Euthanasia

[Apos]

The most basic pain is hunger. She'll feel that.

No, she won't, because there is nothing there to "feel" anything.

I should be asking you this, since Constitutionally and Lawfully speaking Euthanasia does not exist in United States.

Yes, but DNR orders, refusals of treatment, living wills, and last wishes all do. They are not euthanasia. They are allowing nature to complete its course without resorting to ridiculous means to keep the body alive after the brain is gone.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

His wife was in PVS, effectively brain dead.

Consent was not given, therefore, her life whatever it is argued to being at what stage, must be preserved constitutionally.

And he didn't have any choice: if you had a clue about this case, you'd know that. Instead, you just run at the mouth without knowing anything about it.

Go ahead, lie about me. But it still does not change consent was not given, and, that such ethics to put someone out of their misery categorizes as murder and justifies capital punishment.

I'm not going to explain it again.

Thats fine. Less for me to deal with.

What you are saying is nonsense.

The legal system is nonsense? I agree there are some quirks we need to fix, but the statement its complete nonsense is absurd.

Cite please? I already gave a cite for all my claims:

Do you? You only have one. I'am operating off of what I already know about the case from watching the news, from what I gathered from local paper reports and what I have of published transcripts. I dont have a scanner, so I can't cite persay, nor do I feel it my responsibility to do it either.

All of which has already been earmarked for charity.

So its charitable to kill someone now, without their consent?

This is a nonsensical response.

Then why did'nt you say that about your postings before! You could've saved me the time!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, she won't, because there is nothing there to "feel" anything.

Then why were they feeding her -- and where? Of course you know my reference was to the Stomache or Intestines.

Yes, but DNR orders, refusals of treatment, living wills, and last wishes all do.

By the United States law, Constitution and Doctrites Oath, you cannot kill someone no matter what they're will.

The law defends life, it does not defend the taking of it; especially, without consent or legal backing -- which matters not since Euthanasia does not exist in US law.

 

[^Ben]

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

The law decided she should die.

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

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

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

Her consent.

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

About her "reactions"

What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?

When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.

The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."

Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.

If the law is the crux of your argument Kerb then this should intrest you.

Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?

Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:

The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.

§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure":

"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.

§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes (italics added by me).

 

[el Chi]

Dear Kerebos,

As the old adage goes: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics..."
I can see we're going to be at loggerheads for sometime unless one of us realises that we will never agree; it's nearly 2am, and I'm hoping to bring our exhilerating exchange to a close right here.
Honestly, it's been interesting to hear your side of the fence, but I'm still slightly lost as to your argument.

You kept reiterating that euthanasia is illegal. This is a FACT, however this is not the DEBATE. The debate is to whether it should be legal or not. I see few arguments you have given that actually address that specific.

You repeatedly cite the starvation case when I have repeatedly said that I am appalled by that method too. However, as I have also said repeatedly, had euthanasia been legal, no-one would have needed to resort to such awful measures.
Someone holding a pillow or a plastic bag over their loved ones' face to restrict their breathing is very sad, but if euthanasia were legal, it wouldn't be necessary.

No, because it won't stop at those who really are in suffering. It will divulge into the populace like sickeningly spilled oils will into the ecosystem of an ocean -- it will pollute, destroy, and ultimately kill the system of life affordance and humane sociality

A beautifully worded response - one of many - but you can dress your points up in as many sophisticated words as your lexicon can handle; it doesn't make you right. That's a completely specious statement; if we allow people to commit suicide, then society will become irretrievably sullied?
A seemingly similar argument is used against the legalisation of homosexual marriages, prostitution, to name just two examples. Is your faith in society and humanity really so tenuous that a move such as this can really push us over the brink?
The Netherlands and Switzerland have both legalised euthanasia, and they appear to be doing ok.

Then there is the issue of consent. I've asked whether you would consider consensual euthanasia to be permissible. You have failed to answer that question so far.
On the other hand, if the patient is in such a bad state that they cannot convey a sentient decision, they ought to be kept alive, just in case they're happy like that?
Well, this is all subjective, of course, but personally I think that's highly questionable. Although you will disagree, and that's fair enough.

So, for one final time:
Cases of euthanasia similar to the starvation case would NOT OCCUR if euthanasia was legal.
It if were legalised, it would be an OPTION, not a NECESSITY.
It would be clean, safe, painless, humane and provided by the health services.
It would not involve restricting food intake, it would be something along the lines of a controlled, lethal dosage of drugs, the sensation of which would be no different than falling asleep.
Also, it would not be done indiscriminately; as a procedure from the health services, it would be STRICTLY monitored and cases where patient's consent was unavailable would be heavily deliberated on with MANY considerations affecting the resulting decision.

The legalisation of euthanasia would alieviate most of your opposing concerns.
However, this is not something we'll agree on, so I will bid you good night.

As an aside; indignantly and indignity are two completely unrelated words.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Google debates suk... (Who read all that?) Answer - Someone with too much time on their hands.

I do the courtesy of putting my livestock down. Humans would rather see their bretheren suffer miserably I guess.

 

[Apos]

By the United States law, Constitution and Doctrites Oath, you cannot kill someone no matter what they're will.

But you can remove artificial life support if they can be shown to have expressed a wish not to have it under certain circumstances. This goes on constantly all over the country all the time.

The courts found that she did express just such a wish not to be artificially kept alive. The courts ruled on this. The ruling was upheld over and over. The appeals court affirmed the ruling. The Supreme Court refused to hear any further appeals the case itself, and they even struck down a law that violated the Constitution by trying to grant the governor inappropriate powers to override the decision about removing life support.

Removing the tube is thus, by any definition, legal. It is not euthanasia, which requires taking active steps to end someone's life as opposed to removing artificial life support. The ONLY issue ever under legal dispute was whether Terry had expressed a wish not to be artificially kept alive after effective brain death. And this issue was dealt with in the appropriate legal venue: a hearing system that was legal under the laws of Florida. You claim that there must be a video or a living will in order for consent to be granted. I'm sorry, but this is not the case. If you want to continue to argue this, then I suggest you actually cite the relevant law. Otherwise, any other response from you will simply be evading the point.

Face it, you're wrong. I've posted links to the actual legal rulings that say you're wrong, rulings made by the duly instated courts with jurisdiction over this issue. Instead of refuting my arguments, you've made nonsensical responses and headed off on tangents that avoid the force of the points I made. That is not an honest way to carry on a debate about legal and factual matters. And in addition to refusing to acknowledge the facts, you've attacked straw men (that euthanasia isn't legal: which everyone agrees, but isn't relevant to this case) and made nasty ad hominem slander of Terry's husband that's based on precisely no evidence whatsoever.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Apos]

Then why were they feeding her -- and where? Of course you know my reference was to the Stomache or Intestines.

This doesn't make any sense either. Are you claiming that stomachs and intestines have feelings?

They were feeding her because that is part of how they are artificially keeping her non-functional body alive, not because she would feel anything one way or another.

 

[PvtRyan]

As Apos and El Chi are doing a great job at defending, I'm only responding to this:

I disagree. People would literally sell themselves out to Universities simply for the production of Stem Cells through artificial insemination. Is that what you want? Rows of rich women who get aritifically inseminated only to have the future President or next great Intellectual thinker get broken down into a biproduct that can cure an 98 year olds bad back?

Let the 98 year old die -- we need different genes in the gene pool; frankly selling it out to the Hospitals and Universities is going to thread out our options, and its going to have long term effects for those who try and do it. Mock me now, stick your nose up in the air and choose apathy;not believing it -- but one day, as your walking tall with nose pointed towards the sky, you'll wack into the Poll of truth ... and scribbled all over it will be my conspiracy theories that came to life.

I agree, let the 98-year old die. Let nature take its course. Same goes for Terri, she's not alive, her bodily functions have been kept working for 15 years, she hasn't lived for 15 years, she's been dead for 15 years, all they did was stretch the last minute of her life on for 15 years.

And stemcell research isn't for the 98-year old with backproblems, it can cure paralysis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes.

As for your fears of stemcell thefts: be realistic. Seriously.

But Kerberos, let me ask you this, would you find euthanasia justified in this case: a man, 65 years old, is suffering from a brain tumor, treatments have not catched on and there is no hope of survival for him. Now he wants doctors to end his life before the pain worsens, and the tumor starts to attack his brain functions, so he can say goodbye to his relatives with dignity and at full consciousness.

Is that your humanity? To let him die anyway, but with more pain?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You kept reiterating that euthanasia is illegal. This is a FACT, however this is not the DEBATE. The debate is to whether it should be legal or not.

Actually, the fact that it is illegal is also why this debate even started. Now, I don't now how why you feel Euthanasia needs more room for debate, considering that act itself was put into effect once they starved the poor women to death; again, without legally documented consent that even I could read or hear coming from this womens mouth or writing. :/

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

Which was ...?

Well, here's what it was not:

• Legally Documented
• Legally Documented and heard by the Courts

Hearsay does not justify murder.

As the old adage goes: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics..."

"...even IF you win, your still retarded".

You repeatedly cite the starvation case when I have repeatedly said that I am appalled by that method too. However, as I have also said repeatedly, had euthanasia been legal, no-one would have needed to resort to such awful measures.

Yes, but technically on her death Euthanasia was enacted once the court ruled to starve her. I'am glad you disagree to such a death, but Euthanasia being legal would'nt have changed their choice in killing her.

It practically was legal and ineffect the day they voted to remove her feeding tube -- why was'nt their decision changed, once the action was in the foreground of preparedness?

Cases of euthanasia similar to the starvation case would NOT OCCUR if euthanasia was legal.

Which is, not true -- as I've specified above for clarification.

It if were legalised, it would be an OPTION, not a NECESSITY.

According to her Husband, and the hearsaic testimoney not legally documented nor heard by the courts, it was not an Option but a Necessity to kill her.

... without her Consent of course.

It would be clean, safe, painless, humane and provided by the health services.

Why would Health Services be helping an element of death?

It would not involve restricting food intake, it would be something along the lines of a controlled, lethal dosage of drugs, the sensation of which would be no different than falling asleep.

But, such dreams do not amount for the horrible reality were living in -- she was starved, not drugged; and further more all of this was without her legally documented consent. (recordings, written approval -- hearsay does not account).

as a procedure from the health services, it would be STRICTLY monitored and cases where patient's consent was unavailable would be heavily deliberated on with MANY considerations affecting the resulting decision.

However, thats the point, the Courts did not have legally written or recorded spoken Consent for their own case records -- therefore, this case is still being deliberated on however with one women dead, and its ex-husband looking at getting his jiggy on.

The legalisation of euthanasia would alieviate most of your opposing concerns.

The Legalization of Euthanasia is what I'am against, and that simply is not a concern.

Humans would rather see their bretheren suffer miserably I guess.

Yet I don't feel a shred of guilt because the charge is not correct for my intentions. Tell that to person who removed her feeding tube, only to slowly starve and kill her.

But you can remove artificial life support if they can be shown to have expressed a wish not to have it under certain circumstances.

Not true -- the rule for Life Support, is that it stays on until the person dies, and shows no signs of needing it anymore. She had'nt died -- she was still being fed; she had a pulse, therefore she was still alive.

Now, if someone came in the room where she was being held and popped her once in the head with a 9mm, then you could remove the Life Support given she already died from the attack.

Another example, would be that her heart simply stopped pumping blood, her body functions ceased COMPLETELY, and after a few minutes she was pronouned dead -- then legally again, only then, could you remove the Life Support.

Life Support, is meant to support life; and she was still living, that is until they removed such from her system illegally.

The courts found that she did express just such a wish not to be artificially kept alive.

Yes, without documented consent. It was nethire written, nor verbiated on Camera or in a recording; it was hearsay and the courts again could not read nor hear of it.

Arguing on something not concrete and backed up by the affordance of recordings and personal writings from the women in question, is only a fallback stance having nothing else to ground a counter-charge with.

I would expect the courts had documented consent that I should be able to afford myself a download and reading of -- however, nethire existed then ... nethire exists today. The courts did not have legal representation of this womens expressed opinions and choices, further, in that Euthanasia is not legal therefore what the courts did to violate the Oaths of their own MD Doctrites, is a call for Capital Punishment given their wanton unchecked behavior.

This doesn't make any sense either.

:rolling: Oh, but it did. Your only merit to sabotage this debate now is to put in question things that have already been established, and to put in question any queries about yourself to make it somehow not your responsibility to answer any questions.

If sometime in the future I'am inclined to ask you again where the food they were feeding her was directed into her body, I'll give you a small enough posting girth limited to 64 characters.

As Apos and El Chi are doing a great job at defending

Not really, no. But you smell like Fresh Meat -- would you like to take a stab at the 'ole debate?

Same goes for Terri, she's not alive

Then why were they feeding her? To keep her alive of course.

her bodily functions have been kept working for 15 years

Thats true, which is why she's alive.

she hasn't lived for 15 years

In by living, your placating that she cant have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, or play a volume of outdoor activities. Well, I know a lot of people who dont have sex, choose not to drink, are'nt old enough to drive, who dont watch TV, and also who dont work for scores of outdoor chores.

That does'nt mean that they're not living, and that does'nt mean such subjects are whats nessecary to classify a human being as capable of being alive.

all they did was stretch the last minute of her life on for 15 years.

I know this case confuses you, so I'll help you out. Her last minute of life has been going on for years now, and a year is really not a minute. If you wanted to reiterate it was a stretch to keep her alive, then perhaps her Spouse would agree with you.

And stemcell research isn't for the 98-year old with backproblems, it can cure paralysis, Parkinson's disease,

Which some elderly have Parkinson's disease, have certain kinds of Paralysis -- which makes this statement all the more ironic, and contradicting.

As for your fears of stemcell thefts: be realistic.

Thats simple to say -- care to say whats not realistic about it?

But Kerberos, let me ask you this, would you find euthanasia justified in this case: a man, 65 years old, is suffering from a brain tumor, treatments have not catched on and there is no hope of survival for him.

Let him die naturally.

Is that your humanity? To let him die anyway, but with more pain?

Would your humanity be to kill him, then get arrested because you violated a United States law, Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and a Doctrites oath?

Off to the pen with you then, Dr. Kervorkian Junior. But the thing you fail to realize is my humanity is not in question -- its the courts. Your argueing because you felt it humane -- I'am argueing because it was not only inhumane to starve someone to death, but even more corrupt when you violate Laws, Rights, Constitutional Placations, and Doctrites Oath which should afford scores of people arrests and court hearings.

Thats my only Niche'.

 

[Absinthe]

In by living, your placating that she cant have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, or play a volume of outdoor activities. Well, I know a lot of people who dont have sex, choose not to drink, are'nt old enough to drive, who dont watch TV, and also who dont work for scores of outdoor chores.

Wow.

Those people you mentioned. Do they not have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, play in a volume of outdoor activities because they CHOOSE not to or because they CAN'T physically or mentally? Actually, forget that. How many of those people also can't speak, can't eat without machinery, can't feel, can't think, and cannot function as a proper living and normal human being? We're not talking about social hobbies and the nice little luxuries of life. We're talking about the ability to live.

 

[Absinthe]

Let him die naturally.

A painful, distressing, and degrading death.

You're humane. Congrats. I'm curious as to how you sleep at night.

ADDED: If you're for a natural death... then why the Hell do you support having this poor woman's life dragged on like this?

ADDED (2): Also, for all your wailing about laws, and justice, and all that crap. You conveniently ignore/sidestep around this.

The appeals court agreed that courts should err on the side of life, but that there was, in this case, clear and convincing evidence that Terry did not wish to be maintained in such a state and would thus refuse treatment. How can you claim that this was illegal?

 

[jondy]

In by living, your placating that she cant have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, or play a volume of outdoor activities. Well, I know a lot of people who dont have sex, choose not to drink, are'nt old enough to drive, who dont watch TV, and also who dont work for scores of outdoor chores.

That statement doesn't have any validity; you set up your own definitions and knocked them down. I'm pretty sure Apos' definition of 'alive' isn't 'have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, or play a volume of outdoor activities'

 

[CptStern]

Actually, the fact that it is illegal is also why this debate even started. Now, I don't now how why you feel Euthanasia needs more room for debate, considering that act itself was put into effect once they starved the poor women to death; again, without legally documented consent that even I could read or hear coming from this womens mouth or writing. :/



Which was ...?

Well, here's what it was not:

• Legally Documented
• Legally Documented and heard by the Courts

Hearsay does not justify murder.



"...even IF you win, your still retarded".



Yes, but technically on her death Euthanasia was enacted once the court ruled to starve her. I'am glad you disagree to such a death, but Euthanasia being legal would'nt have changed their choice in killing her.

It practically was legal and ineffect the day they voted to remove her feeding tube -- why was'nt their decision changed, once the action was in the foreground of preparedness?



Which is, not true -- as I've specified above for clarification.



According to her Husband, and the hearsaic testimoney not legally documented nor heard by the courts, it was not an Option but a Necessity to kill her.

... without her Consent of course.



Why would Health Services be helping an element of death?



But, such dreams do not amount for the horrible reality were living in -- she was starved, not drugged; and further more all of this was without her legally documented consent. (recordings, written approval -- hearsay does not account).



However, thats the point, the Courts did not have legally written or recorded spoken Consent for their own case records -- therefore, this case is still being deliberated on however with one women dead, and its ex-husband looking at getting his jiggy on.



The Legalization of Euthanasia is what I'am against, and that simply is not a concern.



Yet I don't feel a shred of guilt because the charge is not correct for my intentions. Tell that to person who removed her feeding tube, only to slowly starve and kill her.



Not true -- the rule for Life Support, is that it stays on until the person dies, and shows no signs of needing it anymore. She had'nt died -- she was still being fed; she had a pulse, therefore she was still alive.

Now, if someone came in the room where she was being held and popped her once in the head with a 9mm, then you could remove the Life Support given she already died from the attack.

Another example, would be that her heart simply stopped pumping blood, her body functions ceased COMPLETELY, and after a few minutes she was pronouned dead -- then legally again, only then, could you remove the Life Support.

Life Support, is meant to support life; and she was still living, that is until they removed such from her system illegally.



Yes, without documented consent. It was nethire written, nor verbiated on Camera or in a recording; it was hearsay and the courts again could not read nor hear of it.

Arguing on something not concrete and backed up by the affordance of recordings and personal writings from the women in question, is only a fallback stance having nothing else to ground a counter-charge with.

I would expect the courts had documented consent that I should be able to afford myself a download and reading of -- however, nethire existed then ... nethire exists today. The courts did not have legal representation of this womens expressed opinions and choices, further, in that Euthanasia is not legal therefore what the courts did to violate the Oaths of their own MD Doctrites, is a call for Capital Punishment given their wanton unchecked behavior.



:rolling: Oh, but it did. Your only merit to sabotage this debate now is to put in question things that have already been established, and to put in question any queries about yourself to make it somehow not your responsibility to answer any questions.

If sometime in the future I'am inclined to ask you again where the food they were feeding her was directed into her body, I'll give you a small enough posting girth limited to 64 characters.



Not really, no. But you smell like Fresh Meat -- would you like to take a stab at the 'ole debate?



Then why were they feeding her? To keep her alive of course.



Thats true, which is why she's alive.



In by living, your placating that she cant have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, or play a volume of outdoor activities. Well, I know a lot of people who dont have sex, choose not to drink, are'nt old enough to drive, who dont watch TV, and also who dont work for scores of outdoor chores.

That does'nt mean that they're not living, and that does'nt mean such subjects are whats nessecary to classify a human being as capable of being alive.



I know this case confuses you, so I'll help you out. Her last minute of life has been going on for years now, and a year is really not a minute. If you wanted to reiterate it was a stretch to keep her alive, then perhaps her Spouse would agree with you.



Which some elderly have Parkinson's disease, have certain kinds of Paralysis -- which makes this statement all the more ironic, and contradicting.



Thats simple to say -- care to say whats not realistic about it?



Let him die naturally.



Would your humanity be to kill him, then get arrested because you violated a United States law, Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and a Doctrites oath?

Off to the pen with you then, Dr. Kervorkian Junior. But the thing you fail to realize is my humanity is not in question -- its the courts. Your argueing because you felt it humane -- I'am argueing because it was not only inhumane to starve someone to death, but even more corrupt when you violate Laws, Rights, Constitutional Placations, and Doctrites Oath which should afford scores of people arrests and court hearings.

Thats my only Niche'.

may be of some use

 

[Apos]

Which was ...?

Well, here's what it was not:

• Legally Documented
• Legally Documented and heard by the Courts

Hearsay does not justify murder.

I'm sorry, but this is not legally hearsay (do you even know what the definition of hearsay is?), it is not legally murder or euthanasia (its refusal of care), and the proceedures followed to determine Terri's wishes were in accordance with Florida state law.

You can, of course, argue that it's not good enough for YOU, but it's simply nonsense to argue that it's illegal.

You keep arguing as if you were speaking on behalf of the law. But I've already read out the law to you: you are simply wrong and you've offered nothing in contrary to that. Take this:

Not true -- the rule for Life Support, is that it stays on until the person dies, and shows no signs of needing it anymore. She had'nt died -- she was still being fed; she had a pulse, therefore she was still alive.

That is simply not the law. Florida state law says that people can refuse life support. Florida state law says that feeding tubes and hydration are artificial life support.

End of story. You're wrong, and you've offerred NOTHING to support your argument about the law other than your own demonstrably misinformed opinion.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

We're talking about the ability to live.

Which was denied the moment hearsaic testimoney proofed the removal of her life support.

A painful, distressing, and degrading death.

You're humane. Congrats. I'm curious as to how you sleep at night.

If you wish to question my humanity, keep to PM's Absinthe.

But for an answer here that might promote an interest in PMing me, lets just say I'd rather let it die naturally for scientific observation. You never know what might change, and who knows -- with recent advancements, theirs a probability your scenario does'nt lend itself to having death as an absolute.

ADDED: If you're for a natural death... then why the Hell do you support having this poor woman's life dragged on like this?

Since where was it in question her life was not natural, or genuine? Her death was'nt.

It is not in question that Euthanasia is not within the Constitution of my country; so with this acknowledged, "mercy murder" would still be a punishable offense. You cant bely somehow that my charged heartless will, is only heartless because I happen to be that kind of individual. I have a heart for the future, and a heart for my constitution which was broken.

The only real thing we can do, in my honest opinion, is watch how he dies and see if we can do anything in the future to stop such things that killed him from consequencing others.

may be of some use

I dont click on links that are'nt specified to their purpose. What is this? Another source? You'd do best to leave the website URL then your own text.

I'm sorry, but this is not legally hearsay (do you even know what the definition of hearsay is?),

This is all legally defined as hearsay. Especially when we consider her Consent was not legally recorded but only "stated to have been" without written documentation or audio recording.

it is not legally murder or euthanasia (its refusal of care), and the proceedures followed to determine Terri's wishes were in accordance with Florida state law.

Refusal of Care is also a violation of US law, which determines Capital Punishment as an outcome. You can't refuse care, not unless your Hospital resources are extended beyond further helping others, and not unless your staff is in imminent danger.

How could a, "vegetable" constitute danger? I mean, lets get creative folks! :rolling:

Next, the Hospital resources were not extended, and she was a signed-in patient receiving treatment long before I stated this; which means if a Dooms Day scenario was at hand, and millions of people were dying, she would receive treatment over those others because she was there first ... which is morbid, but the truth.

You can, of course, argue that it's not good enough for YOU

It's not good enough reason for the Country to watch, read, and hear of this women now starving and dying under false pretenses. It's not a good enough reason to execute the principles of murder when the acts themselves are in clear violation of US law, and this womens right to live.

You keep arguing as if you were speaking on behalf of the law.

Apos, is there something wrong with reminding the forum-goers of US law? That murder is a clear violation of its foundation?

No, there's nothing wrong. If you wish to persecute me about my choices to remind people Euthanasia, and this cases outcome, is in clear violation of my countries constitution, bill of rights, and judicial rule, then you may aswell persecute me about being a citizen who knows his law, and knows this breaks it.

I find nothing wrong with such reminders -- if you have a problem with such, then keep it to PM's but do not further ridicule my choice to remind the members such a case is clearly violating our countries law, and that further acting on it, might lead to brink corruption.

That is simply not the law.

It happens to be a, "law" inside the practioning of being a Doctor, or working as a medical subordinate substituting for on-facility staff or membership.

Get used to it.

Florida state law says that people can refuse life support.

Are you Dumstruck? This women did not refuse medical care because no consent was legally documented via writing, audio recording, or video-taping to remove the life support; or to refuse the care to begin with.

It is in clear violation of such "laws" which defend this womens right to live; which is where I'am argueing from: A Position where this case violated such and will allow future violations.

End of story. You're wrong,

Sadly, this is'int true -- otherwise you would'nt be leaving so soon with your tail-tucked between your legs.

No legally documented consent via audio recording, video-taping, or writting? No US law, Bill of Rights, Doctrites Oath, and Constitution stating Euthanasia or, "mercy killing" is defensible and allowable?

Then there is no story. It should've been the end of this discussion before hand. But I dont need your emotive drivel to sport the knowledge that I've been right now, and have been all along; and that your having trouble coming to terms to that given your superiority complex.

It was long, hard, but I won the interenet race. But judging from the amount of criticism for my choices and my countries, I'm. Still. Retarded.

 

[CptStern]

I dont click on links that are'nt specified to their purpose. What is this? Another source? You'd do best to leave the website URL then your own text.

you prove my point

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you prove my point

Now your dillusional. Does it have anything to do with this discussion?

:rolling: Obviously, NOT. :/

 

[Apos]

This is all legally defined as hearsay. Especially when we consider her Consent was not legally recorded but only "stated to have been" without written documentation or audio recording.

You don't know what hearsay is. Hearsay is when someone recounts what they claim ANOTHER person recounted to them about something they observed. This is disallowed because the other side has no way to challenge or ask questions of the primary source. Testifying about what someone said to you, when what they said is itself the question of evidence, is not hearsay. I mean, I think a judge would know better than you what hearsay is, and yet no one, not even her parents or their legal allies, have raised this objection. Only you have. Doesn't that raise any red flags in your mind that maybe this line of argument is flawed?

Refusal of Care is also a violation of US law, which determines Capital Punishment as an outcome. You can't refuse care, not unless your Hospital resources are extended beyond further helping others, and not unless your staff is in imminent danger.

Refusal of care is a legal and well-recognized right in all 50 states, and is used hundreds of times everyday. Doctors can lose their liscences or even go to jail if they provide treatment that was refused, or violate stop treatment orders. Describing refusal of care as illegal is, simply put, insane.

Apos, is there something wrong with reminding the forum-goers of US law? That murder is clear violation of its basis?

There is when you are laughably ignorant of what the law is. If this was so obviously murder, then why aren't her parents suing on that basis? Why hasn't the judge been arrested? It is because no one with any legal education whatsoever thinks that this is a case of murder, or even euthanasia. The law is plain about what those things are and what they are not.

In short, you are simply making this shit up as you go along. You aren't informing anyone of anything. You are misinforming them.

Are you Dumstruck? This women did not refuse medical care because no consent was legally documented via writing, audio recording, or video-taping to remove the life support.

A court of law disagrees with you. It says that legal documentation is not necessary to determine someone's intent. And indeed, this too is a very commonplace and well-accepted occurance that happens all the time in courts of law.

The only legal issue here is whether the court _correctly_ decided what Terri's interests and wishes would have been. One can legitimately argue it one way or another (as her parents are doing), but it is pure nonsense to claim that courts are acting illegally if they rule on intent or wishes via oral or circumstantial testimony.

No US law, Bill of Rights, Doctrites Oath, and Constitution stating Euthanasia or, "mercy killing" is defensible and allowable?

Again, stopping care is not euthanasia. It isn't even mercy killing. And no one, even on the side of the parents is even arguing that it is. Don't you think they'd make that argument legally if it had any merit? If it were true, it would be a knockdown case. But it's not true, and that's why they are not making that argument.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You don't know what hearsay is. Hearsay is when someone recounts what they claim ANOTHER person recounts.

Ex-Freakin-xactly. Just what her Spouse did. Thats one! :thumbs:

Refusal of care is a legal and well-recognized right in all 50 states,

Under the conditions of emergency.

There is when you are laughably ignorant of what the law is.

Then why do you post in that murdering her without given legal, recorded consent, is ... right? Thats not even the tip of it -- murder alone is punishable by Capital offenses.

A court of law disagrees with you.

They disagreed with a scientist in Mississipi [sp] who was telling kids about evolution in the 1920's-1930's. ... so is he wrong too just because a court disagreed with him? Or a group of people? No. Not likely. :thumbs:

 

[Apos]

Ex-Freakin-xactly. Just what her Spouse did. Thats one!

No, because he recounted her statements about her wishes, not her statements about events or things she had witnessed.

Under the conditions of emergency.

No, under ANY condition. Anyone anywhere in the U.S. has the right to refuse treatment unless a court of law first rules that they are unfit to make their own medical judgements.

Then why do you post in that murdering her without given legal, recorded consent, is ... right? Thats not even the tip of it -- murder alone is punishable by Capital offenses.

Again, no actual, sane person is making any legal arguments to the effect that this is murder. Not even her parents, who have everything to gain from making such claims, are arguing that.

The fact is, you're just plain wrong about the laws in question. You don't know what they are. You are just making this up as you go along, and I think we all know it at this point.

They disagreed with a scientist in Mississipi [sp] who was telling kids about evolution in the 1920's-1930's. ... so is he wrong too just because a court disagreed with him? Or a group of people? No. Not likely.

Mississippi has two p's.

If you can point to anything that's legally wrong in the court's ruling, do so. But "it wasn't written down" isn't a legitimate complaint, sorry.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, because he recounted her statements about her wishes, not her statements about events or things she had witnessed.

Kinda like they recounted the votes for the elections in 2000? Oh! Thats a burn! But lets get serious:

It had no evidence. It's only witness was her Spouse; and he heard it only once and only reported it once it was questioned by the courts as to wether or not it existed; furthering it had no roots in prior discussion or noteability with the womens family. (which helps to express her Parents concern). And further, it was not or cannot be backed by a courts attempt at getting written or audio recorded consent, since it physically DOES NOT exist. No consent was given, no factual backing was held, no written wills, no communication to the mother and father, means that this means he is probably lying or he has hiding something. Like the fact he was lying.

Being under pressure does that to you sometimes.

No, under ANY condition.

Thats a very silly position to argue from ...

Scenario:

• 
  Doctor
• : Whoops! Sorry, your African American! No treatment for you!
  Doctor
• : No, sorry, I'm watching the game right now. Give birth without me ...
  Doctor
• : No. Absolutely, NO HELPING GAYS IN MY HOSPITAL

You leave very little in backing; which gave enough room for my sarcastic monologue.

Again, no actual, sane person is making any legal arguments to the effect that this is murder.

Insanity is the brink of intellectual freedom. Rather be insane, then sane.

You are just making this up as you go along, and I think we all know it at this point.

Thats the most horrible case of reflection ... now, if you only turned the mirrior to face me, and perhaps lowered it; then you would'nt be talking about yourself. :/

Mississippi has two p's.

Thanks.

 

[jondy]

Rather be insane, then sane.

Well, I think that just about wraps this one up

j/k

 

[PvtRyan]

Not really, no. But you smell like Fresh Meat -- would you like to take a stab at the 'ole debate?

I started this thread...

Then why were they feeding her? To keep her alive of course.

Her bodily functions in order to keep her cells alive and reproducing are still working. In other words: the tv's on, but no one's home.

Thats true, which is why she's alive.

My definiton of a non-medical 'alive' wouldn't be "rotting in a bed, waiting until your brains and muscles shrink even further, while being fed through a tube, and have no way to interact with the world around you". But hey, whatever floats your boat.

In by living, your placating that she cant have sex, drink, drive, watch TV, or play a volume of outdoor activities. Well, I know a lot of people who dont have sex, choose not to drink, are'nt old enough to drive, who dont watch TV, and also who dont work for scores of outdoor chores.


That does'nt mean that they're not living, and that does'nt mean such subjects are whats nessecary to classify a human being as capable of being alive.

Do I have to point out the stupidity in this, or can you manage that by yourself?

I know this case confuses you, so I'll help you out. Her last minute of life has been going on for years now, and a year is really not a minute. If you wanted to reiterate it was a stretch to keep her alive, then perhaps her Spouse would agree with you.

My point was: all they did was prolongue the last minute of her life before she would have died for 15 pointless years while her condition only worsened.

Which some elderly have Parkinson's disease, have certain kinds of Paralysis -- which makes this statement all the more ironic, and contradicting.

Parkinson is limited to elderly? Michael J. Fox is senior these days?
Also: way to be selective :thumbs: I mentioned other diseases too, like diabetes, which affects a great part of soceity, my mom has diabetes too.

Thats simple to say -- care to say whats not realistic about it?

Care to say what's not realistic about a scenario where aliens will attack us because they feel threatened by our technology and the only way to save ourself is to live in caves again? It's not gonna happen, never, ever. It's far fetched, searching for a scenario that would fit your agenda.

Let him die naturally.

Ironic, coming from your mouth. Terri would have died 15 years ago if she would have died naturally.

Besides, you would let an old man die, in horrible pain, in a horrible deteriorated state (cancer doesn't leave you looking like a fit 20-year old you know) and barely able to say proper goodbye to his loved ones. For what exactly? For your own beliefs that murder is wrong, while ignoring a terminal patients wish to end his suffering is OK? Yes, what a great human being you are, I wish I was as human as you, but unfortunately, I'm a barbarian who wants to relief people of their suffering.

Would your humanity be to kill him, then get arrested because you violated a United States law, Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and a Doctrites oath?

Your humanity consists of obeying the law? Besides, the oath says that you as a doctor should do what's best for a patient, I guess make their suffering end isn't a good thing then?

Off to the pen with you then, Dr. Kervorkian Junior. But the thing you fail to realize is my humanity is not in question -- its the courts. Your argueing because you felt it humane -- I'am argueing because it was not only inhumane to starve someone to death, but even more corrupt when you violate Laws, Rights, Constitutional Placations, and Doctrites Oath which should afford scores of people arrests and court hearings.

Thats my only Niche'.

It's only illegal because they MADE it illegal, law isn't absolute and is constantly changed (like Bush did today, to push his own agenda, rat). But it's wrong to do something against the law at some point eh? Guess women and blacks should stop voting then.

 

[Apos]

It had no evidence. It's only witness was her Spouse; and he heard it only once and only reported it once it was questioned by the courts as to wether or not it existed; furthering it had no roots in prior discussion or noteability with the womens family. (which helps to express her Parents concern).

You clearly are ignorant of the very facts of the case, and this proves it beyond any doubt.

Her husband was NOT the only one to testify about her opinions regarding being maintained.

Please educate yourself:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

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

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

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

And further, it was not or cannot be backed by a courts attempt at getting written or audio recorded consent, since it physically DOES NOT exist. No consent was given, no factual backing was held, no written wills, no communication to the mother and father, means that this means he is probably lying or he has hiding something. Like the fact he was lying.

The court didn't find that, and again, the ruling does NOT come down to just his word against theirs. Not only was his word found to be credible since it was consistent with other testimony and the facts of the case, her parent's word was found NOT to be credible because of inconsistencies in their claims and the fact that the only thing they could testify under oath were her reciting things they told her when she was 10.

Thats a very silly position to argue from ...

Scenario:

• 
  Doctor
• : Whoops! Sorry, your African American! No treatment for you!
  Doctor
• : No, sorry, I'm watching the game right now. Give birth without me ...
  Doctor
• : No. Absolutely, NO HELPING GAYS IN MY HOSPITAL

You leave very little in backing; which gave enough room for my sarcastic monologue.

Utter nonsense. It is the _patient_ that has the right to refuse treatment, not the doctors. The doctors are required by law and their oath to treat patients equally, but they are ALSO required to stop treatment if the patient or the patient's guardian says so. By law. They can lose their liscence to practice or even go to jail if they provide care when it has been refused.

Insanity is the brink of intellectual freedom. Rather be insane, then sane.

Unfortunately, you are much worse than insane: you are wrong. I know you cannot bring yourself to admit error, but I and everyone else here can see that you are ignorant of both the facts of the case and of the laws applicable to the situation.

 

[el Chi]

Yes, but technically on her death Euthanasia was enacted once the court ruled to starve her. I'am glad you disagree to such a death, but Euthanasia being legal would'nt have changed their choice in killing her.

It might not have changed their choice, but it would have changed their method, which is half the thing you appear to be worked up about.

It practically was legal and ineffect the day they voted to remove her feeding tube -- why was'nt their decision changed, once the action was in the foreground of preparedness?

I'm bored of arguing this same bloody case. We both agree that it was terrible, however what you do not seem to realise is that this is a FREAK CASE, caused by a system that DOES NOT cater for this service properly. Had euthanasia been legal, they could've slipped her some drugs. Christ knows why they didn't in the first place, but there you have it.

Cases of euthanasia similar to the starvation case would NOT OCCUR if euthanasia was legal.

Which is, not true -- as I've specified above for clarification.

No, you are wrong. In Switzerland and the Netherlands (and I think one Australian state for a short time) euthanasia is not implemented through starvation, it is through drugs. People take their loved ones to these countries so they can die in peace and, surprisingly enough, when they get there, they're NOT starved to death.
You have an incredibly inaccurate perspective on euthanasia techniques. Proper euthanasia has bugger all to do with this singular, isolated case but you seem to willfully ignore this at every hop skip and jump. Thus, your argument becomes harder and harder to take seriously.

According to her Husband, and the hearsaic testimoney not legally documented nor heard by the courts, it was not an Option but a Necessity to kill her.

... without her Consent of course.

As I have become sick of saying; this is an isolated case. In a properly regulated system it WOULD NOT be a necessity to euthanise patients. No system would justifiably IMPOSE this.

However, thats the point, the Courts did not have legally written or recorded spoken Consent for their own case records -- therefore, this case is still being deliberated on however with one women dead, and its ex-husband looking at getting his jiggy on.

Once again: Isolated case, would never have happened this way under a properly implemented system.

Why would Health Services be helping an element of death?

You've proven yourself an expert in conjuring up some nightmarish world where doctors don black, hooded robes and wander hospital wards armed with scythes, administering large quantities of lethal hideousness to anyone with the slightest hint of a sniffle. An "element of death"!? Such floral language!
It would be an "act of mercy", if you will. Although you won't.
The point is, they're supposed to do what's in the patient's best interests, and if that involves letting them die in peace then so be it. Keeping them alive may very well NOT be in the patient's best interests.

"...even IF you win, your still retarded".

Cheers for clarifying that one, dear. :hmph:

Not really, no. But you smell like Fresh Meat -- would you like to take a stab at the 'ole debate?.

Do you really think you're doing that well that you can give someone such an arrogant response!?

Your arguments generally merry-go-round, ignore, make no sense or all three of the above.

And by the way, that link that Stern posted was to dictionary.com, although I feel sure you're already au fait with that site, and its partner, thesaurus.com.
Good stuff.

 

[PvtRyan]

Cheers for clarifying that one, dear. :hmph:

Amusing though, calling someone a retard, and then spelling "you're" wrong. Irony at its best. What do you mean with 'MY retard'?

 

[el Chi]

Amusing though, calling someone a retard, and then spelling "you're" wrong. Irony at its best. What do you mean with 'MY retard'?

One of the best responses to a crappy, illiterate insult I've read was:

"Your gay!"
"Oh no! What's happened to my gay?"

Made me chuckle

 

[CptStern]

yes but that only confuses the half-wit in question ...which I guess would have the desirable effect you're going for anyways :E

 

[KoreBolteR]

back to the original question...

my opinion on euthanasia is..

If the person has got evidence that they said previously "if i ever got in a state where i wasnt myself anymore.. with braindamage etc, i would like to be left to die, let my spirit go to the next world, because that person, isnt going to be me,, just an old shell of my past life, that needs to be rested in peace".

hmm, but if theres no evidence, i dont really know..

what person in this world, wants to live like that? its not really them.. killing them will set them free, so to speak.

 

[Absinthe]

If the person has got evidence that they said previously "if i ever got in a state where i wasnt myself anymore.. with braindamage etc, i would like to be left to die, let my spirit go to the next world, because that person, isnt going to be me,, just an old shell of my past life, that needs to be rested in peace".

hmm, but if theres no evidence, i dont really know..

The courts believed that there was enough evidence to support the spouse's claim that she wanted to die.

 

[KoreBolteR]

The courts believed that there was enough evidence to support the spouse's claim that she wanted to die.

then theres no question about it.. she should die..

RESPECT HER WISHES :frown:

 

[ray_MAN]

She can't feel a thing. She is a living vegetable. She is the closest to dead as anyone ever. All she is doing is causing angush. I think the tube should be kept out.

 

[MaddMexican]

Is this how you guys hold a debate? Anyone that has a differing opinion is smashed, or told they are ignorant.

Nobody mentioned that the police suspected strangulation when they came in contact with her after the husband called. Several doctors stated that loss of blood flow to the brain from strangulation was the most probable cause of the damage, not cardiac arrest as was stated.

The fact that Michael Schiavo's girlfriend works for the county sheriff that is a good friend of judge Greer is a bit odd.

 

[Absinthe]

Is this how you guys hold a debate? Anyone that has a differing opinion is smashed, or told they are ignorant.

From what I've read in this topic, some people are ignorant.

Nobody mentioned that the police suspected strangulation when they came in contact with her after the husband called. Several doctors stated that loss of blood flow to the brain from strangulation was the most probable cause of the damage, not cardiac arrest as was stated.

The fact that Michael Schiavo's girlfriend works for the county sheriff that is a good friend of judge Greer is a bit odd.

Link?

If you're suggesting that domestic abuse was involved, then I have a hard time figuring out why the spouse would be persisting with this. She's gone, and the likeliness of her telling the truth to the world is absolutely zero. Why should he care any more? Why not just walk away with the massive sums of money he'd recieve from ****ing off?

 

[el Chi]

Is this how you guys hold a debate? Anyone that has a differing opinion is smashed, or told they are ignorant.

His own debating technique was lacking in the extreme, and as such it was particularly tiresome to try and reason with him, much less hold a coherent debate.

Nobody mentioned that the police suspected strangulation when they came in contact with her after the husband called.

Including Kerberos, who kept decrying euthanasia by constantly citing this case whilst IGNORING any other arguments or possibilities. In particular, that countries already implement successful, well-regulated legal euthanasia programs. This kind of selective attention is, in my opinion, ignorant, stubborn and blinkered.

 

[^Ben]

Is this how you guys hold a debate? Anyone that has a differing opinion is smashed, or told they are ignorant.

Nobody mentioned that the police suspected strangulation when they came in contact with her after the husband called. Several doctors stated that loss of blood flow to the brain from strangulation was the most probable cause of the damage, not cardiac arrest as was stated.

The fact that Michael Schiavo's girlfriend works for the county sheriff that is a good friend of judge Greer is a bit odd.

From http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

I've heard Michael beat or strangled her nearly to death and that he wants her to die to cover up his abuse. What really happened?

I do not know this family and will not comment on whether any abuse occurred. I can, however, look to the case's history and point out some items that might be relevant to anyone considering this issue.

First, "Terri's Law" required the chief judge of the local circuit court to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to examine Terri's case and advise the Governor. The chief judge appointed Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida. Dr. Wolfson's December 2003 report to Governor Bush included this bit of factual history:

The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of [Theresa's] aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.

Also relevant to questions about the cause of Terri's collapse is the lawsuit that Michael brought on Terri's behalf against Terri's doctors. The premise of that early 1990s lawsuit was that the doctors committed malpractice by failing to diagnose Terri's bulimia and that her bulimia led to her cardiac arrest. The case was tried to a jury, which ruled in Michael's favor, finding that Terri had bulimia, that her bulimia caused her cardiac arrest, and that the doctors were negligent in failing to diagnose the situation. The verdict was appealed, and before the appellate court could rule, the parties settled, with Michael recovering approximately $750,000 for Terri and $300,000 for himself.

After this case gained national attention in 2003, Gary Fox, the lawyer who represented Terri and Michael in that suit, wrote a stirring column concerning Terri's bulimia and how the tragic effects of that disease have been lost in the hoopla surrounding this case. The St. Pete Times still has that column online, and you can read it here.

The significance of the medical malpractice lawsuit can be seen in a few ways. A jury agreed that bulimia caused Terri's collapse. The defendants were her doctors -- one might think that they, of all people, would have been able to show that Terri had been beaten or strangled if that was what had occurred. Also, to believe that Michael caused Terri's collapse by beating her is to believe that Michael initiated a lawsuit against someone else for causing her collapse, opening the whole matter to serious inquiry and greatly increasing the risk that someone would discover his role.

Finally, I am not aware that anyone -- not the paramedics, doctors, nurses, family members, friends, or anyone else -- who saw Terri in the hours, weeks, and months after her collapse ever suggested at the time that Terri had been beaten or strangled.

As I said above, I am not commenting on whether any abuse actually occurred. I don't know.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, I think that just about wraps this one up

j/k does'nt change what you said.

I started this thread...

...and you barely posted in it. :/

Do I have to point out the stupidity in this, or can you manage that by yourself?

I can find the stupidity in your post, yes.

My point was: all they did was prolongue the last minute of her life before she would have died for 15 pointless years while her condition only worsened.

So, was'nt the debate about Euthanasia, which is considered illegal within the United States? It therefore, because its illegal, makes her, "murder" also illegal and punishable by a Capital Offense.

So, since we now know this answer, it no longer matters on how long she's been kept alive. Fact is, she was alive, she gave no consent, but her murder is still being attempted anyway.

Parkinson is limited to elderly? Michael J. Fox is senior these days?

I never placed into context it was limited, but I did state that the elderly had cases of this aswell, making its possibilities for victims in choice of age, gender, or race unlimited.

I would argue selective reading on your part, but I cannot find where it was said in my own posts, it was limited. [Its a bit unfortunate, but I knew you were wrong].

Care to say what's not realistic about a scenario where aliens will attack us because they feel threatened by our technology and the only way to save ourself is to live in caves again?

Can't answer the question, PvtRyan? That's just sad. :/ I think you owe yourself an apology for jumping the gun, and getting shot in the ass when you did it.

Ironic, coming from your mouth. Terri would have died 15 years ago if she would have died naturally.

Then why did her Husband seek care for her then? She's was'nt my responsibility. :thumbs:

Besides, you would let an old man die, in horrible pain, in a horrible deteriorated state (cancer doesn't leave you looking like a fit 20-year old you know) and barely able to say proper goodbye to his loved ones. For what exactly?

For the United States Constitution. We dont have laws allowing Euthanasia, and I'am against the act -- so I would much rather try at keeping "him" alive, then just letting "him" die, or attempting to kill "him" quicker.

Euthanasia is a Capital Offense -- I dont want to live my life-term inside a Prison knowing I commited a murder that I did not have to do.

Your humanity consists of obeying the law?

Your humanity consists of not obeying the law? Get out of Hollywood -- murder is not justifiable.

Besides, the oath says that you as a doctor should do what's best for a patient, I guess make their suffering end isn't a good thing then?

By killing them, no. Since your not getting that, go ask a doctor.

Oh, and please dont say; "See, I just got back from the Hospital to prove to the Intranet man ...", because I will laugh like a mental patient.

It's only illegal because they MADE it illegal

And I intend on upholding the law. I intend on not murdering someone else, because I would'nt want it done to me.

Her husband was NOT the only one to testify about her opinions regarding being maintained.

I think you owe posting a link that directly cites into who else has testified about the consent. But again, should that matter?

It was not legally recorded or documented -- so it entirely flaws your arguement from the get go. Why you keep argueing there's some saving light to this, is'int beyond me so much as its now beyond your control. You cannot contest that her consent was not given. Even now, its difficult for you to argue further.

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

I mean, names? People? Your own quote does'nt cite this, and is very inspecific, which does very little to further educate myself on plausible entities who've provided other testimonies for this case.

But does that matter? No, it does'nt, because legal consent was not documented or recorded; and since Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, its still considered murder and mandates a Capital Punishment.

The court didn't find that, and again, the ruling does NOT come down to just his word against theirs.

It evidently did, and now she's starving. (You've yet to provide me names alongside her Spouse, that alleged she stated a will. But a spoken will, cannot be recognized by the law -- there must be signatures, agreements, and documentation. Spoken words, five years ago, not documented by our law, is considered unconstitional and therefore cannot be recognized nor enacted).

They should've been more responsible as a couple -- but they were'nt.

It is the _patient_ that has the right to refuse treatment, not the doctors.

However, she gave no refusal to the treatment -- only her Spouse did in court.

Unfortunately, you are much worse than insane: you are wrong. I know you cannot bring yourself to admit error, but I and everyone else here can see that you are ignorant of both the facts of the case and of the laws applicable to the situation.

You only have this fellowship because you all agree on mercy killing. I don't; it does'nt make you wrong or me wrong one way or the other.

It might not have changed their choice, but it would have changed their method, which is half the thing you appear to be worked up about.

Have I not already stated that starvation is a horrible way to die? (I remember I had, I'm just checking in with you). Further, I'am also against Euthanasia, as I feel its boundaries could be broken beyond repair.

I'm bored of arguing this same bloody case.

So go elsewhere. If this is'int the place for you, then why are you still here? Go on -- none here have ordered your stay. But I can tell you through observation, your the only person demanding your stay.

You dont have to say everything you want, because not everything you say is right, wrong, or the best choice in your personal interest.

No, you are wrong. In Switzerland and the Netherlands

I stopped right there.

You don't get it, do you? Here, in America, Euthanasia is illegal and therefore this case is considered unconstitutional and those who allowed her murder to be considered legal are in valid grounds to be arrested with Capital Punishments in case.

This is not Europe. I'm assuming you know this? But I'm still questioning the idea that if you did know, your still trying to use Europe as an example.

As I have become sick of saying; this is an isolated case.

No its not. Soon, instead of all the calamity for declaring yourself insane, the guilty of murder would instead say that the other person was in suffering, and like all defense attourney's, they would argue that and win with that.

Putting criminals back on the streets -- you dont realize what kind of impact this will have on the criminal world.

Once again: Isolated case, would never have happened this way under a properly implemented system.

However, whats the United States law most known for? Not properly implementing.

You've proven yourself an expert

Thanks, whats my score?

An "element of death"!?

Riddle me this then, Batman:

How does health qualify as death?

Cheers for clarifying that one, dear.

Your smile face was angry, almost annoyed looking -- is it because its true? Lets debate this, "even if you win, your still retarded" bit ... is it better in this case, to loose?

Do you really think you're doing that well that you can give someone such an arrogant response!?

Taking offense to something that was directed at someone else? How can YOU give someone such an arrogant response?!

His own debating technique was lacking in the extreme, and as such it was particularly tiresome to try and reason with him, much less hold a coherent debate.

Yet, your still trying to prod at me -- have'nt you learned anything yet? I've won (retarded), you lost (still retarded).

My definiton of a non-medical 'alive' wouldn't be "rotting in a bed, waiting until your brains and muscles shrink even further, while being fed through a tube, and have no way to interact with the world around you". But hey, whatever floats your boat.

However, non-medical alive does not qualify in the case of this woman.

Her husband was NOT the only one to testify about her opinions regarding being maintained.

No, it was just the husband, as he was the only one who heard it. Further, this woman is considered a catholic, and basically consenting for suicide is against her belief system.

Which is another reason why, again, there has been no legally recorded Consent or written consent. Of this, you cannot contest.

Her bodily functions in order to keep her cells alive and reproducing are still working. In other words: the tv's on, but no one's home.

However, she gave no consent before or after that has been legally recorded or written -- therefore, its still wrong to debate that even her conditioned justified her husbands "nessecity" in the need to kill his own wife.

 

[Absinthe]

"Do I have to point out the stupidity in this, or can you manage that by yourself?"

I can find the stupidity in your post, yes.

You know what you really lack? Tact.

Fact is, she was alive, she gave no consent, but her murder is still being attempted anyway.

Sorry, Kerberos. The courts concluded that consent was given. It's a shame that you keep on skipping over that.

Then why did her Husband seek care for her then? She's was'nt my responsibility, you see.

Wait... What are you doing here? Are you arguing against yourself? Kerberos, you really need to be more clear with your points instead of resorting to intentional vagueness.

For the United States Constitution. We dont have laws allowing Euthanasia, and I'am against the act anyway -- so I would much rather try at keeping him alive, then just letting him die, or attempting to kill him quicker.

Euthanasia is a Capital Offense -- I dont want to live my life-term inside a Prison knowing I commited a murder that I did not have to do.

Explain to me what fruits of your labor would be brought about by prolonging the life of a terminal patient that does not want to live. More relevant, what do you achieve by keeping Terry bilogically alive? The answer: your deluded personal satisfaction at how righteous you are. The old man dies a degrading death that he wanted to avoid and Terry continues to a be a living corpse. The only person benefiting from these people not being euthanized or refused the refusal of medical treatment is you and your ego.

Your humanity consists of not obeying the law? Get out of Hollywood -- murder is not justifiable.

Kerberos, for a person that apparently finds the law to be infallible, you continue to ignore the fact that the courts came to the conclusion that Terry would have refused medical treatment, something which is completely legal.
So come on. Get off the fence and go one way or the other. You can't pick and choose, claiming that everybody needs to be obery the law while simultaneously ignoring the courts.

Oh, and please dont say; "See, I just got back from the Hospital to prove to the Intranet man ...", because I will laugh like a mental patient.

So, you'd laugh at a person who took the word from a health professional and proved you wrong?

I think you owe me as much posting a link that directly links into who else has testified about the consent. But again, should that matter?

Links have been posted numerous times. You ignored them any way.

It was not legally recorded or documented -- so it entirely flaws your arguement, and I think thats whats making you upset. You really cannot openly contest no documented or audio recorded consent was given, and since Euthanasia is not legal, and since as a sidenote she as a Catholic, so commiting suicide is against her belief system ... there's no denying here that whats happened, is wrong, and for a lot of reasons.

1) Courts disagree with you. Put up or shut up.

2) Euthanasia is illegal. Refusal of medical treatment is not.

3) My great grandmother was a die-hard Catholic and every day she was on medical support she insisted that they take her off of it and let the good Lord take her.

Oh God, I could spend the entire night addressing all the one-line snippets of posting you've contributed to this topic so far, but I really don't think I need to. In every instance where you have been proven wrong, you've either ignored the evidence or misconstrued something terribly in order to keep on going. Everything else is merely filler consisting of "I know you are, but what am I" childish behavior.
Half of the points you've brought up have never even been brought up on court so far. That should ring bells for you, Kerberos. I don't think any body is going to walk away from this topic thinking you've made many valid points, let alone any coherence.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You know what you really lack? Tact.

I know, I'm bad. :thumbs: