I just want to get everyone's opinion on this matter. The media keeps talking about it, and I'm sure they will for a while. Again you have to think that I am thinking in the "big picture". This was a less than vegetable woman who had been disconnected from life support respecting her wishes, while 500,000 Iraqi children have been killed by US sanctions and invasions and that thousands more are killed every month by illegal occupation. All these children never asked to die. But the US media and people subconsciously love to focus on a US woman's fate which helps them forget their collective guilt for their crimes in Iraq.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Terry Schiavo's autopsy
Many people said Schiavo was not a vegetable. They wished to do a spoon test, in which they would see if Schiavo could be fed with a spoon. Supposedly, if you are a vegetable you can not pass the spoon test. Her husband initially said OK, but after speaking with his lawyer he said no. There is also the question concerning the bruises that covered her body when she first entered the hospital.
There was a lot of funny stuff surrounding her situation and that's why the media focussed on her story. I don't believe war coverage faltered during the time she was getting her tube pulled. I also don't think anyone forgot about the war during this period. Why is the United States responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children? If Saddam had followed the Oil for Food problem correctly instead of funneling the money into his accounts there would have been food. That's like blaming the teacher for failing you, though you never did any work.
There was a lot of funny stuff surrounding her situation and that's why the media focussed on her story. I don't believe war coverage faltered during the time she was getting her tube pulled. I also don't think anyone forgot about the war during this period. Why is the United States responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children? If Saddam had followed the Oil for Food problem correctly instead of funneling the money into his accounts there would have been food. That's like blaming the teacher for failing you, though you never did any work.
In my view, if Terri Schiavo told her husband she did'nt want to be kept alive if she was in a vegetative state, as she was, then it's her right to decide her fate. Further, I have no problem with assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. If I am ever in extreme pain [words=http://www.phallosan.com/shop/catalog/default.php?z=eNortjIxtVKyL0pNszWxMFcrSSxKTy2JL0hMT7U1UisoykyxtbBQSy4tLsnPjS8uKcrMS7dVsgZcMMpbEbo%2C]ans[/words] science exausted all resources and despite that still can't help, I hope that I have the right to end my own life. If I write in my will that I want the doctor's to turn off the life support machines if I have no chance of recovery-- I hope they honor that.
I also believe that modern medicine is awesome. When you Can fix someone, by all means-you should. If you can keep someone alive with machines, and they have a good chance of recovery, or that's what they wish..go for it. In cases that fall into a grey area (i.e., you can save someone's life but they will be a vegetable), you should defer to the patient's family who knew that person best and can best figure out what the person would want done.
Never, and in any way, should Congress EVER interfere with a case like this was. Congress does'nt know the people involved, they don't understand the specifics involved, and most of them are not doctors. And, senators and representatives (including the damn president) should have more pressing issues and other concerns to tend to.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
War coverage probably didn't falter during her case, but like I said earlier, these children NEVER asked to die, same with all the innocent Iraqi civilians that have been murdered by the American bombings, invasion, and illegal occupation. Terri Schivo is just 1 woman, and yet the media makes a big deal out of it- sure she's important, as is everyone, but they should also point out the 100s of thousands of civilians that have perished in Iraq.
I also believe that modern medicine is awesome. When you Can fix someone, by all means-you should. If you can keep someone alive with machines, and they have a good chance of recovery, or that's what they wish..go for it. In cases that fall into a grey area (i.e., you can save someone's life but they will be a vegetable), you should defer to the patient's family who knew that person best and can best figure out what the person would want done.
Never, and in any way, should Congress EVER interfere with a case like this was. Congress does'nt know the people involved, they don't understand the specifics involved, and most of them are not doctors. And, senators and representatives (including the damn president) should have more pressing issues and other concerns to tend to.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
There was a lot of funny stuff surrounding her situation and that's why the media focussed on her story. I don't believe war coverage faltered during the time she was getting her tube pulled. I also don't think anyone forgot about the war during this period. Why is the United States responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children? If Saddam had followed the Oil for Food problem correctly instead of funneling the money into his accounts there would have been food. That's like blaming the teacher for failing you, though you never did any work.
War coverage probably didn't falter during her case, but like I said earlier, these children NEVER asked to die, same with all the innocent Iraqi civilians that have been murdered by the American bombings, invasion, and illegal occupation. Terri Schivo is just 1 woman, and yet the media makes a big deal out of it- sure she's important, as is everyone, but they should also point out the 100s of thousands of civilians that have perished in Iraq.
Either way who really cares the chick was a vegetable let her die, if her husband was up to something convict him and get on with it, who cares, it really wasn't important enough to receive all the coverage it did, it's not our business.
I am guilty of nothing, I've done nothing wrong, and I will not be held accountable for the actions of others. Also where do your facts come from?But the US media and people subconsciously love to focus on a US woman's fate which helps them forget their collective guilt for their crimes in Iraq.
The problem with the Schiavo case is that different people had different views concerning her state. Some felt she was aware and others did not. The husband obstructed many attempts to perform tests that would possibly provide more insight into her condition. Her case was not about the right to die, it was about how fishy her husband was acting. He would not even allow her family in the room when she was crossing over.
Again, why do you hold the US responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children, when it was Saddan who did not follow the UN approved sanctions?
Again, why do you hold the US responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children, when it was Saddan who did not follow the UN approved sanctions?
Originally posted by jGman:
I think the media seems like they are a walking condradiction, or hipocracy, because like I said they are only focusing on 1 US woman, while 1000s of Iraqis die each week.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
Even though Saddam didn't follow the UN sanctions, and caused the death of alot of innocent children- that pales in comparison to all the blood of innocent Iraqis the US army has on their hands.
Originally posted by Gonnabe2huge:
I'm not accusing you of anything, nor am I inflicting you with accountability. I read and study all different kinds of news clippings from around the world to come to the general point.
What does one thing have to do with the other? Are you saying that because there's a war going on, that the media should focus on nothing but the war?
I think the media seems like they are a walking condradiction, or hipocracy, because like I said they are only focusing on 1 US woman, while 1000s of Iraqis die each week.
Originally posted by LambdaCalc:
Again, why do you hold the US responsible for the deaths of Iraqi children, when it was Saddan who did not follow the UN approved sanctions?
Even though Saddam didn't follow the UN sanctions, and caused the death of alot of innocent children- that pales in comparison to all the blood of innocent Iraqis the US army has on their hands.
Originally posted by Gonnabe2huge:
I am guilty of nothing, I've done nothing wrong, and I will not be held accountable for the actions of others. Also where do your facts come from?
I'm not accusing you of anything, nor am I inflicting you with accountability. I read and study all different kinds of news clippings from around the world to come to the general point.
More than 1/3 of Iraqi children are malnourished, on a level with Sub-Saharan Africa. In the name of "international peace", more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the sanctions, 567,000 of them children.
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=86&sortorder=articledate
I think they ( the administration ) blow up "issues" like the Schiavo case, Social Security and constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage to draw attention away from the crap they are trying to do on the sly.
I'll say this much Bill Frist just keeps on shooting himself in the foot. This guy wants to be President, but I'd be surprised if he decides to run now.
I didn't pay much attention to it, but I thought the whole situation was exploited entirely too much even for our media. I thought the husband hadn't done anything. From what I heard at the time the husband took care of her for a long time at his own expense and what made it clear to me that she should be allowed to die was that it was said it was her wishes. Oh, yeah and that the media and guys like Bill Frist and others were trying to turn Schiavo into an inadimate object to push an agenda. I don't like this business of personal matters being covered excessively. It's news when other groups are involved with a situation such as Schiavo's was, but this sort of thing is dealt with every day everywhere. I don't know what made her case so especially important. Would we have been hurt in some way if we weren't informed of this situation and continuously updated? The autopsy shows me the whole thing was even more of a shaming offense of Frist and Delay than any accusation trying to characterize that woman's primary caretaker for so long.
I didn't pay much attention to it, but I thought the whole situation was exploited entirely too much even for our media. I thought the husband hadn't done anything. From what I heard at the time the husband took care of her for a long time at his own expense and what made it clear to me that she should be allowed to die was that it was said it was her wishes. Oh, yeah and that the media and guys like Bill Frist and others were trying to turn Schiavo into an inadimate object to push an agenda. I don't like this business of personal matters being covered excessively. It's news when other groups are involved with a situation such as Schiavo's was, but this sort of thing is dealt with every day everywhere. I don't know what made her case so especially important. Would we have been hurt in some way if we weren't informed of this situation and continuously updated? The autopsy shows me the whole thing was even more of a shaming offense of Frist and Delay than any accusation trying to characterize that woman's primary caretaker for so long.
No doubt the conservative right turned one family's tragedy into a PR debacle, embarassing themselves and trivializing her life in the same stroke.
Seperate from all that though, the autopsy showed conclusively that the husband had not abused her as the parents have at times claimed, though it didn't solve the mystery of what exactly caused her initial collapse and subsequent oxygen deprevation. It also proved beyond a doubt that her brain was irreversibly damaged and that she was not cable of experiencing feeling or understanding (this was basically the opinion of the top neurologists and experts when she was still alive).
Her husband, despite knowing her wishes should she come to find herself in the state she did, attempted to hold out hope for a recovery or was perhaps unable to deal with the possibility of letting her go, but either way he devoted himself to her for many years despite her lack of improvement. He even became a registered nurse in order to further his ability and involvement in her care.
The parents did not behave rationally through the entire situation, and were supposedly extremely overprotective and paranoid. The New York Times has reported that they even reject the autopsy's finding that she was blind from having the visual processing center of her brain destroyed because they fealt she recognized them, though the fact that she was indeed blind is basically incontrovertible. It's hard not to be sympathetic to parents in that position, but most of the doubt cast on the husband was a result of their paranoia and insistence rather than fact.
Seperate from all that though, the autopsy showed conclusively that the husband had not abused her as the parents have at times claimed, though it didn't solve the mystery of what exactly caused her initial collapse and subsequent oxygen deprevation. It also proved beyond a doubt that her brain was irreversibly damaged and that she was not cable of experiencing feeling or understanding (this was basically the opinion of the top neurologists and experts when she was still alive).
Her husband, despite knowing her wishes should she come to find herself in the state she did, attempted to hold out hope for a recovery or was perhaps unable to deal with the possibility of letting her go, but either way he devoted himself to her for many years despite her lack of improvement. He even became a registered nurse in order to further his ability and involvement in her care.
The parents did not behave rationally through the entire situation, and were supposedly extremely overprotective and paranoid. The New York Times has reported that they even reject the autopsy's finding that she was blind from having the visual processing center of her brain destroyed because they fealt she recognized them, though the fact that she was indeed blind is basically incontrovertible. It's hard not to be sympathetic to parents in that position, but most of the doubt cast on the husband was a result of their paranoia and insistence rather than fact.
Swank said:Seperate from all that though, the autopsy showed conclusively that the husband had not abused her as the parents have at times claimed, though it didn't solve the mystery of what exactly caused her initial collapse and subsequent oxygen deprevation.
The autopsy didn't prove anything about what caused her collapse. The only thing conclusive about the report is that it's inconclusive as to what caused her collapse.
It's absolutely hillarious that anyone will actually consider this to be a right-wing conspiracy. The governement got involved after her family sought legal help. It's not as if the government magically selected one woman to draw attention away from the war and shed light on the *duh duh duh....*
secret right-wing moral conspiracy agenda to demoralize left-wing liberals.
LambdaCalc said:It's absolutely hillarious that anyone will actually consider this to be a right-wing conspiracy. The governement got involved after her family sought legal help. It's not as if the government magically selected one woman to draw attention away from the war and shed light on the *duh duh duh....*
secret right-wing moral conspiracy agenda to demoralize left-wing liberals.
While not a conspiracy, the motives of the government are in need of questioning. Why, when Bush speaks of a right to life, does the military continue to kill and be killed in an ongoing war based on false premises? Is an unborn American fetus or a brain-dead woman more valuable than several thousand American troops, and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? Bush wouls make it seem that way.
No, the government did not "magically select one woman to draw attention away from the war." I do not think the massive interest in the Schiavo case was in any way meant to detract from the killings going on elsewhere. The simple fact is that the American public has the attention span of a six-year-old and demands entertaining television. As a TV-watching entity, we are used to being shocked and horrified, and I know you all have heard the statistics about the number of murders seen on TV by children (people who watch a large amount of TV think the world is much more violent than it actually is, and much more violent than those who watch TV sparingly).
But anyway, the Schiavo issue was not a conspiracy and not a blatant cover-up. It was simply a media hayday promulgated by ignorant anti-choice mobsters (the most notable of which being the Bush brothers), and eaten up by a public eager to consume the best TV has to offer.
You're right Shift. It wasn't a conspiracy, but it was moronic people using that woman for something despite credible diagnosis. Like I said I didn't pay too much attention to it. I didn't spend ANY time reading or watching the runaway bride shit. Wasn't there though at one time somebody claiming he disagreed with doctors who had actually seen her physically while he had only seen a video tape? That was taken for a ride as a credible source and proof suggesting the judges were wrong for taking her off life support.
Lamdacalc, the parents had previously claimed to have evidence that the husband was abusive and his beatings had caused broken ribs, skull injuries, ect., and used this as a primary argument for the removal of her husband as her primary caregiver and proxy. There was never any credible evidence of this when she was alive, and the autopsy revealed that the only internal damage they found not relating to her prolonged condition at the hospital was a tiny vertibrae fracture that is commonly caused by early onset of osteoperosis (likely in her case as she had lost enormous amounts of weight and may have possibly been suffering from an eating disorder and malnutrition at the time of her collapse). There is no credible evidence that the husband was ever physically abusive, no police reports, anecdotal accounts from friends, or otherwise, this all came from the parents who only starting making this claims when they sought to have him removed as caretaker.
So far as you saying that it didn't prove what caused her collapse - I actuallysay that very clearly in the quote which you cited. It does, however, quite clearly rule out some sort of abuse. Her heart stopped beating suddenly and without warning. Once again, the abuse charges are manufactured, this agreed upon by doctors, police, and the courts. It was repeated heavily by right-wing pundits that husband was somehow suspicious or had strange motives (a guy who dedicated his life to her care for seven years, yep, obviously just wanted to do her in!), which explains the reluctance of some to let the idea go.
I never said it was any kind of conspiracy did I? In fact, if you read the post, I said the made into a huge PR even, meaning highly publicized and harldy conspiritorial in nature. Please read more carefully next time. They openly tried to use the story for political ends, which backfired terribly as polls showed the public opinion was grossly in favor of no government intervention, which promopted the GOP to back away from it in a major way once they realized their folly.
An intersting thing about our president, who rushed to Washington to sign an eleventh hour bill to try and block the proposed removal of Schiavo's sustinence because he believes in a culture of life. When he was governor of Texas, he signed into law a bill that would require hospitals to disconnect patients from life support after one month if they didn't have the means to pay for it or were otherwise insured after thirty days. This did in fact result in quite a few people who didn't have the money to pay for the type of care Terry Chiavo recieved having the plug pulled on them. The bill was obviously a giant hand-out to the medical and insurance lobby - but more importantly that it proves that Bush is a humongous hypocrite (not that we didn't udnerstand this already) who was in fact just pandering to the religious right with the Schiavo thing. He signed a bill that condemned many to death simply over money, but in when discussing the Schiavo affair he made it clear that he believed one life lost was too many. This is also the man who OK'ed record numbers of executions in Texas, some of which included the mentally handicapped. What a jackass.
So far as you saying that it didn't prove what caused her collapse - I actuallysay that very clearly in the quote which you cited. It does, however, quite clearly rule out some sort of abuse. Her heart stopped beating suddenly and without warning. Once again, the abuse charges are manufactured, this agreed upon by doctors, police, and the courts. It was repeated heavily by right-wing pundits that husband was somehow suspicious or had strange motives (a guy who dedicated his life to her care for seven years, yep, obviously just wanted to do her in!), which explains the reluctance of some to let the idea go.
I never said it was any kind of conspiracy did I? In fact, if you read the post, I said the made into a huge PR even, meaning highly publicized and harldy conspiritorial in nature. Please read more carefully next time. They openly tried to use the story for political ends, which backfired terribly as polls showed the public opinion was grossly in favor of no government intervention, which promopted the GOP to back away from it in a major way once they realized their folly.
An intersting thing about our president, who rushed to Washington to sign an eleventh hour bill to try and block the proposed removal of Schiavo's sustinence because he believes in a culture of life. When he was governor of Texas, he signed into law a bill that would require hospitals to disconnect patients from life support after one month if they didn't have the means to pay for it or were otherwise insured after thirty days. This did in fact result in quite a few people who didn't have the money to pay for the type of care Terry Chiavo recieved having the plug pulled on them. The bill was obviously a giant hand-out to the medical and insurance lobby - but more importantly that it proves that Bush is a humongous hypocrite (not that we didn't udnerstand this already) who was in fact just pandering to the religious right with the Schiavo thing. He signed a bill that condemned many to death simply over money, but in when discussing the Schiavo affair he made it clear that he believed one life lost was too many. This is also the man who OK'ed record numbers of executions in Texas, some of which included the mentally handicapped. What a jackass.
You've made it clear that you believe the GOP turned the Schiavo case into a media frenzy. The media was going to cover the situation regardless of who is in office and the coverage has nothing to do with political affiliation. The government did not intervene until the family requested help. I believe the parents have a right to seek help and pursue what they believe is right.
It's interesting that you compare the life of a criminal to the life of an innocent woman. I believe the case you are talking about involved a man with a low IQ (around 69) who raped and killed two girls with the help of three other men. Maybe I'm crazy, but that's not a comparison.
It's interesting that you compare the life of a criminal to the life of an innocent woman. I believe the case you are talking about involved a man with a low IQ (around 69) who raped and killed two girls with the help of three other men. Maybe I'm crazy, but that's not a comparison.
"I believe the parents have a right to seek help and pursue what they believe is right."
And they sought help, which they have every right to do, and pursued their cause through the State Court system in Florida. That should have been the end of it!! The Federal government just had no business interfering in a private, personal matter. It was predictable that the holier than thou Christian Right GOP would seize the opportunity for what they perceived to be political gain to get free media coverage. Had they known how much this would backfire there are very few of them who would have made the same decision again. (Several Republicans have, in fact, expressed remorse about interfering). Do you really think any time a situation arises that is similar and concerns a matter governed by a state court system that Congress should intervene? Like they have no other pressing business? Quite a precedent to set! The GOP usually preaches states' rights except when it conveniently does not suit their political interest. As Swank said, what a bunch of hypocrites. Thankfully, the public is beginning to tire of this regime on this and other important issues of the day. Hopefully, the memory about this will last beyond that of a 6-year old -- at least until 2008!
And they sought help, which they have every right to do, and pursued their cause through the State Court system in Florida. That should have been the end of it!! The Federal government just had no business interfering in a private, personal matter. It was predictable that the holier than thou Christian Right GOP would seize the opportunity for what they perceived to be political gain to get free media coverage. Had they known how much this would backfire there are very few of them who would have made the same decision again. (Several Republicans have, in fact, expressed remorse about interfering). Do you really think any time a situation arises that is similar and concerns a matter governed by a state court system that Congress should intervene? Like they have no other pressing business? Quite a precedent to set! The GOP usually preaches states' rights except when it conveniently does not suit their political interest. As Swank said, what a bunch of hypocrites. Thankfully, the public is beginning to tire of this regime on this and other important issues of the day. Hopefully, the memory about this will last beyond that of a 6-year old -- at least until 2008!
All I'm trying to say is that the parents pushed this case as far as it went. In every case the courts sided in favor of Michael Schaivo and the parents sought the appeals. Republicans voiced their opinions about the situation and the democrats voiced theirs. As far as Congress getting involved is concerned, this is not the first time congress has confered jurisdiction on a court after appeals have been exhausted.
"As far as Congress getting involved is concerned, this is not the first time congress has confered jurisdiction on a court after appeals have been exhausted." LambadCalc
I don't know what you mean by this. Does this make it right because it's not the first time or what?
I don't know what you mean by this. Does this make it right because it's not the first time or what?
I concur with Iwant8's point . . .
Additionally, democrats mainly voiced the opinion that congress ought to stay out of the matter. Rerpublicans lead the charge and sought to publicize it for a very real reason - garnering good will from the 'religous right' they consider to be a party base and potent electoral force. The actual number of people actively protesting at the Schiavo site was small (I have heard reports as low as 20 or so a day, and the most fervent protestors were also frequent figures at abortion clinics), but the news media often made it appear as though there was a frenzy of activity and debate, though we eventually learned through polling that some 80% of Americans though that congress and Jeb Bush were wrong to attempt to intervene. The percentage in favor of any means necessary to block Schiavo's death largely identified that they believed it was never acceptable to let a human life end for religious reasons, and a poll that I saw cited a very strong correlation with this group and anti-abortion stances. The GOP was seeking to further endear themselves to this important voter group with the Schiavo thing.
As I explained in my previous post, Bush is a callow hypocrite on this issue. He and the GOP did in fact publicize it and their efforts on behalf of the parents by hosting press conferences and otherwise commenting as they are capable in their positions. Indeed, the media is partly to blame for overcovering the event and catering to the political machine's agenda, but then again they would have had nothing to cover without grand and dramatic statements from GOP members like Tom Delay (a house member from Texas, home of the frequent execution and life-support unplugging, both supported by Delay). To suggest that it was simply the news covering events and the Republican politicians quietly tried to intervene without collecting a lot of attention is a fairly naive assumption. I don't mean to be insulting by my word choice there, but it really does demonstrate a lack of understanding about media and politics, as well as the issue in general.
You don't get the president flying around in the middle of a night and then press conferences to answer plenty of questions about it if they don't want it publicized. They tried to lionize Schiavo and her parents, as well make their efforts seem a heroic battle for life rather than a cheap media blunder. In doing so they essentially degraded themselves (though the public's short memory has already forgotten this) and turned the poor woman's death into a national circus.
Additionally, democrats mainly voiced the opinion that congress ought to stay out of the matter. Rerpublicans lead the charge and sought to publicize it for a very real reason - garnering good will from the 'religous right' they consider to be a party base and potent electoral force. The actual number of people actively protesting at the Schiavo site was small (I have heard reports as low as 20 or so a day, and the most fervent protestors were also frequent figures at abortion clinics), but the news media often made it appear as though there was a frenzy of activity and debate, though we eventually learned through polling that some 80% of Americans though that congress and Jeb Bush were wrong to attempt to intervene. The percentage in favor of any means necessary to block Schiavo's death largely identified that they believed it was never acceptable to let a human life end for religious reasons, and a poll that I saw cited a very strong correlation with this group and anti-abortion stances. The GOP was seeking to further endear themselves to this important voter group with the Schiavo thing.
As I explained in my previous post, Bush is a callow hypocrite on this issue. He and the GOP did in fact publicize it and their efforts on behalf of the parents by hosting press conferences and otherwise commenting as they are capable in their positions. Indeed, the media is partly to blame for overcovering the event and catering to the political machine's agenda, but then again they would have had nothing to cover without grand and dramatic statements from GOP members like Tom Delay (a house member from Texas, home of the frequent execution and life-support unplugging, both supported by Delay). To suggest that it was simply the news covering events and the Republican politicians quietly tried to intervene without collecting a lot of attention is a fairly naive assumption. I don't mean to be insulting by my word choice there, but it really does demonstrate a lack of understanding about media and politics, as well as the issue in general.
You don't get the president flying around in the middle of a night and then press conferences to answer plenty of questions about it if they don't want it publicized. They tried to lionize Schiavo and her parents, as well make their efforts seem a heroic battle for life rather than a cheap media blunder. In doing so they essentially degraded themselves (though the public's short memory has already forgotten this) and turned the poor woman's death into a national circus.