Further research on Schiavo and euthanasia argues against it.

[Jagella]

I was debating (no pun intended) to myself if I should go forward with this post initializing a new thread on the Schiavo-euthanasia topic discussed elsewhere in this forum. I was personally attacked both in this forum and offsite. It appears to be futile attempting to reason with people who get so emotionally involved in an idea that they cannot accept that they might be wrong. It’s much like my many debates with fundamentalist Christians—the soundest reason backed up with the clearest evidence goes nowhere. Nevertheless, I feel that there is hope that some ground might be gained on this controversy, and to that end I decided to do a bit of research on both Terri Schiavo and euthanasia.

My research involved a visit to my local library, and there I found and borrowed two books. The first of these books, Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo’s Death, is written by Mark Fuhrman, the famous LAPD detective who took the witness stand in the O.J. Simpson trial. Fuhrman, unsurprisingly, examines the Schiavo case by investigating this case to see what, if anything, Michael Schiavo may have done to inflict Terri’s injuries. Fortunately, Fuhrman provides some fascinating and compelling evidence regarding Terri’s condition after she suffered her brain injuries, and it is this evidence that I will present in this thread to bolster the case I’ve been making all along—that Terri was a conscious woman up to the time she was starved to death.

The second book, Euthanasia is NOT the Answer: A Hospice Physician’s View, was written by David Cundiff, MD. Cundiff is an oncologist and hospice care physician who practices medicine in California. Cundiff sheds a lot of light on the euthanasia debate and makes a compelling case that good hospice care, rather than euthanasia, is the route we as a society should take to deal with the problem of people who are dying and their attendant physical and emotional discomfort.

Allow me to briefly review some of the pertinent evidence that I posted on the other thread. Regarding Terri Schiavo’s ability to be consciously aware of her surroundings, I got this from Mouth Magazine:

According to Iyer’s affidavit, “’Help me’ was one of (Terri’s) most frequent utterances.”

This evidence was denied by my opponents. However, I continued to supply evidence including the following:

She never was "brain dead," "terminal," "comatose," "on a ventilator," or "on life support.”

Again, this evidence was not consonant with the euthanasia party line and was dismissed. Fortunately, Silent Witness supplies yet more evidence of Terri’s sentience from Heidi Law, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who worked with Terri:

I was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them. Michael ordered that Terri receive no rehabilitation or range of therapy motion…(243)

When Olga was talking to Terri, Terri would follow Olga with her eyes. I have no doubt that Terri understood what Olga was saying to her. (244)

On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely…

On one occasion Michael Schiavo arrived with his girlfriend, and they entered Terri’s room together. I heard Michael tell his girlfriend that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and was dying. After they left, Olga told me that Terri was extremely agitated and upset, and wouldn’t react to anyone…

In the past, I have taken care of comatose patients, including those in a persistent vegetative state. While it is true that those patients will flinch or make sounds occasionally, they don’t do it as a reaction to someone on a constant basis who is taking care of them, the way I saw Terri do. (245)

I made extensive notes and listed all of Terri’s behaviors, but there was never any apparent follow up consistent with her responsiveness. (247)

We have here powerful evidence furnished from Silent Witness quoting a sworn deposition in which Heidi Law testifies to her seeing Terri act consciously! Moreover, she tells us how Michael Schiavo upset Terri during his visits and how he opposed efforts to provide her with rehabilitative therapy. Hence, we now can see where the “persistent vegetative state” myth originated. Finally, this evidence corroborates the two independent sources that I quoted above as well as Robert Schindler, Terri’s father, also testifying to his daughter reacting to him in a conscious manner. Consequently, the claims presented stating that Terri was “dead,” “brain dead,” or in a “persistent vegetative state” have been rendered false.

But let’s not stop here. Here’s even more evidence to pound the last nail in the coffin of the “it was OK to kill her because she was brain dead” argument:

From 1993 until her death in 2005, Michael denied Terri any form of therapy. Even after Michael Schiavo had denied Terri therapy for several years, several nurses reported her trying to speak, even saying certain words like “mommy,” “help,” and “pain.”…While the Schindlers claim they saw improvements in her ability to swallow, talk, and respond to others, Michael consistently argued that all forms of therapy were ineffective.” (133)

As for the character of Michael Schiavo as well as his credibility, the following quotation from Trudy Capone, a registered nurse who cared for Terri and saw Michael Schiavo frequently, should enlighten us all:

Michael is evil, evil, evil. There is no other word for him. Everything that is around Michael turns bad. Once you get to know Michael, you wanted to run, but he would chase you. (124)

Does this sound like a man that we should consult to see if it’s OK to kill his wife?

In contrast to Michael Schiavo, Dr. Cundiff, fortunately, provides us with a solution of life rather than death. Let’s take a look at his premise:

In my view, improved care of the terminally ill will make the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide moot. (viii)

Many of the people I’ve debated in this forum seem to feel that opinions like that of Cundiff are on the fringe. They often alluded to the alleged desperation of the sick and the injured to attain an escape from their afflictions. This escape, the euthanasia people seem to believe, can only be achieved by “honoring the decisions” of people to die. Is “the question of euthanasia” answered by allowing people to die? Is that what we really want? Are we suicidal misfits?

My experience parallels that of other oncologists and specialists in hospice medicine. Hospice physicians, nurses, and other professionals rarely encounter terminally ill people who wish to have assisted suicide or euthanasia. When it does happen, they almost always change their minds once their physical symptoms are controlled and they are placed in a caring, supportive, hospice environment. (24)

There you go! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Suicidal tendencies among people who are ill or injured originate in poor treatment—not the illness itself.

Is Cundiff a maverick among physicians in that he opposes euthanasia?

At a 1988 conference I attended with about 40 other cancer specialists at the USC-Norris Cancer Hospital in Los Angeles, California, Dr. Westley Robb, a professor of ethics at USC, asked for a show of hands regarding who favored legalizing euthanasia and who would be willing to carry it out if it were legal. Not one hand went up. (89)

I was so happy to read what Cundiff had to say. I admit that I have a rather dim view of doctors, especially after what they did to Terri Schiavo, but I now know that doctors generally wish to help people live—not die. What doctor would wish to have a reputation as a killer?

I tried, evidently in vain, on another thread to explain that feelings of wanting to die can change radically when a person actually “stares into the abyss.” Death is a frightening monster, and we are fools to believe that the way we feel now is the way we might actually feel if death is imminent.

In Dr. Gomez’ study, it was impossible to verify whether a patient’s requests for euthanasia were enduring or temporary. He cited Prof. Van der Meer, who referred to a case in which euthanasia by lethal injection was attempted, but the patient didn’t die. After the patient woke up, he chose to go home rather than undergo another attempt at euthanasia. (99)

This patient’s brush with death and euthanasia is an example of what I’m talking about. Most of you may well change your minds if death is imminent.

But what of pain? How can anybody endure the terrible pain of a disease like cancer or AIDs?

With a concerted effort involving the routine use of opioids and ancillary medicines and treatments, almost 80% of hospice patients in Britain now live pain-free or suffer only mild pain. They remain alert and often stay at home until they die. About 20% of hospice patients continue to have moderate pain despite maximum efforts by the hospice staff. However, most of these patients only have pain when engaged in activities such as walking, gardening, or other physical work. (128)

As we can see, modern medicine’s power to control pain is very adequate. That is if we bother to implement it. Why would we not do what we can to control pain in hospices?

Well reimbursed services such as hospitalization are much more available compared to such poorly reimbursed services as hospice…

For most hospitals and physicians, hospice care decreases income, and so loses money. (155)

Isn’t that despicable? Hospitals know they lose money to hospices, so despite hospice’s power to alleviate pain, they are foregone and ignored in favor of more profitable treatment! So much of the euthanasia program has its origin in greed.

There’s no doubt to me that even darker motives may underlie the push to euthanize people, especially after what I encountered in this very forum. One of my opponents said she supported Dr. Kevorkian. What may be Kevorkian’s motive to offer assisted suicide? Is it really a matter of mercy to him and others in the euthanasia movement?

I told him (Dr. Kevorkian) that I had never assisted suicide or performed euthanasia and that, in my experience, good pain and symptom management make euthanasia unnecessary. Dr. Kevorkian expressed annoyance and impatience, saying that a meeting to discuss these issues would be useless. (186)

Why would Kevorkian learning of effective alternatives to euthanasia be so “useless” to him? If he really wished to help people, then would he not be thrilled to hear what Cundiff was saying? Why did he go back to his efforts to euthanize people after learning that it wasn’t necessary to help people escape pain? It’s obvious to me that something sinister is behind all this euthanasia business, and although I may have failed to change any minds in this forum, I will continue to inform and alert people to its dangers.

Jagella

[Loren Pechtel]

Allow me to briefly review some of the pertinent evidence that I posted on the other thread. Regarding Terri Schiavo’s ability to be consciously aware of her surroundings, I got this from Mouth Magazine:

It's already been demonstrated that they aren't credible.

Continuing to cite them doesn't do much for your position.

[Jagella]

It's already been demonstrated that they aren't credible.

Continuing to cite them doesn't do much for your position.

Not at all. Not suprisingly, you missed my whole point. Mouth Magazine's being corroborated by other, independent sources lends it great credibility. Mouth Magazine was right all along which I fully realized. May I suggest that you study standards of evidence?

You really ought to concede defeat in this debate. It's the right thing to do, and it will help me to see that you're an honest, rational person after all.

Jagella

[Hit & Miss]

Terri was a conscious woman up to the time she was starved to death.
She wasn't starved to death. This is where I quit reading due to gross factual error.

[CanoeMan]

So now you have the testimony of a cop and a cancer doctor, who never saw Schiavo, and a nurse who I assume hasn't had any deeper training in brain disorders. We have the testimony of brain specialists who actually saw her, the autopsy report that showed that most of her brain was gone, and the courts.

And are you implying that the diagnosis of PVS came about because Michael Schiavo told the doctors what to think? Who do you think he is, Sauron? The doctors wouldn't give two shits about what Michael Schiavo thought the diagnosis was. And the nurse saying that he was "evil, evil, evil" sounds pretty bizarre as well. If you tried to get away, he would chase you? What?

And furthermore, about this:I was personally attacked both in this forum and offsite. What we did was calling you on your bullshit when you called (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3678454#post3678454)us all (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3722396#post3722396) nazis and (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3842285#post3842285) neanderthals (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3828515#post3828515). Believe it or not, being called a murderer, fascist and general scumbag tends to piss people off.
It appears to be futile attempting to reason with people who get so emotionally involved in an idea that they cannot accept that they might be wrong. It’s much like my many debates with fundamentalist Christians—the soundest reason backed up with the clearest evidence goes nowhere. Projecting, anyone? Your soundest reason is hearsay twice removed, emotional appeals about how bad it feels to be disabled, and the testimony of people who (most of them) never saw Schiavo. Oh, and lets not forget about your most devastating evidence: a still fotograph of Schiavo. Yeah, that definetively proves that she was conscious and responsive.

[Loren Pechtel]

Not at all. Not suprisingly, you missed my whole point. Mouth Magazine's being corroborated by other, independent sources lends it great credibility. Mouth Magazine was right all along which I fully realized. May I suggest that you study standards of evidence?

You really ought to concede defeat in this debate. It's the right thing to do, and it will help me to see that you're an honest, rational person after all.

Jagella

Mouth magazine repeated something known not to be true. Something they certainly should have known couldn't be true.

Therefore they are at best guilty of willfull blindness and have *NO* credibility whatsoever.

[Dlx2]

She wasn't starved to death. This is where I quit reading due to gross factual error.

Actually, she was. Her bulemia was the direct cause of her degenerative coma.

[Nialler]

Actually, she was. Her bulemia was the direct cause of her degenerative coma.

That's the difference between the passive and the active voices.

Her Bulimia may have been the root cause of her death, but it acted to make her starve herself to death rather than her "being starved" to death (as was referred to in the OP). A small point, but a very important one.

[Dlx2]

That's the difference between the passive and the active voices.

Her Bulimia may have been the root cause of her death, but it acted to make her starve herself to death rather than her "being starved" to death (as was referred to in the OP). A small point, but a very important one.

My point is that her brain death 15 years ago was the direct cause of her being starved to death, an action perpetrated against her body by Terri Schaivo herself. Whether mental illnesses such as bulimia and other self-destructive disorders are the products of an individual's 'free will' or whether they're the result of personal imprinting of absurd cultural standards is up to debate, but the simple fact is that the person who caused Terri Schaivo's brain death was Terri Schaivo herself.

[Nialler]

My point is that her brain death 15 years ago was the direct cause of her being starved to death, an action perpetrated against her body by Terri Schaivo herself. Whether mental illnesses such as bulimia and other self-destructive disorders are the products of an individual's 'free will' or whether they're the result of personal imprinting of absurd cultural standards is up to debate, but the simple fact is that the person who caused Terri Schaivo's brain death was Terri Schaivo herself.

I agree entirely. That's why I was making the dinsticntion between the OP's "was starved to death", and the act in the active voice.

I may have confused the issue by quoting you.

[Jagella]

What we did was calling you on your bullshit...

I won't respond in detail to anybody who uses profanity. You may clean up this post, and if you do so, then I will address the issues you raised. Otherwise, you will be wasting your time. A word to the wise is sifficient.

Jagella

[CanoeMan]

Alright then, here is the exact same post, without profanity. I hope it's worthy of your attention.

<begin original post>
So now you have the testimony of a cop and a cancer doctor, who never saw Schiavo, and a nurse who I assume hasn't had any deeper training in brain disorders. We have the testimony of brain specialists who actually saw her, the autopsy report that showed that most of her brain was gone, and the courts.

And are you implying that the diagnosis of PVS came about because Michael Schiavo told the doctors what to think? Who do you think he is, Sauron? The doctors wouldn't give two poops about what Michael Schiavo thought the diagnosis was. And the nurse saying that he was "evil, evil, evil" sounds pretty bizarre as well. If you tried to get away, he would chase you? What?

And furthermore, about this:

I was personally attacked both in this forum and offsite.
What we did was calling you on your wrongful behaviour when you called us all nazis and neanderthals. Believe it or not, being called a murderer, fascist and general mean person tends to upset people.
It appears to be futile attempting to reason with people who get so emotionally involved in an idea that they cannot accept that they might be wrong. It’s much like my many debates with fundamentalist Christians—the soundest reason backed up with the clearest evidence goes nowhere.
Projecting, anyone? Your soundest reason is hearsay twice removed, emotional appeals about how bad it feels to be disabled, and the testimony of people who (most of them) never saw Schiavo. Oh, and lets not forget about your most devastating evidence: a still fotograph of Schiavo. Yeah, that definetively proves that she was conscious and responsive.
<end original post>

Also, I don't know what sifficient means, but I hope this clean up will be sufficient for you.

[Loren Pechtel]

I won't respond in detail to anybody who uses profanity. You may clean up this post, and if you do so, then I will address the issues you raised. Otherwise, you will be wasting your time. A word to the wise is sifficient.

Jagella

Why do you object to profanity while using terms like Nazi?

[NZSkep]

I won't respond in detail to anybody who uses profanity. You may clean up this post, and if you do so, then I will address the issues you raised. Otherwise, you will be wasting your time. A word to the wise is sifficient.

Jagella

could you give us a list of all words you consider profanity so we won't use them?

[verv2]

Okay, one quick distinction I've noticed with terminology here. The OP mentions euthanasia with relation to Terry Schiavo. Now, I've looked up definitions for euthanasia, and all say the act of killing someone (through lethal injection or other means). In other words actively causing death. Allowing a body to die as it would naturally is much different than actively killing someone. I do not think that euthanasia is what happened to Ms. Schiavo. No one actively put her to death, she was simply not kept alive through extraordinary measures (and I do believe that the need for a feeding tube and total physical care-from diapers to bathing to moving-is extraordinary care).

[Jagella]

And are you implying that the diagnosis of PVS came about because Michael Schiavo told the doctors what to think?

Many of the nurses were bullied by Michael Schiavo into not giving Terri therapy. The doctors may well have been intimidated by him as well. Physicians are not immune to being bullied into swaying a diagnosis or prognosis. In any case, I don’t know for sure how the “persistent vegetative state” business originated, but it certainly didn’t start with the nurses who cared for Terri and testified to her conscious actions.

And the nurse saying that he was "evil, evil, evil" sounds pretty bizarre as well. If you tried to get away, he would chase you? What?

No doubt she was very frightened by Michael Schiavo. Fuhrman said that she was afraid to talk to him about Schiavo, but she came through later.

What we did was calling you on your wrongful behaviour when you called us all nazis and neanderthals.

Please post a direct quotation in which I called any other member a “Nazi” or “Neanderthal.” I did indeed explain the parallels between Nazi philosophy and the rationales for euthanasia and Terri Schiavo’s killing that were posted in this forum. As I hope you can see, I don’t wish to see history repeat itself—anymore than what was done to Terri Schiavo.

Believe it or not, being called a murderer, fascist and general mean person tends to upset people.

In that case, people should not act like “murderers, fascists and general mean persons,” and they won’t have too much trouble with anybody pointing out parallels between them and other murderers, fascists and general mean persons. How do you think people like Terri and I feel when we are denigrated and treated like second-class citizens? It doesn’t exactly make my day when I have people who log onto my web site and personally attack me for simply pointing out that they’re breaking a civil-rights law. I’ve been told that it’s OK for businesses to not bother making their stores accessible simply because they say “it costs too much.” Also, they’ve told me they’re opposed to having entitlements raised so that people need not live in poverty. And of all that’s not bad enough, now we have people who wish to see us dead under the guise of “honoring our (alleged) decisions to die.” Somehow I don’t feel too honored. What goes around comes around, and if you do things like this to people, then you should not be too surprised when they hit you back.

Your soundest reason is hearsay twice removed, emotional appeals about how bad it feels to be disabled, and the testimony of people who (most of them) never saw Schiavo.

Is this supposed to be a joke? I supplied testimony from a nurse who saw Terri Schiavo and cared for her on a daily basis! I suggest you read my opening post more carefully. And that “hearsay twice removed,” it’s called “secondary research,” and it got me through four years of college. Should I contact my alma matre and complain that they taught me to do research in an incorrect manner?

Oh, and lets not forget about your most devastating evidence: a still fotograph of Schiavo. Yeah, that definetively proves that she was conscious and responsive.

If you disapprove of using photos for seeing if a person is conscious, they why do you and your buddies rely on a photo of her brain to do exactly the same thing! At least the photo I posted allowed us to see if Terri appeared to be sentient by examining her facial expression. She was smiling, and I always thought that dead people cannot smile. The photo of her brain at most is evidence that she had brain damage. I agree that better evidence is conceivable, but such evidence is not available because Terri was killed. Fuhrman refers to what was done to her as a “homicide.” There’s no other word for it.

Also, I don't know what sifficient means…

You might find it in the same dictionary as “fotograph.”

Jagella

[Dlx2]

Many of the nurses were bullied by Michael Schiavo into not giving Terri therapy. The doctors may well have been intimidated by him as well. Physicians are not immune to being bullied into swaying a diagnosis or prognosis. In any case, I don’t know for sure how the “persistent vegetative state” business originated, but it certainly didn’t start with the nurses who cared for Terri and testified to her conscious actions.

Yes, clearly the reason why Terri was lying there completely unresponsive for 15 years was because she was working on her PhD dissertation.

No doubt she was very frightened by Michael Schiavo. Fuhrman said that she was afraid to talk to him about Schiavo, but she came through later.

"Scary" does not equate to "evil."

Please post a direct quotation in which I called any other member a “Nazi” or “Neanderthal.” I did indeed explain the parallels between Nazi philosophy and the rationales for euthanasia and Terri Schiavo’s killing that were posted in this forum. As I hope you can see, I don’t wish to see history repeat itself—anymore than what was done to Terri Schiavo.

Not keeping a corpse's basic life functions going with a machine is not equivalent to actively planning the systematic murder of millions of conscious individuals. No one was plotting to get rid of Terri Schaivo. She already got rid of herself with her bulimia-induced cardiac arrest. It took some members of her family 15 years to accept that fact. Other members of her family simply used her condition as a tool to hurt people who loved her.

In that case, people should not act like “murderers, fascists and general mean persons,” and they won’t have too much trouble with anybody pointing out parallels between them and other murderers, fascists and general mean persons. How do you think people like Terri and I feel when we are denigrated and treated like second-class citizens? It doesn’t exactly make my day when I have people who log onto my web site and personally attack me for simply pointing out that they’re breaking a civil-rights law. I’ve been told that it’s OK for businesses to not bother making their stores accessible simply because they say “it costs too much.” Also, they’ve told me they’re opposed to having entitlements raised so that people need not live in poverty. And of all that’s not bad enough, now we have people who wish to see us dead under the guise of “honoring our (alleged) decisions to die.” Somehow I don’t feel too honored. What goes around comes around, and if you do things like this to people, then you should not be too surprised when they hit you back.

Wow, I didn't know the dead have civil rights. What next, the National Association for the Advancement of Deceased Persons? National Coming Out Of the Coffin Day?

Terri Schaivo's brain looked like swiss cheese. Saying that Terri was conscious and still a functional mind in the midst of all that scar tissue and fluid would be like telling a soldier who just lost both legs to a land mine that hee has a good chance of walking within the next two weeks. You can't walk without legs. You can't produce a mind without a brain. Period.

Is this supposed to be a joke? I supplied testimony from a nurse who saw Terri Schiavo and cared for her on a daily basis! I suggest you read my opening post more carefully.

I use electrical equipment many many many times a day. That doesn't make me an electrical engineer, and it doesn't make me qualified to design a power plant.

And that “hearsay twice removed,” it’s called “secondary research,” and it got me through four years of college.

Secondary sources are almost never acceptible. I don't think I ever took a class in college that allowed the use of secondary sources.

Should I contact my alma matre and complain that they taught me to do research in an incorrect manner?

Yes.

If you disapprove of using photos for seeing if a person is conscious, they why do you and your buddies rely on a photo of her brain to do exactly the same thing! At least the photo I posted allowed us to see if Terri appeared to be sentient by examining her facial expression. She was smiling, and I always thought that dead people cannot smile. The photo of her brain at most is evidence that she had brain damage.

A photo of her lying on a bed says nothing about her mental state. Images of her brain demonstrate very clearly that there wasn't enough brain left to actually ]produce a mental state at all.

I agree that better evidence is conceivable, but such evidence is not available because Terri was killed. Fuhrman refers to what was done to her as a “homicide.” There’s no other word for it.

Terri Schaivo died 15 years ago. The conductivity of her cardiac tissue dropped too low due to severe malnutrition as a result of her bulimia. This caused a massive failure of her cardiac muscles to contract, resulting in massive anoxia within her cerebral tissue. This resulted in massive necrosis of her brain tissue and a complete failure of all higher brain functions. What was left of her body was held together by inertia and denial by her family members.

Terri Schaivo died of accidental suicide 15 years ago. It just took her family and the courts 15 years to accept that and move on.

[CanoeMan]

Many of the nurses were bullied by Michael Schiavo into not giving Terri therapy. The doctors may well have been intimidated by him as well. Physicians are not immune to being bullied into swaying a diagnosis or prognosis. In any case, I don’t know for sure how the “persistent vegetative state” business originated, but it certainly didn’t start with the nurses who cared for Terri and testified to her conscious actions.Oh, come on. In my experience, doctors don't take kindly to laymen telling them what to think, and if you think that Michael Schiavo acting rude will persuade several doctors and the US courts, then he should get into politics.Please post a direct quotation in which I called any other member a “Nazi” or “Neanderthal.” I did indeed explain the parallels between Nazi philosophy and the rationales for euthanasia and Terri Schiavo’s killing that were posted in this forum. As I hope you can see, I don’t wish to see history repeat itself—anymore than what was done to Terri Schiavo. Well, the implication was certainly there, as can anyone see who read the threads. Claiming that the nazis killed people because they wanted them (the killed people) to have control over their own destinies is just silly. The other option is that you said that we only wanted to kill her because she was disabled, and not because we honestly thought that she had herself claimed that she wanted to die. So you're either being silly (and claimed that the nazis killed people out of compassion) or you're being offensive (and claiming that we only supported the removal of the feeding tube because we hated Schiavo.) Your pick.In that case, people should not act like “murderers, fascists and general mean persons,” and they won’t have too much trouble with anybody pointing out parallels between them and other murderers, fascists and general mean persons. How do you think people like Terri and I feel when we are denigrated and treated like second-class citizens? It doesn’t exactly make my day when I have people who log onto my web site and personally attack me for simply pointing out that they’re breaking a civil-rights law. I’ve been told that it’s OK for businesses to not bother making their stores accessible simply because they say “it costs too much.” Also, they’ve told me they’re opposed to having entitlements raised so that people need not live in poverty. And of all that’s not bad enough, now we have people who wish to see us dead under the guise of “honoring our (alleged) decisions to die.” Somehow I don’t feel too honored. What goes around comes around, and if you do things like this to people, then you should not be too surprised when they hit you back.Wow, those people sound like assholes (excuse the profanity). Luckily for you, not a single member of this thread have advocated the killing of disabled people. Not one. Ever. In a single post. At all. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

What people have claimed is that
a) Terri Schiavo had expressed the will to not be kept alive under circumstances like PVS, and
b) that Terri Schiavo was in a state of PVS, and
c) that, if a and b was true, then her wishes should be honored and she should be removed from life support.

That is all anyone has said. Not this nonsense about nazis and murdering doctors killing disabled people left and right just because they're "evil, evil, evil".

Just out of interest, do you at least acknowledge that we believe that a,b and c above is correct, and that we aren't advocating euthanasia (those of us here who do) out of malice?Is this supposed to be a joke? I supplied testimony from a nurse who saw Terri Schiavo and cared for her on a daily basis! I suggest you read my opening post more carefully. And that “hearsay twice removed,” it’s called “secondary research,” and it got me through four years of college. Should I contact my alma matre and complain that they taught me to do research in an incorrect manner?

I mentioned the nurse in my post, didn't I? As I said there and I repeat here, I doubt she had deeper training in brain disorders. Why is it that you discard the testimony of the people with most relevant training (doctors, neuroscientists, etc) but you believe every single word of lawyers, cops, and laymen?

And secondary research? What you have is "some guy said that some guy said". I don't find it at all inconceivable that the nurse exaggerated so that she could get a sense of fame (it wouldn't be the first time that happens), that the author misrepresented her in his book in order to make things more dramatic, that the nurse simply misunderstood Schiavos condition due to lack or training, or this being a case of a story "growing in the telling".

Why wasn't the nurse called as a witness in the trial? Or if she was and I just don't know about it, why didn't her testimony disprove the diagnosis of PVS? And how about those continuous six hours of videotape that show Schiavo to be completely unresponsive?
If you disapprove of using photos for seeing if a person is conscious, they why do you and your buddies rely on a photo of her brain to do exactly the same thing! At least the photo I posted allowed us to see if Terri appeared to be sentient by examining her facial expression. She was smiling, and I always thought that dead people cannot smile. The photo of her brain at most is evidence that she had brain damage. I agree that better evidence is conceivable, but such evidence is not available because Terri was killed. Fuhrman refers to what was done to her as a “homicide.” There’s no other word for it.
Are you serious? Have you never seen a dead body or a person in a coma? Their facial expression means nothing, or at least doesn't reflect what is going on inside their heads. But the autopsy photo shows that large parts of her brains are missing! Are you seriously not seeing the difference here?

It's like if I wanted to prove that someone was disabled by taking a photograph of them sitting in a sofa, and someone else taking an X-ray of them showing that the spine was completely severed. They're both photos, but they are not at all the same.

You might find it in the same dictionary as “fotograph.”

Heh, I was in the process of booking a photographer, which in swedish is a "fotograf", while responding to your post, so the words got mixed up in my head.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I seriously can't figure out what word you wanted to use. I thought of sufficient, but "A word to the wise is sufficient" doesn't make any sense to me. I thought about significant, but that doesn't seem to work, either.

[Nialler]

How do you think people like Terri and I feel when we are denigrated and treated like second-class citizens?Here you go again with your shared victimhood complex.

Your situation is simply not analagous to Terri Schiavo's situation.

Schiavo's condition has been thoroughly vindicated by the autopsy. He husband fought to have her wishes carried out. No-one was trying to kill her or sentence her to death (insert your own rhetorical variation).

However, if you see parallels between you and Terri Schiavo (and by that I mean her situation as you portray it), can you show me where anyone here is suggesting that you should be allowed to die, or that your death would benefit society. When you have failed in that, I would also like you to try semonstrate where someone with reasonable access to the machinery of state is agitating for a public policy of euthanising the less than able-bodied.

Incidentally, you said you would do some research. Picking up a couple of books from the library is hardly "research" Particularly when one of the books was written by an admitted perjuror and was released without benefit of the autopsy results.

[blastula]

Wow. The CT mind on display once again.

I guess it's not surprising that this case can affect some people so deeply top take such passionate stands against reason, but the fervor of a few individuals shouldn't take away from the generally pro-sanity display by the public overall regarding this issue. I found it encouraging that most people (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/main682674.shtml) viewed it as a private family issue that shouldn't be meddled with by the government. That view cut across all political and religious spectrums, including fundamentalist Christians. That's probably because almost nobody has been spared from dealing with a terminal ill family member or loved one. It's not so black and white when it happens to you. Religious dogma doesn't seem to apply then. It was one time when the nation was united. This case also marked one of a few major turning points in the past 5 years that jolted conservatives into rethinking their support of Bush and family values Republicans.

To get a good understanding of the whole saga, the best primer is the Wolfson's guardian ad litem report (pdf file (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)). You find there a story of a family that had been very loving, splinter over a falling out over finances. The parents and the husband were very mutually supportive for the first 3 years after her collapse, but when the husband won the malpractice lawsuit, that's when things soured. There was never any evidence that he mistreated her. He went above and beyond, if anything.

You can't blame the parents for thinking they should try anything they could to keep her alive, but you also can't blame the husband for deciding to let her finally die. And most people do agree the husband gets to make the choice in this kind of situation.

The autopsy showed he made the right decision. It also determined she was blind, which shows those lauded balloon video snapshots were of no significance.

[Beave]

Seriously, jagella, if she was acting consciously in any possible way then why didn't anyone just ask her "Hey Terri, would you like us to pull the tube?" If she was acting consciously in any way, shape, or form, there would be a way for her to communicate her wishes. After all, apparently she laughed and obeyed commands and said "pain", "mommy", and "help". This point alone destroys any argument that she was conscious and renders all of your arguments useless.

[Tom Sawyer]

What I want to know is how, with all the media and legal attention surrounding the case after her death, was Michael Shiavo able to bully the doctors into giving a fake photo for the autoposy to make it look like her brain had degenerated when the evidence clearly shows that she was perfectly healthy and sentient? I mean, if both Mark Fuhrman and Bill Frist testify to her conscious state, then clearly somebody put the image through PhotoShop before releasing it to the media, because I can't think of any reason to question anything those two guys would say.

[Tom Sawyer]

double post

[Dlx2]

Here you go again with your shared victimhood complex.

Your situation is simply not analagous to Terri Schiavo's situation.

Maybe Jagella thinks he/she is actually brain-dead?

[Coleslaw]

Maybe Jagella thinks he/she is actually brain-dead?

Mrs. Schiavo was not brain dead; she was in a persistent vegetative state.
From http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm:
A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands.

A definition of brain death can be found at:
http://www.medstudents.com.br/neuro/neuro5.htm

If I understand correctly, PVS patients still have brain stem activity, and brain dead patients don't, but are being kept alive by artificial means of breathing and respiration.

I do think the Florida courts decided correctly in allowing Mr. Schiavo to make the decision regarding his wife's feeding tube, but I also think it's important to be accurate about Mrs. Schiavo's neurological state.

[Apathetically Driven]

Jagella,

As a nursing student and C.N.A. I felt the need to clarify a few things in some of your posts.
I would really like to point out that a C.N.A. is nowhere near an actual nurse and as such quite a few of Ms. Laws comments are not only false but irresponsible. I have included Florida's requirements for CNA below.
From the Florida State Board of Health: (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/cna/cna_cert_req.html)
Certified Nursing Assistants

Certification Requirements

1. Candidates, both first-time and re-certifying, must pass the Experior CNA Exam which is a 2 part examination, consisting of a written and a performance (skills) section.

2. The Written Test is a two-hour test with fifty (50) multiple-choice questions written in English. An Oral or Spanish Test may be requested for the Written Test if you have difficulty reading English and you must ask for it when you submit your application.

3. The Manual Skills Evaluation requires the applicant to perform five (5) randomly selected nursing assistant skills.

4. A state-approved training program is not required prior to examination; however, it is strongly recommended. A high school diploma or its equivalent, or be 18 years of age, is required if the applicant is challenging the exam without completion of an approved training program.

5. Nursing assistants certified out-of-state wishing to transfer their certification to Florida may apply for reciprocity. Please see the Florida Reciprocity and Certification Section, which includes the application materials.

As you have noticed I have bolded a few things in the text above that I felt really needed to be stressed. The state exam is only 50 multiple choice questions (which from prior experience are common sense such as how would you take a temperature orally), you do not have to be literate in order to become a CNA, You are not required to receive any formal training before taking the exam, and last but not least you only have to have a GED or HS diploma if you are under 18 years of age. So as you can see it is very improper to continue calling this person a nurse or giving her credence as such.

Now I would like to respond to some of Ms. Law's quotes you have used as evidence in your beginning post.
According to Ms. Heidi Law:
I was personally aware of orders for rehabilitation that were not being carried out. Even though they were ordered, Michael would stop them. Michael ordered that Terri receive no rehabilitation or range of therapy motion…(243)

Without having Mrs. Schiavo's care plan in front of me I cannot say for certain but I am more than sure that her rehabilitation orders were limited to ROM (range of motion) and were to combat muscular contractions (http://www.ndif.org/Terms/contraction.html) typical of neuro injury patients. This "therapy" is at best used for preventative measures and can be extremely painful when performed on existing contractions. It could be that Mr. Schiavo was simply interested in sparing his wife anymore pain. Furthermore, ROM is a well known cash cow that nursing facilities utilize on their sickest patients because no proof of improvement is necessary for payments to be received.

On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely…

The above quote disturbs me greatly for many reasons but mostly because of the risk Ms. Hall subjected Mrs. Schiavo to. Terri was NPO (Nothing by mouth) and fed through a g-tube for a reason. That reason was due to her inability to functionally swallow foods and fluids due to her neuro injuries. Feeding Mrs. Schiavo greatly increased her risk for aspiration pneumonia (http://www.voiceandswallowing.com/swall_conprob.htm) which is akin to drowning in your own bodily fluids/secretions. At the very least Ms. Hall has shown by her above actions her ability to ignore scientific proof to further her own personal feelings/needs/beliefs and not of her patient. Furthermore, this makes anything Ms. Hall claims to be untrustworthy at best and either uneducated or willful at the least.

Responding generally to the remainder of your post regarding hospice and pain management, hospice is not only utilized extensively in nursing facilities but normally hospice patients receive a higher quality of care than other patients in a nursing facility. They receive a higher ratio of one on one care, and are provided with up to date equipment (specialized beds, feeding equipment, etc.) that otherwise the nursing facility would not provide because of cost involved. Hospice provides these at no additional charge, and regular visits from myriad specially trained staff. Hospice in fact is at times over used and I have personally witnessed many patients that remain on hospice for years for such vague reasons as "failure to thrive". One thing I have never seen in the 10+ years I have been a CNA is real and effective pain management short of a CAD pump (machine which is inserted underneath the skin of the abdomen and directly provides regulated morphine at regular intervals) which is used in the last days. CAD pumps normally render the hospice patient either delirious or in fact aids their death by slowing down their bodily functions such as breathing. In fact, when you are told in a report that Mrs. So and So is now on a CAD pump for pain management your first response is to ready yourself for that patients inevitable and quick death.

Please do not take this as a personal attack (because truly it isn't) but I really hope you will spend some of your energy researching some of these "facts" you have put forth as evidence. Regardless of whether or not this changes your view on Terri Schiavo's death is irrelevant but you would at least know a little about what you are speaking of medically. It may even help you care for yourself or one of your family members at some point in the future being that CVA's are the greatest cause of long term, serious disability (http://www.strokecenter.org/pat/stats.htm). At the very least it is irresponsible to cite the above as "facts" without having the knowledge to do so.

AD

[Hit & Miss]

Actually, she was. Her bulemia was the direct cause of her degenerative coma.While the autopsy didn't quite rule bulimia 100% out, it comes pretty close. At the same time, the autopsy states that there was no evidence of abuse. I don't really care why she collapsed initially. In the end, she died from dehydration from her feeding tube being removed. The autopsy ruled the cause of death as "complications of Anoxic Encphalopathy". Not being a neurologist, I had to look it up. I gotta admit, it makes no sense to me whatsoever as a cause of death in this case, but I'm sure the medical examiner is much more clever than me. The manner of death was stated as "undetermined". Equally as baffling.

It's just sad that I live in a country that has the decency to put a dog out of its misery, but a human has to suffer medical practices that do nothing but prolong pain, humiliation, and unacceptable physical conditions.

[kiwimac]

As I understand it, Terri Schiavo was also on pain meds during her last days.

[Jagella]

Why do you object to profanity while using terms like Nazi?

Making references to Nazi Germany’s euthanasia program is supposed to be equivalent to profanity? For many people here it’s actually much worse than profanity—it’s the truth!

I didn’t bother reading these posts for the last few days because I believed that few here would listen to reason, but now that I’ve come back to check on things, I know that few will listen to reason. So why bother? Why should I waste my time on people who lead me to ask the following question: Am I arguing with Beavis, or am I arguing with Butt-Head?

http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/MTVs_Beavis_and_Butthead_snes_ScreenShot1.jpg

At this point I realize that talk accomplishes little, and I believe I’ll read more of the material on Not-Dead-Yet’s web site to see what can be done to put a stop to these kind of atrocities. “Bad things happen when good men do nothing,” and this good man is about to do whatever he can to defend innocent human lives like that of Terri Schiavo.

Jagella

[Nialler]

More ad-homs. How many is that by this stage?

Nazis, Neanderthals, B&B.

Do we have a new fallacy here? Argumentum ab downloaded image?

[Dlx2]

I know that few will listen to reason.

Don't blame reason for your own shortcomings. Reason has failed to show its face throughout your arguments.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I would like to ask opponents of Terri Schiavo's death the following three questions:

If you knew that you would end up like Terri Schiavo, would you want to go on living? Do you have a living will? If so, isn't one of the reasons why you have a living will so you won't have to end up like Terri Schiavo?

Some people argue that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). How utterly absurd. If I knew that I was going to be immobile and unable to talk for fifteen years, I would much rather be in a PVS than aware of my condition.

What Michael Schiavo did or did not do to Terri Schiavo is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo deserved the right to die. Her parents would no doubt have chosen to keep her alive in that condition for many more years. I would never want to have parents or a spouse like that. Certainly no pet animal would like to have an owner like that.

[verv2]

I would like to ask opponents of Terri Schiavo's death the following three questions:

If you knew that you would end up like Terri Schiavo, would you want to go on living? Do you have a living will? If so, isn't one of the reasons why you have a living will so you won't have to end up like Terri Schiavo?

Some people argue that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). How utterly absurd. If I knew that I was going to be immobile and unable to talk for fifteen years, I would much rather be in a PVS than aware of my condition.

What Michael Schiavo did or did not do to Terri Schiavo is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo deserved the right to die. Her parents would no doubt have chosen to keep her alive in that condition for many more years. I would never want to have parents or a spouse like that. Certainly no pet animal would like to have an owner like that.

Heck no I would not want to go on living if I was going to end up like Terri Schiavo.

No I don't have a living will, and although I know I should get one (and will eventually) I have expressed this desire to my husband. My husband is also the only person who knows that I don't want to be embalmed or buried. He knows what my wishes are. My mother would have me both embalmed and buried regardless of my wishes. I also suspect that she would keep my body alive for as long as she could because she wouldn't want to give up hope. Frankly, I don't care what my parents or any other family member wants, and that is why I trust my legal next of kin, my husband.

[Loren Pechtel]

Making references to Nazi Germany’s euthanasia program is supposed to be equivalent to profanity? For many people here it’s actually much worse than profanity—it’s the truth!

"Nazi" is effectively a dirty word.

[Dlx2]

"Nazi" is effectively a dirty word.

Worse, really. I'd rather be an anus, a pile of excrement, genitalia (either male or female), a female dog, or explicit sex acts than an implementor of racial genocide. Most folks here would agree.

[jaded_revenge]

I wish the ammount of effort put into saving a dead person ws put into saving WinAce

[Writer@Large]

I didn’t bother reading these posts for the last few days because I believed that few here would listen to reason, but now that I’ve come back to check on things, I know that few will listen to reason.
You didn't bother reading anything, because you "knew" that others wouldn't bother reading anything? The word "hypocrite" springs to mind, especially with Apathetically Driven's post sitting just three above yours, awaiting response.

--W@L

[Christina Mirabilis]

Is “the question of euthanasia” answered by allowing people to die? Is that what we really want? Are we suicidal misfits? (Emphasis added)

I find it interesting that you seem to assume that ‘we’ (whoever that might refer to) have the right to ‘allow’ or not allow anything when it comes to the wishes of an individual to die on their own terms.

Suicidal tendencies among people who are ill or injured originate in poor treatment—not the illness itself.

And you know this because…?

How do you think people like Terri and I feel…And of all that’s not bad enough, now we have people who wish to see us dead…

Could you explain what you mean by ‘people like Terri and I’? I can’t imagine that you think that you’re speaking for all people with a terminal illness or a physical or mental disability, and I doubt anyone would have considered Terri to be (literally) brain dead if she could type as well as you can.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Also, I don't know what sifficient means, but I hope this clean up will be sufficient for you.

This debate has barely gotten to the second page and it's already distasteful even on page 1.

The debaters are too emotional and have lost self control. There is no rational debate here. I lament having come here in the attempt to find useful ideas. I will now procede to amend my mistake.

[Barney Gumble]

This debate has barely gotten to the second page and it's already distasteful even on page 1.

The debaters are too emotional and have lost self control. There is no rational debate here. I lament having come here in the attempt to find useful ideas. I will now procede to amend my mistake.
You must be reading a different thread than I. I see extremely well-reasoned responses (despite the OP's continued use of ad-hominen attacks), Apathetically Driven's post is one such example. Pointing to a single post that mocks a typo hardly invalidates these offerings, it seems more like a childish way to stuff your fingers in your ears and scream "Nah nah nah!" - like refusing to read a post because it has some naughty words in it.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Other than a religious person, only a mentally incompetent person would choose to live in Terri Schiavo's condition instead of choosing to die if given a choice between the two.

It is interesting to note that if all of a sudden, one billion people in the world became like Terri Schiavo was, including not having a living will, if it was illegal to discontinue feeding those people, every stock market in the world would immediately crash and the world would enter the greatest financial depression in human history by far. A nuclear war could produce a similar situation.

[CanoeMan]

You must be reading a different thread than I. I see extremely well-reasoned responses (despite the OP's continued use of ad-hominen attacks), Apathetically Driven's post is one such example. Pointing to a single post that mocks a typo hardly invalidates these offerings, it seems more like a childish way to stuff your fingers in your ears and scream "Nah nah nah!" - like refusing to read a post because it has some naughty words in it.

While I've been a little mean in my posts in this thread (which is pretty much because Jagella is constantly implying that I'm an evil sociopath simply because I disagree with him), I actually didn't try to mock that typo. I don't see the point of doing that, and I never have in the past (except in a humorous way, as when people misspell "spelling nazi" or similar things). English isn't my native tongue, and I thought sifficient was an actual but obscure word. That I used the word myself in my answer was just happenstance.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Jagella, you have chosen not to respond to valid, sober, coherent posts. That is your choice, but don't pretend you aren't responding, because other posters, in your estimation, are being rude or refuse to respond intelligently to your arguments.

For example, you keep miscategorizing what happened to Terri as "euthanasia," which it was not. You repeatedly assert that the determination of Terri's physical condition was somehow entirely Michael's, ignoring the fact that she had been in a PVS for fifteen years and Michael spent every last dollar he had on the best care he could get for her. So, were all of those doctors over the years lying to Michael and Terri's family about Terri's condition? Michael managed to somehow superhumanly intimidate fifteen years worth of doctors and attendants and the courts into committing serious breaches of ethics, not to mention malpractice, for what end?

So Michael could get them to "kill" his wife for him, because Michael's an "evil, evil, evil" mastermind who plotted this whole thing from the beginning?

Then why wait so long? Let's set asside for a second the fact that it was Terri's doctors who informed Terri's family that the only thing keeping her alive were their machines and that she was evidently in a permanent vegetative state; assume the conspiracy theory for the sake of argument (as is my wont :D): Michael tried to kill her fifteen years ago and that's what caused her initial condition (and not what qualified physicians diagnosed; i.e., that it was her bulimia that caused it).

If that were true, then when that failed and he was now faced with a despised wife in a PVS, why not immediately start the process he did years later, after going broke on the best care he could get? Guilt? He tries to kill her, it doesn't work, he feels guilty for a while and then gets over that years later and now wants to kill her again?

Because he's "evil, evil, evil?" After six months, a year, two years, it would have been abundantly clear to all of Terri's physicians (as the record shows it was) that Terri was, for all intents and purposes, a corpse whose body and organs were being artificially forced to function. At any time, the "evil" Michael could have instituted his evil lie that Terri had previously, rationally expressed her desire to her husband (as husbands and wives often discuss) not to be kept alive in that situation.

Except that he doesn't do that, not for several years and all of his savings, etc., because, by his own testimony, he loved her and didn't want to accept what the doctors were telling him either (aka, denial).

I don't know if you've ever been married, or not, but if you've ever been in a relationship, you will know that what two people say to each other in the privacy of that relationship is not always what they would tell their parents, or even their siblings, particularly if they already knew, for example, that the information would not exactly "jibe" with other's beliefs. That, or it could be that she never seriously considered such a question until she got married and it was raised (however, and if it was raised).

Regardless, "evil" Michael could have made this argument at any time in those early days and months and years, but does not. Why?

:huh:

Does that factor into any of this at all and if not, how do you account for that?

Jagella: I tried, evidently in vain, on another thread to explain that feelings of wanting to die can change radically when a person actually “stares into the abyss.” Death is a frightening monster, and we are fools to believe that the way we feel now is the way we might actually feel if death is imminent.

All the more reason, then, to make that decision in a "clear" mental state, before the terror of that inevitable abyss adversley effects one's more rational thinking abilities, yes? The issue is to what the individual wants when they are at their most rational, not when they are at their least; that's the whole point of a living will and sadly, if Terri and Michael had simply written one up the next day after apparently discussing her wishes at whatever point in their marriage Michael alleges they did, none of this would be an issue.

But, they didn't and so here we are.

Setting aside the fact that Terri's autopsy proves she did not have the brain capacity to stare into an abyss, let alone communicate any alleged change, you have no way of knowing whether or not Terri did, or did not change what was left of her mind. Indeed, as another poster pointed out (and you have ignored), the "facts" you claim prove Terri was sufficiently conscious enough to not only communicate, but to change her mind after hypothetically staring into that abyss would mean she had at least fifteen years to make it known that she had, in fact, changed her mind.

So, why didn't she, if not throughout those fifteen years, certainly at some point during the last several years when the issue was trapped in legal proceedings? No one tried to get her to understand and communicate her wishes, knowing as they all did what the stakes were? She was conscious enough to communicate that she was in pain, but not that she wanted to remain alive and nobody makes this connection in the years of legal proceedings?

And did it never occur to you that perhaps communicating basic things like "pain" was her way of saying, "Let me die?" Because that's what happened to her and not that she was "killed." The machines that were artificially keeping her body functioning were turned off and her body was allowed to follow the natural course it was on fifteen years earlier.

Now, could you please address the relevant arguments, in particular Apathetically Driven's points? And is it so much of a stretch for you that seeing one's vegetable wife being forced to undergo pointless physical therapy as Michael did for years might be something emotionally and morally unthinkable to a husband who has finally come to grips with the inevitable and wants her alleged wishes to be left in peace granted?

Don't you think you might respond in a negative, or even hostile way after fifteen years of not being able to bury your wife who, but for the miracle of Western medicine, died fiftten years earlier, once you come to grips with that fact?

If it were my wife under those same conditions, I not only would behave in an "evil, evil, evil" way around anyone who dared to presume they could treat her body like some sort of Frankensteinian monster for years, but I hope I would have the courage to shut off her machines myself, whether or not I had the "permission" of the state to do so, because that's what people who love each other and respect each other should do, IMO.

And I certainly wouldn't marry anyone who thought differently. What happened to Terri is not something I would want to experience, let alone be forced to experience for fifteen years (not to mention indefinitely as would have been the case had the courts not ruled as they did), and while my parents or brothers might not have the emotional courage to come to grips with that fact, my wife sure as shit had better, or there'd be no marriage to begin with.

:huh:

[singularapathy]

Bra-fucking-vo, Koy.:notworthy:

[Coleslaw]

Jagella, you have chosen not to respond to valid, sober, coherent posts. That is your choice, but don't pretend you aren't responding, because other posters, in your estimation, are being rude or refuse to respond intelligently to your arguments.

For example, you keep miscategorizing what happened to Terri as "euthanasia," which it was not. You repeatedly assert that the determination of Terri's physical condition was somehow entirely Michael's, ignoring the fact that she had been in a PVS for fifteen years and Michael spent every last dollar he had on the best care he could get for her. So, were all of those doctors over the years lying to Michael and Terri's family about Terri's condition? Michael managed to somehow superhumanly intimidate fifteen years worth of doctors and attendants and the courts into committing serious breaches of ethics, not to mention malpractice, for what end?

One aspect of the Schiavo situation that I found particularly sad is the unwillingness of many of those who wanted to see Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube continued to believe that Mr. Schiavo could be wrong (from their point of view) and still be acting in good faith. His most vocal opponents' argument did not seem to be "Mr. Schiavo is a good man who sincerely loves his wife and believes that he is fighting to carry out her wishes, but he is wrong about that because [fill in reasons here]." No, if he did not agree with their assessment of the situation, it must have been because he was a bad person who wanted his wife dead. This inability to imagine an opponent acting in good faith seems to pervade public life these days, but to me it has the worst effect when situations such as this, where loved ones are struggling to make the best decision for an incapacitated and uncurable family member, a decision that is hard enough when not being subjected to scorn and abuse from strangers who don't know as much as they think the do.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As is completely understandable, it was the blame game and Michael was the outsider; the interloper who beguiled the Schiavo's innocent, loving, pure daughter and then treated her like....fill in the blank.

It was therefore his fault she had bulimia (which may be true from a psychological perspective, but completely irrelevant); his fault that she was in a PVS; his fault, his fault, his fault.

And the irony is, that even if all of that were true and Michael Schiavo was an "evil, evil, evil" guy and everything he did was self-serving, so what? His attempts to stop the state from continuing to puppetmaster his dead wife's body--regardless of his motives--are by far and away the more moral, humane approach than what Terri's own parents wanted for her, all because they simply refused to face the incontrivertible fact that she was little more and never would be anything more than a corpse forced to keep functioning by human technology.

Hell, chickens are more consciously aware than Terri could ever hope to be and we cut their heads off and hack their bodies into pieces for food by the hundreds of billions.

:huh:

The hypocrisy of all of this arrogant nonsense that human life is somehow sacred, while no other life is, endlessly astounds me.

[nogods4me]

I wish the ammount of effort put into saving a dead person ws put into saving WinAce

Game, Set, Match.

:frown:

[dmarker]

Jagella,

As a nursing student and C.N.A. I felt the need to clarify a few things in some of your posts.
I would really like to point out that a C.N.A. is nowhere near an actual nurse and as such quite a few of Ms. Laws comments are not only false but irresponsible. I have included Florida's requirements for CNA below.
From the Florida State Board of Health: (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/cna/cna_cert_req.html)


As you have noticed I have bolded a few things in the text above that I felt really needed to be stressed. The state exam is only 50 multiple choice questions (which from prior experience are common sense such as how would you take a temperature orally), you do not have to be literate in order to become a CNA, You are not required to receive any formal training before taking the exam, and last but not least you only have to have a GED or HS diploma if you are under 18 years of age. So as you can see it is very improper to continue calling this person a nurse or giving her credence as such.

Now I would like to respond to some of Ms. Law's quotes you have used as evidence in your beginning post.
According to Ms. Heidi Law:


Without having Mrs. Schiavo's care plan in front of me I cannot say for certain but I am more than sure that her rehabilitation orders were limited to ROM (range of motion) and were to combat muscular contractions (http://www.ndif.org/Terms/contraction.html) typical of neuro injury patients. This "therapy" is at best used for preventative measures and can be extremely painful when performed on existing contractions. It could be that Mr. Schiavo was simply interested in sparing his wife anymore pain. Furthermore, ROM is a well known cash cow that nursing facilities utilize on their sickest patients because no proof of improvement is necessary for payments to be received.



The above quote disturbs me greatly for many reasons but mostly because of the risk Ms. Hall subjected Mrs. Schiavo to. Terri was NPO (Nothing by mouth) and fed through a g-tube for a reason. That reason was due to her inability to functionally swallow foods and fluids due to her neuro injuries. Feeding Mrs. Schiavo greatly increased her risk for aspiration pneumonia (http://www.voiceandswallowing.com/swall_conprob.htm) which is akin to drowning in your own bodily fluids/secretions. At the very least Ms. Hall has shown by her above actions her ability to ignore scientific proof to further her own personal feelings/needs/beliefs and not of her patient. Furthermore, this makes anything Ms. Hall claims to be untrustworthy at best and either uneducated or willful at the least.



AD

I'd like to add a few words about CNA's from my own 10+ years that I did the job. Most only work as CNA's for a few years and have a limited experience with patients depending on the facility they work at. I've seen CNA's unable to cope with a second stage Altzeimer's patient when one was introduced to a facility that normally did not handle people with that condition.

Not only the lack of experience makes a difference, but the fact that CNA's do the primary care with extended contact with patients also makes a difference. It's very hard to do this for a patient who has no reaction and no awareness of their surroundings and easy to see reactions and awareness where there are none.

Plus, CNA's are most carefully taught that just because someone is non-responsive doesn't mean that they cannot hear or see. This often translates to everybody is aware despite evidence to the contrary.

Now, I'm going to weigh in on what I've seen.


I've only seen pictures on Ms. Schaivo, but I'll tell you what I see. She had complete contracture of both arms. Her feet had completely dropped which is the contracture of the Achilles tendons plus the feet had fallen over which indicates atrophy and contracture in the legs. And, most important, her neck and face were contracted fully. In all the pictures, she has her head tilted back and her lips are pulled from her teeth. No one gets this amount of contracture unless they have not moved voluntarily in quite some time. And I've noticed something else about the pictures, each one purportedly showing a different expression were shot from slightly different angles.

I cannot attest to her brain state, I'll leave that to neurologists. But my experience with a variety of patients tells me that Ms. Schiavo hadn't voluntarily moved any part of her body in many years.

[FatherMithras]

It's funny that Jagella accuses us of horrible biases and not reading the arguments he uses. Besides the obvious irony that Jagella obviously has almost zero exposure to any refutations of his argument (which correspond better with the facts!) and that he won't even read the refutations, the fact that people on here have refuted every argument he's brought should show that actually, they have been exposed to her BS arguments.

[kiwimac]

Game, Set, Match.

:frown:

BTW, it's one year since Winace left us :frown: :mad:

[Aria]

One thing this whole situation has taught me is that you should make it clear to EVERYONE in your family, and any close friends, exactly what you want done in situations like this.

[winstonjen]

I responded to David Cundiff's book in the other topic. Here is my response once more.

Cundiff is a palliative care nurse, so of couse he would like to believe that euthansia is never necessary. But when they engage in terminal sedation, they have failed. Many people would rather get death out of the way than stay in a coma for three weeks before they die.

I suspect that with more experience, Cundiff will come to realise that euthanasia and assisted suicide respect the rights of the individual and that palliative care is not the answer in all cases.

There are many types of suffering that pallative care cannot address. There's psychological terror (What if they don't give me enough morphine? What if they take too long to respond?), among other things, such as weight loss and dependency issues.

And let's face it - the double effect (http://www.dwdv.org.au/TheDoubleEffect.html) is a murderer's dream come true. All they need to do is increase the morphine, lie about their intention, and voila - they get away with murder, because you can't really "prove" someone's intention.

I do not want someone else to control my death. People own their own lives - anything else is slavery.

I will not put up with the failures of palliative care, like this - http://www.exitinternational.net/esther_wild.htm

With the law gone Esther had little choice but to subject herself to the gradual process of slow euthanasia (terminal sedation). Esther took four days to die, waking frequently as her body seemed immune to the amount of morphine need for her “pain”.

This long and drawn out process was almost too much for her partner Martin who, at one point, demanded “the bloody drugs. If you don’t do something I’ll bloody do it”. It took all my powers of persuasion to stop him taking the law into his own hands.

Unlike the quick, painless deaths experienced by the four people who used the ROTI Act, Esther had to endure a slow macabre process. There is no comparison.

A study in South Australia in 1992 (South Australian Select Committee on the Law and Practice Relating to Death and Dying, Final Report, 1992) showed the following disturbing results.

3% of severe cases of weakness were helped by treatment. (Probably because sedatives cause weakness in their own way)

11% of severe loss of appetite cases.

0% of severe weight loss cases.

75% of severe pain (it's much better now, but it's STILL NOT PERFECT).

42% of severe constipation cases were helped.

63% of severe cases of trouble sleeping.

14% of severe coughing.

0% of severe confusion.

40% of fluid retention.

25% of all other symptoms.

Now, unless you can show me another, more recent study, I will continue to consider palliative care as "pathetic care".

What are your views on that?

[winstonjen]

Hmmm... It's been a while since Jagella's last reply.

It seems that if we aren't "courteous" enough to acknowledge the "fact" that respecting the wishes of people not to be kept alive is equivalent to mass genocide of the disabled, then he won't be "courteous" enough to debate with us.

[Jagella]

I may regret this, but I decided to make a statement or two in this thread because I see some comments that might be worthwhile to address. I hope I’m right.

A study in South Australia in 1992 (South Australian Select Committee on the Law and Practice Relating to Death and Dying, Final Report, 1992) showed the following disturbing results.

3% of severe cases of weakness were helped by treatment. (Probably because sedatives cause weakness in their own way)

11% of severe loss of appetite cases.

0% of severe weight loss cases.

75% of severe pain (it's much better now, but it's STILL NOT PERFECT).

42% of severe constipation cases were helped.

63% of severe cases of trouble sleeping.

14% of severe coughing.

0% of severe confusion.

40% of fluid retention.

25% of all other symptoms.

Now, unless you can show me another, more recent study, I will continue to consider palliative care as "pathetic care".

What are your views on that?

I remember seeing a humorous comic in my college statistics textbook. It depicts a fat cat businessman ordering his subordinate thus: “Now that’s the gist of what I want to say. Go find me some statistics to back it up.”

Your statistics may or may not be accurate, but let’s assume that they are and that they weren’t a result of a search as explained above. In addition, let’s say that people who are very sick or injured are in such discomfort that they are desperate to end their own misery. The hospices are doing a “pathetic” job of caring for these unfortunate individuals. What do we do? Your solution is death. It appears that you have not thought of another rather obvious solution: Improve the care in hospices! It’s a very simple solution, and one need not be an Einstein to have thought of it.

Why do so few people think of such an obvious solution? I haven’t failed to notice that the comments on these euthanasia threads reflect the viewpoint that sick or injured people are hopeless wretches that are better off dead. These attitudes are not accurate: I’ve been exposed to people who have had limbs amputated, have been diagnosed with cancer, have had paralyzing strokes, and have incurred spinal-cord injuries (I’m a hopeless wretch that falls into that last category). Generally, the most prominent source of misery is not physical pain or “impairment” but is anger or depression that results from isolation, loneliness, or poverty. These sources of misery are not the direct result of “disability” but are inflicted by ignorant, cruel people on those they see as inferior. With such attitudes in our socially-Darwinistic society, it should come as no surprise that making care better for people who are not valued is not seen as an option.

Jagella

[Jagella]

Hmmm... It's been a while since Jagella's last reply.

It seems that if we aren't "courteous" enough to acknowledge the "fact" that respecting the wishes of people not to be kept alive is equivalent to mass genocide of the disabled, then he won't be "courteous" enough to debate with us.

Hmmm. Well, my absence as of late might have something to do my being cursed at in this forum with nothing done by the “moderators” to stop it. It could also have to do with my posting a photo of a smiling Terri Schiavo in an attempt to demonstrate her sentience, being called “idiotic” for so doing, and then seeing my opponent proceed to post a photo of her brain scan to prove she was “dead”! Of course, posting that photo was very intelligent. Can you say “double standard”? Finally, having been branded on another website as a “fundamentalist” and then reading an entire page devoted to insulting me, I guess I just didn’t see arguing with such people as fruitful.

Jagella

[winstonjen]

Hmmm. Well, my absence as of late might have something to do my being cursed at in this forum with nothing done by the “moderators” to stop it. It could also have to do with my posting a photo of a smiling Terri Schiavo in an attempt to demonstrate her sentience, being called “idiotic” for so doing, and then seeing my opponent proceed to post a photo of her brain scan to prove she was “dead”! Of course, posting that photo was very intelligent. Can you say “double standard”? Finally, having been branded on another website as a “fundamentalist” and then reading an entire page devoted to insulting me, I guess I just didn’t see arguing with such people as fruitful.

Jagella

You're not entirely innocent either. You have labelled all of your opponents as Nazis and murderers, even when they come out and clearly state that they do not wish to execute disabled individuals who don't want to die.

A still photograph proves nothing. Terri's movements were random and not indicative of consciousness. Why do you believe nurses and Mouth Magazines ahead of neurosurgeons who have actually examined Terri?

If she was conscious, surely she would have responded to the years of therapy that Michael used to try and make her better, not to mention the training he underwent to become a nurse.

Your statistics may or may not be accurate, but let’s assume that they are and that they weren’t a result of a search as explained above. In addition, let’s say that people who are very sick or injured are in such discomfort that they are desperate to end their own misery. The hospices are doing a “pathetic” job of caring for these unfortunate individuals. What do we do? Your solution is death. It appears that you have not thought of another rather obvious solution: Improve the care in hospices! It’s a very simple solution, and one need not be an Einstein to have thought of it.

No, my solution is to respect the choice of those who wish to die.

If they want to continue living despite horrific pain, that's up to them. It should not be up to you, especially since you'd enforce pain and life on everyone, regardless of what their personal wishes are.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Jagella: I may regret this, but I decided to make a statement or two in this thread because I see some comments that might be worthwhile to address. I hope I’m right.

All evidence so far to the contrary.

MORE: I remember seeing a humorous comic in my college statistics textbook. It depicts a fat cat businessman ordering his subordinate thus: “Now that’s the gist of what I want to say. Go find me some statistics to back it up.”

Nice strawman! Everyone's just evil and wants to murder the sick, so they all start with this bias and then data mine for stats to support it!

How conveniently black and white your worldview seems to be.

MORE: Your statistics may or may not be accurate,

They aren't his statistics, they're the conclusions from a "study in South Australia in 1992 (South Australian Select Committee on the Law and Practice Relating to Death and Dying, Final Report, 1992)."

MORE: but let’s assume that they are and that they weren’t a result of a search as explained above.

They weren't as explained above.

MORE: In addition, let’s say that people who are very sick or injured are in such discomfort that they are desperate to end their own misery.

Why? What has this to do with whether or not Terri Schiavo was a vegetable who had previously told her husband in the privacy of their marriage her wishes not to be kept alive by machines?

Or was that never the intent of your posts here?

MORE: The hospices are doing a “pathetic” job of caring for these unfortunate individuals.

Are they? Surely in many instances, but across the board? How do you justify that? With statistics, perhaps? No, that couldn't be, or else the same indictment you lobbied against these stats would ipso facto apply to your stats.

MORE: What do we do?

We talk about specific cases; investigate them; and change the circumstances by making arrests or levying heavy fines or taking them to court for criminal neglect.

MORE: Your solution is death.

Wow! Just....wow. Yes, death is the solution. KILL ALL SICK PEOPLE! Because this is the lessson of a husband who wanted to respect the alleged wishes of her fifteen years dead wife.

MORE: It appears that you have not thought of another rather obvious solution: Improve the care in hospices! It’s a very simple solution, and one need not be an Einstein to have thought of it.

And this improvement in care would have done what to reconstitute Terri's brain?

MORE: Why do so few people think of such an obvious solution?

Because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Terri Schiavo? Much like just about every single one of your posts?

MORE: I haven’t failed to notice that the comments on these euthanasia threads

WHAT?

Are you physically incapable of understanding that Terri Schiavo was not euthanized and that this is not a "euthanasia thread?"

:eek:

Of course not, because as is painfully obvious, this thread has never been about Terri Schiavo to you.

MORE: reflect the viewpoint that sick or injured people are hopeless wretches that are better off dead.

PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE. That is not "sick" and that is not "injured;" that is dead without electricity. A power failure would and, in essence, did kill her. Or rather, allowed for her fifteen years dead already corpse to finally stop artificially functioning.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that? Are you a brain dead vegetable whose organs are being artificially kept functioning?

MORE: These attitudes are not accurate: I’ve been exposed to people who have had limbs amputated, have been diagnosed with cancer, have had paralyzing strokes, and have incurred spinal-cord injuries (I’m a hopeless wretch that falls into that last category).

Ahhhh, so there it is. You are a vibrant mind cut off from the use of your body. My sincerest condolences. That must fucking suck giant hairy balls and I sincerely wish it weren't the case. But what was Terri Schiavo according to the findings of the best neuroscientists and medical examiners in the country (not to mention the courts who heard her parent's case)?

They were all just wrong damn them? I tell you what, if you're that terrified that someone is going to mistake your lack of physical movement to be cause for murdering you, I'd write a living will real damn quick and hire as many private bodyguards as I could afford.

What this has to do with Terri Schiavo still alludes me, but hey, so long as we've never apparently been talking about her actual, physical condition and only about your actual, physical condition, why bother answering that?

I'm incredibly sorry for whatever happened to you, but your brain wasn't effected, so you have what Terri (and her husband and her family) did not. Sorry to put it in terms you can understand, but then, you can understand them. She could not as was constantly demonstrated for fifteen years to the point where not even the threat of her being taken off life support resulted in her ability to say, or intimate, or blink, "No."

So since your brain was not effected, I strongly suggest you write such a will immediately and have someone tatoo on your chest, "Use all machines possible to keep pumping my heart no matter if my brain is actually removed from my body. I want my body to remain functioning artificially forever."

MORE: Generally, the most prominent source of misery is not physical pain or “impairment” but is anger or depression that results from isolation, loneliness, or poverty.

None of which afflicted the Schiavos, with the exception of poverty and isolation certainly does apply to you as these posts prove.

MORE: These sources of misery are not the direct result of “disability” but are inflicted by ignorant, cruel people on those they see as inferior.

So you're pissed at the mistreatment you have received. And this applies to Terri how?

MORE: With such attitudes in our socially-Darwinistic society, it should come as no surprise that making care better for people who are not valued is not seen as an option.

Terri ceased being a person fifteen years ago. Not because her body was paralyzed as yours apparently is, but because her brain liquified.

That wasn't the result of bad hospice care, or cruel hospice attendees, or even any of the countless doctors she had over the years and certainly not because of anything her husband or family did. She did it to herself, apparently, as a result of bulimia (unless you believe as others do that bulimia is a biological disorder, in which case, it was her father's and mother's genes mixing in her mother's womb that ultimately caused her death fifteen years ago).

What you are no doubt responding to is the terror that someone would mistake you for dead and turn off the machines that are presumably performing functions your previously non-severed spinal cord afforded, yes?

Well, again, you obviously have the ability to say, "Don't," but then, your brain isn't liquid goo like Terri's was.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that Terri had fifteen years to communicate this fact, but did not; not even during the years her case was before the courts.

Why? Because she was dead. She died fifteen years ago. You, however, did not, so what has any of this got to do with you?

[Loren Pechtel]

Your statistics may or may not be accurate, but let’s assume that they are and that they weren’t a result of a search as explained above. In addition, let’s say that people who are very sick or injured are in such discomfort that they are desperate to end their own misery. The hospices are doing a “pathetic” job of caring for these unfortunate individuals. What do we do? Your solution is death. It appears that you have not thought of another rather obvious solution: Improve the care in hospices! It’s a very simple solution, and one need not be an Einstein to have thought of it.

Most of those symptoms are things for which we don't have good treatments. After all, if medicine could deal with everything the issue would never arise in the first place.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Jagella: It could also have to do with my posting a photo of a smiling Terri Schiavo in an attempt to demonstrate her sentience, being called “idiotic” for so doing, and then seeing my opponent proceed to post a photo of her brain scan to prove she was “dead”! Of course, posting that photo was very intelligent. Can you say “double standard”?

Can you say she was dead? It's ok. She was. As all of her doctors and the courts determined very carefully and without any malice whatsoever.

Only you are ascribing malice and I can understand your comparative anger, but not at the fact that she was dead. She was not smiling any more than chickens with their head's cut off are still going to live if their bodies nonetheless run around without their heads.

You are trapped, apparently, in a body that no longer works. Terri, however, died only her doctors were forced to keep the machines going that artificially pumped her heart and processed her wastes, initially by her husband's denial and then her family's denial.

What has that got to do with your condition? Your organs must also be kept functioning artificially or you will die? Then I guess that leaves only one difference between you and Terri; your brain isn't swiss cheese. Her's was.

Nothing to do with you or your condition and everything to do with whether or not "you" are dead. No brain, no self aware consciousness. That's the way it works.

:huh:

That's not, btw, how I think it works or how the evil doctors think it works or how the evil, evil, evil husband thinks it works, that's actually how sentient life works. No brain, no life.

As proved by your condition, of course; as your body may not be functioning, but your brain is. Her's simply not only wasn't, it no longer existed.

Do you understand how that is fundamentally different from your condition?

MORE: Finally, having been branded on another website as a “fundamentalist” and then reading an entire page devoted to insulting me, I guess I just didn’t see arguing with such people as fruitful.

Once again, you play the victim when there have been several posts (mine included) which argued the actual issues, to which you just steadfastly refuse to address.

Why? What do you want from us? To agree that Terri was not a vegetable and was in fact vibrantly conscious as you are and that she was murdered because our society just hates the "sick and injured?"

Is that it? Because if it is, you've made a terrible case for it.

:huh:

What did you want to happen? That Terri's body was kept functioning until when? She no longer had a brain, so, when? Until the year 2110 when the first successful brain transplant could be performed? The year 2210 when the first functional artificial brain could be implanted?

Seriously. How long would you have wanted doctors to keep Terri's body functioning and why?

[CanoeMan]

Hmmm. Well, my absence as of late might have something to do my being cursed at in this forum with nothing done by the “moderators” to stop it. Hi, remember me? I'm the nazi/callous murderer/neanderthal who would make Hitler proud :wave: It could also have to do with my posting a photo of a smiling Terri Schiavo in an attempt to demonstrate her sentience, being called “idiotic” for so doing, and then seeing my opponent proceed to post a photo of her brain scan to prove she was “dead”! Of course, posting that photo was very intelligent. Can you say “double standard”? When discussing brain damage, a photograph of someones face does, in fact, say nothing. A photo of someones brain does, in fact, show if large parts of it are missing. It is the same difference as a photo of someone sitting in a chair and an x-ray of their spine. The first doesn't tell us if they are disabled or not, the second can at least show if the spine is broken. Finally, having been branded on another website as a “fundamentalist” and then reading an entire page devoted to insulting me, I guess I just didn’t see arguing with such people as fruitful.

Jagella

Well, not to label you too much, but you do come of as a wee bit fundie, sorry.

[Griff]

It’s obvious to me that something sinister is behind all this euthanasia business,You seem determined to believe as much, in any event.

[FatherMithras]

Originally Posted by Jagella
It’s obvious to me that something sinister is behind all this euthanasia business
I see something far more sinister in your utter lack of respect for people's free will and ability to make choices for themselves.

[Jagella]

I see something far more sinister in your utter lack of respect for people's free will and ability to make choices for themselves.

I’m so happy to see that you believe people should make choices for themselves. I believe in the very same principle. So are you with me when people make the choice to live free of all barriers both physical and social? Are you with me when people choose to attain employment and earn a good living? How about those who cannot work for some reason—do you believe they have the free will to live free of poverty by having their entitlements raised? If so, then please visit my web site (http://accesswilliamsport.org/), and then get back to me regarding how you can help many people choose for ourselves. It’s great to meet a person who truly believes in people’s freedom to make choices for themselves!

Jagella

[winstonjen]

I’m so happy to see that you believe people should make choices for themselves. I believe in the very same principle. So are you with me when people make the choice to live free of all barriers both physical and social? Are you with me when people choose to attain employment and earn a good living? How about those who cannot work for some reason—do you believe they have the free will to live free of poverty by having their entitlements raised? If so, then please visit my web site (http://accesswilliamsport.org/), and then get back to me regarding how you can help many people choose for ourselves. It’s great to meet a person who truly believes in people’s freedom to make choices for themselves!

Jagella

Yes, I support all of those things.

The question is, why do you not respect the free will of those who choose to die? Suicide isn't always a result of depression.

[Griff]

Pull the plug!

Pull the plug!

Pull the plug!

[FatherMithras]

Yes, I support all of those things.

The question is, why do you not respect the free will of those who choose to die? Suicide isn't always a result of depression.
Agreed. But even that isn'y my problem with Jagella. My problem is his constant intellectual dishonesty, refusal to read sources outside his own, his constant, deceitful equivocating of respecting someone's choice to have their life support taken of if in a PVS (or similar) state with wanting to commit genocide against people who are "not fit to live". This last part is the worst. It's a constant lie repeated no matter what we say or how many times we correct it. If I were to tell Jagella that she wanted Schiavo alive so she could be used as a sex toy for perverts, I would be exactly as intellectually honest as what Jagella has been saying.

The fact that Jagella pretends to care about people's choices, when he only seems to want to make sure he and other handicapped people don't get shit on by society, appears to me one of the most selfish things imagineable. I still see it as less of an issue than the above.

[The AntiChris]

Let's keep it civil.

Please refrain from making insulting personal comments.

Chris (Mod, MF&P)

[Christina Mirabilis]

Jagella, I read your website and I can see that you're a pretty dedicated activist for the rights of the disabled and I think that's great. I think Koy has a good point though that the Schiavo case and/or euthanasia isn't a good vehicle for that discussion because she wasn't disabled in the sense that you are. The issues surrounding the case lead more to a discussion of the right to die than to one of how disabled people are treated in our society. I think that if you started a new topic to talk specifically about the rights of the disabled, you might not draw as much heat as you are for trying to draw a comparison between yourself and Terri Schiavo.

[Jagella]

Let's keep it civil.

Please refrain from making insulting personal comments.

Chris (Mod, MF&P)

This is totally ridiculous. You do absolutely nothing when these jerks curse at me, but when I try to point out that somebody here is lying, you censor me! I'm out of this forum as of NOW. Infidels is a total disgrace to the freethought community. There are indeed evil atheists--Stalin, Mao, and Infidels.

Jagella

[Christina Mirabilis]

What makes you think that Chris was only talking to you? I got the sense that the warning was for everyone.

[CanoeMan]

This is totally ridiculous. You do absolutely nothing when these jerks curse at me, but when I try to point out that somebody here is lying, you censor me! I'm out of this forum as of NOW. Infidels is a total disgrace to the freethought community. There are indeed evil atheists--Stalin, Mao, and Infidels.

Jagella

Overreact much? The warning wasn't intended for you, it was intended for everyone in the thread.

[Loren Pechtel]

Overreact much? The warning wasn't intended for you, it was intended for everyone in the thread.

As an uninvolved mod I'll chime in on this: In-thread warnings are generally used when both sides are getting out of hand.