Blaming Science
by matt at 6:00 pm on May 6th, 2006 in Bill Frist, Bush Man DateBush Urges Graduates to Use Science to Protect Human Dignity (NYT):
“Science offers the prospect of eventual cures for terrible diseases and temptations to manipulate life and violate human dignity.”
Isn’t the greater threat to dignity Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist?
sarabeth wrote:
I understand Oklahoma State University conferred two honorary degreees on Bush. I havn’t been able to figure out yet what degrees they were (or why they felt it necessary to do it to him twice).
Wouldn’t it be funny if they gave him a B.S. twice?
Posted 06 May 2006 at 7:22 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Serves me right for paying attention to C”N”N! They’ve been saying all day that Oklahoma State University conferred two honorary degreees on Bush. After doing a re-search, I find that everyone else seems to think he got only one degree, Doctor of Laws.
Very appropriate, I think. He’s certainly been doing a lot of that — doctoring laws — through his signing statements.
Posted 06 May 2006 at 7:36 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Interesting you should use Terri Shiavo’s picture. I recently got to hear David Gibbs III the attourney for her parents and family speak. This is someone who *actually* met Terri and interacted with her. He spoke of the time he first saw Terri, as he walked into the room, she was sitting in a chair, not hooked up to any machines and she was holding a stuffed animal and clutching a blanket. As he walked into her room she tugged the blanket up further. He spoke of how he witnessed her interact with her parents, playfully denying her father a kiss while letting her mother kiss her. Have no doubt she was terribly disabled but not the brain dead woman described by her husband and the courts.
What happened to Terri was criminal and inhumane and I find it disgusting you would use her image as a banner to your political attacks on Bush or Frist…
Posted 06 May 2006 at 9:38 pm ¶
matt wrote:
I agree. Artificially prolonging her life was criminal and inhumane. Nothing like a liberally-biased autopsy, is there?
Maybe it’s time for you to go back into hiding. Less chance of you continuing to make yourself look like a complete moron.
Posted 06 May 2006 at 9:51 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Apparently, you’re not so shy about showing your ignorance, she was not artificially kept alive. Other than a feeding tube, which by the way was only necessary because feeding her by mouth took too long and ran the risk of causing problems with food getting into her lungs, oh yes, she could still eat when food was placed in her mouth, David Gibbs recalled that as well. The *only* thing she had was a feeding tube, nothing else…period. So please explain to me how that’s artificially keeping her alive, Dr. Matt?
And the autopsy quote, speaks nothing of her being brain dead. In fact, it supports what I typed. She was no doubt serverely brain damaged, but from the eye withness testimony of David Gibbs, she was not even close to a vegetative state that her “husband” claimed…
At any rate, using her image for your political attacks is still pathetic…
Posted 06 May 2006 at 10:01 pm ¶
matt wrote:
oh, that’s right, feeding tubes are 100% natural.
placed in her mouth? sounds natural also. where the fuck do you come up with this shit?
i’m sure that in your world everything supports what you typed.
it wasn’t her husband, it was the DOCTORS CHARGED WITH HER CASE. you can bring up gibbs as much as you want, but he’s not exactly an impartial observer, now is he?
tell that to bill frist. what’s good for the goose is good for the douchebag, no?
Posted 06 May 2006 at 10:14 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Can a newborn feed istelf? Yet is it deserving to let die because of that? And by the way, you just described perhaps millions of people who cannot feed themselves as essentially unworthy to live…
I’m sure your parents placed food in your mouth at one point as well, seems you have a god complex, let’s hope you never find yourself with two broken arms…because under your rules, you wouldn’t be worthy to live…
Just following your example…
Some doctors yes, others agreed with Gibbs. Many of them weren’t allowed to physically see Terri. And so what if David Gibbs heads up the CLA, does that make him any less of a human observer? He tried to get as many people as possible to visit Terri to see for themselves how alive she was but that animal of a “husband” blocked that from happening, not to give her peace but to hide her life from the eyes of others…
Still, using her image to exploit some attack angle is, shall I say, “douchebaggery” to the Nth degree…
Posted 06 May 2006 at 10:26 pm ¶
matt wrote:
this is your argument?
it obviously makes him an observer with an agenda, antithetical to science/medicine.
plenty of doctors saw her. stop trying to claim that her husband somehow cherrypicked her doctors to come to an outcome. that’s just not the case.
i think it’s time for a new header image.
Posted 06 May 2006 at 10:36 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Obviously your only source of information is the handout at the last moonbat conference. She was not artificially kept alive by even the loosest standards. The only time she was ever “hooked up” is during the time she was given food. Other than that, she was breathing on her own, and her heart was pumping on its own. Like many millions of people, she only needed some loving care.
Furthermore, if you had looked beyond your handout, you would know that Michael Schiavo gained to inherit the trust funds *only* if she died while under his guardianship, so yes, please excuse me if I find his actions counter to his statements of love for her…
“i think it’s time for a new header image.”
I don’t doubt you would do this, your character (or lack of) demands it…
Posted 07 May 2006 at 5:31 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
giving someone peace is the ultimate act of love in my opinion. i know, i’ve done it. just because YOUR version of love doesn’t jive with that, doesn’t make my version of love wrong. if everyone reading this would please go out and create a living will and care directive, this horrible tragedy of a political battle over someone’s life (something the united states did, not matt) would at least result in some good. doesn’t matter how young you are. if memory serves, terri schaivo was about 25 at the time of the episode that led to this (sorry, don’t have time to look up the actual age, supposed to be working on a term paper - if i’m wrong, go ahead and crucify me for it, just don’t stick a feeding tube in me on the cross).
Posted 07 May 2006 at 11:32 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Let’s bring the focus back to what it should be. Why did C”N”N think they gave him two degrees?
a) Liberal media bias (all estimates by the liberal media are mis-estimates)
b) The rocket scientists at C”N”N thought Doctor of Law would be one degree and so Doctor of Laws was two (this pre-supposes that the said rocket scientists can only count to two)
Kidding aside, it turns out everyone was right. C”N”N was right when they said two degrees. Everyone else was right when they said Bush was conferred with the degree of Doctor of Laws. (Welcome to the arcane world of honorary higher academics!)
So “degrees in political science and agricultural economics” resulted in “an honorary doctorate of laws” and only one piece of framed paper.
Did the President just get short-changed again?
Posted 07 May 2006 at 12:56 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Actually, this is what David Gibbs told us to do however, he is not a fan of a living will. His idea is that we have a legal document that states 3 people should be named that you trust with your life and death descision. Basically, these 3 people would have to all agree that it is actually in your best interest to remove any life sustaining activities (but in Terri’s case, food and water were the *only* life sustaining activities administered). If Terri would have had such a document, then she would have been alive still. The advantage of this approach is that its not open to interpretation by the health care providers or courts. It is these 3 designated people who are to make the choices for you in the event you cannot. Seems to be a very good idea to me.
Posted 07 May 2006 at 7:30 pm ¶
matt wrote:
that’s brilliant. don’t make the decision yourself, outsource it to 3 people who probably can’t agree on what to have for lunch. this gibbs guy you’re going on about is the man!
Appoint me! Appoint me! Appoint me!
Posted 07 May 2006 at 7:36 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It’s not that making the decision yourself is too easy, and unlikely to keep lawyers gainfully employed in the future. Rather, it’s the need to save you from yourself.
You should do this with property too. Don’t make a will disposing of it yourself. Designate three nominees who would have to agree how your property should be divided. If they fail to agree, your property reverts to the federal government.
Laugh all you want, but this is the best suggestion I have ever been able to come up with for reducing the deficit.
Seriously though, if there’s no hope of this working even for property, what chance is there it’ll work for life support decisions?
Posted 07 May 2006 at 9:03 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Outsourcing…lol. These aren’t 3 people chosen at random off the street. THe advantage of this method is that a living will may not cover every possible circumstance but chosing 3 people who you trust with your life can prevent 1 person who does not have your best interests at heart from making that choice for you. If it truly came down to a situation with prolionged life sustaining measures such as a heart/lung machine, then these 3 people most likely knowing your wishes would know what to do. However, say your wife was cheating on you and you get hit by a bus after finding out, do you want her to make that choice for you alone?
At any rate, its an option, you can keep your option , matt, and we crazy people over here will have it our way…you might want an exclusion clause so that if your spouse stands to gain a substantial amount of money for your death, then they cannot pull your plug…just a thought…
Posted 07 May 2006 at 9:49 pm ¶
matt wrote:
I’m aware of that. The fact that it’s family makes it worse. When my grandmother was terminal, despite her crystal clear intentions, one family member objected to removing life support. This caused unneeded anguish and delays. Advanced care directives are very comprehensive, why leave that decision to others? To get even with Michael Schiavo?
Posted 07 May 2006 at 10:05 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
If you want a list:
–you might not have your best interests at heart
–what if you have been cheating on yourself
My main grouse would have to be: if 3 people with your best interests at heart is better than you making the decision yourself, why isn’t 5 better than 3, etc?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 5:01 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
actually - my mother’s living will/health care proxy, which i hold, states both what her intentions are AND makes me the proxy. it’s a pretty comprehensive document. it states what her wishes are but also states that in the case that she was in a situation for which she had not been able to write explicit wishes, i make the decisions. it also says i may override her decisions as her wishes are only a guide.
it also lists 2 other proxies in the case that i am not available or also incapacitated. it used to say that i had to confer with the 2 other proxies and i had that clause removed for the reasons matt states above.
when the doctors put my father into a medical coma and ventilated him i asked them not to. it was against his wishes. the doctor convinced me that it was not a right to die issue, that it was a course of treatment and i acquiesced. the doctor was wrong. a week later, a different doctor called me and asked me if i wanted the ventilator and feeding tube (which I had never approved) removed. my dad was dead the next day. anytime i feel any conflict about this situation, matt reminds me that i wasn’t making any choices, i was following my dad’s explicit wishes. our dad gave me the gift of knowing his feelings on the subject — he also told anyone else who would listen. he did not however have a living will or proxy, just a power of attorney and a big mouth. I’m “lucky” matt and my mom knew him as well as i did and knew we were doing the right thing, but not everyone in this situation are as “lucky.”
So, JimC-I-served-therefore-my-opinion-matters-more, (a) ever carry out anyone’s last wishes? (b) have a living will, proxy or any other care directive? If not, STFU!
Posted 08 May 2006 at 5:37 am ¶
JimC wrote:
No but I watched my mother die after a long anguishing fight with cancer, watched her gasp for her last breath, does that count?????….probably not, since I didn’t make that descision to stop giving her blood transfusions…well tough, I’ve dealt with plenty of death in my family so I feel I may have some input on the topic…
I’m not telling you what you should do, if you feel that your interests are covered by what you describe then so be it, this 3 person alternative makes sense to a lot of people, if you don’t like, then by all means, do use it…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 6:08 am ¶
jamie wrote:
JimC - “No but I watched my mother die after a long anguishing fight with cancer, watched her gasp for her last breath, does that count?????….”
That sounds horrible. I hope you made sure she was comfortable while she was gasping. There are things called palliative care and palliative care specialists who can make sure death after a long illness in a controlled environment can be peaceful, if given the opportunity — IF the family understands the inevitability of death and chooses to include them in the process.
JimC - “I’ve dealt with plenty of death in my family so I feel I may have some input on the topic…”
Does it count? Not by your reasoning that only those who have served are allowed to have valid opinions on our military. Given your reasoning, “since I didn’t make that descision to stop giving her blood transfusions…” well, you know the rest.
I can’t believe I am even fighting with you on this one. I really thought matt quietly caved and banned you — knowing that you took yourself off this site gives me hope that you might do it again (and proves that matt is someone who can stand by his convictions on free speech, even when someone is TRYING to get banned).
Posted 08 May 2006 at 6:27 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You and a whole bunch of incredulous (even betrayed?) onlookers!
Posted 08 May 2006 at 6:40 am ¶
jamie wrote:
sorry sarabeth, i knew i was letting you down…i’m so so sorry….i feel horrible and dirty and weak.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 6:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
back to the issue at hand:
what does watching someone die have to do with making the decision to let them die? nothing. just another way for you to stay in an argument you’ve long since embarrassed yourself out of. and jamie’s right, by your own logic, shut the fuck up.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 6:53 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I broke my own rule and jumped in too (with the entirely specious self-justification that I wasn’t addressing him directly). I may not deserve it, but I need your forgiveness too.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:02 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Gotcha! By his own logic, his own logic applies only to others, never to himself.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:03 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yes she was at home surrounded by family and had taken morphine before she fell unconscious the night before. Not sure how much more comfortable she could have been, it still looked painful to me…but anyway..
Not just who has served but any experience. I would consider having a clsoe relative who can give you first hand accounts of something to be valid as well or even a student of history, e.g. studying the strategies of historical figures well enough to allow a reasonable debate on the subject.
Who is embarrassed? I’m not. Your arrogance at every turn fuels my replies. Your refusal to acknowledge any alternative thinking other than your own urges me to continue.
Anyone who cares about anyone else has a right to speak on this subject regardless if they have had to make that descision. In a way I did by not pressuring my mother to keep up her treatments although I wanted her to do so….
Matt, I won’t say what I want to say to you but in essence I believe you are a troubled spoiled little brat who needs to grow up…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:06 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, let it go…
Whatever you might be tempted to say in return is just a waste of breath.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not trying to get banned, I’m trying to be heard in the midst of those who think I am their enemy…I am not your enemy. I simple view things in a different light and my views are just as valid as yours and if you welcome debate, great but at everyturn if someone on here perceives that a reply or view is somehow inferior, it comes thru loud and clear how arrogant some can be, even blinded by it…I don’t know how many times I’ve tried to tell everyone that I truly want to talk about these things in a respectful manner but somehow someone drags it into the gutter with profane personal attacks and with a dismissive arrogance you’d expect from a teenager…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:24 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
No reason why I have to take my own advice though.
For the record, let it be said that just the fact that Matt has continued to tolerate JimC on these pages is sufficient evidence that he is is fact a saint, rather than a troubled spoiled little brat etc. That rarest of saints, the person who can actually live up to the principles they profess in principle.
For anyone who does not believe that or sufficiently appreciate it, I would recommend you conduct a controlled experiment. Go to another liberal blog, post just a few weakly negative/critical comments, and see how long it takes them to take away your posting privileges.
(I had a most surreal experience along these lines at The Mahablog, which is actually a reasonably well-regarded liberal blog. It wasn’t even a critical comment, more like “that’s a bit of an exaggeration, isn’t it?”, and I was out on my ass in the twinkling of an eye.)
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:26 am ¶
jamie wrote:
JimC - “I’m not trying to get banned,”
Would someone with superior web skills please post a link to the comment where JimC says he would wear a “banning as a badge of honor.”
Thanks.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
And I respect that here. I totally understand that I am a thorn in someone’s side who would love to exercise their controll and ban me. I get it. By all means on any other blog, I would have been booted, so in that regards yes Matt is above the rest. However, at every turn, I am attacked and dismissed, and when I respond, you somehow are surprised at my insolence…
I don’t wish to have such a combative relationship. I simply would like to be able to comment and give a differing view. I don’t wish to change you just understand you and you me without thinking each other is the enemy….
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:37 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:39 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Trying to get banned and seeing it as a badge of honor are two different things. I don’t wish to be banned but if I do for my views, then yes I would wear it as a badge of honor…
If I were trying to get banned I basically would simply come one here and treat you as you treat me…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:39 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Thanks Tobey, backs up what I am saying! I’m not saying anything different now, am I…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:41 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
So you’re a martyr. You’re Christ with a broadband connection, no?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:42 am ¶
jamie wrote:
then do us the favor, and BAN us, take us off your bookmarks or favorites or however you get here…stooping to call matt a “troubled spoiled little brat who needs to grow up…” (which i have to admit made me laugh and laugh and laugh, but then again i am his little sister and knew him when he was 15…) shows that you may be eerily fixated on him in a way that might not be too healthy. maybe you could make friends with some people who will fall for your logic and maybe we’d all be a lot happier.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:45 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I may have missed it in the mess of comments, but I don’t think anyone’s pointed out the really funny thing about Jim’s 3-man life/death-decision squad. If Terry Schiavo had a plan like this, wouldn’t she have likely appointed her husband and parents as those three people? Wouldn’t we have ended up in the same place? Wouldn’t David Gibbs III still get to command hefty speaking fees and garner the man-crush of boring conservative assholes?
Can you believe we’re still talking about this broad? As much of an attention whore as I am, I’m starting to toy with the idea of getting myself into one of them there permanent vegetative states.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 7:46 am ¶
matt wrote:
jamie:
tobey:
nullus on both of these statements.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:18 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, no, I’m not even close to being Christ, but even being compared with Him is an honor that I don’t deserve…
No, because Terri’s parents would have legal standing to override Michael’s claim to her healthcare descisions, and most likely seeing no possibility of inheriting and money from her death, he would have simply handed care over to her parents as he should have done anyway.
And the reason we are still talking about her, scroll up to the top of this thread….
I’m not fixed on matt or any other person on here. I’m fixed on the topics. My characterization of matt stems from his choice of language and personal insults which I haven’t seen directed at me for 20 some odd years, since highschool, nothing more than that…and in all actuality, I never left. I have been readinf the posts regularly, fighting the urge to reply but the post the other day just begged me to reply when Jason posted critique of the video our pal in Iraq and questioned the purpose of it…so really, blame Jason for my return… :-)
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:22 am ¶
jamie wrote:
JimC - “I have been readinf the posts regularly, fighting the urge to reply”
Weren’t you in the armed services? Can’t you fight harder? Puh-lease?! Pretty please with a cherry on top?
And by the way, by the way, I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!
(For those new to the thread, I am not in fact a 10 year old, I’m using psyops!)
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:26 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
In case anyone needed a reminder why it’s a total waste of time and effort engaging with JimC:
JimC at 7:30pm yesterday :
JimC at 8:22 am today:
Does this mean that Terri’s parents are 3 people? Or does “All 3 have to agree” mean “not necessarily”?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:37 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Can’t blame Jason. He’s currently climbing to the top of a very tall building to atone for his sins.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:39 am ¶
jamie wrote:
Sarabeth, my sister in arms, has convinced me. I’m back on the wagon. No more JimC. This means I will have to find other ways to procrastinate, or I will actually have to write my term papers. Damn.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:45 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Ok you tell me, short of leaving and never coming back, what can I do to not incur such disdain? Do I need to just agree with everything here? Do I need to cave when someone claims I’ve made a weak argument and to just go away? And don’t tell me to make stronger arguments, because when I have (*yes I believe have*) I’m told to “step up my game”, then cussed out and then dismissed.
Jamie, why do you want me to leave? Is it my attitude? My politics? what?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:46 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I once again propose that we just ignore this guy.
And with that, I hereby take my own advice, marry myself all over again to my previous never-respond policy, and go to reclaim my life.
(No harm in a parting shot, though, I guess? Funny, innit, how he was gone from our midst, and lo, right on cue after Easter he is returned unto us.)
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
This is not at all confusing, well maybe not, the implication is that Michael could never had brought Terri to the point of refusing her food and water which is the end of life action that was taken correct? If all three had to agree, then all three would had to have agreed to refuse her food and water, which of course, her parents would not have agreed to. Simple…
Thanks for asking sarabeth…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 8:49 am ¶
sac wrote:
I have to say, while I disagree with JimC on the 3 person living will, he’s not presenting his argument unreasonably. You guys are attacking him. The only time it gets interesting around here is when Jim pops up and the comments start flowing. Otherwise, I just nod in agreement (most of the time) at the posts. I know, I can stop reading any time I want. Or maybe I can’t! It’s a habit.
On the Schiavo thing, the doctors made the diagnosis. A lawyer is not a doctor. While doctors are obivously not infalliable, I’d take their prefessional opinion on health matters over anyone else’s. I’m not sure if there were doctors who actually attended to Terry Schiavo that came away with a different diagnosis than the one that led to the removal of her feeding tube (Bill Frist making a tele-diagnosis does not count). If there were, than this issue is more complex, but still, the political gamesmanship that happened in this case was a travesty.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:18 am ¶
matt wrote:
make stronger arguments. come up with better analogies. use facts from mainstream sources. stop maintaining that the administration has everything (anything?) under control. stop telling us that we are harming the war effort with words.
as i have said many times before: there are good counter arguments to much of what we write. you’re just not making them.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I believe there were other doctors who differed on the diagnosis although they were in the minority. However, Micahel Schiavo cut off access to Terri and refused the parents requests to have her tested again by other doctors. Out of everything I’ve read, not one person who actually met Terri came away with the feeling that she was an empty shell. David Gibbs who I mentioned before actually expected much less of her and when he saw her for the first time he states he was “shocked” at how alive she truly was. You might say he is biased towards life, yes probably so, but had Micahel Schiavo allowed others to impartially observe her, these things could have been verified.
So this case is a tragic one that might have been averted had Terri written down her health care directives. Although these can be effective and useful, there are circumstances where these can also be applied incorrectly. The basic argument for having 3 people agree is simple, in order to make a descision that would end your life, it takes 3 people to agree that your situation meets the requirements you expressed that you would not wish to be kept alive. I don’t know all legal details or options but the criteria to chose death for someone ought to be held to a high standard.
The Terri Schiavo case was by most accounts not a right to die case. Other than needing food and water, she was able to live without heroic means…and had family willing to care for her.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Why don’t you marry Jim, sac? Attacking him? Due respect, you’re smelling disingenuous. As always, Jim’s baiting. He’s never been interested in discourse, so he lost the benefit of the doubt long ago.
Christ I’m having some wicked deja vu.
I wish I knew how to quit you people. Nullus?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
JimC wrote:
With all due respect Mr. Tobey, I’m not baiting anyone lest having a different view and it here is “baiting” you…and I have always been interested in a civil conversation or debate, even when it is peppered with unwarranted personal attacks. I can handle ribbing, no sweat I expect that, but vicious hatred and dismisive attitudes I will not sit idle by and take it without reply…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:45 am ¶
sac wrote:
I would but I’m guessing Jim might be against that sort of thing. The marrying part, anyway.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:47 am ¶
matt wrote:
this argument died the minute the autopsy results were released. he brain had liquified. the vision centers (necessary to “track objects’ like fristy said) were gone. this isn’t a faith issue, that’s medicine. argue all you want about the theory, but terri schiavo was exactly a shell.
want to know why? the people who published their experiences all had an agenda other than science. the doctors didn’t need to publish their feelings, they had a job to do. the only doctor with a dissenting opinion hadn’t seen her for years. every doctor who saw her in her final condition had the same opinion.
is there another terri schiavo that i don’t know about?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 9:57 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I just remembered how boring this is.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 10:01 am ¶
JimC wrote:
This does not explain what was observed while she was alive. Furhtermore, her brain was terribly damaged, perhaps two weeks of dehydration may have finished off what fragile brain functions she had already…just a thought…
All the more reason to have brought in as many “experts” as possible yet this was prohibited by her “guardian” to what goal,we will never know.
How many brain dead “shells” can sit in a chair breathing on their own and seemingly react to people entering the room, consistently with the same reactions for different people?
In *this* case, there was more than what we know….but will never have the chance to observe Terri.
But at the very root of it, why, oh why, would Micahel, after having moved on with his life, with another woman, having kids, why would he not do the human thing and simply hand over complete resposibility and care to her willing parents?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 10:41 am ¶
matt wrote:
once again, by people with an agenda. had her doctors observed this, i have no doubt she’d still be hooked up to tubes to this day. no one outside of “life” groups saw any of this. in science, coincidences like that are dismissed as bias.
because that’s not how it works. in theory, i’m not all that unsympathetic to that arrangement. but in practice, Michael Schiavo said that Terri was very clear on her wishes, and was consistent from day one, before he remarried. sort of absurd to insert yourself, or Gibbs, or randall terry or anyone else into their marriage, innit?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 10:49 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m note sure this is 100% accurate but it won’t matter because if someone claims that she was more alive than what was reported, they would be dismissed as you put it as being “biased”.
Also, she was not hooked up to tubes. The facts are, she had a feeding port that she was feed thru I beleive 3 times a day only because of the time it took to feed her by mouth and by the risk of getting food into her lungs. She was able to eat food that was placed in her mouth.
Other than that, she had no other life sustaining apparati attached. So unless food and water are considered heroic or extreme measures to keep someone alive, she hardly fit the description of a person being kept alive by artificial means.
if you follow the record, you would see that Michael Schiavo came to this realization only after winning a huge malpractice lawsuit. Up until then he promissed to do whatever it takes to rehabilitate Terri. So excuse me if the loving husband argument does not seem to fit Michael.
Seriously, try to put yourself in Michael position. You have been living with another woman for years and have fathered children with her. You have a huge burden of dealing with your disabled wife’s care. You have her parents and siblings begging you to let them take over her care, essentially freeing you from any responsibility for her, would you continue to insist on keeping them from caring for her even though you beleive she is “dead”? If my wife were in this situation and I beleived she was already “dead” and my in-laws were begging me to care for their daughter, letting me move on, how could I deny them? Even if I had some sense of duty, how can you tell the mother of your wife, “No you cannot care for her, I am going to let her die”??? It makes no sense….
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:21 am ¶
matt wrote:
then look it up. do you honestly believe that had one of her then-current doctors said that she showed signs of life the court would have allowed the order to stop feeding her to go through? come on.
this is your argument? and you can’t see why we bat you around here?
where did Gibbs tell you that this record is located?
i’ll go with honoring her wishes. i’m going to interpret your views as “he wanted the money.”
going wider, why is it that you feel the right to question his motives absent any proof, while concurrently scolding us for questioning the administration’s motives with overwhelming proof?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:39 am ¶
sac wrote:
Regarding the tubes vs. no tubes, Jim’s argument is that she could live without the tubes as long as someone fed her. I do see the distinction between that and those who are on life support for breathing, heart beating, etc.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Obviously you see food and water as heroic means of keeping someone alive so I guess we’re at an impass here…
“i’ll go with honoring her wishes. i’m going to interpret your views as “he wanted the money.””
Wanting the money may be a motive, I don’t know, but how do you honor someone’s wishes while dishonoring everything else? i.e. living with and father children with another woman? To me these two scenarios are contradictory. You cannot claim to honor your wifes wishes [to die] from the new life you have created with another woman, which dishonors the marriage that gives you claim to her care…
The reason I question Michael Schiavo is that I believe there is evidence to believe he was not acting in the best interest of Terri and just as you claim there is no proof of this, I claim that your charges agains the Bush admin are based on opinion and not concrete facts…has the Bush admin made mistakes, yes. Are they as grievous and malicious as you make them out to be, no.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:48 am ¶
matt wrote:
fed her what? nothing that had to be chewed, for sure. so the only difference here is automatic vs manual. pretty thin.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:48 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Thank you sac! I was really starting to question humanity and if we deserve to live at all…
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:50 am ¶
JimC wrote:
But as I have stated before, many people cannot feed themselves and need to have food and water thru some other means. Newborns cannot eat solid foods for the very same reason Terri was fed thru a tube. People with severe throat cancer sometimes have to have feeding tubes. Someone who is in a coma must be feed thru a tube, do all these people meet the requirements that Terri did?
So if feeding someone thru a feeding tube is common even in situations outside of sever brain damage, what else qualified Terri as being kept alive artificially?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:54 am ¶
matt wrote:
classic. what you believe = proof. what we write (backed by news reports) = opinion.
Posted 08 May 2006 at 11:57 am ¶
JimC wrote:
“news reports”, who reports “news” these days? seriously…everything has become commentary rather than unbiased “news”…there seems to always be two sides to every “news” report. Even now you are hammering CNN for their “reporting”, how can one media outlet be called a tool for both sides of the political divide???
Posted 08 May 2006 at 12:21 pm ¶
matt wrote:
David Gibbs?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 12:25 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
No, he’s a lawyer…any other ideas?
Posted 08 May 2006 at 1:01 pm ¶