how can there be so many Shaivo threads with great, unbiased info,

[fleabert]

yet a few DU'ers still believe the RW talking points? I don't get it. Really cool people too, people I like to see posts from usually. I don't want to call anyone out or anything, so I won't say who or where, but it's confusing.

I came into the debate several weeks ago, without an opinion or slant, read all the info out there, and came away with supporting the husband's position. Not that I am perfect, but I was immediately swayed by two things, one: this website. unbiased and to the point. http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html and two: who is funding and supporting the parents and WHY they are doing it. I really don't see how a Democrat or Progressive can see this another way reading the same sources as me. If someone can explain it to me, please do. I really am curious, not trying to start anything ugly here.

[ET Awful]

1. Who's supporting the parents?

How about extreme right-wing loony radical anti-abortionists that support the killing of doctors who provide abortions?

Does the name Randall Terry ring a bell?

[fleabert]

2. I've been all over. There are some.

mostly they are just against 'starvation' or 'the husband is an asshole'
etc...

I can't call anyone out...you know that! don't get me sent to Skinner's office! :-)

It's ugly out there. (out there meaning outside the lounge of course)

edit to address the rest of your post:

I can almost understand that lunacy, they are fundamentalists, eye for an eye, judgement, fire and brimstone, etc... that's core to their beliefs. What I don't get at all, is people with over a thousand posts here basically ignoring the un-right-wing information. Otherwise rational and reasonable, average DUers.

[ET Awful]

7. Oh, I wasn't referring to DU supporters of the parents, who I view as

simply misguided.

I was directly answering your question about who is financially and publicly supporting the parents :).

[fleabert]

10. ah, rhetorical! an unfamiliar manner of speech online, I didn't recognize

it! LOL. I get it now. apparently I am slow on the uptake tonight. there's a lot I just dont' get the first time around. D'oh!

[fleabert]

3. god that little lioness is cute.

I know she's grown now, but damn she's cute. makes me grin every time you post!

[ET Awful]

6. The lioness is actually a lion :)

But he's still pretty damned cute :)

[fleabert]

8. I could just eat him up! and the other one looks very smooth, a very

pettable cat. silky, right?

I need to get a cat.

[ET Awful]

9. Yup.

Quinn is about as you'd expect a lion to be, aloof and sits off by himself and just surveys everything until he wants something, then he gets it by any means necessary. (That includes the full gamut from whining to purring to pouncing).

Althea is the consummate lap kitty whose purr is surpassed only by her ability to make you say AWWWWWWWWWWW.

:)

[KitchenWitch]

14. Didn't Randall Terry have big family problems?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Bush's Texas Law

that allows hospitals to pull the plug against a family's wishes would, in my opinion, be enough to convince anyone who comes here (and isn't a troll) that Bush's stance is hypocritical. And anyone who has read the threads explaining persistant vegetative state would, again in my opinion, have to side with letting this woman die.

[fleabert]

5. that is what I'm saying. I just don't get why any Dems or Progressives

would go the other direction.

[saltpoint]

11. There's a growing vibe that the Republicans --

-- in their mad rush to "Save Terri," have bought the farm on this one.

The early polls show the American public very distrustful of the "Palm Sunday Compromise" and they are not sympathetic to Congressional intervention generally and in this case specifically.

The grandstanding by DeLay, Bush, et al has left their flank exposed: they've trashed funding for programs that would keep someone like Terri Schiavo alive.

[fleabert]

32. Let's all hope this is the straw that will finally break this camel's back

my litmus test is my fundie but loving & nurturing mother. I haven't talked to her yet, but I can only assume she is bothered by it all. My step father is a Lib. so I assume he's really pissed off too. (they both voted for the asshole) Hope they start to regret it soon.

[saltpoint]

44. Ok, yes. Let's hope it's a damned heavy straw.

God I sure would like to see DeLay and Bush and Frist brought down a few notches over this thing. They have been horse's patoots on this issue from the word go.

[fleabert]

45. an update...

I talked to my mother tonight, she was not very learned on the case, but even then thought she should have the tube removed. I told her a lot about the case and she's even more pissed now. Pissed at the parents and 'not happy' that the government has stepped in, esp. since the FL courts already ruled on it. They (the step-dad and mom) are very big on States Rights, and this is a big intrusion. They are big Bush supporters, so this is definitly a crack in the fake veneer the right wing has slathered on Bush.

I think my email yesterday with a synopis of my living will helped. It included a footnote to say 'under no circumstances is the government to be appointed my guardian' and a successive list of appointees in case the prior one was dead or incapacitated.

[saltpoint]

48. Good for you! I like the good post, fleabert, but I also --

-- admire your good planning.

Hang in there with your folks, but stick to your guns as you're doing now. Bravo!

[fleabert]

49. I am hoping to sway her eventually on all the causes.

She was a hippie back in the day, then she got born again. She'll come around I hope. At least they don't donate $, and they are both pro-choice. That helps me get off their back sometimes.

[huellewig]

12. I never see this on the news.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

January 1993…

Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal.

I asked my mom why this lady was in a coma tonight. Her response, "car accident." She didn't know why she thought that. And now we both wonder why we care about a coma victim starving to death when she did the same thing to herself while living.

I have never been a good judge of irony but I think this might fit the bill..

++added link in my edit++

[fleabert]

13. the irony is there, I have noticed it...

what some don't notice either is that 700,000.00 of the money was set aside in trust for Terri's care, and 300,000.00 was given to Michael, most of if paid to his lawyers who are now working for free. Every expenditure is approved by the courts now. Also, Michael gave up his guardianship long ago and asked the court to appoint an unbiased third person to make the decision. That person concluded that she was in a PVS, and that she would have wanted to have the feeding tube removed. the right wing has paid for the parents legal fight because they want to use this as part of their anti-choice campaign, Terry Randall is a scumbag.

[Dookus]

15. It's scary, isn't it?

It just shows that a lot of people, regardless of political persuasion, will believe any lie that furthers their already-formed beliefs.

[fleabert]

27. yep. i've seen you a bunch in the threads, your comments are always

great. Thanks for speaking up...maybe they'll get it soon.

[SOteric]

16. I haven't discussed my opinions on this previously on these boards

and one would be really hard pressed to consider me Right Wing, or even middle of the road.

I have two deeply pondered questions:

Why is the will of the husband more important in determining how do deal with this woman than the will of her parents and should it be?

and,

With regard to all 'right-to-die'/euthanasia matters, - when does the right to die become the obligation to die, and how do we protect the more fragile members of our society from feeling their death as a compulsion?

I have no clear answers to these questions, but when I ponder them at length it's less a matter of politics of the left and the right and more a matter of humanity.

[Zenlitened]

17. It's the will of Terry Schiavo that's at issue. What SHE would have wanted

Her husband has argued, and several courts have agreed, that she would NOT have wanted to be kept clinging to the remnants of life in this state.

[SOteric]

20. Yes. I'm not underinformed.

Your response adds nothing to my questions and does nothing to resolve them.

She didn't leave a written will, we've no formal document saying these are my wishes. We have the words of two opposed parties. That still resolves nothing if there are members of society who would feel it an obligation to demise rather than be a financial burden on their families that seems somehow counterproductive to the humane. So the reasons behind the thought is important.

Since we know nothing of this, it seems whimsical to me to place the judgement of a husband in a higher precidence than the judgement of the parents.

[Zenlitened]

23. Feeling defensive? You asked a question about whose will...

... should be adhered to, and I responded to that.

In terms of interpreting or inferring Terry's wishes, that's precisely what the courts have been addressing.

Your statement, "Since we know nothing of this, it seems whimsical to me to place the judgment of a husband in a higher precedence than the judgment of the parents" tells me that you are indeed "underinformed." And you seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder, as a result.

Lovely chatting with you. :eyes:

[SOteric]

38. *snicker*

Yeah, that's me: Defensive, inarticulate, underinformed and sporting a chip on my shoulder.

Or it could just be that you're not reading what I've written so much as you're reading into what I've written.

Whatever.

[Zenlitened]

40. You're right. I don't know how I could possibly have gotten the impression

... that you were seeing this as a matter of the husband's will versus that of the parents:

Why is the will of the husband more important in determining how do deal with this woman than the will of her parents and should it be?

:crazy: http://www.palantir.net/cgi-bin/file.cgi?file=wav/goodbye.wav

[SOteric]

41. I'm not

"seeing it that way."

I'm pondering that question in relation to this issue.

It's the same as is the difference between one's first year studying college mathematics and holding the Lucasian Chair.

Ultimately, we only guess at the woman's will in this. So all we have, all that the media has, all that the courts have, is that which is reported as the will of her parents and the will of her husband. Each side has supporting witnesses to prop up their assertion.

[fleabert]

30. btw- not just husband saying Terri wouldn't want to continue like this

friends testified as well. Multiple courts have found in favor of pulling the tube. Something like 15-20 after seeing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony. AND, a court appointed third party has been given the right to decide what Terri would have wanted, at the request of Michael, and they found in agreement with removal as well.

The parents have testified under oath that even if they knew Terri would have wanted the tube removed, they would not honor those wishes.

[NoSheep]

18. I've thought of these issues as well. In a GOOD marriage, one would

expect the spouse would know the wishes of the sick person more than the parents. It is the spouse that has the adult relationship with the person. I believe I would never marry a person who I couldn't trust to communicate my stance on matters like this. Unfortunately, many marriages are not honest, healthy adult relationships, but I hope that the ideal is what this convention of allowing spousal rights over parental rights is all about.
As to "obligation to die" that one is beyond me. Quality of life would determine the choice for me. I don't think we should assume in this case that the sick person can "feel" anything...can't feel death as a compulsion, as you mention.
Just thinking out loud here.
:)

[SOteric]

22. True, in a good marriage. - Absolutely.

And in a good, healthy family relationship, the parents would have the best interests of the child. But both of these relationships are in actuality fraught with potential dysfunction. Perhaps most parents are well intentioned, but some are not. I'm sure you could poll any number of DUers and find a metric fuckton who'd been ill-treated at the hands of their parents and would prefer to trust the judgement of a friend, a coworker, a spouse.

I don't know that there can be one clear-cut answer. I only see questions.

Perhaps in this case, she would very well not have wanted to be kept alive under these circumstances. Certainly, I can empathise with that position. I'm not sure what decision I'd make in such a cicumstance, but I lean toward not wanting to be kept alive.

With regard to the felt 'obligation' though, what determinations we as a society make, what determinations made in courts do shape the decisions of individuals making their living wills, and those of legislators in future rulings.

When there is thought from someone close that a choice to linger on medically is selfish and foolhardy, we run the risk of obliging people to chose to end their lives.

[NoSheep]

26. I see your point about the second issue.

[Dookus]

19. Do you propose

that parents be given equal legal status to a spouse?

Could your in-laws take away your kids if they don't like the way you're raising them? Could your parents divorce you from your partner? Should your in-laws automatically inherit your estate when you die?

Spouses are given rights because we are FREE to choose our spouse.

[SOteric]

21. I don't propose

anything. I speculate. There is not resolution in my post. Only questions which prevent me from seeing this matter as clear cut, and in line with any pre-determined thinking.

[Debi]

24. I'm not a lawyer so I may just be speaking in to the wind.

But I believe that a persons spouse takes precedence over that of their parents. Not comparing this case to property cases, but if I were to die my husband would receive my assets not my parents. I think it's commonly view the same in medical procedures (and perceived that a more intimate relationship regarding health care is shared with a spouse than a parent after marriage).


Nobody can answer the question about what Terri Shiavo would have wanted except to decide if you believe her husband who says she would not want to exist this way or her parents (and other family members) who say she would want to continue therapeutic treatment.

But as much as we're talking about forced death here we could be discussing forced life (or at least being kept alive). What if every day of this existence is horror for Terri Shiavo? I don't know that we can presume one or the other. I would hope, though, that her parents wishes aren't overriding what Terri Shiavo would have wanted for herself

[fleabert]

29. my response to your questions...

1. Because legally, when we choose to get married, we have chosen our next of kin. If the genders were switched, Terri would be making this decision for Michael. Until marriage or a legal document says otherwise, your parents are your next of kin. After marriage, or a legal document says otherwise, your spouse is your next of kin.

(btw- This is a big reason why I am active in the fight for gay marriage)

Parents are solely responsible for the care and decisions regarding their children until they are 18, then the child is given that responsiblity, unless they are incapacitated and do not have a spouse or legally designated 'next of kin'. That is the way it is, if you don't think it should be that way, then I suggest you lobby to change the laws, but that won't affect anyone until it passes, esp. Terri and Michael.

Personally- my mother knew me best when I was a child, but my husband knows me more intimately and closely as an adult. He knows me better than myself sometimes, I trust him implicitly to do what I wish, whereas I think my mother might let emotions (and christiam fundamentalism) get the best of her in this circumstance.

2. I suggest checking out www.dyingwell.com for this question. Many people all over the world choose to die and it is not labeled suicide every day. Euthanasia and cessation of nourishment are not the same thing. Euthanasia isn't what's going on here, it's not legal. I don't think the issues are the same. I don't see a compulsion to die...perhaps I am not understanding you correctly.

I appreciate your thoughtful questions, it is a question of humanity, too bad so many have politicized it with funding and support by the anti-choice crowd. I cannot see how it is humane to keep her shell functioning when it is clearly not what she would have wanted.

[tyedyeto]

43. I haven't followed timelines too closely in this case....

but would you be talking to your parents or your spouse when discussing quality of life if or when it becomes an issue. (Timeline issue: how long were they married and at what age was this discussed?)

I have been divorced for a few years, but my ex and I talked about these issues while still married and I never brought it up with my parents. (The ex's parents were already deceased so he had no parent to deal with).

I have discussed many issues with my ex than I ever have with my parents over the years. Isn't that a part of marriage? To talked about the future?

This is in regards to SOteric's question: Why is the will of the husband more important in determining how do deal with this woman than the will of her parents and should it be?

[SOteric]

50. That's fine, I'm not sure how much the timeline matters in specific

reference to my questions, inasmuchas I'm pondering less in regard to the Schiavo case specifically, and more to such cases in general.

In answer to your question, I would and have discussed these issues with my parents and my family priest, and like Terri Schiavo I'm a devout Roman Catholic.

I'm not married, but of the men in my life with whom I've been sufficiently intimate to discuss such matters, no...we've not actually debated the issue about.

However true it may be that this is a part of a well-adjusted, healthy marriage, there are many people who marry on little acquaintance and a great many marriages that not healthy or remotely well-adjusted. When a spouse is murdered, it is most often within the marital community that police find their suspect. When children are kidnapped, abused or molested, it's within the marital community that police most often find their suspect.

I'm not hopelessly naive to the fact that parents can be dysfunctional and abusive as well. I have known some dear friends who would rather trust their geekiest coworker with their final wishes than either of their parents. And as I mention elsewhere in this thread, a quick poll of DUers would likely turn up more than a few who are similarly disenchanted with their parents.

I ask a question. It is a question I moot about.

I realise many here come armed with already formed opinions, and the will to thrust them upon others as fact or at least 'the official position of the good liberal.' But not all of us do. :-)

The original poster in this thread seemed to me to be implying that any who didn't 100% support Terri Schiavo's husband's decision to remove the feeding tube was buying into right wing talking points. It was later suggested by others that this meant such a person is uninformed, misguided and/or unable to think for themselves.

I'm none of those things, but I also do not conclusively, 100% support Terri Schiavo's husband's decision. It should be noted that I'm not 100% behind the parents either. I'm still in the pondering, mooting and seeking stage and honestly may not ever form a clear opinion. I'm okay with that.

I don't see this as a black and white issue, and I'm not prepared to say that what's currently the law or it's interpretation is going to be just in all situations.

:shrug:

[tyedyeto]

52. Since I don't know either the Schiavo or Schindler families.............

I wouldn't ever think of speaking for them, but I do know that as someone who was married for many years.....I did talk about the future with my spouse and never did with my parents. I would never want to live if the quality of life is not present.

I am close to my mother and in fact am the executrix of her will, but I haven't really talked to her if I am incapacitated before her.

I just feel that oftentimes a person will discuss these kinds of questions with their spouse before they will talk about it with their parent, is more common.

I agree it is a 'sticky' situation, when family members, be it a blood relationship or a marital one, disagree on what should become of a loved one if they are at the point of what is happening in this situation. For myself, I would hope that they (the powers that be) would pull the plug, so to speak. I would never want to live if my quality of life depended on a feeding tube, breathing apparatus. etc. Especially if after 15 years, no discernible difference was seen toward my having any sort of quality of life. If I can no longer make my wishes known to those I love and care for, why prolong what little there is in my life? But that is just my humble opinion. There are others who would say differently and they are justified as to their viewpoint....

As my grandmother, who passed away at age 93 from a stroke and refused to eat or drink, said........'I don't want to be a burden on anyone'. She taught me that to respect what one's wishes are, is the greatest respect anyone could hope for.

[WindRavenX]

25. hey, GIVE HER TIME to GROW her BRAIN back

You..You killers!!! </sarcasm>

[fleabert]

37. lol, I don't think anyone in the lounge doubted that was sarcasm!

perhaps this can be the first time we transplant a human brain? I nominate Bush as the donor! Oh. wait, he needs one too!

[jonnyblitz]

28. I could NEVER be on the same side of an issue as Randall

Terry. EVER. that is all I need to know. Whatever side he is on I believe in the total fucking OPPOSITE. :scared:

[fleabert]

31. I am right with you.

unless he likes cookies. I won't give up cookies.

[jonnyblitz]

33. LOL

I would consider giving those up even.. :crazy:

sorry for my vulgar language but Randall Terry is a WHACKJOB and he has been all over the tv as a legitimate spokesperson on this. :puke:

[fleabert]

34. ;-)

you don't EVER have to worry about vulgar language with me, I talk like a sailor who smashed his thumb most of the time.

Randall Terry is a nutbag. Unfortunately a nutbag with a following, fucking scary is what that is! gives me the shivers! :scared:

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

35. Good online chat with one of my professors

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47165-2005Mar18.html

[fleabert]

36. thanks, good link...nt

[Generator]

39. Mass hysteria

That's what this whole thing stinks of to me. I really DON'T CARE but apparently like the weather, it's all there is.

Life! Death! Starvation! One person! Already brain dead! Been going on for years! Congress! Republican hypocrisy! Let her live! Let her die! I think every argument is so obvious that it's not worth having. But that's just me.

It's tabloid DU.

[fleabert]

46. There are other implications here...

this reaches into gay marriage rights, spousal rights, states rights, individual rights, freedom of choice... I think this is bigger than Terri Shaivo now. Plus people are actually making out living wills, at least I did.

[Zenlitened]

42. And not just echoing RW talking points, but using disruptor tactics, too

Deliberately mis-casting the debate, twisting people's words, accusing liberals of failing to live up to our own ideals -- all the stuff you'd expect from a troll. It's unnerving, it really is.

[fleabert]

47. yeppers.

I still don't get it. Lots of unreplied to posts around too, some seem to stop talking when the logic gets too thick. Or they are just sick of me, that could be the problem! :-)

I try to reply to everyone who posts a message to me.

[jonnyblitz]

51. exactly

there were a few threads that were basically shaming us for supporting murder. I remember. :eyes: