the parents' position, but all of that has already been considered and weighed against the evidence presented in court in support of the husband's position by those who are qualified to judge in these matters. Rehashing it serves no purpose. It has been decided, in accordance with the law.

[Post]

"No, the like stated that He said he made the formal offer, there was no proof he did."

No. This was determined by someone that was appointed by J Bush to find out the truth of the matter. This is what he concluded. And yet another time, you neglect to mention the offers for money that he did refuse. Just FYI, you have to show that there was "no proof" of those, either, in order to show any chance of him doing this for financial gain. So please, try and rebut that as well while doing that.

"So? Will a MRI casue any damage to her? All an MRI will do then is confirm what the CT scan said, case closed."

That's not all it will do. It will also prolong her state, to which he feels is not what she wants.

"What are they trying to hide?"

Ah, yes. The government's universal justifacation for getting their noses in the business that they don't belong in. It's not about him hiding anything, it's about first showing it will give them something that they do not already have. The courts - several times - have concluded it will not. I realize that it's not your opinion, but that's what really happened.

Really, is that what you feel the federal government's job is? Any time that the federal government looks at a result that, even though they agree broke no state rule, to just give it another trial if they don't agree with the result?

[Murrie]

The federal governments job is to lord over all us poor subjects to make sure we dont have any possible chance of making a single bad choice and that our lives are safe and secure against all things 'not nice'

The federal government knows much better than you and I what we should be doing every moment of every day and by god you better listen when they tell you cuase they have the legal authority to use force to make you do what they deem best.

DO WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT SAYS!!! THEY KNOW BEST!!! IF YOU DONT THEY WILL KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AND FORCE YOU AT GUNPOINT!!!

[Murrie]

Take this kid for instance.
How DARE he try to give someone a drink of water, especially when they are dieing!!!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050323/ids_photos_ts/r4209066064.jpg

damn little terrorists!

[Swifty_Johnson]

Just FYI, you have to show that there was "no proof" of those, either, in order to show any chance of him doing this for financial gain. So please, try and rebut that as well while doing that.

It doesn't matter that he did refuse money, as in any divorse settlement Terri would get 1/2 of everything he has, even the money he gets from someone to keep her alive.

That's not all it will do. It will also prolong her state, to which he feels is not what she wants.

Really? by what a day? The constant court cases that are being waged because he refused the MRI are prolonging her state more then the MRI ever would have. That is not a vailid excuse.

If he doesn't feel he's wrong, then that state of mind never gets that far. You state "admit he's wrong", yet if he felt he was right, then he's no longer not working for her best interests - he really did feel that this was the right thing to do.

Incorrect. Right now he doesn't feel he's wrong, Terri is beyond any hope of recovery. If it turns out he was wrong, there will be alot of guilt becasue he failed to provide treatment all these years.

Rehashing it serves no purpose. It has been decided, in accordance with the law.

And the courts are perfect and they never make mistakes?

I have been told when they pulled the feeding tube her dad was talking to her and she moaned out "Hi Dad" and this is on tape. I haven't seen it, but this is one of the reasons why there is so much fighting going on over this.

Swifty

[Post]

"It doesn't matter that he did refuse money, as in any divorse settlement Terri would get 1/2 of everything he has, even the money he gets from someone to keep her alive."

So? Half of a million + half of their assets is worth more than all of their assets. And that's not counting the fact that he could almost definitely have it agreed upon, if he wanted to, that he could keep the full million, by having it arranged where his current family gets the money or whatever. For the third (fourth?) time, it's stupid to act as if he will financially benefit from pulling the plug.

"Really? by what a day? The constant court cases that are being waged because he refused the MRI are prolonging her state more then the MRI ever would have. That is not a vailid excuse."

No. The "constant court cases" are happening regardless of the MRI. You say it yourself later in your post - you think that there's this tape where she said something. You think this would really be over if the MRI was done? Whatever.

"Incorrect. Right now he doesn't feel he's wrong, Terri is beyond any hope of recovery. If it turns out he was wrong, there will be alot of guilt becasue he failed to provide treatment all these years."

That's the whole point. If he doesn't feel he's wrong, then he's not going to fear that he was wrong. If he feels he could be wrong, then the guilt of pulling the plug weighs in atleast as much as possibly having her wake up later. The scenarios of him thinking he cannot b wrong, and him feeling he could be wrong have to coexist in order for your theory to work, and they cannot coexist.

"And the courts are perfect and they never make mistakes?"

It's not if they never make mistakes. It's if a state decision that has been to court many times already can be overturned by the federal government with no rule broken. This isn't about one trial. This is over a decade's worth of several trials where they've all decided upon the same thing over and over again once they had all of the facts available at the time.

"I have been told when they pulled the feeding tube her dad was talking to her and she moaned out "Hi Dad" and this is on tape. I haven't seen it, but this is one of the reasons why there is so much fighting going on over this."

I'd like to see proof of it before jumping on that bandwagon, regardless if you want to or not.

[Sayj]

I bet there's a tape of her singing We Love DA SUUBBBS someplace, too.

[Allison]

And the courts are perfect and they never make mistakes?

Of course they're not perfect. That's why we have an appeals process in this country.

This case has exhausted every state appeal and remedy over the last 8 years. And now, it's been shown special and extraordinary due process at the federal level. When is enough enough? How many judges have to agree that she is in a PVS before it's good enough? Or will you never accept that no matter what?

[Grundy]

I have scripted the outcome to this farsical opera as follows;

A group of black-clad Christian terrorists waving assult rifles storm the Hospice and save Terri by whisking her away to their private militia compound. The FBI surrounds them and then some good old fashioned hyjinx ensues.

[Swifty_Johnson]

No. The "constant court cases" are happening regardless of the MRI. You say it yourself later in your post - you think that there's this tape where she said something. You think this would really be over if the MRI was done? Whatever.

Okay, so say you start feeling pains in your body and you went to the doctor and had a test done. He said they didn't use the best test that they had, but based on what he sees you are going to die a horrible and extreamly painful death in the next 72 hours, so to help you avoid this he'll give you an injection that will kill you qucikly.
So, will you get the injection, or ask for the better test?

The scenarios of him thinking he cannot b wrong, and him feeling he could be wrong have to coexist in order for your theory to work, and they cannot coexist.

No, wrong. Her recovering will trigger him knowing he was wrong. Right now he's having her killed, so it can never been proven otherwise.

I'd like to see proof of it before jumping on that bandwagon, regardless if you want to or not.

I havne't seen it either, but one of the nurses was interviewed and she she'd alert them to when she was having her period by saying the word pain. Still more food for thought.

Swifty

[Noleader]

Happy to see that little shit got arrested... We are a land of laws and if extremist christians can not respect them they should be locked up.

Also happy to see this case coming to a end. The woman in question had a wish not to live on in that state (as proven in court, also why the USSC did not take the case). Hopefully she will find peace soon.

[Aelfwine]

Interesting Article.

Jesuit Bioethicist Backs Schiavo's Right to Die (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/)

I am not religious, but I think the below statments sum up how I feel about these right to life people, most of who seem to be christian:

How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect religious teaching about death?
Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called “To Save or Let Die.” He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human.

But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an “unmitigated evil”? They just don’t want her death to happen unnecessarily.
It’s not happening unnecessarily. It’s happening because her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human relationships. The Republican riposte to this is astonishing: interest in states’ rights disappearing, interest in privacy of the individual to be free of government intrusion disappearing. If we implemented the policy articulated by the Congress and the president, we’d have everyone going forever!

And Social Security would really be in trouble.
[Laughs.] It just makes no moral sense.


This should not be a legal tug of war between her husband and her parent's. It does not matter what the motivations are. Her life ended 15 years ago, time to move on and let her do the same.

[Post]

"Okay, so say you start feeling pains in your body and you went to the doctor and had a test done. He said they didn't use the best test that they had, but based on what he sees you are going to die a horrible and extreamly painful death in the next 72 hours, so to help you avoid this he'll give you an injection that will kill you qucikly.
So, will you get the injection, or ask for the better test?"

Firstly, this isn't about not having a second option. There have been many tests, analyses, experimental procedures, and research done on her condition. This MRI isn't simply the second suggestion.

Also, she isn't a state where she's cognitive, which is where life is considered "life". I want to live cognitively as long as I possibly can.

Ask me a better analogy: if dozens of tests had been ran on me, all pointing to me being in a PVS, if I would feel it necessary for a test that doesn't give any more info pertaining to my condition than what's already known, before they pulled the plug. Because that's what's happening.

"No, wrong. Her recovering will trigger him knowing he was wrong. Right now he's having her killed, so it can never been proven otherwise."

He has to atleast believe he could be wrong now for him to conceive of that scenario (you out of all people should understand that). That possibility of him being wrong = guilt, regardless of pulling the plug or not. If he sees it as a possibility, he's already guilty. If he doesn't, then he's not going to be able conceive of that scenario happening.

"I havne't seen it either, but one of the nurses was interviewed and she she'd alert them to when she was having her period by saying the word pain. Still more food for thought."

Again, I'd love to see some sort of evidence to support this, other than people saying it that are right-to-life supporters.

[Canidae]

I tried to read all this and catch up, I ended up scanning alot of it. Here are my problems with this case:

The main judge involved is Greer. He has refused over and over to really listen to the parents side. He seems to dismiss every single expert witness they present and only take the husbands side of it. His latest refusal to let Gov. Bush take custody of Terry is evidently illegal. He was supeoned by the Congress and isn't suppose to make any decisions what-so-ever on the case right now.

The husband may have faught to get her care for the first three years, but does it bother anyone at all that the first time he tried to pull the plug was right after a big settlement that but over a million dollars into a trust fund for Terry? The money was to be used to KEEP HER ALIVE and help with reabilitation! I have been reviewing the news and they say that almost immediatily after Michael was named the benifactor if she died, he tried to pull the plug. The first time was rather small and gets over-looked alot.

There is NO proof that she ever stated that she wouldn't want measure taken to continue her life. The judges are going on hearsay alone from the husband.

There is also NO proof that she is in PVS. The parents tried to push an MRI to prove one way or the other, but again Greer immediatly shut them down and refused. Why? Shouldn't you prove a person is legally brain-dead before you shut off the machines? Isn't it illegal to shut the machines off unless its a proven fact? But Greer keeps finding on the side of the husband again and again.

Many doctors have stepped forward and said they believe that not only is she NOT a vegetable, but that she can IMPROVE! Her parents and others have heard her SPEAK! People in PVS DON"T TALK!

Her family is practically strip-searched before they are allowed to visit her to make sure they don't have drinks or foods of any kind. Her lips are drying out and they aren't allowed to even rub ice chips on her lips. They would be arrested if they tried. Does no one find that rather odd, extreme and seriously wrong?

Gov Bush has been told that if he tries to take her from the hospise that he will be heald in contempt. I hope he tells them to screw off and takes her out.

I can't understand how any court could rule on behalf of the husband when it hasn't yet been proven that 1. She expressed any wish to not live if severly handicapped/on machines and 2. There is no medical proof ie: mri proving lack of brain function, to support the claim that she is 100% PVS.

This is wrong. This woman has done NOTHING wrong, yet she has been sentenced to die by starvation. She doesn't even get the humanity of a quick death that is even given to the most horrible mass murders on death row.

[Allison]

The main judge involved is Greer. He has refused over and over to really listen to the parents side. He seems to dismiss every single expert witness they present and only take the husbands side of it. His latest refusal to let Gov. Bush take custody of Terry is evidently illegal. He was supeoned by the Congress and isn't suppose to make any decisions what-so-ever on the case right now.

He has listened to the parents' side, over and over. He has heard the doctors they brought, he has heard the doctors Michael brought, and he has heard court appointed doctors. And his decision, like the other 19 judges', was based on arguments from both sides. He hasn't ignored anyone; and he certainly hasn't acted outside the law.

A subpoena does not deny Judge Greer's jurisdiction in this case. It was totally within his legal discretion to not hear another custody bid at this point.

There is NO proof that she ever stated that she wouldn't want measure taken to continue her life. The judges are going on hearsay alone from the husband.

There was testimony from more than just her husband in this regard. And the court found it to be "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri wouldn't have wanted to remain this way.

There is also NO proof that she is in PVS.

There is proof. There are differing opinions from some doctors, but the courts have found time and time again that she is in a PVS. The fact that there exist a handful of doctors who say otherwise doesn't mean that they are right.

There are a lot of people out there, including doctors, who will say or do anything to make a name for themselves or to make a buck or promote a cause. And they really come out of the woodwork in high-profile cases like this. That's not to say that every doctor involved in this case is a quack. (Even though a couple of them clearly are.) But you can always find one or two who will disagree. That's why we have a judiciary, to decide these things when people disagree.

This is wrong. This woman has done NOTHING wrong, yet she has been sentenced to die by starvation.

If you only look at one side, and believe everything from that side, then I can see how it would seem wrong. But, from the other side, it could just as easily be said, "This woman has done nothing wrong, and yet some are trying to take away her right to die."

[Canidae]

There is proof.

No, there isn't. There are doctor's opinions on it but there have been no MRI's proving lack of brainwave activity. In fact, MRI's have been repeatidly blocked by Judge Greer over and over. The one undenable test keeps getting prevented.

PVS patients can do things that are automatic. Like breath, blink, even twitch. PVS patients don't talk. Terry has been heard to mutter words. Talking isn't a reflex action.

He has listened to the parents' side, over and over. He has heard the doctors they brought, he has heard the doctors Michael brought, and he has heard court appointed doctors. And his decision, like the other 19 judges', was based on arguments from both sides. He hasn't ignored anyone; and he certainly hasn't acted outside the law.

A subpoena does not deny Judge Greer's jurisdiction in this case. It was totally within his legal discretion to not hear another custody bid at this point.

You may not like Fox News, but they do do their homework and they said that Greer was NOT suppose to be sitting in on the case because of the supeona.

Its obvious that Greer is disregarding everyone but Michael's say on the matter. All of her other family members have repeatidly said that Terry saying anything of this nature was uncharacteristic of her. But again, Michael saying she had said it once is being taken as 100% accurate.

There are a lot of people out there, including doctors, who will say or do anything to make a name for themselves or to make a buck or promote a cause. And they really come out of the woodwork in high-profile cases like this. That's not to say that every doctor involved in this case is a quack. (Even though a couple of them clearly are.) But you can always find one or two who will disagree. That's why we have a judiciary, to decide these things when people disagree.

Yes, including the ones that keep trying to say that they are the best judge to say she is in PVS and saying no MRI is needed. Not very convincing on their side.

If you only look at one side, and believe everything from that side, then I can see how it would seem wrong. But, from the other side, it could just as easily be said, "This woman has done nothing wrong, and yet some are trying to take away her right to die."

You failed to quote the rest of what I said. She is being wronged. Even in our courts, for death penalty, you can not be inhuman to the sentenced person. They are given a fast pain-less death. Terry has been sentenced to starvation, not exactly a humane option is it?

[Aelfwine]

She will be medicated. Is there anything about this more inhumane then the way most people with say, cancer, die in the hospital? Believe me, the answer is no.

[Post]

"There is also NO proof that she is in PVS."

Yes there is. A CT scan is proof.

And you're talking about judge Greer only listening to one side. Aren't you stating that, just because her husband was the only one she discussed her wanting the plug to be pulled, means there is no proof, yet you bring to the table that because other people have heard her speak is proof? Why should one count and the other not?

[Canidae]

And you're talking about judge Greer only listening to one side. Aren't you stating that, just because her husband was the only one she discussed her wanting the plug to be pulled, means there is no proof, yet you bring to the table that because other people have heard her speak is proof? Why should one count and the other not?

Resonable doubt. Her husband claims that a perfectly healthy 26 year old told him "Hey, if I have to live on machines, do everything in your power to take me off them."

The rest of her family, who has known her much longer says that it was highly uncharacteristic of her to even talk about things like that.

Reasonable doubt. Here I thought reasonable doubt meant something. I guess her husband knew her so much better than her family did, to the point that him telling the court that she had mentioned it means that his word is exact.

When I was 26, I don't think I would have ever thought about something like this. I did, because I have been in remission from a kidney diease, that if it becomes active could be very debeletating.

Funny thing, my parents knew/know my wishes. I told them. Maybe Terry just didn't have that great of a relationship with hers.

She will be medicated. Is there anything about this more inhumane then the way most people with say, cancer, die in the hospital? Believe me, the answer is no.


My grandfather was highly medicated while the cancer ate away at him in the end and he still suffered. Saying that a person will be highly medicated is still no excuse to starve them to death.

What needs to change is a person's ability to have assisted suicide. If it were legal, and it was proven that she had little to no chance or recovery and there was no doubt as to her wishes, a simple injection would end the pain.

One thing people will learn from this is to have a legal will.

Its the starving that is just so wrong.

[Allison]

Well, I agree with you on that one, Canidae. If the refusal of medical treatment will, without a doubt, lead to imminent death, the law should allow for a quick and painless one. I wish it did. And hopefully, if anything good comes from this, it will be that people will finally allow such laws to be passed.

[Cavan]

This case boils down to one plain and SIMPLE fact.... Terri Schiavo was MARRIED.... once you are MARRIED in the state of Florida... in the event of your timely death, or in her case incapacitation... your guardian is your HUSBAND... NOT.. and I repeat NOT your Family...

Because Terri Schiavo did not have a living will... anything and EVERYTHING that her husband decides for her in this case is the LAW of the Land in the state of Florida....

Her family can argue until they are blue in the face.. but time and time again the courts have ruled in FAVOR of Terri's husband.. because HE'S HER HUSBAND and has all legal rights over her well being....

The family too date has only found two doctors that have stated that Terri is not brain dead... (not to mention the fact that one of these doctors was not a neurologist)... time and time again doctors have said she is in a irreversible brain damaged state...

The family shows tapes of Terri responding to them.. HELLO.. they edited the tapes of 6.5 hours of material to get 3 minutes of video that they believe is Terri responding to them... Educated Trained Doctors in the field of neurology have seen the entire tape and have stated time and again that the movements that Terri makes are common ticks of lose is a state such as Terri's...

Terri's husband over seven years ago decided he wanted to let his wife go to a better place... it was his right to make this decision under Florida law... Terri before this time had received years of rehabilitation with no success... and no signs of improvement... Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die in peace.. but instead she's been thrusted into the spotlight because of personal fight set forth by Jeb Bush...

[Cavan]

Its the starving that is just so wrong.

Terri Schiavo will long die of dehydration before she starves to death.

[Post]

"Funny thing, my parents knew/know my wishes. I told them. Maybe Terry just didn't have that great of a relationship with hers."

Actually, her parents under oath stated that, regardless if her wishes were to die or not, they would do everything in their power to get her to live. Knowing that, what do you think they would say, regardless if she wanted to die or not?

And that's where reasonable doubt comes into play.

[MickeyFinn]

I guess I can understand both sides, but doesn't the law say if the husband says pull the plug then do it? I don't see where there is room to dispute that.

[Allison]

I guess I can understand both sides, but doesn't the law say if the husband says pull the plug then do it? I don't see where there is room to dispute that.

Actually, no. Under Florida law, as the husband, he is the default guardian, so he can direct her medical care. But, to remove life suppport in the absense of a living will, a court has to determine if those are the wishes of the patient. In such cases, the presumption is that the patient would want to live, and whomever is claiming otherwise, has to show "clear and convincing evidence" (which is a higher standard than usual for civil cases) to overcome that presumption.

In this case, the court found the testimony of Michael, and others, to be "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri would not want to remain in her current state. So, what the court is enforcing now is the exercising of Terri's right to die, not Michael's right to make that decision for her.

[spyder913]

No, there isn't. There are doctor's opinions on it but there have been no MRI's proving lack of brainwave activity. In fact, MRI's have been repeatidly blocked by Judge Greer over and over. The one undenable test keeps getting prevented.
Gotta point this out here - MRIs are not really for seeing brain activity, that's what EEGs are for. The reason they want to see MRIs is to see more accurate pictures of the brain than a CT scan can provide.

[Sayj]

Dying is a part of life. And keeping someone alive who has nothing in life to look forward to is rather selfish.

[Rooster]

Gotta point this out here - MRIs are not really for seeing brain activity, that's what EEGs are for. The reason they want to see MRIs is to see more accurate pictures of the brain than a CT scan can provide.I said that too.

[Grundy]

Anyone recognize the Shindler family spokesman, Randall Terry (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220001)?

He is famous for inflicting his special brand of christian terror on pro-choicers and gays, including his own children (hmmm just like Alan Keyes).

They should really add Republican strategist Hal Turner onto the 'Save Terri' fund raising effort. There is a nice little write up on Hal at Jesus' General blog (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/) which I have been reading the last few weeks and is full of comedy gold.

[Aelfwine]

Not surprising. Did you all see this one. The family tried to get their latest plea heard by telling the judge:

their daughter said "AHHHHH" and "WAAAAAAA" when asked to repeat the phrase "I want to live.

This is just sad. They tried to put words in her mouth. I hope they can live with themselves after letting their daughter be used as a political pawn.

[Noleader]

Atleast it is almost over. A lot more judges heard the case or read up on it and refused to hear it. She has been given due process over and over. Now the family is asking for Jeb Bush to break the law and trump a court order to save their daughter.

[Sparky]

Anyone recognize the Shindler family spokesman, Randall Terry (http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220001)?

He is famous for inflicting his special brand of christian terror on pro-choicers and gays, including his own children (hmmm just like Alan Keyes).


What a tool. :(

[Grundy]

Tom Delay is a hypocrit on this issue as he and his family supported the 'right-to-die' stance when it was his own father. I guess from that experience he learned a valuable lesson: the whole letting go process would have been better if congress had stepped in to stop the "barbarism".

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay27mar27,0,5710023.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[malkovich]

CNN quote "A representative of the parents of Terri Schiavo said Sunday last-ditch appeals will be made in Washington to get the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reinserted. After a news conference announcing the plan, a woman, saying she was from the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades, grabbed the microphone to say Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die in peace."

just when you thought it couldnt get any crazier ... the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades go and jump into the fray ... how many times have we all seen this ?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Actually, her parents under oath stated that, regardless if her wishes were to die or not, they would do everything in their power to get her to live. Knowing that, what do you think they would say, regardless if she wanted to die or not?

At least they are being honest, unlike her husband who happens to recall a conversation he had with his wife only after he decided to kill her.

Gotta point this out here - MRIs are not really for seeing brain activity, that's what EEGs are for.

They say her frontal lobe has been liquidfyed. A MRI will show that in detail and to what extent if any that has happened. Yet, they refused to do this.

So, what the court is enforcing now is the exercising of Terri's right to die, not Michael's right to make that decision for her.

No, the court if enforcing Michael's will to have Terry die, they are not exercising any of Terri's rights as she did not leave a living will. They are killing her based on hersay from her husband, something that would be really weak in a capital murder case.

Tom Delay is a hypocrit on this issue as he and his family supported the 'right-to-die' stance when it was his own father.

There is nothing the same between the two cases. In Delay's case the whole family agreed that was the right choice, and his father needed machines to live, Terri was just being fed. In Delay's case his father's kidneys failed and they let that kill him, so he died a natural death.

Swifty

[Post]

"At least they are being honest, unlike her husband who happens to recall a conversation he had with his wife only after he decided to kill her."

Why is it ok to think they're being "honest", when they now have motive to not recall a conversation Terri may have had with her about wanting to die in that position, stating her husband doesn't take care of her, etc, and he's being dishonest? I mean, other than you personally believe she should live.

"They say her frontal lobe has been liquidfyed. A MRI will show that in detail and to what extent if any that has happened. Yet, they refused to do this."

Because the examinations and tests done on her already concluded that, and it has not been concluded that they're wrong. I mean, morally, yeah, he should allow the MRI in my opinion. But this isn't about morals. This is about legality of it. And legally, there's no reason to do so.

"No, the court if enforcing Michael's will to have Terry die, they are not exercising any of Terri's rights as she did not leave a living will."

Actually, her rights is that she gives her power of attorney to her husband when she's married and she doesn't name someone else. By taking his power of attorney away from him, they're taking away her right to give that power to him when they were married. Yes, they are taking away her rights.

"They are killing her based on hersay from her husband, something that would be really weak in a capital murder case."

This isn't about murder. If it was, then you could say that about every time someone decides to pull the plug. But this isn't an issue about if it's ok to pull the plug or not. The issue is that other people are wanting her to live (at any cost).

"There is nothing the same between the two cases. In Delay's case the whole family agreed that was the right choice..."

Exactly. Not murder.

"and his father needed machines to live, Terri was just being fed."

So? It doesn't matter where the outside intervention is coming from, what matters is that (a) there's outside intervention, (b) it has been decided that she's not recovering, and (c) it has been decided she's not in a state of sentient thought.

If no family was fighting for her to live, then her physical state wouldn't be in question. So this isn't about her physical state, and if it's enough to be considered for having the plug pulled. That's already established by dozens upon dozes of other people that have their life support (any kind, be it food, air, or whatever), removed from them. This is about if her husband should be the one making that call. And legally, that's established as long as someone cannot prove he shouldn't.

They couldn't.

[Noleader]

Almost over... The system is working...

[Aelfwine]

At least they are being honest, unlike her husband who happens to recall a conversation he had with his wife only after he decided to kill her.

What is honest about putting words in her mouth("I want to live") and then using her knee jerk response("AAAHHHH WAAAAA") to get some judge to put the tube back in? These people don't give a damn about what she wanted, they just don't want to lose there little girl. Guess what, she's been dead 15 years, no matter what a MRI shows.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Why is it ok to think they're being "honest", when they now have motive to not recall a conversation Terri may have had with her about wanting to die in that position,

Becasue if Terri did have that conversation with them, they they never would have said what they did, they would have covered it up. By saying what they did, they were truthful.

Because the examinations and tests done on her already concluded that, and it has not been concluded that they're wrong.

Of course not, it can not be shown that they are wrong as the other tests, better tests have not been done. Also, her husband is having her cremated right away, and not allowing any inspection of her brain to verify that is right, why?

This is about if her husband should be the one making that call. And legally, that's established as long as someone cannot prove he shouldn't.

Except it is being done on hersay, and when do we put people to death based on hersay? Her life is being ended by someone with an express intrest in that happening.

Swifty

[Noleader]

Then she should have had a living will or given someone else authority to make desisons for her in the case of this happening.

She married him and as such he has say over her care. It is simple, black and white. People need to stop looking at this as a woman dieing and start looking at it as the legal issues here.

He has complete legal right to remove the feeding tube. Her parents have no legal right to keep it in. She left no written wishes and as such all her desisons are deferred to her husband, as she agreed when she wed him.

[Post]

"Becasue if Terri did have that conversation with them, they they never would have said what they did, they would have covered it up. By saying what they did, they were truthful."

Oh, what time are you referring to, when they stated she said, "Let me live" by letting out, "AAAAAAAH WAAAAAAH"? Or some other time they were being truthful?

"Of course not, it can not be shown that they are wrong as the other tests, better tests have not been done."

No, not "better" for what they're trying to find out. If I had a broken bone, yeah, an MRI will give you a much more detailed picture of it than a normal X-Ray, but there's no reason to do that in order to decide if I have a broken bone or not. Furthermore, this isn't just one test; there were several tests and examinations all coming up with the same thing.

"Also, her husband is having her cremated right away, and not allowing any inspection of her brain to verify that is right, why?"

Yes, let's hear why. What is his reason for having a cremation done instead of an immediate burial like the family wants?

"Except it is being done on hersay, and when do we put people to death based on hersay?"

In actuality, it doesn't matter if she never stated it, legally. He's her sole guardian, she's in a state that is considered ok to pull the plug, it's his call, period. This isn't about if she really stated it or not, it's about if he has the authority to do so. Because there's no way of proving that she said she wanted to die or she wanted to live, and had no living will, then it falls to his arms unless it can be shown he shouldn't.

"Her life is being ended by someone with an express intrest in that happening."

When he made that call, it couldn't be shown that he had any motive other than hers. They tried, and failed.

If the family wanted her to die, would you consider taking away her husband's guardianship if he wanted her to live?

[Allison]

Also, her husband is having her cremated right away, and not allowing any inspection of her brain to verify that is right, why?


You know, for someone who uses the word "hearsay" as much as you do, it's unusual that you're so quick to believe and pass on any rumor you hear. Michael Schiavo has, in fact, made an official request to have his wife's body autopsied. His attorney has just been forced to announce this, at this most innapropriate time, because of all the people out there who are all too happy to stir the pot with these rumors.

[Boom]

Ailia, why do we bother? I mean Swifty just says whatever sounds good without checking his facts (like when he said that no republican filibustered a judicial appointee for the last 200 years, or like when he said that Schiavo is refusing to allow an autopsy), then refuses to believe any facts we provide for him.

I really don't think we should bother anymore unless Swifty agrees to start checking his facts.

By the way, where did you read that "fact" about Schiavo not allowing an autopsy, Swifty? Another one of your non-biased sources? You really need to learn to not trust your conservative propaganda sources. They make a lot of mistakes. Seriously, what was your source for this one?

[Post]

"You know, for someone who uses the word "hearsay" as much as you do, it's unusual that you're so quick to believe and pass on any rumor you hear. Michael Schiavo has, in fact, made an official request to have his wife's body autopsied. His attorney has just been forced to announce this, at this most innapropriate time, because of all the people out there who are all too happy to stir the pot with these rumors."

Grrr, Allison :( I wanted to hear his theory on why he didn't want the autopsy. Think of the story we would have heard!

[Alshana]

LoL[malkovich|mOO']http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934

You know, when I was in high school, I had a really good friend over an online chat room. He was smart, funny, and incredibly witty. He made me laugh so many times on days that otherwise would have been downright dull. It was only after two years of talking to him that I finally saw a picture of him, and I found that he had acute dwarfism. In fact, for almost all of his life, he had been hooked up to a life support system, without which he would have died long ago. Nevertheless, he still lived a productive, healthy lifestyle, and was looking into writing books.

I lost contact with him long ago, but reading that article brought back memories of him. And I realized, if he had lived in Texas and been born today, they would have pulled the plug on him while he was still an infant.

[Alshana]

Oh, and for the record, I do believe Terri is dead, despite that body breathing in a hospital. I think the entire thing is a tragedy, that the republicans are using this as some sort of a popularity pull. And I think the Texas rulling that says that hospitals now have the right to pull the plug on patients, despite either their wishes or the wishes of their family members, is blatantly wrong. Because, whenever there is a way for a law to be misused, it is almost guarenteed that at some point in the future it will be. That's just the way humanity is.

Besides, who trusts the Texas legal system? Have you seen the number of innocent people they've had executed, then found innocent post-mortem?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Oh, what time are you referring to, when they stated she said, "Let me live" by letting out, "AAAAAAAH WAAAAAAH"? Or some other time they were being truthful?

Their lawyer claimed that not them. We are talking about their testimoy, what you bought up, so why are you changing it? Even in the above statement the lawyer is still being truthful, he said what exactly happened and his intrepertation of what it meant. While yours might differ it does not mean he is lying.

You know, for someone who uses the word "hearsay" as much as you do, it's unusual that you're so quick to believe and pass on any rumor you hear. Michael Schiavo has, in fact, made an official request to have his wife's body autopsied.

Felos said Michael Schiavo decided to come forward with the autopsy plans for Terri Schiavo after "opponents to carrying out her wishes" suggested Michael Schiavo had an ulterior motive in his plans to cremate his wife.

Wow, he kept the plans to himself until public pressure was put on him to speak up. So at the time I said what I did, he had NOT announce any plans at all about an autopsy, only the creamation. Why do you think the family made a very public plea for Terri to get communion on easter? Becuase he has denied her communion before. They are forcing his hands with the public announcements as he is keeping them in the dark. Nice guy to do this to her parents.

Ailia, why do we bother? I mean Swifty just says whatever sounds good without checking his facts (like when he said that no republican filibustered a judicial appointee for the last 200 years, or like when he said that Schiavo is refusing to allow an autopsy), then refuses to believe any facts we provide for him.

That's cute Boom, you can look at any of this weekend's news stories and shows and they all say the same thing, no Republican filibuster. Now, there MIGHT be one obsecure case in the last two hundred years and all of a sudden it means it was done often! And seeing that the autopsy request was only annouced AFTER public pressure was put on Micheal, and the public reports before that indicated that there wasn't one, what is one to think?

You really need to learn to not trust your conservative propaganda sources.

I read it on CNN, that is a conserative propaganda source!!! Oh, that's right you refuse to acknowlegde any liberal bias to the media.

Swifty

[Post]

"Their lawyer claimed that not them."

That's representing them. This is about their trustworthiness, and either (a) they told him to say it (they're untrustworthy), or (b) they're ok with him saying it, since there was no retraction or firing of him (they're ok with untrustworthy methods).

"We are talking about their testimoy..."

No we're not. We're talking about if they're trustworthy or not. When making my opinion, if they're being untrustworthy, I don't care if it's under oath or not. The court may care, but we're talking about our personal judgments pertaining to this particular point.

"Even in the above statement the lawyer is still being truthful, he said what exactly happened and his intrepertation of what it meant. While yours might differ it does not mean he is lying."

No. Truthful isn't "not technically lying", truthful is "full of truth". You know, the root of the word. Interpeting two moans as "I want to live" may be his interpretation, and therefore, impossible to prove as lying, but it is by no means "truthful". Or sincere, or most of the other synonyms for "truthful".

"Wow, he kept the plans to himself until public pressure was put on him to speak up. So at the time I said what I did, he had NOT announce any plans at all about an autopsy, only the creamation."

Don't you think, before pressure was put on him, talking about anything of her post-mortem plans was in bad taste? Furthermore, I'd still like to hear what should have been deduced from him wanting a cremation without an autopsy.

"Why do you think the family made a very public plea for Terri to get communion on easter? Becuase he has denied her communion before."

Source please, and I hope the source goes to the extent of saying there wasn't a valid reason for doing so, such as her being in tests or whatnot.

"They are forcing his hands with the public announcements as he is keeping them in the dark. Nice guy to do this to her parents."

Yeah, because after he put well-documented effort into caring for her, he should put those people who stated he took lousy care for her at top priority!

"That's cute Boom, you can look at any of this weekend's news stories and shows and they all say the same thing, no Republican filibuster."

How about you bring the sources?

"Now, there MIGHT be one obsecure case in the last two hundred years and all of a sudden it means it was done often!"

No, that means it's incorrect to say "200 years without a filibuster".

"And seeing that the autopsy request was only annouced AFTER public pressure was put on Micheal, and the public reports before that indicated that there wasn't one, what is one to think?"

That there's some huge conspiracy, apparently.

"I read it on CNN, that is a conserative propaganda source!!! Oh, that's right you refuse to acknowlegde any liberal bias to the media."

Actually, you must have gotten it from several sources since "any of this weekend's news stories and shows... all say the same thing." Right? "All" would include sources like Fox, which, while you won't admit it, is a Conservative source, right? Or is it for this one weekend you decided to not look at Fox News and only pay attention to the news that you despise and think is biased?

[PoxTheSmall]

Then she should have had a living will or given someone else authority to make desisons for her in the case of this happening.

She married him and as such he has say over her care. It is simple, black and white. People need to stop looking at this as a woman dieing and start looking at it as the legal issues here.

He has complete legal right to remove the feeding tube. Her parents have no legal right to keep it in. She left no written wishes and as such all her desisons are deferred to her husband, as she agreed when she wed him.

What NL said is totally 100% right in this case. Folks should respect the husband's call on this one, and politicians should back the hell off...

[Swifty_Johnson]

No. Truthful isn't "not technically lying", truthful is "full of truth".

Point out where he is lying or not being truthful. If he was not truthful he would have said "She said 'I want to live'". Instead he said exactly what she said, and gave his intreptation of it. There is nothing dishonest in what he said.

Don't you think, before pressure was put on him, talking about anything of her post-mortem plans was in bad taste? Furthermore, I'd still like to hear what should have been deduced from him wanting a cremation without an autopsy.

Don't you think that it is in bad taste to withhold all post-mortem plans from her parents? The only thing that he let out was she was going to be creamted after she died. The parent's lawyers or the others helping them then started to push for an antopsy and made the charge that he was going to destroy the body before one could be done. her parents should NOT be kept from these plans.

Actually, you must have gotten it from several sources since "any of this weekend's news stories and shows... all say the same thing." Right?

So? I was just repeating where I read it from. You want to me list them all, would that make you feel better?

Swifty

[Post]

"Point out where he is lying or not being truthful. If he was not truthful he would have said "She said 'I want to live'". Instead he said exactly what she said, and gave his intreptation of it. There is nothing dishonest in what he said."

It is dishonest for him to put that data out without doing any factual checking on it (seeing if he can get other responses, if she reacts to other things in the same method, etc), because he knows, while he doesn't say that's what she said, that's what will be interpreted.

"Don't you think that it is in bad taste to withhold all post-mortem plans from her parents? The only thing that he let out was she was going to be creamted after she died. The parent's lawyers or the others helping them then started to push for an antopsy and made the charge that he was going to destroy the body before one could be done. her parents should NOT be kept from these plans."

Of course they shouldn't. We're not trying to base this upon good taste and bad taste, though; I'm showing it's foolish to act as if there were conspiracy reasons for not letting the data out sooner, or that there was reason to think conspiracy before it was let out.

"So? I was just repeating where I read it from. You want to me list them all, would that make you feel better?"

No, I want you to stop acting as if this is about liberal / conservative media, when in order for your statement of all media having the same story be true, it was an issue across media with no liberal / conservative issue whatsoever. Furthermore, I didn't personally see it on CNN, so unless you give a link to a source, why should I put any more merit in this statement than your original statement that was shown to be wrong?

[Noleader]

So? I was just repeating where I read it from. You want to me list them all, would that make you feel better?

We only been asking you to do so for the last 1.5 years :/

[Swifty_Johnson]

It is dishonest for him to put that data out without doing any factual checking on it

No, it was not dishonest of him. He put out there what she said, how she said it, and what he thought it meant. We are now free to agree or disagree, but it is in no way dishonest.

No, I want you to stop acting as if this is about liberal / conservative media,

I am not the one throwing around liberal/conserative tags go whine at Boom.

Swifty

[Grundy]

The situation has been exploited by right wing issue activists looking for national exposure to raise funds. The Schindlers agreed to allow Terri's legal fund donor list be sold for conservative direct mail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html?

[Post]

"He put out there what she said, how she said it, and what he thought it meant."

Knowing full-well what would be derived from it with the public. He knows full-well that just by saying that, people are going to start "hearsay" of her saying she wants to live, even stuff like, "...when they pulled the feeding tube her dad was talking to her and she moaned out "Hi Dad" and this is on tape."

If I say something to the public that I know is going to result in something different then what I said, yeah, you can't get me legally, but it is in no way "truthful."

"I am not the one throwing around liberal/conserative tags go whine at Boom."

If I had to measure severity of "throwing around tags", I'd say an accusation of one person listening to one type of particular media is less than accusing the huge majority of an entire media resouce one-sided.

Oh, did you find the source? Or should we be putting as much weight into this as your original statement?

[Alshana]

Face it, Swifty, until you list some sources, nobody here's going to think your statements have merit.

As for the lawyer, well, the guy was hired to argue the case for the parents, yes? Do you really think he would ever even allow the possibility that she might not be alive to creep into his statements? Wouldn't it be better for his case for him to say that her random noises were a sign that she was saying she was alive, instead of it being noises caused by misfiring nerves, like a number of the doctors say it is?

The thing about statements that begin with "I believe..." and "I think..." is that they are opinions, not facts, and therefore not concrete proof.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Knowing full-well what would be derived from it with the public. He knows full-well that just by saying that, people are going to start "hearsay" of her saying she wants to live, even stuff like,

Really, and now you are an expert on his motives? He put it out there, stated exactly as it was, so we can decide for ourselfs. Those that want Terri to live will say she said it, those that don't, won't. That is in no way dishonest. If he was dishonest, he would have just said "She said I want to live" and left it at that.

Also, a few days ago you claimed that it's a lawyers job to look after their clients best intrests. Now, you are claiming that it is dishonest for a lawyer to do this. Will you please make up your mind about what a lawyer should do.

So once again, is this a case where you are just going to keep spewing stuff in order to admit that you were not wrong? Where is an example of Terri's parents being dishonest?

Oh, did you find the source? Or should we be putting as much weight into this as your original statement?

Were you brain dead this weekend and not see any T.V.?

From another liberal source,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9822

The husband of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo has ordered an autopsy after she dies to silence allegations his plan to cremate her body is aimed at hiding something,

So unless you think he reads these boards where do you think those allegations came from?

Swifty

[Post]

"Really, and now you are an expert on his motives?"

Maybe you think it takes an expert to know what the public reaction would be to him stating that, but it doesn't.

"He put it out there, stated exactly as it was, so we can decide for ourselfs."

No. He didn't just "put it out there" and "state exactly as it was". He did more than that. He put his personal opinion "out there" as well, knowing what would happen - that people would extrapolate that to fact.

"Those that want Terri to live will say she said it, those that don't, won't."

Exactly. While he's said "I think this is what it means..." People will spread it as if she said it herself. Hence you saying you heard a rumor that she was saying stuff, when in fact, all it was, was moans.

"That is in no way dishonest."

That's the very definition of dishonest.

"If he was dishonest, he would have just said "She said I want to live" and left it at that."

No. Honesty is the absolute, dishonest is not. Honesty is only a very specific answer, while dishonest can be an infinite number of things other than that. What does this mean? It means naming one possible solution of him being dishonest, and showing he's not doing that, in no way means that he's not being dishonest.

"Also, a few days ago you claimed that it's a lawyers job to look after their clients best intrests. Now, you are claiming that it is dishonest for a lawyer to do this. Will you please make up your mind about what a lawyer should do."

What do you mean, "make up my mind?" They're not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they're mutually inclusive. Look at the example of when I stated that a few days ago. Of course it's dishonest for Kerry's lawyers to target a specific group that will end up meaning more Republican votes being dismissed. As I've stated many, many times, that's what they were doing and that's bad. IT'S DISHONEST. But you know what? That's what lawyers do. They're job isn't to give a non-biased, HONEST opinion of the situation. It's to give a very biased, one-sided, DISHONEST opinion of the situation.

They do BOTH at the same time. On both sides. It's the courts' job to be honest about the decision, not the lawyers'.

"So once again, is this a case where you are just going to keep spewing stuff in order to admit that you were not wrong? Where is an example of Terri's parents being dishonest?"

As I stated in previous posts. Your assessment that looking after their clients' best interests cannot include (or even doesn't most of the time) also mean being dishonest, is what's wrong.

"Were you brain dead this weekend and not see any T.V.?

From another liberal source,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9822"

Translation: no, you can't find the CNN source. That's ok, I thought that's what it was.

"So unless you think he reads these boards where do you think those allegations came from?"

I wasn't asking you to cite any source. Were you brain dead when you answered that question? I was asking for the source to CNN where you stated you got it.

The allegations can come from liberal sources or conservative sources. Your statement was that it came from CNN. I want to see the source. Just because a liberal source is citing a reaction to the allegations, doesn't mean it was originally spreading them.

[Swifty_Johnson]

That's the very definition of dishonest.

dis·hon·est adj.

1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.

So please point out whee he lied, cheated, defrauded or deceived anyone? Where did he lack honesty? Again, another example of you refusing to admit that you were wrong.

Maybe you think it takes an expert to know what the public reaction would be to him stating that, but it doesn't.

Do you honestly think that he though if anyone doubted her condition, that what he said would change their minds? Anyone with 1/2 a brain would realise that he was just playing to the people that support him. By him being honest not one person would be swayed by what he said. As the judge said, people are just hearing what they want with the phrase, it means nothing.

Translation: no, you can't find the CNN source. That's ok, I thought that's what it was.

Translation, there are so many hits that I took one off the first page. I looked at CNN and the story is no longer on the first page. Are you going to claim now that CNN did not report the familes alligations this weekend, while everyone else was?

Were you brain dead when you answered that question? I was asking for the source to CNN where you stated you got it.

Were you brain dead when you wrote the question? You asked for the source, not the CNN source.

Swifty

[Post]

"So please point out whee he lied, cheated, defrauded or deceived anyone? Where did he lack honesty?"

Please check post 173 Where I answered this.

"Again, another example of you refusing to admit that you were wrong."

Actually, this is another example of you ignoring what is being stated and trying to prove your own point on another tangent. I'm not saying he directly stated it. I'm stating he purposely let that data out knowing what would be derived from it, to which it wouldn't be fact, but people would spread it as if it was (as you did). That's deceitful.

"Do you honestly think that he though if anyone doubted her condition, that what he said would change their minds?"

No, I "honestly" think that he thought if he stated that, people would spread it as if it was fact.

"Anyone with 1/2 a brain would realise that he was just playing to the people that support him."

And yet, here you are, stating that she's moaning stuff as if it's fact, when in actuality, it's opinion. It worked for you. Do you have "1/2 a brain"?

"By him being honest not one person would be swayed by what he said. As the judge said, people are just hearing what they want with the phrase, it means nothing."

I know people are just hearing what they want. That's not in question. What's in question is if it will later be derived to be not "what they want", but as fact. As you did.

"Translation, there are so many hits that I took one off the first page. I looked at CNN and the story is no longer on the first page. Are you going to claim now that CNN did not report the familes alligations this weekend, while everyone else was?"

No, I'm going to claim that this is yet another case of you not bringing the source of your claims. If I had the consistency of you in saying one thing, stating a source, then later not being able to bring it to the table, then I wouldn't consider my word having much merit, either.

"Were you brain dead when you wrote the question? You asked for the source, not the CNN source."

"Furthermore, I didn't personally see it on CNN, so unless you give a link to a source, why should I put any more merit in this statement than your original statement that was shown to be wrong?"

I know it may be really difficult to see how I'm stating I want a link to the source, since I only mentioned CNN once, but I'm sure you'll manage. Let me spell it out for you: I didn't see it on CNN, so I'm not convinced it was on CNN. I'm asking for a source on CNN so I can be convinced. I think even someone "brain dead" could get that.

[Cavan]

Commonly arguing on the same side as Swifty... I find his lack of argument backing supportive...

But...on this matter I find it quite funny.... Swifty wants to make this about the rights of Terri Schiavo's family.... when it's about the family she married into... HER HUSBAND...

There isn't a state in the union that doesn't give guardian rights to the husband when the wife becomes unable... and vise versa to the wife when the husband is unable...

Terri Schiavo went through 4 years of rehab after her accident with NO SUCCESS... she's not coming back... she died long ago... her body is simply kept alive by artficial means...

Terri Schiavo can NOT survive on her own... she needs CONSTANT care... this state is NOT reversible...

I say place a bowl of food and bottle of water next to Terri... if she can drink it.. and eat it on her own.. then she has the right to live... but if she can't... then I think it's fair that she should be allowed to die as she wished so many years ago....

Something to think about... Michael Schiavo can move past the fact that he has lost his wife.... the only problem is that Terri Schiavo's family can't move past that fact that they lost their daughter so many years ago...

[Murrie]

Can this story please die now, in peace, without the media and a bunch morons trampeling its gardens and making a huge stinking mess???

[Allison]

It's funny, I just saw co-counsel for the Schindler family on Fox News. He was saying that the Schindler's have been manipulated into filing this latest brief (which he says is basically the same arguments they've made before and has next-to-zero chance of success) by people who want to prolong this battle for the purpose of fundraising for their own particular causes.

I feel so bad for this family. I wish people would just leave them alone and let them find whatever peace they can.

[Figtoria]

Commonly arguing on the same side as Swifty... I find his lack of argument backing supportive...

But...on this matter I find it quite funny.... Swifty wants to make this about the rights of Terri Schiavo's family.... when it's about the family she married into... HER HUSBAND...


Pardon me, but fuck that patriarchal bullshit.

My family is my birth family - NOT my husbands.

What century is this???

[Swifty_Johnson]

Please check post 173 Where I answered this.

Post 173 has been debunked, please try again.

And yet, here you are, stating that she's moaning stuff as if it's fact, when in actuality, it's opinion.

It's a fact that she is meaning. What it means is a matter of opinion. Just beacsue he expressed his opinion on what it meant, does not make it dishonest.

No, I'm going to claim that this is yet another case of you not bringing the source of your claims.

No, I did bring a source to back my claim, several. I also cannot go back to this weekend and tape the programs on T.V. and play them back to you. I am also not going to go back and prove common knowlege. If you vegged out this weekend and missed the news programs, radio programs, and webpages talking about this, tough. I am not going to wade through a thousand links for you.

It's common knowledge that this claim was made, so are you going to try and state that CNN would not cover this, even as everyone else is?

If I had the consistency of you in saying one thing, stating a source, then later not being able to bring it to the table, then I wouldn't consider my word having much merit, either.

No, you have a consistency of stating stuff and never brining any sources to the table. Unlike you, I have bought sources to the table, so stop trying to dump your failings into me.

But...on this matter I find it quite funny.... Swifty wants to make this about the rights of Terri Schiavo's family.... when it's about the family she married into... HER HUSBAND...

And when her husband decided to marry someone else and have two kids with that person, he stopped being her husband.

Swifty

[Cavan]

And when her husband decided to marry someone else and have two kids with that person, he stopped being her husband.

Swifty

He's not married to anyone but Terri... he's been living with another woman... but he's still legally married to Terri Schiavo....

[Post]

"Post 173 has been debunked, please try again."

No it hasn't. You're using circular logic, where your reply was rebutted, and then you back to square one. So now, I'm pointing you back there.

"It's a fact that she is meaning. What it means is a matter of opinion. Just beacsue he expressed his opinion on what it meant, does not make it dishonest."

I'm not stating it's dishonest because he expressed his opinion, so stop trying to put words into my mouth as if I'm stating that. I'm stating it's dishonest because he knew by saying that what would eventually come of it - people claiming it as if it's fact instead of opinion.

"No, I did bring a source to back my claim, several. I also cannot go back to this weekend and tape the programs on T.V. and play them back to you. I am also not going to go back and prove common knowlege."

It is not "common knowledge" that it was ever on CNN.

"If you vegged out this weekend and missed the news programs, radio programs, and webpages talking about this, tough. I am not going to wade through a thousand links for you."

Translation: yet again, you're not going to provide a source.

"It's common knowledge that this claim was made, so are you going to try and state that CNN would not cover this, even as everyone else is?"

It's not common knowledge is what I'm stating.

"No, you have a consistency of stating stuff and never brining any sources to the table. Unlike you, I have bought sources to the table, so stop trying to dump your failings into me."

Please cite two times I've done it. Because I can name two times you've done it. Hence the word "consistent", where you need atleast two occasions for the scenario, since "consistent" relies on multiple occasions.

"And when her husband decided to marry someone else and have two kids with that person, he stopped being her husband."

Anything else that you want to provide that's wrong and maybe even a flat-out lie? Heck, even if he did marry, until he hands over guardianship of Terri or it is determined by the state (and not by you) that he's unfit for having her guardianship, it's his. No matter how many times he's been remarried afterwards.

[Post]

Heck, name a time where I've refused to name a source, thought it should "count", and I gave no prerequisite of it, where it could be easily done in order for me to get the source.

[Swifty_Johnson]

He's not married to anyone but Terri... he's been living with another woman... but he's still legally married to Terri Schiavo....

So, is it in Terri's best intrests that her husband live with another women and father children with them? He's still legally married to Terri becasue he refuses to divorse her, but it's appearent he does not want to be with her.

No it hasn't. You're using circular logic, where your reply was rebutted, and then you back to square one. So now, I'm pointing you back there.

No, please try again. You have failed to show any dishonesty on his part. Please show where he lied, or told anything less then the truth. You have failed to do this, so you have failed to prove he has been dishonest.

I'm stating it's dishonest because he knew by saying that what would eventually come of it - people claiming it as if it's fact instead of opinion.

Really, and how did you know this? You read minds? If he really wanted to be dishonest he would have said "She said 'I want to live!'" But instead he said "She said "AAAHHH WAAAA" which means "I want to live". There is nothing dishonest about that at all. He gave the facts, and then his opinion of it. Nothing dishonest.

Please cite two times I've done it.

Please provide your sources that the lack of armored padded humvee seat comes from a lack of funding, and not an error on the part of the design team.

And there are more, that is the first one that jumps to me.

Anything else that you want to provide that's wrong and maybe even a flat-out lie?

Really? How is it wrong or a lie? It's common knowledge he's expressed an intrest to marry the women he is with, and they have had two kids together.

Here is one link from CNN that I was able to dig up, I guess you missed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/schiavo.feud.ap/index.html

Swifty

[Allison]

Swifty, you said, Also, her husband is having her cremated right away, and not allowing any inspection of her brain to verify that is right, why?

From your link: It was not clear whether any autopsy would be performed, and the Pinellas County Medical Examiner's Office did not return calls seeking clarification.

The point I tried to make about your original statement was that Michael had never said he would not allow an autopsy. All speculation in that regard was just that, speculation. And yet, you presented it as fact that he was not allowing an autopsy. Which means you either misinterpreted those who were merely speculating, or, you were repeating unsubstantiated rumors. ( I assume you didn't deliberately mischaracterize the facts.) And that was the point: You didn't check your facts before posting.

Why is it so hard for you to just say, "Oops ... my mistake."?

[Post]

"No, please try again. You have failed to show any dishonesty on his part. Please show where he lied, or told anything less then the truth."

See, that's the point about circular logic. I've shown how dishonesty not only covers what was literally stated, but covers what is known to be the result from your actions as well. To which you did not rebut successfully, and instead, jumped back to square one.

So please, try and rebut the fact that dishonesty is more than what was stated literally, before jumping back to square one.

"Really, and how did you know this? You read minds?"

As I stated before, I know you think it takes some rocket-science brain power to be able to see that people would do that, but it doesn't. That's rather predictable, really. That's why we were so skeptical when you stated it, and wanted a source. Because it was predictable that it wasn't stated literally, that you just derived it.

We all knew what was happening. So don't act as if it's some privileged few that would.

"And there are more, that is the first one that jumps to me."

So name two. Again, I'd be more than happy to name your refusals. And that's not something debatable, like your example, where even if a source couldn't be find, it's entirely logical to assume money is atleast partially an issue. I'm talking about you saying something, us asking for a source, and you blantantly refusing to (not even looking for one).

"Really? How is it wrong or a lie? It's common knowledge he's expressed an intrest to marry the women he is with, and they have had two kids together."

Because he's not married to her, as you wrongfully stated. Any more questions?

"Here is one link from CNN that I was able to dig up, I guess you missed it."

Let me remind you what we were talking about. You stated that her husband refused to allow an autopsy ("not allowing any inspection of her brain"). Boom then asked where in the heck did you get that from, and not to trust your conservative sources. You then stated from CNN. I stated I don't believe it until I see it. You then stated it's all over the place, so of course it's on CNN. I stated it's crap. You now have come up with a CNN source that doesn't state he refused an autopsy.

What are you talking about now?

[Swifty_Johnson]

The point I tried to make about your original statement was that Michael had never said he would not allow an autopsy. All speculation in that regard was just that, speculation. And yet, you presented it as fact that he was not allowing an autopsy.

Did you not read anything I posted before? The only reason any mention of an autopsy by Michael's attorney was the statements that went out last weekend saying he was going to have her creamted right away. It was all over the news on Sunday. As as of Sunday it was claimed that he was going to have her cremated without an autopsy.

So please, try and rebut the fact that dishonesty is more than what was stated literally, before jumping back to square one.

Already been done. You seem to think that by putting all the facts out there, then people were someone going to just believe the statement "I want to live." Did that happen? I don't know of one person who switched over it, and I think Terri should not be killed, but even I don't think that is what was said. So please, try and point out where he was dishonest.

And that's not something debatable, like your example, where even if a source couldn't be find, it's entirely logical to assume money is atleast partially an issue.

Really? Well then if every other news station is reporting that Micheal is refusing an autopsy then it's logical to assume CNN is too.

Because he's not married to her, as you wrongfully stated. Any more questions?

I never said he married the other women, you having problems reading?

Swifty

[Post]

"I never said he married the other women..."

Your quote:

"And when her husband decided to marry someone else and have two kids with that person, he stopped being her husband."

Are you going to act as if it was the decision that makes or breaks him being her husband? So if someone's getting a divorce, he doesn't have to go through that, since merely making the decision to marry someone else and have kids with them automatically negates him from being a husband to a previous marriage? Brilliant!

"...you having problems reading?"

Says the guy who said Michael said no autopsy. Brilliant!

[Swifty_Johnson]

So if someone's getting a divorce, he doesn't have to go through that, since merely making the decision to marry someone else and have kids with them automatically negates him from being a husband to a previous marriage? Brilliant!

Another case where you are refusing to admit you were wrong again. Please point out where I said he married the other women. It's really simple.

When I said he decided to marry means he had the intention to marry someone else. Now legally he's still the "husband" to the first women, but morally and ethacilly he isn't. In this case, Terri cannot ask for a divorse, so it's up to the courts to grant it to her.

Says the guy who said Michael said no autopsy. Brilliant!

That was the story this weekend, it's not my fault you didn't listen or watch any news on Sunday.

Swifty

[Post]

"Another case where you are refusing to admit you were wrong again. Please point out where I said he married the other women. It's really simple."

Yes, I was wrong in assuming you were smart enough to think that they're married even if he wants to marry someone else. My bad, I won't make that overestimation again.

"Now legally he's still the "husband" to the first women, but morally and ethacilly he isn't."

What has been the point of this debate since its initial start? How many times does it need to be spelled out for you? THIS ISN'T ABOUT ETHICS OR MORALS. THIS IS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE SITUATION. Your point has no bearing on if he should legally be making the decision, which is what we're debating.

"That was the story this weekend, it's not my fault you didn't listen or watch any news on Sunday."

Yes, yes, I know you can't cite a source. We get it.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Your point has no bearing on if he should legally be making the decision, which is what we're debating.

He shouldn't legally be making any decision for her at all, as even the blind man can see he no longer wants to be with her, and wants to be with someone else.

Yes, yes, I know you can't cite a source. We get it.

I have cited sources, several that state excatly what I stated. It's to bad you are too stupid to read them.

Swifty

[Allison]

The only reason any mention of an autopsy by Michael's attorney was the statements that went out last weekend saying he was going to have her creamted right away. It was all over the news on Sunday. As as of Sunday it was claimed that he was going to have her cremated without an autopsy.


The fact that Michael had made no statement about an autopsy does not mean he "wasn't allowing" one, as you claimed. It just means he either hadn't decided or hadn't released a statement yet. No one knew his plans. He hadn't said one way or the other. There was speculation in the news that maybe there wouldn't be an autopsy. But no one was saying that Michael "wasn't allowing" one. That was either your assumption, or the assumption of some media souce that you repeated but are unable to provide a link for.

[Swifty_Johnson]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/26/73839.shtml

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yTxtPxIkArsJ:www.infowars.com/articles/life/schiavo_fate_of_terri_rests_on_judge.htm+Terri+aut opsy&hl=en

Of couse you also ignore the link where I posted quotes from Michael's lawyer where he also talks about the statements about no autopsy.

Swifty

[Post]

Um, the original point of cite sourcing was because Boom said you were listening to your Conservative propaganda. How exactly is citing two conservative propaganda sources disproving that? Or do you think that sources that have advertisement for a book stating, "Hillary Clinton doesn't want you to read this book", and links to other articles stating, "Killing Schiavo Threatens Religious Freedom in U.S." not conservative propaganda?

[Allison]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/26/73839.shtml

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yTxtPxIkArsJ:www.infowars.com/articles/life/schiavo_fate_of_terri_rests_on_judge.htm+Terri+aut opsy&hl=en

Of couse you also ignore the link where I posted quotes from Michael's lawyer where he also talks about the statements about no autopsy.

Swifty

Both of those links are to the same NewsMax article. And nowhere in that article does it say that Michael has refused an autopsy. It simply says that he's having her cremated.

What other link are you talking about? Did I miss one? I saw the CNN link you posted, which specifically said that autopsy plans couldn't be verified, and then this one NewsMax article that doesn't even mention whether an autopsy was planned or not.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Um, the original point of cite sourcing was because Boom said you were listening to your Conservative propaganda.

Those were the first two I in a simple search, I did not see those two until just now. The 2nd site is intresting and I'll have to look at it more, lots of stuff there. And if you looked, that is a cached version of the page. A lot of sites (like CNN) changed or deleted the articles after Michael's announcement.

Swifty

[Post]

So basically, you can't come up with a source?

[Swifty_Johnson]

So basically I have, multiple of them. If you need more, I am sure you are a big boy and can type into google or yahoo yourself.

Swifty

[Post]

Ok, let me rephrase that to be more specific, since you're avoiding it: you cannot come up with a source that's both not conservative and states that Michael denied an autopsy, correct? I personally don't think they exist. And no, if a person comes here stating something and is unwilling to back it up, it doesn't count if they tell the person they're debating against to be a "big boy and type into google or yahoo yourself."

If you won't, especially if there's no realistic prerequisites for us to do in order to get you do do them, then it's the same as you can't.

[Grundy]

I am glad these judges had the balls to birch slap the facist behavior of DeLay, Frist and Bushie.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Stanley Birch said Congress "chose to overstep constitutional boundaries" by passing a law to force the case into federal courts.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/30/schiavo/index.html

[Figtoria]

So, I guess we can close the thread now...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/schiavo/index.html



I just can't see this from anything other than a mother's point of view. I don't care who had the "legal" right to decide her future. You wanna talk about gun violence? I would take out a whole freaking hospital before I'd let >anyone< starve my son to death.

If she was in a PVS then who was it hurting to give her aged parents the comfort of her physical presence for a few more years? She didn't know any better - so who was hurt?

And you can't tell me that a man, married in everything but the law, to another woman, with children by that other woman, could possibly have had his first wifes best interests at heart. I don't believe his motivations were pure.

All moot now, I know.

[Grundy]

Michael Schiavo didnt allow the family in at the last moments of her death.

What an asshole!

Now she can get on with her next life. Go karma!

[Murrie]

godspeed Terri

[Swifty_Johnson]

http://news.bostonherald.com/forums/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=12642

Are you going to claim that the Boston Herald is a conserative news source?

And no, if a person comes here stating something and is unwilling to back it up,

Wow, you are an expert at this, so why do you not back up the things you say?

I did misread the CNN article, that still does not change the fact that the media reported the alligations that there was to be no Autopsy. Despite what you want to claim otherwise the whole media is not conserative based, it's mostly liberal based.

I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that the parents have been dishonest. You said they were, but haven't shown one thing that states that.

I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that their lawyer has been dishonest, you state he was but have failed to prove it.

I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that the lack of armored padded seats for Hunvees was due to a lack of funding, you have failed to provide one link on this.

So why don't you either start backing up your claims, or admit you were wrong?

It's sad that she had to die like this. Lets hope she get buried in Florida, so her parents can visit her grave without diffculity. Buring her out of the state is the most petty and vindictive thing I have seen someone do.

Michael Schiavo didnt allow the family in at the last moments of her death.

What an asshole!

I hope that is not true, otherwise that would be the most petty and vindicitve thing I have seen someone do.

Swifty

[Post]

"Are you going to claim that the Boston Herald is a conserative news source?"

No, I'm going to claim the public forums where the public posts their opininions - you know, your link - isn't a news source whatsoever. Just because the forum resides on the Boston Herald, doesn't mean what's stated in it is fact, or even liberal / conservative / whatever.

Do you use the opinion page to cite factual sources, too?

"Wow, you are an expert at this, so why do you not back up the things you say?"

By denoting thing-S, you're insinuating more than once. Where's the occasions other than the one, that even has an asterisk by it?

"I did misread the CNN article, that still does not change the fact that the media reported the alligations that there was to be no Autopsy."

What it does solidify, though, is that you cannot come up with a non-conservative news source that ever stated that.

"Despite what you want to claim otherwise the whole media is not conserative based, it's mostly liberal based."

Even if it was, that was never the point. The point was, that you getting all huffy because we were accusing you of using a conservative source to state your claims, because we knew a liberal-biased or even moderate news source wouldn't say something so wrong. And that much is true.

"I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that the parents have been dishonest. You said they were, but haven't shown one thing that states that."

I told you why. You tried to state, because it was their lawyer and not them saying stuff, it doesn't count. I stated it does, and why, to which you then tried to rebut with:

"I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that their lawyer has been dishonest, you state he was but have failed to prove it."

I told you why. You tried to state, because it wasn't literally a lie, and only led to being rumors spread that weren't true, it doesn't count. I stated it does as long as it was the intention, to which you then tried to act as if it was some sort of mindreading to know that's what it would lead to. I then pointed out that it was fairly obvious, and other people immediately jumped on it when you repeated the similar rumor, to which you acted as either (a) it wasn't obvious, and (b) jumped back to square one.

Just because you disagree with my statement, doesn't mean I didn't back up my claim. Not backing up my claim would involve me stating something that is fact - and not a conclusion (like the lawyer being dishonest) - that should be able to see a source that states exactly what I'm stating, and refuse to do so when asked to. You know, things like stating the military is saying something, asking for a source, and replying something similar to, "Just ask my friends, I have a bunch in the military." Or stating for me to find your source to show your point. That is what's considered "not backing up your claims".

"I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that the lack of armored padded seats for Hunvees was due to a lack of funding, you have failed to provide one link on this."

I told you exactly what the (easy) prerequisite is for this - showing that it will actually mean something when I do find a source. See, I don't want happening what happened earlier in this thread: I stated something that rebutted your statement, you asked for a source, I did the digging and came up with a source, and then you ignored it as if it didn't mean anything.

I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase just for your kicks. So I stated, when you state if I do find a source, you will concede the point, I will look for it. Just like I stated I would do if you could find data to the contrary. To which you never admitted to, and set comfortably on your perch pointing the finger at me.

And that's not even counting the fact I never stated my point should be assumed true. Like you do with yours.

Hey, did you ever find the multiple instances of me refusing to bring data to the table, so you could actually use the word "consistent" correctly, like when I used it in calling you out on consistently not bringing sources to the table in stating factual data (and not conclusions)? Or is this going to be yet another instance of refusing to cite a source?

[Swifty_Johnson]

No, I'm going to claim the public forums where the public posts their opininions

It's still a liberal site, and it doesn't change the fact it was discuessed on the news programs over the weekend. Despite your claims to the contrary, the whole news media is NOT conserative.

I told you why. You tried to state, because it was their lawyer and not them saying stuff, it doesn't count. I stated it does, and why, to which you then tried to rebut with:

No, you stated *THEY* were dishonest and posted something they said and you claimed it was dishonest. When that turned out NOT to be dishonest, you failed to admit you were wrong, par for the course, and then went on to falsely claim their lawyer as being dishonest.

You tried to state, because it wasn't literally a lie, and only led to being rumors spread that weren't true, it doesn't count.

Wrong again. First, you failed to prove that what he said was views as false by him or anyone who repeated it. Is it your claim that he never believed in what he said as being true? For him to be dishonest you have to show that he knew what he was stating was false, and it was his intention to have that spread.

While *YOU* disagree with what he said, it does not make him dishonest. People believe the world was flat, and everyone said so. By them saying so doesn't make them dishonest, as that is what they believed. When Colombus proved the world was round, he didn't prove them dishonest, he proved them wrong.

I stated something that rebutted your statement, you asked for a source, I did the digging and came up with a source, and then you ignored it as if it didn't mean anything.

This is a bullshit responce that says. I pull it out of my ass, not only do I not have any sources to back me up, I am going to place the blame on you. Point out where I did what you claimed in this thread.

So I stated, when you state if I do find a source, you will concede the point, I will look for it.

Sure no problem, only if you agree to admit you were wrong when you can't.

Swifty

[Post]

"It's still a liberal site, and it doesn't change the fact it was discuessed on the news programs over the weekend."

What it does show, that your claim cannot be backed up.

"Despite your claims to the contrary, the whole news media is NOT conserative."

When in the hell did I ever claim that? Source please.

"No, you stated *THEY* were dishonest and posted something they said and you claimed it was dishonest."

While I didn't state they were being dishonest, I did insinuate it.

"When that turned out NOT to be dishonest..."

No. I stated the issue where it was them stating "Aaaaaaah Waaaaa" when asked to say, "I want to live." You said it wasn't them that stated it, the Lawyer stated it. I then stated if the Lawyer represents them, and they do not correct him, then it's as good as them stating it. You then stated he didn't technically lie, so it's not untruthful, to which I stated it doesn't take a technical lie to be untruthful. To which you're now going back to the source.

"First, you failed to prove that what he said was views as false by him or anyone who repeated it."

See, for me to fail, I would have had to try. I never tried to state his views were false.

"Is it your claim that he never believed in what he said as being true?"

No.

"For him to be dishonest you have to show that he knew what he was stating was false, and it was his intention to have that spread."

No. I do not have to show what he believes to be false, I need to show that it was known by him that what he stated would have been construed to be fact. It was, and several people here were able to call it when similar stuff came out of your mouth.

"While *YOU* disagree with what he said, it does not make him dishonest."

I never stated my different opinion makes him dishonest.

"People believe the world was flat, and everyone said so. By them saying so doesn't make them dishonest, as that is what they believed."

No. This isn't a case of unknown data. This is a case of pure opinion and conjecture, and having that construed to be fact. If someone now was saying the world was flat, and even believed it, if they spread a rumor that they knew was both (a) their opinion, and (b) would be construed as fact, then yes, that is absolutely dishonest.

"This is a bullshit responce that says. I pull it out of my ass, not only do I not have any sources to back me up, I am going to place the blame on you. Point out where I did what you claimed in this thread."

Sorry, it was the NRA thread. I stated you can fill out the ballot fully and still having it legally not count. You then asked for a source as if it would make a difference. When I provided a source, you didn't care. So please don't act as if my reaction isn't justified.

"Sure no problem, only if you agree to admit you were wrong when you can't."

I won't admit that I'm wrong, but I will admit I cannot prove it (and therefore, should be judged as not true in a pure debate sense). Anyway, I'll look back at the thread today so I can get a specific agreement on what I need to bring to the table, and what you'll concede if I do.

[Roscoes_C&W]

I'm glad that chick is dead. Was sick of hearing her name.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You then stated he didn't technically lie,

He did not technically lie, he didn't lie period.

I need to show that it was known by him that what he stated would have been construed to be fact.

If he believes what he says to be true, then to him it's a fact. That does not make him dishonest. You need to show that he knows what he is claming is not true, then he's being dishonest. Like people thought the world was flat, they truely believed that they world was flat. When it was found out it was round, they were *WRONG* not *DISHONEST*.

I think he is wrong, but I do not think he was being dishonest.

I stated you can fill out the ballot fully and still having it legally not count. You then asked for a source as if it would make a difference. When I provided a source, you didn't care. So please don't act as if my reaction isn't justified.

Wrong again, your reaction isn't justified. You claimed there wasn't a spot to but the date on the ballot, and I asked you to back that claim up. You did, I responded by posting the instructions that said to sign and date the ballot. That invildates your claim as eventhough there wasn't a spot for the date, the instructions stated to sign and date it. Your point wasn't ignored, it was disputed.

I won't admit that I'm wrong,

Par for the course, you expect everyone else to admit they are wrong, but you fail to do so when you are.

Swifty

[Hammer]

She's dead Jim.

[Noleader]

Score

Wackjob Conservitives: 1,000,000,000
Rule of Law: 1

Rule of Law is catching up!

[Post]

"He did not technically lie, he didn't lie period."

Now disprove the statement that he doesn't have to lie to not be truthful. Because he doesn't have to.

"If he believes what he says to be true, then to him it's a fact. That does not make him dishonest."

Again (I'm not bothered so much anymore about having to repeat myself), I'm not denying what he said, and it's not about what he said. It's about what was conveyed, and if it was expected. That is the dishonest part. For example, when Republican people would call around acting like a survey, asking if people would support a candidate that did (whatever action), it didn't take their opposing candidate to actually do it in order to be dishonest. All it took was what was conveyed, and if that was expected.

"Wrong again, your reaction isn't justified."

To you.

"You claimed there wasn't a spot to but the date on the ballot, and I asked you to back that claim up. You did, I responded by posting the instructions that said to sign and date the ballot. That invildates your claim as eventhough there wasn't a spot for the date, the instructions stated to sign and date it. Your point wasn't ignored, it was disputed."

No. First of all, you didn't need me to back up a claim to bring your data to the table. My data was unimportant to your point. If I stated it and never was asked to bring it to the table, you could have proven your point just fine. But no, you wanted me to do some running for you that didn't mean anything. I want to avoid that in the future. Especially considering the issue we're talking about will be much more difficult to dig up data about than the voting issue.

Secondly, it still gets away from the overall question that we were asking: should a technically illegal vote, when the voter did no wrong, count? You're now debating if the voter did something wrong. You used to say it should never count, regardless if the voter did anything wrong or not. Now you're saying it's hard to say, and it should be decided by some outside sources. That, just FYI, is not "never". Which is really the key issue.

Now do you see the double standard? I have always stated, in that instance, they should count. Voter did no wrong? You can tell who they voted for? It counts. Period. You previously stated no, it shouldn't count. Now you're stating it should be debated. Which one is it now?

"Par for the course..."

In you cutting off my sentences, and not quoting the rest so it makes sense? Yes, it is. Thanks for the little catch phrase.

"...you expect everyone else to admit they are wrong"

Incorrect. The part of my sentence you sliced off, will satisfy me just fine. If you state, when you cannot bring the data to the table, you don't think you're wrong, but you cannot prove otherwise, and therefore, lose the debate, then that's enough for me.

"...but you fail to do so when you are."

Because it doesn't prove I'm wrong. If someone was murdered, just because it cannot be pinned on anyone doesn't mean they weren't murdered. It just means it cannot be proven, and the person who did it "wins" (in a morbid analogous sense).

The issue is, you typically choose the absolute. And as I've lectured you about before, an absolute has to be 100% true, or it is false. If anything is incorrect about it, then it's wrong. I, on the other hand, typically take the non-absolute. So, in a strict literal sense, I have an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of space to prove the absolute wrong.

Now, for debating purposes, you have to have a cutoff to where you lose the argument. We obviously do not have an infinite amount of space and time to prove something. So, you don't have to be wrong to lose a debate on the side of a non-absolute. You do for an absolute.

To put it in a layman's example. If someone says "person A never did anything wrong". That's the absolute. The non-absolute is disproving that. Obviously, if person A ever did anything wrong, then it's incorrect, and the absolute is false. But - and this is the important part - that scenario can exist whether or not it can be proven. That's not the case with the absolute. Once it is proven false, it can never be true.

But, even though you should admit you're wrong if you're on the side of an absolute and cannot prove it, and that same scenario does not exist for a non-absolute, I would be perfectly fine with simply stating you cannot prove it and lose the debate without ever admitting you're wrong. Contrary to your erroneous accusation.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Now disprove the statement that he doesn't have to lie to not be truthful.

Please prove that he was dishonest, this you have not done.

It's about what was conveyed, and if it was expected. That is the dishonest part.

you failed to prove he acted in a dishonest manner. If he truely believed she was trying to say "I want to live" he was in no way acting dishonestly when he said so. You failed to prove any dishonest actions by the parents or their lawyer.

But no, you wanted me to do some running for you that didn't mean anything. I want to avoid that in the future.

I was unaware there wasn't a place to date the ballot on the ballot, so you are incorrect again that it didn't mean anything. If you didn't have a habit of making things up and trying to pass them on as facts, I would not have asked for a source.

Now do you see the double standard?

No double standard, asking votes to be counted according to the law is not a double standard.

Because it doesn't prove I'm wrong.

You made a statement without any data backing you up. I called you on it, so instead of saying you were wrong, you are now saying even more BS just so you don't have to admit you were wrong.

Face it, you were wrong.

Swifty

[Post]

"Please prove that he was dishonest, this you have not done."

When you get past the mindblock you're having of forcing dishonesty to equate to a lie I will. Will you admit atleast my scenario can exist? Where, if he knew the end result would be rumors to support his cause would be started, that would take it as truth instead of opinion, then he's being dishonest. When you get beyond that, I'll go into why it's ok to think that was his intention.

"I was unaware there wasn't a place to date the ballot on the ballot, so you are incorrect again that it didn't mean anything."

It can have all of the sentimental or whatever value you want according to you. I'm talking about in order to show your point. My data had no effect on your conclusion, that they were not legal, whatsoever. That's the point. Unless you're willing to make it worth in furthering my point, and not just giving you warm and fuzzies or whatever, then it's of no use to me to go birddogging for you.

"If you didn't have a habit of making things up and trying to pass them on as facts, I would not have asked for a source."

Should I have stated that I talking to my friends and they gave me the answer instead? Or does that only apply to your statements?

"No double standard, asking votes to be counted according to the law is not a double standard."

Hold on, that's a vague way to put my question, that avoids the question itself. Again, if the voter does no wrong, and we can still make out the vote, but it's still technically illegal, should it be counted? That's the question. You used to say never. You now say it's up to a set of people. Which is it? For that matter, I'm not asking if it should be up to other people. I'm asking if it were up to you.

So, if there was no date on the ballot form, and no mention of it in the instructions, but by law, it had to be included, should they count? Not up to other people, but if it were up to you, what would you decide?

"You made a statement without any data backing you up. I called you on it, so instead of saying you were wrong, you are now saying even more BS just so you don't have to admit you were wrong."

Just because you don't understand how an absolute and non-absolute works, doesn't mean it's "BS". Ask other people if you want, they'll understand. Maybe they'll do a better job simplifying it for you.

[Boom]

Now, there MIGHT be one obsecure case in the last two hundred years and all of a sudden it means it was done often!
When did I say anything happened often. All I said was that you were wrong when you claimed it never happened because your sources are biased and sloppy. Don't try to pretend like I ever claimed anything happened often. You said it never happened. You were wrong. Period.

When you come back and make up stuff and put it in my mouth, you just lose more credibility. Everyone can look at this thread and see that I merely said you were wrong in claiming it never happened. Everyone can look at this thread and see that I never ever ever said anything close to claiming that it happened often. Everyone can look at this thread and see you just made up out of thin air that someone said it happened often. Don't do that.

I was just repeating where I read it from. You want to me list them all, would that make you feel better?

What part of "Seriously, what was your source for this one?" do you not understand? After all your whining and crying about every source I have ever used, I think I have a right to know when you are being a hypocrite and using an undeniably biased source like newsmax.

I read it on CNN

Then why didn't you give us a link to the article on CNN instead of the article on newsmax?

Felos said Michael Schiavo decided to come forward with the autopsy plans for Terri Schiavo after "opponents to carrying out her wishes" suggested Michael Schiavo had an ulterior motive in his plans to cremate his wife.

Source for this quote please. After all the time we have spent on this forum, I can't believe you all of a sudden think its ok to just post random quotes without any citation. I mean, that quote could have come from anywhere. Also, please note that the source does not support you, it proves you wrong. It does not say that they decided to do an autopsy because of the allegations. It says they decided to come forward with their plans. It implies they already were planning to do an autopsy, and just waited to come forward with the plan. That is the opposite of what you are claiming, that they had NO plan to do an autopsy and in fact were planning on refusing one. At least it was honest of you to post this quote proving that you were wrong, even if you didn't realize it.

Oh, that's right you refuse to acknowlegde any liberal bias to the media.
Again, with making stuff up out of thin air and putting it in my mouth. There are sources in the media with liberal bias and sources in the media with conservative bias. I have never denied that. I deny that the media, as a whole, is controlled by the liberals, as you have often claimed. Even most conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, have conceeded that point years ago. I never said that there was no liberal bias in the media. In fact, when I list citations to support my arguments, if I include a liberal source among the list, I am very upfront and say, "This source does have a liberal leaning, so take this article with a grain of salt, I am just including it for completeness." I have admitted when my sources are liberal biased, and I either find other sources to back them up, or explain why the article is valid anyway. Have you ever admitted that any of your sources are biased? You can't even admit that Fox News is conservative biased. And here you claim that I am the one who doesn't admit biased sources?

This thread has stopped being about Terry Schiavo and is now, once again, about Swifty's improper argument techniques. Sigh. Anyway, here is another example of something you shouldn't do in a fair discusssion. In post 179 you quoted a portion of an article, out of context, to make your point. You specificially left out the part that puts it in context. Here is what you left out.
He said Michael Schiavo, who has been pitted against the parents in a seven-year legal conflict over whether to allow Schiavo to die, requested an official autopsy to show the "massive" extent of the brain damage she suffered in 1990. "We didn't think it was appropriate to talk about an autopsy prior to Mrs. Schiavo's death," Felos told reporters outside his law office in Dunedin, Florida. "But because claims have been made by, I guess, opponents of carrying out her wishes that there was some motive behind the cremation of Mrs. Schiavo we felt it was necessary to make that announcement today."

You just posted the part where the lawyer said that the autopsy would silence allegations that they are trying to hide something. You totally cut out the part where they say the reason they waited for the announcement was because they felt it was tastless to talk about an autopsy before she passed away. I wonder why you cut out the part about WHY they waited to announce they wanted the autopsy? Could it be that it proves you wrong? You claimed they didn't want an autopsy and only did it because of the challenges, so why would you put in the part of the quote that says they really wanted an autopsy all along and just were waiting to make the announcement? Well, if you were intellectually honest, you would put the whole quote in, and admit the truth, instead of selectively quoting the parts that support your theory.

Well then if every other news station is reporting that Micheal is refusing an autopsy then it's logical to assume CNN is too.
No, if you are going to claim that CNN said Michael is refusing an autopsy, you must show that CNN said Michael is refusing an autopsy. The fact that Newsmax printed that sloppy, incorrect, biased, story does not necessarily mean that CNN printed it. I am sure CNN said something about the case on Sunday, but maybe they got the story right. Its not fair to ask us to assume that CNN messed up the story just like Newsmax, just because you say so.
I have cited sources, several that state excatly what I stated. It's to bad you are too stupid to read them.
You are giving yourself FAR too much credit when you claim you cited several sources that support you. You cited two sources and both are problematic. The first source is that "outside the beltway" source. My problem with that is that you just quoted the first paragraph, and not the second paragraph which totally disproved your point. If this was a Court of Law, the judge would sanction you for that. You can not do that in an argument. Your second source is Newsmax, which we all know is sloppy with their facts. Not only that, the Newsmax article doesn't even say that he planned on refusing an autopsy. You only cited two sources, one of which says you are wrong, the other one has no credibility, and doesn't even say what you claimed it said. I don't think you can claim to have cited "several" sources that support your argument. You haven't cited ONE SINGLE SOURCE that says Michael was refusing an autopsy. NOT ONE.
A lot of sites (like CNN) changed or deleted the articles after Michael's announcement.
Bullshit.
So basically I have, multiple of them. If you need more, I am sure you are a big boy and can type into google or yahoo yourself.
Ok, I did that. And, just like you, I can not find a single source that says Michael wanted to refuse an autopsy.
http://news.bostonherald.com/forums...;threadid=12642

Are you going to claim that the Boston Herald is a conserative news source?
I don't know whether or not the Boston Herald is a conservative or liberal paper. But it doesn't matter because you didn't post a link to a Boston Herald article. You posted a link to a thread on a public forum. That is not news. Did you just copy the link from google and not even read it? Or did you hope we wouldn't check the link and that you could put one over on us.

I did misread the CNN article, that still does not change the fact that the media reported the alligations that there was to be no Autopsy.
Sorry, you were wrong about the CNN article, you misrepresented the "outside the beltway" article, and you even misrepresented the Newsmax article. We are not taking your word that the "media" in general said that Michael was refusing an autopsy. Not when you can not give us ONE single cite, aside from some random guy's opinion in a public forum.
I am still waiting for you to backup your claims that their lawyer has been dishonest, you state he was but have failed to prove it.
Is it true that "WAAAAAA AAAAAAAA" means "I want to live?" Of course not. Do you think, for one iota, that the lawyer really, honestly and truely, believed that she was trying to say "I want to live?" Of course he didn't, give me a break.
No double standard, asking votes to be counted according to the law is not a double standard.
Exactly!! That is exactly correct. If you always said that votes should be counted according to the law, you would not be giving a double standard. Unfortunately for you, sometimes you say votes should be counted according to the law, and sometimes you say that technically illegal votes should be counted anyway. That is the double standard. You can see that, right?

[malkovich]

quote swifty "Are you going to claim that the Boston Herald is a conserative news source?"

lol , not from boston are ya swifty ? another backfire ...

[Allison]

I just found out that Florida law requires an autopsy whenever cremation is planned. Source. (http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0406/ch0406.htm) So, if any news source did say, speculate, or imply that Michael was trying to avoid having the body examined by having it cremated, that news source was either deliberately trying to manipulate public opinion, or it was incompetent.

Speaking of shoddy reporting, I've had Fox News on all day, and they've had nothing but "culture of life" advocates on -- one after the other -- hour after hour -- with no one representing an opposite view. Their usual conservative slant has grown into full-blown advocacy on this issue.

[Aelfwine]

I just heard that the latest argument by the right to lifers is that you know its wrong because you could not do the same thing to a dog or cat in the US. This was on FOX news. That is the biggest load of shit I have ever heard. It's completley true of course, but they just happen to forget that you can put a animal to sleep in a humane way. Even if it was by lethal injection these people would still be raising hell.

[Post]

The reason why willful lethal injection is illegal is because of people like them.

[]LoL[Harm]

Op-Ed peice with a positive spin on this whole deal: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-31-schiavo-edit2_x.htm

[Swifty_Johnson]

Where, if he knew the end result would be rumors to support his cause would be started, that would take it as truth instead of opinion, then he's being dishonest.

That would only be the case if he just came out and said "Terry said 'I want to live!'" By presenting what she said, and his opinion of what it meant, it allowed everyone to hear decide on their own. Again, not dishonest.

My data had no effect on your conclusion, that they were not legal, whatsoever. That's the point.

Becasue it was refuted by the instructions.

Again, if the voter does no wrong, and we can still make out the vote, but it's still technically illegal, should it be counted? That's the question. You used to say never. You now say it's up to a set of people. Which is it?

Seeing the two people I said it was up too are in charge the State elections and the State laws, one would asssume that they have better knowledge of the issue of votes being legal then you or I. If they say it's a legal vote, it's a legal vote, if they don't then it isn't.

Just because you don't understand how an absolute and non-absolute works, doesn't mean it's "BS".

You made an unsupported statement with ZERO facts an ZERO research into it. This isn't about absolutes and non-absolutes, this is about you being right or wrong. You are wrong, you cannot prove what you said happened, and now you are just throwing random BS out there to avoid admitting you are wrong.

When you come back and make up stuff and put it in my mouth, you just lose more credibility.

I didn't make anything up, you acted like I should have known about an obscure case way back in 1968. That is silly.

You just posted the part where the lawyer said that the autopsy would silence allegations that they are trying to hide something. You totally cut out the part where they say the reason they waited for the announcement was because they felt it was tastless to talk about an autopsy before she passed away.

Seeing what I quoted in no way matched what you posted, how did I leave anything from that quote out? I got it from here, last part of the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/schiavo/

Now please show me where I cut anything out.

A lot of sites (like CNN) changed or deleted the articles after Michael's announcement.


Bullshit.

Really, try this link from my history. It's stopped working for me.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/brain.damaged.woman.ap/index.html

Is it true that "WAAAAAA AAAAAAAA" means "I want to live?" Of course not.

While it doesn't to you or I, I'm pretty sure the lawyer and her parents thought so. We hear what we want to hear and in the heat of the case and with emotions running high it would be pretty easy to think that.

If you always said that votes should be counted according to the law, you would not be giving a double standard. Unfortunately for you, sometimes you say votes should be counted according to the law, and sometimes you say that technically illegal votes should be counted anyway.

Please point out where I said any illegal votes should be counted, you can't.

Swifty

[Aelfwine]

I love how once Swifty starts arguing with a person he ignores all other content in the thread and just bickers back and forth with that person. People(Hep), can you just ignore him, please, unless he says something worth arguing about and can be kept to under 5 posts back and forth? This shit is annoying and kills any thread it happens to. Either that or every time Swifty posts to another persons thread have it automatically create a new Swifty thread.

[Allison]

LoL[Harm']Op-Ed peice with a positive spin on this whole deal: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-31-schiavo-edit2_x.htm

That's a decent piece. Although, I just want to point out that I think it slightly overstates remarks made by Tom Delay there at the end. In my opinion, Delay has made some grossly irresponsible and inflammatory remarks about the judiciary -- one might even say threatening -- but I don't think he specifically threatened to "impeach" judges simply because he dislikes their rulings. It would be easy to infer that, I think, based on Delay's statements, but, he didn't actually say that, as the article implies.

[Post]

"That would only be the case if he just came out and said "Terry said 'I want to live!'" By presenting what she said, and his opinion of what it meant, it allowed everyone to hear decide on their own. Again, not dishonest."

Again, no. If his intention is to get the public to believe something as fact that isn't, then that's not honest. You're stuck on this "if he's not lying then it's not dishonest", when that's not true. The definition of honesty (or sincerity) is not only honest results, it's honest intentions as well.

"Becasue it was refuted by the instructions."

No. My statement was refuted, not my source. You could have done everything you did just fine without me ever have to do any chasing for you.

For that matter, you act as if me stating the prerequisite is the same thing as you just flat-out refusing to bring a source. It's not. You're more than welcome to give a similar prerequisite like I did. As a matter of fact, I feel it's kind of assumed that if you bring source data and it matches what it stated, then you shouldn't have to have a prerequisite, because the person opposite of the debate should take that in. I don't feel you're willing to do that. Who cares why? Heck, look how long you avoided making the agreement in the first place. That within itself should give me enough justifacation to be so defensive about it.

So who cares about that prerequisite? If it's not a big deal, then it's not comparable to flat-out refusing to bring a source. If it is a big deal, then stop acting as if I have no reason to be apprehensible about it.

"Seeing the two people I said it was up too are in charge the State elections and the State laws, one would asssume that they have better knowledge of the issue of votes being legal then you or I."

No. If the record books say a vote needs either a postmark or a signature and date, it doesn't take rocket science to see if it's technically illegal or not. They wouldn't be deciding if the law defines the votes as illegal, that much is true. They would be deciding if they should count regardless.

"If they say it's a legal vote, it's a legal vote, if they don't then it isn't."

Again, without changing law, then they'd be illegal, period. That's not the decision to be made. The decision would be if they would still count or not. But hey, nice copout. It's not as if we're not used to you avoiding the question.

Edit: I especially like the fact that my scenario, where the current law would define Republican votes as illegal, you feel you're unfit for making the call. But the scenario where it involves defining Democrat votes as illegal, you were perfectly fine in making that call.

"You made an unsupported statement with ZERO facts an ZERO research into it."

No. There are facts that support it. The fact that EVERYTHING has a budget within the military does have influence on it.

"This isn't about absolutes and non-absolutes, this is about you being right or wrong."

No. You're stating I'm wrong because I cannot prove it. That's incorrect. That's why absolutes and non-absolutes come into play. With a non-absolute, you can be right and have it impossible to prove. If you said God created the Earth, while I may not be able to prove it, it doesn't make me wrong in saying he didn't. Is that example easier to understand than the previous one? Or are you still confused?

"You are wrong, you cannot prove what you said happened, and now you are just throwing random BS out there to avoid admitting you are wrong."

Again, you not understanding it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

"I didn't make anything up, you acted like I should have known about an obscure case way back in 1968. That is silly."

No he didn't. You may have thought he acted that way, but he didn't. He even clarified it after you wrongfully interpreted it - he was stating your statement was incorrect.

"Really, try this link from my history. It's stopped working for me."

Well, I found that one. Is that the one you're stating had the statement we now cannot find?

"Please point out where I said any illegal votes should be counted, you can't."

When you're stating it should be up to anyone. In the scenario I provided, then they're still illegal - there's no denying it. You can try and act as if they should decide if they're illegal or not, but that much is already known. At that point, it's decided if they should still count, even if they do not fit the law in its strictest sense.

[Swifty_Johnson]

If his intention is to get the public to believe something as fact that isn't, then that's not honest. You're stuck on this "if he's not lying then it's not dishonest", when that's not true.

No, you are stuck on this, "I don't agree with him therefore he's dishonest thing."
Really, you can disagree with him and it doesn't mean he was dishonest. While it's not a fact to YOU, and while it's wrong to YOU, you need to prove that not only he knew it was wrong, but he floated it out there to do what you claimed. That first came about as a breif to the JUDGE, not the public. After the became public knowlege then they talked about it. If he wanted to do what you claimed, he would have put it out to the public BEFORE the judge.

No. My statement was refuted, not my source.

Yes, and your source was correct, there was not a place to put a date on the ballot. I did not know this and now I do.

If the record books say a vote needs either a postmark or a signature and date, it doesn't take rocket science to see if it's technically illegal or not. They wouldn't be deciding if the law defines the votes as illegal, that much is true. They would be deciding if they should count regardless.

In your example though, it state failed to notify the people of the need for a date, so it would be up to the SoS and the AG to determin how to proceed, not you or I.

Edit: I especially like the fact that my scenario, where the current law would define Republican votes as illegal, you feel you're unfit for making the call. But the scenario where it involves defining Democrat votes as illegal, you were perfectly fine in making that call.

The situations are totally different, and you kept twisting and turning the one totally around until you got an answer that suited me. Also, what are you talking about with "Republican" or "Democratic" votes. At no time did I ever just define democratic votes as illegal, so once again you are wrong.

Again, you not understanding it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

I understand, it's you that doesn't. Like I said, backup your statement or admit you were wrong, It's that simple. You made a statement now BACK IT UP. Why is it impossible for YOU to understand this really simple statement.

Well, I found that one. Is that the one you're stating had the statement we now cannot find?

What is the new URL, it also does prove that it changed.

When you're stating it should be up to anyone.

Wrong again, I stated that it a call for the SoS and the AG to make, that is not saying the vote should count, and that is not leaving it up to anyone.

Swifty

[Post]

"No, you are stuck on this, "I don't agree with him therefore he's dishonest thing."
Really, you can disagree with him and it doesn't mean he was dishonest."

This has nothing to do with me agreeing with him or not. This is him stating something - anything - as loose opinion, and for him to inentially have it construed to be fact. That "something" and if I agree with it or not, has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. It doesn't matter what that something is, all that matters is (a) it was conjecture, (b) it was going to be taken as fact, and (c) he knew that.

"Yes, and your source was correct, there was not a place to put a date on the ballot. I did not know this and now I do."

And once you did, it made no difference. I don't know why I had to bother, if you could have shown your point without it (and you didn't need that).

Anyway, the fact that you're still arguing about this, pretty much justifies my concern in making a prerequisite about digging around for the data, doesn't it? It's obviously a big enough deal to you in order to validate it.

"In your example though, it state failed to notify the people of the need for a date, so it would be up to the SoS and the AG to determin how to proceed, not you or I."

I never, ever stated it should or would be up to you or I. I asked what you would do if it were up to you. For the opinionated person you are, you sure are having a moral delimma on this one.

"The situations are totally different..."

No they're not. Not to what the base question I have (if an illegal vote should be counted if the voter did nothing wrong).

"and you kept twisting and turning the one totally around until you got an answer that suited me."

No. The reason I keep moving the question is so I can get a question that suits you, since you keep acting as if they're "totally different". I'm going to change the question until the only significant difference is the time and place in which they took.

"Also, what are you talking about with "Republican" or "Democratic" votes."

The same ones that you were talking about the cherry picking.

"I understand, it's you that doesn't."

No you don't. You don't understand the intricacies of absolutes and non-absolutes, because you refuse to admit the differences between them. If you did, then you wouldn't say stuff like:

"Like I said, backup your statement or admit you were wrong, It's that simple."

As if it's impossible to not be able to back up a statement and be right.

"You made a statement now BACK IT UP. Why is it impossible for YOU to understand this really simple statement."

As I stated, I'll go looking for it later once I check the thread to find the specifics to what I want conceded, but you should be satisfied with, "I asked a bunch of my friends in the military and that's what they told me" for now.

"What is the new URL, it also does prove that it changed."

Actually the new URL is a cached one, so it's the original one. Like I said, is this the one you were stating said that? Because I want to make it clear for you to give us a link before you can check it out too much, and just act as if it was a different one every time it doesn't suit your needs.

"Wrong again, I stated that it a call for the SoS and the AG to make, that is not saying the vote should count, and that is not leaving it up to anyone."

Stating it's a call some groups should make isn't leaving it up to anyone? Ok... Anyway, the point is stating it's a call the SoS and the AG to make is very different from stating it shouldn't count because by the books it's illegal. That's the double standard we're talking about.

[Swifty_Johnson]

This is him stating something - anything - as loose opinion

To you, to others it's a fact.

I asked what you would do if it were up to you.

In the twisted case that you gave me, I'd have to look up the laws and previous coutr rulings to decide what to do.

The same ones that you were talking about the cherry picking.

No you are not, as I never said the democratic votes that were cherry picked should not have counted, if you were then you were mistken.

No you don't.

Yes I do, quit trying to stall.

You don't understand the intricacies of absolutes and non-absolutes

You made a very specific charge, stop trying to stall with BS and either prove the statement you made, or admit you were wrong, it's that simple.

[quoite]"I asked a bunch of my friends in the military and that's what they told me" for now.[/quote]

Na, becasue my friends in the military and links I posted said you were wrong, and they have more rank.

Like I said, is this the one you were stating

I don't know, as the link is gone I cannot read it now can I.

Stating it's a call some groups should make isn't leaving it up to anyone?

Huh groups? You know what SoS and AG is?

Anyway, the point is stating it's a call the SoS and the AG to make is very different from stating it shouldn't count because by the books it's illegal. That's the double standard we're talking about.

No, still not a double standard, so please try and keep grasping at straws. Your example that you posed to me was one where the state had a law on the books, but the ballot and the instructions did not reflect this. So yes, in that case it is up to the SoS, AG and the courts to decide how to handle that situation. Nice try but you failed again.

Swifty

[Post]

"To you, to others it's a fact."

No. It cannot be fact. It has to be interpreted and judged. That means, by definition, it cannot befact.

"In the twisted case that you gave me, I'd have to look up the laws and previous coutr rulings to decide what to do."

No you wouldn't, not to make an ethical call on it.

"No you are not, as I never said the democratic votes that were cherry picked should not have counted, if you were then you were mistken."

I never stated you stated that about Democrat votes. I was talking specifically about the Republican ones, and that makes a rift between Democrat and Republican votes.

"Yes I do, quit trying to stall."

If you did, then you wouldn't state the things you state.

"You made a very specific charge, stop trying to stall with BS and either prove the statement you made, or admit you were wrong, it's that simple."

Calm down, I already stated I'd look at it when I had more time. Christ, you can't find sources from something stated about a week ago, so don't act as if it should be sitting right there in front of everyone's noses if it only happened months ago.

"Na, becasue my friends in the military and links I posted said you were wrong, and they have more rank."

The irony is, when I stated it, I wasn't being serious.

"I don't know, as the link is gone I cannot read it now can I."

Translation: copout. I guess that atleast confirms you really don't remember exactly where you got it from.

"Huh groups? You know what SoS and AG is?"

I imagine it some set of rules. I was (and I thought it was obvious), talking about the people who would actually make the decision.

"No, still not a double standard, so please try and keep grasping at straws. Your example that you posed to me was one where the state had a law on the books, but the ballot and the instructions did not reflect this."

So? That's a means, not an end to the means. It still comes down to the final issue of if a vote should count if the intention is known and the voter does no wrong, regardless of the technicalities of it.

[Swifty_Johnson]

No. It cannot be fact. It has to be interpreted and judged. That means, by definition, it cannot befact.

To you.

No you wouldn't, not to make an ethical call on it.

Yes I would, as I have no idea how to handle a situation where the state does not properly inform people of how to vote.

I never stated you stated that about Democrat votes. I was talking specifically about the Republican ones, and that makes a rift between Democrat and Republican votes.

Now you are talking in circles.

If you did, then you wouldn't state the things you state.

Sure I would, as what you are saying is just a copout for not being able to back it up. This has nothing to do with absolutes and non-absolutes, so you pretty much are blowing smoke and trying to prepare for not being able to find one shread of evidence so you can further blow smoke and avoid saying I was wrong.

The irony is, when I stated it, I wasn't being serious.

Neither was I.

"Huh groups? You know what SoS and AG is?"

I imagine it some set of rules. I was (and I thought it was obvious), talking about the people who would actually make the decision.

The SoS is the Secatary of State, and the AG is the Attorney General of the state. One is the person who runs the elections and knows all the elecion laws, the other is the one who knows all the state laws.

Swifty

[Boom]

Please point out where I said any illegal votes should be counted, you can't.

The "illegal" votes where hardly illegal. They were dismissed on a technicality that wasn't the fault of the serviceman or servicewoman who made the vote. They didn't do anything wrong so the vote should have counted.

If the votes were dismissed on a technicality, then they weren't technically valid, therefore they were illegal.

[Boom]

I didn't make anything up, you acted like I should have known about an obscure case way back in 1968. That is silly.
You made up the fact that someone said it had happened "often." I made it very clear that I was refering to that when I said you were making up stuff. No one said anything happened "often." You made that part up. We only said that it happened once and that you were incorrect in saying that it never happened. No one said you made up the fact that it never happened, we just said your research was sloppy on that point. The only thing I claimed you made up was the "often" part.

[Boom]

Seeing what I quoted in no way matched what you posted, how did I leave anything from that quote out? I got it from here, last part of the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/schiavo/

Now please show me where I cut anything out.

I was talking about your quote from post 179. It does not appear in that CNN article at all. It was from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9822 Go reread your post 179. You specifically say you quoted it from that outsidethebeltway source. I checked that source, and found what you quoted, and saw that you clearly took a few sentences out of context.

I don't know how you can say that what I posted does not match what you quoted. I copied and pasted it from your post 179. I made it very clear what I was refering to. Are you confused, or are you just pretending to not know what I am talking about? Anyway, here is what you quoted in post 179. If you don't believe me, take a look at post 179 yourself.

The husband of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo has ordered an autopsy after she dies to silence allegations his plan to cremate her body is aimed at hiding something,

When you listed this quote in post 179, you said it was from this source http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9822 You did not say it was from CNN. That quote is not from CNN. Its from outsidethebeltway, just like you said it was. So I went to that website and found the full quote, which is as follows.

The husband of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo has ordered an autopsy after she dies to silence allegations his plan to cremate her body is aimed at hiding something, his lawyer said on Monday. As supporters of Schiavo's parents took their fight to prolong her life to Washington 10 days after her feeding was stopped, Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, said her pulse had become "thready" and she had not passed urine for a while -- a possible sign of approaching death.

He said Michael Schiavo, who has been pitted against the parents in a seven-year legal conflict over whether to allow Schiavo to die, requested an official autopsy to show the "massive" extent of the brain damage she suffered in 1990. "We didn't think it was appropriate to talk about an autopsy prior to Mrs. Schiavo's death," Felos told reporters outside his law office in Dunedin, Florida. "But because claims have been made by, I guess, opponents of carrying out her wishes that there was some motive behind the cremation of Mrs. Schiavo we felt it was necessary to make that announcement today."

Do you see how what you quoted is only a portion of the entire quote? Do you see how the portion you quoted is out of context and implies that they are only doing the autopsy to silence the nasty allegations, but when you read the entire quote it makes it clear that they were already planning to do an autopsy but just made the announcement to silence the nasty allegations? In other words, the portion you quoted, out of context, seems to support your argument, but the quote as a whole does not.

Now please show me where I cut anything out.
Did I satisfactorily answer your question? Will you now admit that the quote in its entirely clearly implies that they had planned all along to ask for an autopsy and the part you cut out made it look like they hadn't been planning it all along?

[Swifty_Johnson]

If the votes were dismissed on a technicality, then they weren't technically valid, therefore they were illegal.

No they were not, both the AG and SoS said they were legal. The only people there were illegal to were Al Gore's lawyers, and then only those with R and I by the people's names in the voter registration. Again, please show where I have asked for illegal votes to count. You can't.

Did I satisfactorily answer your question?

No, you did not. I did NOT cut anything out of any quote, you are wrong. I got that from the CNN cite I posted, and it's word for word, no cutting at all.

You didn't even check the quote I posted to the one on the beltway site. You cannot even fit that one to anything posted to the beltway site unless you heavily modify it. On the other hand it's a word for word match to the CNN article.

So you falsely accused me of doing something I didn't. That's okay, I don't expect you to admit to it, nor take responsibility for your actions.

Swifty

[Post]

"To you."

That's actually a standard in debate and carried throught in any fair court system. It is not fact that abortions are ok. It is not fact that a God exists. You may believe either or neither of the two, but they're not facts. They're conclusions based upon facts. The same goes for what is interpreted.

"Yes I would, as I have no idea how to handle a situation where the state does not properly inform people of how to vote."

You knew how to handle the situation where the state f'd up the votes when the Democrat-heavy votes were going to be eliminated. Why did you have an idea on how to handle that situation?

"Now you are talking in circles."

No I'm not. You're acting as if you never brought the Republican / Democrat division into the mix. You did.

"Sure I would, as what you are saying is just a copout for not being able to back it up."

No. Hence why you don't understand.

"This has nothing to do with absolutes and non-absolutes..."

Yes it does. You're trying to state not being able to prove = impossible to exist. That is not true.

"Neither was I."

Not the first time you stated it. And if you were, you really need to specify, since you've stated things equally rediculous.

Quote:
"Huh groups? You know what SoS and AG is?"

"The SoS is the Secatary of State, and the AG is the Attorney General of the state. One is the person who runs the elections and knows all the elecion laws, the other is the one who knows all the state laws."

And it still goes through an interpretation by them, which was my point.

"No they were not, both the AG and SoS said they were legal."

He's not talking about what the end-result of their decision was. He's talking about how you felt about them.

"No, you did not. I did NOT cut anything out of any quote, you are wrong."

No. A quote having things being cut isn't dependent upon starting on a capital letter and ending on a punctuation mark. It's based upon if enough was taken out of the information from the source is taken from, for the quote to have a different meaning when placed back into the article. The part you took, make it look like her husband had alterior motives to not announce an autopsy, when it was explained in the article, and immediately squelches that rumor.

Cutting a quote short is based upon context and not upon sentence structure.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You knew how to handle the situation where the state f'd up the votes when the Democrat-heavy votes were going to be eliminated. Why did you have an idea on how to handle that situation?

Apples and Oranges again. I knew how to handle that situation, take it to the courts which was done. Here is a different situation, as the state failed to provide the information to the votes that needed it, so that would depend on factors that are beyond that I know.

Yes it does. You're trying to state not being able to prove = impossible to exist. That is not true.

Incorrect. You not being able to prove means that you were wrong. Yes, it does mean that in this case if you failed to prove it your case does not exist.

And it still goes through an interpretation by them, which was my point.

And they, the keepers of the state laws and election laws are more qualifyed to answer the questions then either you or I. Which is my point.

The part you took, make it look like her husband had alterior motives to not announce an autopsy, when it was explained in the article, and immediately squelches that rumor.

Incorrect again, as I posted the whole quote from CNN, I did not CUT ANYTHING out of it. Try again.

Swifty

[Post]

"Apples and Oranges again. I knew how to handle that situation, take it to the courts which was done."

Hold on. You stated they shouldn't count when asked of your opinion, regardless of why, because of the strict letter of the law. To which, in the strict letter of the law, the votes in my scenario would be illegal.

"Here is a different situation, as the state failed to provide the information to the votes that needed it..."

No it's not. The issue in both my scenario and the other case, is that the voter did no wrong, and the state screwed up. That's where the question lies.

"Incorrect. You not being able to prove means that you were wrong. Yes, it does mean that in this case if you failed to prove it your case does not exist."

No. If that were the case, then murders where the murderer is never caught would automatically mean they were never murdered. Not being able to prove a non-absolute != does not exist.

"And they, the keepers of the state laws and election laws are more qualifyed to answer the questions then either you or I. Which is my point."

I never ever stated otherwise. The keep of the state and elections laws are more qualified to answer the questions in the original example, too, yet you injected your opinion there.

"Incorrect again, as I posted the whole quote from CNN, I did not CUT ANYTHING out of it. Try again."

It's not from CNN. You said it was from CNN, but then you actually quoted from outsidethebeltway.com (which originally got it from Reuters.com). In post #176, you absolutely did CUT SOMETHING from it. Heck, you left the quote there ending with a comma.

So, you said it was from CNN, which at this point, has at most as much merit as the data you're harping up to admit I'm wrong about, but you actually quoted in post #176 out of context. Hence you cutting stuff out in order to make it look like something it wasn't.

[Swifty_Johnson]

This quote that Booms was complaining about was from CNN, and it is unedited.

Felos said Michael Schiavo decided to come forward with the autopsy plans for Terri Schiavo after "opponents to carrying out her wishes" suggested Michael Schiavo had an ulterior motive in his plans to cremate his wife.

I even posted the link.

Swifty

[Post]

"This quote that Booms was complaining about was from CNN, and it is unedited."

I was talking about your quote from post 179.

[Grundy]

Remember that Memo with the Replublican talking points? The memo — first reported by ABC News on March 18 and by The Washington Post and The Associated Press two days later — said the fight over removing Schiavo's feeding tube "is a great political issue ... and a tough issue for Democrats."

"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, which was described at the time as being circulated among Senate Republicans.

Sen Martinez, a Republican Sen from Florida admitted today that it came from his senior staff and he unwittingly passed it onto Democrat Sen Tom Harken.

Martinez told the AP's Matt Yancey and other news organizations in a written statement "he discovered Wednesday that the memo had been written by an aide in his office."

http://rawstory.com/martinez_memo_406.htm

Previously Sen Martinez denied he and his staff had anything to do with the memo.

Mel Martinez, a Republican, also has been the focus of some scrutiny in press accounts because passages of the disputed memo appear to have been lifted from a press release posted on his Senate Web site.
He denied any involvement.
"Senator Martinez has never seen the memo and condemns its sentiments," spokeswoman Kerry Feehery said. "No one in our office has seen it, nor had anything to do with its creation."

Conservative media sources have been pushing that the memo is a fake as noted in the "news" article's title.: Was the Schiavo memo a fake?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050406-124141-1831r.htm

I actually did think it was fake. I figured it was payback for Rathergate but I guess its just Christmas for the Dems.

Sen Martinez did the right thing. He fired the invisible, un-named staffer.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152700,00.html