Terri Schiavo
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Terri Schiavo |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 10:03
Profile
quote:Seems like Republicans in general are taking a bashing now. I myself am Republican, and from a very outspoken Republican father. While I agree that Congress is acting…stupid, (the Republican congressmen, mind you), I'd like to point out that many GOP's on the local level would rather let Terri die. What I mean to do…is to point out that I can still be Republican as hell and disagree with the administration and Congress. -------------------- "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 10:14
Profile
Homepage
And Plah, that's very justified of you- Nixon and Eisenhower, for instance, would wretch in disgust at what their party had turned into. So much to be blamed on one poor actor... -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 10:59
Profile
Homepage
Not sure you should be using Nixon as a shining example of what the party should be. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 15:16
Profile
Well, apart from being evil, he was actually a pretty good president. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 22:44
Profile
http://www.terrisfight.net/myths.html Comments? EDIT: I don't see how she could be cured of her condition, though. [ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 22:45: Message edited by: Alex ] Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 23:45
Profile
The available sources are by far too contradictory for any outsider to know what state Mrs. Schiavo is really in. Edit: What perplexes and worries me in a case that is now going to the Supreme Court is the incompatibility of for instance the following two statements: Quote http://www.terrisfight.net/myths.html: Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment. Quote http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html: Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. In a later opinion in the same case, the Second District further explained: Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex. [ Thursday, March 24, 2005 02:09: Message edited by: ef ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 03:56
Profile
I certainly hope that she is not conscious. If she is, her life must be torment. Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 05:43
Profile
I agree - if she was conscious, being cut off from outside stimulation would probably have driven her mad years ago, and she's probably been praying for death. I know I would. I think though that she's gone. I remember reading in an AP psychology text in high school that after lessioning all of a cat's brain except for the brain stem, the cat would still groom itself. Some functions are just built into the hardware, so to speak. What isn't built in though is the capacity to swallow. You can argue that a newborn is as helpless as Terri, but a newborn can still swallow without anything going down the wrong pipe. Newborns also show developmental improvement rapidly - by age one, they're a lot like little people - demanding, unreasonable people, that is. :) I would point out that a site like "terrisfight.org" might possibly be a bit biased. I'm a bit more inclined to go with the report of the guardian ad litem. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 1668
|
written Thursday, March 24 2005 08:42
Profile
As an ICU physician, and having read what's out there to read on the subject [for any interested and have access, there is an excellent review of the case from a medical, legal, and ethical perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine], there is no doubt that this woman is in a permanent vegetative state. It's interesting that the Republicans (at least U.S. Senate and Florida Gov.) have taken up this fight: 1) For the party historically dedicated to states' rights, the attempt to supervene when the State decision goes against personal religious/philosophical grounds is curious at best. 2) For the party actively holidng up marriage as the cornerstone of the family unit, if not the nation itself, to the point of wishing it forbid to same-sex couples, it's curious that they want to strip the husband of his surrogate role in this individual case. -------------------- "Mongo only pawn in game of life" -- Mongo Posts: 75 | Registered: Monday, August 5 2002 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 06:18
Profile
She dead. (Sorry for reviving a somewhat old topic! :) ) Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 5219
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 06:45
Profile
She lived long time without water, didn't she? -------------------- You can take my Windows XP when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 394 | Registered: Saturday, November 20 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 06:51
Profile
True, but she wasn't exactly moving around, expending energy the way you or I would, nor was she exposed to the elements. Much of our dehydration is the result of perspiration. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 5219
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 07:09
Profile
Didn't think of that, but it's still weird. about 2 weeks? -------------------- You can take my Windows XP when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 394 | Registered: Saturday, November 20 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5651
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 07:41
Profile
:confused: I'd say it's rather difficult to subscribe to either point of view, that is to support euthanasia or keeping her alive in the state she is... I dont' really have an opinion, but I am rather dissapointed this has become another political affair... I find it ridiculous that state officials single-handedly dismiss judicial decisions. But how can you judge if a person should live or die...? Even if she's not truly alive, she's certainly not dead either... Well, at least I can find relief in the fact that my opinion cannot possibly change anything. :cool: -------------------- For the wind cries of late In the whispering grass Our way of life is held In the spinning wheels of chance For the wind cries of late In the whispering leaves Tell me more about the forest You once called home Posts: 29 | Registered: Thursday, March 31 2005 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 07:43
Profile
Homepage
Now all we have to do is remove the feeding tube from cable news stations. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 08:13
Profile
I think that would only make them stronger - imagine an Undead News Network! :eek: Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 10:36
Profile
Yay, undead news. I stopped watching the news on television a while ago. I listen to it on the radio or get it directly from the internet-- there is less time lag it comes directly from the AP or Reuters up to the minute on Yahoo or Reuters. Sometimes I go to http://www.aldaily.com/#newspapers Arts and Letters Daily to read the international news free. This makes it a bit more interesting. There are no retractions-- the retractions occur about two or three hours after the news is released. Radio corrections are a bit faster, usually about a half an hour later. You get to see censorship and "balancing of viewpoints" in action. Most daily newspapers and television have a day to be edited before general public consumption. Television often claims to be up to the minute. This is laughable. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 10:44
Profile
I don't watch television news either. For the most part, I gather my news online from the NYT, WSJ, and Washington Post. Sometimes I check my hometown paper, the Courier-Journal, to find out what's happening in ol' Louisville, KY. CNN.com is useful for stupid entertainment news. When I can, I listen to NPR. My question is: Who owns the AP and Reuters? Almost all breaking news stories come from these services - everyone uses them. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 455
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 11:04
Profile
Reuters is a public company, based in London and traded there and on the NASDAQ (and maybe elsewhere by now). Its corporate structure places severe restrictions on the amount of stock any individual can hold. There was formerly a trust which, beginning in WWII and ending sometime in the 1980s (I think), privately owned the corporation. My sense is that some version or descendent of that trust still exists and exercises a controlling interest in the company. The AP is a not-for-profit cooperative owned by its member newspapers (all in the U.S., I believe). Oh yeah, and Reuters' Oddly Enough page should be your first stop for news of naked Germans, Russian vodka-rescue-and-recovery operations and eunuch pride events. [ Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:23: Message edited by: Boots ] -------------------- Forgive them, for they are young and rich and white. Posts: 265 | Registered: Saturday, December 29 2001 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 5219
|
written Thursday, March 31 2005 13:49
Profile
quote:Yay! That'd be kinda cool. :P -------------------- You can take my Windows XP when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 394 | Registered: Saturday, November 20 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, April 2 2005 09:49
Profile
Homepage
You didn't think this issue would just go away, did you? :P But seriously, this story seems a bit freaky to me. A highlight: "Dan Allen, [House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay's communications director, said that DeLay was 'once again expressing his disappointment in how the courts clearly ignored the intent of the legislation that was passed.'" Yes, damn those judges for not just doing what they're told by the legislature! What do you mean, checks and balances? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, April 2 2005 11:43
Profile
Homepage
This is only a more blatant statement of what has been obvious throughout the case. —Alorael, who once again expresses his disappointment in how the legistlators clearly ignored the intent of the Constitution. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Saturday, April 2 2005 11:50
Profile
Homepage
Well, the Supreme Court has overstepped its Constitutional duties again and again - very little of what it does nowadays is actually proscribed by the Constitution. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Saturday, April 2 2005 18:32
Profile
That's different. For one thing, the Constitution is vague on judicial review, largely because some of the founding fathers, most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, hoped to sneak it in without a lengthy debate on its merits. The Court does not so much exceed its Constitutional powers as take a generous view of them, one which had the endorsement of the executive branch under Jefferson. More importantly, even with its expanded power, the court is limited in what it can do, even when its judges are excessively activist. The Schiavo precedent is dangerous because it essentially places Congress above the courts. It is interesting to wonder what would happen if the Schiavo case had been taken by the Supreme Court; the Schiavo law is almost certainly unconstitutional, and we could have had a situation in which both Congress and the Supreme Court were claiming the ability to overrule the other. But, alas, the breakdown of the rule of law must await another day. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Sunday, April 3 2005 02:14
Profile
Homepage
Oh, I agree with you. But each branch tries to push the checks and balances as much as it can. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2