Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I agree wholeheartedly.MrsSpringsteen said:
MERGED: Terri Schiavo
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
stray dog said:
I'm not doing anything of the sort, I have questions about him based upon this affidavit and other information, and my own life experiences and instincts. I don't know the truth about him and neither do you. I think questions and concerns about him are relevant.
I'm a Christian but I have no "right wing' agenda at all in this. Thanks for making that judgment about me though and about what kind of Christian I am.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Dozens of doctors involved in this case would disagree that she is "dead." We haven't seen all of the firsthand evidence. They have.stray dog said:
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Such as this?stray dog said:
stray dog said:
stray dog said:
So you're saying the husband's right to get rid of her is the most important thing here? Is his life 'destroyed' because he can't dump his ball and chain? That's cold. And my post had nothing at all to do with Christianity or anything religious or political. I was just talking about right and wrong and common human compassion for Terri and her family.
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Get in the way of what, my opinion?stray dog said:
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
stray dog said:
Did I say I did? Or are you just not reading what I'm saying?
Do you have the right ?
Actually I'm a Democrat w/ moderate/liberal views on many things, so you're wrong about that.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
That was taken from a BLOG site. Find a CREDIBLE site.stray dog said:
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Okay, this thread has gone VERY well so far. Let's everyone take a step back and realize that not one of us, nor anyone involved in this case, has all the answers. There is a whole lot of gray area involved.
I'd hate to have to close this thread while the issue is still relevant.
I'd hate to have to close this thread while the issue is still relevant.
Macfistowannabe said:
Do you think the judges were all reading BLOGS when they made their rulings? ALL in favor of Michael Shiavo? NOT even ONE ruling has been in favor of their parents.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Melon
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
It tells me that they will rule in favor of the husband because Terri is his responsibility.melon said:
There are those who would say that that the "grey area" is nothing more than moral relativity rather than an honest search for the truth...pax said:Okay, this thread has gone VERY well so far. Let's everyone take a step back and realize that not one of us, nor anyone involved in this case, has all the answers. There is a whole lot of gray area involved.
I'd hate to have to close this thread while the issue is still relevant.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Please tell me where I said that - or anyone else. I don't claim to know EVERYTHING about this case because I did not see Terri in person, but based on what I do know and have heard, is my opinion.stray dog said:
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'd have no problem with that.stray dog said:Mac lets agree to disagree
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Awww, if only every thread in FYM went that well. 
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
shrmn8rpoptart
War Child
from what i've seen, and if that really is terri's brain scan, and if the colors represent what they're said to, then it does appear that she's brain dead. and if that is the case, then i think it humane to let her body die.
that being said, i still have some hang-ups in my own mind about whether she truly is brain dead. melon, you've worked with this stuff, and know far more than i do about it. so, with basically her entire brain rotted away as that picture would show, does her brain stem still have the ability to control what little functions that she appears to have left? and if she was truly brain dead, would a feeding tube be enough to keep her alive (i guess i always figured that at that point you would be on a ventilator and the whole nine yards)?
if it is known 100% that she is completely brain dead, then she probably should have been taken off of life support a long time ago. however, if it is not 100% certain that she is brain dead, and she is taken off of life support, it seems that you have taken away a person's chance at life.
in this case, the burden of proof should be on the doctors to show definitivly what her condition is. this should be the focus of the case. unfortunatly, it has turned into a huge political mess on both sides. i would like to believe that the issue at the bottom of things for both sides is what they believe terri's state to be. those who want to keep her alive do not believe that she is braind dead. those who want to give her a humane death by removing the feeding tube do so as a belief that she is and has been virtually dead for fifteen years.
instead of debating the motives of the husband, or arguing about the sanctity of life (because as i said, i think both sides value life, it's just that one side already views her as dead) we should be asking for some credible medical evidence.
that being said, i still have some hang-ups in my own mind about whether she truly is brain dead. melon, you've worked with this stuff, and know far more than i do about it. so, with basically her entire brain rotted away as that picture would show, does her brain stem still have the ability to control what little functions that she appears to have left? and if she was truly brain dead, would a feeding tube be enough to keep her alive (i guess i always figured that at that point you would be on a ventilator and the whole nine yards)?
if it is known 100% that she is completely brain dead, then she probably should have been taken off of life support a long time ago. however, if it is not 100% certain that she is brain dead, and she is taken off of life support, it seems that you have taken away a person's chance at life.
in this case, the burden of proof should be on the doctors to show definitivly what her condition is. this should be the focus of the case. unfortunatly, it has turned into a huge political mess on both sides. i would like to believe that the issue at the bottom of things for both sides is what they believe terri's state to be. those who want to keep her alive do not believe that she is braind dead. those who want to give her a humane death by removing the feeding tube do so as a belief that she is and has been virtually dead for fifteen years.
instead of debating the motives of the husband, or arguing about the sanctity of life (because as i said, i think both sides value life, it's just that one side already views her as dead) we should be asking for some credible medical evidence.
shrmn8rpoptart
War Child
sorry, meant to edit my other post, not quote it...in my statement in parentheses in the last paragraph, take already and move it from its current position to after the word "dead".
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
An alternative perspective that speaks to me about the politicalization of Terri.
Living With Dignity
Heather Boushey
March 23, 2005
Members of Congress obviously value Terri Schiavo's life. After all, they called a special vote to make sure that her right to food would be protected. But what about all the other Americans who don't have food or health care—where's the congressional intervention for them? Heather Boushey of the Center For Economic and Policy Research questions if the debate over "dying with dignity" has overshadowed the larger question of why so many Americans don't have the basics to live with dignity.
Heather Boushey is an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
On Friday, a woman in Florida went hungry. Hundreds protested and sent letters to Congress. Congressional leaders became so enraged that they have called a special vote to ensure that this woman is provided with food. Congressional intervention is necessary, they argue, because access to food is her “constitutional right.”
On Friday, a woman in Florida went hungry. No one protested. The Senate was so indifferent to her and her family’s hunger that they voted down a measure that would have prevented $2.8 billion in cuts to the Food Stamp program over the next five years.
While Congress has spent the past few days making heroic efforts to restore the feeding tubes to Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years, they have also been debating the federal budget. While Terri Schiavo’s case has sparked passion about her right to live and her right to health care and food, there is no passion for the millions of Americans who go hungry every day or the millions more who lack access to basic health care.
President Bush cut his vacation short to return to Washington so he could sign into law legislation that would restore Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes. Last month, President Bush proposed a budget to Congress that would cut the Food Stamp program by $500 million over the next five years, leaving more than 300,000 low-income people without food assistance every month.
The proposed budget includes large cuts in federal programs providing food, housing, education and medical assistance to low-income families. It includes cuts in funding to those with HIV/AIDS by $550 million over the next five years. It ends Housing and Urban Development’s 30-year pledge to produce accessible supportive housing for people with disabilities. It will leave 670,000 fewer individuals on the Women, Infants and Children food program by 2010.
The proposed budget would reduce Medicaid's budget by $45 billion dollars over the next 10 years, leaving an estimated 1.2 million fewer children with health care each year between 2006 and 2010. This will mean that in Terri Schiavo’s home state of Florida, 67,400 fewer children will have access to Medicaid each year. The Senate has acted on its conscience and rejected the president's proposed Medicaid cuts; however, the House has yet to do so.
These proposed budget cuts will have devastating effects on the ability of millions of families to meet their basic needs.
The Food Stamp program allows hungry families to purchase food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 11.2 percent of all U.S. households are “food insecure;” of these, 3.9 million households suffer from food insecurity so severe that they go hungry.
Last year, nearly 70 million Americans went without health insurance for some time during the year. Children were more likely to go without it than adults. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for one in seven children. Since only half of all children (53.0 percent in 2003) receive health insurance from an employer-based health insurance plan, Medicaid plays an important role in ensuring that millions of children have access to the health care system.
Having access to health insurance can mean the difference between life and death. It's been estimated that more than 18,000 people die each year in the United States because they lack access to preventative health care services or appropriate care. Over the long term, those without health insurance have a 25 percent greater probability of dying.
The Schiavo case has sparked debate over what it means to die with dignity and raised moral questions about who decides when a person lives or dies. But the case should also spark debate over what it means to live with dignity.
Why is it that a woman who cannot speak and cannot move should not be denied her constitutional right to food and water, when every day, men, women and children go hungry—without a right to food? Why is Terri Schiavo’s case more important than theirs?
Congress wants you to know that they value Terri Schiavo’s life. This does not seem to mean, however, that they value the lives of millions of other Americans denied their constitutional rights to food and health care.
Living With Dignity
Heather Boushey
March 23, 2005
Members of Congress obviously value Terri Schiavo's life. After all, they called a special vote to make sure that her right to food would be protected. But what about all the other Americans who don't have food or health care—where's the congressional intervention for them? Heather Boushey of the Center For Economic and Policy Research questions if the debate over "dying with dignity" has overshadowed the larger question of why so many Americans don't have the basics to live with dignity.
Heather Boushey is an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
On Friday, a woman in Florida went hungry. Hundreds protested and sent letters to Congress. Congressional leaders became so enraged that they have called a special vote to ensure that this woman is provided with food. Congressional intervention is necessary, they argue, because access to food is her “constitutional right.”
On Friday, a woman in Florida went hungry. No one protested. The Senate was so indifferent to her and her family’s hunger that they voted down a measure that would have prevented $2.8 billion in cuts to the Food Stamp program over the next five years.
While Congress has spent the past few days making heroic efforts to restore the feeding tubes to Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years, they have also been debating the federal budget. While Terri Schiavo’s case has sparked passion about her right to live and her right to health care and food, there is no passion for the millions of Americans who go hungry every day or the millions more who lack access to basic health care.
President Bush cut his vacation short to return to Washington so he could sign into law legislation that would restore Terri Schiavo’s feeding tubes. Last month, President Bush proposed a budget to Congress that would cut the Food Stamp program by $500 million over the next five years, leaving more than 300,000 low-income people without food assistance every month.
The proposed budget includes large cuts in federal programs providing food, housing, education and medical assistance to low-income families. It includes cuts in funding to those with HIV/AIDS by $550 million over the next five years. It ends Housing and Urban Development’s 30-year pledge to produce accessible supportive housing for people with disabilities. It will leave 670,000 fewer individuals on the Women, Infants and Children food program by 2010.
The proposed budget would reduce Medicaid's budget by $45 billion dollars over the next 10 years, leaving an estimated 1.2 million fewer children with health care each year between 2006 and 2010. This will mean that in Terri Schiavo’s home state of Florida, 67,400 fewer children will have access to Medicaid each year. The Senate has acted on its conscience and rejected the president's proposed Medicaid cuts; however, the House has yet to do so.
These proposed budget cuts will have devastating effects on the ability of millions of families to meet their basic needs.
The Food Stamp program allows hungry families to purchase food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 11.2 percent of all U.S. households are “food insecure;” of these, 3.9 million households suffer from food insecurity so severe that they go hungry.
Last year, nearly 70 million Americans went without health insurance for some time during the year. Children were more likely to go without it than adults. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for one in seven children. Since only half of all children (53.0 percent in 2003) receive health insurance from an employer-based health insurance plan, Medicaid plays an important role in ensuring that millions of children have access to the health care system.
Having access to health insurance can mean the difference between life and death. It's been estimated that more than 18,000 people die each year in the United States because they lack access to preventative health care services or appropriate care. Over the long term, those without health insurance have a 25 percent greater probability of dying.
The Schiavo case has sparked debate over what it means to die with dignity and raised moral questions about who decides when a person lives or dies. But the case should also spark debate over what it means to live with dignity.
Why is it that a woman who cannot speak and cannot move should not be denied her constitutional right to food and water, when every day, men, women and children go hungry—without a right to food? Why is Terri Schiavo’s case more important than theirs?
Congress wants you to know that they value Terri Schiavo’s life. This does not seem to mean, however, that they value the lives of millions of other Americans denied their constitutional rights to food and health care.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Here are two cases Melon has mentioned.
...
There is one bit of context, however, that seems particularly salient, and it involves a six-month old boy named Sun Hudson. On Thursday, Hudson died after a Texas hospital removed his feeding tube, despite his mother's pleas. He had a fatal congenital disease, but would have been kept alive had his mother been able to pay for his medical costs, or had she found another institution willing to take him. In a related Texas case, Spiro Nikolouzos, who is unable to speak and must be fed through a tube because of a shunt in his brain – but who his wife says can recognize family members and show emotion – may soon be removed from life support because health care providers believe his case is futile.
The Hudson and Nikolous cases fall under the Texas Futile Care Law, which was signed into law by then-governor George W. Bush.
Bush, however, flew from Texas to Washington early this week to sign legislation authorizing federal courts to review Schiavo's case. The president felt that the Florida courts, which had reviewed the case several times over the past seven years, had failed in their duty: "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."
As Mark Kleiman, who brought the Texas cases to our attention, points out, "An argument of some sort could be made for the Texas law, based on some combination of cost and the possibility that an impersonal institution will sometimes avoid mistakes that an emotionally-involved relative would make." But, he adds, "What I can't figure out is how someone could be genuinely outraged about the Schiavo case but not about the Hudson and Nikolouzos cases."
The specifics of each case are different, but the central issue remains the same: whether the state should be able to sanction the removal of a human being from life support.
The fact that President Bush signed into law in Texas a bill that gives health care providers the right to end human life is then certainly relevant, given his decision to sign the Schiavo legislation and his rhetoric concerning a "presumption in favor of life." But do Hudson and Nikolouzos show up in stories about Schiavo? Very, very rarely. A Google News search of "Sun Hudson" and "Schiavo" returns only ten results, mostly from small outlets, and "Nikolouzos" and "Schiavo" returns only five results.
...
...
There is one bit of context, however, that seems particularly salient, and it involves a six-month old boy named Sun Hudson. On Thursday, Hudson died after a Texas hospital removed his feeding tube, despite his mother's pleas. He had a fatal congenital disease, but would have been kept alive had his mother been able to pay for his medical costs, or had she found another institution willing to take him. In a related Texas case, Spiro Nikolouzos, who is unable to speak and must be fed through a tube because of a shunt in his brain – but who his wife says can recognize family members and show emotion – may soon be removed from life support because health care providers believe his case is futile.
The Hudson and Nikolous cases fall under the Texas Futile Care Law, which was signed into law by then-governor George W. Bush.
Bush, however, flew from Texas to Washington early this week to sign legislation authorizing federal courts to review Schiavo's case. The president felt that the Florida courts, which had reviewed the case several times over the past seven years, had failed in their duty: "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."
As Mark Kleiman, who brought the Texas cases to our attention, points out, "An argument of some sort could be made for the Texas law, based on some combination of cost and the possibility that an impersonal institution will sometimes avoid mistakes that an emotionally-involved relative would make." But, he adds, "What I can't figure out is how someone could be genuinely outraged about the Schiavo case but not about the Hudson and Nikolouzos cases."
The specifics of each case are different, but the central issue remains the same: whether the state should be able to sanction the removal of a human being from life support.
The fact that President Bush signed into law in Texas a bill that gives health care providers the right to end human life is then certainly relevant, given his decision to sign the Schiavo legislation and his rhetoric concerning a "presumption in favor of life." But do Hudson and Nikolouzos show up in stories about Schiavo? Very, very rarely. A Google News search of "Sun Hudson" and "Schiavo" returns only ten results, mostly from small outlets, and "Nikolouzos" and "Schiavo" returns only five results.
...
najeena
War Child
Terry's EEG is flat line- no electrical activity. I think that is more telling than anything else. Of all of the sorry things I've seen having to do with this case, the most heartbreaking is seeing this woman's wrecked body being displayed in the media. Do her parents really think that this is what she would have wanted?
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Macfistowannabe said:
Did you read Lyras' post? His/her grandmother chose not to have a feeding tube, knowing full well what the consequenses were. My mom filled out and signed a Living Will stipulating that she did NOT want any extraordinary means used to prolong her life, specifically including nutrition and water (or other hydration). She was sounf mentally when she did this and did have the advice of a lawyer (and doctor) as to exactly what that meant.
I'm working on filling out a Living Will stipulating the same thing now. And I know my sister agrees and has stipulated the same thing.
So, there are at least three.
And if you are adamant about wanting a feeding tube if you are ever in such a situation, I strongly suggest you also fill out a Living Will stipulating that. And then make sure your family (and perhaps doctor) knows your wishes.
Last edited:
TiaraGurl
War Child
excellent piece scarlet wine thank you for sharing it. Today in yoga I was thinking about terri's parents and trying to see their side of things, imagining what this has been like for them. Now I am sort of back to feeling like I was last week I am not sure what is right.
Nobody wins.
Nobody wins.
- Status
