SHiavo -- wtf?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

SHiavo -- wtf?

Postby Roadkill » Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:49 pm

Shiavo is scheduled for death in about an hour. Big whoop. WHy the hell is this receiving international attention? Polls show that the majority (70+%) beleives she should be allowed to die. The husband says she had said to him she would not wish to live in this state prior to when she became this way -- not surprising, many people think that.

SShe is an empty shell of human, has been for over a decade. Even if she does respond, it is not meaningful enough to keep her alive. Please people, wake up. I hope her life wasn't supported by tax dollars.

Comon, congress, get your heads out of this. Stick with the budget.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:09 pm

haven't heard anything about this until just now. if only i had had cable, then FJ wouldn't be my source for main stream news, heh :)

anyway, here's an article i found on the subject:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/mod ... oryid=3317

what are the arguments that are being made for not allowing her to die, out of curriosity?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Drazo » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:21 pm

haven't heard anything about this until just now


Neither have I, but then again, I am in a seperate country and I don't usually care what happens in the world.

But in this case, pretty much anyone deserves to die (unless they ARE innocent). That might be rather cold hearted sounding but I am quite cold hearted after all. Besides, 70% of [totalvotes#] can't all be wrong, can they?
[Don't watch here carefully]
User avatar
Drazo
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 8:59 pm

Postby Roadkill » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:12 pm

well, the arguments are mostly that simply because she is alive, and doesn't necessarily require physical sustainment for her survival (as in respitory machines, dialisis, etc), we owe her morally to protect her from death.

IT's a flawed argument at best. But a florida judge has refused to let her be sustained on the feeding tube. COngress has issued subpeonas, and is putting their time in to try to get her protected as a congressional witness, and get her case into federal courst. COnsidering the outcome of all the polls, it should end the same way -- she will die. The judge was right when he said (paraphrapsing) "You've had 5 goddamn years to get this done -- the order has expired, and you've done nothing until then. She has the right to die."

I'm watching fox news btw, my dad leaves the TV on that half the day.

Anyway, people are attacking congress for wasting time on this subject when they should be worrying about the deficit, among other things.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:21 pm

But in this case, pretty much anyone deserves to die (unless they ARE innocent).

what does innocence have to do with this? if someone doesn't want to be in a vegitative state for 10 years then they don't want to be in a vegitative state.

as far as who best knows what Shiavo's true desires were... just as kids will often ask things of the the parent whom they know will be the most receptive to their wants, it's been my observation that adults will go to the person they know will be the most receptive to their desires - to the person whose least likely to want to change your mind. shiavo's parents, in this instance, sound like they would've tried rather hard to change Shiavo's mind, whereas her husband may not have been.

incidently, if we have a moral obligation to keep this person alive because she doesn't require fancy equipment to stay alive, then why is it okay to kill animals out of sympathy? conversly, if it's okay to kill animals out of sympathy, why isn't it okay to let people kill themselves if they're suffering and have no hope of recovery?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby LarryTGC » Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:26 am

I have been keeping up with this case for a long time.
Believing in the Right to Life, I am outraged by what is happening.

The husband (after he got over 1 million dollars to care for Terri) claims she told him she wouldn't want to live 'like this'

Well, there is no written documentation of this. And in my opinion without written documentation you must come down on the side of Life. Not starvation.

It is not like she is in a coma hooked up to all kinds of machines to keep her alive. All she has is a feeding tube. Thats it.

And from expierence with my Grandfather, a person on a feeding tube can learn to eat again with therapy.

Her husband, shortly after recieving over a million dollars to take care of Terri, stopped all therapy for her. So since 1991 she has had no therapy.

Over 30 doctors submitted briefs stating Terri's condition could improve greatly if therapy were allowed.

So here we are. A judge orders her feeding tube to be removed and in 2 weeks or so when Terri is starved and dehydrated, she will die.

And some people call this compassion. I call it murder.

Death by Starvation;

The effects of such feeding tubes being removed can be seen by the third or fourth day, when the patient's mouth begins to look dry and the eyes appear sunken. From days five to 10, respiration becomes irregular with periods of very fast and then very slow breathing. By the final days, kidney function declines, toxins begin accumulating in the body, and multiple organ systems fail from lack of nutrition.



The disabled across the land must be scared to death at these events.

If anyone is interested in researching this case and seeing video of Terri (links about half way down) you can visit this link.

http://www.terrisfight.org/
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby Drazo » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:55 pm

TerraFrost wrote:
But in this case, pretty much anyone deserves to die (unless they ARE innocent).

what does innocence have to do with this? if someone doesn't want to be in a vegitative state for 10 years then they don't want to be in a vegitative state.


I was refering to criminals and such alike. Ignore the "But in this case" bit. :oops:
[Don't watch here carefully]
User avatar
Drazo
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 8:59 pm

Postby Drazo » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:56 pm

TerraFrost wrote:
But in this case, pretty much anyone deserves to die (unless they ARE innocent).

what does innocence have to do with this? if someone doesn't want to be in a vegitative state for 10 years then they don't want to be in a vegitative state.


I was refering to criminals and such alike. Ignore the "But in this case" bit. :oops:
[Don't watch here carefully]
User avatar
Drazo
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 8:59 pm

Postby tsian » Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:42 pm

It's a simple right-to-die case combined with a who-take-legal authority quagmire.

The husband believes it was his wife's wish to die. Just as he could make the choice to request doctors not to perform 'heroic actions', he thinks he should be able to pull her tube if she did not want it.

The parents are opposed to this.

Personally, if she is to die, I would hope it could be done in a more humane way than starving her to death... but I'm not sure American law allows for that.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby tsian » Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:44 pm

It is not like she is in a coma hooked up to all kinds of machines to keep her alive. All she has is a feeding tube. Thats it.

And from expierence with my Grandfather, a person on a feeding tube can learn to eat again with therapy.


Err... she is in a coma though, hence her not being able to settle the matter :p
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:06 pm

No, shes not in a coma. Anyone that saw the videos on the link I posted would know she is not in a coma.

There is an interesting article about her settling the matter.

"You had better say you want to live or they will kill you. Just say you want to live."

Schiavo responded with a drawn out, "IIIIII," then screamed out "waaaaaaaa" so loudly that a police officer stationed outside the room came in.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=43383

It is a shame that speech therapy was ordered stopped 14 yrs ago. Imagine what she would be saying to all the so called 'compassionate' people that support her starvation.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:08 pm

Interesting.

At any rate, it's not exactly a wonderful case to fight for the right-to-die with
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:35 pm

No especially without any written consent from the patient. Just hear say from a husband that now has 2 children with another woman.

An injustice has been done here.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby Exalted Ugu » Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:14 am

I dont know, nor particularily care to know enough about this case to have an opinion one way or the other. Though i am generally in favour of a right to die, this case seems far too muddy for any clear-cut judgement.

However, the WND article that Larry posted was little more than tripe, the entire thing being an unsubstatiated claim of an activist of another claim made by a lawyer, though no mention is made of who the lawyer represents, nor is any evidence presented that would help a reader determine the likelyhood of truth here. The article is emotionally manipulative, but factually bankrupt.

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:39 pm

However, the WND article that Larry posted was little more than tripe, the entire thing being an unsubstatiated claim of an activist of another claim made by a lawyer, though no mention is made of who the lawyer represents, nor is any evidence presented that would help a reader determine the likelyhood of truth here. The article is emotionally manipulative, but factually bankrupt.


Ahh, So the article is tripe. But the husband stating Terri said she wanted to die is ROCK SOLID.

I know you dont really care about this case.
But the euthanasia freaks out there have created a Martyr with their constant fake compassion and drumbeat to starve this woman to death.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron