Florida judge denies latest appeal in Schiavo case

[LostInSpace]

I still say all of the above speculation that he's hiding something or there was foul play is just that speculation. The simple fact that it's being flung around like dung and law enforcement or the courts have not even acted on it should be a clue. You don't even hear the family members spouting that stuff out.

Contemplate this if you will: Perhaps he loves her so much that he can't bare to see her in the condition she's in any more not matter who has legal custody. As for the 10 million dollars, can you image the court of public opinion if he sold his wife for that amount or any amount for that matter and that's just delving into the arena of flesh peddling.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

I still say all of the above speculation that he's hiding something or there was foul play is just that speculation. The simple fact that it's being flung around like dung and law enforcement or the courts have not even acted on it should be a clue. You don't even hear the family members spouting that stuff out.

Contemplate this if you will: Perhaps he loves her so much that he can't bare to see her in the condition she's in any more not matter who has legal custody. As for the 10 million dollars, can you image the court of public opinion if he sold his wife for that amount or any amount for that matter and that's just delving into the arena of flesh peddling.

---

The man has been living with another woman for 10 years, and has 2 children by her.

He has moved on with his life, he ought to get a divorce, let her family take her and move on.

If he loved her so much, he wouldn't be with another woman and had kids....

[LostInSpace]

Ah the complex thing called love. There have been many examples of THAT ONE PERSON one loved the most all through history. Sure he might be with another another women and loves her too but the one true love of his life was Terri.

BTW: WebMD: Eating Disorder Underlies Schiavo Tragedy

[Guest]

This is NOT about the fact that she was PVS Nomad, which I do not believe she was.

She responded to people in the room with her, she attempted to talk.

She could swallow.

This is a matter of the courts condoning starving a HELPESS person to death on HERESY evidence.

This was nothing less then Judicial MURDER.

Sure, pull the feeding tube, but then to tell the family that they could NOT give her any water or food orally was insanity.

Euthanasia under such conditions is UNACCEPTABLE....

To starve a woman to death, on the word of her estranged husband, who has everything to gain by her death is INSANE!!!

The fact that the conflict of interests around Michael Schiavo's lawyer, the judge, the hospice,etc, is just straight up stupid....

This was nothing less then murder. And I for one hope the judiciary has gone too far this time, I hope to god that the executive branch and the legislative branches of the government will bring them under control.

Judges have become the dictators of us all here in the US, and to condemn an INNOCENT woman to death, is WAY over the line.

A murderer on death row gets a federal appeal, and new look at ALL evidence by the courts before going to the death chamber, she NEVER got that opportunity.

And the Doctors that you spout, ALL of the ones that stated that she was PVS, are all members of the Choice in Dying Society, or as it used to be called, the Hemlock society.

They wish to accelerate the "death Process".

This is a slippery slope, and you in Europe may not think this is a big deal, but to us here in the states,it is HUGE.

We care about life, we care about the sick and the helpless. And Terri was about as helpless as they come.

Her parents were willing to care for her.

The courts should ALWAYS fault to the side of life, and they are now, hopefully, will be shown the error of their ways.

This is TOTAL insanity, Terri should be alive and well in a rehabiliation center, she should NEVER have been put into a Hospice, especially in a Hospice run by that Ghoul lawyer Felos, who claims that if he looks in a patients eyes, he can tell if they wish to die or not.

And to top it all off, to kick out her family in her last minutes was just CRUEL, Michael Schiavo is a monster, and all decent human beings will hopefully treat him as such.

I am really pissed off, this whole thing stinks to high heaven and a helpless woman was murdered because the courts didn't feel that she was good enough to live.

All life is precious, no matter how brain damaged, bodily damaged etc.

If a person has a WRITTEN living will, that is one thing, but starvation should still be out of the question. Ventilator, REAL life support, that is one thing, at least death will be quick, but 13 fricking days!!! COME ON!!!!

[Guest]

quote:

---

I have the permission to destroy life unworthy of life, these empty shells of human beings, bring me your terminally ill and mentally retarded, and those with brain damage and psychiatric conditions. Bring them to me. We will make it possible for our physicians to end the tortures of these poor incurable souls, upon requests, in the interests of true humanity. If we desire a certain type of civilization, that is, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit in. It's for your good. It's for our good. It's for the Homeland.

---

This is where this case is leading us....

This is the slippery slope that this judge has mandated and allowed.

This was state sanctioned murder, and the above is now the next easy step....

[Guest DocHoliday]

I agree. This is slippery slope that has just created a VERY dangerous precedent.. The usual choices were:

1. Keep the person alive (as they may recover)

2. Kill the person humanely (in order to stop their suffereing as they will not recover)

NOW tho, you have option number 3:

3. Let the person STARVE to death. (the purpose of which escapes me, appart from the simple hypocritical washing of hands - "noone actually killed her, she died alone" logic - as if she had a choice or chance...)

It is quite irrelevant if a person is in a vegetative state or not, we will never know the type of suffering a person goes through, but I am absolutely sure there is plenty of it.

My point is, choice of 1 or 2 is always debatable, even now, but choice 3 should NOT have even been CONSIDERED!

"All life is precious, no matter how brain damaged, bodily damaged etc."

Was it with you in another thread that I've had a similar discussion, only you were on the other side then, concerning people who have nothing to lose, so they take justice into their own hands - a.k.a. terrorists? And whether we have the right to kill them arbitrarily (if they prove to be crazy fanatics of course) or at least give some kind of dialogue a chance...

Although that's an entirely different story, I agree with you on this. Life is precious and should not be taken under any circumstance unless you are directly defending your own and that of your family. But it's not about life in this case. It's about a person's dignity, their right to have a happy existence and giving them the option to end it if there is no hope of even being AWARE of happyiness.... If a person cannot chose, then people must estimate how they would, should they be able to choose. And no damn court, parliament, senate or whatever has any business ESTIMATING what an individual would do. Only the people who know this person BEST, MAY potentially have a valid view about it. In her case her parents in my opinion should have the final call. Husbands come and go (and this guy seems to have a few screws missing), parents are permanent.

For anyone who's interested, an alternative and a bit broader view, that may put a different light on this particular case:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/040105.html

Otherwise, I do belive this sort of dillema can basically be solved very easily. We have the instrument of will.. A document stating your will AFTER your death.... This basically goes against commons sense, becuase what do you care what happens to your stuff after you die, but we have it. So why not institute another personal document, in which a person would state the conditions under which they should be killed or in which they would definitelly not want to be killed. Of course you may change your mind about the conditions during your life, but if it comes to that, at least people have a set of instructions which you yourself gave them when you were in your full mental capacity. If they obey them and you don't agree, well you should have kept your document more up-to-date...

In my personal case, I'd say that anything that damages my brain to an unrepairable extent, thus changing my personality, perception and indeed my ability to achieve any kind of happiness in life is enough for me to kindly request euthanasia, also legally UNBINDING the person who actually kills me, because they saved me and CANNOT in my view be held accountable by anyone, even God. If the Almighty doesn't agree with MY decision on this, he can go party with the Satan in Hell for all I care.

Cheers,

[Vixef]

I was shocked the first time I heard they were going to starve her to death. But this is - at least in Norway - actually the most common and supposed humane way to end a life (when the patient is in a vegative state).

The problem with cases like this, is that we can prolong a patient's life until it is ethical and humanly wrong to do so. In addition to this it is impossible to know for certain what the patient wants.

I believe that common "practice" among doctors, at least in Norway, is to judge a life in a vegative state as both unworthy and unfullfilled for the patient. They will often "help" relatives to make the decision to end the patient's life (I guess after a certain time-line). This is partly to ease the feeling of responsibillity from the relatives.

This is a very difficult and complex subject, and I don't think there are any easy answers. One thing is for certain though: cases like this will become more common the better our medical expertice/technology/know how/etc are.

[Wolferz]

quote:

---

by Jaguar:We care about life, we care about the sick and the helpless. And Terri was about as helpless as they come

---

LMAO Jag,

The quote above is not indicative of the Jaguar I know and it's the most hypocritical statement you have ever uttered. Coming from a guy who professes that he would dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare if given the chance.

Admit it,

If Terri Schiavo had been drawing disability and Medicare was paying her medical bills, you would have yanked her feeding tube a year ago. Along with everyone else who has met with physical misfortune and can no longer earn a living. You know.

That "survival of the fittest" crap you are always telling us about.

Keep walking the fence brother, eventually you'll fall off and hurt yourself.

Maybe then you will have the opportunity to walk a mile in extremely unfortunate shoes and your opinions about government funding for the needy among us will do a complete flip flop.

For now, spare us your diatribes of feigned concern, please.

At least I won't have to be concerned about putting my family through the wringer if I suffer a similar misfortune. I have a Living Will in force. One I prepared some years ago.

It states that I am not to be given any artificial life saving treatment If my Homo Sapien robot becomes damaged beyond proper natural function or repair. It gets no jumper cables or a quart of oil.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolferz:

quote:

---

by Jaguar:We care about life, we care about the sick and the helpless. And Terri was about as helpless as they come

---

LMAO Jag,

The quote above is not indicative of the Jaguar I know and it's the most hypocritical statement you have ever uttered. Coming from a guy who professes that he would dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare if given the chance.

Admit it,

If Terri Schiavo had been drawing disability and Medicare was paying her medical bills, you would have yanked her feeding tube a year ago. Along with everyone else who has met with physical misfortune and can no longer earn a living. You know.

That "survival of the fittest" crap you are always telling us about.

Keep walking the fence brother, eventually you'll fall off and hurt yourself.

Maybe then you will have the opportunity to walk a mile in extremely unfortunate shoes and your opinions about government funding for the needy among us will do a complete flip flop.

For now, spare us your diatribes of feigned concern, please.

At least I won't have to be concerned about putting my family through the wringer if I suffer a similar misfortune. I have a Living Will in force. One I prepared some years ago.

It states that I am not to be given any artificial life saving treatment If my Homo Sapien robot becomes damaged beyond proper natural function or repair. It gets no jumper cables or a quart of oil.

---

Hey wolferz,

anh, I won't say it, it would probably get me banned.

Quit being such a self righteous prig, you have NO clue what I stand for or what I talk about.

The states can do whatever they want, the STATES are the ones that should run such safety nets, NOT the federal government.

So pull your head out and get a grip.

This was judicially sanctioned murder.

I have NO problem with the states providing a safety net for those less fortunate, but the federal government should NOT be involved in such safety nets.

So go jump off a bridge buddy, because you are clueless as to what I think.... Obviously.

[Guest Remo Williams]

Play nice Wolferz old friend this topic is not about Jaguar.

All I have to say on this topic is that it made me very sad to watch this whole mess play out.

Whether she was mentally incapacitated or fully aware to remove her feed tube and stand bye and watch her starve to death was cruel and inhuman for a civilized nation or any nation for that matter.

Its one thing to disconnect a machine thatÔÇÖs keeping a brain dead persons heart beating etc. but to take someone that was living on her own and starve her to death is so outrageous it unbelievable.

[Charles Lindsey]

She committed suicide with Bulimia. Had they not brought her back it would have been an "unfortunate accident".

[Wolferz]

Maybe we could call it a case in point for the wonders of modern medicine. She was kept alive after the initial trauma in the hope that she might recover. Fifty years ago she would have died in the hospital.

That's why I say that we put far too much faith in the healing arts. Modern medicine has made leaps ahead of itself and to what end?

To continue living the lie that it can heal our physical miseries. For some it has. But we will meet our physical end no matter what the medical community comes up with to prolong our suffering.

Excuse me while I go Bungee jumping. I have a theory to test.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

I don't believe that a single specialist who limits itself purely to neurology & science may think that this patient had any chance of recovery.

This is what statistics computed on PVS cases have established when it comes to recovery chances:

30 days in PVS: 14%

90 days in PVS: 6%

180 day in PVS: 1%

This lady was in PVS since more than 10 years. Exceptionally, some people recover. But what means exactly recovery in this context ? In most cases, the awakening isn't very sweet... The patients present a minimal level of consciousness, can't absorb nutrients from themselves, and suffer from extremely reduced communication capacities.

Improved reanimation techniques after cardiorespiratory arrests are the number one cause for the increase of PVS patients. You save their lives, technically, but at which price ?

Technically speaking, when portions of your brain have suffered due to lack of oxygen and technology replaces functions you can't assume anymore, somebody is just lengthening a dying process that has already begun.

There is a medical test (somatosensorial evoked potentials) that may determine already after the 3thrd day if recovery chances are minimal. Yet when you mix religion, politics, and medecine, that's the ugly mess we get: not even the gutts to give her an overdose of morphine.

---

THAT is not the issue here Nomad, I don't care if she was PVS, although I have my doubts, because EVERY time she started to make progress, her husband would STOP the rehabilitation!!

This is about the courts able to order someones death on heresy evidence of a spouse.

She had NO written will, and a feeding tube is NOT extraordinary life measure. Not like a respirator, life support etc.

To starve a helpless person to death is BARBARIC, and has NO place within a civilized society.

When we can get to a point where a court can order a person to die, because their quality of life, to the court, sucks, then the slippery slope of court sanctioned murder because of Alzheimers, or parapalegic etc.

The court can now make a life or death decision based upon the word of a spouse, and quality of life.

THIS IS DANGEROUS, and should be stopped in it's tracks....

[Guest Remo Williams]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

---

Yep, these youngsters just don't get it.

History is not something that could happen to them.

Clueless, just clueless, makes me sad for the future of this country...

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Takvah:

Typical reply from both of you... thanks for not disappointing me with any witty or relevant retorts.

*snickers*

---

And another typical snotnosed naive reply from you Takvah.

The usual fare when it comes to your opinions.

This was nothing short of court ordered MURDER.

Terri Schiavo could have eaten foor given to her orally, or through her mouth, but her husband would not have it, he demanded that she be fed through a tube.

Then the court ordered that not oly would the feeding tube be removed, but NO ONE was allowed to give her food or water orally, FOOD AND WATER she COULD HAVE TAKEN ORALLY, if given the opportunity.

This woman was murdered by the court order.

If this does NOT scare you, then you are in denial.

This case sets a VERY bad precedent, and is outright dangerous to ALL of us that have relatives whose standard of life may be below some judges theshold for proper life.

As well as the fact that she did NOT have a living will of any type, therefore her guardian was able to have her murdered, by claiming, 7 YEARS after her accident, and of course winning 100's of thousands of dollars and some claim millions. Terri would not want to live like she was living.

When Terri became inconvenient to him, the money had been won, he was shacking up with another woman and having kids, it was time for her to be murdered aand get out of the way.

He should have divorced her and let her parents take care of her.

[LostInSpace]

One thing has struck me though, was there also an insurance policy on her and how much. I don't remember coming across anything that mentions this.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Takvah:

Typical reply from both of you... thanks for not disappointing me with any witty or relevant retorts.

*snickers*

---

Thanks for not disappointing me also Takvah. I know its only a matter of time before your banned again please proceed.

[jamotto]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

One thing has struck me though, was there also an insurance policy on her and how much. I don't remember coming across anything that mentions this.

---

I don't think he would be able to collect on it even if there was a policy for her.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

I only posted because of the falsehoods being spouted here.

---

It doesn't make something false just because you believe it so. People have a right to their own opinions just like you. Whether their right or wrong its not up to you to decide for us. If that were the case then I say your statments are full of it, but thats my opinion and doesn't make it true.

[ 04-03-2005, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Takvah:

You might not think Schiavo was operating under good faith... my point is SO WHAT?! So because this guy is acting poorly we should revamp the system and deny all the rest of us the right to end our spouses life in a way we feel is representative of what they want? Talk about setting dangerous precedents. The fact is NONE OF US REALLY KNOW WHAT SHE WANTED. So in absence of that, we have to trust that the man she married IS acting in good faith. He could have taken a whole lot of money and saved himself a whole lot of grief... he didn't.

Naive is tossing off YOUR RIGHTS to combat some singular event... think about that pal.

Peace out

---

WRONG on ALL counts, as usual.....

A: He NEVER said that she would want to die until AFTER he got the money from the malpractice suit.

B: He decided that this would be what she wanted AFTER her parents told him that if he couldn't handle it, then they would be happy to take over for him.

C: The SOB was living with another woman and having children by her, common law marriage, he was married to BOTH women at the same time. By living with this woman, he had basically given up all rights to Terri.

D: There are WAY too many connections in myriad ways to the hospice, the lawyer, the doctors that said she was PVS and the Hemlock society.

E: She did NOT have a living will, and courts should always side on the side of life, NO MATTER WHAT THE GUARDIAN CLAIMS.

F: Michael Schiavos testomony 7 years AFTER her apparent heart attack from Bulimia was heresy evidence, and should NEVER have been allowed in a court of law.

NOW, if Terri had had a living will, I would NOT have had a problem with it, IF Terri was on FULL life support and would have died quickly, I would NOT have had a major problem with it. IF Michael Schiavo had claimed that she would want to die IMMEDIATELY AFTER her apparent heart attack, then I would not have a huge problem with it. IF Michael Schiavo had NOT sued for massive amounts of money to take care of her FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE, I would NOT have had a major problem with it. IF Michael had NOT gone and lived with another woman and had kids by her, then I would NOT have a HUGE problem with it.

BUT, Michael DID and DID not do ALL of these things, and then found a lawyer that was involved in the hospice that they put Terri in, found a a doctor that was involved in the Hemlock society that would give them the PVS diagnosis that they needed, and a crooked judge that was legally blind, and hard core and stupid, when his gander was up, his pride would make it IMPOSSIBLE for him to change his mind.

TERRI DID NOT GET JUSTICE, she was murdered in a conspiracy most profound.

YES, we should revamp the system because this guy acted poorly, a guardian took advantage of his position to MAKE massive amounts of money, make his lawyers MASSIVE amounts of money, and was enabled by a court to MURDER HIS WIFE through STARVATION.........

We must PROTECT ALL DEFENSELESS human beings from a greedy and monstrous guardian.

And my rights will NOT be removed with such a law, my rights as a victim of such possible circumstances will be PROTECTED!!!

This sets a precedent, the hemlock society knows it, and they are celebrating right now, and the next case will be even worse.

You don't see the slippery slope, because you know NOTHING about history.

I feel for you Takvah, I really do, such ignorance is inexcusable....

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

The job of courts is to enforce laws. Jurisprudency is originated when laws don't tackle with a specific issue, what wasn't the case here.

It was a clearly defined legal matter under Florida's authorithy. But the republican leadership and some religious streams attempted to blur the sacro-saint lines between legislative, executive and judiciary due to variable geometry christian faith.

To replace all this in the big picture, the same guy, your President, who claims that live is above all, has the record of executions when he was governor, and never cared about collateral casualties in Iraq's war (that's why the US army publishes the number of insurgents killed up to the last fighter, but doesen't maintain any list of civilian casualties). Very coherent...

Furthermore, the courts consulted a pool of specialists, and the majority said that the patient had no recovery chances.

So, if I understand correctly, you consider that the whole system (laws, judges, lawyers, insurances, hospitals & doctors) is flawed because you don't like how the case was settled. Sorry, that's not a decent attitude if you live in a democracy. Go to live under a dictature that implements your credo as main social guideline.

And a last medical note: apposite studies using Positron Emission Tomography show that PVS patients DO NOT PERCEIVE PAIN OF ANY KIND. Furthermore, even if there were a residual level of minimal consciousness, this consciousness would disappear at the removal of the feeding tube due to lack of nutrients and hydratation. Suffering exists around the patient, in its surroundings and the family, but not physically nor mentally in the patient itself.

The problem could be settled very easely. In the incredible amount of bureaucracy, don't you think that a single additional question on one of the scores of official questionnaires you have to fill up during your live could solve this ? Why this isn't done ? Because religious streams would be the first ones to attack such move as assault against their credo. So take into account that what happened is the logic consequence of allowing the arbitrary to corrupt pragmatism.

---

Again, not the point, the point is that a person was murdered based on heresy by a spouse that should NOT have been guardian.

Bottom line, starvation is murder, not death with dignity.

I don't care if she could not feel pain, death by starvation is barbaric and should NEVER be the case. A feeding tube is NOT extraordinary measure.

You can go ahead and hide behind the law to exuse such barbarity, it still does NOT make it right.

[Guest Remo Williams]

My whole problem with this is the court agreed with the spouse who's motives where shady to say the least to remove hear tube on hearsay, which normally is inadmissible.

Had she left a living will I have no problem with her suffering, if she was suffering being ended by lethal injection, but to starve her was brutal and inhuman. We don't even do this to prisoners on death row. Why because its considered cruel and unusual punishment.

People itÔÇÖs our responsibility to make sure this never happens again. Write your congressmen! Write to any body with authority to stop this sort of barbarity. Its time we allow the terminally ill a right to death to end suffering. ItÔÇÖs their life after all why should we force them to suffer, but this sort of brutal starvation should not be allowed to occur again.

[Guest]

Relativism is NOT part of my vocabulary, I find relativism is used as an excuse to do barbaric things to other human beings.

Relativism was used as an excuse by Nazis and others for their barbarity as well.

I do not use it, I do not like it, and it has NO place in a civilized society.

There is right and there is wrong, each is as obvious as the other. Relativism has no place in it.

[Guest]

Relativism is fine in science Nomad, and back off from your nose in the air intellectual BS, because I tire of it.

Science is different then real life, you do not use survival of the fittest as a rule in civilized society, and that is what this moral relativism is.

So don't go changing subjects here Nomad, you do NOT use science as a basis for moral decisions.