MERGED: Terri Schiavo - Page 24 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2005, 09:50 AM   #346
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Why because you're a doctor, or are you a judge?
Just a concerned citizen with a right to question judicial decisions
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 09:58 AM   #347
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 04:40 PM
24 pages, 4000 views... you people sure love controversial tragedies. thousands of people die everyday for worse reasons. people who are fully able to experience their lives. keeping this woman alive is not going to do her any good, she is already gone. what is there to discuss here??
__________________

__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:01 AM   #348
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:40 AM
I think people feel that her case is symbolic of larger problems--on both sides.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:04 AM   #349
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC


She's got no brain, mate. No electrical activity within her skull.

She isn't a person anymore. Just a lump of skin and bones and tissue with the occasional muscle twitch. Why do we insist on keeping her alive?
Possibly, or even perhaps probably, but that's not what her parent's think. I might have a different opinion were I there but I'm not. I won't support starving a woman against the wishes of the woman who bore her because of what she may or may not have told her husband.

WE are not keeping her alive. Her parents desire to continue to give her food and water.

Why not retry the case on its merits, or a trial de novo, as legislated by Congress, do a MRI, do a PETscan, let dissenting doctors testify. This case has really only been tried on it's merits one time.

The default position should be let her live, support her right to life, unless there's a preponderance of evidence that she would not wish to live, which there isn't.

I don't think you can have it both ways by saying, on one hand, she's got no brain activity, she's a vegetable, and on the other hand, act as if she has any intellectual capacity to think, "Damn, Michael, get me out of this body, we made a deal, remember?"
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:06 AM   #350
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
24 pages, 4000 views... you people sure love controversial tragedies. thousands of people die everyday for worse reasons. people who are fully able to experience their lives. keeping this woman alive is not going to do her any good, she is already gone. what is there to discuss here??
Whether it does her any good or not, she has a right to lofe guaranteed by the Constitution.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:07 AM   #351
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
24 pages, 4000 views... you people sure love controversial tragedies. thousands of people die everyday for worse reasons. people who are fully able to experience their lives. keeping this woman alive is not going to do her any good, she is already gone. what is there to discuss here??
This is a dreadful standard.

How many irreversible conditions exist where the "quality of life" is not what we would want or accept?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:17 AM   #352
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 01:40 PM
"Do you really believe in that, Doctor?"

"Ranger Brad, I'm a scientist. I don't believe in anything."

===

Kudos to whoever catches the reference.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:29 AM   #353
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Pax brought up an interesting point. What are the real issues for this case? Tens of thousands of people are allowed to die every year, including by removal of sustenance. If this was a brief news item, written something like this:

"Forty-something year old woman, after fifteen years in a
possibly vegitative state, had feeding tubes removed
and all sustenance terminated after the majority of
physicians on the case held out no hope for recovery."

we would not be having this discussion. We probably would not think twice. Perhaps it is different because the media and the
court battles have personalized Ms. Schiavo and because there is such a war between husband and parents.

What are the real issues here? Is it the definition of life, the definition of viable life, a political agenda, a desire not to cheapen life further. Is it fear that this will lead to euthanasia of handicapped people, who are conscious but unable to lead what we define as a full life. Is it because the parents look so heroic and the husband so villainous? Or the parents look so selfish and the husband looks like he is carrying out Ms. Schiavo's wishes? Is it because the courts are overreaching or the government should stay out of family decisions? Is it that only God should end life or suffering or existence? We take life all the time. Is there a religious difference between those we take that we perceive as guilty and those we take we perceive as innocent? If there was a living will, would that trump everything?
Do we really think that Ms. Schiavo has any chance for a viable life or that she knows what is happening at all? And if she does not, does it matter? And who will define what is a viable life?

Is this really about Terri Schiavo for most people or is it a continuation of the ongoing cultural war? All I know is this is a family situation that seems to have gone horriby awry on all sides.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:38 AM   #354
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
All very good and important questions that have been raised by this case. These questions need to be answered. I feel if we do not answer these questions, they will be answered for us.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 10:45 AM   #355
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark


Whether it does her any good or not, she has a right to lofe guaranteed by the Constitution.
The right to life is referenced in the Declaration of Independence. I do not think the right to life is referenced in the Constitution specifically. Due process is. Not saying that it should be in the Constitution or not, but I do not believe it is. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a long time since I've read the whole thing. That being said, there are a whole lot of issues that need to be resolved.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 11:07 AM   #356
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark


Possibly, or even perhaps probably, but that's not what her parent's think. I might have a different opinion were I there but I'm not. I won't support starving a woman against the wishes of the woman who bore her because of what she may or may not have told her husband.

WE are not keeping her alive. Her parents desire to continue to give her food and water.


quite simply, it is not her parent's decision to make. it simply doesn't matter, legally, what her parents think. Terri was an adult who got married -- she chose her partner for life, and he became her legal guardian, and if Michael Schiavo were in a coma, then Terri would be making the decisions for him.

unless, of course, you're gay, and you're then forced to remain a child for life in many states. but that's another topic.

you're free to question court decisions, but unless you were in that courtroom, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that your reading of the case is more valid than the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is absolutely STACKED with republicans -- that voted, i think, 10-2 in favor of Mr. Schiavo.

if Terri's parent's weren't evangelical Christians with a keen sense of media savvy, do you even think this would be an issue? do you not think cases similar to this have happened before, and will happen again, but none of us will ever hear about it because there's nothing politically at stake?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-25-2005, 11:23 AM   #357
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
I was talking about "right to LOFE", dummy.


But seriously
14th amendment :"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

As far as "right" to life, we can look at the explicit intent of the forefathers as written in the founding document of this country.

The question of due process is a loaded one that's wide open to interpretation. Not an easy one, but I personally don't believe due process is served when a specific act of Congress is completely ignored.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 11:29 AM   #358
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
The question of due process is a loaded one that's wide open to interpretation. Not an easy one, but I personally don't believe due process is served when a specific act of Congress is completely ignored.
It wasn't ignored at all. The act of Congress allowed it to be entertained in federal court. It was. Just because the judiciary isn't a rubber stamp for the conservative agenda doesn't mean that "due process" was denied.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 11:32 AM   #359
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



quite simply, it is not her parent's decision to make. it simply doesn't matter, legally, what her parents think. Terri was an adult who got married -- she chose her partner for life, and he became her legal guardian, and if Michael Schiavo were in a coma, then Terri would be making the decisions for him.

unless, of course, you're gay, and you're then forced to remain a child for life in many states. but that's another topic.

you're free to question court decisions, but unless you were in that courtroom, you're going to have a tough time convincing me that your reading of the case is more valid than the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is absolutely STACKED with republicans -- that voted, i think, 10-2 in favor of Mr. Schiavo.

if Terri's parent's weren't evangelical Christians with a keen sense of media savvy, do you even think this would be an issue? do you not think cases similar to this have happened before, and will happen again, but none of us will ever hear about it because there's nothing politically at stake?
Legal guardians are not allowed to make decisions to starve anyone to death. They can make the decision to remove life support. I beleive there is precedent in other cases that food and water do not constitute life support.

Very sticky issues. I prefer to side with Terri's life.

The 11th circuit did not re-review the merits of the case.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-25-2005, 11:35 AM   #360
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


It wasn't ignored at all. The act of Congress allowed it to be entertained in federal court. It was. Just because the judiciary isn't a rubber stamp for the conservative agenda doesn't mean that "due process" was denied.

Melon
I could be wrong, but I believe the act of Congress called a '"trial de novo", or a trial de novo was assumed to be required when changing the jurisdiction to the federal courts.
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com