1

I did some digging and reading up on exactly what PVS is and how it's diagnosed. I just posted my results (plus a bunch of other facts) here.

I'm well aware that many people will only see what they want to see. Yet I'm still surprised at how some people, including some doctors, simply cannot see Terri's mind at work behind her actions.

2

Ed "what the heck" man,

Impressive work!

It scares me to death that we are killing this woman. Make no mistake, we are killing her, not Judge Greer, not Michael Shiavo, not any one person is to blame here. All of us who sit thousands of miles away on our computers coming to the same conclusion, that Terri Shiavo is alive and not brain dead, we are responsible.

My God forgive us.

3

a minimally conscious patient may be "unintentionally neglectful." ...

This does sound like a made up category to allow PVS people who have done everything, whose brains have turned to jelly, who are flatliners to be kept alive despite the consequences.

BTW, shouldn't yo mention, full disclosure you know, that Cheshire's CV includes such relevant works to PVS as "The Awful Tooth About Pain?"

Dr. Cheshire has published more articles than a third of his colleagues.

LOL! IOW, 2/3 of his colleagues have published more articles than he did!.

OK, so you admit he's not exactly above the median on this.

Dr. Cheshire's religious views on the issue are moot.

No, but his apparent unfitness to be an expert on the subject is.

4

I might also add that Whelan's not alone. Real experts in PVS and ethics seem to agree with Whelan.

Unsaid in all of this is who funds this "think tank?"

Where does the money come from?

Folks, don't you want to know where your tripe is coming from?

5

Joe Carter writes:

"Ms. Whelan begins by claiming to know the 'harsh facts' of Terri Schiavo's brain state, yet appears to be confused about the difference between a 'permanent vegetative state' and a persistent vegetative state in which a patient may be minimally conscious."

But a moment ago he wrote:

"But Shiavo is not terminal and there is dispute whether she is in a PVS state or whether she is minimally consciousness." [emphasis added]

Mr. Carter apparently shares Ms. Whelan's confusion, and for good reason: "permanent vegetative state" and "persistent vegetative state" are, medically speaking, the same term.

6

I have heard so many 'facts' from the different sides on Schiavo's case that I no longer trust anything that I read.

7

So many people who have written about the effort to save Terri have emphasized the hope that she will "recover." On the other side, those who want to terminate her life say that because she has no higher brain function, she is already dead. It is time to address this serious error.

Terri is a miracle--a living person who is without sin, and without the capacity to sin. For fifteen years, she has lived as sinless a life as an unborn baby. She has never angered. She has never cursed. She has never experienced an impure thought. She has never defied her father or her mother--and how beautifully and steadfastly have they honored their bond with her. She has served as a perfect example of sinless devotion.

Who among us, in prayer, has not been frustrated at our inability to shut out the world, to give ourselves to God in perfect concentration and devotion? Is not Terri's example a gift to us?

Some may say that to live in Terri's state is somehow less than human. This is wrong! It is the life our first father and mother, Adam and Eve, led in Eden before, through Eve's transgression, sin entered the world. Terri is living in that primordial perfect state.

We were created in the image of God, but we marred that image through the disobedience of Adam. Every child is conceived in the same perfection as our first parents, and our Savior, but takes on Adam's sin at birth--that's why even at the moment of birth, a baby's first act is to cry for her lost innocence. Through Terri, we have a living example of God's perfect image, uncontaminated by sin. It is not for Terri that we fight to restore life-giving nutrients and water; she will have eternal life with her heavenly Father when she leaves us. It is for the gift she gives to us by her blessed example of a sinless life on this earth.

8

Sorry Sid, you are way off base. If you do not have the capacity to make choices then you cannot hold yourself to be sinless. The very idea is absurd, by this reasoning a rock on the ground would represent an ideal model of a human because it too doesn't ever sin.

While you may fairly argue that it is wrong to have removed the tube it's pretty difficult to argue that Terri is a 'model' for us. Besides you cannot really know. If Terri does have some ability to think left how do you know she isn't thinking sinful thoughts? Cursing God for her condition? Hating her parents and so on? You're just making an assumption you can read her mind which is not really fair to us or her at all.

9

Suppose Congress (or the State of Florida) had passed the below law:

**************
No person shall have a medically necessary feeding tube or artificial form of nourishment device removed unless any of the following conditions are met:

1. The person is in a state of pain, in a terminal illness with no probable hope of recovery and the use of the device will likely cause the person to suffer much more pain.

2. The person expressed a written desire to not be on an artificial nourishment device.

3. The person is able to request the removal of the device.
*******************

This would have accomplished the pro-lifers' goal of having the tube given back to Terri. However it would have also established a principle around which people could plan their lives as needed. Instead the GOP has brought off the pro-lifers with a bunch of 'single shot' bills that they knew would fail all along.

When she dies Republicans will caste their eyes down and declare that they tried everything they could...yet the reality is they exploited this woman's parents for political gain.

10

I know you've all been waiting for it, so here's my take on the Shiavo case. ;)

There is probably good reason to keep Terri alive. If we were able to look at it from an omniscient standpoint, removal of the tube is probably unethical. However, so many doctors and so many courts have ruled against her that it is impossible to legally keep her alive. A veritable army of doctors have said she's essentially gone, her husband has given up hope, and 20-30 trials cannot change any judge's mind. Not only that, but now that the parents and friends are desperate, there are all these new and shady allegations of abuse that magically surfaced just now. So, basically the family is untrustworthy, the husband is untrustworthy, the judges are untrustworthy, and the doctors can't all agree on what is going on.

Bottom line: It's time to move on. Terri is going to die, probably unethically, but it's a done deal. The law of the land has rendered it's verdict in favor of the process Terri has received. It's over. Everyone is shady, no one looks good or truthful in all this, and I'm tired of hearing about it. It's gone from a good cause to a grim exercise is futility. It's macabre now. This chapter in American current events needs to be closed.

11

"For fifteen years, she has lived as sinless a life as an unborn baby. She has never angered. She has never cursed. She has never experienced an impure thought. She has never defied her father or her mother--and how beautifully and steadfastly have they honored their bond with her. She has served as a perfect example of sinless devotion."

This is sick. You fetishizing her into some kind of religious icon. It removes her dignity and grace as a human being. If you really believe that we are made in "Gods image", then just being human should be enough grace for anyone.

12

Andrew Sullivan linked to this interesting article by a Christian Libertarian.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/nb20050324.shtml

I’m on the opposite side of this issue from Rush, Hannity, Liddy and most of my not-liberal talk radio colleagues. So the question intrigued me. Why, indeed, do I want Terri Schiavo to die?

Rush’s question deserved an answer. Not some glib response, but an honest, heartfelt answer. So, … here’s mine.

I want Terri Schiavo to die because I believe she’s earned it.

Do you believe that the human soul can make the transition to everlasting life while the human body that carried that soul through life clings to life on this earth? If you do, then you must surely believe that Terri Schiavo has earned and is already enjoying her reward in heaven. That being the case, why is it so important to you that the now-unneeded body of Terri Schiavo is kept alive?

...

Most of us are aware of the stories related by people who have near-death experiences. The usual scenario is a surgical procedure or some other medical emergency. These people describe a sensation of leaving their body at the very time the heart stops beating and the brain ceases functioning. They tell of floating above their body while watching doctors below working hard to resuscitate, to bring them back to life. As the heart once again starts beating and as the brain resumes its functions, they tell of a sensation of falling back into their own bodies to resume life.

We don’t hear from the patients upon whom resuscitation efforts are not successful. We don’t hear from them because they’ve left us. They’re gone to experience whatever lies beyond. They died.

Is it possible that the soul of Terri Schiavo has been floating – held in some prolonged and excruciating limbo – waiting for doctors to stop interfering with the process of her death? I believe that this is so, and that is why I have supported her husband’s desires to have her feeding tube removed. Terri Schiavo isn’t being murdered. She’s being allowed to die. Death will not be an end for Terri Schiavo, it will be a beginning. She will finally be allowed to claim the reward that ultimately we all seek, a reward she’s earned and deserves.

This also touches nicely upon Joe's post regarding the value of life. Life is a gift, indeed, but a temporary one that fills temporary needs. The point of the gift wasn't to engage in a fruitless effort of stretching it into thin nothingness like a child who tries to make his Christmas candy last all year.

In another context, I recall Tolkein's character of gollum who does achieve an immortal life (for a period at least). Rather than being all the more blessed with the gift of life, however, it is a curse. The value of life is lost as it is stretched out over the course of an 'unnatural long life' until it becomes an evil. (Before you try to say Gollum was redeemed at the end remember he wasn't. The sacrifice of his life did save the world so to speak but it wasn't a willing sacrifice but rather an accident as he was consumed with his own selfish desires for the ring).

13

Suppose Congress (or the State of Florida) had passed the below law: … This would have accomplished the pro-lifers' goal of having the tube given back to Terri. However it would have also established a principle around which people could plan their lives as needed.

Wow! I can't believe it! Finally there's something Boon and I agree on!

… but then it all just goes south again.

Instead the GOP has brought off the pro-lifers with a bunch of 'single shot' bills that they knew would fail all along.

Actually a bill exactly like you specified is what the Florida legislature tried to pass in their most recent attempt to save Terri. It was Senate Bill 804. You can read the text of the bill here and the voting record here.

Only one Democrat voted in favor of this bill.

14

Such a bill could have been proposed on the national level as well. What's telling to me is that the Republicans choose to pass a bill that basically said nothing beyond Terri's parents had standing to bring a suit in Federal Court. I believe the Republicans that did this knew the courts would remain consistent so they could literally go hog wild preening for the cameras and pro-life campaign dollars knowing in the back of their heads that the courts would keep their mess from getting out of hand.

15

Interestingly todays NY Times has a short article on the proliferation of "Help us save Terri" ads and solicitations from conservative and evangelical web sites despite the fact that 'official site' pleads with people to only donate to the Foundation set up to argue her parents case.

16

Actually here is the other quote Sullivan pulls out on his site:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit Christian context. Richard McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1974 called "To Save or Let Die." He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong word in theology — these are false doctrines). One is that life is an absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off those limits are your capacities to function as a human." - Jesuit theologian Rev John J. Paris, on how the religious right is deploying heresy in its absolutism in the Terri Schiavo case. I couldn't agree more. What some of these people are about is not respect for life, but its fetishization.

17

Sid -

Terri is a miracle--a living person who is without sin, and without the capacity to sin. For fifteen years, she has lived as sinless a life as an unborn baby. She has never angered. She has never cursed. She has never experienced an impure thought. She has never defied her father or her mother--and how beautifully and steadfastly have they honored their bond with her. She has served as a perfect example of sinless devotion.

Who among us, in prayer, has not been frustrated at our inability to shut out the world, to give ourselves to God in perfect concentration and devotion? Is not Terri's example a gift to us?

Some may say that to live in Terri's state is somehow less than human. This is wrong! It is the life our first father and mother, Adam and Eve, led in Eden before, through Eve's transgression, sin entered the world. Terri is living in that primordial perfect state.

That's pretty sick. She's not without sin. She is the condition she's in because of an eating disorder. She's at least sinned against herself.

Even though I'm a christian, I resent many of the Christians who have taken interest in the case. It's getting embarrassing. I wish we could keep this to a legal and ethical debate without having to make Terri the second coming of the Virgin Mary.

18

I agree there, I think it is improper to speculate on Terri's sins (or lack of sins). We don't know why she had an eating disorder, we can't even be 100% sure the eating disorder was the cause of her heart attack. We do know that this type of condition is horribly unlucky...even for those with disorders.

Anyway, what moral good is served by asking us to all model outselves after Terri? Should we all get lobotomies to decrease our ability to choose sin? Who will take care of us when we all do that? Larry?

19

Did someone say lobotomy?

"Others, such as Ms. Whelan's, are rooted in an emotional response that is based on an appalling ignorance of the relevant scientific evidence. Expressing such an opinion on a third-rate blog would be excusable."

I will leave to your imagination the obvious response to this statement.

Of greater interest to me is the fact that Fox News hired John "Communicate with the Dead" Edward for his opinions on the matter!!

Yes, first Hannity shamelessly shills for self-promoting liars like that "Nobel nominee" Hammersfahrt, and now we talk to one of richest sickest charlatans in the country!

But wait -- is there someone here who would like to argue that perhaps John Edward really DOES have the ability to communicate with dead people?

And if John Edward is so obviously a huckster and con artist, then what is doing on Fox News talking about Terry Schiavo?

Or is Fox News really just a right-wing propoganda-spewing network that cares nothing about the truth as long as the ratings and money keep rolling in.

And isn't it true that the longer Schiavo is kept alive, the longer Fox and evangelical Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, etc., can ride the "controversy" all the way to the bank?

Yeah, the selfishness reeks to high heaven.

20

Ask yourself again: why did nobody peep when that baby in Texas was killed?

The answer appears below:

-------------
"Help Save Terri Schiavo's Life!" says the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian conservative group best known for its campaigns against gay rights. Next to a link to the Web site of her parents' foundation is a pitch to "become an active supporter of the Traditional Values Coalition by pledging a monthly gift."

"What this issue has done is it has galvanized people the way nothing could have done in an off-election year," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, the founder of the group, acknowledging that the case of Ms. Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, had moved many to open up their checkbooks. "That is what I see as the blessing that dear Terri's life is offering to the conservative Christian movement in America."
---------------------------

21

And here's another popular spokesperson on the extreme religious extreme right, Dr. Doolittle!

****
LIMBAUGH: I'm sure before the day is over some whales somewhere or some dolphins somewhere will beach themselves wanting to die, that's why they beach themselves.
****

I say "strange" because Rush is a well-known drug-abusing serial-womanizing bigoted liar. But he knows who butters his bread.

22

Larry, Why are you still here defecating all over discussions? From your own perspective, you have no more meaning or purpose than Terri Schiavo; the only diffrence is that you can yap into the void. You only serve to undermine the case for your own continued existence.

23

I vote in favor of Larry's continued existence. He is quite abrasive in his points but they are mostly valid ones.

24

I vote in favor of Larry's continued existence. He is quite abrasive in his points but they are mostly valid ones.

Hey, he's the one who considers his life void of meaning and purpose, not me.

Jack

25

Jack, is John Edward a charlatan?

Are John Edward's thoughts on Terry Schiavo "scientifically informed"?

Is Fox News a "public form"?

Is Fox News akin to a "third-rate blog"?

Is telepathy with dead people "junk science", in your opinion, Jack?

Yes or no answers will suffice. These are straightforward questions.

Oh, and if anyone else is brave enough to answer the questions, please go right ahead.

26

oops -- "public form" should be "public forum"

27

Jack, is John Edward a charlatan?

Are John Edward's thoughts on Terry Schiavo "scientifically informed"?

Is Fox News a "public form"?

Is Fox News akin to a "third-rate blog"?

Is telepathy with dead people "junk science", in your opinion, Jack?

Yes or no answers will suffice. These are straightforward questions.

Oh, and if anyone else is brave enough to answer the questions, please go right ahead.

What possible difference would any of this mean to a meaningless blip in the history of the universe like you Larry? I mean really? Dead today, dead tomorrow, dead thirty years from now; you are spinning plates to no end. Give me one reason why your words matter at all, and I might contemplate your questions for more than a second or two.

Jack

28

It's okay Jack. Not everyone has Joe Carter's guts. You don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.

Sincerely,

Larry "The Blip" Lord

29

It's okay Jack. Not everyone has Joe Carter's guts. You don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.

Actually, Joe doesn't answer your questions either, from what I can see.

If you want to urinate in your own bed and sleep in the soiled sheets, it's no skin off my nose; but if you are going to go around pissing in other people's shoes, then then at least offer an explanation for why you have no bladder control.

But again, I repeat, your life is meaningless Larry; that is the fact you can't face, as witnessed by the fact that you keep pretending that your words matter. You are the biggest faker here.

30

Hey, he's the one who considers his life void of meaning and purpose, not me.

Excellent! Two votes for Larry's continued existence.

But again, I repeat, your life is meaningless Larry; that is the fact you can't face, as witnessed by the fact that you keep pretending that your words matter. You are the biggest faker here.

Tsk tsk, arguing with you guys is very time consuming. I can't blame Larry if he became discouraged a long time ago.

31

[QUOTE]Tsk tsk, arguing with you guys is very time consuming. I can't blame Larry if he became discouraged a long time ago. [/QUOTE]

Actually, it's fairly straight forward. Here, I'll get you started,

"My words matter because..."

32

C'mon now Jack. Calm down.

Telepathy with dead people is junk science and John Edward is a charlatan of biblical proportions. You can admit that -- and you should, loudly and proudly. It'd make you feel better about yourself.

Try it once and see!

33

C'mon now Jack. Calm down.

Telepathy with dead people is junk science and John Edward is a charlatan of biblical proportions. You can admit that -- and you should, loudly and proudly. It'd make you feel better about yourself.

Ha. So you're admitting your posts don't mean anything more than a cockroach farting on a keyboard?

34

My words matter, Jack, because a vest has no sleeves.

Dig it.

35

" you're admitting your posts don't mean anything more than a cockroach farting on a keyboard?"

You tell me, bro. You spent a lot of time these past couple days trying to argue with those farts and you lost.

Still not willing to discuss John Edward and his claims? I find that interesting.

Farting cockroaches, chirping crickets. It's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

36

My words matter, Jack, because a vest has no sleeves. Dig it.

Well, no, actually I don't think your posts could pass the Turing test.

But hey, if that's the best you could come up with, I'll consider your future posts with that in mind.

37

You tell me, bro. You spent a lot of time these past couple days trying to argue with those farts and you lost.

Still not willing to discuss John Edward and his claims? I find that interesting.

Farting cockroaches, chirping crickets. It's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Lost what? I've continually contended that your posts are the meaningless ramblings of a sack of flesh, and you have never even offerred an alternate explanation. Either you and your posts have meaning, or they are just worthless occurences that we can all discount by your own testimony. Which is it?

38

"I've continually contended that your posts are the meaningless ramblings of a sack of flesh"

What is meaningless or rambling about my truthful statement that John Edward is a charlatan? And that he was selected by Fox News to opine on matters alleged to relate to the Terry Schiavo case?

Those observations are concise and meaningful -- very relevant, in fact, to any discussion related to the meta-issue highlighted by Joe in the opening thread (good versus bad science as it relates to Schiavo).

Cockroaches, by the way, are mainly chitin and water -- not flesh. Just in case you were interested in being consistent.

39

What is meaningless or rambling about my truthful statement that John Edward is a charlatan? And that he was selected by Fox News to opine on matters alleged to relate to the Terry Schiavo case?

Meaning, as in it matters whether or not whther any of us are right or wrong or just bidding our time until the worms come. You contend the latter.

Those observations are concise and meaningful -- very relevant, in fact, to any discussion related to the meta-issue highlighted by Joe in the opening thread (good versus bad science as it relates to Schiavo).

Not from your perspective. You're just yammering in the void; the database is cleared, you have that long awaited stroke, and whatever meaning you pretended your words had are gone. It's amusing to a mind with no other purpose, but not full of meaning.

Cockroaches, by the way, are mainly chitin and water -- not flesh. Just in case you were interested in being consistent.

I didn't call you a cockroach; I referred to you and your posts (by your own philosophy) of having the meaning of a cockroach fart. Try to keep up.

40

Yes, let's try to keep up.

Here are the questions Jack is afraid to answer:

Is John Edward a charlatan?

Are John Edward's thoughts on Terry Schiavo "scientifically informed"?

Is Fox News a "public form"?

Is Fox News akin to a "third-rate blog"?

Is telepathy with dead people "junk science", in your opinion, Jack?

Yes or no answers will suffice. These are straightforward questions.

41

The vitriol, Jack. And the evasiveness. And the dismissiveness. And the argumentative pedantry. The only person consistently espousing this brand of nihilism, which you keep attributing to Larry's "philosophy," is you. How about you drop it and engage a little?

42

Yes, let's try to keep up...blah, blah, blah

Larry, pay attention. Words on the screen mean nothing. Questions mean nothing. Unless you are a human being with some purpose beyond wrapping your legs around something or putting things in your mouth, you questions are completely absurd. If I completely agreed with you we all die and it doesn't matter. If I completely disagreed with you, we all die and it doesn't matter. Why are you pretending it matters? Will you wake up tommorrow and have one ounce more of purpose if the whole world agreed with you? Disagreed with you?

43

"Meaning, as in it matters whether or not whther any of us are right or wrong or just bidding our time until the worms come. You contend the latter."

Changing the subject from a discussion about junk science to a discussion about my alleged beliefs re the "meaning of life" is a classic play from the Liars for Jesus playbook. It appears in the chapter entitled "Moving the Goalposts for God."

Of course, I'm always happy to discuss the Johnsonite Christian playbook and script with members of that peculiar sect. Jack, you have revealed yourself to be a proud member -- a dissembler of the first rank.

So which is it Jack? Do you want to discuss the goalpost-moving tactics of American 21st Century fundamentalists, or junk science "tripe" a la John Edward?

I'd suggest the latter, Jack -- if only because that is the subject of this thread.

But if you want to change the subject into a discussion of how certain cowardly fundamentalists run and scamper away when confronted with facts inconsistent with their talking points, I'm always up for that!

44

The vitriol, Jack. And the evasiveness. And the dismissiveness. And the argumentative pedantry. The only person consistently espousing this brand of nihilism, which you keep attributing to Larry's "philosophy," is you. How about you drop it and engage a little?

Hey, I don't contend humans are meaningless occurences with no purpose; that's Larry's schtick. I think words do matter. I think it does matter what we choose to do and don't choose to do with our lives day to day. I come here to discuss truth with people to whom truth matters; not banter words with people who would just as soon soil themselves as consider something worthwhile.

45

I have resisted comment on the Schaivo situation because it is so personal for me. You see my brother was in a motorcycle accident 21 years ago and sustained severe closed head injuries and has moved in and out of the diagnosis of PVS multiple times over that period. I am also a P.A. in Neurosurgery. I know that does not qualify me as a physician but it does establish that I am well aquainted with subject.

My brother has had a feeding tube for much of this time. My parents felt and feel no choice in giving him a warm, loving and safe environment. He does indicate pain and humor at times. I know my family could have easily justified his murder. I know that seems inflamitory but this language of sirene and peaceful in reguards to starvation smacks of Soilent Green. That was the Heston movie where euthanised people were eliminated watching peaceful scenes in a movie while receiving a lethal injection. I have seen this in real life and it is only mercy to those who wish to be free of the baggage of a damaged human.

The diagnosis of PVS is Physician dependent. Meaning there is no test that can prove or disprove it. Much the same as Chronic fatigue, irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia. That is why you see so much disagreement in reguards to this diagnosis. I don't believe either side is in danger of malpractice because of its ambiguity.

So what are we to do in these situations? If you are a christian the words of Christ "as you do unto the least of these" ring true. If you are a secularist Marx "from each according to his ability to each according to their need" or Humphrey "a society should be judged by how it treats those in it's shadows."

I know some of you KNOW what the patient would want, I hope I am not that arrogant. After my brother was brought home I noticed we as a family often disagreed on what kind of movies or music my brother used to like and what he would like now. I knew he liked hard rock (YES!) and often lobbied for that thinking I was standing up for him. To my shame I noticed my new brother liked country music. I have learned something important. My brother needs to be seen as who he is now and not who he was. The point is Terry Schaivo is a different being than the one Michael married. The parents have found that they still can love and care for her and Michael can not and believes the prior Terry would want the new Terry eliminated.

This is a very complicated subject and I don't appreciate either sides easy pronouncments of morality. I just worry about the language that describes FORCED starvation as mercy. When was her last swallowing study? Why no ice chips? some patients can actually handle thickened foods and liquids. It seems judge Greer believes ice chips are extraordinary intervention? Honestly the point is not that Terry is not viable. It is that she is inconvienent.

I don't want to hear another person say if it was me..... It is not you! Terry is not being voted off the island. F@cking polls!

46

"If I completely agreed with you we all die and it doesn't matter. If I completely disagreed with you, we all die and it doesn't matter. Why are you pretending it matters?"

It's your honesty that matters, Jack. Don't you get it?

47

Hey, I don't contend humans are meaningless occurences with no purpose; that's Larry's schtick. I think words do matter....

Ok, I get it Jack. Your position is that Larry feels nothing matters hence there's no point in responding to anything he writes. Thank you, we all get it now..

48

Changing the subject from a discussion about junk science to a discussion about my alleged beliefs re the "meaning of life" is a classic play from the Liars for Jesus playbook. It appears in the chapter entitled "Moving the Goalposts for God."

No, it's not 'moving the goalposts' because you have no goalposts. Nothing. No point to your existence - do you deny this?

Of course, I'm always happy to discuss the Johnsonite Christian playbook and script with members of that peculiar sect. Jack, you have revealed yourself to be a proud member -- a dissembler of the first rank.

I'd suggest the latter, Jack -- if only because that is the subject of this thread.

The subject of this thread means nothing if, as you contend, it means nothing.

But if you want to change the subject into a discussion of how certain cowardly fundamentalists run and scamper away when confronted with facts inconsistent with their talking points, I'm always up for that!

What talking points Larry? You made all the points, and then you answered them; you don't even need a thread, you are contemplating your lint filled naval. You are the one avoiding the essential and worthwhile questions.

49

It's your honesty that matters, Jack. Don't you get it?

Honesty is moral consideration Larry. Other than that there are facts which describe a situation; and those facts are colored by own perceptions and experiences. Honesty and truth only matter if those facts matter to our existence; in what way do the facts of the Schiavo case matter to our existence?

50

Ok, I get it Jack. Your position is that Larry feels nothing matters hence there's no point in responding to anything he writes. Thank you, we all get it now..

Oh no, I'm sure he feels something. I mean if I kick a dog it feels something. I contend what he feels and what I feel don't really matter, if his view of the world is true.

51

" I know that seems inflamitory but this language of sirene and peaceful in reguards to starvation smacks of Soilent Green."

That's "Soylent Green."

Great movie.

"Honestly the point is not that Terry is not viable. It is that she is inconvienent."

My friend, your script is obsolete.

The point is that nearly two dozen court cases have established that Terry Schiavo expressed her wishes to die if she became a vegetable.

Where were all these weeping evangelicals and Jeb Bush when the laws in Florida were passed permitting such wishes to be legally enforceable?

My guess: lobbying Hollywood for PG-13 ratings or some such nonsense.

"If you are a christian the words of Christ "as you do unto the least of these" ring true."

Well, we know what we do unto the "least of these". We kill them, like that baby in Texas last week that nobody peeped about. But that's okay, I'm told, because that baby was "dying" we spent some vague "sufficient" amount of time trying to find a hospital willing to keep it stuck full of machinery for a few more days.

Now, anybody want to argue that John Edward isn't a charlatan? Or that Fox News doesn't put snake oil peddlers on the air to shill pleasing 19th century baloney for its ignorant viewers?

52

"in what way do the facts of the Schiavo case matter to our existence?"

Man, Jack, you are stupider than I thought.

But no more cowardly than I thought. You got that going for you.

53

Now, anybody want to argue that John Edward isn't a charlatan? Or that Fox News doesn't put snake oil peddlers on the air to shill pleasing 19th century baloney for its ignorant viewers?

To hear you pretend that it matters when you don't really believe it? No. I prefer to have an honest conversation. With an actual human.

54

Man, Jack, you are stupider than I thought.

But no more cowardly than I thought. You got that going for you.

Stupidity, intelligence, you're still lying to yourself and others that it matters. You don't care about honesty Larry; you just want to see your words on the screen in hopes that others will believe you matter when you know yourself that you don't.

55

It would appear to be time to leave Jack alone, red-faced, in the sandbox, and move on to another part of the playground.

56

Jack, did this exchange not happen on FoxNews?

Try to answer directly without dodging the question.

-------------------
DOOCY: You mentioned the Terri Schiavo case. Some might wonder, "Well, you know what, I wonder if he could communicate with her."

EDWARD: I do believe that the soul, the consciousness, can communicate when they're in a state, whether it be a mentally incapacitated person, someone who's in a coma. It's a consciousness, and the soul has a living consciousness. So whether it's in a physical vehicle or not, there is still the ability to connect. Many people will have what they call out-of-body experiences, or astral dreams. Two very living people, that are healthy, could have a kind of connection in a dream state that can be validated. So why not somebody who's in this case?

DOOCY: So she may not be able to talk with her brain, but she can with her soul --

EDWARDS: But she's clear on what's going -- and I can tell you that she's definitely clear on what's happening now around her.
---------------------------

It would be hard to believe that this was aired on a serious news program in 2005. Except that Fox has aired a lot of totally bogus news in its never-ending attempt to shill for its ignorant viewers.

We could ask ourselves why Fox would bother to air the ramblings of a deluded charlatan like John Edward -- but we'll leave those "metaphysical" questions to experts like Jack ...

57

Well, we know what we do unto the "least of these". We kill them, like that baby in Texas last week that nobody peeped about. But that's okay, I'm told, because that baby was "dying" we spent some vague "sufficient" amount of time trying to find a hospital willing to keep it stuck full of machinery for a few more days.

You're still going on about the same old garbage, aren't you Lar. You keep trying to find some hypocrisy here but, sorry, there isn't Lar. And, as a pro-choicer, I don't know how much time I'd spend on talking about others "killing" babies. You want hypocrisy? Find a mirror.

58

"It would appear to be time to leave Jack alone, red-faced, in the sandbox, and move on to another part of the playground."

I tend to agree except I suspect that Jack will poop in every sandbox where he finds me.

59

I tend to agree except I suspect that Jack will poop in every sandbox where he finds me.

Actually, you take care of that of that pretty well yourself. But as I have said, I would be glad to discuss any issue with someone who believes that their words and life have purpose. Larry does not. Why should I imbue his posts with meaning when he contends they have none?

60

Now that Jack has had his say let me put forward that yes John Edwards is a fraud. Yes Fox is petty and exploitive having him on to opine about Terri's condition but it isn't all that surprising or important. Fox is at its heart a tabloid with pretentions of serious journalism, very much in the mold of the British press or its Aussie roots. I expect them to do such things.

The bigger problem is the rank exploitation by people like Senators & Representatives. These people are suppose to be advocating respect for the law and are supposed to make law for the land. They are not supposed to make laws to serve as fundraising/political PR stunts.

In our contry we have given the judicial system the task of making findings of fact. These are quite simply the job of figuring out what is going on in an individual case. The system is then supposed to apply the law to their findings of fact. The job of the legislature and executive is to modify the law as needed.

Bills of Attainer (laws that target just one person) are not strictly prohibited by the Constitution except when they impose criminal punishment. However they are universally recognized by people who have thought rationally on the subject as a bad idea. They encourage cases to be tried in the media and for the benefit of political groups rather than on the facts.

Blog away if you want about the facts of this case but the fact remains the proper forum for resolving it was the courts. The courts heard the facts and gave both sides ample time and opportunity to rebute the other one. Contrary to what was stated, it is possible to successfully appeal an erroneous finding of fact. It is especially possible if the trial judge was egregious in his errors as many here would have us believe.

The congressmen at the bottom of this sham knew better. They also knew a good con when they saw it and all that was accomplished was to give Terri's parents false hope and to rake in a few more dollars for the GOP-Religious Right Industrial Complex. Now the right wingers will cash in a second time as they bemoan Terri's fate and how they were helpless to do anything more (which, BTW, I demonstrated is a lie)

61

Now that Jack has had his say let me put forward that yes John Edwards is a fraud.

So where does the OP even refer to John Edwards?

62

You're still going on about the same old garbage, aren't you Lar. You keep trying to find some hypocrisy here but, sorry, there isn't Lar. And, as a pro-choicer, I don't know how much time I'd spend on talking about others "killing" babies. You want hypocrisy? Find a mirror.

But Mr. Ed Larry's point has never been really addressed. When I pushed you on it you conceded there were no easy answers.

If the principle here is that we should 'err on the side of life' and it is wrong to cause death even to avoid a poor 'quality of life' (i.e. suffering) then the baby is an example of inconsistency. The only meaningful difference being that he lacked the media circus surrounding him.

That isn't to say the hospital didn't make the right decision in the end. From what has been written, to have left him on life support would have been to condem him to a horribly painful death as his lungs grew faster than his body. But all the arguments that apply there also apply to this case. The decision was 'within the law'. There was a 'judicial hearing'. Attempts were made to get everyone to agree and so on.

63

Boonton

"The congressmen at the bottom of this sham knew better. They also knew a good con when they saw it and all that was accomplished was to give Terri's parents false hope and to rake in a few more dollars "

Undoubtedly this is true -- strange that the evangelicals here won't admit it. Even Bombin' Randall Terry has mumbled about "hell to pay" for those "surprisingly" two-faced politicians.

What's even more disgusting is some of these congressional bloodsuckers -- Frist and Colburn, for example -- are on the record saying the opposite of what they are saying now.

Perhaps at the bottom of the barrell are those who would argue that the Schindlers graceless selfish actions should be considered "normal" and anyone who doesn't go "all the way" for their loved ones is worthy of contempt.

So it's obvious now to any reasonable adult that the Schindler's dream to extend their daughter's life against her wishes for their own weird purposes using legal means is finished.

So what is the Christian thing to do now? Based on the platitudes most often screeched here, I'd assume that it's up to Daddy Schindler to go into the hospice with guns a-blazin' to "save" his daughter. Right? If Daddy Schindler "believes" that Terry is "conscious" than how could he behave otherwise without appearing to be a cowardly shmuck that watched his own daughter get starved to death by The Man?

I look forward to some answers but I expect I'll get just another lecture from Mr. Ed and his sorta pathetic clone/sidekick Wacko Jacko.

64

So what is the Christian thing to do now? Based on the platitudes most often screeched here, I'd assume that it's up to Daddy Schindler to go into the hospice with guns a-blazin' to "save" his daughter. Right? If Daddy Schindler "believes" that Terry is "conscious" than how could he behave otherwise without appearing to be a cowardly shmuck that watched his own daughter get starved to death by The Man?

Why would you care about the 'Chritian thing'? Or Buddhist thing? Or JW thing? You're just an observer with no 'thing'.

I look forward to some answers but I expect I'll get just another lecture from Mr. Ed and his sorta pathetic clone/sidekick Wacko Jacko.

Hey, it's just a game to you anyway, isn't it?

65

I'll refrain from judging her parents just as I will from her husband. I think it is best to take them at their word. It is a very hard thing to admit your child is dead, especially if her body still appears alive. Many people simply could not 'pull the plug' on their child even with 100% unimpeachable proof it is what their child wanted & their condition is truely hopeless.

More relevant was the fact that the whole family appeared to have been working together until the husband decided he wasn't going to split the award (this is according to Greer's findings). Then things started to get slimy, especially when the parents allow the husband to be slandered as part of this media circus.

All to often family is all we got in the end and that isn't always a good thing.

66

But Mr. Ed Larry's point has never been really addressed. When I pushed you on it you conceded there were no easy answers.

That's a bit disingenuous. I think gave a fairly comprehensive answer.

If the principle here is that we should 'err on the side of life' and it is wrong to cause death even to avoid a poor 'quality of life' (i.e. suffering) then the baby is an example of inconsistency.

No, I don't think so for a couple of reasons: first, Sun Husdon was terminally ill. Not only that, to call what he went through a "poor quality of life" is much more than an understatement. People who are born with his condition die either before birth of shortly after, but they all die. They suffocate. Keeping him on life wouldn't have simply prolonged the suffering, it would have caused more suffering as his lungs grew more until he finally died. The doctors made it clear, at least from what I've read, that keeping Sun alive would have done far more harm to him thus would be against their ethic.

Terri, on the other hand, seems to be in relative comfort and, had she not been starved, would likley have remained in a similar, maybe better, but not worse state. In other words, she was not terminal; she was not dying.

I know I've said this already so forgive me if I'm repeating myself. But the Larry meme seems to go on.

But all the arguments that apply there also apply to this case.

Actually, I don't believe she was given the chance to be moved to another facility.

67

I look forward to some answers but I expect I'll get just another lecture from Mr. Ed and his sorta pathetic clone/sidekick Wacko Jacko.

Already answered on the other thread when you made that terribly stupid comment the first time. You can go read it if you want.

68

=The point is that nearly two dozen court cases have established that Terry Schiavo expressed her wishes to die if she became a vegetable.

Vegetable? Do you mean in need of life support? Feeding tubes do support life but only in the chronic sense. The 2 dozen courts only accepted Judge Greer's legal approach to his statement of fact not the same as agreeing with the statement of fact. Micheal only asserted this belief 7 years after her injury.

Thank you for your kind corrections of my grammer and spelling. Detroit public schools class of 79.

I would appreciate you not referring to a person as vegetable. My brother is in this exact state and while you may not value his existence I assure you many do.

69

I would appreciate you not referring to a person as vegetable. My brother is in this exact state and while you may not value his existence I assure you many do.

Brian, all the best to your brother. Your care is encouraging

70

People who are born with his condition die either before birth of shortly after, but they all die. They suffocate. Keeping him on life wouldn't have simply prolonged the suffering, it would have caused more suffering as his lungs grew more until he finally died. The doctors made it clear, at least from what I've read, that keeping Sun alive would have done far more harm to him thus would be against their ethic.

Indeed, then how would you have felt about giving the child an overdose of morphine? Even suffocating for two or three minutes is not a pleasent thing to think about.

Terri, on the other hand, seems to be in relative comfort and, had she not been starved, would likley have remained in a similar, maybe better, but not worse state. In other words, she was not terminal; she was not dying.

ironic that you would criticize us for being a culture of comfort (deviating slightly from the pro-life criticism of the 'culture of death') yet cite her supposed comfort as a reason to make the decision that was made. If Joe's argument is valid and life is to be protected then why doesn't that apply to 'uncomfortable' life?

Another point how can we really know if she is in comfort? Suppose she really did mean it when she said she wouldn't want to live 'like that'? Wouldn't it be odd to just assume she would be comfortable with us violating her wishes (as best as we can guess them)?

Actually, I don't believe she was given the chance to be moved to another facility.

No but this is not the substance of the point. I get the sense you would wave this counter-example away by saying 'rules were followed' and a law was enacted with the support of a pro-life lobby. The 'rules' were followed in Terri's case as well. More judical attention was given to this case then most cases that are similar. But in this case we are told we should ignore the results of the process we have set up to resolve such disputes and 'do something'...whether that is civil disobedience or passing special laws tailor made for one person and one situation.

71

Brian,

It seems the operative question here remains that, whatever you want to label the condition she is in, it has been legally concluded, repeatedly, that she clearly expressed her wishes to die under these circumstances. Just because it is her parents who are aggressively contravening this expressed wish, presumably out of love, doesn't change the situation. If she had actually written and signed a living will, would folks still be making the same arguments about keeping her going?

72

The 2 dozen courts only accepted Judge Greer's legal approach to his statement of fact not the same as agreeing with the statement of fact

Actually one of the decisions I cited (I am too tired of retyping them) noted that not only did the Appeals Court agree with Greer's 'legal approach' but essentially agreed with his findings of fact given the evidence.

Is it possible for the judicial system to get some finding of fact wrong? Yes. Is it likely? Not very. Is it likely when the case has been appealed multiple times, both sides have had excellent laywers advocating their caues and been subject to intense judicial and media review? Not very likely at all. If a finding of fact was wrong in such extreme circumstances is it likely that a media circus of postering politicians, medical huckersters and cranks and information being mixed with disinformation by various advocacy groups will get it like? Not very likely at all.

I think maybe, for the sake of the argument if nothing else, we should dispense with the idea that Terri's parents have had an amzing run of bad luck to have drawn numerous lousy and blind judges.

73

Ed

You did give a reasonably comprehensive answer to the Hudson question -- you gave your personal view.

But the "Larry meme" was resurrected in response to the "Brian meme" which, frankly, is far more prevalent view than the view you espoused. Surely you aren't going to claim that the nuanced and carefully-worded (but still crucially vague in some spots) explanation you gave in half-hearted support of the killing of Sun Hudson is remotely typical of the usual statements made by the "right to life" crowd.

And this brings up an over-arching issue which is that it's odd (to me, at least) that relatively thoughtful folks like yourself don't step up to criticize the vapid broad-brushing pronouncements made by your evangelical Christian "peers".

Sheesh. Those John Edward questions are softballs. I would assume that evangelical Christians would loathe people like him. And for Fox News to treat him credibly does a great disservice to your "cause" unless your "cause" truly is dependent on a large mass of really ignorant and gullible people.

74

Vegetable? Do you mean in need of life support? Feeding tubes do support life but only in the chronic sense. The 2 dozen courts only accepted Judge Greer's legal approach to his statement of fact not the same as agreeing with the statement of fact. Micheal only asserted this belief 7 years after her injury.

A vegetable is alive but we agree it has no consciousness (even animals have some degree of consciousness). Hence the term is fine IMO for describing a state where one's mind is gone but the body remains (whether or not it needs life support). I can see there are cases of extreme brain damage where most of the person's mind is gone but there is still a person there. I wouldn't use vegetable as a term in thos cases.

It's not offensive in itself, IMO. I don't know the state of your brother but from what you write it sounds like he has a severe brain injury but he still exists as a person nontheless. I wouldn't describe him as a vegetable even if he needs constant life support.

75

Larry's point is excellent. More than a few Christians have backed away at some of the extremist pro-life ideas that have been spouted in this case. I cited one Christian Liberarian (sadly it was ignored).

76

And this brings up an over-arching issue which is that it's odd (to me, at least) that relatively thoughtful folks like yourself don't step up to criticize the vapid broad-brushing pronouncements made by your evangelical Christian "peers".

Sheesh. Those John Edward questions are softballs. I would assume that evangelical Christians would loathe people like him. And for Fox News to treat him credibly does a great disservice to your "cause" unless your "cause" truly is dependent on a large mass of really ignorant and gullible people.

The purposelessness of your posts aside, what does this have to do with Joe's topic? Believe it or not, we don't all hang out in a big room with John Edward hewing to his every pronouncement. Some of us are completely unaware of how he feels on this, and don't really think it matters all that much.

Jack

77

Indeed, then how would you have felt about giving the child an overdose of morphine? Even suffocating for two or three minutes is not a pleasent thing to think about.

I would have drawn the line there. But I don't see how this applies.

ironic that you would criticize us for being a culture of comfort (deviating slightly from the pro-life criticism of the 'culture of death') yet cite her supposed comfort as a reason to make the decision that was made. If Joe's argument is valid and life is to be protected then why doesn't that apply to 'uncomfortable' life?

Thanks for bringing that up. Comfort was probably not the right term. My point was that she is not dying a painful death where every day that she is kept on life support is more painful than the last, until she reaches the inevitable.

Another point how can we really know if she is in comfort? Suppose she really did mean it when she said she wouldn't want to live 'like that'? Wouldn't it be odd to just assume she would be comfortable with us violating her wishes (as best as we can guess them)?

We can suppose a lot of things. I think we need to be more sure than supposing when we take a life. Honoring her wishes is one thing; trying to ascertain what her wishes are so we can honor them is another. I'm not sure that happened in this case. The absolute only thing we know for certain is that we honored her husband's wishes.

I get the sense you would wave this counter-example away by saying 'rules were followed' and a law was enacted with the support of a pro-life lobby.

How so?

More judical attention was given to this case then most cases that are similar. But in this case we are told we should ignore the results of the process we have set up to resolve such disputes and 'do something'...whether that is civil disobedience or passing special laws tailor made for one person and one situation.

Yes, more judicial attention has been given to this case. But is that a good thing? I mean, if there really are similar cases then why weren't they given more judicial attention? I don't think its too off the point to call out the inequity of the amount of attention this case got versus, for example, the average death sentence.

78

"Honoring her wishes is one thing; trying to ascertain what her wishes are so we can honor them is another."

OK, so I'm curious. If we leave aside the supposed debate about the ambiguity of her wishes, and consider what I'll call a "hypothetical" situation where her wishes were quite unambiguous: she wished to die. And her parents were still opposed. Would anyone here have a problem with that wish being honored, over the objections of her parents?

79

OK, so I'm curious. If we leave aside the supposed debate about the ambiguity of her wishes, and consider what I'll call a "hypothetical" situation where her wishes were quite unambiguous: she wished to die. And her parents were still opposed. Would anyone here have a problem with that wish being honored, over the objections of her parents?

This is actually a great question, I know for myself, if she had a living will, that should prevail. I'm guessing that for the vast majority of others who support her life, they would feel the same.

80

Thanks for bringing that up. Comfort was probably not the right term. My point was that she is not dying a painful death where every day that she is kept on life support is more painful than the last, until she reaches the inevitable.

But when we say comfort we really mean pain and the point remains. Did Joe say 'painful life' wasn't worthy of protection? When he told us about the story of caring for his mother, obviously she was in pain since he was administering morphine to her. Shouldn't painful life be protected as well? After all, I suspect the baby's suffering could have been eased with pain killers as his condition caused a 'natural death'.

We can suppose a lot of things. I think we need to be more sure than supposing when we take a life. Honoring her wishes is one thing; trying to ascertain what her wishes are so we can honor them is another. I'm not sure that happened in this case. The absolute only thing we know for certain is that we honored her husband's wishes.

Well no one has caused death in either example. You agree there is a difference between taking the baby off life support and administering a lethal dose of morphine to him. There would be a difference if the husband asked that his wife be given a lethal dose of morphine and the courts said yes. Assume for the sake of the argument that Terri is able to express something like "I want water" and then drinks without the aid of a tube (and without 'swallowing therapy' requring electric shocks to be sent down her throat). I do not think many people would go along with denying her food and water unaided even if that was the husbands wishes.

Trying to ascertain her wishes is unavoidable in cases like these. No matter what decision you make it runs the risk of violating what the person wants. Even with a unconvertable living will we can never really be sure that maybe the person has changed their mind but just can't communicate it to us. Some process is necessary and its a job I don't envy. I would feel the same way being a judge (or jury) on a capital murder case.

Yes, more judicial attention has been given to this case. But is that a good thing? I mean, if there really are similar cases then why weren't they given more judicial attention? I don't think its too off the point to call out the inequity of the amount of attention this case got versus, for example, the average death sentence.

Is it a good thing? I don't think so. The extra attention has not resolved any issues. Those who remain convinced the whole case is wrongly decided will continue to think so no matter what. Let's face it, if they did decide to do more tests, an MRI and more CAT scans could any conceivable results of those tests change the pro-parents side?

No useful precedent has been set to guide us in the future. No 'lesson learned' other than its probably a good idea for us to make our own living wills so we can spare our families the agony of trying to debate what we would have wanted. I'm not sure if you think the average death sentence gets more or less attention. I cannot recall a death sentence ever being forced into judicial review by a Congressional Bill of Attainer.

On the other hand suppose they tried to pass a law like the one I suggested. Whether or not you agree with that law it would have at least have been a starting point for preventing some disputed cases in the future and would have at least been more objective.

81

Surely you aren't going to claim that the nuanced and carefully-worded (but still crucially vague in some spots) explanation you gave in half-hearted support of the killing of Sun Hudson is remotely typical of the usual statements made by the "right to life" crowd.

The Texas law was co-authored by the Texas Right to Life and National Right to Life committees. Maybe you go a bit overboard in your imagination about what the average right to life opinion is. We certainly know its not above you to go overboard in your generalizations.

And this brings up an over-arching issue which is that it's odd (to me, at least) that relatively thoughtful folks like yourself don't step up to criticize the vapid broad-brushing pronouncements made by your evangelical Christian "peers".

Maybe for the same reason Boon doesn't go out of his way to criticize some of your more over-the-top generalizations.

And for Fox News to treat him credibly does a great disservice to your "cause" unless your "cause" truly is dependent on a large mass of really ignorant and gullible people.

Only in the minds of people who mistakenly think Fox News is somehow the Evangelical spokesmouth. Take some time out, Lar, talk to some people in real life and see what grown, educated people actually think. Remember what I said about not mistaking Christian for Republican and vica versa?

82

" if she had a living will, that should prevail"

That's interesting.

Does anyone here know if written wills are ever contested by interested parties?

83

"This is actually a great question, I know for myself, if she had a living will, that should prevail. I'm guessing that for the vast majority of others who support her life, they would feel the same."

I agree. I'm curious what Mr. Ed thinks?

84

This is actually a great question, I know for myself, if she had a living will, that should prevail. I'm guessing that for the vast majority of others who support her life, they would feel the same.

A very great question Jack. Joe began this discussion last week by arguing that withholding the tube was not just 'non-intervention', it was murder. Living will or not most of the states will not allow a patient to choose suicide. You can leave a living will saying you'd like to be given an overdose of morphine if you're in situation X but the best most of the states will do to honor that is refuse intervention.

So the pro-life side seems to have been of the opinion that removing the tube is closer to giving her an overdose of morphine than it is to simple 'non-intervention'. If that's the case then wouldn't they have to oppose this even if a living will was present?

85

OK, so I'm curious. If we leave aside the supposed debate about the ambiguity of her wishes, and consider what I'll call a "hypothetical" situation where her wishes were quite unambiguous: she wished to die. And her parents were still opposed. Would anyone here have a problem with that wish being honored, over the objections of her parents?

No. Not legally or morally.

86

It would seem then that this really isn't a question of murder but rather whether the bar was/is set too low.

87

Boonton wrote:

Such a bill could have been proposed on the national level as well. What's telling to me is that the Republicans choose to pass a bill that basically said nothing beyond Terri's parents had standing to bring a suit in Federal Court.

I tend to doubt that such a law on a national level genuinely falls within the federal government's constitutional powers. Maybe it does, but an argument over the constitutionality of such a move would be guaranteed.

On the other hand, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the federal judiciary the authority to review such cases. By merely directing the federal courts to exercise their authority, the Congress was able to take a position which is constitutionally sound and which would be less likely to cause a time wasting argument. According to the public debates and the amicus curie (sp?) briefs files by both house and senate sponsors of their respective bills, it was expected that the judges would find it necessary to restore Terri's feeding tube. After all, what point is there in having a trial over whether Terri's rights are being infringed if she has already died?

88

Ed

"Remember what I said about not mistaking Christian for Republican and vica versa?"

Sure Ed. But that's always your sword and never your shield.

You always try to pretend that I'm just making up outrageous stuff.

Bullshxt.

When I hear you spontaneously complaining about crap coming from the mouths of Republicans who are trying to please evangelicals, I'll take your advice seriously. Until then, it's just more hypocricy.

Republicans, Fox News, evangelicals -- this is a trinity that conservative evangelical Christians helped create and continue to foster. You have to be living on Mars to deny this.

If you don't like people pointing it out because you are uncomfortable with the associations, I can understand that. But don't attack the messenger. WHy not be more forthright at pointing out HOW your views differ instead of just whining about how the generalizations are too broad? Why did it take 25 comments to get you to explain why it was okay, from a Christian perspective, to kill Sun Hudson but not Terry Schiavo?

I don't need to be convinced that Christians exist with viewpoints contra to those of the placard-toting rubes on TV. I know they exist.

89

A very great question Jack. Joe began this discussion last week by arguing that withholding the tube was not just 'non-intervention', it was murder. Living will or not most of the states will not allow a patient to choose suicide. You can leave a living will saying you'd like to be given an overdose of morphine if you're in situation X but the best most of the states will do to honor that is refuse intervention.

So the pro-life side seems to have been of the opinion that removing the tube is closer to giving her an overdose of morphine than it is to simple 'non-intervention'. If that's the case then wouldn't they have to oppose this even if a living will was present?

Contrary to the perceptions of some, I don't think there is a monolithic opinion here. In a case where there is some question, and the patients will is specifically expressed in writing (If I get to certain point, I no longer desires measures which would extend my life) I think we should defer to the written wishes of the patient. Otherwise, why bother to have a written will at all? The goal isn't to nullify the desires of the patient, it is to insure there is no doubt. In this case, there is reasonable doubt.

90

According to the public debates and the amicus curie (sp?) briefs files by both house and senate sponsors of their respective bills, it was expected that the judges would find it necessary to restore Terri's feeding tube. After all, what point is there in having a trial over whether Terri's rights are being infringed if she has already died?

of course because the purpose of the bill was to give the impression of doing something while knowing calmer heads would ensure nothing was done. If Constitutional doubts was the reason Congress could have passed a bill with two sections, the first as I described and the second what they actually did pass. In that case either or both of the bills could be used by the courts to achieve the pro-lifers aim.

91

"The goal isn't to nullify the desires of the patient, it is to insure there is no doubt."

Does anyone know whether anyone has ever succeeded in contesting a written will?

92

Jack, if Mr. Ed & others are really arguing over how high the bar should be then fine. I think its pretty unfair to depict thoseon the other side with comparisons to Nazi's (as Joe did) or even describe them as murders.

If there was a bill to give those given death sentences two appeals as opposed to one I wouldn't think those opposed would fairly be called Nazis or murders.

93

Shouldn't painful life be protected as well? After all, I suspect the baby's suffering could have been eased with pain killers as his condition caused a 'natural death'.

Perhaps. Not all pain is that easily remedied. I hope that the physician and ethics committee took that into account.

Yes, life in pain should be protected as well. Don't you think there's a difference, though, in protecting life in pain and prolonging an increasingly painful life? For example, Joe also said this:

When the process of dying becomes irreversible or imminent we should transition from curatative care to comfort care. While this may require removing artificial means of life support or, when the digestive system fails, artificial hydration and nutrition, we must not take measures to hasten the ending of life.

Trying to ascertain her wishes is unavoidable in cases like these. No matter what decision you make it runs the risk of violating what the person wants. Even with a unconvertable living will we can never really be sure that maybe the person has changed their mind but just can't communicate it to us. Some process is necessary and its a job I don't envy. I would feel the same way being a judge (or jury) on a capital murder case.

Nor I. But, as I said, we should try ot err on the side of keeping the patient alive if there is a doubt. In the end we have two bad possibilities: one, we kept a person alive and tried to make them as peaceful and, yes, comfortable as possible against their wishes. The other we let the person die against their wishes. As painful as it may be to witness, as imperfect as it may sound, I'd side towards keeping the person alive.

Let's face it, if they did decide to do more tests, an MRI and more CAT scans could any conceivable results of those tests change the pro-parents side?

I certainly would feel more comfortable that Terri was afforded all we can possibly offer.

94

It would seem then that this really isn't a question of murder but rather whether the bar was/is set too low.

I would tend to agree. And, again, for the record I never said murder.

95

Living wills are contested all the time. The issue is when is it hopeless to continue. The only thing that prevails is if the patient and the family have spelled this out in detail with each other and AGREE prior to tragedy. I have seen families both torn apart and conversly strengthened by these horrible issues. A spouse can always and actually have said that the patient had a change of heart after the will was drafted.

96

"No. Not legally or morally."

OK, so are there any other circumstances or venues-- short of the preparation of a living will-- where she could have unambiguiously expressed her wishes not to be sustained, which would satisfactorily convince everyone that this wish should be honored, legally and morally?

So the big discrepancy over this issue centers around the successive, consistent findings of the courts which concluded, among other things, that her expressed wish *was* in fact to die under such circumstances. And this is not sufficient?

Continuing with the 'hypothetical,' I wonder how many of the people who are prognosticating rather aggressively for reinsertion of the tube, would be satisfied with the statements of a living will, as Mr Ed and Jack would be? As Boonton said, that's probably the biggest lesson we're taking away here.

97

You always try to pretend that I'm just making up outrageous stuff.

Sometimes, yes. Mostly you just take the most extreme examples and pretend all us 'vangelicers are the same.

Why did it take 25 comments to get you to explain why it was okay, from a Christian perspective, to kill Sun Hudson but not Terry Schiavo?

Did that really happen? Or did you just skip over to the next topic and forget you asked the question? I don't know. What I do know is that I've explained it at least three times now.

98

When the process of dying becomes irreversible or imminent we should transition from curatative care to comfort care. While this may require removing artificial means of life support or, when the digestive system fails, artificial hydration and nutrition, we must not take measures to hasten the ending of life.

But this is a contradiction in terms. By definition artificial life support is there to pro-long life, therefore removing it will hasten the end of life. If it wasn't then the artificial support was unnecessary to begin with. An example of that was Quinlin who continued breathing on her own after they removed her respirator (to be fair, no one knew that would happen ahead of time).

Nor I. But, as I said, we should try ot err on the side of keeping the patient alive if there is a doubt...

There will be some cases with no doubts but sadly there will always be some cases where doubts will exist. I would say we crossed beyond reasonable doubt in this case but many on the pro-parents side will not hear that. They are, IMO, similar to some of OJ's supporters who will claim his innocence no matter what evidence is produced. Either this case or OJ we do have a system to resolve these disputes and whatever you may want to say about Greer or the judges above him, he looked at more evidence than anyone on this blog. I think we should honor our legal system because of all the places to judge such serious matters it is better than Congress, the 'blogsphere', talk radio and so on. That last week has saw the instituting of rank disgust for the system while accomplishing nothing for the pro-life cause.

99

Jack, if Mr. Ed & others are really arguing over how high the bar should be then fine. I think its pretty unfair to depict thoseon the other side with comparisons to Nazi's (as Joe did) or even describe them as murders.

If there was a bill to give those given death sentences two appeals as opposed to one I wouldn't think those opposed would fairly be called Nazis or murders.

I would have to look again at what Joe wrote; personally I have a 'no nazi' argument rule that I follow, unless of course (like the young man who went on a rampage just north of me) the person actually calls themselves a nazi.

100

Boonton,
Thank you for your comments. I think a point for me is how can you define cognition in a person of decreased mental abilities. A low functioning adult may never follow a command. Brain dead refers to brain stem activity not cognition. It is a tool for us to decide whether the lowest of brain functions are active.

I know you are not trying to be offensive in your terms. I think however you are crude in your use of those terms. Please accept that people that are professionals who see these types of patients all the time are perplexed with categories. Vegetable implies no validity to me. Maybe I am too close to the trees here.