Schiavo Arguement

[BTs-FahQ2]

Hello,

I know we all like to debate politics, the system and life in general.  The Mary Schiavo case right now has everything incorporated in one.  This is a truly sad story, but if you are following it, it is a wild example of how our legal system works and how government works.  Not only that, but you see the raw emotion of the right to life issue pitted versus a man's belief of what his wife's last wishes were.

I can see this arguement getting heated if you would like to state your opinion on this.  Let's debate the overall issue, the courts decisions and how we feel about the american government itself passing legislation on the issue. 

Here are my points.  Legally the right for her to die has been approved and reassured.  The husband is legally titled to her choice of life or death, and he even states that she wished to have the plug removed in this type of instance.  But, I feel for the family who wishes for her not to die and are willing to take full custody and take care of her.  I also feel it is an atrocity for Congress and the president to get involved in this, we trust the courts to interpret the constitution and they are jumping in for their conservative beliefs trumping the system.

In all I feel they should let her die.  What are your ideas and final ruling?

read some of the story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/21/schiavo/index.html

[BTs_GhostSniper]

My take on this comes from a different point of view.  It is my belief that the events surrounding Mary's injury are very mysterious and that her husband may have had something to do with it, which is why he wants to pull the plug.  I think he is hiding something and wants to erase the only possible witness from ever being able to tell what really happened.

As far as what the courts, Congress, and the President are doing...well, all that is pretty fucked up depending on which side you are on.

[crypt]

Well, Hello Detective GhostSniper. Let her die. Oh yeah, and ban overage driving.

[BTs-FahQ2]

Well, actually the lady was bulimic and she slipped into the coma due to a lack or too much of potassium (I forgot which one). Same thing that killed karen carpenter.  So the exacts of her husband having something to do with it is just false hype and conspiracy theory.  In fact her husband took her to get medical care, which she barely received that led to the current situation.  In fact hey won a small malpractice suit do to this.

[BTs_Mysterio]

The husband seems very sure that she wouldn't want to live in this state. If he can say that, there's no reason why I or anyone else who didn't know her to say differently. The parents (who as I understand it don't want her to die) seem to be struggling with outliving their daughter.

[*DAMN Elandrion]

This case is quite difficult, from the medical and from the ethnical point.

One big medical problem here is that you can't know exactly if coma patients really perceive their surroundings. Therefore, we can only make assumptions.

Lets assume, that she really is awake, but just can't communicate because the signals from the brain aren't recieved by her organs. Then, she must be suffering horribly for the last 15 years, and should have gone crazy for the lack of being able to communicate. In that case, prolonging her life for another, say 15, years, would be very cruel.

But, on the other hand, if she really is brain dead, and not just a brain without the ability to overcome the inhibitions of a crippled body and nervous system, all her body functions are only instinctive. Since a patient, who is brain dead, can have a functioning vegetative nervous system, and can be kept alive for a long time, there is the problem of defining the word "alive". Would this person really by alive? Can a body, whose heart is still beating, but no brain activity can be measured, be called alive? Every day people suffer a stroke, or other brain damages, and many of these are only left alive long enough to extricate their functioning organs to help other people.

I think it is quite egoistic of her parents to keep her alive for so long. I can understand the feelings they must have, as they seem to think their daughter should be murdered. But, there always comes a time when one should stop to mourn and move on. It is egoistic to latch onto her that hard.

[bronto]

from what i read, they said she had an oxygen deprivation. i dunno how this stuff works, but apparently the guy got a large amount of money to keep her alive and soon after recieving it, decided to let her die (after promising to do everything he can to keep her alive). also, the guy already has a new woman and everything. i was thinking that he strangled her and then called the ambulance. if anything i said is wrong, tell me because i see these things on the news and what not, sometimes i don't remember them too well.

[BTs_Mysterio]

Strangling someone leaves visible evidence. Doctors would be able to tell if it was a attack or a health problem.

[bronto]

yeah i was thinking that, but i dunno maybe it depends on if you rub the skin or dig your fingers in. good point, she should probably just get taken off.

[BTs_Mysterio]

If she suffered prolong oxygen loss, she would be have a very damaged brain, thus limiting thought and control. I wouldn't want to live with that level of disability, it would drive you crazy not being able to express yourself in anyway.

[BTs-FahQ2]

bronto, the lack of oxygen was due to the low potassium levels I explained before.  It was a strangling.  When potassium levels reach a certain low point, your heart begins to convulse creating a heart attack.  Thus creating the inability to breath, and the subsequent loss of oxygen to the brain.  They were able to revive her and she is at her current state.  But after many tests, scans and therapy, they declared her beyond recovery almost 8 years ago.  The battle in the courts is what has kept her body alive this long.

[*DAMN Bondo]

Bronto, exactly how many decades was he supposed to wait with a vegetable wife before dating again? It is absurd to expect someone to remain faithful to a person that isn't really there in any relational sense for very long at all. Humans have needs.

I think there is nothing suspicious where he is concerned, and it is all slander against him to discredit his court supported view that she wishes to be removed. The religious right is showing itself to be heartless and the Republicans in congress are overstepping their bounds and will likely pay for it since the vast majority of the public supports the husband.

[BTs_Mysterio]

I agree totally with Bondo here. I don't quite understand why a case dealing with a single person went to congress... is this normal in the US? Any physiologist would tell you this is the parents pushing away their nightmare of outliving their child.

[seth]

I agree totally with Bondo here. I don't quite understand why a case dealing with a single person went to congress... is this normal in the US? Any physiologist would tell you this is the parents pushing away their nightmare of outliving their child.

although i totally understand the parents, i think its pretty selfish of them to keep their poor daughter

["Sixhits"]

My take on this comes from a different point of view.  It is my belief that the events surrounding Mary's injury are very mysterious and that her husband may have had something to do with it, which is why he wants to pull the plug.  I think he is hiding something and wants to erase the only possible witness from ever being able to tell what really happened.

As far as what the courts, Congress, and the President are doing...well, all that is pretty fucked up depending on which side you are on.

There are four things which piss me off about this issue:
1) That the Right is using this private citizen's fate as a political power grab: they are willing to move the entire Congress, to alter the law, and to usurp years of lawful conduct by both parties and slander our court system in order to gain political points. This is lead by Tom Delay, perhaps the most corrupt politican in the country, who is in the middle of an immense scandel over his illegal dealings with lobbiests and other ethical "lapses". He's using this one citizen's fate to grand stand and divert attention from his crimes. Sick. immoral. Hypercritical.
2) That the Right is willing to intervene in the private life of one citizen and control the fate of that citizen in order to circumvent the law according to it's view of right and wrong. This is not the country we were born into if the Congress can alter our individual fate at a whim. We have laws and we have courts for recourse. The Right has no respect for the rule of law, and never has. To them it's all about power over people. We see that lust clearly in the Schiavo case.
3) That the Right is willing to do whatever it takes to save this brain dead woman's life, but thinks nothing of killing civiilians in Iraq, or of providing health care to our citizens, or, for that matter, any government sponsered program. We can spend billion on bombs and move the Congress to pass laws in ONE DAY that are designed to keep a brain dead woman alive, but can do nothing for the millions of American children who are wiht out healthcare. Americans don't matter to the Right, just power, just politics.
4) This is the ONLY TIME Bush has cut short a vacation: in order to fly to the White House and sign this bill. What a dick he is. What a grandstander. Again, consider this: the President of the United States changed the course of his day in order to personally intervene in the private life of one citizen. We no longer live in a democracy, just a despotic theology with the barest trapping of popular concensus.

Or, that and the fact that Bush signed a law in Texas that allows for the doctors at a hospital to terminate the life of a patient if that patient is unable to pay for the cost of maintaining their life; even if the patient is fully conscious; even if the family of the patient wants to keep them alive. Amazingly, this law was just used this week to kill a baby in Texas.

What. Fucking. Culture. Of. Life?

Fucking conservatives and your moral high ground. You don't care. You've never cared. You think all high and mighty, but when it comes to doing good work for the people you wash your hands in blood. But when it can score points politically, you'll move mountains.

Oh, one more odd twist. Tort reform? If the Right had it's way Schiavo would already be dead. Why? Because it was her medical malpratice suit victory that pays for her life support.

Fuck the Right. The world is burning and you harp on this bullshit..

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Too bad I don't read replies to my posts that are 5 times longer than my post.  If I did, I might have gotten something out of what you said Sixhits.  As it is, I'll be patiently waiting for the Cliffs Notes version to hit the bookshelves.[/size]

[BTs_Mysterio]

Once again you resort to a lame deception away from the topic in which you were defeated. From now on those type of replies will be viewed as the flag of unconditional surrender.

["Sixhits"]

Too bad I don't read replies to my posts that are 5 times longer than my post.  If I did, I might have gotten something out of what you said Sixhits.  As it is, I'll be patiently waiting for the Cliffs Notes version to hit the bookshelves.[/size]

I can only imagine the depth of laziness that exists within you.

Four things that piss me off about this case:
1) That the Right is using this citizen's fate for a political power grab.
2) That the Right is willing to intervene in the private life of one citizen.
3) That the Right is willing to do whatever it takes to save this brain dead woman's life, but thinks nothing of killing civiilians in Iraq or of refusing to provide health care to all our children.
4) That this was the only time Bush cut short a vacation. To go back and sign this bill.

Additionaly: on the issue of hypocracy - Bush signed a bill into law in Texas that permited doctors to terminate the life of a person on life support if they could not pay, regardless of whether they were conscious or not, regardless of the family's will.

To sum: What. Fucking. Culture. Of. Life?

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Ok my point of veiw comes from a diff side.. As a former EMT (Emergency Medical Tech) By the way the laws state (concering us using arificial means to sustain life) Unless there is something legal in writing from the person in question and it is legaly signed by them we have to try to keep them alive by any means possible even if the family (husband, mother, father, whoever) tells us that they have a DNR (do not recesitate) cocument.. We have to have physical proofe of one that has been signed by the person while they are in a right state of mind. So with that being said.. I think that they should keeeo her on the feeding tube due to the fact that she had NO writen document stating that she didnt want to be like this. She is not in a coma.. she is in a vegitative state. She has normal sleep cycles where she sleeps and wakes up like normal people and does respond to stimuli.

Plus there is also the issue of the large life insurance policy she had (this was talked about on a l8t night radio talk show last night). If she dies.. he gets that money from that.. even thoug alot of it has been used already.. he still gets a protty good amount.

So.. i do feel that she should be kept alive by any means possible due to that fact that no one knows for sure what her wishes are. She does NOT have a legal document signed by her stating that she didnt not wantto be like this and she cannot talk.. so she cant tell anyone that she wants the tube removed. Untill she can inform someone herself and legaly sign a document saying thats what she wants.. then she has the right to stay alive till she can do so or dies of natural causes.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Too bad I don't read replies to my posts that are 5 times longer than my post.  If I did, I might have gotten something out of what you said Sixhits.  As it is, I'll be patiently waiting for the Cliffs Notes version to hit the bookshelves.[/size]

I can only imagine the depth of laziness that exists within you.

Four things that piss me off about this case:
1) That the Right is using this citizen's fate for a political power grab.
2) That the Right is willing to intervene in the private life of one citizen.
3) That the Right is willing to do whatever it takes to save this brain dead woman's life, but thinks nothing of killing civiilians in Iraq or of refusing to provide health care to all our children.
4) That this was the only time Bush cut short a vacation. To go back and sign this bill.

Additionaly: on the issue of hypocracy - Bush signed a bill into law in Texas that permited doctors to terminate the life of a person on life support if they could not pay, regardless of whether they were conscious or not, regardless of the family's will.

To sum: What. Fucking. Culture. Of. Life?

Now that was much better.  Short, sweet, and to the point.  I don't agree with you, however, but at least it is short enough that I can stop what I'm doing at work to actually read it.

I agree with Lee.Harvey, by the way.  This woman is not on "life-support".  She is simply on a feeding tube.  I guarantee that if we stop feeding any of you on this forum, that eventually you too will die.  See the difference?