TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Boortz on Terry Schiavo
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Hopefully the boney bulimia girls are taking note... One particular and very important subject matter that has been overshadowed (understatement) out of this whole debate is how she (can we call her "she"?) got to this point in the first place. I've not heard nor seen one column/report on this subject in relation to Terri Schiavo... It's not unconceivable that it could happen again... This is a hard one for me to decide which side of the fence to be on. While I do understand the arguements that the husband would like to move on with this life, to me, he already had and it questions the validity of 'marriage' for me per say. If you're only going to mutter the words, "...in sickness and in health..." and not mean it, then I guess this is the free ticket I've been waiting for...(joking...I really do love my wife!) Furthermore, to have two kids out of wedlock/adultry? while asking for your former? wife's dismise just doesn't really strike a good chord with me; I know that emotion is a falicy in this instance but everyone has a right to their own opinion. It's almost the polar argument of the Stem Cell case in what constitutes a fetus as being human. When is an adult human not human?

That�s a good philosophical question, one in which I really don�t have a very strong answer for right now. I think it is clear, however, that in Terri�s current state, which has been observed and verified by something like 6 doctors, some even court appointed (so there�s no bias involved here), is irreparable and incapable of any cognition whatsoever. Perhaps Descartes has come to bite her in the ass, I don�t know really. But a flat EEG and a cerebral cortex that is composed of nothing but spinal fluid has clearly been deemed medically and legally as a permanent vegetative state. And this has been confirmed over and over again, by judges appointed by Republican presidents, no less, so there�s no �liberal activist� judiciary system going on here.

I think it�s also necessary to view the historical context of what happened to Terri as well as the relationship of her parents to Michael. She clearly fell down and had a heart attack as a result of a potassium deficiency, which was medically and legally proven. This is consistent with severe bulimia, which Terri clearly suffered from. Any other conspiracy theories about Michael�s involvement, as well as him saying to others that he wanted a divorce and/or kill his wife were rightfully dismissed as heresy. But even if we were to go down that road of heresy, why would he try experimental therapies with the full consent of her family for the first 4 years or so if he wanted to divorce or kill her? Why would he go to nursing school and get his RN license in order to best take care of her himself if he wanted to divorce or kill her? Why was he so close to her family for at least the first 3 years after her fall if he wanted to divorce or kill her (which both parties readily admitted to in court)? Why did he continue to take care of her a number of years after the rift between he and her parents if he wanted to kill or divorce her? It doesn�t add up really, and even if there was some interesting speculation on it all it certainly isn�t admissible in court whatsoever.

So like many people, after some 3 years of no improvement Michael got mad and sued for malpractice. He eventually won and received a good healthy portion of money (I can�t remember how much). But for some reason, the Schindlers felt that some of that money belonged to them. Why they felt this way is really unclear and doesn�t make a whole lot of sense to anyone, let alone the courts who continually ruled against them. Only THEN was there a noticeable strain occurring between Michael and her parents � and it occurred when finances were involved that for some strange reason they felt they had some ownership to it.

And now we see that the Schindlers have sold a list of their financial supporters to a conservative direct-mailing firm:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=5

Which in my mind completely blows any credibility they have out the window, and only reaffirms the true reason for the rift between Michael and her parents.

I realize that Michael starting a family with someone else doesn�t help his moral cause much. But legally there�s nothing that could be said against it. And let�s keep in mind the 2 underlying causes for ALL the courts to continually reject the Schindler�s arguments:

1. Michael is the true guardian, and Terri had told both he and at least 2 other witnesses that she does not want to �live� in such a state.

2. Her medical evaluations and observations have clearly shown that she�s not going to recover and that she is a permanent veg.

quote:

In regards to Coultier's rantings, I'm going to guess that her arguement about the medical tests could be in reference to this: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/t...order030905.pdf where March 9, 2005 Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion requesting new tests? given the date of Coultier's column, March 24th.

Well Coulter could have read the Greer decision you posted a bit closer to understand exactly why Greer denied it:

quote:

The Court cannot see how the Respondents have met the burden established by Schlavo HI. Most of the doctor affida-vits submitted are based on their understanding of Terri's condition from news reports or video clips they have seen. Many are obviously not aware of the medical exams undertaken for the 2002 trial since they suggest the very tests that were given at that time or appear to be unaware that batteries of tests have been given at all. Others recommend that the new fMRI test be given since they believe that Terri is -not in a permanent or persistent vegetative state based on the available video footage but that she must be in a minimally conscious state or even better. The video footage referred to is either, a portion of, or all of the 4V2-hour videotape that was examined at the 2002 trial and was part of the basis of the Court's decision that she remained in PVS, which was affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal. The minimally conscious state was discussed at some length with witnesses at the 2002 trial so it is certainly not new, According to the article in Neurolog~, the fMRI was employed in a studv that showed that some MCS patients may retain widely distributed cortical systems with potential for cognitive and sensory function despite their inability to follow simple instructions or conununicate reliably. One of the Respondents' afflants cautions that fMRI testing is an experimental procedure that has shown promise but is not yet routinely used foT clinical purposes and that any fMR1 testing should be conducted in an academic setting with ongoing research protocols investigating comaJVS/MCS. Petitioner contends that no MRI can be conducted on Tem Schiavo without brain surgery to remove a device that was previously inserted in her brain and that such an invasive procedure has not been previously favored. A few of the other affiant doctors have appeared in this case before and their diagnoses and recommended courses of treatment have been previously considered. Although all of the affiants urge that new tests be given, most are vague as to the course of treatment that should be given, while other SUggeSt treatment that has already been considered (e.g., hyperbaric oxygenation). Both sides have cited guardian ad litem Wolfson's report in which he found the evidence of PVS to be compelling In regard to swallowing tests, she has previo-usly undergone them. The issue of swallowing saliva has also been previously heard by the Court. The Respondents and some of the afflants, notably speech pathologists or therapists, ,have recommended the swallovdng therapy called VitalStim, but notably there has been no allegation that VitalStim can be performed on patients who are in PVS. Dr. Wolfson also recommended such swallowing tests, but only if the parties agreed. Without an agreement to be bound by the results, he suggested that those tests had no feasibility. it is conceded that this matter. In regard to patient Scantlin, news reports state that she was able to blink on conunand, and therefore., was apparently not in PVS, so the issue of her improvement has limited, if any, applicability to this case. Based on the Respondents' request for relief as submitted, this Court does not believe that a colorable entitlement to relief has been established.

But then again, that would require Coulter actually using a bit or rationality in her own right, which we all know is noticeably absent from pretty much any piece of vile drivel that comes out of her fucking mouth.

No comment needed. Just simple genius:

Gotta love the look on that girl's face.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 No comment needed. Just simple genius:

That's awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey Opus(or anyone else for that matter)--since you seem to be one of the kings of point/counterpoint, perhaps you can validate or invalidate some of the points your gal Ann Coulter had to say in the following column. This doesn't change my stance on this issue, but they are some interesting points if they are indeed true. I have already heard many sources say that her cerebral cortex has basically disintegrated(though I'm not even sure how that happens). Coulter

I will admit I have not been following this case real closely I have heard Schiavo has some sort of metal implants in her brain. I can only assume they were put there years ago in an attempt to regrow the brain tissue. So the problem is when you stick her in an MRI, the magnetic field flips those hunks of metal around in her brain effectivly scrambling it even further.

she died a few moments ago

rip

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Gotta love the look on that girl's face.

omg i died laughing! (pun intended)

She's making sure there isn't a down arrow on his sign pointing at her.

What pissed me off the most is that Michael Schiavo wouldnt let her parents or blood relatives be there when she passed on.

RIP.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun What pissed me off the most is that Michael Schiavo wouldnt let her parents or blood relatives be there when she passed on. RIP.

maybe he was afraid they might try to slip her a snickers, power bar, or protein shake when he wasn't looking.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun What pissed me off the most is that Michael Schiavo wouldnt let her parents or blood relatives be there when she passed on. RIP.

Agreed. That was pretty fucking classless.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Agreed. That was pretty fucking classless.

Why? The parents have clearly stated that they would have gone against what Terri would have wanted for their own personal self gain. Do I need to bring up their court testimony once again that fully illustrates their own selfishness??? It's pretty damning testiomony so I'd be more than happy to repost it. They've clearly made every attempt to slander Michael with baseless accusations that every court has since rejected. What exactly has Michael done that is reprehensive? I mean shit, the parents have even sold the mailing list they've maintained in order to make a profit. Where is the outcry about their amorality??? Their moral intransigence seems to be justified or ignored by those who sympathise with their cause.

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun What pissed me off the most is that Michael Schiavo wouldnt let her parents or blood relatives be there when she passed on.

"the most"! What are you? A religous lunatic? There's one thing about this case which leaves me sad: that the US does not allow for euthanasia. Except for that this seems to be triumph for the free will.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Why? The parents have clearly stated that they would have gone against what Terri would have wanted for their own personal self gain. Do I need to bring up their court testimony once again that fully illustrates their own selfishness??? It's pretty damning testiomony so I'd be more than happy to repost it if you're unwilling to search for it. They've clearly made every attempt to slander Michael with baseless accusations that every court has since rejected. What exactly has Michael done that is reprehensive? I mean shit, the parents have even sold the mailing list they've maintained in order to make a profit. Where is the outcry about their amorality??? Their moral intransigence is justified because the ends trumps the means regardless of all other considerations??? Hypocrisy and principle have become strange bedfellows in our time.

I don't care what sort of court testimony you want to quote. Depriving a family of being at the bedside of their daugher when she is dying, regardless of what you think their intentions are(unless you mean to suggest that they didn't love their own daughter), and regardless of how ugly the legal battle has been--is simply classless. Furthermore, not even allowing them to attend her funeral service only demonstrates this more. Oh gosh, her parents wanted to keep her alive. Is it so hard to believe that her parents' natural instinct was to fight for the life of their child? To try to protect her at all costs? Maybe they were wrong based on scientific evidence to fight for a lost cause, but they were certainly not wrong morally to fight for the life of their child to the end. That is what parents do, and it's hard to fault them for that in my book.

The guy says he wants to avoid a media circus, yet he has been just as instrumental in creating it as anyone else. Though dost protest too much, I'm afraid.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't care what sort of court testimony you want to quote. Depriving a family of being at the bedside of their daugher when she is dying, regardless of what you think their intentions are(unless you mean to suggest that they didn't love their own daughter), and regardless of how ugly the legal battle has been--is simply classless. Furthermore, not even allowing them to attend her funeral service only demonstrates this more. Oh gosh, her parents wanted to keep her alive. Is it so hard to believe that her parents' natural instinct was to fight for the life of their child? To try to protect her at all costs? Maybe they were wrong based on scientific evidence to fight for a lost cause, but they were certainly not wrong morally to fight for the life of their child to the end. That is what parents do, and it's hard to fault them for that in my book.

But their intentions weren't wrong from a scientific standpoint in fighting to keep her alive alone. Their intentions were wrong from a moral standpoint as well since they clearly stated that their actions were not governed by any of Terri's desires but their own selfish interests. In other words, they have no concern whatsoever with what Terri wanted, their actions are solely governed by what they want. And for that, I cannot help but fault them for their actions.

quote:

The guy says he wants to avoid a media circus, yet he has been just as instrumental in creating it as anyone else. Though dost protest too much, I'm afraid.

The man is simply trying to execute his wife's desires. The only people propogating a media circus are the parents who refuse to adhere to the spousal rights and the legal findings of this case. If they hadn't brought this up to every single appeals court in the country, along with state and federal legislatures this issue would have been dead in the 90's without any media fanfare. What should Michael's desire to avoid a media circus trump his wife's right and desire to cease treatment and simply acquiesce to the parent's demands? Would you want your wife to simply give up and ignore your desires should the case become a blown out of proportion?

I can completely understand Michael's frustrations and anger towards the parents. Their actions have been completely governed by self-interest as opposed to Terri's interests, and they've slandered him in every possible respect. In a similar situation, I might do the very same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The man is simply trying to execute his wife's desires. The only people propogating a media circus are the parents who refuse to adhere to the spousal rights and the legal findings of this case. If they hadn't brought this up to every single appeals court in the country, along with state and federal legislatures this issue would have been dead in the 90's without any media fanfare. What should Michael's desire to avoid a media circus trump his wife's right and desire to cease treatment and simply acquiesce to the parent's demands? Would you want your wife to simply give up and ignore your desires should the case become a blown out of proportion?

I don't think Michael is any more or less guilty/innocent than the parents in this. I'm pretty sure he wants Terri out of the picture so he can move on with his life with his new lady friend and children. I believe that he loves the woman the he saw 15 years ago. He clearly moved on a long time ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't think Michael is any more or less guilty/innocent than the parents in this. I'm pretty sure he wants Terri out of the picture so he can move on with his life with his new lady friend and children. I believe that he loves the woman the he saw 15 years ago. He clearly moved on a long time ago.

Well despite all the evidence to the contrary that was dug up by independant court agents for the trials, if he simply wants her out of the picture, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Logic would dictate him not spending all his money to fight the Schindlers, him not offering to donate whatever money that's left ($40,000 last I heard) to charity, or him accepting the multi-million dollar offers to simply drop the case and let Terri's parents take care of her. Strangely enough, the only thing I can think of that would dictate such irrational behaviour is a genuine concern for what Terri would have wanted.

I mean think about it, Michael has everything to gain by simply giving up. Money, death threats against him and his family, he doesn't have to care for a vegetable, etc. Yet he hasn't ... that demonstrates to me that the only party he's concerned with is Terri. Meanwhile, the bumbling parents have fully admitted that they could care less what Terri would have wanted ... they only care about their own selfish interests. And doing things like profiting off of this political fiasco (I read a good article about their fundraising efforts and how much money they were bringing in, along with them selling their email lists ... coincidentally the only group standing up for Michael is the ACLU which only covered the costs of a few of the appeals, I believe his lawyers are pro-bono at this point) only discredits them even more. So when I take out my moral compass to examine the case, I'm sorry but the parents come out way way below (or would it be south?) Michael.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well despite all the evidence to the contrary that was dug up by independant court agents for the trials, if he simply wants her out of the picture, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Logic would dictate him not spending all his money to fight the Schindlers, him not offering to donate whatever money that's left ($40,000 last I heard) to charity, or him accepting the multi-million dollar offers to simply drop the case and let Terri's parents take care of her. Strangely enough, the only thing I can think of that would dictate such irrational behaviour is a genuine concern for what Terri would have wanted. I mean think about it, Michael has everything to gain by simply giving up. Money, death threats against him and his family, he doesn't have to care for a vegetable, etc. Yet he hasn't ... that demonstrates to me that the only party he's concerned with is Terri. Meanwhile, the bumbling parents have fully admitted that they could care less what Terri would have wanted ... they only care about their own selfish interests. And doing things like profiting off of this political fiasco (I read a good article about their fundraising efforts and how much money they were bringing in, along with them selling their email lists ... coincidentally the only group standing up for Michael is the ACLU which only covered the costs of a few of the appeals, I believe his lawyers are pro-bono at this point) only discredits them even more. So when I take out my moral compass to examine the case, I'm sorry but the parents come out way way below (or would it be south?) Michael.

Of course, then he would be exposed for what he is. As I said, he doth protest too much.

It would be a lot easier for Michael Jackson to simply admit he likes to buttfuck little boys, but he'd much rather pay them hundreds of millions of dollars to protect his fragile public image/reputation.

I'm still wondering why this specific case gets the limelight. Thousands of cases like this have occurred over the years where people have no living will and families disagree with each other all the time about what the outcome should be. I worked doing social work in a nursing home for a couple years and all these issues were commonplace. Other than the substantially greater litigation than normal, what made this case require the attention of Congress, the President and the media? Sure there were some greater issues that people debated because of the attention, but people "starve and dehydrate to death" in hospice every single day, including a lot of other people in that specific hospice that those few protesters getting their 15 minutes of fame ignored, not to mention there are much bigger issues to handle if people like DeLay, Frist & Santorum really wanted to help create a "culture of life." Say what you want about the decisions of the courts, who have the right to do what they did under the Constitution, but I'd guarantee the woman wouldn't have wanted her image in that condition, CT scans and doctors' opinions paraded around cable TV and newspapers. Let it be known if I drink too much Guinness tonight at the company party and have an accident with no shot at recovering, I do not want to be on Larry King.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Of course, then he would be exposed for what he is. As I said, he doth protest too much. It would be a lot easier for Michael Jackson to simply admit he likes to buttfuck little boys, but he'd much rather pay them hundreds of millions of dollars to protect his fragile public image/reputation.

Hmmm I'm not sure that I buy into that much at all. Usually twats don't mind if other people think that they're twats if they stand to gain all things considered. As it stands now, Michael is pretty much hated by a ton of people, half of them believe in the slanderous lies the Schindler's made, and to top it off he's poor. Might as well have settled the issue quitely when he was offered the enormous sum of money and when the issue wasn't so publicized ... people would have quickly forgotten the issue.

Jackson is somewhat of a different example because he stands to go to jail and would lose millions due to reputational damage if he simply confessed.

There's simply no convincing arguments that prove Michael is a slime bag. Quite the contrary nearly every peice of evidence and logic points in the other direction.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider There's simply no convincing arguments that prove Michael is a slime bag. Quite the contrary nearly every peice of evidence and logic points in the other direction.

Well, except for the fact that he abandoned his vows of marriage to sire 2 children with another woman while his wife was still alive(regardless of her state of being). "In sickness and in health". I realize you are not married, but it is a pretty serious committment for those who take it seriously. However, this debate would be a subjective one, so you will have to decide for yourself if you think those actions were just or not. Personally, I take serious issue with it.

Granted, I'm not going to put him in the same league as Scott Peterson, but IMO he threw his commitment to his wife by the wayside and gave up on her long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, except for the fact that he abandoned his vows of marriage to sire 2 children with another woman while his wife was still alive(regardless of her state of being). "In sickness and in health". I realize you are not married, but it is a pretty serious committment for those who take it seriously. However, this debate would be a subjective one, so you will have to decide for yourself if you think those actions were just or not. Personally, I take serious issue with it. Granted, I'm not going to put him in the same league as Scott Peterson, but IMO he threw his commitment to his wife by the wayside and gave up on her long ago.

Gave up his committment to his wife a long time ago? The man spent more than 5000 hours caring for his wife in the first 5 years alone according to the Wolfson report. The guy even trained as a nurse to care for her. Terri has never had a case of decubitus ulcers (bed sores) which means she's been moved at least once every 4 hours. Instead of putting all the money from the malpractice settlement into a trust for her care he should have simply gone on a buying binge if he truly "gave up" on her. So maybe the guy wanted to have kids while he was still young, you can't fault him for wanting to father children before it became too late. I think that he's more than lived up to the "in sickness and health" clause of the marriage contract. If he truly "gave up" the far easier option would have been to simply ignore Terri's desires, give her up to the parents, and gotten a divorce ... and millions in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Gave up his committment to his wife a long time ago? The man spent more than 5000 hours caring for his wife in the first 5 years alone according to the Wolfson report. The guy even trained as a nurse to care for her. Terri has never had a case of decubitus ulcers (bed sores) which means she's been moved at least once every 4 hours. Instead of putting all the money from the malpractice settlement into a trust for her care he should have simply gone on a buying binge if he truly "gave up" on her. So maybe the guy wanted to have kids while he was still young, you can't fault him for wanting to father children before it became too late. I think that he's more than lived up to the "in sickness and health" clause of the marriage contract. If he truly "gave up" the far easier option would have been to simply ignore Terri's desires, give her up to the parents, and gotten a divorce ... and millions in the process.

Tomato Tomotto

It's amazing how this issue has flipped what I thought to be some long-time beliefs. They even got Jesse Jackson for chrissakes. Eesh.

I thought this was interesting.

quote:

Who Will Remember Terri? By JAMES TARANTO April 1, 2005; Page A10 What lasting effect will the Terri Schiavo saga have on American politics? Probably not much. However intense the emotions of the past two weeks, for most voters they're sure to prove fleeting. But there's one important exception: disabled Americans. Some of the most impassioned arguments against killing Terri Schiavo came from profoundly handicapped people: � Mary Johnson, left-leaning editor of Ragged Edge magazine: "There isn't a single disability rights activist I've heard from . . . who isn't afraid that this will make liberals hate them even more than they now do." � Joe Ford, a Harvard undergraduate with severe cerebral palsy: "Like many others with disabilities, I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead. To put it in a simpler way, many Americans are bigots. A close examination of the facts of the Schiavo case reveals not a case of difficult decisions but a basic test of this country's decency." � Eleanor Smith, a self-described liberal agnostic lesbian, whose childhood bout with polio left her confined to a wheelchair: "At this point I would rather have a right-wing Christian decide my fate than an ACLU member." Ms. Smith protested last week outside the hospice where Mrs. Schiavo lay dehydrating and starving. Surveys of disabled Americans suggest a strong GOP tilt. According to the National Organization on Disability, Al Gore outpolled George W. Bush among disabled Americans, 56% to 38%, but four years later Mr. Bush beat John Kerry, 52.5% to 46% -- a 24.5-point shift. As late as August, Mr. Kerry had a 10-point lead, which vanished by September, coinciding with the Florida Supreme Court's striking down "Terri's law." Polls last month suggested that most Americans favored Mrs. Schiavo's death. It was natural for an able-bodied person to think: I wouldn't want to live like that. But someone who is disabled and abjectly dependent on others was more apt to be chilled by the talk of her "poor quality of life" and to think: I wouldn't want to be killed like that. Liberalism once championed the interests of society's most vulnerable members. Today it increasingly champions their "right to die." No one should be surprised if this affects their decisions as they exercise their right to vote.

If I had Terri Schiavo's parents, i wouldn't want them by my deathbed when I pass on. I suspect Terri herself wouldn't have wanted them around either. Scumbags.

I considered posting this on the Pope's thread, but felt it was a bit inappropriate there. So I'll post this here as I feel it relates more to the Schiavo case:

quote:

He spent his final hours in his Vatican apartment, surrounded by nine members of his mainly Polish inner circle. Three doctors were present, but no elaborate hospital technology to help prolong his life. Just before the end, the pope's longtime secretary celebrated Mass and began to anoint the pope's hands with oil, according to one account. John Paul gripped his secretary's hand, an apparent farewell gesture to a faithful aide who helped the pontiff fulfill his wish to die unencumbered by tubes and machines. It was 9:37 p.m. Saturday. The cause of death was septic shock and irreversible heart failure, according to the death certificate made public Sunday by the Vatican. John Paul's decision last week not to return to the Gemelli Polyclinic hospital where he had spent so much time in recent years mirrored decisions made every day by severely ill patients and their families. http://www.latimes.com/news/special...-home-headlines

So we grant this man his wishes to end his life the way he sees fit, which I completely agree with, BTW, yet we cannot do the same for Terri's wishes, and as a consequence attempt to keep her alive for over 15 fucking years?

Is this the "culture of life" we speak of - granting certain individuals the right to end their lives peacefully while taking those rights away from others?

Interesting, ain't it?

Well, the Pope wasn't a US citizen, was he? Furthermore, he was the ruler of the country he lived in, so "we" can't really be said to have allowed him to die in his way.
However, I read in TimeOut that people in the US could fill out "advance directives", specifying whether they would recieve medical treatment in cases such as this. So does that mean that future Terrys won't have to go through this circus?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.