Great. More Stupidity by another Bush

[nx6d]

Just when we thought the Schiavos and their ideologue friends would go back into their holes, up pops Jeb Bush with this little gem:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/17/schiavo.governor.ap/index.html

[KA8NCR]

Why can't you accept that the Bush family knows best.
The Bush family didn't get all that wealth and power by being stupid. Just lay back and let them run your life, it'll be better that way.

Oh, and if you disagree with this, well, you're just a terrorist.

[K6BBC]

I heard this today. I was so depressed I had to put myself to bed.

I also heard they are trying to get that old standby - a constitutional amendment against flag burning – up and going again.

I guess they read my post where I stated 50% of Americans are dumbasses. And for some reason, they get those dumbasses to vote.

K6BBC

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 17 2005,16:52)]I heard this today. I was so depressed I had to put myself to bed.

I also heard they are trying to get that old standby - a constitutional amendment against flag burning – up and going again.

I guess they read my post where I stated 50% of Americans are dumbasses. And for some reason, they get those dumbasses to vote.

K6BBC
Odd how all of Bush's constitutional amendments are of the ridiculous variety.

I find it strange that he's tinkering with a document he probably has never read and stands idle while the DOJ and his cronies wipe their backside with it.

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 17 2005,16:56)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 17 2005,16:52)]I heard this today. #I was so depressed I had to put myself to bed. #

I also heard they are trying to get that old standby - a constitutional amendment against flag burning – up and going again. #

I guess they read my post where I stated 50% of Americans are dumbasses. #And for some reason, they get those dumbasses to vote.

K6BBC
Odd how all of Bush's constitutional amendments are of the ridiculous variety.

I find it strange that he's tinkering with a document he probably has never read and stands idle while the DOJ and his cronies wipe their backside with it.
Agreed,

The Constitution is there to protect us from the 50 or more dumbasses in America. I hate to hear anybody talk about amending it. Leave it alone! It was written by inspired, intelligent, gifted men. It would be like me re-editing Citizen Kane because I thought I could make it better.

K6BBC

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 17 2005,16:33)]Why can't you accept that the Bush family knows best. #
The Bush family didn't get all that wealth and power by being stupid. #Just lay back and let them run your life, it'll be better that way. #

Oh, and if you disagree with this, well, you're just a terrorist.
or a dissenter which equals hater.

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (WX7B @ June 17 2005,16:24)]Just when we thought the Schiavos and their ideologue friends would go back into their holes, up pops Jeb Bush with this little gem:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/17/schiavo.governor.ap/index.html
The true disdain the Bush family shows for Americans is staggering.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 17 2005,17:04)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ June 17 2005,16:56)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 17 2005,16:52)]I heard this today. I was so depressed I had to put myself to bed.

I also heard they are trying to get that old standby - a constitutional amendment against flag burning – up and going again.

I guess they read my post where I stated 50% of Americans are dumbasses. And for some reason, they get those dumbasses to vote.

K6BBC
Odd how all of Bush's constitutional amendments are of the ridiculous variety.

I find it strange that he's tinkering with a document he probably has never read and stands idle while the DOJ and his cronies wipe their backside with it.
Agreed,

The Constitution is there to protect us from the 50 or more dumbasses in America. I hate to hear anybody talk about amending it. Leave it alone! It was written by inspired, intelligent, gifted men. It would be like me re-editing Citizen Kane because I thought I could make it better.

K6BBC
Give yourself a little more credit. Of course the title would be something like Infested Kane: Rosebud Hell II.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73,
Dave/al2i

WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LET IT GO?SHE IS DEAD AND THEY COULD SUE THE WHOLE
STINKING PLANET AND IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACTS OR THE OUTCOME.I WISH THEY WOULD JUST LET IT GO.:angry:

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (ki4bnc @ June 17 2005,18:21)]WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LET IT GO?SHE IS DEAD AND THEY COULD SUE THE WHOLE
STINKING PLANET AND IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACTS OR THE OUTCOME.I WISH THEY WOULD JUST LET IT GO.:angry:
Stop speaking common sense and decency, it won't get you anywhere.

Don't you understand? For the love of God, quit making sense!

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (ki4bnc @ June 17 2005,18:21)]WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LET IT GO?SHE IS DEAD AND THEY COULD SUE THE WHOLE
STINKING PLANET AND IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACTS OR THE OUTCOME.I WISH THEY WOULD JUST LET IT GO.:angry:
I am not clear why there is such anger in this thread. You have won. Terry's sad shell was dehydrated to death while her parents powerlessly watched in abject agony. Plus, you've been able to make sport of those folks, laughing scornfully about both their intellect and rationality while they suffered.

Even if the man who proved he could kill their daughter (regardless of their pain and desperation) was completely or partly responsible for their daughter's initial brain damage, there is no way to prove that now. All trails are cold. He got the $300,000 but not the remaining $700,000 that he hoped for with an early dehydration, so he will have to earn money selling his story or something.

Right to die advocates won hands down, and the link to Jeb Bush's little ploy reveals a purely political posturing for the right to life wackos. So cheer up fellas! You won! No reason at all for silly, pointless anger. In fact, the steamy verbiage makes y'all look a little unhinged -- and we know that can't be right.

With luck, some spouse who is having babies with a new love interest while you languish in a near vegitative state will be able to torment the rest of your family members by slowly dehydrating you someday. Or, perhaps, your child will be dehydrated in front of you while you think you still see a glimmer there. The world is your oyster, er... dehydrator.

73,
Dave/al2i

[n8yx]

Quote[/b] (ki4bnc @ June 17 2005,18:21)]WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LET IT GO?SHE IS DEAD AND THEY COULD SUE THE WHOLE
STINKING PLANET AND IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACTS OR THE OUTCOME.I WISH THEY WOULD JUST LET IT GO.:angry:
Why?

He's probably trying to "groom" himself for a shot at the presidency...and figures that, by appearing to give a rat's rump about things such as this he'll be able to pull the wool over some eyes...

[KB2AK]

Quote[/b] (n8yx @ June 17 2005,22:29)]He's probably trying to "groom" himself for a shot at the presidency...and figures that, by appearing to give a rat's rump about things such as this he'll be able to pull the wool over some eyes...
Exactly-----hopefully, Americans are realizing how ridiculous and dangerous this dynasty and the "neo-conservatives" are becoming and will retire them from public service.

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,20:20)]Even if the man who proved he could kill their daughter (regardless of their pain and desperation) was completely or partly responsible for their daughter's initial brain damage, there is no way to prove that now. All trails are cold. He got the $300,000 but not the remaining $700,000 that he hoped for with an early dehydration, so he will have to earn money selling his story or something.
Wow. This is your opinion, based on your emotions. There is NOTHING in the case history that backs this up.

Evil hiding behind every bush?

I'm floored that many can't at least see both sides. "Completely or partly responsible for their daughter's initial brain damage?" At best, this is conjecture; at worst, it's outright slander.

You must be getting your news from the World Weekly News or some other grocery store pulp. Might be time for you to turn the TV off for awhile and see if you can float back down to Earth.

Shesh.

73, Rob

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ June 17 2005,20:50)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,20:20)]Even if the man who proved he could kill their daughter (regardless of their pain and desperation) was completely or partly responsible for their daughter's initial brain damage, there is no way to prove that now. All trails are cold. He got the $300,000 but not the remaining $700,000 that he hoped for with an early dehydration, so he will have to earn money selling his story or something.
Wow. This is your opinion, based on your emotions. There is NOTHING in the case history that backs this up.

Evil hiding behind every bush?

I'm floored that many can't at least see both sides. "Completely or partly responsible for their daughter's initial brain damage?" At best, this is conjecture; at worst, it's outright slander.

You must be getting your news from the World Weekly News or some other grocery store pulp. Might be time for you to turn the TV off for awhile and see if you can float back down to Earth.

Shesh.

73, Rob
Note that I used the words "Even if..."

Note that the link on which this thread is predicated has to do with investigating hubby's culpability in her initial brain damage.

Further note that I did not say that he caused or exacerbated her brain damage..

Finally note that OF COURSE, I have a suspicion about the circumstances of her brain damage.

The suspicion of her parents, her brother, and her sister is that through either action or inaction, he had something to do with the extent of her initial brain damage.

I predominately receive my news from the major media. I am sorry that my meaning seemed unclear. I tried to be reasonably precise.

I am not accusing him of anything other than being an instrument (along with the courts) of her family's suffering and her death by dehydration.

73,
Dave/al2i

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,22:21)]Note that I used the words "Even if..."

The suspicion of her parents, her brother, and her sister is that through either action or inaction, he had something to do with the extent of her initial brain damage.

I predominately receive my news from the major media. Why are you unable to read my writing? I was precise.

73,
Dave/al2i
Taken in context, you "lost" and people who prefer death "won." Precise, maybe, but it sure indicates a bias, and one that has not been supported by the justice system, which seems eager to pounce on such cases with the slightest shred of evidence. Evidence? None. Not then, not now.

Is it inconceivable that Michael Schiavo is exactly what he presented himself to be? Under what grounds do you doubt him? The speculation of a grieving family under extreme emotional duress?

Here is what I'll submit to you: This was an unfortunate case, and nobody won. Not me, not you, not the family, not the citizens of Florida, and certainly not Michael Schiavo. If this was a money scam, he earned every dime and should have the utmost respect of con artists worldwide. Is this the picture you have of him?

It's over now, and it needed to be over a long time ago. There are no "pro-death" people, just simple people like me who understand that it's past time for the Schindler's to move on.

73, Rob

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,22:21)]Note that I used the words "Even if..."

Note that the link on which this thread is predicated has to do with investigating hubby's culpability in her initial brain damage.

Further note that I did not say that he caused or exacerbated her brain damage..

Finally note that OF COURSE, I have a suspicion about the circumstances of her brain damage.

The suspicion of her parents, her brother, and her sister is that through either action or inaction, he had something to do with the extent of her initial brain damage.

I predominately receive my news from the major media. I am sorry that my meaning seemed unclear. I tried to be reasonably precise.

I am not accusing him of anything other than being an instrument (along with the courts) of her family's suffering and her death by dehydration.

73,
Dave/al2i
Well, I'll surely note the substantial edit while I was replying. Heh, heh...

No harm, though. Ultimately this mostly boils down to our collective definitions of life and death. To me, you're dead when your brain stops functioning. Anything beyond that is merely technology keeping tissue alive. Others believe that warm blood qualifies. If the same thing happened 100 years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the technology didn't exist. Ms. Schiavo would have been buried 15 years ago. (Don't mean to appear crass).

You see, I believe that she died a long time ago. Living tissue doesn't mean much without a soul -- this is an easy laboratory trick these days.

The dehydration issue is a big one. Would you support a "more humane" method?

73, Rob

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ June 17 2005,22:14)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,22:21)]
This was really an edited edit of an edit!

Taken in context, you "lost" and people who prefer death "won." Precise, maybe, but it sure indicates a bias, and one that has not been supported by the justice system, which seems eager to pounce on such cases with the slightest shred of evidence. Evidence? None. Not then, not now.

Is it inconceivable that Michael Schiavo is exactly what he presented himself to be? Under what grounds do you doubt him? The speculation of a grieving family under extreme emotional duress?

Here is what I'll submit to you: This was an unfortunate case, and nobody won. Not me, not you, not the family, not the citizens of Florida, and certainly not Michael Schiavo. If this was a money scam, he earned every dime and should have the utmost respect of con artists worldwide. Is this the picture you have of him?

It's over now, and it needed to be over a long time ago. There are no "pro-death" people, just simple people like me who understand that it's past time for the Schindler's to move on.

73, Rob
Those are kind words from you, as all of your words have been, but BBC and others were attacking the Schindler's like a pack of rabid dachshunds. The Schindler's were portrayed as fanatics, as the stooges of fanatics, and as stupid.

To your credit, I have been in substantial agreement with your comments on this matter throughout, and you brought forth cogent, well-reasoned concepts and principles, even though you and I are probably in disagreement about leaving Terry's Mom and Dad completely powerless.

Ideally, they should have finally been able to "let go" of their little girl and she should have been painlessly put to sleep. Unfortunately, they were stripped of any rights, and it is difficult to be as reasoned under such circumstances.

They may have ultimately not been able to end Terry's travesty, but that should have been their decision, not a so-called husband who is in a new, common-law family.

I do not doubt that some remnant of Terry, however minute, remained in that injured half-brain. Calling her parents horrible names after stripping them of any way to protect Terry -- even denying them the comfort of a painless euthanasia if that was their final gift to their daughter -- was barbaric.

You did not participate in the dachshund pack, and I did notice.

Very Cordial 73,
Dave/al2i

[al2i]

Dehydrating humans is very disturbing to me, and the province of despots and fanatics.

Dachshunds may be slowly dehydrated, flame dehydrated, flash freeze dehydrated, squeeze dehydrated, vacuum dehydrated and chemically dehydrated. The cute ones I could let go though. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/dachshund.jpg


73,
Dave/al2i

[n8yx]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,22:57)]Dehydrating humans is very disturbing to me, and the province of despots and fanatics.

Dachshunds may be slowly dehydrated, flame dehydrated, flash freeze dehydrated, squeeze dehydrated, vacuum dehydrated and chemically dehydrated. The cute ones I could let go though. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/dachshund.jpg


73,
Dave/al2i
And the UGLY ones merely get punted outta the way... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N2ACX]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif I cannot believe people are still debating the Terry Shiavo event.

It's a done deal, the country is spiraling out of control thru mismanagement and today MasterCard® had a security breach that 'lost' 40 million card numbers with all our data...... and we still talk about TS.

Hundreds of thousands without healthcare........ and we still talk about TS.

Hundreds of millions into Billions of US Dollars going into this "war".......... and we talk about TS.

I could go on and on with this until I ran out of pages here. As far as the Bush's go anymore, in my opinion, I think they both have lost it and one should quit as governor, and the other should quit as President. Then whats left........LOL still nothing.....we have a senate and house full of, but not all, of arguing,spiteful,divided, old farts with attitudes that can't even begin to UNITE this country and just recently ONE Senator compared the USA's treatment of Guantanamo prisoners to Russian Gulags and Hitler's SS etc. This guy in my opinion, is Al Quedas best friend. Is he working for US or them?

To me these are a heck of alot more important "RightNow" than the Terry Shiavo story.

that's my 2 ¢ worth

73 Gary N2ACX

[wa4brl]

ACX: I WISH i had you're bright outlook on these things. Unfortunately, my take on it looks far more sinister.

Of COURSE they're still talking about T.S. Anything that will stir up a debate amongst us "little people" is a bonus for the politicians. (Note that I didn;t say Republican OR Democrat -- both sides do it.) So long as the public is engaged in frenzied, spittle-spewing arguments, we don't have time to think about REAL issues (or bother our reps about them).

Election campaigns employ this tactic, too. Remember Murphy Brown? I recall Dan Quail stumping on this evil-fictitious-character "issue". THAT one didn't work. I think MOST people saw through that particular smoke-screen. So the more recent tactics have been far more blatant. Apparently abortion wasn't contentious enough an issue to sufficiently divide us. Now they've thrown in Gay marriage, family medical decisions, creationism -- the whole supposed MORALS gap. The overarching need is to eliminate moderates from the electorate. They can swing an election in unpredictable directions. It's more efficient to drive us citizens into bitter, contentious, opposing camps.

In the end, it's all a fallacy. On the whole, conservatives are no more moral than liberals. It's the candidates (and elected offiaials) who are immoral! Yes, yes, that's a grossly overreaching statement. My point is, while they get US fighting over who is more moral, caring, patriotic, etc., THEY slink about unnoticed while deciding the big issues in the favor of the big-monied special interests. By this method, "We The People" -- conservatives and liberals alike -- are defeated. Yep, the good old "divide and conquer".

Despite the examples I have used, I'll restate that it is NOT exclusively a Republican or Democratic thing. They ALL seek to widen the divide between us. No "uniter" can guarantee the votes, so the parties just won't back them.

Bummer.

[al2i]

I prefer a little old-time religion. The country was a more graceful place when much of the population cared whether they sinned or not.

At least they didn't dehydrate the dachshund-brained -- as long as they could prove they were not witches. (I'm not BTW! heh)


73,
Dave/al2i

PS. Full disclosure: This was a pure troll post. Sorry.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 18 2005,08:53)]I prefer a little old-time religion. The country was a more graceful place when much of the population cared whether they sinned or not.
These religious crusades/jihads happen ever so often and then subside after enough blood is spilled and nothing proved one way or the other.

Christians do it. Muslims do it. Hindus do it. Everybody's doing it! Get some popcorn, try to get out of the line of fire, and watch the battles.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[k9kxq]

Dermocrats,(liberals) get ready! we are going to serve up some crow for the neo-conns...

kxq

edited and added (liberal) for those repulican types..

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 18 2005,08:53)]I prefer a little old-time religion. #The country was a more graceful place when much of the population cared whether they sinned or not. #

At least they didn't dehydrate the dachshund-brained -- as long as they could prove they were not witches. #(I'm not BTW! #heh)


73,
#Dave/al2i
Oh yeah, the good'ld days when we used to lynch the darkies - let's go back there!

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 18 2005,10:30)]Oh yeah, the good'ld days when we used to lynch the darkies - let's go back there!
I thought like 40% of african-american males still do hard time as part of the drug war. Is my number way high? Isn't that still happening?

73,
Dave/al2i

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ June 18 2005,10:06)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 18 2005,08:53)]I prefer a little old-time religion. The country was a more graceful place when much of the population cared whether they sinned or not.
These religious crusades/jihads happen ever so often and then subside after enough blood is spilled and nothing proved one way or the other.

Christians do it. Muslims do it. Hindus do it. Everybody's doing it! Get some popcorn, try to get out of the line of fire, and watch the battles.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
That was part of why I gave up on religion when I was about 11-13 years old. History is replete with someone claiming to be holier than someone else and filling them with holes. (Or dehydrating their offspring.)

73,
Dave/al2i

[K6BBC]

Well, there are plenty who can relate to half a brain and blind.

K6BBC

[KC0QOR]

I enjoyed reading this thread! Thank you al2i and kf0rt for debating like civil folk. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[KG4CGC]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 18 2005,13:30)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 18 2005,08:53)]I prefer a little old-time religion. #The country was a more graceful place when much of the population cared whether they sinned or not. #

At least they didn't dehydrate the dachshund-brained -- as long as they could prove they were not witches. #(I'm not BTW! #heh)


73,
#Dave/al2i
Oh yeah, the good'ld days when we used to lynch the darkies - let's go back there!
Don't forget about putting the word "bastard" on the birth certificates of out of wedlock babies.

BTW, TS had an eating disorder. She killed herself with it. I suppose we are expected to believe her husband caused it even though she was like that before she met him.

[KB9YCO]

The real issue that no one seems to bring up is the fact that this happens every day, and the neo-cons decided to single out one particular person just to fuel their supposed 'pro-life' agenda, and the ever viligant media distorted and warped it in all directions like flies on s**t.
The real question is how much should the government involve itself in the lives, and deaths, of what should be private family decisions, decided and negotiated by the family and a court if need be? Not a few government officials with an obvious agenda.
Blaming the husband, or the parents, based on hearsay and purely subjective opinions coming from people and groups that have little or no knowledge of what the real deal was is just idiotic, presumptuous and downright rude. Regardless of where any of our opinions fall in this debate, it was pretty much none of our damn business, certainly it wasn't the government's.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ June 19 2005,03:35)]BTW, TS had an eating disorder. She killed herself with it. I suppose we are expected to believe her husband caused it even though she was like that before she met him.
Thank you. I just keep forgetting these points. I am pretty much an idiot when it comes to logic. Endless reiteration helps immensely!

73,
Dave/al2i

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ June 19 2005,09:19)]The real issue that no one seems to bring up is the fact that this happens every day, and the neo-cons decided to single out one particular person just to fuel their supposed 'pro-life' agenda, and the ever viligant media distorted and warped it in all directions like flies on s**t.
The real question is how much should the government involve itself in the lives, and deaths, of what should be private family decisions, decided and negotiated by the family and a court if need be? Not a few government officials with an obvious agenda.
Blaming the husband, or the parents, based on hearsay and purely subjective opinions coming from people and groups that have little or no knowledge of what the real deal was is just idiotic, presumptuous and downright rude. Regardless of where any of our opinions fall in this debate, it was pretty much none of our damn business, certainly it wasn't the government's.
Another evil libertarian!!!

Look out, now there are two of us!!

[kb2vxa]

Hi guys,

Are you all missing the point or what? IMO launching an investigation at this late date constitutes harassment. Ordering such is meddling in the personal affairs of an individual not accused of any wrong doing. Isn't this abuse of presidential power? Isn't there a law against it? And what of the outcome of this investigation, do "they" intend to put him on trial?

Who knows what evil LURKS in the heart of Bush? THE SHADOW is confused.

[W0UZR]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,20:20)]Right to die advocates won hands down, and the link to Jeb Bush's little ploy reveals a purely political posturing for the right to life wackos
----WHAT da H, E, Double Ice picks !-----

This is getting drug up again?

I'll say like I said before. Now tell me
If you can't agree with this for you

I hope that if I were in the same
Position, that someone would NOT
keep me alive be artificial means in the
First Place!

But if it ends up that way,,
Then I hope that someone Defiantly

Pulls The Plug ON ME !!

And by the way,, The Gbmnt needs to stay out
of family decisions
and disputes

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,23:39)]Ideally, they should have finally been able to "let go" of their little girl and she should have been painlessly put to sleep. Unfortunately, they were stripped of any rights, and it is difficult to be as reasoned under such circumstances.
This might likely be my last post on the subject (but who knows?)

You have really nailed the two ethical points on the issue, Dave. One being the issue of dehydration/starvation vs. euthanasia, and the other being who has the right to decide.

(These opinions are mine, and they ARE opinions!)

On the first point, it does seem barbaric to me that the dehydration/starvation route is allowed. I can see why it works this way, though. From a purely philosophical standpoint, a person is put on life support to give the medicos time to assess the situation, develop a plan, implement that plan, and if it works (which, many times it does), everyone goes home happy. In this sense, disconnecting the apparatus is really nothing more than an admission that the plan didn't work for whatever reason. You're back at time=zero, she would have dehydrated anyway. It's simply removing the medical community from the equation. "We've done all we can, she's back to being on her own."

I also had a thought that might be more of a religious nature (for the record, I'm an athiest). It almost seems like this might also be a way of putting things back in "God's hands." Without doing one iota of research, I am sure there are cases where someone "snapped out of it" after they were written off and life support was discontinued. If TS had jumped up with a demand for a cheeseburger and a Coke, there would have been a line around the block to fulfill that request. Apologies for the lame attempt at humor.

As for who gets to decide... This is really the reason this particular case grabbed the headlines. Many, many people go through this every year, but it's rare that there is such a squabble. One thing is certain, the right didn't belong to Jeb Bush. Without resorting to profanity, I hope this costs him his political career, and I hope he burns in hell for it. It'll have to be HIS hell though, because I don't believe in such.

So, it comes down to the Schindlers vs. Michael Schiavo. Legally, the husband has the right in such cases, and it appears this is the way the courts decided. I think there is good reason for it to be this way, despite the emotional pain the Schindler's endured.

I don't know about you guys -- in particular, whether you have kids or not, but it has been my experience that spouses know more about their partners than the parents know about their kids. Sure, there are some parental relationships where the parents are close enough to know everything, but this is much more common in spousal relationships. After all, you get to pick your spouse. Given this, I think it's not only possible, but reasonable that Michael Schiavo knew more about his wife's wishes than her parents. Of course, this is all hindsight -- TS could have spelled it all out in a contract or will, but who thinks of such things at that age?

From all outward appearances, the Schindlers may have been fooled by some of the same things that fooled a few of the "outside" doctors. The head and eye movements, etc., which were (in the opinions of the best doctors on the case) involuntary. Ulimately, this probably gave them false hope.

I've mentioned before that this must have been a huge resource drain. Not only the cost, but in medical talent that may have been diverted from other, more worthy cases. It's not that the doctors agreed with Michael Shiavo, but that HE agreed with THEM. At the point where the State of Florida (under the direction of Jeb Bush) decided to enact legislation, they should have also taken over all fiscal responsibility. Michael Shiavo was the right person to be calling the shots, and I doubt many of us would have handled it as well.

Anyway, that's about all I've got to say. Ugly story, nobody "won" and you just know there will be some books and movies forthcoming. That's the dumbed-down America I know.

And for those like 2ACX.. you're dead right. This is all going down while Rome burns. I think we rearranged just one deck chair on the Titanic with this -- pretty insignificant in the bigger picture.

73, Rob

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ June 19 2005,17:49)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 17 2005,23:39)]Ideally, they should have finally been able to "let go" of their little girl and she should have been painlessly put to sleep. Unfortunately, they were stripped of any rights, and it is difficult to be as reasoned under such circumstances.
This might likely be my last post on the subject (but who knows?)

You have really nailed the two ethical points on the issue, Dave. One being the issue of dehydration/starvation vs. euthanasia, and the other being who has the right to decide.

(These opinions are mine, and they ARE opinions!)

On the first point, it does seem barbaric to me that the dehydration/starvation route is allowed. I can see why it works this way, though. From a purely philosophical standpoint, a person is put on life support to give the medicos time to assess the situation, develop a plan, implement that plan, and if it works (which, many times it does), everyone goes home happy. In this sense, disconnecting the apparatus is really nothing more than an admission that the plan didn't work for whatever reason. You're back at time=zero, she would have dehydrated anyway. It's simply removing the medical community from the equation. "We've done all we can, she's back to being on her own."

I also had a thought that might be more of a religious nature (for the record, I'm an athiest). It almost seems like this might also be a way of putting things back in "God's hands." Without doing one iota of research, I am sure there are cases where someone "snapped out of it" after they were written off and life support was discontinued. If TS had jumped up with a demand for a cheeseburger and a Coke, there would have been a line around the block to fulfill that request. Apologies for the lame attempt at humor.

As for who gets to decide... This is really the reason this particular case grabbed the headlines. Many, many people go through this every year, but it's rare that there is such a squabble. One thing is certain, the right didn't belong to Jeb Bush. Without resorting to profanity, I hope this costs him his political career, and I hope he burns in hell for it. It'll have to be HIS hell though, because I don't believe in such.

So, it comes down to the Schindlers vs. Michael Schiavo. Legally, the husband has the right in such cases, and it appears this is the way the courts decided. I think there is good reason for it to be this way, despite the emotional pain the Schindler's endured.

I don't know about you guys -- in particular, whether you have kids or not, but it has been my experience that spouses know more about their partners than the parents know about their kids. Sure, there are some parental relationships where the parents are close enough to know everything, but this is much more common in spousal relationships. After all, you get to pick your spouse. Given this, I think it's not only possible, but reasonable that Michael Schiavo knew more about his wife's wishes than her parents. Of course, this is all hindsight -- TS could have spelled it all out in a contract or will, but who thinks of such things at that age?

From all outward appearances, the Schindlers may have been fooled by some of the same things that fooled a few of the "outside" doctors. The head and eye movements, etc., which were (in the opinions of the best doctors on the case) involuntary. Ulimately, this probably gave them false hope.

I've mentioned before that this must have been a huge resource drain. Not only the cost, but in medical talent that may have been diverted from other, more worthy cases. It's not that the doctors agreed with Michael Shiavo, but that HE agreed with THEM. At the point where the State of Florida (under the direction of Jeb Bush) decided to enact legislation, they should have also taken over all fiscal responsibility. Michael Shiavo was the right person to be calling the shots, and I doubt many of us would have handled it as well.

Anyway, that's about all I've got to say. Ugly story, nobody "won" and you just know there will be some books and movies forthcoming. That's the dumbed-down America I know.

And for those like 2ACX.. you're dead right. This is all going down while Rome burns. I think we rearranged just one deck chair on the Titanic with this -- pretty insignificant in the bigger picture.

73, Rob
Extremely good post. Very well said, and I will not -- and can not -- rebut a perfectly reasoned post. Your position is basically what mine is, except I will never accept causing anyone in society the kind of pain that TS parents and siblings endured. It was an act of unspeakable barbarism. When the obviously deeply suffering family was attacked in this forum, I was appalled beyond measure, and could scarcely find words.

I am still not comfortable with the dehydration route, and never will be. I think it is primitive, but I admit it is a cowardly way to clumsily dodge ethical responsibility for life termination. When it comes to life and death decisions for another, it is probably right to be cowardly I suppose.

73,
Dave/al2i

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 19 2005,19:10)]Your position is basically what mine is, except I will never accept causing anyone in society the kind of pain that TS parents and siblings endured. It was an act of unspeakable barbarism. When the obviously deeply suffering family was attacked in this forum, I was appalled beyond measure, and could scarcely find words.

I am still not comfortable with the dehydration route, and never will be. I think it is primitive, but I admit it is a cowardly way to clumsily dodge ethical responsibility for life termination. When it comes to life and death decisions for another, it is probably right to be cowardly I suppose.

73,
Dave/al2i
Humor and derision are standard human coping mechanisms. What has been said here on QRZ is extremely tame compared with what has been going on in other, less moderated parts of the Internet. If the QRZ stuff gives you heartburn, I've seen some stuff that would give you a stroke.

Let's drag it out one more round, 'cuz this is the first time I've seen the word "cowardly". I'm not so comfortable with the "dehydration route" either, but I don't consider it cowardly, or even particularly primitive.

What would be YOUR decision under these circumstances? Serious question, really. Do you give up your life, financially and emotionally, knowing that there is no hope? Do you go to work every day to pay the bills knowing full well that this could last for the rest of your life? What is the ethically responsible solution?

Guaranteed, if it were me, I would have assigned all rights to the family and let them deal with it. Now, *that's* cowardly.

73, Rob

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ June 19 2005,19:14)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 19 2005,19:10)]Your position is basically what mine is, except I will never accept causing anyone in society the kind of pain that TS parents and siblings endured. It was an act of unspeakable barbarism. When the obviously deeply suffering family was attacked in this forum, I was appalled beyond measure, and could scarcely find words.

I am still not comfortable with the dehydration route, and never will be. I think it is primitive, but I admit it is a cowardly way to clumsily dodge ethical responsibility for life termination. When it comes to life and death decisions for another, it is probably right to be cowardly I suppose.

73,
Dave/al2i
Humor and derision are standard human coping mechanisms. What has been said here on QRZ is extremely tame compared with what has been going on in other, less moderated parts of the Internet. If the QRZ stuff gives you heartburn, I've seen some stuff that would give you a stroke.

Let's drag it out one more round, 'cuz this is the first time I've seen the word "cowardly". I'm not so comfortable with the "dehydration route" either, but I don't consider it cowardly, or even particularly primitive.

What would be YOUR decision under these circumstances? Serious question, really. Do you give up your life, financially and emotionally, knowing that there is no hope? Do you go to work every day to pay the bills knowing full well that this could last for the rest of your life? What is the ethically responsible solution?

Guaranteed, if it were me, I would have assigned all rights to the family and let them deal with it. Now, *that's* cowardly.

73, Rob
OK, I have a position, but I didn't want to express it poorly and get "beat up" in these forums. I really don't feel energetic enough to be slickly erudite in my expression or defense of the following right now, but if you want to mull it over, be my guest.

I believe that whoever is willing to care for and work with an injured, disabled, dependent human being should be allowed to do so. They should not be able to use tax dollars or force anyone else to provide for the care of a dependent person, but if they think there is enough of a person left to merit their efforts, it is not anyone else's place to pull the plug just yet.

If no one is willing to care for a person such as Terry, perhaps because Terry is truly "gone", or what is left is a small piece in agony, then they should be able to painlessly euthanize the person. We do this for dachshunds out of love, so I think we should be able to give just as much love to people when we let them go.

Sorry that I am kind of lacking in verbal prowess, but I'll be back when I feel a little better. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

73,
Dave/al2i

[K0RGR]

My reaction to this latest development is that it is simply an act of spite on the part of the Governor. It is totally consistent with the behavior of the Bush family. Whenever Jeb's older brother is challenged or made to look foolish, his operatives go out of their way to destroy the person involved. In this case, the autopsy made the governor look like an idiot. So, to cover his tracks, he conjures up this ancient unfounded rumor to divert attention from his own stench. Does anybody honestly believe that this hasn't been investigated 10,000 times already? We've seen this many times from GW Bush.

But, while this would seem to be fairly transparent, I'm sure the governor is a major hero in some circles for pursuing Terri's "killer".

According to the Guardian Ad Litem report, it was the parents, not the huband, who stood to gain from her death!
If you read that report, I think it is pretty clear that the parents may not be the innocent parties they seem to be.