 |
The Town Hall Archives
Ahh, the nostalgia.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jonathan
Dungeon Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
Very true. If someone did this to their pet, they'd be arrested. Or to a prisoner, or etc etc etc.
As for her mental state, we are going to get conflicting reports. FOTF, Jared, and news services have all given me different info. So my decision can't really be based on that. Personally, if her family is willing to take care of her I think she should live and Mr. Schiavo should divorce her. Why he didn't take that way is beyond me.
But don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating divorce. Under the circumstances though, their being married is threatening to her life and causing problems to the family. If he won't change, he should step out of the picture.
-Jonathan |
|
 |
Coralfish
Town Hall Judge
Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 1790
Location: Southern Academia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
| alwaysHis324 wrote: | | Jonathan wrote: |
Terry is, for medical purposes, a vegetable. |
Actually, this is untrue...
Terri is not in a persistant vegitative state. She is responsive, she recieves no life support, except for a feeding tube, and she most likely wouldn't even need that if she was allowed therapy. |
Just for the sake of clarification, there's a difference from being in a persistant vegitative state and being in a permanent vegetative state. Not all people in such a state need life support, and the terminology/definition of it is usually rather open. I located the Health Link definition which reads as follows:
A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.
It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.
Once again, the condition from which Terri Schiavo suffers is a subject of much controversy. But lets not rule out Persistant Vegitative State (PVS) as being a very real possibility. |
|
|
GusDeHaan
The TH. Inspector and etc.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 763
Location: Im so bright You need sunglasses.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
Having sorted through a great amount of absolute GARBAGE on the internet I have come to the conclusion that I side with the parents, and that there are two options in this case.
A. Pull the tube , and finish off her life through a quick method so that we would be rid of this problem - and furthermore admit that you are KILLING /MURDERING HER. and deal with the consequences.
B. Put her tube back in and admit that there is no right to living a life free of pain, and that Terri is still alive. Furthermore that ending a life that is not ending itself is WRONG. and therfore must not be done.
I think this is a classic example where Rights are the issue instead of Values. And why should the courts have the right to state when a feeding tube is inserted or not, They should not even touch the subject, Realistically it should be a debate about who is the legal guardian, Not what parents want, or husband wants, or what Terri "would want" ... If Terri never said in any will / conversations "I want to be killed " Then It isn't safe to say that she would want that. Also , I think that the parents should be given the vito, not because they choose life [although that certainly is the side I am on] but rather because they were the legal guardians of the individual longer than the husband, and obviously have a blood bond to her. Sad that we might have to loose a life just because a judge thinks so.
There, I've said it. |
|
|
Londoner
Somewhat Aging Member
Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 430
Location: London, England, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
| Well done Gus |
|
|
Eugene Kendall™
The Official Town Hall Nutcase
Joined: 24 Apr 2003
Posts: 3713
Location: Grandma Land!
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
| hmm thought provoking gus |
|
|
dawningoftime
Child's Portion Diet Mini Cheeseburger
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
| GusDeHaan wrote: |
Also , I think that the parents should be given the vito, not because they choose life [although that certainly is the side I am on] but rather because they were the legal guardians of the individual longer than the husband, and obviously have a blood bond to her. Sad that we might have to loose a life just because a judge thinks so.
There, I've said it. |
However there are a few things to consider once she became an adult they no longer have a right to make medical decisions for her. Once a person in this country becomes an adult/ turns 18 legally parents no longer have the final say in the care their childern recieve and have to have special medical waiver forms signed.
Secondly she was married and her husband is now responsible and her legal guardian for her, not her parents. Therefore the final decisions that were made had to be made by him and NOT her parents.
Thirdly we don't know everything. News reports can't give all the details and this has only recently been thrown in the national spotlight. When in fact this is something that has been going on for 15 years. From what I can gather in what I've been reading and hearing on the news I have a rather ill opinion of the Schindlers and feel sorry for everyone involved. |
|
|
Jonathan
Dungeon Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
| dawningoftime wrote: | | Thirdly we don't know everything. News reports can't give all the details and this has only recently been thrown in the national spotlight. When in fact this is something that has been going on for 15 years. From what I can gather in what I've been reading and hearing on the news I have a rather ill opinion of the Schindlers and feel sorry for everyone involved. |
I must ask why you have an 'ill opinion of the Schindlers. I can't blame them in the least for taking the course they are now on.
-Jonathan |
|
|
dawningoftime
Child's Portion Diet Mini Cheeseburger
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
From my reading and listening to the news I have gathered that the Schindler's are upset at Micheal because he refused to split the settlement from the malpractice suit. They have already signed movie and book deals for when this is all over. They have thrust this issue into the national spotlight, which in itself is not bad, but by doing this have made their daughter a political pawn.
This circus has shut down an elementary school near the hospice and has kept others who have family members also in the hospice away. I'm sorry if I sound cruel, but when I hear things like this it's hard to feel sympathetic towards their cause. |
|
|
Jonathan
Dungeon Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
While I understand you pov, I disagree that they thrust it into the spotlight. The media is responsible for that. In reality the case heated up over a year ago (when I started tracking it).
-Jonathan |
|
|
GusDeHaan
The TH. Inspector and etc.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 763
Location: Im so bright You need sunglasses.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
| dawningoftime wrote: |
However there are a few things to consider once she became an adult they no longer have a right to make medical decisions for her. Once a person in this country becomes an adult/ turns 18 legally parents no longer have the final say in the care their childern recieve and have to have special medical waiver forms signed.
Secondly she was married and her husband is now responsible and her legal guardian for her, not her parents. Therefore the final decisions that were made had to be made by him and NOT her parents.
Thirdly we don't know everything. News reports can't give all the details and this has only recently been thrown in the national spotlight. When in fact this is something that has been going on for 15 years. From what I can gather in what I've been reading and hearing on the news I have a rather ill opinion of the Schindlers and feel sorry for everyone involved.
From my reading and listening to the news I have gathered that the Schindler's are upset at Micheal because he refused to split the settlement from the malpractice suit. They have already signed movie and book deals for when this is all over. They have thrust this issue into the national spotlight, which in itself is not bad, but by doing this have made their daughter a political pawn.
This circus has shut down an elementary school near the hospice and has kept others who have family members also in the hospice away. I'm sorry if I sound cruel, but when I hear things like this it's hard to feel sympathetic towards their cause.
|
"News reports can't give all the details and this has only recently been thrown in the national spotlight."
You said this, and then you go and base your disgust of the schindlers by the very thing that you warned against. Oooookkkkaaaay ..
Your right, the husband became the new legal guardian, but I was dealing with the case as it is now, where the courts and families are arguing of which side gets choice. And if you recall, either she must be killed and lets not fool ourselves, or she should live.
Furthermore- I think the issue that you should stick with is life vs. death, by hating parents, or Michael because they turned whoever into a political pawn you completely loose the POINT of this whole case.
I also don't agree with you in your positioning, You do not know who is to be held in higher regards in this case and any thinking you do beyond Life vs. Death is not profitable to anyone, If it came to it - that would be the courts decisions, and if you were a jury = by all means don't respect the parents, but for heavens sakes, don't forget who you are dealing with here, Terri's life. |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
Memberlist
Log in