Disabled Activists From The South Are Demonstrating At Terri's Side

[barb162]

http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/ndydisqueers032105.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Pinellas Park, FL, March 21, 2005 -- "Disability Rights is a progressive cause in the tradition of civil rights movements. Progressives should get this -- it's not 'life' versus 'choice,' but the right of people with disabilities to live, " proclaimed Eleanor Smith, a person with disability, "and we are here in Florida to tell the world about this disability issue. Capital criminals have habeas corpus in federal court, yet Ms. Schindler-Schiavo only crime was being a disabled person!"

"It's time for the press to talk to the real experts on the Schiavo case -- the disability rights movement", declared Diane Coleman, president and founder of Not Dead Yet, leading the disability community's opposition to non-voluntary euthanasia for a decade. "That's why 26 national disability rights organizations, including groups like Not Dead Yet, and Disabled Queers In Action (DQIA), have adopted a position in support of Terri Schiavo's right to continue to receive food and water," affirmed Stephen Drake, research analyst for NDY.

The "right to life" movement has embraced Terri Schindler-Schiavo as a cause to prove "sanctity of life." The "right to die" movement argues that people in guardianship should have no protection against private family decisions to kill them. Yet the life-and-death issues surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo are first and foremost disability rights issues -- issues which affect tens of thousands of people with disabilities who, like Ms. Schindler-Schiavo, cannot currently articulate their views and so must rely on others as substitute decision-makers.

snip

The facts are that Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not a 'vegetable' nor 'in-valid' but a person with a disability using a feeding tube and no other 'life' supports. She is not terminally ill nor has failing health except denial of food and water by the court. The news failed to clarify:


At the 2000 trial, Schiavo suddenly remembered that Terri would not want "to live like that." Despite conflicting testimony, the judge authorized her starvation.

More than half of the $750,000 settlement in 1993 for her care was given to Mr. Schiavo's lawyer and they still refuse the most basic rehabilitation for Terri (even though he promised the court he would use the money for treatment).

Medical experts disagreed about her vegetative state, therapy, and quality of life issues. However, research shows that non-disabled people and medical professional devalue the quality of life of disabled people. This case illustrates disability rights issues, and how all our systems: budgets, legislative, legal, and executive branches have routinely devalued people with disabilities except for this last minute effort. We urge you to Congress to support Disability Rights by securing permanent rights, affirming the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) and funding for appropriate supports/services.

In 1998, the court-appointed guardian ad litem found that Mr. Schiavo had a conflict of interest, since he would inherit the money intended for her care.Upon Mr. Schiavo's request, the judge dismissed the guardian and never appointed another!

Furthermore, the news and ads for charities show excruciating pictures of starving children in torment yet the news declares starvation a 'painless death' for Terri? Why is society creating a double standard based on a person's health? Why don't disabled people receive the same suicide prevention that others can take for granted? If starvation (and assisted suicide) are really "voluntary," then why aren't they available to anyone, at anytime, for any reason?

Sadly, the news presents an illusionary choice to die instead of listening to people with disabilities. Until all options of living: disability rights, food/water, and attendant services/supports are exhausted and absolutely clear written directives based on facts not myths such as "better off dead than disabled", then Ms. Schindler-Schiavo must be allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Disabled Queers in Action (DQIA) is a national disability and queer rights organization for ending all the 'isms' in our communities, including able-ism, racism, sexism, and heterosexism.
------------------

"overview" group appears to be "Not Dead Yet" a Disability Rights Group

[brainshrub]

1. Are the brain-dead going to start demonstrating at Teri's side,

or are they already there?

[barb162]

3. maybe those who take care of people with PVS will

[Just Me]

33. Are you advocating against my choice about my existence?

Because, if you are attempting to intrude upon my choice based upon MY INTERPRETATION of what being alive means,...I oppose you with every ounce of my being.

I don't want anyone to "save" me from a "life" I believe is DEAD. I oppose you being an advocate for me if I am unable to express myself.

If I ask you to help me, I'll let you know. Otherwise, butt the hell out of my life.

'kay

[barb162]

136. Why in hell would I want to advocate for or against YOUR

choice? And why are you getting all hot and bothered when I don't give a damn and never did. What I do give a damn about is an innocent profoundly disabled woman whose choice NO ONE knows is being slowly killed by the STATE without even committing a crime. This should not be happening in this country.

One more thing, since no one is butting into your life, perhaps you could possibly keep your flaming temper and nutty accusations just a teeny bit more under control.

[barb162]

4. Brain dead people don't wonder why the disabled are

interested in this case

[Just Me]

39. Do you want to take the chance of imposing suffering on the "brain dead"?

Obviously, you have no freakin' clue whether they would CHOOSE to be let go rather than FORCED "alive" at your hand.

I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to have control over my life,...akin to that imposed by you.

I'd much rather be FREE, FREE, FREE!!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

68. It is not your decision

It is up to her next of kin aka her husband. NOBODY ELSE! EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD BUTT THE HELL OUT! This is NOT a disability issue! If they cared about issues why don't they talk to their dear leader about why he is cutting medicaid?!

[Just Me]

84. Sadly, self-interests, political interests,...do steal from me,...and you

,...and the rest of humanity.

Freedom?

Yeah, right.

Apparently, "freedom" is an immoral imposition of will upon (and total disrespect of) the weak, oppressed and helpless.

[barb162]

153. It is a disability issue, It is a human rights issue

Do you agree with state-sanctioned slow killing of an innocent, profoundly disabled person because a husband with a huge conflict of interest says that is what she wanted.

[ultraist]

188. BS. This is not "state sanctioned slow killing. "

It's honoring the wishes of someone and allowing them to have the right to choose to refuse medical treatment at the end of life. Our bodies, our right to choose. It's not up to the State to make that decision for us. Right to privacy extends to our bodies. Why are you pushing for the State to have control over our bodies?

Your RW "pro life" talking points are so inflammatory.

[barb162]

201. My issue is civil rights. If you can't see that, I just don't know

what to tell you. Perhaps you can explain to me if you think Jesse Jackson is a right wing fundie as I supposedly am because he was speaking out against this the last few days as I am.

PS You have no idea what this woman's wishes are. All you know is Mike Schiavo's hearsay which the first GAL thought was not sufficient to make any life or death decisions.

The State should not be making decisions for us so why do you agreed with the State sanctioned slow murder of this woman. Greer is a GOP elected low level judge and he made the decision.

[ultraist]

205. Yes, it's a civil liberties issue as in right to privacy over our bodies

The State has no right forcing medical treatment on someone who doesn't wish to have it. Nor, do they have the right to deny us treatment if we so choose.

Terri's wishes were determined by a court and her next of kin has the legal right to make that decision.

If you cannot see how they are twisting this case to promote their RW fundie "pro life" agenda, you are not looking close enough. Terry Randall is a fucking nutcase. Do you need more than that?

RW fundies are not pro civil rights and parroting their RW fundie talking points is not convincing.

[barb162]

217. the case is being twisted right side up and inside out

If the next of kin's behavior is viewed as suspicious would you still follow the legal right of that kin?

Do you wonder why they are giving a morphine drip to her if this is supposed to be totally painless? Do you wonder why Schiavo fought against the swallow tests and an impartial neurologist as recommended in the 12/2003 GAL report?

[Undercover Owl]

221. PS You have no idea what this woman's wishes are

PS: sure, honey. You don't either.

[barb162]

182. Sunny Von Bulow, I bet, had no doubt about her husband

Bush is going to cut Medicaid, SS , etc because he likes to start more wars, buy more airplanes and get his corporation buddies more money in tax breaks, which to him is more important that social programs. That's the way he likes to do things. That's who the people of our glorious country voted for after watching him screwing things up for 4 years. What's to explain?

[ultraist]

212. omg... yet another RW fundie comparison. How inflammatory

Why must you resort to such remarks? Can you not support your position without using apples and oranges comparisons? Throwing in emotionally loaded, unrelated examples is fallacious reasoning.

[barb162]

213. apples=apples

Who needs husbands who benefit from the deaths of their wives.

Why should Mike Schiavo's suddenly remembered conversation with his wife 7 yrs. after her accident be taken seriously? He could pocket 700,000 dedicated to her care if she died quickly and all of a sudden he issues a DNR order.

Your inappropriate, inaccurate name-calling is inflammatory

[barb162]

147. Ms. Schiavo is PVS, not brain dead and if you cannot even

understand the difference, I suggest you look up the difference before you post further.

If you have no clue at all about someone's wishes, do you kill that person? That is what JUDGE GREER IS DOING. What do you think the Disabled people demonstrating down there are upset about? And a lot of other people I will add.

[mondo joe]

2. I don't care if they're disabled or not, if they oppose self determination

they are enemies of freedom and liberty.

[Just Me]

46. Precisely!!! We wouldn't FORCE non-functional animals to live that way.

Damn. We have greater empathy for the suffering of non-functional animals.

It's the weirdest co-existing crap: IMPOSING artificial HELPLESS human life while simultaneously murdering innocent healthy children in a war for profit.

Terri is being used as much "fodder" for profit as our soldiers and millions of others,...for the corporatocracy that manipulates for power.

[barb162]

187. At least with a helpless animal you give them a shot or a bullet

in the head and do it fast/instantaneously. You don't make an INNOCENT animal die of fucking thirst for more than 10 days. State-sanctioned slow dying of thirst to an innocent person is what we got going here. This is not right in a civilized society, especially since no one knows her wishes. Her wishes weren't written down.

[ultraist]

189. You obviously have never been with a dying person

Or you wouldn't be making those RW fundie remarks about the death process.

Refusing life support or any other type of medical treatment is the right of that person or their next of kin.

For those of us who have made this decision for loved ones, your remarks are very insensitive, ill informed, and crass.

It's "not right in a civilized society" to FORCE medical treatment on someone.

[barb162]

194. you are utterly/ totally off base factually and in every other way

I have been a guardian twice and have taken care of a few people (extrememly close relatives)who were dying. I have made these decisions also. Since you like to dish the insults out: Your remarks. likewise are insensitive, crass, ill informed and quite ignorant. And your remarks are worse than anything I have heard from fundies. AT least the fundies are concerned about this innocent woman dying and this state-sanctioned slow death.

[ultraist]

206. Repeating RW fundie talking points again...sigh

This is not "state sanctioned killing," regardless of how many times you say it. She is dying a natural death that she would have, 15 years ago, had she not been on life supports.

So, it's ok for you to decide for your relatives but it's not ok for Terri's wishes to be respected and for her to die a natural death?

If you had been with loved ones through the process, you would know that dehydration is not cruel or painful.

[barb162]

215. here is the only way I can respond to you at this point

you must be a RW fundie because you are agreeing with a GOP judge who is violating a brain damaged woman's civil and human rights. And if you choose to write back and call me a RW fundie again, you are going to get the same treatment. If you cannot respond in a logical, reasoned, manner, then neither will I.

If starvation and dying of thirst is such a nice way to be slowly and forcibly offed, why are they giving MS. Schiavo a morphine drip. Why waste the morphine.

[IndianaGreen]

165. Jesse Jackson is on CNN right now decrying the starving of Terri

I guess that makes him an enemy "of freedom and liberty."

[barb162]

184. I saw him the other day talking against pulling the feeding tube

and he was eloquent. Yeah a Dem prez candidate, a civil rights leader, a fighter against poverty, etc, yep, he's a real enemy of freedom and liberty

[RoyGBiv]

5. These people aren't helping themselves ...

The rights of the disabled is a serious issue, and groups and people like this who take the case to absurd lengths do nothing but cause people to view them with suspicion.

Their bullet points are riddled with factual errors and errors of omission. Strawmen abound. Tactics like that are counter-productive. I won't bother with details. It's been covered, repeatedly and at length.

As an aside, the headline for this is dumb. (I know you didn't create it. It comes from the release.) I fail to see how "the South" has anything tangible to do with this other than Terri, and thus the protestors, are in the South, this being the reason I opened the thread in the first place.

[barb162]

7. there are NO factual errors in the bullets; crosscheck with the

2003 Guardian Ad Litem report by Jay Wolfson.

The disability group Not Dead Yet is out of Forest Park IL and by the way a woman in a wheel chair from this group is being interviewed on MSNBC right now. Spokesperson is Michelle Steger on MSNBC now.

[RoyGBiv]

17. Okay, I'll crosscheck ...

Since you persist ...

The bullet points are taken directly from the report of Richard Pearse, serving as Guardian Ad Litem.

Of that report, Mr. Wolfson notes:

"In response to Mr. Pearse's report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. The criticism continues to note that Mr. Pearse's concern about abuse of inheritance potential was directly solely at Michael, not at the Schindlers in the event they might become the heirs and also choose to terminate artificial life support. Further, significant chronological deficits and factual errors are noted, detracting from and prejudicing the objective credibility of Mr. Pearse's report."

"The Suggestion of Bias challenges premises and findings of Mr. Pearse, establishing a well pleaded case for bias."

Earlier in the report, referring to the money:

"This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained."

This, and the previous comments, directly conflict with the following:

"More than half of the $750,000 settlement in 1993 for her care was given to Mr. Schiavo's lawyer and they still refuse the most basic rehabilitation for Terri (even though he promised the court he would use the money for treatment)."

Shall I go on?

[barb162]

104. yes, go on to the conflict of interest stuff in the 2003 GAL report

on M. Schiavo and the earlier GAL by Pearse. How do you explain the 93 settlement received and the early 94 change of mind by M. Schiavo to put a "do not rescusitate" order on his wife...not to even provide dental care for pete's sake , etc. That is when the Schindlers started fighting with Michael. Go to the bottom of the 2003 GAL report and ask why the simple swallowing tests and new IMPARTIAL neurologist exams recommended by the Guardian were stopped at the eleventh hour by the M. Schiavo side. WHy didn't the judge (biased as hell IMHO in favor of M. Schiavo) force the new tests to be done as easily as he ordered the feeding tube removed. It is as if whenever Schiavo doesn't like what a GAL says, Schiavo goes in court and gets these GALS or their recs dismissed by an obviously biased judge. The first GAL called for a permanent guardian on this case and only after Bush forced the issue was Jay Wolfson appointed in 2003. Then none of Wolfson's recs were followed by the judge. Something smells.
I agree the fund was managed well up to a certain point but only if an impartial GAL says so. I understand now there is some sort of secrecy order on the monies.



Something smells....

[RoyGBiv]

141. Okay ...

From the report you demanded I crosscheck:

"Michael's decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart."

Now, will you address the fact that your admonition of "NO errors" was completely wrong? If not, I see no point in continuing.

It is pointless to construct an argument that others address by ignoring it and presenting anecdotal suspicions based on nothing but raw guesses. In fact, you might crosscheck yourself a bit and note that the basis for truth in the statement that medical professionals disagreed as to Terri's prognosis lies in the fact that those who sided with the Schindlers presented evidence that was "anecdotal, and was reasonably deemed to be not clear and convincing."

I'm curious why you asked me to review that report. It supports nothing you've said.

[democracyindanger]

151. Amazing, isn't it?

People just eat up the lies like there's no tomorrow.

[barb162]

167. he gets the settlement and up till then he takes exquisite care

of his wife as the GAL report states. Settlement is received and he starts discussion about DNR orders. Coincidental timing? After SEVEN years? Why didn't he do a DNR after 3, 5 or 6 years. Because settlement amounts are way smaller if she had died. He had an interest in seeing she stayed alive and was well-cared for until he got the settlement. (I am in the insurance business and have worked on these claims; trust me, claimants can't get out of a chair when the insurance investigator is around and are out mowing the grass 5 minutes later). He got 750,000 designated just for her care, besides other monies for loss of consortium, etc. Why did he wait until he got the money to do the DNR; he could have out her in a really good place with that money. Just please put 2 AND 2 together on the coincidental timing. This is also when his girlfriend enters the picture.

[RoyGBiv]

176. One last time ...

". . . .Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

This was prior to and in conjunction with the decision to issue a DNR order.

Please address these issues as presented in the report. Otherwise I'm done with this.

[barb162]

193. try these paragraphs. Note the "clear and convincing" language

When is hearsay clear and coinvincing evidence?

from the GAL 2003 report:
"Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael Schiavo's testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support – a conversation he had with his wife, Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in Theresa's trust account following her death affected Michael and the Schindlers – but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on Michael's decision to discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. Pearse's report, more than $700,000 remained in the guardianship estate.

Mr. Pearse concludes that Michael's hearsay testimony about Theresa's intent is "necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law…" and "…by the chronology of this case…", specifically referencing Michael's change in position relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice award.

Mr. Pearse recommended that the petition for removal of the feeding tube be denied, or in the alternative, if the court found the evidence to be clear and convincing, the feeding tube should be
withdrawn. "

(What was "clear and convincing" evidence of what this woman wanted. There is none. There's no written document. The first GAL thought there was no clear evidence. The judge got rid of this first GAL. Mike and his brother testified (do you consider this extremely weak evidence?) about what she wanted and do you find it odd at all no one in her family or her friends heard her ever say this? Conflict of interest to the tune of 700,000? The second GAL's recs weren't followed. Read between the lines.

[RoyGBiv]

199. Are you aware?

Are you aware that the Pearse report to which you keep referring from within Mr. Wolfson's report is actually criticized by Mr. Wolfson? Have you read the entire thing? If so, why do you cherry-pick these comments taken from an individual who was dismissed due to his bias and whose report Mr. Wolfson so obviously found lacking?

Your last comment is irrelevant. I have neither heard nor read the testimony of either side given in the court(s) that decided this and so cannot comment about it from an informed position. Neither can you, for that matter. You're reading a summary of the decision that doesn't elucidate the details presented in court, and you seem to be reacting to the Schindler version of events as presented in the press.

Further, we're talking about a couple at what they believed was the beginning of their life together. It is highly likely they had not given definitive, detailed thought to issues such as this that covered all conceivable scenarios. Certainly one of the reasons it took Michael 3 years to come to the conclusion to withdraw life support was an extended period of denial, exacerbated by the perception of life exhibited by those in a vegetative state.

Whatever the depth of the discussion, it is likely it was discussed on some level, either during casual talk reacting to a personal or popular story, or as a part of related issues. However, this is not the kind of thing I'd personally think of talking about with my parents because I don't consciously expect them to survive me. (Do your own reading between the lines.) The only comment from Theresa the Shindler's presented as evidence was found to be a lie due to its timing (an eleven-year-old cannot make this decision), and this forces me to find the remainder of their comments equally suspect. I would, however, talk about it with my wife on some level and did, on some level, even though I was in my early 20's. (I even told her to cremate my body, thrown the ashes in a field, and take the insurance money to throw a party.) So, yes, the fact the court decided his testimony is clear and convincing is clear and convincing to me.

As it is, several people close to me are now well aware of my wishes, one of whom has power of attorney should this kind of fate befall me. (And there are alternates should he not be in a position to make the decision.) I've explicitly not left this decision to my mother (or daughter for that matter) because they don't need the turmoil of it, and should they choose incorrectly and keep my body alive beyond all reason, it will prevent them, as it has the Schindlers, from being able to engage in the grieving process that allows them to continue with their own lives.

You're not addressing anything I'm saying, and each point I've discussed that runs counter to what you've claimed, your subsequent comments have simply ignored as though they were never said. You've made statements that are clearly wrong, and you were shown they were wrong, yet you press on, filing yet another appeal based on a subtle twisting of words, which I suppose is fitting.

You have your opinion on this issue and will obviously hold on to it no matter what I say or what the evidence of which we are aware actually says.

Good day.

[barb162]

208. I am neither cherry-picking comments nor trying to be obtuse.

Going through the narrative or timeline, I am looking for where the trouble seems to start between the two families, when Schiavo's attitude about his wife's care seems to change, etc. There is no point looking at let's say, 1991. I think I went right to the relevant paragraphs.

I have seen Wolfson on TV talk about the first GAL and had only good things to say about that individual and his report.

I am wondering if you have any doubts raised about the intent of Mr. Schiavo (the DNR order) happening to change his mind a few months after the insurance settlement came in. I think the coincidence that he changed his mind once he had the money and would benefit through her early death is too great to ignore. At that point around 1994 all of a sudden he seemed to remember this conversation he had with his wife about her wishes... seven years after her injury and a few months after he has the insurance settlement. Of course if she dies early throught he removal of the feeding tube, he could pocket the amount set up directly for her care.

[RoyGBiv]

214. Didn't say you were obtuse ...

Don't put words in my mouth, please. There's no need to read between any of my lines.

I've never heard Wolfson speak on television and don't care to. The presentation of this case, in all its forms, on television is horrendous. I'll read the words and the discussions without the circus atmosphere and make up my own mind.

I have, however, read *his* report, twice carefully and in parts a few other times. He is making a rather clear declaration that Mr. Pearse was wrong, and I have offered you comments he wrote to that effect, which, I will repeat, you have ignored. This is why I say you are cherry-picking comments. You have presented us with quotes and summaries that could support your suspicions but ignore other parts of the report that declare the pieces you pick are not based in sound judgment. Further, you refer to the 2003 report, but you are citing conclusions presented in an earlier report -- and critically referred to in the 2003 report -- that was denied. And you continue to hold on to the money as an issue in Michael's decision when it has been made clear to you, both by me and others, that a possible inheritance could not possibly have been a motivation since Mr. Shiavo had sought to divest himself of it.

I had doubts about Mr. Shiavo until I read the report from Mr. Wolfson. (And, before you ask, they were rather severe doubts that went into some of the same territory you are exploring but further. I won't bother with details because it makes me very angry to think about it, but I have a relative who tried something like this with his mother.) Further reading into the issue took all measure of those doubts away. He was not trying to get rich. He was, after three years, trying to get on with his life since he had been convinced and had begun to accept that his life with Theresa was over because Theresa was dead and a shell remained.

Besides the money, which one more time again Mr. Shiavo formally sought to give up, your repeated introduction of the girlfriend as an issue in all this is what irritates me. What does Terri's body being maintained or not have to do with her? He can have the girlfriend, or 20 girlfriends, either way. He could marry one of them either way. It is irrelevant unless you, or someone, can produce tangible evidence that she convinced him to take this course of action and further lied about Theresa's wishes. Suggestion or suspicion is not enough. We can be suspicious of anyone. Guilt is not or should not be naturally assumed.

That latter comment gets to the heart of this. What you are presenting here is a accusation that presumes guilt without evidence. Dozens of courts now have effectively tried that case and denied it. What evidence, what real evidence that has not already been found unconvincing, do you have that shows those courts are wrong?

[barb162]

216. Thank you for the well-reasoned comments. It is a welcome

change. Until a few weeks ago I had no thoughts on this case other than what could be summed up as "why don't they let that poor woman die already." It wasn't until I started looking at the time lines carefully and reading as many of the court documents as I could that my mind started changing. When I read the GAL 2003 report I see it as almost an indictment of Mike Schiavo. You see it differently. Fine, no problem. I really respect your view.

There was another thing that happened about a week ago ( maybe up to ten days or so back) and that was I watched M. Schiavo on "Larry King Live." Schiavo responded to a question by Larry King and said "....We don't know what Terri wanted. This is what we want." I sat there (stunned) and said to the TV "you dirty sonofabitch. I think I faithfully quoted him although you can check the transcript of this show yourself. This man testified on her wishes in court, succeeds in getting the tube removed and then he admitted on national tv he didn't know her wishes. I couldn't believe it! This woman is now slowly dying of thirst. I think Schiavo is really BAD NEWS and a disgusting liar. If he had made this Larry King Live Show statement in court, I bet they could nail him for perjury.

[ultraist]

210. Consider the use of inflammatory RW fundie lies

Comparisons to Hitler, Sunny Von Bbulow, "state sanctioned killing" twisted facts about the case, etc and it becomes glaringly obvious where this person is coming from.

There is no reason or rationale being presented in those posts.

[deadparrot]

181. He's already turned down offers of $1 million

and a rumored $10 million.

He offered three times to donate the remaining money to charity:

"As additional "proof" that he's not in the legal battle for the money, Schiavo told King he offered three times to donate the money to charity two years ago."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35304

But, yeah, of course, only after the money. :eyes: You can fault MS for some things in this case, surely, but this is not one of them.

[barb162]

8. there are NO factual errors in the bullets; crosscheck with the

2003 Guardian Ad Litem report by Jay Wolfson.

The disability group Not Dead Yet is out of Forest Park IL and by the way a woman in a wheel chair from this group is being interviewed on MSNBC right now. Spokesperson is Michelle Steger on MSNBC now.

[mondo joe]

14. There are factual errors indeed, and here they are:

1. "At the 2000 trial, Schiavo suddenly remembered that Terri would not want "to live like that." Despite conflicting testimony, the judge authorized her starvation. "

Error: Michael did not suddenly remember. When he came to understand that Terri would never recover, and life support would not be temporary, he had to carry out Terri's will.

2. "More than half of the $750,000 settlement in 1993 for her care was given to Mr. Schiavo's lawyer and they still refuse the most basic rehabilitation for Terri (even though he promised the court he would use the money for treatment). "

Error: Terri had years of aggressive therapy. The court allowed the funding of the court case in Terri's interest, AFTER it was determined that additional therapy would not benefit her.

3. "Medical experts disagreed about her vegetative state, therapy, and quality of life issues..."

Misrepresentation: The qualified physicians who examined Terri did not disagree.

4. "In 1998, the court-appointed guardian ad litem found that Mr. Schiavo had a conflict of interest, since he would inherit the money intended for her care.Upon Mr. Schiavo's request, the judge dismissed the guardian and never appointed another!"

Almost: The guardian was dismissed for demonstrated bias and for FAILING to accurately do his job.

[FreedomAngel82]

85. She is not disabeled

She is gone. Her brain is liquid. Would YOU want to live like that? If you really care about disability issues form an organization to help the disabled people. Not Terri Schavio. This is not your decision what happens. This is up to her husband as by law of the land and by the church (those who are REAL Christians should know this).

[elehhhhna]

209. What about the Sanctity of Marriage? Can't have it both ways.

[deadparrot]

6. Terri is to "disabled"

as Hitler is to "kind of unpleasant."

[barb162]

9. Hitler killed disabled people because they were disabled

why is Schiavo being killed? Because she is disabled.

[shrub chipper]

11. I think calling a brain dead person disabled

is a little disingenuous, don't you?

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. She breathes on her own, and her heart beats on its own.

That seems pretty much 'alive', in my book.

[Lindacooks]

Flat EEG means nobody is there.

Her body may be alive, but the person she was is gone, long gone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

She's Not Brain Dead...

I'm not a neurologist but if you were brain dead you would need a lot more than a feeding tube to keep you alive...

[mondo joe]

18. She's not brain dead, just brain missing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Where Did You Get Your Medical Degree Again?

eom

[mondo joe]

32. What would my medical degree have to do with the findings of the

physicians who have examined her?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. None Of The Neurologists Have Contended She's Brain Dead

What part of being brain dead and being in a persistent vegetative state do you not understand?

[mondo joe]

37. I never said she was brain dead, did I?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Excuse Me...

You said she's "brain missing"...


A person without a brain would need a lot more than a breathing tube....


Again, what medical school did you go to.....



-edited to put mondo joe's diagnosis in quotation marks

[mondo joe]

44. But she is missing most of her brain. Did you not get that?

My medical school is irrelevant because I'm not diagnosing Ms. Schiavo - I'm reporting the findings of the physicians who have.

Which medical school did you attend?

[Cuban_Liberal]

47. She breathes on her own, and has a voluntary heartbeat.

Did you not get that?

[mondo joe]

50. I never said she didn't breathe or have a "voluntary" heartbeat.

What a silly question.

[Cuban_Liberal]

52. Oh, so but for the withdrawl of hydration and nutririon, ...

... she wouldn't be in extremis now, would she?

[mondo joe]

58. "But for the withdrawl of a respirator she would not be in extremis

now, would she" could as easily be said of another patient.

Logical fallacy. Try again.

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. Not a fallacy.

You view both as heroic; I don't. Try again.

[mondo joe]

67. No one cares what your views are. It's not your choice, and it's

not for you to decide what is heroic.

[Cuban_Liberal]

73. I care.

And the last time I checked, I have a right to believe and to act on those beliefs. "Who cares what you think" seems to be a major component of your posts this evening. Pretty thin gruel, IMO...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Ouch

eom

[mondo joe]

78. Oh yes, you have the right to any eroneous view you like,

But as we discuss a legal and medical issue, I will continue to provide correct medical asnd legal information to counter your erroneous assertions.

[Cuban_Liberal]

81. You'll continue to provide correct medical asnd legal information?

Neatly sorted, of course, to get rid of those pesky, troublesome and truly GRUESOME facts that might make people queasy...

[mondo joe]

86. If you have facts to present, by all means do so.

I look forward to your efforts.

[Cuban_Liberal]

88. I have, repeatedly.

Why would tonight make any difference, one must wonder...

[mondo joe]

98. Fact: The feeding tube is artificial. Fact: Legally and medically

the feeding tube is a heroic measure.

[Cuban_Liberal]

101. Fallacy; the feeding tube is no more artificial than a straw.

It is not heroic.

[mondo joe]

105. If you choose to abandon actual legal and medical definitions to

suit your opinion, then we may as well all do it.

[Cuban_Liberal]

107. No, I just don't cherry pick the ones I like.

You see, there's the difference.

[mondo joe]

115. So then we can just say Terri is brain dead because you are just

making up medical definitions.

[Cuban_Liberal]

118. No, I'm not.

Nice try, though.

[mondo joe]

120. You want to play made up terms, fine: Terri is Brain Dead.

[Cuban_Liberal]

124. And it still doesn't matter.

Because her heart beats on its own, and she breathes on her own.

[mondo joe]

130. No, her heart doesn't beat on its own. In your game we make up

definitions, so: her heart doesn't beat on its own.

[Cuban_Liberal]

134. No, her heart beating on its own is an objective, observable fact.

There is no question whatsoever about that. Nice try, though.

[mondo joe]

138. No, in your game we make up definitions. Like you I can disagree

with standard definitions and make up my own:

Her heart is not beating.

In addition, her chihuahua is green.

[Cuban_Liberal]

139. Then it's YOUR game, my friend, not mine.

Nice try, though.

[Cuban_Liberal]

137. Nice try.

Her heart beating is an obejctive, observable fact.

[mondo joe]

140. Nope - just as you make up words, so am I for the moment only.

Her heart is not beating. It is an empirical fact.

[Cuban_Liberal]

144. Nice try.

No the patent silliness of your argument is becoming obvious. What's next--- a verbal stamping of your foot because I don't agree with your cherry-picked terminology?

[mondo joe]

148. Terri's parents are molestors. And your hat is cheese.

This making up definitions game of yours isn't as much fun as sticking to facts - but I'm willing to play it out with you a bit longer.

[Cuban_Liberal]

152. But I'm not making them up.

You have yet to say precisely what the definitions are, and how you know that they're correct, and not in conflict with other definitions on the same subject matter.

[mondo joe]

156. You need me to tell you which state and country the case is in?

Maybe I should rethink not charging you for tutoring.

[Cuban_Liberal]

158. Oh, but it has federal jurisdiction now.

Are you saying that we should enforce the law of all competent jurisdictions?

[mondo joe]

160. Which of the two - federal or state - says the feeding tube is not

artificial?

[Cuban_Liberal]

166. Different question.

Jurisdiction was the matter at hand, I believe.

Addendum: I've also never said that it wasn't artificial--- I've disagreed that it was heroic.

[mondo joe]

168. You are easily confused. Legal standards were the matter at hand.

Which one says feed tubes are not artificial?

[Cuban_Liberal]

169. Where did I say the were not artificial?

I'll save you the trouble of looking it up--- I never have. I've said they're not heroic.

[mondo joe]

Which legal standard, federal or state, says the feed tube is not

a heroic measure?

[Cuban_Liberal]

175. You tell me.

You're the expert here, allegedly.

[mondo joe]

179. Sorry, but you're on a time out.

I'll be back in a few minutes to tell you.

I generally wouldn't do more than 1 minute per years old of the child, but I don't know your age so I'll just give you a few.

[Cuban_Liberal]

180. Do as you wish.

I can imagine that that insispid intellectual mush that serves as the basis for your argument (sic) is getting pretty thin, so needing more time to strain it for a speck of something resembling a fact could be time consuming...

Bear in mind, I'm not obligated to stay, however, since I have a business to run, and it involves being up in 4 1/2 hours.

[mondo joe]

185. Still not ready to defend your position? Tch tch.

Back to time out.

I only pray you aren't the product of a catholic school.

[mondo joe]

190. Ah well. I sincerely hoped you could back up your claims

or at least you'd try to.

A shame.

[FreedomAngel82]

94. It is up to her husband

It has been FIFTEEN YEARS and there is no hope. People die like this EVERYDAY. TOM DELAY'S OWN FATHER DIED THIS WAY IN 1988! HE PULLED THE PLUG ON HIS OWN FREAKIN FATHER! This is NOBODY'S decision but her HUSBAND. Not yours. Not mine. Not her parents. Not any politicain or "pro-life" person. IF YOU CARED ABOUT LIFE YOU SHOULD RESPECT THIS PART OF LIFE. What is so hard to understand about that?!?!

[barb162]

195. read up on Sunny and Claus von Bulow and and tell me again

how a husband with a conflict of interest should have the say in a spouse's life or death. As I recall in that case, the kids paid that sociopath off to get him out of the picture.

[mondo joe]

204. Claus von Bulow was acquitted.

And has nothing to do with this case.

[ultraist]

207. That doesn't matter. Any RW fundie inflammatory comparisons are allowed

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. You Said She's Brain Missing

How can one have a voluntary heartbeat if one doesn't have a brain?

Shouldn't you have as much respect for the English language as you demand of others?

[mondo joe]

211. She has a brain stem.

But the vast majority of her brain is, as I said, missing.

[Just Me]

53. ,...and require artificial devices for her survival,...AND has no freedom,

to be a "participant" in her own life.

How disgusting that others are so invested as to FORCE perpetuation of her life,...without her permission.

[Cuban_Liberal]

57. A Band-Aid is an artificial device.

It's not 'heroic', and neither is a feeding tube.

[Lars39]

64. A feeding tube is considered artificial support.

[FreedomAngel82]

95. Exactly

If it wasn't for this feeding tube she would've been dead years ago. How do you know you're not playing god? How do you know God didn't want her to return to Him in 1990 when this happened?

[mondo joe]

65. A feeding tube and the bag of chemicals pumped into her gut are

equally artificial.

And the defintion of what is or is not heroic is not up to you.

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. Nor is it up to you.

I have a right equal to your own to say what I believe is or is not heroic.

[mondo joe]

71. No, it's not up to me. It is a legal and medical issue.

You can have any erroneous opinion you like.

[Cuban_Liberal]

74. As can you.

I'd never challenge your right to hold a shallow, relativistic view of what a life is.

[mondo joe]

75. Arguing opinion is like dueling masturbation. That's why I prefer

to stick to the facts.

[Cuban_Liberal]

77. Facts are double-edged swords.

We need to include them ALL, even the ones that are ugly as hell...

[mondo joe]

80. When you start presenting facts you might have a more informed

opinion about them. But so far it's like a dog commenting on what it's like to walk on 2 legs.

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. My opinion is informed.

It's just not filtered to get rid of the truly nasty, gruesome facts, like yours is.

[mondo joe]

87. If you have facts to present, by all means do so.

So far you only have opinion, and not even informed opinion at that.

[Cuban_Liberal]

93. I have an informed opinion.

And I've presented facts repeatedly; sadly, the didn't conform to your relativistic and morally-bankrupt view of what life is.

[mondo joe]

96. I'm afraid you have presented a lot of opinion, but not much fact

and then you persist in arguing things that are purely subjective.

That's a waste of time.

I'll continue to correct your erroneous assertions, but your uninformed opinions are too boring to entertain.

[Cuban_Liberal]

99. They must be erroneous, in order to be corrected.

And I also find your morally-bankrupt, relativistic, and cherry-picked prattling tedious beyond words.

[mondo joe]

103. You claim that the feeding tube is not a heroic measure is erroneous.

The feeding tube is a heroic measure, legally and medically.

If you want to redefine medical and legal terms to reflect your opinion, then you should equally accept others redefining terms like "brain dead" to reflect their opinion.

[FreedomAngel82]

97. Where are your facts now?

If you have your facts by all means PRESENT THEM NOW. Or don't state your OPINION(S) as facts unless you SHARE THEM with us.

[Cuban_Liberal]

102. I've done so repeatedly.

Your offer is disingenuous, at best, and cynical, at worst.

[mondo joe]

108. If by "facts" you mean making up your own definitions for legal and

medical terms.

But by that standard, anyone can say she's brain dead and redefine it the same way you do.

[Cuban_Liberal]

112. What have I 'made up'?

That assertion has repeatedly crept into your posts, yet I've never seen a specific allegation to back it up. Sure sounds good, though, huh?

[mondo joe]

114. Made up definitions include: heroic measures, artificial.

[Cuban_Liberal]

116. Oh, really?

Those are chiseled in stone somewhere, are they? No one's ever permitted to disagree with them? I wasn't aware of that...

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

119. You can disagree. And someone can disagree with "Brain Dead".

Why not have a whole conversation with made up definitions for medical and legal terms?

[Cuban_Liberal]

122. Why not have an honest conversation about what's really being done?

That would be refreshing.

[mondo joe]

127. Honesty would require sticking to actual legal and medical

definitions in the context of medical and legal issues.

I look forward to you joining me in that.

[Cuban_Liberal]

131. Actually, it would require more than that.

It would also require the admission that the definitions are hardly unanmously accepted in the legal and medical communities, but that wouldn't suit your argument, would it?

[mondo joe]

135. There you go playing games again. The fact is that the legal

standard is written in law, and medical standards are established as well.

When you are prepared to be honest let me know.

[Cuban_Liberal]

142. No.

So, 'written in law' is the standard, eh? Which law is that? Florida law? Federal law? Or do we again cherry pick only those laws that suit your argument?

[mondo joe]

146. "Writen in law" is the standard of what is legal.

And if you want to be more precise, state "state" or "federal" law.

That's not too hard, is it?

[Cuban_Liberal]

150. Which laws, though?

Some of them conflict, some overlap, and some are vague or silent.

[mondo joe]

155. Choose the legal standard that applies to the case and

specify all you like.

By the way, I woiuld generally charge for tutoring you on debate, but in this case I will let your fee slide.

[Cuban_Liberal]

157. But two seem to apply.

The new federal law says one thing, and the FL law says another. Which one do we choose? I wouldn't offer to pay you to teach me about debate, so you're safe there.

[mondo joe]

159. Please cite the contradiction in the two laws, state and federal.

And don't worry - you couldn't afford me. :-)

[Cuban_Liberal]

161. I could afford you.

The FL law, which supports removal of the tube (alegedly) is in conflict with the federal law, which intends to have her appear before Congress. Thse two dictates seems contradictory, to me.

[mondo joe]

162. What is the conflict with the federal law?

Be specific.

[Cuban_Liberal]

164. I could afford you.

The state law supports removing the tube, allegedly, yet Congress wants her to appear before it; those two mandates seem mutually exclusive, do they not?

[mondo joe]

170. Which legal standard, federal or state, says the feed tube is not

a heroic measure?

[Cuban_Liberal]

171. You tell me.

You're the expert here, allegedly.

[mondo joe]

173. And here you said you were going to be honest. n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

174. I am.

Tough question, isn't it, counselor?

[mondo joe]

177. Sorry, you're on a time out.

I'll check back in a few minutes to see if you're prepared to have an honest discussion about a medical and legal issue.

[Cuban_Liberal]

178. Do as you wish.

I can understand needing the time to figure out how to type another dissimulation. Bear in mind, I'm not obligated to stay, however, since I have a business to run, and it involves being up in 4 1/2 hours.

[mondo joe]

186. Sorry - bad behavior gets you another time out.

Back in a few.

[daleo]

92. Nobody has a voluntary heartbeat.

Try making your heart stop for say 45 seconds, if you think it is voluntary. Or try making it suddenly speed up to 200 beats per minute, with no increase in physical activity. It can't be done, because it is not under voluntary control.

[Cuban_Liberal]

110. You do, if it's not being artificially stimulated.

Oh please, have we nothing better to do than debate semantics? It's beating on its own.

[Lars39]

117. Heartbeat is involuntary.

[mondo joe]

143. Are you going to be a stickler for medical definitions?

I do hope so!

There are so many pretend definitions going on.

[daleo]

133. In matters like this precision of language is important.

The point is that the heartbeat is a lower brain stem function and is not associated with what we call human consciousness or awareness. The same for breathing, which is only partially under voluntary control. If you hold your breath long enough, you will pass out and begin breathing involuntarily. Therefore the fact that Ms. Shiavo did not require a respirator is not relevant to the question of consciousness. Unless you choose to reject the findings of neurology, and I guess a lot of people do.

[mondo joe]

149. Correct - she requires one of several possible types of artificial

life support, all of which are heroic measures.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. You Said She's Brain Missing..... No Doctor Has Ever Said She's Missing A

A Brain...

If I said I'm missing my keys in a room full of fifty people they would all know one thing... I don't have my keys...

Your logic is flawed

[Lars39]

61. Her cerebral cortex has atrophied and been replaced with csf.

[Cuban_Liberal]

66. And yet, she still breathes on her own and has a voluntary heartbeat.

And but for the withdrawl of hydration and nutrition, she would not be dying now. Hmm...

:think:

[mondo joe]

70. "But for the withdrawl of a respirator she would not be dying now"

would apply equally to another patient.

[Lars39]

72. The feeding tube is considered life support.

Terri's wishes of not wanting to live this way are being carried out.

[barb162]

198. there is no clear and convincing evidence of what she wanted

There is only her husband's hearsay, which is not clear and convincing at all since he had a conflict of interest. A woman is being put to a slow death, 10 days and counting, because of hearsay. I think her civil rights are being violated, that she is being very slowly executed

[Lars39]

200. Courts have ruled otherwise, numerous times.

She chose him as her next of kin.

[mondo joe]

203. Incorrect. The court reviewed the evidence and it has been upheld

as sound legal judgment.

As you have been told numerous times, barb, this is an exception to the hearsay rule.

Why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

[barb162]

109. I was wondering with whom you were discussing things and now

I know as you put the name in this post. I put this individual and a few others on ignore a few days ago and it's a lot better.

[LisaL]

19. Again, she is not brain dead. Brain death is cessation of all activity,

including brain stem. Brain dead people can not breathe on their own. Terri is not brain dead.

[barb162]

20. SHE IS PVS, not brain dead

[barb162]

21. I call a person in PVS as disabled. She is not brain dead

[Cuban_Liberal]

23. To a relativist, that doesn't matter.

To anyone who defines 'life' by degrees of higher brain function, it doesn't matter--- just pull the plug and make the problem go away. Of course, those same people wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to do something like putting a bullet in her brain, and killing her immediately--- that would be too 'messy', and would require being honest about what was being done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. It Matters To Anybody Who Has Respect For The English Language

eom

[RoyGBiv]

42. That is absurd ...

It's also infuriating and the reason I have generally stayed out of these discussions. I just knew I'd run across some comment like this and find myself in the position of having to hold my virtual tongue in a strained attempt to remain civil.

I'll tell you one damn thing. When I made the decision to "pull the plug," as you so eloquently put it, on my grandmother, I was not in any way shape or form doing anything so heinous as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. I was carrying out her wishes, related to me privately, honestly, and firmly. Her heart had stopped. She had suffered brain damage from lack of oxygen due to it. The doctor told me plainly that he could keep her alive but that the trauma she had experienced was so severe she, the person I knew as Grandma, was gone forever.

I made that decision, and I tore myself up over it for years afterward, but it was the right decision to make. Don't you dare try to tell me what I did was in any way, shape, or form equivalent to putting a bullet in her head.

[mondo joe]

43. Thank you Roy. I'm sorry you've had to read these posts

that are so insulting to people who have lived through these difficult experiences.

[RoyGBiv]

56. I didn't have to ...

I have unfortunately chosen to do so. I do thank you for your sentiments nonetheless.

I am simply baffked by the people who apparently think Mr. Shiavo is being so callous as characterizations such as those thrown about here suggest. This man did more for his wife that I dare say most of those so strenuously protesting against him would do. People talk loud. The doing is a bit harder.

[barb162]

218. I have done it twice. And never want to do it again. My mother

and her brother. Doing is a million times harder than talking.

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. Was she breathing on her own, etc.?

Was the only medical intrvention she was getting a feeding tube, so that she could have basic hydration and nutrition. If not, then the cases aren't the same.

[RoyGBiv]

48. Yes ...

And thank you very much, but am not going to re-live this experience with you.

[deadparrot]

89. Thank you for sharing your story, Roy.

I'm sick and tired of people acting like this is murder and that people are murderers for allowing their relative to die in peace without lingering in body but not spirit for years.

[RoyGBiv]

111. I wonder sometimes ...

How many people so strongly protesting this have had people close to them in this position. Undoubtedly some have, and I can respect the fact they feel strongly about it. That's why this should be a private decision, not one to be played out on the front pages or in the halls of Congress. What I don't understand is why they want to foist their own views on everyone else.

What I recall from that whole episode of my grandmother's life was how much it terrified her to be hooked up to machines just to be kept alive. In fact, her greatest fear was being consciously aware of it. When she was relating her wishes to me, she made it clear that this would be the worst thing, knowing that the world went on around her without her having any ability to interact with it but through random gestures or strained vocalizations. In other words, what those pour souls who have deluded themselves into believing is Terri's condition was in fact the kind of thing that my grandmother wanted to make sure never happened to her.

No, her case wasn't entirely analogous to Terri's, which makes this much harder for that family, because she was much older and had dealt with things like diabetes for years. She was already tired of fighting. When the end came for her, my decision was actually a bit easier than it would have been had she been conscious and aware. I'd feared that myself. I still beat myself up pretty heavily for years afterward, but I have resolved these issues and definitely do not regret having put the rest of my family through the prolonged torture of finally accepting the clear truth that Grandma died that morning, well before the doctor asked me to make a choice.

[deadparrot]

51. Yes, us....

We just love to pull the plug. Nothing better. Fuck life. :eyes:

For all the protesting that the pro-tube people put out (and, yes, I agree, it is merited at some points), you certainly make a lot of assumptions about the other side, too.

I cannot imagine being in the Schindler/Schiavo situation right now--it's horrible. I have read lots and lots of articles on this subject (as I would assume you have). I have come to the (nonexpert) conclusion that yes, this woman is technically alive, in that her heart beats and she breathes on her own. However, I've also seen that these are the resulting physical remnants of an otherwise liquefied brain.

If I truly believed that she had a decent chance of recovery short of a medical miracle, or if I truly believed that TS would want to be kept alive in such circumstances, I would support the tube. However, IMO, keeping the tube in is just not going to do any good. We would not treat an animal this way--keeping them physically alive but spiritually gone. What you see now is, is basically all she will ever be. The "old" Terri will not reemerge, she will be a beating heart and a breathing body. IMO, it is more cruel to put a human being through this with no hope of recovery than it is to let her go and be at peace.

I would appreciate it if you stopped insinuating that I don't care about life. If that was not your intent, I'm sorry, but that is what it looked like from reading your post.

Here are some articles that helped me understand the subject better. Read them, don't read them, but it might help you to understand *my* position better.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11239223.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050404/4science.htm?track=rss

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11213061.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_excerpts_1

http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=524703

[barb162]

62. so true!

Were you wondering why they said on TV today they were giving her a morphine drip as so many dismissive DUers say no "brain" or "braindead" means no pain, etc. Why waste morphine if there can't be pain? Do you think something going on in that hospice room is not quite as the Schiavo attorney was portraying ...you know that blissful look of peace on her face and all.


I was wondering how you were after that 2 day thread....


Some really unbelievable mean-spirited posts galore with no compassion at all for the family watching their child/sister who committed no crime being forced to slowly die of thirst. Anyone cheering this on, ten slow days of dying of thirst and starvation, well, I think it is inexplicable to do so.

Yes, a bullet in the head would be a hell of a lot faster and way more HUMANE.

[deadparrot]

106. Why would they? Here is your answer.

Caregivers typically moisten the mouths of patients who have stopped eating and drinking, Byock said. Many, Hansen-Flaschen said, also give morphine, more to relieve the worries of relatives than to lessen pain.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11245844.htm

[Lindacooks]

145. Well, the laws of this country prohibit euthenasia.

So the only way to let someone die is to, um, let them die. And dying from dehydration is not a painful way to go - it's very natural. Most people, at the end of life, start refusing water and food. The toxins that accumulate in the body because the kidneys aren't working act as an anesthetic.

[deadparrot]

12. Disabled is a bit of an understatement.

Thus, the analogy.

If someone who has a liquefied brain, who is not sentient, and has not been so for fifteen years (and who will be in such a state permanently), who is not aware of herself or her surroundings, who cannot communicate in any way, who courts have decided time after time after time, would *not* want to live like this, is simply "disabled" to you, then we disagree on the definition of the term.

[FreedomAngel82]

113. I had a cousin who was disabeled

who was more a live then Schavio. She could laugh, move her body (she couldn't walk), laugh, eat by herself (she had to be fed though), she knew who we were and where she was and I loved to see her because she was always happy to see me and my family. The only reason why people think Schavio knows anything that is going on is because of the unvoluntary reflex muscels her body does such as the eyes moving and the noises her body makes. The noises are what anybody can make when you're sleeping. Look at those video's of Schavio (that are four to five years old and collaged from her father) and look at her eyes. Her eyes are gone. Notice how the eyes go PAST the person who is in front of her. She never focuses on anybody. When my family and I would see my cousin my dad talked to her a lot (his niece) and she'd make eye contact with you and smile and laugh. If you really cared about disability issues there are tons of REAL disabeled people who could use your help. Schavio died fifteen years ago. She is stuck in limbo.

[deadparrot]

123. Absolutely. If her eyes were closed,

and the involntary noises stopped, there would absolutely not be the hoopla. Somehow, people equate eye movement and noise to being concious. In most cases, it is, but Terri Schiavois certaintly an exception.

[barb162]

222. I am struck by Jay Wolfson's comments about his time with

Terri Schiavo and he said there was a presence about her...that she is not some useless blob but that she is a living breathing human being. Also his comments that we all stand in her shoes or something to that effect.

Thedre are 30,000 PVS people in this country.

[deadparrot]

228. Did you bother to read his report?

About how the courts having done a good and thorough job?

A legal analysis of the tens of thousands of pages of documents in the case file, against the statutory legal guidelines and the supporting case law, leads the GAL to conclude that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner. The disposition of the courts, four times reviewed at the appellate level, and once refused review by the Florida Supreme Court, has been that the trier of fact followed the law, did its job, adhered to the rules, and rendered a decision that, while difficult and painful, was supported by the facts, the weight of the evidence and the law of Florida.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/schiavoposts2003.html (from the December 3, 2003 entry)

[mondo joe]

16. No, Terri CHOSE to have life support removed.

That's an important American right - the right to CHOOSE.

[LisaL]

22. She can not chose anything in the state she is in.

And I don't believe she chose anything before her collapse either. It is my opinion that her husband chose this for her.

[mondo joe]

24. She chose prior to being in this state.

Doesn't matter what you believe.

[Spazito]

25. The courts top your opinion

and have over and over again.

[LisaL]

27. And the courts are never wrong?

[deadparrot]

28. Wasn't just one.

I've lost count of how many judges made this ruling. More knowledgable people that I can tell you--it was over twenty, I know.

[barb162]

38. same in criminal death cases where the person charged and

sitting on Death Row for ten years was innocent. Courts are often wrong, which is why the ex guv of IL gave amnesty to several prisoners sitting on Death Row. And IL is probably one of the better states on this issue.

[deadparrot]

79. Well, first of all,

considering that much of the problems stemming from capital punishment result from racism and bias in the juries and witnesses' evidence (if you disagree, I'd like to hear a more plausible explanation), I have to say that it would be pretty hard to get a jury together that was biased against a feeding tube.

Plus, with over 80% of Americans saying that they would *not* want to be kept alive in TS's state, the odds are in her favor.

[barb162]

197. why is it that none of her friends or her family ever heard her

say what Mike says. It's just hearsay, that's all it is. Her best friend was interviewed on TV and her friend said she and Terri were talking about the Karen Quinlen case (pulling the tube) and Terri said "How do they know what she wants when she can't tell them"

[deadparrot]

202. If what her friend says is truthful,

doubtless it has been heard by a judge and dismissed as not credible.

Here is the court document that originally determined that she would not want to be kept alive. I'd like to direct you to the passages that describe the witness testimony (all of page five until the first break on page six). I cannot tell you any more than that, but it was what a judge much more experienced and learned than you or me decided was credible. I choose to trust the judge; you can decide as you choose.

It describes the problem with a witness who talked with her concerning Quinlin (I can only assume that it's the same one).

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

[mondo joe]

82. Barb, you must then advocate for all legal decisions to be abandoned

since you find the legal system without merit.

[FreedomAngel82]

128. You're comparing

death row to this? :eyes: Appels and oranges.

[barb162]

220. :eyes: sorry, apples=apples. judges make mistakes all the time

Some are appointed political hacks. Some are elected hacks. Some are really good.

[Spazito]

91. It was at least 23 and could be as many as 25 times this case

went to court, up and down the system, over and over again and ALL have ruled the same way. The Supreme Court has refused at least twice and maybe even 3 times, I have lost count.

[mondo joe]

100. No, don't you see? Legal findings are only valid if you like them.

Appeals don't matter because the laws don't matter - only getting the outcome you like matters.

[FreedomAngel82]

125. It's been now

at least around twenty-four and the SURPREME COURT even refused to see this case FOUR times now.

[mondo joe]

29. The court decision was legally sound.

And that'sthe beauty of the legal system - it provides an avenue for disputes to be settled, and it even provides the recourse of appeals to catch and reverse errors.

That hasn't happened.

Your wild speculation is not relevant.

[deadparrot]

26. No, the husband originally

asked the courts to determine what Terri would have wanted.

Once they determined that she would not have wanted it, *that's* when he began to fight for the tube's removal.

[FreedomAngel82]

121. It's your OPINION

According to law her husband is her next of kin when she married him. It's HIS decision to carry it out. You should respect that.

[mondo joe]

196. Just a technicality here, but Michael Schiavo did not take that

tact.

Instead of asserting his decision, he asked the court to determine what her wishes were. The court looked at all the evidence and concluded she did not want to live on life support this way.

Now while I agree with you that it should be his decison, and a court may have upheld it, that's not actually the basis of this case.

[barb162]

223. that is what I think after seeing him on the Larry King Show about

ten days ago. When he said to the effect "....We don't know what Terri wants. This is what we want."

[democracyindanger]

59. Hitler was a vegetarian, too. Big deal.

Do you really think comparing this to Nazism helps your cause? Because the comparison is asinine, and the first time I saw it brought up was by a wingnut harassing the hospice, complete with German battle flag. Maybe it's just me, but if my argument was the same as that of a self-moralizing, religious fanatic who thinks he's doing the Heavenly Cloud Being's will, who's part of a crowd that's calling for the death of a judge, who's causing such a scene that at least one woman WAS UNABLE TO GET TO HER GRANDFATHER'S BEDSIDE TO SAY GOODBYE BEFORE HE DIED--well, I'd definitely step back and think deeply about what I'm saying.

AND WHAT ABOUT SUN HUDSON? Where are all your posts about him? I guess when a husband carries out what he believes his wife's wishes are and is supported by the court and medical experts--that's reason to scream "Nazi!" But when an infant is removed from life support against his mother's wishes because the hospital thinks it's a waste of money, the whole Save Terri movement is shockingly mute. So excuse me if I don't take any of this crap seriously. It's hard to take seriously people who go on and on about the "culture of life" when they're so got-damn fickle about what lives they're going to be concerned about.

[FreedomAngel82]

132. I agree

And like Jon Stewart said on a show earlier this week, the Nazi people worked really hard to be evil so you can't just scream "Nazi" at every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along. :eyes:

[Lindacooks]

129. She isn't being KILLED, she's being allowed to die

a peaceful, natural death.

I find it so insulting that people think that because many of us want her wishes carried out (as determined by, now, 30 judges, or is it 300??) we want to get rid of the disabled. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have several disabled members of my family, and as long as their brains are alive and their wishes are being met, they get every bit of support I can give. I would want the same courtesy extended to me.

[shrub chipper]

10. and we all know that the RW is always STRONG

for things like Disability Rights.

[barb162]

31. somehow or other Disabled Queers in Action doesn't sound like a

right wing group; from the bottom of their statement:
Disabled Queers in Action (DQIA) is a national disability and queer rights organization for ending all the 'isms' in our communities, including able-ism, racism, sexism, and heterosexism.


from the last paragraph of their March 23 statement:

Sadly, the news presents an illusionary choice to die instead of listening to people with disabilities. Until all options of living: disability rights, food/water, and attendant services/supports are exhausted and absolutely clear written directives based on facts not myths such as "better off dead than disabled", then Ms. Schindler-Schiavo must be allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[QC]

191. Wonderful understatement there! ;-)

[Wonk]

13. Do the names James Dobson, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Joseph Coors

ring a bell?

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155253.htm

[barb162]

35. let me take a wild guess without looking at the link

hmmm, rich rightwingers?????

Actually we have known this for years, haven't we?

[Wonk]

49. Same people behind the Clinton witch hunt and Terri's media campaign.

p.s. Look at the link please, that's why I posted it.

[cosmicdot]

172. Team Schiavo's Deep Pockets

Team Schiavo's Deep Pockets

'Following the money' reveals that a host of right wing organizations, many of which are affiliated with the Philanthropy Roundtable http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/philanthropy_roundtable.htm -- a consortium of right wing foundations and philanthropists -- have been copiously funding the Terri Schiavo case

by Bill Berkowitz
for MediaTransparency.org

POSTED MARCH 24, 2005--

If you don't follow the ins and outs of the philanthropy scene you likely have never heard of the Philanthropy Roundtable. Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer working on the Terri Schiavo case wasn't familiar with the organization either until a few months after he filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization opposing Gov. Jeb Bush's action in trying "to overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube."

Eisenberg, who appeared at a Florida State University public debate with lawyers for Gov. Bush and the Schiavo family two months after filing the suit, was curious as to whether Pat Anderson, "one of multiple attorneys who have represented" Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Wesley Smith and Rita Marker, "two activists whose specialty is opposing surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent vegetative state patients," were doing this work on a "pro bono" basis as he was.

~snip~

The Philanthropy Roundtable's Board of Directors reads like a Who's Who of the world of right wing philanthropy. The Board includes: Chairman Daniel S. Peters, the president of the Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation, Vice Chairman Heather Richardson Higgins, the president and director of the Randolph Foundation, Secretary and Treasurer Joseph S. Dolan, the executive director of the Achelis and Bodman Foundations, Kimberly O. Dennis, the executive director of the D & D Foundation and director of the National Research Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute (website), Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution (website), Michael W. Grebe, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, and James Piereson the Executive Director of the John M. Olin Foundation.

According to Media Transparency, between 1993 and 2003, the Philanthropy Roundtable received over $4.3 million from such right wing foundations as the Roe, Earhart, John M. Olin, Lynde and Harry Bradley, the William E. Simon, and Randolph Foundations. Grebe's Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has been particularly generous, giving the Roundtable nearly $1.5 million all of which was earmarked "to support general operations."

~snip~

http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/schiavo.html

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=280

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/

[ultraist]

41. That group (notdeadyet) is associated with fundies

Approximately 70% of the disabilities rights community supports assisted suicide.

That article is riddled with lies and is misleading.

[mmonk]

54. I'm a disability rights activist myself

and this situation is a perversion of the issue. This is an end of life issue. Her brain injury was fatal. Her body is kept alive well...nevermind, I can't convince people who refuse to believe medical science. I will tell you any disabled people or disability rights people (I'm talking real disabilty rights people, not offshoots of the pro life movement) are partnering with their enemies. The judges these people want put in our courts do not believe that ADA is constitutional nor applicable to the 14th amendment. They believe congress overstepped its bounds with ADA. When they get into our court system, the disabled can kiss their rights good bye. I'm sorry for any of you that are disabled being misled by these people. But disabled people participating with these people is like African Americans participating in a Klan rally. I know these people and have been battling them for years in the struggle to obtain the rights the disabled deserve. Distance yourselves from this.

[ultraist]

90. excellent points mmonk!

The judges these people want put in our courts do not believe that ADA is constitutional nor applicable to the 14th amendment. They believe congress overstepped its bounds with ADA. When they get into our court system, the disabled can kiss their rights good bye. I'm sorry for any of you that are disabled being misled by these people.

These RW nuts want to curtail the ADA. They have tried it before. Reagan tried to eliminate many ADA regulations for businesses.

We know the bottom line of corps comes first for RWers. Adhering to ADA regulations cuts into their bottom line. They don't care about rights for the disabled or any other groups' rights for that matter.

[Spazito]

126. Well said!

*

[Pastiche423]

154. "...is like African Americans participating in a Klan rally"

A great analogy and right on.

Hearing the name Not Dean Yet, to me, is liking hearing fingernails on a chalkboard.

I have been disabled for 18 years and I do not want them advocating anything for me! Never have and never will.

They are an embarrassment to anyone w/a disability.

[jonnyblitz]

163. thank you for posting and clarifying this!!

I certainly appreciate you clearing up the one thing that was troubling me about this. I hated to think I was considered "anti-disability" because of my view of this particular situation. :hi:

[flying_monkeys]

183. Thank you for pointing out how FUBAR it is to portray this

as a "Disability Case". It isn't, not at all.

The sheep are lying down with the wolves on this one....

[liberal43110]

192. Disability activists supporting Schiavo are doing disservice to the cause

mmonk, you said it best: This is not a disability issue; this is an end of life issue.

People are doing a grave disservice to disability rights by mistaking the Schiavo case, and similar cases, as disability issues.

In another post Cuban Liberal claimed that PVS is a disability. That is ridiculous.

[barb162]

227. I had never heard of this (these) group before but the

spokesperson for the group seemed pretty sincere. She didn't seen RW or LW, just for rights of the disabled.
I think of Terri Schiavo's situation as a civil rights issue, a disabled person's issue until about 1 day ago. As she is failing fast, yes, today it is an end of life issue as she may be dead tomorrow morning. As of a year ago, did you think of her case as an end of life issue?

[southlandshari]

219. From the South?

I know this was the title of the press release (not your title), but I don't get it. Aren't these groups from all over the country?

Feel free to ignore - I know this is not the issue at hand in the thread. I just couldn't resist pointing this out. Forgive the distraction!

[barb162]

224. if you go searching around the web site, the "Not Dead Yet"

people are headquartered in a Chicago suburb and I did not check the interconnections of the various disability groups and where they are located/headquartered. While I was just starting the thread I had MSNBC on and they started interviewing a spokesperson for the group who was in a wheelchair. She definitely had a Chicago accent. I suspect the title of the article could have been worded a bit better and it was clear from the number of people in wheelchairs there today at least some disabled want to get their view across.

[southlandshari]

226. I hear you!

I hope I was clear in that last post that I knew the title wasn't yours. I can be kind of type-A about South-bashing, and I just couldn't stop myself on that reply. I hope I didn't offend!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

225. warning, you must agree with all others or they will flame you

warning, posting any information that does not toe the line in the DU will get you flamed. If you are hoping to post information here that does not endorse or promote the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, expect to be treated like trash.

Your views will not be tolerated, and you will not be treated kindly.

You will be dehumanized by hate words etc calling you a freeper, or a bushie, or a right winger, or a religious nut, etc.

I have seen it already. There is only room for one opinion here, and if you don't have the right opinion, you are not welcome here.

People here do not feel that they have to treat you with any sense of decency if you don't agree with them.

There is only one right opinion, and that is the one of the people who flame you, call you names, insult you or call you crazy.

Freedom of speech is not to be tolerated! It must be shouted down or beaten down with insults etc.

[Moderator]

229. Locking

This has gone on long enough.