Political Potpourri III - The next round.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 14:16:54

Once again, immediately post 9/11 may not have been the best time to attempt a discussion of this. . .

Of course, to enact your version (edit: vision) is easier done by stealth. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1111006065

Palomar · 2005-03-18 10:21:01

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … essor]Ward Churchill

*I've only read bits and pieces about this man. At first, reports said he called everyone killed on 9/11 at the WTC "little Eichmanns" (now apparently just some people killed on 9/11 at the WTC are considered that by him; did the first reports erroneously quote him, or did he back down a bit?).

Apparently Noam Chomsky has given his support of Churchill's assertions.

I'm not familiar enough with the overall situation to say much about it. Haven't watched a lot of Bill O'Reilly for a while, etc. This is the first related article I've read in a few weeks.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-18 10:35:05

Ward Churchill is a nut-job used by the Right to smear everyone to the Left of Mussolini. :;):

He is best ignored.

Palomar · 2005-03-21 11:06:53

*What do you all think of the Terri Schiavo case?

I think it's barbaric that they removed her feeding tube. She can breathe on her own and etc. She's brain damaged and she cannot feed herself so, no thanks to her husband (whose motives I certainly question), she's being starved to death and deprived of water as well.

No animal would be treated this way in a vet's clinic or animal hospital. This is an outrage. No one should be subjected to being deliberately deprived of food and water; it's cruel and she's being slowly killed. Shameful!

Bob Schindler visited his daughter late Sunday and said he noticed the effects of dehydration on her. He said she appeared to be getting tired, but eventually responded to his teasing by making a face at him.
"It tells us she's still with us," he said.

Can't fathom the hell the family is going through.

Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, said he spent Sunday afternoon with his brother and Terri at the hospice, but Terri did not move or make any noises. "Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination," he said.

You're the one who needs a mental health examination, you stupid calloused JERK. Is there a life insurance policy in the background, hmmmmm? :angry:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-21 11:25:02

*What do you all think of the Terri Schiavo case?

Well, I see it like this. To my understanding, legally the husband can have all active measures halted. However, if the parents want to keep her alive and are willing to pay for the care I see no reason why the responsibility can't be passed on to them. All of this assuming no record exists of what she would actually have wanted.

To me this is one of those cases where the "sanctity of life" argument gets real murky. Yes, she is most definately alive and not on life support strictly speaking. She does require constant care to stay alive, has severely diminished mental capacity and for all practical purposes has no chance of full recovery and therefore can't be considered "alive" in the same sense as a functioning healthy human being or animal for that matter. If the parents want to keep her alive, I see no problem with it. If she is to be allowed to die, it should be via some painless euthanasia rather than starvation. Either approach is completely defensible, but pulling the feeding tube is a cruel and unjustifiable course, though this is certainly not the first time it's been done.

Palomar · 2005-03-21 13:02:13

*Well, again, I suspect the motives of her husband. IIRC, he has a child by another woman with whom he's currently involved (for years). *If* my memory is correct, why not just divorce Terri and let her family take care of her?

Why can't the family act on Terri's behalf and divorce him for adultery (again, if my memory is correct)?

They're calling this "assisted suicide." Unless we have documented proof -- prior to her tragedy -- ala a "Living Will" that she didn't desire "heroic measures" or life support in the form of a feeding tube alone, should something bad happen to her in the future (as it did), then this isn't assisted suicide.

Her husband is willing allow her to starve to death rather than to simply divorce her? What's wrong with this picture?

A big fat hefty life insurance policy in the background, that's what I suspect. And he's trying to come off as a hero of sorts, and he's "her family too." With "family" like that, who the hell needs enemies?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-21 13:12:33

They're calling this "assisted suicide."

I suspect that's largely due to media getting it wrong, as they ususally do. Some reports call it assisted suicide but from what I've heard from direct sources they're calling it "dying naturally" or some such thing, which is a way of killing while convincing yourself you haven't killed at all.

All sorts of factions have latched onto the case for political gain, she's become a pawn.

BWhite · 2005-03-21 13:36:30

I agree with Cobra, the poor woman is a pawn.

As far as the husband being "chasing money" I read somewhere he turned down several million dollars that had been offered to him by a California business man to sign over guardianship rights to the parents.

Hmmmmm. . .

Here is an interesting poll question:

If "you' were in a similar situation who would you trust more;

(a) Mom and/or Dad; or
(b) Spouse

My answer? Its tough. Better get me some of those CIA cyanide pills, just in case.

= = =

One positive angle from this case are the reports I am reading about people taking more time to learn about living wills and "Do not ressucitate" orders - - DNR.

It is very important for people to make up their own minds about what they wish done in circumstances like these and express those opinions firmly and in the proper legal form to doctors and family.

I, for one, would not relish the prospect of spending several years essentially as a "potted plant" fed by tubes unable to read, talk, or even recognize people who I once had loved. Death will come for us all. To live as a vegetable is not hardly living.

Edited By BWhite on 1111434859

Palomar · 2005-03-21 14:44:43

As far as the husband being "chasing money" I read somewhere he turned down several million dollars that had been offered to him by a California business man to sign over guardianship rights to the parents.

*If this is true, maybe he turned down the $ just to spite the parents. I know that sounds far-fetched, but I've seen (not personally, but on the periphery) the lengths to which spite can go when in-laws are involved. Maybe he made up the "I declined an offer of big bucks to give control over to her parents" story just to make himself look noble. Maybe he really did and I'm completely wrong about him...but I sure do smell a rat and have a gut instinct about this guy. I've seen him on TV, being interviewed; something doesn't ring true.

If "you' were in a similar situation who would you trust more;
(a) Mom and/or Dad; or
(b) Spouse

Me? I could trust both my mother (father is deceased) and my spouse. But not everyone can. And there are plenty of folks out there (both male and female) who unfortunately said "I Do" to their future murder/ess.

Again: Why won't he simply divorce her, rather than allow her to starve and dehydrate to death? I wouldn't do that to a rattlesnake even!

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-22 00:59:27

This sure is a tricky case.
Excuse my ignorance of the details but exactly how responsive is this woman? And is there any reasonable consensus as to whether she's still 'at home in there' somewhere, thinking and feeling? ???

Palomar · 2005-03-22 05:43:40

This sure is a tricky case.
Excuse my ignorance of the details but exactly how responsive is this woman? And is there any reasonable consensus as to whether she's still 'at home in there' somewhere, thinking and feeling? ???

*Hi Shaun: She can't talk, cannot take care of personal hygiene, obviously cannot feed herself. She seems to be responsive to verbal and visual stimulus, but most doctors say she is not genuinely responsive, i.e. her eyes might react to light being shined across them but that's an automatic reflex of the optic nerves and not her actually realizing there is a light. Same for people speaking to her; she might moan, might make facial expressions -- but they insist there is no genuine recognition, just the brain responding "on automatic pilot" so to speak. The family disputes this and genuinely believes she is somewhat -- though very limitedly -- truly responsive, can recognize to a point, etc.

She's completely helpless. So far I've heard of no proof of what *she'd* have wanted should something of this nature occur to her, prior to this happening to her (she was only 26 years old when she first fell into this condition...how many folks in their mere mid-20s "plan ahead" ala a Living Will? Not many, in my experience).

We know what her husband wants, though. And to be blunt, I think he just wants her out of the way. How he can rationalize this being done to her (and doubtless still eating and drinking himself) but apparently "can't" merely divorce her is beyond me...except for my suspicions as to his true motives. Her family wants to take care of her, he refuses. He has 2 "outs" but refuses to take them...and opts for the drastic measure. I'd sure like to know the quality and state of their marriage prior to her illness.

Bill: I, for one, would not relish the prospect of spending several years essentially as a "potted plant" fed by tubes unable to read, talk, or even recognize people who I once had loved. Death will come for us all. To live as a vegetable is not hardly living.

But the difference is that no one brought her vegetative-like state upon her; it happened naturally, unfortunately. What's currently happening to her IS being visited upon her, deliberately and intentionally.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-22 07:01:34

If we know for sure that 'there's nothing going on upstairs' and that there's no hope of any improvement, I have no objection in principle if everybody wants to administer the coup de grace, so to speak.
But, if her family wants to 'maintain' her, for whatever reason, and they have the resources to do so, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to carry on with that.
From what I've heard so far, I'd have to say the husband could conceivably have an ulterior motive. But that's just speculation, of course.

What if she's not brain-dead, though?
What if she can think and feel but simply can't communicate enough to prove it? And what if she doesn't want to die but can't say so?

That's all very unlikely, I suppose, and the neurosurgeons would surely be able to tell if there really were any coherent thought processes going on in that poor woman's head .. wouldn't they?

On balance I think I'd have to agree, the logical move would appear to be to hand her over to her parents. They love her, they're prepared to look after her, and therefore there's no need for her to die.

BWhite · 2005-03-22 07:26:06

20 judges (more or less) now 1 more - - seem content that "there is nothing going on" upstairs.

I cannot believe that if there were any medical signs of her not being in a persistent vegetative state that at least one of the judges would have ruled against the husband and in favor of the parents.

= = =

Obviously, I have no personal knowledge. But it appears not one judge has taken the parents side despite the emotional attraction to do so.

Edited By BWhite on 1111498095

Palomar · 2005-03-22 08:55:42

Obviously, I have no personal knowledge. But it appears not one judge has taken the parents side despite the emotional attraction to do so.

*Just rechecked the news, after reading Bill's post.

This is very sad.

But Scott Schiavo, brother of Terri's husband, Michael, called the judge's decision "a good thing," and said he did not believe Congress should have intervened.
"There's not a law that's made for this," Scott Schiavo told The AP in a telephone interview. "This is something that goes on 100 times a day in our country, that people, their wish to die with dignity is not a federal issue."

Yet another one of Terri's in-laws chimes in. I find that really odd. Yes, "odd" is the word I'll use for it. Yeah, I know how many in-laws I've had which have cared about me. :laugh: He asserts it's Terri's wish to die...PROOF? It's Michael's wish for her to die -- that much IS obvious.

Michael Schiavo was apparently on Larry King Live last night, saying "this is Terri's will, it's what she would have wanted"...yeah? Where's your proof? Where's the Living Will or similar legal document with her signature on it?

Bill, you're a lawyer: It's probably too late now, but if Michael Schiavo has taken up a relationship with another woman during these years and does have a child with her -- IIRC, he has -- couldn't the family have divorced Terri from Michael on grounds of adultery? Good grief, if they can let this woman starve and dehydrate to death on the basis of UNproven assertions on the husband's part (which is allowing him to decide for her whether or not she lives) -- "it's what she wants" -- couldn't the family also have the power to decide whether or not their daughter can remain married to him on the equal assumption of "it's what she wants" --?

Just wondering.

This is truly barbaric. This wouldn't happen to a dog or a horse in an animal hospital even.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-22 10:20:50

Cindy, step one would be to remove the husband as guardian.

Apparently the family tried several times to have him removed as guardian however the courts never agreed. His position has always been that the poor woman died 15 years ago. Her mind, her soul, left the body 15 years ago.

=IF= it is true that she died 15 years ago, there is nothing wrong with starting a new family. Christian wedding vows traditionaly say until death do us part. My sister-in-law asked to modify her vows to extend beyond death and the priest refused.

Mormon views on this are fascinating, to be Spock-like. :;):

= = =

Grandstanding by GOP polititians starts us down a slippery slope towards a http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/schiavo … theocratic society.

The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model.

Edited By BWhite on 1111508517

Palomar · 2005-03-22 10:34:38

Cindy, step one would be to remove the husband as guardian.
Apparently the family tried several times to have him removed as guardian however the courts never agreed. His position has always been that the poor woman died 15 years ago. Her mind, her soul, left the body 15 years ago.
=IF= it is true that she died 15 years ago, there is nothing wrong with starting a new family.

*But I still don't understand, then, why he won't divorce her. I guess we'd have to ask him.

If he no longer views her as a wife -- and IF indeed they are already parted "by death" 15 years ago -- why not do the more honorable thing -- get a divorce, let her family take care of her, which is what they want to do.

Well, it's pointless I suppose to speculate much further about Michael Schiavo.

Her family is appealing the decision.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-22 10:45:52

Cindy, I cannot read his mind.

What he says is that he loves/loved her and he knows in his heart she would be horrified at being a vegetable. He says they discussed this after the lingering death of an elderly relative and she expressed (to him) horror at such circumstances.

Her parents say she never said that. (But they were not there)

= = =

Remember, the State of Florida is paying for her care. The taxpayers. Since I support universal health care, I have no objection to that.

But might the parents be seeking attention and public sympathy as martyrs since their legal fees are being paid by right-to-life donors and future medical care for their daughter will be paid 100% by the taxpayers?

A refusal to "let go" of a deceased person is very natural and deserves our synpathy, but how much sympathy?

= = =

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … html]Great article, IMHO, as a lawyer.

Edited By BWhite on 1111510154

BWhite · 2005-03-22 11:00:06

The parents have sought a divorce, which was denied.

The http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/have- … ]Religious Right has spent millions and millions of dollars to make Shiavo a test case and like vampires (IMHO) have feasted on the parents all too natural desire not to accept the death of their daughter.

Palomar · 2005-03-22 11:09:56

But might the parents be seeking attention and public sympathy as martyrs since their legal fees are being paid by right-to-life donors and future medical care for their daughter will be paid 100% by the taxpayers?

*Aside from the right-to-life folks and taxpayers, I was thinking along similar lines with respect to her husband. Maybe he likes -- in a very perverse way -- the attention. Camera time. He's "famous" now. The fact that -his- family members (Terri's in-laws) are chiming in with "Yes, she wants to die, she wants death with dignity" only heightens my suspicions. Not many in-laws care that much about another in-law, based on what I've seen throughout life *consistently*. Michael says it's between he and Terri (her alleged former comments/wishes). Fine, then tell your family to shut up and butt out. Why are at least 2 of his brothers talking to the media? Attention? Maybe he wants to be "a martyr" and his relatives are enjoying the bit of limelight they're receiving.

Don't get me wrong, Bill. I'm not questioning -you-; I'm just commenting and typing out the questions in my own mind.

And the words "life insurance policy" keeps going around in the back of my mind. :-\

Enough said (for now at least). I'm just expressing myself, asking the questions which come to mind; I'm -not- seeking a debate/argument with anyone.

::sigh::

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 11:11:12

Obviously, I have no personal knowledge. But it appears not one judge has taken the parents side despite the emotional attraction to do so.

While I certainly am no expert on the legalitites involved it is my understanding that in the eyes of the law a husband and wife are considered a single legal entity for most purposes. In which case the judge has to rule in the husband's favor. It's not "taking sides", but interpreting the law.

But sometimes judges forget that's the job. :;):

Grandstanding by GOP polititians starts us down a slippery slope towards a theocratic society.

Don't you think that's a bit contrived?

Remember, the State of Florida is paying for her care. The taxpayers. Since I support universal health care, I have no objection to that.

It does introduce a whole mess of factors though, many of which aren't really about this pseudo-dead woman at all. It's become a political battleground, all sides have something at stake.

What he says is that he loves/loved her and he knows in his heart she would be horrified at being a vegetable. He says they discussed this after the lingering death of an elderly relative and she expressed (to him) horror at such circumstances.

Which seems entirely plausible. I know my wife and I have discussed such things in the past and have both made our desire emphatically clear to each other and immediate family. However there is no doubt in my mind that if it were one of us there would be family members resisting. He may have other motives, might be a complete scumbag. But he might also be trying to carry out her expressed wishes despite the opposition of her parents who can't let go. Until some specific information indicating shady motives surfaces I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

BWhite · 2005-03-22 11:52:52

Which seems entirely plausible. I know my wife and I have discussed such things in the past and have both made our desire emphatically clear to each other and immediate family. However there is no doubt in my mind that if it were one of us there would be family members resisting. He may have other motives, might be a complete scumbag. But he might also be trying to carry out her expressed wishes despite the opposition of her parents who can't let go. Until some specific information indicating shady motives surfaces I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

I agree 200%.

Being a lawyer who writes living wills and handles probate cases I can assure you judges would be very reluctant to "kill Terri" if there were credible evidence her husband was a total scumbag and was just after the money.

Every judge I have ever appeared before is very well aware that when people say "its not about the money, its about the money." Her parents were given countless opportunities to raise the issues Cindy raises.

As I recall, there once was life insurance but the policy was cashed in to pay for her care. Now that it is gone, there is no more money for Michael to get.

= = =

And =IF= its GOP grandstanding, I am content.

Once again the dog actually caught the truck. One poll said 70% of respondents said it was inappropriate for Congress and the President to get involved.

= = =

From the WaPo article linked above:

Medical experts said those behaviors are the cruelest aspect of a terrible condition: Grimaces and other facial expressions give families of tens of thousands of such patients hope, but they are evidence only that Schiavo's brain stem is working, keeping alive reflexes and routine bodily functions. They do not suggest that the higher areas of brain functioning needed for her to regain conscious awareness will return, experts said.
"It's uncanny but misleading," said William Winslade, who has studied how to distinguish patients in a persistent vegetative state from those suffering from other conditions at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. "Family members . . . will interpret random eye movements as something is happening. That has to be the case with Terri Schiavo. A truckload of physicians have concluded she is in a persistent vegetative state."

Edited By BWhite on 1111514754

BWhite · 2005-03-22 12:11:42

Look at this link:

http://www.dharmageek.com/cnnpoll1.jpg] … npoll1.jpg

Does that "look like" 62% versus 54% or does that "look like" Democrats are heartless monsters?

The propaganga war swirls full force. . .

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 12:22:03

Does that "look like" 62% versus 54% or does that "look like" Democrats are heartless monsters?

To me it looks like a meaningless poll taken of people who don't know what they're talking about whatever they "feel".

Yep, propaganda war. Democrats are heartless monsters, Republicans are theocratic extremists and the American people are a bunch of dumbasses for believing the sincerity of either of them.

Typed what I was thinking again, gotta stop that.

Palomar · 2005-03-22 13:31:40

*Want to post http://www.saveterri.com/]this, concerning Terri Schiavo. A member of one of my Yahoo! groups posted it -- Alondra. She is a Christian, and this site belongs to a Christian (hence the Bible verses, etc.).

Read paragraphs 3 -5 beneath the red Disclaimer.

Yeah, the marriage vows do say "in sickness and in health before 'til death us do part'."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 13:54:15

Does anyone else find this oddly amusing? We now have Senate Democrats saying that judges are too powerful, once a common charge from the Right and Republicans looking to the judiciary to further their objectives, a time-tested Democrat method of imposing their will. Both sides are calling for the very things they once claimed to despise.

Whether a donkey or an elephant, everyone's an ass today.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-03-16 14:16:54

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#177 2005-03-18 10:21:01

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#178 2005-03-18 10:35:05

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#179 2005-03-21 11:06:53

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#180 2005-03-21 11:25:02

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#181 2005-03-21 13:02:13

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#182 2005-03-21 13:12:33

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#183 2005-03-21 13:36:30

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#184 2005-03-21 14:44:43

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#185 2005-03-22 00:59:27

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#186 2005-03-22 05:43:40

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#187 2005-03-22 07:01:34

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#188 2005-03-22 07:26:06

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#189 2005-03-22 08:55:42

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#190 2005-03-22 10:20:50

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#191 2005-03-22 10:34:38

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#192 2005-03-22 10:45:52

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#193 2005-03-22 11:00:06

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#194 2005-03-22 11:09:56

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#195 2005-03-22 11:11:12

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#196 2005-03-22 11:52:52

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#197 2005-03-22 12:11:42

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#198 2005-03-22 12:22:03

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#199 2005-03-22 13:31:40

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#200 2005-03-22 13:54:15

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Board footer