I hope Michael Schiavo...

[The Ressurrected One]

...and the Florida Judiciary are having trouble sleeping.

After 10 years, brain-damaged Buffalo-area fireman makes astounding recovery (http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050503/ca_pr_on_wo/firefighter_recovery)


Herbert, who will turn 44 Saturday, was fighting a house fire Dec. 29, 1995, when the roof collapsed, burying him under debris. After going without air for several minutes, Herbert was comatose for 2 1/2 months and has undergone therapy ever since.

News accounts in the days and years after his injury describe Herbert as blind and with little memory, if any. Video shows him receiving physical therapy but apparently unable to communicate and with little awareness of his surroundings.

Same type of injury -- oxygen deprivation -- as Terry Schiavo. Same prognosis.

As the President said of Ms. Schiavo, "When in doubt, choose life."

Thank God Mr. Herbert's family decided not to starve him to death. I hope we've all learned a lesson.

[travis2]

I hope we've all learned a lesson.

Yeah. Kill 'em quick before anyone has the chance to bitch about it.

[The Ressurrected One]

Yeah. Kill 'em quick before anyone has the chance to bitch about it.
Okay, not what I was going for...but, point taken.

[DrRich]

Funny how this happens just weeks after Terri's death. Could it be someone (from Above) telling people you screwed up?

[travis2]

Okay, not what I was going for...but, point taken.

Should have ended with [/sarcasm]. Just to be clear.

[Useruser666]

So everyone who is barely conscious should be kept alive even though only a super slim percentage of them will ever improve in condition? And those that have told their family that they didn't want to be kept in such way should have those wishes ignored?

[The Ressurrected One]

Then, the "Therapist" had this, this morning:

Judge Greer Orders Brain-Damaged Firefighter To Move To Florida (http://politicaltherapy.blogspot.com/)


Feeding tube to be inserted upon arrival, says court

Miami--Acting on the testimony of medical officials in New York, Pinellas County court judge, George Greer, has ordered brain-injured firefighter, George Herbert and his family, to move to Florida immediately.

"The court finds the testimony of Dr. Jamil Amhed to be especially compelling," said judge Greer in his written opinion. "His references to Mr. Herbert's 'almost being in a persistent vegetative coma state,' require the immediate enactment of an unfortunate and prolonged legal battle. The court orders Mr. Herbert to become the recipient of liquidated food through a feeding tube, until this court later deems it appropriate to deprive him of said nourishment."

Herbert was injured in a house fire in 1995, and has not spoken a word. Saturday, he awoke, asked for his wife, and engaged them heartily for the next 14 hours, until he fell asleep. Since then he has lapsed in and out of varying degrees of lucidity. Democratic activists say that despite Mr. Herbert's conversational bent in recent days, that his animations and dialogue are really a cry for help.

“Judge Greer’s foresight is simply amazing,” said California senator, Barbara Boxer. “By getting this man his needed nourishment through a feeding tube, it brings the whole unfortunate situation into focus. That tube needs to be there for the sake of everyone—the family, the judges. When the time comes to remove it, we won’t have to do the legal backtracking of having it installed, only to immediately take it right back out—like taping off a house before you paint.”

[The Ressurrected One]

So everyone who is barely conscious should be kept alive even though only a super slim percentage of them will ever improve in condition? And those that have told their family that they didn't want to be kept in such way should have those wishes ignored?
Yep...unless it's in writing or was said in front of more than one person.

Particularly if the person, to whom you've allegedly expressed this wish, has abandoned you for another woman, started another family, and fought tooth and nail to have you killed in spite of the remainder of your family's desire to continue caring for you.

Yeah...even though.

[Useruser666]

Sorry, I don't believe in that.

[The Ressurrected One]

Sorry, I don't believe in that.
In what?

[Useruser666]

That statement. I would change the title of this thread to, "I hope people stay out of the personal business of others who they know nothing about."

[The Ressurrected One]

That statement. I would change the title of this thread to, "I hope people stay out of the personal business of others who they know nothing about."
So, if I want to kill my unruly, undisciplined, ADHD, bipolar child; it's nobody's business but my own?

[Useruser666]

Uh, that is not the same as the Shiavo case.

[The Ressurrected One]

Uh, that is not the same as the Shiavo case.
No, but it is in line with your "leave-my-ass-alone-and-let-me-do-whatever-I-want" sentiment.

So, where do you draw the line?

Me, I say if there's any doubt, choose life. And, in Terry Schiavo's case, there was a butt-load of doubt over whether or not her wishes were being followed.

Further, in light of the remarkable recovery of Mr. Herbert, it seems a crying shame that we so easily allowed Terry Schiavo to be put to death.

[jalbre6]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/05/05/firefighter.recovery.ap/index.html

"Certain medications had shown promise in Dr. Jamil Ahmed's more recently brain-damaged patients, drugs normally used to treat Parkinson's disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression. He gave them to Herbert."

"The drug combination, he said, was meant to stimulate neurotransmitters, which brain cells use to communicate with one another."

Does this mean that since Herbert's wife was willing to try an experimental drug therapy that all of a sudden Schaivo didn't exhaust every avenue?

[The Ressurrected One]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/conditions/05/05/firefighter.recovery.ap/index.html

"Certain medications had shown promise in Dr. Jamil Ahmed's more recently brain-damaged patients, drugs normally used to treat Parkinson's disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression. He gave them to Herbert."

"The drug combination, he said, was meant to stimulate neurotransmitters, which brain cells use to communicate with one another."

Does this mean that since Herbert's wife was willing to try an experimental drug therapy that all of a sudden Schaivo didn't exhaust every avenue?
Yep. That's exactly what it means...

[Useruser666]

No, but it is in line with your "leave-my-ass-alone-and-let-me-do-whatever-I-want" sentiment.

So, where do you draw the line?

Me, I say if there's any doubt, choose life. And, in Terry Schiavo's case, there was a butt-load of doubt over whether or not her wishes were being followed.

Further, in light of the remarkable recovery of Mr. Herbert, it seems a crying shame that we so easily allowed Terry Schiavo to be put to death.

An ADHD child is not being kept alive by feeding tubes or respitory equipment. I have seen a loved one on a feeding tube. They were conscious and weren't in the position Shiavo was. If you were in the husband's position, and by the law had every right to decide her fate, should it not then be up to him?

What if you have a living will that says you don't want to be kept alive, yet when put in a position such as Shiavo's, your family protests to keep you alive? What to do then?

I didn't see this case as man trying to kill his wife to go have some affair with another woman, or cash in a will. She had been given more than a reasonable amount of time to recover. He went through the proper legal channels to forfill her wishes. Things like this should never become over blown media affairs. The case was judged properly before it was weighed in the court of public opinion.

[The Ressurrected One]

An ADHD child is not being kept alive by feeding tubes or respitory equipment. I have seen a loved one on a feeding tube. They were conscious and weren't in the position Shiavo was. If you were in the husband's position, and by the law had every right to decide her fate, should it not then be up to him?
Okay first of all, what is "respitory" equipment? And, second, the feeding tube was the only medical intervention being used with Ms. Schiavo -- and, it is hardly considered an "extraordinary" measure to sustain life. As you said, you have seen a conscious relative with such an apparatus.

What if you have a living will that says you don't want to be kept alive, yet when put in a position such as Shiavo's, your family protests to keep you alive? What to do then?
I think the relevant point here is that Ms. Schiavo didn't have a living will. Should she be punished for that oversight on her husband's sayso alone?

I didn't see this case as man trying to kill his wife to go have some affair with another woman, or cash in a will. She had been given more than a reasonable amount of time to recover. He went through the proper legal channels to forfill her wishes. Things like this should never become over blown media affairs. The case was judged properly before it was weighed in the court of public opinion.
A) ...reasonable time...? Define.

B) ...legal channels...? We agree what he did was legal. The whole discussion is about whether is was moral, ethical, or should be legal.

C) ...forfill her wishes...? Prove that.

D) ...Things like this should never become over blown media affairs...? Well, if her mother and father had been allowed to assume care for Ms. Schiavo, it wouldn't have.

[exstatic]

Left is a normal brain. Right is Schiavo's. Anything dark is just spinal fluid. The aggressive drug therapy used on the firefighter was to stimulate neuron connections. I think there actually have to be neurons present for this to happen.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/2%20CTs.png

[The Ressurrected One]

Left is a normal brain. Right is Schiavo's. Anything dark is just spinal fluid. The aggressive drug therapy used on the firefighter was to stimulate neuron connections. I think there actually have to be neurons present for this to happen.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/2%20CTs.png
Since you're not a physician and I'm not inclined to take your word for it...I'd like to see the firefighters brain as well.

[Useruser666]

Okay first of all, what is "respitory" equipment? And, second, the feeding tube was the only medical intervention being used with Ms. Schiavo -- and, it is hardly considered an "extraordinary" measure to sustain life. As you said, you have seen a conscious relative with such an apparatus.

I think the relevant point here is that Ms. Schiavo didn't have a living will. Should she be punished for that oversight on her husband's sayso alone?

A) ...reasonable time...? Define.

B) ...legal channels...? We agree what he did was legal. The whole discussion is about whether is was moral, ethical, or should be legal.

C) ...forfill her wishes...? Prove that.

D) ...Things like this should never become over blown media affairs...? Well, if her mother and father had been allowed to assume care for Ms. Schiavo, it wouldn't have.

A resonable amount of time passed since there were plenty of doctors that came forward and declared Shiavo would not recover.

If you don't think a husband should be able to forfill his braindead wife's wishes then contact your congressman. If the husband says that she indicated that's what she wanted, then it's NONE of your business to say otherwise. He was the guardian of her at that point in time, and he should make the decisions.

The mother and father didn't have the right to assume care for Terry. It should be decided in a court of public opinion. It is a private family matter to be resolved by her husband, her guardian. He knew that's not what she would have wanted, and fought for her wishes to be carried out. If the court had ruled that the parents were the guardians, then their wishes would have been carried out. It's as simple as that.

[SPARKY]

Left v Right
Right v Left
Fuck Left
Fuck Right

[MannyIsGod]

Left v Right

Right v Left
Fuck Left
Fuck Right

AfuckingMen

[samikeyp]

Who are we to tell her husband that is not what his wife wanted? Sorry, I don't think that is fair. When you get married, you assume responsiblity for your spouse. My wife and I discussed this at length and we would not want to continue in that state. I think those wishes should be respected. No one knows what is better for my wife than I and vice versa. I would do what is best for her in accordance to her wishes and doomed be he who tried to tell me otherwise.

One thing we all forgot in this post....Best wishes to that man and his family now that he is back with them.

[MannyIsGod]

One thing we all forgot in this post....Best wishes to that man and his family now that he is back with them.Yes, once again death has been used for political gain.

[The Ressurrected One]

A resonable amount of time passed since there were plenty of doctors that came forward and declared Shiavo would not recover.
Doctors told Mr. Herbert's family the same thing.

If you don't think a husband should be able to forfill his braindead wife's wishes then contact your congressman.
I have.

If the husband says that she indicated that's what she wanted, then it's NONE of your business to say otherwise. He was the guardian of her at that point in time, and he should make the decisions.
Even if the husband may be the person responsible for her state? Generically speaking, of course -- because there's no evidence he did. I know that if I were a slug husband wanting out of the burden of caring for my incapacitated wife...I might, 7 years down the road all of a sudden remember she wanted to die if she ever ended up that way. Yep, un huh.

The mother and father didn't have the right to assume care for Terry. It should be decided in a court of public opinion. It is a private family matter to be resolved by her husband, her guardian. He knew that's not what she would have wanted, and fought for her wishes to be carried out. If the court had ruled that the parents were the guardians, then their wishes would have been carried out. It's as simple as that.
I have already stipulated the parents had no rights here. I am talking decency and morality and ethics. And, there's nothing simple about killing the helpless.

[Useruser666]

What would you say to this scenario?

Your wife in a car wreck. She is turned into a vegetable. All the doctors say she has no chance to recover except a very risky operation. They tell you she has a 2% chance to survive. It's your decision to make. What do you do? Let her remain a vegetable or have the doctors perform the highly risky operation?

[The Ressurrected One]

What would you say to this scenario?

Your wife in a car wreck. She is turned into a vegetable. All the doctors say she has no chance to recover except a very risky operation. They tell you she has a 2% chance to survive. It's your decision to make. What do you do? Let her remain a vegetable or have the doctors perform the highly risky operation?
Terry Schiavo wasn't a vegetable. Try again...

[Useruser666]

Terry Schiavo wasn't a vegetable. Try again...

Try and answer my question. I never said she was.

[The Ressurrected One]

Try and answer my question. I never said she was.
It's not relevant to the conversation and you didn't provide enough information for me to make a decision on the hypothetical.

[samikeyp]

I am talking decency and morality and ethics.

I think that may be the misunderstand we have here. Whose ethics? My set of ethics may be different from User's. Doesn't make him wrong and me right and vice versa and I have no right to try and impose my system of ethics upon him.

[The Ressurrected One]

I think that may be the misunderstand we have here. Whose ethics? My set of ethics may be different from User's. Doesn't make him wrong and me right and vice versa and I have no right to try and impose my system of ethics upon him.
The ethics that say, "when in doubt, choose life."

Are you all really that nuanced?

[samikeyp]

I guess it goes back to your indivdual definition of life. For my wife and I, we don't feel that is life. We would rather not live like that. However, I can only speak for us and we are not going to impose our beliefs on others and would prefer (though probably not get) the same from others.

[scott]

...and the Florida Judiciary are having trouble sleeping.

I am confident they will sleep as well as those who feel it is their duty to intervene in the lifes of complete strangers on account of their religion.

[The Ressurrected One]

I am confident they will sleep as well as those who feel it is their duty to intervene in the lifes of complete strangers on account of their religion.
I never said anything about religion.

You don't believe in moral absolutes, scott?

[The Ressurrected One]

I guess it goes back to your indivdual definition of life. For my wife and I, we don't feel that is life. We would rather not live like that. However, I can only speak for us and we are not going to impose our beliefs on others and would prefer (though probably not get) the same from others.
So, you would advocate immediate euthenasia?

[scott]

I never said anything about religion.

You don't believe in moral absolutes, scott?

I believe in at least one: it is immoral to adversly impact someone else to suit your own purposes.

[The Ressurrected One]

I believe in at least one: it is immoral to adversly impact someone else to suit your own purposes.
morality and religion are not synonymous. If nothing else, Islam has taught us that.

[samikeyp]

immediate when? When an accident first happens? no. When its been determined that your chance to live is nil? yes. I don't wish to be kept alive by machines if there is no hope for my recovery.

[The Ressurrected One]

immediate when? When an accident first happens? no. When its been determined that your chance to live is nil? yes. I don't wish to be kept alive by machines if there is no hope for my recovery.
So, write that down!

[samikeyp]

Agreed and we are in the process right now of having everything done all legal like. :)

My point was this though, if for some reason we didn't have the foresight to put that on paper and something happened to either one of us, the outside world should defer to the spouse. It is a real possibility that Michael Schaivo was lying through his teeth...it is also an equal possibility that he was telling the truth. None of us know...Terri knows, Michael knows and God knows.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Two totally different situations.

[samikeyp]

How so?

[scott]

morality and religion are not synonymous. If nothing else, Islam has taught us that.

I never said they were. However, a vast majority of the people who decided to interject themselves in the case of Terri Shiavo did so behind the veil of religion.

As for your comment on Islam, I typically expect better out of you than that.

[ChumpDumper]

morality and religion are not synonymous. If nothing else, Islam has taught us that.The inquisition too, and the holocaust and manifest destiny etc.

[Useruser666]

TRO, what if it was legal for you to decide to keep your wife alive, yet a mjority of strangers felt it better to let her die naturally? What if it was a real possibility that they could enforce their views on you? Your wife told you that she wanted to live even if it meant being kept alive by machines. Should that be your choice by your word alone?

[Jekka]

EDIT, I logged in under my name and posted it.

[MannyIsGod]

We've been down this road in length, and it all comes down to whether or not a person has a right to die, and most of us agree they do.

Well, then no other case matters a damn bit, and neither does her prognosis for recovery.

The only thing that mattered was whether or not you believed her husband. No other case is compareble on any grounds because that is the only thing central to whether or not what happend to Terri was right.

[dcole50]

As for your comment on Islam, I typically expect better out of you than that.
i've learned not to. the same could be said about christianity and morality, using the crusades as a reference. it's the same method of associating a whole rellgion with one incident. not to make this a religious debate ....

[Bandit2981]

Resurrected, it doesnt make you feel any happiness that Terri is with God now in perfect form and not here on earth in a broken body?

[SPARKY]

Fuck it. People die everyday. People have been living in comas for years. People are taken off of life support every day. None of this is new. Perhaps my apathy level has increased over the last year but excuse me if I don't really care about a recent media clusterfuck.

After all, some woman in Georgia spazzed out about her wedding and the bitch took a bus. That's really what should preoccupy our time now.

[The Ressurrected One]

TRO, what if it was legal for you to decide to keep your wife alive, yet a mjority of strangers felt it better to let her die naturally? What if it was a real possibility that they could enforce their views on you? Your wife told you that she wanted to live even if it meant being kept alive by machines. Should that be your choice by your word alone?
Terry Schiavo's parents weren't exactly strangers...were they?

[The Ressurrected One]

I never said they were. However, a vast majority of the people who decided to interject themselves in the case of Terri Shiavo did so behind the veil of religion.
But, not me.

I believe there is just one moral absolute and, our founding fathers expressed that moral absolute fairly succinctly. It is that all human beings are endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (translated, fruits of their labor - or - property.) Period. All morality -- moral rights and moral wrongs -- are derived from our adherence to or deviance from that single moral absolute.

We all have the right to life. The right to continue living so long as we choose...without any intervention or assault from anyone else. Now, the argument arises when we define choice.

For instance, the death penalty and why it comports with my belief it is morally correct. If a person commits a crime for which they can receive the death penalty they have done so intentionally and with the knowledge their CHOICE to commit that crime carries the consequence of death.

Now, abortion. My argument opposing abortion does not center around the choice of the mother -- it is born of an uncertainty over when a fetus becomes a human being deserving of respect for their right to life. Since neither science, religion, government, nor anyone else can definitively tell me when that transformation occurs, I'm opposed to abortion. And, I'll remain so until there is certainty we are not killing a human being that did not CHOOSE to die.

The arguments for maintaining a person's liberty and property are similar.

Let the debate begin! War? Due Process? Smoking ordinances? They can all be discussed from the perspective of this moral absolute.

As for your comment on Islam, I typically expect better out of you than that.
No, you don't. Besides, I'm not even sure you're the same scott I admired the writing and logic of when I first started reading this forum. You sound more and more like the other irrational Bush-haters every day.

And, frankly, given the ACTUAL economic health of this country (as opposed to the forwarded doom and gloom of the Left), of which I'm certain you're aware, I'm more convinced you're a pod person taken over by body snatchers.

As for my comment on Islam. It doesn't comport to my understanding of the above moral absolute and, therefore, I stand by my opinion. It is a religion of hate and violence -- not only in practice but doctrinally. Yes, there have been hateful and violent Christians but, I would argue, that is counter to their beliefs not in comformity with them.

[MannyIsGod]

We've been down this road in length, and it all comes down to whether or not a person has a right to die, and most of us agree they do.

Well, then no other case matters a damn bit, and neither does her prognosis for recovery.

The only thing that mattered was whether or not you believed her husband. No other case is compareble on any grounds because that is the only thing central to whether or not what happend to Terri was right.

[Useruser666]

Terry Schiavo's parents weren't exactly strangers...were they?

And they weren't exactly her guardians either, were they?

[MannyIsGod]

And they weren't exactly her guardians either, were they?
:lol Nice!

[The Ressurrected One]

And they weren't exactly her guardians either, were they?
What part of "I-know-what-happened-was-within-the-bounds-of-the-law-but, I disagree" don't you understand?

I'm not claiming Terri Schiavo's parents had a legal right to their demands and desires but that Terri Schiavo's cheating (and, yes, technically he's an adulterer) husband had a moral obligation to defer to the choice of life, absent any clear evidence that Terri Schiavo chose death.

Quit arguing the legal case. It's apparent the Florida courts agreed with the flimsy evidence offered by Michael Schiavo that Terri said something in conversation -- that, by the way, took him 7 years to recall -- over 15 years ago...fine, they can live with their conscience. It's also equally clear to me that Florida law recognizes Michael Schiavo as the legal guardian. I hereby and, in perpetuity, stipulate those two facts. Quit beating the forum up with 'em...it serves no purpose and, besides, it won't change the outcome...she's dead, you won. Hurrah!

I'm arguing morality; and, no, I do not believe morality is relative...

[Useruser666]

What part of "I-know-what-happened-was-within-the-bounds-of-the-law-but, I disagree" don't you understand?

I'm not claiming Terri Schiavo's parents had a legal right to their demands and desires but that Terri Schiavo's cheating (and, yes, technically he's an adulterer) husband had a moral obligation to defer to the choice of life, absent any clear evidence that Terri Schiavo chose death.

Quit arguing the legal case. It's apparent the Florida courts agreed with the flimsy evidence offered by Michael Schiavo that Terri said something in conversation -- that, by the way, took him 7 years to recall -- over 15 years ago...fine, they can live with their conscience. It's also equally clear to me that Florida law recognizes Michael Schiavo as the legal guardian. I hereby and, in perpetuity, stipulate those two facts. Quit beating the forum up with 'em...it serves no purpose and, besides, it won't change the outcome...she's dead, you won. Hurrah!

I'm arguing morality; and, no, I do not believe morality is relative...


So it's not morally right for her husband, her legal guardian, the person he says she confided in, to carry out her wishes? You have no idea how morality can be applied to someone in a situation as this. Why should your moral values be applied in this situation?

[The Ressurrected One]

So it's not morally right for her husband, her legal guardian, the person he says she confided in, to carry out her wishes?
I'm saying it would have been nice if he weren't the only witness to her statement and, further, that he would have recalled the conversation before 7 years had elapsed.

Yeah, I'm thinking the moral conscience of everyone else -- not related to the case -- should be dictated by what we don't know;

We don't know if he's telling the truth. There were no other witnesses to her statement and, to our knowledge, she didn't make this desire known to anyone else at any other time.

And, what we do know;

We know he's abandoned all other aspects of his marital contract in that he has, while still married to Terri Schiavo, entered into a committed relationship with another woman and had children.

I think this brings his motives for wanting Terri Schiavo dead in to question. It certainly called into question his veracity.

I mean, if it was so easy to move on in every other aspect of his life, why not give custodial care over to Terri's parents and move on completely? There's something about the whole thing that doesn't add up and, therefore, I arrived at my opinion on the matter. And, my opinion hasn't changed.


You have no idea how morality can be applied to someone in a situation as this. Why should your moral values be applied in this situation?
First, of all, they aren't my moral values and I think I just did apply what I understand of morality to the issue. Hey, it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Further, I think I have supported that position well...