• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Judge rejects GOP bid to keep Schiavo alive

Status
Not open for further replies.

GLoK

Member
Kobun Heat said:
There have been a couple of indictments of the doctors based on the fact that they were paid to offer their opinions. This isn't sufficient reason to discount them.

But just in case you believe it is, guess what? The doctors who said she was in a PVS? Paid. With money. In fact, the one who argued it before the court (which led to the judge's finding of fact that she was in a PVS and thus all this) was a paid expert witness who specializes in arguing in favor of removing life support/feeding tubes.

Thus, if you outright reject the opinions of doctors who are paid for their testimony, then you're saying you don't believe the husband's side either.

Brilliant point........ if you discount the whole part about one set of doctors who have cared for her vs. one set of doctors who've viewed 15 minutes of video footage of her.

Any other gems hidden in there?

peedi said:
guess most of my anger should be directed towards those liberals who would exploit this for political gain. Why are they intervening on behalf of the husband? What political stake exists in this tragedy? Yes, we've established that she's braindead. OK. Now, with that uncomfortable bit of trivia tucked away, who is Nancy Pelosi, as a LIBERAL, to defend this egregious act of cruelty? Who are these other liberal lackeys to scream in outrage at conservatives who simply want to leave that feeding tube in? Is this what the Democratic party has been reduced to? A pandering, unprincipled pack of murderers? I am anything but a conservative, but the Dems disgust me. They're forcing this woman's parents, the man and woman who birthed and raised her, to watch their daughter starve to death.

I don't care about "experts." Where is the compassion for the parents? Why not allow them to decide whether their daughter should starve to death?

....HUH?

The Liberals are standing up for that zany crazy thing we've called a constitution. We have the Republicans trying to make new laws to get AROUND the fact that they can't directly control the courts.

You know, that whole seperation of Justice and Gov't?

The law is in the Husband's side.. they have ruled in the husband's side. If left to THE LAW that we are told to abide by, the tube would be pulled and there would be no more talk. The intervention comes in that the Republicans are trying to get in the way of THE LAW to pacify the bible belt.

This whole situation is retarded.
 
peedi said:
The constitution takes precedence over human life? Political powerplay? By many Republicans? I'll grant you that. However, how do you define the behavior of the Democratic party, which has absolutely no stake in this? You have prominent liberals coming out in support of state-sanctioned murder. The very same liberals who oppose the death penalty. The contradiction would be astounding if it weren't predictably emblematic of a failed party that's degenerated into reflexive parrots. This is a woman's life, yet all they're concerned with is oneupsmanship.

That's why there are laws for these situations; however, it would have been a lot easier had Terri completed a living-will. Look, the woman has been on lifesupport for 15 years, in a vegetable state, and I don't know why ANYONE would want to let her continue in that horrid state.

This isn't state-sanctioned murder. The husband, by law, has the right to either end or continue lifesupport for his wife -- not her parents, and certainly not fucking Tom DeLay and the rest of Congress playing God. The bill that George Bush signed as Governor in Texas concerning this very isssue IS state-sanctioned murder. Where's the outrage with that? What prominement liberals are coming out in support of this? Notably, Harry Reid, the minority leader, has come out in support of this bill. Like I said earlier, I fucking wish Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, or any other highprofile liberal would come out of hiding and denounce this shit.

I wish she wasn't in this state, and I wish it hadn't come down to this, but at what point is enough enough?
 

peedi

Banned
-jinx- said:
I guess most of my anger should be directed towards those conservatives who would exploit this for political gain. Why are they intervening on behalf of the parents? What political stake exists in this tragedy? Yes, we've established that she's braindead. OK. Now, with that uncomfortable bit of trivia tucked away, who is Tom Delay, as a CONSERVATIVE, to defend this blatant rewriting of the law? Who are these other conservative lackeys to scream in outrage at liberals who simply want to stick up for separation of powers? Is this what the Republican party has been reduced to? A pandering, unprincipled pack of exploiters? I am anything but a liberal, but the Reps disgust me.

Separation of powers? What about the separation of decency from cruelty? Humanity from barbarity? Can you not see that Democrats are opposing these measures not out of any desire for political purity in our government, but to spite conservatives. That's it! That's what the Democratic party has become -- reactionaries, yet they've replaced the right. Conservatives are defending her parent's right to decide whether or not their daughter -- their blood -- should starve to death.

Forget about politics. When does simple decency gain an audience?
 

GLoK

Member
peedi said:
Separation of powers? What about the separation of decency from cruelty? Humanity from barbarity? Can you not see that Democrats are opposing these measures not out of any desire for political purity in our government, but to spite conservatives. That's it! That's what the Democratic party has become -- reactionaries, yet they've replaced the right. Conservatives are defending her parent's right to decide whether or not their daughter -- their blood -- should starve to death.

Forget about politics. When does simple decency gain an audience?

So would this be a barbarian act if she had written a living will saying she wanted to be taken off life support if she were a PVS? Would it be cruel to follow her wishes?

Now, what if the husband is telling the truth. And lord knows, why the fuck else would he still be around? No one sticks around for 15 years trying to get something done when they COULD have walked away at any time without having a damn good reason.

So what reasons are there? Maybe.. just fucking MAYBE.. he remembers a conversation he had with his wife whom he loved dearly, describing the fact that she would never want to live on life support. and now he wants her wishes to come to fruition.
 

Dilbert

Member
peedi said:
Separation of powers? What about the separation of decency from cruelty? Humanity from barbarity? Can you not see that Democrats are opposing these measures not out of any desire for political purity in our government, but to spite conservatives. That's it! That's what the Democratic party has become -- reactionaries, yet they've replaced the right. Conservatives are defending her parent's right to decide whether or not their daughter -- their blood -- should starve to death.
1) You don't seem to get it -- IT IS NOT HER PARENTS' RIGHT TO DECIDE. It is her husband's right to decide, and all of this nonsense over the last ten years has been the result of people not respecting his right.

2) Unless you can provide some evidence of the Democrats' intentions, I will not be persuaded in the least. (Oh, and I'm sure that ALL Democrats feel exactly the same way about the situation.) On the other hand, Incognito has already posted a source which indicates what the REPUBLICAN political strategy is here, and it ain't pretty.

3) Regardless of what one might think about the ethical value of the husband's choice, making that choice is his right under our law, and anyone who is trying to break separation of powers simply because they don't agree with his choice is a fucking traitor, as far as I'm concerned. The ends do NOT justify the means, and the particular group in power has completely ignored that over and over again as they flaunt law after law in pursuit of their agenda.
 

peedi

Banned
shoplifter said:
What about making her suffer for the remainder of her life?

Leave it up to the parents. Yes, Republicans are circumventing the constitution to save this woman's life. Discuss separation of powers at another time. Right now, this woman is being starved to death. If the husband wants to see her pass, ask Republicans to pass legislation that allows for humane euthanization. Any husband that agrees to have his former wife, a woman he presumably cherished, starved to death, is a man without a conscience. You're wrangling over political trivia while this woman's parents are being forced to watch her starve to death.

I have also listened to several experts who've argued that there exists the possibility of her recovery. There are two sides to this.
 
Let's not forget the fact that Tom DeLay, the orginator of this bill, was under steady pressure and review over his lack of ethics in a series of events. GOP members were privately worried that this was the last of DeLay we'd ever see in the halls of Congress, and now he pulls this stunt.

Also, it's interesting(read: disturbing) how the Majority Leader of the House(DeLay) can publically denounce and criticize a law-abiding, tax-paying husband of a critically-ill wife with absolute impunity and the main-stream media says NOT a word about the continued attacks leveled at Michael Schiavo by DeLay.

What law has Michael Schivao broken that deserves the brutal character assassination that DeLay continues peddling the press?
 
GLoK said:
Brilliant point........ if you discount the whole part about one set of doctors who have cared for her vs. one set of doctors who've viewed 15 minutes of video footage of her.
Oh, those doctors would like to examine her. But the husband and the court got the diagnosis they wanted, and thus there was no further need. He controls what happens to her medically, and he's decided no more tests.

You know, that whole seperation of Justice and Gov't?
I think I know what you're trying to get at but that's just too unintentionally hilarious to not quote.

And since we're on this.

It is, in fact, the role of Congress to make laws. We lose the separation of powers when judges try to legislate from the bench. If Congress sees a problem with the law, then it is absolutely one hundred percent their job to change it.

I agree that everything that happened has been perfectly legal. The question is whether, knowing that, that the law should be changed.
 

peedi

Banned
Incognito said:
Let's not forget the fact that Tom DeLay, the orginator of this bill, was under steady pressure and review over his lack of ethics in a series of events. GOP members were privately worried that this was the last of DeLay we'd ever see in the halls of Congress, and now he pulls this stunt.

Also, it's interesting(read: disturbing) how the Majority Leader of the House(DeLay) can publically denounce and criticize a law-abiding, tax-paying husband of a critically-ill wife with absolute impunity and the main-stream media says NOT a word about the continued attacks leveled at Michael Schiavo by DeLay.

What law has Michael Schivao broken that deserves the brutal character assassination that DeLay continues peddling the press?

What husband would desire to see his wife put to death in such a horrible fashion? If the option of painless euthanization existed, I might side with the husband. But it doesn't, and what he's opted for is cruelty at its worst. I could never agree to have my wife starve to death. It shocks me that you can't see just how suspicious his behavior is.
 
Kobun Heat said:
It is, in fact, the role of Congress to make laws. We lose the separation of powers when judges try to legislate from the bench. If Congress sees a problem with the law, then it is absolutely one hundred percent their job to change it.

I agree that everything that happened has been perfectly legal. The question is whether, knowing that, that the law should be changed.

This specific law had never, EVER been a problem with Congress up until Tom Delay figured he needed a "positive" light shined on him. What makes one person the exception to the rule?
 
peedi said:
You're wrangling over political trivia while this woman's parents are being forced to watch her starve to death.

Um, the constitution is now "political trivia"?

Also, I'd like those so terribly concerned with Terri Schiavo's right to life to weigh in on civilian deaths in Iraq and people put to state sanctioned death in this country.
 
peedi said:
What husband would desire to see his wife put to death in such a horrible fashion? If the option of painless euthanization existed, I might side with the husband. But it doesn't, and what he's opted for is cruelty at its worst. I could never agree to have my wife starve to death. It shocks me that you can't see just how suspicious his behavior is.

Who says it's 'cruelty at its worst', or even cruel? Where are you getting that from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/national/20death.html?

To many people, death by removing a feeding tube brings to mind the agony of starvation. But medical experts say that the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.


In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

Terri Schiavo, who is in a persistent vegetative state, is "probably not experiencing anything at all subjectively," said Dr. Emanuel, and so the question of discomfort, from a scientific point of view, is not in dispute.
 

GLoK

Member
peedi said:
What husband would desire to see his wife put to death in such a horrible fashion? If the option of painless euthanization existed, I might side with the husband. But it doesn't, and what he's opted for is cruelty at its worst. I could never agree to have my wife starve to death. It shocks me that you can't see just how suspicious his behavior is.

Suspicious behavior? This practice has likely been followed by many others. It's the way the law works, your wife/husband did not wish to live under those conditions, and so you give them that freedom. There is no legal way to euthanize them, but that was still their wish.

This is what has been in practice for YEARS. Likely since before you were even a gleam in your father's eye. Many have followed this practice, but because the spotlight is shining on Mr. Schiavo, it is suddenly SUSPICIOUS?

Fuck off.
 

Macam

Banned
peedi said:
Leave it up to the parents. Yes, Republicans are circumventing the constitution to save this woman's life. Discuss separation of powers at another time. Right now, this woman is being starved to death.

I can understand and deal with the dissenting side of opinions concerning the topic but what you're explicitly suggesting is wholly irresponsible and appalling, far more so than whatever miscontrued labels and generalizations you care to throw out about the opposition.

Kobun Heat: It may indeed be Congress' role to make laws, but to do so wrecklessly under such a small time table for the explicit purpose of intervening in a single case is not only shortsighted but a blatant abuse of power.
 

Triumph

Banned
The moral that I've got from this whole thing is that to Republicans, life is precious in the womb and after you are brain dead. That whole period of life when you're actually living? Fuck off!
 

Amir0x

Banned
It is so depressing congress passed this.

Tezkah my friend found some extremely enlightening posts, the first is a hilarious part the second is a serious look at the situation.

I found this post terribly amusing, even if it is somewhat trollish and has a cancerous brain as the healthy one, it gets its point across:


On the off chance we get people in here trying to pretend that any of Terri's "Supporters" arguments mean shit.

Brain.jpg


This is a healty brain.

CT%20scan.png


This is Terri Schiavo's Brain.

One more time.

Normal_Brain.jpg


CTscan.jpg


Why is this still being debated?


Also this one
Justinian II said:
On one hand I agree with the right for somebody to end his or her own life.

On the other hand she can't make that choice for herself, and also her parents want to keep her alive.

So I really don't know what the outcome of this should be.

This is more than just a "right to die" issue. The woman left no living will, how do we even know the husband's telling the truth? Even if he has no financial gains, it doesn't mean he's telling the truth. People don't always kill other people for money.

The fact that the husband is now living with another woman (with whom he's got a baby) tells me that he should NOT be this brain-dead woman's legal guardian. In fact, the state should charge him with adultery, file for a divorce, and give custody back to her parents.


Hey, how about a few FACTS on the subject, rather than speculation?


Fact number one:

She already made the fucking choice for herself. From here

Was Michael the only person who testified about Terri's supposed statements on her views about living on life support?

No, others did as well, and when making the decision in the case, the trial judge took into account all of that testimony and additional evidence. As the Second District explained:


"We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process."

The parents keep pulling out the card that she's Catholic, and she'd want to do whatever the Pope says. I know plenty of parents who believe that their children are far more religious than they actually are, and I know plenty of Catholics who disagree with the Pope on a variety of issues.

Whatever her parents believe, it doesn't matter, because Terri told several people that she didn't want to live as a vegetable. That her parents can't get over her loss does not change the fact that SHE LEFT CLEAR INFORMATION ABOUT HER DESIRES WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE.



Fact number two:

SHE'S GONE AND SHE AIN'T COMING BACK. As major-_-turnon mentioned, Terri Schiavo's brain is too severely damaged to ever recover. She has no cognition, no thought, and no chance of recovering such functions. The following is from an article comparing her situation to that of the Kansas woman who woke up from a 20-year coma:

Brain scans show that parts of Schiavo's brain have atrophied and been replaced by spinal fluid. With such severe damage, Schiavo can't show the recovery that Scantlin has, said Dr. Michael Pulley, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville.

"Those types of changes don't reverse," Pulley said. "If you lose big pieces of brain, regardless of what it is - trauma, stroke, surgery - it doesn't come back."

The only documented case of someone recovering from a permanent vegetative state came in the early 1980s, said Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurology professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Schiavo.

And in that case, the patient's scan showed no brain atrophy, Cranford said. "The one thing we learned from that, you look at shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Terri has massive shrinkage."

From here:

Wolfson noted that she has no intellectual capacity. Neurological tests and brain scans, he said, ``indicate that Terri's cerebral cortex is principally liquid, having shrunk due to the severe anoxic trauma experienced 13 years ago.''

Most of her cerebral cortex has shriveled away. She's been in that state for fifteen years. SHE ISN'T GOING TO WAKE UP.



Fact number three:

Guardianship. IT DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS POINT. Neither Michael Schiavo nor Terri's parents get to decide her fate. ONLY THE COURT HAS THAT POWER. Their only role in this mess has been to try to convince the court of what they believe Terri wanted. Terri's husband won because he has lots of witnesses who heard her say that she wouldn't want to live like this. It's too late for switching guardianship to matter, unless the parents can magically produce new evidence of her intent.



Fact number four

Divorce. Terri's parents long ago offered to help Michael divorce Terri, as well as giving her all of the money in her estate, if he would back off. It's too late for it to matter now, of course, but he said no back then. Why? BECAUSE HE'S DOING WHAT HE KNOWS TERRI WANTED. Also, it's absolutely true that he started a new life with another woman, but it's kind of understandable considering that his wife's been braindead for 15 years. He spent the first several years trying to find a cure, flying her to specialists in California, and grasping at straws, just like her parents are still doing. He finally came to terms with the fact that she's gone, and he's moving on with his life.



Fact number five

The money. It's about fucking gone, and Michael Schiavo isn't getting squat. From this article:

The $1-million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest over the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die.

Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, want to keep her alive and accuse her husband of wanting Terri dead so he could inherit what was left from the malpractice award. Michael Schiavo has said the rift between him and his in-laws began because he refused to share with them part of the money he received from that award.

But the reality is that hardly anybody is getting paid anymore.

Michael Schiavo's attorneys say they have not been paid in more than two years. Schindler attorney David Gibbs III said he is working for free, although an anti-abortion group, Life Legal Defense Foundation, has paid some of his expenses.

Just $40,000 to $50,000 remains of the money won in the malpractice case after Terri's heart stopped in 1990 and left her in what court-appointed doctors say is a persistent vegetative state. Deborah Bushnell, one of Michael Schiavo's attorneys, said the money is being saved for legal expenses. It is held in a trust fund, and a judge approves all expenditures, from attorneys' fees to the woman's haircuts.

Terri Schiavo doesn't have an estate left to fight over, and a judge has had to approve expenditures every step of the way.

Also, Terri's parents have offered to give Michael Schiavo the money in the past, but he declined because HE'S NOT DOING IT FOR THE FUCKING MONEY.

"We will sign any agreement you want, giving you all money related to Terri's collapse and any insurance money that may be forthcoming," Mary and Bob Schindler said in a written offer to Michael Schiavo yesterday as their 3½-year legal fight appeared to have run its course.

.....

And don't you dare pull any crap about her coma having been due to strangulation rather than heart attack, or about Michael abusing Terri prior to her heart attack. That's all right-to-lifer made-up bullshit to smear the man, and the courts have repeatedly said as much because the Schindlers don't have any real evidence for their claims. By all acounts other than the Schindlers and their supporters, Michael Schiavo has been a loving, caring, hardworking, and supportive husband who spent the first 8-9 years grasping at straws to help her. That he's finally accepted her condition and wants to carry out her wishes doesn't make him a monster.
[/quote]
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
peedi said:
What husband would desire to see his wife put to death in such a horrible fashion? If the option of painless euthanization existed, I might side with the husband. But it doesn't, and what he's opted for is cruelty at its worst. I could never agree to have my wife starve to death. It shocks me that you can't see just how suspicious his behavior is.

You're offering nothing but emotional, ad-hominem replies to a case that desperately needs the facts put back into light. The severity of her condition only allows for the most basic of functions. Breathing. Blood circulation. Very basic responses to external stimuli. The health department's own write-up on the condition even stipulates that some people in this condition can even generate laughter, but it's not indicitive of any real, conscious thought.

You speak of her starving to death, which on its face is cruel, until you realize that her brain is not registering any discomfort from it. Why? Because it can't.

Personally, I find it disgusting that you think that keeping her alive is the right thing to do, as I seriously doubt that if you were in the place of anyone involved in this situation, you wouldn't want to "live" in such a state, or to see a loved one do the same just because of some misguided belief that euthanasia would prevent entrance to heaven, or simple denial.

If you love someone, you don't make them suffer, period. You don't deny them dignity, period. I feel both sympathy and anger at her family, save her husband. They obviously love her, but they're also being incredibly selfish by simply not being able to accept that they have to let her go.
 

bionic77

Member
Raoul Duke said:
The moral that I've got from this whole thing is that to Republicans, life is precious in the womb and after you are brain dead. That whole period of life when you're actually living? Fuck off!

So true. :lol
 

Azih

Member
I don't understand why people let republicans get away with using vicious ad homeniem attacks as their primary means of argument.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Were there any medical experts on hand to testify last night before Republicans and spineless Democrat henchmen passed this assinine bill? I mean, the woman is brain dead. There's no hope of her coming back, not without a brain transplant. Hasn't someone explained this to the jackasses on the hill yet? You don't need even a modicum of medical knowledge to know this, it's just common sense. The government has really been running out of control for the last 12-15 years now. Some of the actions taken by Congress lately are simply unreasonable. PEACE.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Mercury Fred said:
Um, the constitution is now "political trivia"?

Also, I'd like those so terribly concerned with Terri Schiavo's right to life to weigh in on civilian deaths in Iraq and people put to state sanctioned death in this country.
Sshhh! As mentioned before, living people are worthless. Neo-cons care about babies and the near-death lobby. If it's saving a life that's not contributing to society, they're all about it. PEACE.
 

ge-man

Member
This whole thing pisses me off to no end. The government just took a shit on the consitution while at the same time pissing all over Mike Schiavo's right as his wife's legal guardian.

I love how even after fighting a civil war 150 years ago, politicians still have no problem with playing games with state's rights.

The thing that really blows my mind is that some democrats supported this. Mike Schiavo was damn right in calling out democrats. The fact that the party as whole could not stand up for his rights and for the ability of state courts to make decisions is another example of why this party is, and deserves to be, a minority party. What is the point of being a democrat when your principles are constantly shifting towards the direction of the opposition party?
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
hehe... politicians are funny.

liberals think life is only important if the person is born and healthy

conservatives think life is only important if the person is unborn or permanently disabled.

liberals think it's ok to kill an unborn baby or end the life of a living breathing person, but someone who has murdered and raped should be left alive to think about what they have done.

conservatives want to make sure a non-thinking/breathing fetus is saved or someone who isn't even aware they are alive remains "alive", but when someone is convicted of a crime on circumstantial evidence they are put to death.

Both of them put a ridiculous value on life, but only as it meets their agenda...

bah.... this country sucks and it is both parties fault. reason is pretty much flushed down the fucking drain for an agenda, power, and self importance.

sigh....
 
borghe said:
hehe... politicians are funny.

liberals think life is only important if the person is born and healthy

conservatives think life is only important if the person is unborn or permanently disabled.

liberals think it's ok to kill an unborn baby or end the life of a living breathing person, but someone who has murdered and raped should be left alive to think about what they have done.

conservatives want to make sure a non-thinking/breathing fetus is saved or someone who isn't even aware they are alive remains "alive", but when someone is convicted of a crime on circumstantial evidence they are put to death.

Both of them put a ridiculous value on life, but only as it meets their agenda...

bah.... this country sucks and it is both parties fault. reason is pretty much flushed down the fucking drain for an agenda, power, and self importance.

sigh....

Your generalizations and mischaracterizations of liberals is offensive. Who in congress wants health insurance for the 11 million kids and 30+ million adults without such coverage right now?

Liberals.

Who believe in the rehabilitation of one's life instead of sending them to their death?

Liberals.

And it's not "OK" in spooky liberal land to have women receiving abortions.
 
borghe said:
liberals think it's ok to kill an unborn baby
First, you should use correct terminology
or end the life of a living breathing person,
With their own desire to die. Of course, the people in Iraq don't count as "living" and "breathing".

but someone who has murdered and raped should be left alive to think about what they have done.
What do you mean?
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
you say liberals want to end the life of a "living breathing person"

i have to ask what your definition of living is. I mean, sure the woman exists in this world, but living? Mmmmmmmmmmmm
 
GOPers out of touch:

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/3/21/122254/745

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf

3/20. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines.)

Removal of feeding tube

Support 63
Oppose 28

Federal Intervention

Support 35
Oppose 60

Appropriate for Congress to get involved?

Appropriate 27
Not Appropriate 70

Reason political leaders are trying to keep Shiavo alive

Concern about Shiavo 19
Political Advantage 67

Even among evangelicals, 46 percent support removal of the feeding tube, as opposed to 44 percent who oppose. Conservatives support removal of the feeding tube 54-40.

So really, this isn't even a conservative crusade, as the genuine conservative is probably offended by the rejection of state rights and the intrusion of the government into a private family affair. Not to mention some conservatives are probably offended for using public (taxpayer) funds to pay for her hospitalization. (Remember, Bush signed a law in Texas allowing hospitals to pull the plug against a family's wishes if the change for recovery was non-existent.)

So this spectacle is done on behalf of the evangelical bloc, and even they oppose federal intervention 44-50 percent (in addition to narrowly supporting the removal of the feeding tube, as noted above). Catholics support removing the feeding tube 63-26, and oppose federal intervention 38-56.

These numbers are unambigious, even after a week of media demonizing of Terri's husband. DeLay's and Frist's crass political play is obvious to just about everyone.

Poll numbers from ABC News...
 
As someone at Kos said, it's absolutely mind-boggling that Bush can interrupt his vacation for this, but when a memo surfaces titled "OBL: DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US", he finds no reason to rush back up to DC.

Just ridiculous.
 

AntoneM

Member
Peedi, you have not added anything new to this thread. Your arguments have emotional merit, unfortunately law doesn't give 2 shits about emotions. Either contribute something to the thread or quit posting in it.


Anyway, her brain is dead, and despite what some priest, minister, or congressman may have said, brain tissue does not regenerate. What this means for Teri is that she will never recover, ever, no amount of therapy will change that. In a word Teri Schiavo no longer exists, all that is left is a bag of meat. To put it in religious terms, her soul is dead.
 
Mr. Lemming said:
Anyone know where I could find how my representatives voted? I think it is time for some letter writing.
IIRC, you can go to senate.gov for the senators. In the local newspaper, I found that none of my reps, Democrat or Republican, even voted on the thing at all.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Who should decide Terri Schiavo's fate?

Politicians 1% 398 votes
Judges 5% 3396 votes
Her parents 25% 15716 votes
Her husband 68% 42283 votes
Total: 61793 votes
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Sometimes I wonder if I should move to Canada. :|

I mean, I'm in a suburb of the twin cities, it's not like I have to go far.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Some people have a funny definition of living. What would you otherwise call a person whose body continues to be animated even after they die? A zombie, and that's what she is now. I don't see the fucking point about the sanctity of a spleen or stomach continuing to function when the brain is long since gone. The woman as everyone knows her, as she knew herself, is dead and more importantly her body will be nothing more than an empty shell, no matter what your views on afterlife and souls.

I may be in the "pro-death" crowd, but it's a hell of a lot better than being in the "pro-undead" crowd.
 

teiresias

Member
Lifetime and the Hallmark Channel are pleased to present an emotional rollercoaster ride of emotions and dignity. "The Life and Times of Terry Schiavo" - a Lifetime and Hallmark Channel collaboration directed by George Romero.

It could happen.
 

TheQueen'sOwn

insert blank space here
Wow.. glad to see these polls and read these responses... I was beginning to wonder if you Americans had gone crazy down there :lol.
 

WedgeX

Banned
Does any one know what this "therapy" is that will magically cure her?

I know that people in a vegetative state are supposed to undergo physical therapy so that their muscles do not atrophy...
 

Vormund

Member
When that doctor said that brain doesn't grow back (obviously) It reminded me of that Simpsons episode where Homer gets his hand stuck in the vending machine.

Guy: We're going to have to cut off your arm.
Homer: It'll grow back right?
Guy: err...sure

:lol

That's how her parents think like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom