terri schaivo
Re: terri schaivo
How do you all know she doesn't feel pain? I don't know that. How can the doctors trully know that?
Regardless of what you think, I am not totally against euthanasia. I believe there are cases where it probably is for the best, although I always come back to who am I to decide when life should end.
My problem with this case is the method in which they are killing her. Dying of dehydration is a slow, painful death.
I listened to a nurse yesterday that cared for her about in the past. She described situations in which this woman would respond, say a few words, etc. However, she went on to describe how her "husband" would not allow any therapy, and would get irrate when the staff would try to do so. She described one time when he asked, "When is that b---- going to die", and how he often said he would be rich when she does. She also described that Terri said several times, "Mommy, help me". This doesn't sound like a woman that wants to die. Rather, it sounds like a selfish husband that wants to see her die. This nurse has provided a sworn affidavit to this.
I don't have a problem with him getting on with his life. But when he chose to do that, his rights in this case should go to the parents.
You talk about the quality of life. Please describe what defines that. I have a niece that is severly autistic. She can't feed herself, can't eat solid foods and will probably never be able to. She will always be in diapers. She will never talk. She can walk, but it's not very coordinated and she may some day lose the ability to do that. If her parents stopped feeding her, she would die. Sound familiar? But doesn't she have the same right to live her life as God intended? Her quality of life is definitely not the same as you or I, but who are you or I to determine if her life isn't worth living?
I can't imagine being put in the situation these parents have been put in. They are being forced to watch their child starve to death. Now that this order has been put in place, they are stripped searched before they can go in to see her to make sure they aren't bringing in any food or water. They have armed guards watching over them as they visit with her daughter. What was her crime? What was their crime? This is barbaric.
Here's an interesting article on this:
http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/may%20terri.htm
And this liberal article describes how bad it is for chickens to die of dehydration. I wonder if the same group is applauding these court rulings:
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/4outrage06.html
Regardless of what you think, I am not totally against euthanasia. I believe there are cases where it probably is for the best, although I always come back to who am I to decide when life should end.
My problem with this case is the method in which they are killing her. Dying of dehydration is a slow, painful death.
I listened to a nurse yesterday that cared for her about in the past. She described situations in which this woman would respond, say a few words, etc. However, she went on to describe how her "husband" would not allow any therapy, and would get irrate when the staff would try to do so. She described one time when he asked, "When is that b---- going to die", and how he often said he would be rich when she does. She also described that Terri said several times, "Mommy, help me". This doesn't sound like a woman that wants to die. Rather, it sounds like a selfish husband that wants to see her die. This nurse has provided a sworn affidavit to this.
I don't have a problem with him getting on with his life. But when he chose to do that, his rights in this case should go to the parents.
You talk about the quality of life. Please describe what defines that. I have a niece that is severly autistic. She can't feed herself, can't eat solid foods and will probably never be able to. She will always be in diapers. She will never talk. She can walk, but it's not very coordinated and she may some day lose the ability to do that. If her parents stopped feeding her, she would die. Sound familiar? But doesn't she have the same right to live her life as God intended? Her quality of life is definitely not the same as you or I, but who are you or I to determine if her life isn't worth living?
I can't imagine being put in the situation these parents have been put in. They are being forced to watch their child starve to death. Now that this order has been put in place, they are stripped searched before they can go in to see her to make sure they aren't bringing in any food or water. They have armed guards watching over them as they visit with her daughter. What was her crime? What was their crime? This is barbaric.
Here's an interesting article on this:
http://www.catholicmediacoalition.org/may%20terri.htm
And this liberal article describes how bad it is for chickens to die of dehydration. I wonder if the same group is applauding these court rulings:
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/4outrage06.html
Re: terri schaivo
I think this article sums it up well. Here's an excerpt:
A conscious [cognitively disabled] person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... y.asp?pg=1
Here's another excerpt on page 2 from someone that actually had this happen and lived to tell about it:
MOST OF THE TIME, we never know for sure what a starved or dehydrated person experiences. But in at least one case--that of a young woman who had her tube feeding stopped for eight days and lived to tell the tale--we have direct evidence of the agony that forced dehydration may cause.
At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating and incapacitating stroke. She was utterly unresponsive and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Because of a bowel obstruction she developed, her nourishment was stopped so that doctors could perform surgery.
Adamson eventually recovered sufficiently to author "Kate's Journey: Triumph Over Adversity," in which she tells the terrifying tale. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily. (This is known as a "locked-in state.") When she appeared recently on "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Adamson about the dehydration experience:
O'REILLY: When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind?
ADAMSON: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.
O'REILLY: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?
ADAMSON: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that--especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed--it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.
O'REILLY: It's just amazing.
ADAMSON: Sheer torture . . .
In preparation for this article, I contacted Adamson for more details about the torture she experienced while being dehydrated. She told me about having been operated upon (to remove the bowel obstruction) with inadequate anesthesia when doctors believed she was unconscious:
The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, "Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's Sake! Somebody feed me."
Unbelievably, she described being deprived of food and water as "far worse" than experiencing the pain of abdominal surgery. Despite having been on an on an IV saline solution, Adamson still had horrible thirst:
I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst.
A conscious [cognitively disabled] person would feel it just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucus membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... y.asp?pg=1
Here's another excerpt on page 2 from someone that actually had this happen and lived to tell about it:
MOST OF THE TIME, we never know for sure what a starved or dehydrated person experiences. But in at least one case--that of a young woman who had her tube feeding stopped for eight days and lived to tell the tale--we have direct evidence of the agony that forced dehydration may cause.
At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating and incapacitating stroke. She was utterly unresponsive and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Because of a bowel obstruction she developed, her nourishment was stopped so that doctors could perform surgery.
Adamson eventually recovered sufficiently to author "Kate's Journey: Triumph Over Adversity," in which she tells the terrifying tale. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily. (This is known as a "locked-in state.") When she appeared recently on "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Adamson about the dehydration experience:
O'REILLY: When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind?
ADAMSON: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.
O'REILLY: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?
ADAMSON: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that--especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed--it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.
O'REILLY: It's just amazing.
ADAMSON: Sheer torture . . .
In preparation for this article, I contacted Adamson for more details about the torture she experienced while being dehydrated. She told me about having been operated upon (to remove the bowel obstruction) with inadequate anesthesia when doctors believed she was unconscious:
The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, "Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's Sake! Somebody feed me."
Unbelievably, she described being deprived of food and water as "far worse" than experiencing the pain of abdominal surgery. Despite having been on an on an IV saline solution, Adamson still had horrible thirst:
I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst.
-
juniatalax07
- Sophomore
- Posts: 87
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 1:33 pm
- Location: Long Island, NY/The Cove/Juniata College
Re: terri schaivo
wow, republicans...GET A GRIP. first of all, the woman is in a completly vegetative state, SHE CANNOT FEEL PAIN, she will not know that shes starving and she will not feel it.
secondly, its great that you all find it ok for congress to just screw the constitution. are you aware that, even though congress is run by republicans, its not ok to break the checks and balances system that is set in place by the constitution. congress has no right to overturn previous cases, only the supreme court has that power...but of course, thats all ok with you guys, as long as its working in the favor of your republican ideals. and one more thing...your all so afraid of homosexual marriage breaking the sanctity of marriage...this case breaks the sanctity of marriage. legally in the united states your spouse is your "legal guardian" if something like this happens, they have the right to choose for you, since you cannot make the choice yourself. but now, you all say that its ok to break that, because her husband thinks she should be taken off the feeding tube. this is another case of the republicans maniuplating policies to always work for them. why is it ok to break the sanctity of marriage for this particular case...but lord forbid the homosexuals can have equal rights...its quite alright to treat them as second class citizens.
secondly, its great that you all find it ok for congress to just screw the constitution. are you aware that, even though congress is run by republicans, its not ok to break the checks and balances system that is set in place by the constitution. congress has no right to overturn previous cases, only the supreme court has that power...but of course, thats all ok with you guys, as long as its working in the favor of your republican ideals. and one more thing...your all so afraid of homosexual marriage breaking the sanctity of marriage...this case breaks the sanctity of marriage. legally in the united states your spouse is your "legal guardian" if something like this happens, they have the right to choose for you, since you cannot make the choice yourself. but now, you all say that its ok to break that, because her husband thinks she should be taken off the feeding tube. this is another case of the republicans maniuplating policies to always work for them. why is it ok to break the sanctity of marriage for this particular case...but lord forbid the homosexuals can have equal rights...its quite alright to treat them as second class citizens.
Re: terri schaivo
if i leave my wife and go live with another woman and she(the other woman) bears children to me.am i still married to the woman i left? NO!!!!!
i'm married to the new woman and should have nothing to do with the first. TERRI BELONGS TO HER PARENTS. you liberals have no respect for GOD'S laws therfore this argument is mute.
i'm married to the new woman and should have nothing to do with the first. TERRI BELONGS TO HER PARENTS. you liberals have no respect for GOD'S laws therfore this argument is mute.
Re: terri schaivo
I believe that all 3 branches of government have equal powers. The judicial branch is not above the legislative or executive, even though they often believe they are. All are equal.
Every branch of government has a duty to protect the helpless.
I gave you an example of a woman that was in a similar state, and she certainly felt pain. How can you be so sure that Terri doesn't feel pain? And it is disputed whether or not she can feel pain.
Just ask yourself Juniata, would you euthanize your dog this way? Pretty much all of us find it disgraceful to treat animals this way, but you liberals have no problem doing it to humans.
I agree that this case is a gray area. But when there is uncertainty like this, decisions should default to life over death until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that death is better for the person. You liberals want to allow a child murdering rapist to live, and they are provided with tons of opportunities to prove their innocence - why can't you provide this woman the same chance? If there was this much uncertainty in a death penalty case, you would all be screaming bloody murder if that person was put to death. Why the double standard?
Every branch of government has a duty to protect the helpless.
I gave you an example of a woman that was in a similar state, and she certainly felt pain. How can you be so sure that Terri doesn't feel pain? And it is disputed whether or not she can feel pain.
Just ask yourself Juniata, would you euthanize your dog this way? Pretty much all of us find it disgraceful to treat animals this way, but you liberals have no problem doing it to humans.
I agree that this case is a gray area. But when there is uncertainty like this, decisions should default to life over death until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that death is better for the person. You liberals want to allow a child murdering rapist to live, and they are provided with tons of opportunities to prove their innocence - why can't you provide this woman the same chance? If there was this much uncertainty in a death penalty case, you would all be screaming bloody murder if that person was put to death. Why the double standard?
Re: terri schaivo
D-nice this link will take to Bush's Texas law...... I have brought some key points from it......
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes ... 166.00.htm
(10) "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment
that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a
patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes
both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such
as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and
artificial nutrition and hydration. The term does not include the
administration of pain management medication or the performance of
a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide comfort
care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a patient's
pain.
§ 166.039. PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR
ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF
COMMUNICATION. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not
executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise
mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending
physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a
medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may
include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining
treatment from the patient.
(b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent
under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one
person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the
following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include
a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.
This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."
Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case."
Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes ... 166.00.htm
(10) "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment
that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a
patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes
both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such
as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and
artificial nutrition and hydration. The term does not include the
administration of pain management medication or the performance of
a medical procedure considered to be necessary to provide comfort
care, or any other medical care provided to alleviate a patient's
pain.
§ 166.039. PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR
ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF
COMMUNICATION. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not
executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise
mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending
physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a
medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may
include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining
treatment from the patient.
(b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent
under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one
person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the
following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include
a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.
This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative," said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. "When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it's been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked - even if it hasn't given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism."
Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: "I don't normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states' rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case."
Some more moderate Republicans are also uneasy. Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: "This senator has learned from many years you've got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism."
"It looks as if it's a wholly Republican exercise," Mr. Warner said, "but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step."
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Pre
-
juniatalax07
- Sophomore
- Posts: 87
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 1:33 pm
- Location: Long Island, NY/The Cove/Juniata College
Re: terri schaivo
lionpride...i didnt say the judicial branch has more power than the legislative...i was stating that there is a system of checks and balances...and in that system only the judicial branch can overturn previous cases.
-
juniatalax07
- Sophomore
- Posts: 87
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 1:33 pm
- Location: Long Island, NY/The Cove/Juniata College
Re: terri schaivo
D-nice...was it god's laws that told DUBYA to go kill thousands of innocent people in iraq too??
-
redfishbluefish
- Junior
- Posts: 139
- Joined: September 24th, 2004, 3:32 pm
- Location: Chestnut Tech
-
count2infinity
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 4475
- Joined: September 1st, 2004, 6:44 pm
- Location: Clarion
essentially everything can come down to a republican/democrate battle...but she has been put into that catagory of being in a vegatative state, there's no coming back from that because (incase some of you didn't know or forgot) nerve and brain cells DO NOT regenerate...like i said earlier, just let her be at peace!
Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.