MERGED: Terri Schiavo

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. There are so many myths about this whole case, on both sides. This is all about far deeper motives and consequences. It is a sad time to be alive in this world today.
 
How many here either have or are very strongly considering getting a Living Will and/or Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care?
 
melon said:
Starving African children and dead Iraqi civilians are nothing more than nameless "collateral damage." Terri Shiavo and anti-abortion stances win votes. Revoking the death penalty and the lives they would save, no matter how "worthless" they seem, would not win votes.
Africa itself has been mentioned on this thread to a tremendous amount. The dead Iraqi civilians are a tragedy as well. However, America is America's top priority, not to disclude Africa, but frankly stating, America is sensibly the duty of the American government. As far as the whole abortion vs. death penalty debate, while I would like to stay on topic, I am with those who have no say in what happens to them. If I had to choose between defending the innocent or defending the guilty, the decision is pretty clear to me.

melon said:
The irony, I believe, is that with all this talk about "the sanctity of life," life has never been as valueless as it is today.
Sadly I'm in agreement with this statement, but I believe it exists on both sides. Any life that could've been saved is a tragedy, plain and simple.

melon said:
Your value and your freedom are determined by what will help political parties win votes. Nothing more, nothing less. "Morality" and "ethics" are dead. Or maybe they never existed.
One without a screwed on head could argue that Lincoln used the Civil War for political gain. I personally feel that starving an innocent person to death without their consent is rather unethical. Call it "pseudo-..." if you will, but that is where I stand.

melon said:
So what do you all contribute to the majority to justify your existence?
I imagine Terri was a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, and when I hear "she had her chance to save herself..." it just sickens me.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Africa itself has been mentioned on this thread to a tremendous amount. The dead Iraqi civilians are a tragedy as well. However, America is America's top priority, not to disclude Africa, but frankly stating, America is sensibly the duty of the American government. As far as the whole abortion vs. death penalty debate, while I would like to stay on topic, I am with those who have no say in what happens to them. If I had to choose between defending the innocent or defending the guilty, the decision is pretty clear to me.

Your defense of America just reiterated my point, more or less.

Sadly I'm in agreement with this statement, but I believe it exists on both sides. Any life that could've been saved is a tragedy, plain and simple.

I dunno. We'll kill prisoners without an after thought, but when we have a woman with quite literally just a brain stem that probably should have been pulled off of life support years ago (and, according to Florida law, feeding tubes are considered "life support"), we refuse to allow her to die. It will continue to puzzle me why so many Christians seem so insanely afraid of death, despite believing in an afterlife. Terri would be better off that way.

One without a screwed on head could argue that Lincoln used the Civil War for political gain. I personally feel that starving an innocent person to death without their consent is rather unethical. Call it "pseudo-..." if you will, but that is where I stand.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here.

I imagine Terri was a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, and when I hear "she had her chance to save herself..." it just sickens me.

We can have all the hope in the world. I also know that America has a strong tradition of "rooting for the underdog." We're waiting for that cinematic "miracle" ending, where Terri suddenly starts talking and gets up. Unfortunately, life is not that simple or that kind. Whether or not she is eventually detached from the feeding tube or allowed to linger like this indefinitely, it doesn't change the fact that she's literally a person with a brain stem, as her cerebral cortex literally died and disintegrated. It won't be coming back, and, as such, she will never improve. Period.

As such, it is my view that keeping her alive like this, in its most basic state, is cruel.

Melon
 
melon said:

Terri Shiavo gives the GOP a golden opportunity to pander to the Religious Right, and it is their hope that they'll win more votes come Election Day. Helping starving African children does not win votes. Period. In other words, with all this talk about "the value of life," it is only those lives that "contribute" that matters, at least in the eyes of politicians and probably most people.
Melon

I've been watching this case very closely simply because I have lived it.
My youngest son was born in 1980 and shortly after his birth.
the doctors became aware (because I already knew) of the magnitude of his disabilities.
In most cases a child like my son, Paul, would have died within 2 years, which I actually laugher at. according to his occupational yearsand physical therapist. I prepared myself for that eventual outcome. 5 years went by. then 10..then 3 more. He passed away in 1993 I had to start all over again.
Still working on that .. But still don't consider it grounds to remove her feeding tube
remove her feeding tube, without some kind of proof or parental consent.

No

So with this said, I have a written will that states I do not want to be kept alive "indefinitely" by artificial means.
But I'm not sure I can actually request that any longer?
Who's to say?
If someone comes in to contest it, what then?
 
sue4u2 said:
I've been watching this case very closely simply because I have lived it.
My youngest son was born in 1980 and shortly after his birth.
the doctors became aware (because I already knew) of the magnitude of his disabilities.
In most cases a child like my son, Paul, would have died within 2 years, which I actually laugher at. according to his occupational yearsand physical therapist. I prepared myself for that eventual outcome. 5 years went by. then 10..then 3 more. He passed away in 1993 I had to start all over again.
I'd hate to break off the topic, but I'm very sorry to hear about that.
 
Let her die, but not starvation ~ have her properly euthanased.

Don't need to get all high and mighty about human life ~ it is cheap. I would neither expect nor desire to be kept in a purgatory of living death for decades after being rendered mentally unfit or completely physically unable. It may sound cold and harsh but realistically what quality of life is there, how much money would it cost to keep her in that state ~ this is not an argument along the lines of a morbid eugenics style removal of individuals who are not up to spec ~ a case where nothing can be done to help here and in all probability will never be able to.

This act by the politicians has nothing to do with religion, this is all politics and it is a case where the President and Republican Party has stepped on the toes of the seperation of the powers.
 
Last edited:
Of course the husband turned down money, I think it would have made him look rather bad if he had taken it. If he has moved on w/ his life, why hasn't he "moved on" with this? Why hasn't he gotten a divorce? Not for me to say, but I do wonder. Her family has said he has "warehoused" Terri since 1992 and has not obtained the proper therapy for her, etc.

Who knows what the true situation is? Maybe somewhere in between the two versions?

I've said numerous times that I wouldn't want to be kept alive like that, but I don't fault her parents and family one bit for fighting it- I've never been in their shoes so I cannot pass judgment on them.

I think it's a valid point that some people have made-that convicted murderers like Scott Peterson have the right to federal review before they die, so why shouldn't an innocent person like Terri? Yet at the same time it makes me uneasy to have the federal govt involved in this.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Let her die, but not starvation ~ have her properly euthanased.

Don't need to get all high and mighty about human life ~ it is cheap. I would neither expect nor desire to be kept in a purgatory of living death for decades after being rendered mentally unfit or completely physically unable. It may sound cold and harsh but realistically what quality of life is there, how much money would it cost to keep her in that state ~ this is not an argument along the lines of a morbid eugenics style removal of individuals who are not up to spec ~ a case where nothing can be done to help here and in all probability will never be able to.

This act by the politicians has nothing to do with religion, this is all politics and it is a case where the President and Republican Party has stepped on the toes of the seperation of the powers.

Let it be heard that I agree whole-hartedly with A_Wanderer....:ohmy:

What congress has done, frankly, scares me. :no:
 
what a waste of time, energy, and resources.

congress has better things to do, like tackle the burning issue of steroid use in baseball.

oh wait ... that's an utter waste of everyone's time, too.
 
MissMoo said:
U2Kitten, not even when he has turned down one or two offers of money to walk away? Also, it is not naive to believe that people may be doing what their spouse would have desired.

But as I said he as her legal spouse may never be free. He wants her GONE for good so he can 'move on.'

I have wondered exactly what you have said, but I realize that that is speculation and am merely pointing out that that may be completely wrong.

And what if I'm not? You don't know either, so if there is to be an assumption, or an error, I say it's better to be on the side of the person not dying, just in case.
 
Sometimes I just have to think, what a fucked up country.

Why is Congress wasting it's time with these ridiculous events?

It's tragic, but the women is dead, set her free. You're just torturing her keeping her in this state.
 
I agree 100% with every word melon has said in this thread and remain curious about the question he raised about why so many Christians are so afraid of death. I have sat at the bedside of several dying people and those that were Christians--mostly older family members--seemed to be scared shitless and fought to hang on, making it an excruciating experience for everyone, while a couple of others who had serious spiritual practices to which they were very devoted for many years surrendered peacefully. When my best friend died 3 years ago from lung cancer, he was at home on his daybed and clearly struggling to breathe. I witnessed his partner turning up the oxygen but my friend reached up, yanked the oxygen away, and died moments later with a smile on his face. Now of course these are just a few of my own personal experiences and I don't mean to make mass generalizations from them but it does make me wonder. Why don't the Schiavo's joyously embrace their tortured daughter's opportunity to be liberated from her hell and meet her maker? You can do that and grieve the personal loss at the same time. I just don't get it.
 
my guess is that Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo are very sincere Christians, and they are probably devestated by the virtual death of their daughter in ways that they haven't even begun to comprehend. along comes a group of highly politicized christians who see links between this and the abortion issue, and exploit their grief for political ends. thus Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo, and poor Terry, become pawns of an enormous, well-funded political machine.

it's all rather sickening.

let her go. let her soul free.
 
Irvine511 said:
what a waste of time, energy, and

Maybe Congress is just afraid that if being in a persistent vegetative state for over ten years is a legitimate reason for euthanasia, they might be next. :shrug:
 
meegannie said:


Maybe Congress is just afraid that if being in a persistent vegetative state for over ten years is a legitimate reason for euthanasia, they might be next. :shrug:



zing!

reminds me of an Onion article titled, "Congress to be replaced by Automated Hands"
 
meegannie said:
Maybe Congress is just afraid that if being in a persistent vegetative state for over ten years is a legitimate reason for euthanasia, they might be next. :shrug:

Is that some of that famed British humour? :wink:
 
meegannie said:
Maybe Congress is just afraid that if being in a persistent vegetative state for over ten years is a legitimate reason for euthanasia, they might be next. :shrug:

Hehe...ooh...ouch. :p.

I think I'd have to agree with Irvine on this one. It really is sucky that there's groups out there that are trying to use this for their own political gain...but that shouldn't be too surprising, as we are talking about politicians, here, after all...:slant:.

Angela
 
Irvine511 said:
my guess is that Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo are very sincere Christians, and they are probably devestated by the virtual death of their daughter in ways that they haven't even begun to comprehend. along comes a group of highly politicized christians who see links between this and the abortion issue, and exploit their grief for political ends. thus Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo, and poor Terry, become pawns of an enormous, well-funded political machine.

it's all rather sickening.

let her go. let her soul free.

I think you're probably right and I didn't mean to sound so judgmental. I just can't help but think that they would feel so much relief if they let her go. In my experience, the anticipation of the moment of death of someone who has been sick a long time is much worse than the actual event. I have never not experienced enormous relief when someone I loved died when I knew they were suffering or had suffered a long time. Of course the grieving process that follows is very difficult but there is a certain high, an actual spiritual high (or at least in my experience and I seem to have had what some would consider a lot of experience with death), that comes from being with someone the moment they die and it is that high that lets me know that, shall we say, that God is in the room and it's all good.
 
Mr. and Mrs. Shiavo are Roman Catholic, but it is not against Roman Catholic doctrine to detach life support for those who have no reasonable chance of recovery. It is not considered "euthanasia," because no one is hastening her death; instead, it is just no longer impeding death.

Melon
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Sometimes I just have to think, what a fucked up country.

Why is Congress wasting it's time with these ridiculous events?





March 20, 2005

Republicans Fear Midterm Losses
Robert Novak says Republican National Committee analysts "have sent this warning to the House of Representatives: The party is in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election and, therefore, of losing control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election."
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Why is Congress wasting it's time with these ridiculous events?




The Washington Post reported yesterday that a memo distributed to Republican senators described the Schiavo case as ``a great political issue'' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives in the 2006 elections.

``This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,'' the memo said, according to the Post.
 
Apparently the federal judge had no immediate response after the 2 hour hearing.

I love how John Mccain is like gee I don't think this is politically motivated. He drives me nuts (another topic altogether)
 
"Terri died 15 years ago," Schiavo said, referring to the collapse and cardiac arrest that doctors say virtually destroyed her brain. "It's time for her to be with the Lord like she wanted to be."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom