quote:I believe it was Rabbit who mentioned that her mother died.
Not me. Both my parents are still in excellent health and I have a copy of the family trust in my filing cabinet.
My MIL recently died and I was present when she set up her will/trust. Her estate hasn't been settled yet but I don't anticipate any shinanigans in that regard.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...a lady that was Schiavo's nurse around 1996, 1997...says that Terri...could say small, simple words like "pa" to indicate pain...and "mama" and she would smile and laugh briefly."
Let's see...at minimum, there were five nurses and one doctor who attended TerriSchiavo during any given year. Add non-attending doctors/interns/nurses/orderlies/janitors/etc who regularly saw her. Multiply that by staff turnover over the many years...
...and the natural conclusion that one should reach is that the hospital workers who didn't report such behaviour are evil people who think patients should be terminated regardless of their condition. Seems like a good way of becoming unemployed. And we all know how wonderful being on unemployment, on welfare, then on the streets is. Of course, the not-too-bright might think that that one particular nurse (who saw a very small degree of behavior which might be interpreted as indicating a non-vegetative state) had an erm...unusual perception of reality.
"I have often wondered why Mr.Schaivo has still been refusing TV cameras to go in and video her lately."
Cuz making it into an even greater media circus for the purpose of entertainment wouldn't change Terri's medical condition. Whoops... I forgot that her husband is an evil person. A stupid one at that: he should know enough to get an agent to negotiate a few million bucks for broadcasting rights.
posted
Thanks Rabbit, I changed my guess back over to "?ClaudiaTherese?"
"I think that's a bit absurd, don't you?"
Not nearly as absurd as a mysterious someone losing a living will entrusted to a hospital so that the medical staff would know ones own preferences inregard to ones own medical treatment. I doubt that the hospital makes a habit of losing authorization to perform a medical procedure, or to bill the patient('s insurance company/etc). While far far far from being worthy as evidence of malice, such a what-should-be-unusual event occuring under such circumstances should be treated as a curiosity pointing toward a possible problem in either the filing system or staffing. Curiosities should be investigated. In this case, presumably one wouldn't want such an accidental loss or "loss" to occur again.
quote:Telp - did you go to the site that was linked to further up this thread http://www.terrisfight.net/ where her family has posted video and testimony that indicates she CAN and DOES respond to pain?
Farmgirl
Except that pain from a cut or breaking an arm is different from the situation I'm talking about. In this situation the ability to feel the effects of starvation are almost nill.
[ March 22, 2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you did great Stephen. I especially liked your response to Ken's assertions that your organization is some kind of puppet of religious wackos.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what about all the hoopla over marriage lately? That marriage is holy and all that and not for gay folk. So now Terri and her husband's marriage is not so holy?
Not really news, but apparently we as people drop things we used to fight over whenever they become inconvenient.
There is so much hypocrisy in this whole circus it makes me crazy.
So her husband loves her, took care of her for 16 years, stayed with her for 16 years, and stayed quiet because he's a private man.
And now people are demonizing him. Why not demonize her parents? I don't think they are acting very well at all. And as for him starting a new family...well that's what he SHOULD do... why put your life on hold for a corpse? And yet he stayed with it...when he could have gone away at ANY time. He could have signed away his rights to her parents if he wanted to. But no. Because he thinks he knows what she would have wanted. And he loves her enough that he did not abandon the cause to allow her body to die.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. And as I said, he should move on with his life... he should not put his life on hold for a brain-dead human, ie a corpse.
And I'll say again... I really don't care what happens. Either option is fine. Her personality is dead, but hey if her husband wants to give over rights and her parents want to spend the money... go for it. Or let her die, since Terri is dead anyway.
What really infuriates me is the way the government is using this fiasco for their own ends...when in reality they don't care about her at all.
[ March 22, 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adultery is viewed as a lesser sin than eg missing Mass on Sunday, Dagonee: ie not an automatic mortal sin needing the expiation of Confession lest one be consigned to Hell upon death; nor a sin which leads to excommunication, such as divorce&remarriage.
And you should also know that a pope's opinion is not automaticly RomanCatholic Doctrine.
posted
I think the real battle going on is actually a contest between two noble causes (if not more). Noble ideals that should never have had to come into battle.
Thus the 7 year battle between them... and now the Governemnt getting involved.
A)The noble cause of a husband and wife and their sacred bond and rights.
B)The noble cause of parents’ love for their children...no matter who they are (even a brain-dead shell).
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You well know adultery is viewed as a lesser sin than eg missing Mass on Sunday, Dagonee: ie not an automatic mortal sin needing the expiation of Confession lest one be consigned to Hell upon death; nor a sin (such as divorce) which leads to excommunication.
quote: For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
quote:And you should also know that a pope's opinion is not automaticly RomanCatholic Doctrine.
Which is why made a point of saying, "although this wasn't an official pronouncement."
quote: he should not put his life on hold for a brain-dead human, ie a corpse.
Telp,
No medical person - including the ones testifying *for* Michael Schiavo - have ever claimed Terri Schiavo is "brain dead." That doesn't mean the term hasn't shown up in the press, but using it is inaccurate and just gets people more comfortable with the idea of equating her with a corpse. Completely different set of clinical criteria for brain death.
(As for "brain death" - when I debated Peter Singer, he referred to the term as a "story" that bioethicists sold to the public.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True sndrake, me being melodramatic I suppose. But still, the Terri that used to exist is gone. Her personality is dead.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
And whether or not she has any personality or intellectual functioning is questionable.
Not the same person =/= not a person at all
I don't know what to make of all the conflicting reports about her degree of awareness. I do know there's enough uncertainty about the "PVS" label itself to be cause for concern.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say corpse because of my own personal horror at loosing my personality/intelligence/memory/language/understanding... that seems like death to me. Thus my use of the word corpse.
Who cares if my body lives after my mind is gone.. without my mind I am nothing... thus I am dead.
[ March 22, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really not happy with Congress' action on this case. Not because I don't want the outcome to be one of Terri's parents getting to have a chance to do whatever can be done for her...a living human, but because I think Congress is not the appropriate place for these one-off decisions to be made.
I think the reality is that when the hoopla is over and whichever side "wins" this current battle, Terri Schiavo will make the news one more time either in a few weeks or in a few years. When she dies having remained unaware of all of it for the duration.
In the meantime, the nation, our leaders, and Congress, especially, will forget what this was really all about:
- medical diagnosis and prognosis interacting with the minefield of surviving relative's emotions.
- who gets to speak for an individual when that individual can no longer speak for him/herself. And what the legal limits to that are.
- a clear bias in our society to view disability as worse than death, and (in this case) how that can color our perceptions of another person's plight and lead us to make decisions that are not necessarily supported by the data.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No; it's not about Terri Schiavo. And it hasn't been for quite awhile.
It's about us.
It's about each of us who thinks "I wouldn't want to live if I were a vegetable." It's about each one of us who thinks, as one blogger wrote, that Michael Schiavo has been "chained to a drooling shitbag for 15 years."
But it's also about those of us who are those vegetables, those drooling shitbags. Those of us who want to live but know we're a burden to our families. Those of us who fear "do not resuscitate" orders. Those of us who use ventilators, and who use feeding tubes. And those of us who can communicate with clarity only through artificial means.
How can the two groups of us -- those of us who live with severe disabilities, and those of us who fear such a fate more than death -- come to some common ground?
. . .
The disability rights movement I cover is made up of individuals who themselves are living lives that they may not have been able to previously imagine. Individuals who can communicate only via technology -- who, without today's computers, might very well be thought to have little or no cognitive ability.
Summary of key points from the lawyers review
quote: * [The Guardian concludes] that all of the appropriate and proper elements of the law have been followed and met. The law has done its job well. The courts [which supported the decision to suspend feeding] have carefully and diligently adhered to the prescribed civil processes and evidentiary guidelines, and have painfully and diligently applied the required tests in a reasonable, conscientious and professional manner.
* Highly competent, scientifically based physicians using recognized measures and standards have deduced, within a high degree of medical certainty, that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state. This evidence is compelling.
* Theresa's neurological tests and CT scans indicate objective measures of the persistent vegetative state.
* Individuals have come forward indicating that there are therapies and treatments and interventions that can literally re-grow Theresa's functional, cerebral cortex brain tissue [which has shrunken], restoring part of all of her functions. There is no scientifically valid, medically recognized evidence that this has been done or is possible, even in rats, according to the president of the American Society for Neuro-Transplantation.
* [The Guardian] concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent well-document information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement.
In this report Wolfson also notes he spent much time with Schiavo and "was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities." [url= http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf]]http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf]Jay Wolfson[/url]
[ March 22, 2005, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Jay Wolfson, who was appointed to be Schiavo's guardian ad litem for a time, Terri Schiavo is not responsive at all.
quote:after spending long hours at Schiavo's bedside for 20 days out of his 30-day appointment, and after pouring over 30,000 pages of legal documents, Wolfson came to the conclusion that medical evidence behind Schiavo's diagnosis was credible, and that she indeed was in a permanent vegetative state.
quote:Wolfson was dismayed to learn Friday that Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers, claimed that Schiavo tried to speak. ''Terri does not speak,'' he said. ``To claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction.''
One thing Wolfson never doubted was that for all their intense, mutual antagonism, both Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents loved and adored her.
quote: I find myself wondering if it weren't deliberately removed by someone with a religio-political agenda.
I really doubt it. Her "chart" at the hospital consisted of nine six-inch-thick folders. Three of the ICU nurses paged through it twice looking for it, because they knew it would help us feel less responsible. But the truth is that mom knew she didn't have long. Nine years on a donated organ with ZERO rejection is impressive, but the anti-rejection meds, taken over that period of time caused massive damage (though very , very gradual).
She was an RN, and all of the RNs that we spoke with were very considerate of our feelings, and chatted with us a bit. They ALL had living wills themselves. Every single fripping one of 'em. You don't generally know what they know and NOT have one.
But in the end they told us it didn't make a difference. Even if the LW was found, we could have overridden it just by saying "No, try to save her."
She knew that, too, and threatened us all with 'haunting' if we didn't follow her wishes. Truth is, I find myself wishing she would haunt me, sometimes.
Also, her home had gonethrough some serious throwing-out-of old-papers-and -stuff in the last year, so it's possible that that is what happened to her copy of it, which we couldn't find either. Papa thought it was with her pre-arranged funeral papers, but it wasn't.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She died very quickly so we didn't have to do anything, but Mom made it really clear what she wanted us to do would she need to be put under respirator or this kind of machines. She threatened with haunting, too Her Mom - my grandmother - suffered horribly at the end because my grandfather didn't want to let her go. She told us she prayed Jesus to come and take her... It was heart-wrenching. I made it clear with my family, too, as well as my will to donate my organs if they can be useful to someone.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's lovely, Anna. I can tell you that those nine years (which she wouldn't have otherwise had) made a huge difference to all of us, especially for me. I was her youngest child, and she got sick shortly after I married. She never would have lived to know my sons, or for them to know her.
Her best friend, who gave her the kidney, is still in touch with us, and treats the boys like her own grandchildren. I can't even put into words how wonderful it was to have my mother there at the births of my children.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to make sure that the George W Bush that signed the bill into law that allowed the Federal Courts to intervene and "save" Terri Schiavo's life is the same George W Bush that, as Governor of Texas, signed a bill into law that allowed the hospital to decide to terminate a patient's life support if that person was 1) no longer able to pay for such life support, and 2) had no hope of long-term recovery.
Also, wanted to make sure that this is the same "culture of life" guy who laughs at criminal executions.
posted
I just want to check and make sure that the ssywak who posted that realizes this has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the bill.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, it may have no relation to the merits of this bill, but it does raise questions about what is motivating Bush to support what appear to be very differing bills.
FYI, here's an interesting question and answer session with Jay Wolfson. He covers many of the questions and concerns that have been voiced in this post. Jay Wolfson Q&APosts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Dagonee, it may have no relation to the merits of this bill, but it does raise questions about what is motivating Bush to support what appear to be very differing bills."
I think that President Bush is genuinely moved and concerned about Terri Schiavo's condition. Did you see the footage of him coming back to the White House from the ranch? From the moment he stepped off of Air Force One, the look in his eyes was to me, unmistakable. This situation is very troubling to him.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, can you explain how it doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the bill?
This bill should be examined on its merits. There are several things good about it (additional review before making life and death decisions, reassertion of the supposed presumption for life, etc.) and several things bad about it (passed in haste in response to one case, weakens the federal/state divide, etc.).
There are lots of ways to balance these concerns and come down for or against the bill.
President's Bush's failure to live up to some of the ideals that support the bill in approving earlier legislation is not relevant to whether this bill is good or bad. It is relevant to whether Bush is a hypocrite or intellectually inconsistent. Possibly, some of the arguments in favor of the Texas bill might also be valid arguments against this bill. IMO, arguments for this bill are valid arguments against the Texas bill.
Basically, it grants Schiavo's parents (specifically, by name) the right to sue in federal court to obtain de novo review (basically, the court will look at the case from scratch).
The suit allows for a review the order to withhold medical treatment for violation of Schiavo's rights, and specifically does not change those rights.
It also allows the court to issue a stay of the Florida court ruling (temporarily put the tube back in until the federal courts decide).
posted
OK, now I need a translation of that! ha ha. Thanks. Your point is good about the merits of the bill, but I think the point ssywak was making was about the merit of Bush's character. And I agree with that as well.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Basically, it grants Schiavo's parents (specifically, by name) the right to sue in federal court to obtain de novo review (basically, the court will look at the case from scratch).
Does it say why this is needed? Does it make a case for why the Florida Courts, which have been reviewing this thoroughly, if the news can be believed, are overturned on this?
How will the Congress and President react when a Federal court looks at this and comes up with the same decision? Will those judges become "activist judges" and thus their decisions reduced to gut level activism and not good judicial process? What if the judges find in favor of the family? Will his marriage and guardianship be "cancelled" since both are obviously meaningless? What has the Catholic Church to say on this specific situation? Have they? I am curious how they would respond. Essentially as long as she is alive, he can not get remarried or move on with his life without being condemned as an adulterer and soon-to-be resident of hell, even though he worked hard to save her and make her life better while there was still hope (which as of now there is not).
Can a person who is in a vegetative state be legally married? I know people with guardians can get married (known some folks like this) but in those cases, the ward was able to speak for themselves in most ways and thus it was deemed okay. ON the other hand, people with guardians cannot enter into contracts (which a marriage is). Does this mean they can't be beholden to a contract, either? If Bob is fine and signs a contract to fix the roof. He falls off and is brain damaged and is vegetative for the rest of his life and a guardian is assigned by the courts. Can I sue Bob for breach of contract? Can I win? Or is he no longer held responsible for contracts he signed?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it say why this is needed? Does it make a case for why the Florida Courts, which have been reviewing this thoroughly, if the news can be believed, are overturned on this?
There's a long tradition of federal courts reviewing state courts, even when the state courts have reviewed the matter thoroughly.
Miranda, Mapp, and Gidean v. Wainwright are good examples of this.
quote:"I recognized it as "Concerned Expression #3." What did you think it was?"
Ha, ha, Tom. You can disagree with President Bush's politics, but still find it somewhat incredible that you don't seem to find him at least well-meaning and genuine. I don't think you've ever given him a chance.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rest assured that I'm just as baffled by your belief that he is well-meaning and genuine. Every single ounce of the man's body language screams "self-interested, smug, completely insincere jerkwad" to me, and I honestly have no idea how people watching him could ever get another impression.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Bush is genuinely concerned. Regardless of political affiliation, any decent human being would be touched by this tragic set of circumstances.
Having said that, Bush is probably also concerned about how to use this opportunity to appease his religious right constituents. Nothing wrong with that either. They help get him elected.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I think that Bush is sincere in his beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. I also think he is ready to cut through any state or federal laws to preserve that life because he believes the cause is good.
He's always, always operated on an "ends justify the means" basis. Why should this be any different?
I doubt he's at all bothered by the fact that in so doing he can attract more voters, but I don't think it's driving him.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time believing when Bush is and isn't truly emotionally committed to something.
After his first four years in office, I grew to greatly distrust him, and I found him smug and arrogant, not to mention I don't think he really cares about anything but his own point of view. But I guess that also allows for him to truly care about things, just not to care about people who oppose him.
He's irresponsible and wreckless, but I suppose in there somewhere is a real person with real concerns for the sanctity of human life.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why? Does the smirk look more fetching in person? I mean, seriously, I shouldn't have to meet the guy to buy into his cult of personality.
"I think that Bush is sincere in his beliefs regarding the sanctity of life."
I would believe that, except for the fact that nothing else he does implies this is genuine. I believe he thinks life should be sanctified when it occurs to him to think about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because the sanctity of life doesn't apply to whatever we label as terrorists, or people in the low tax brackets. But for the rest of them, he's entirely sincere.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's because the sanctity of life doesn't apply to whatever we label as terrorists, or people in the low tax brackets. But for the rest of them, he's entirely sincere.
Well, I think the lower tax bracket thing is just because he is ignorant. He has lived a life of privilege and knows nothing or little of what it means to be poor and have to live on less than several hundred thousand dollars a year. He'd care if he realized there was something to care about, but he's sheltered, and none of his rich buddies know any better enough to educate him.
I think his concern for Terri Schaivo however comes from a combination of 1 part genuine compassion and 2 parts the religious radical right clamoring for action.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
What this is really all about is whether our laws need to change. Bush is signing a law crafted in haste to give a chance to one woman's parents to start the case over in Federal court.
It looks like that is going to go nowhere.
And, in the meantime, we'll be arguing the merits/demerits of their case instead of trying to tackle the real issues.
Given that every time the President boards AirForce One, it is estimated that the cost to taxpayers is roughly $1Million, his dramatic flight back to DC in order to sign the bill cost more than the money that's been available for Terri Schiavo's care from the malpractice settlement.
If we factor in the cost of Congress' little circus, we've spent more on this apparently failing attempt to shift the case to the Federal Courts than has been spent on her medical care and treatment all along.
But it's not about money.
and it's not about sense.
It's about making someone into a test case and an unwitting poster child for about 1/2 dozen viewpoints that are colliding in this country.
We've had opportunities to deal with this kind of issue before (Karen Quinlan's case being the most famous, but there have been so many others...) and we still haven't tackled it.
I think we're behaving very stupidly. Wastefully.
And, the effect of all this hoopla will be exactly NOTHING where it really matters. In our laws.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, I heard your show (most of it) today! That link worked well. Downloaded it, burned to CD in a few seconds and had good listening in the car today. I should do more shows that way...won't miss stuff when Iam in and out of the car.
I wish I could have taken notes as both sndrake and the two other guests made some interesting points, though I actually didn't agree with sndrake's stuff as much as I usually do.
Some of the points that come to mind:
1) How did this get linked to the disability movement? I can see the obvious connections but it really seems more of a pro-life/anti-abortion movement connection.
2) One guest made a good point...many people presumes to think we should preserve the woman's life at all costs yet no one can seem to find anyone who would answer the question, "Would you like to be kept alive at all costs if non-responsive for 15 years and must live by mechanical means only" with a resounding "Yes!" In fact, is there anyone on here that would want to exist like that? Just curious who would have advanced directives of that sort.
3) They played a long speech by a Congressman named Terry Frank (I think that was him) who told this giant long story filled with complete misstatements about this case and then a non-related story about a woman waking up from a coma. TS is not in a coma but who cares!? Apparently the majority of Congress believes that TS is in a coma and could wake up, even though where brain material was located is now filled with spinal fluid.
4) Two of the guests made the same point quite a bit...why does the government feel the need to overturn 10 judges and scores of doctors, a husband and guardian who have spent the last 7 years reviewing this information when none of the people getting involved have any stake in it professionally (maybe one or two might be doctors...I know of only one medical doctor in Congress and he is the guy who...and this is a hoot...still thinks you can get HIV from a dirty toilet seat. Now we know why he left medicine to do politics.) or personally. It has only political implications for them and that is a horrid reason to invade the private lives to make a stump speech.
5) I did agree with sndrake's big point in that just because one is a guardian doesn't mean that a person's life is completely at their disposal. Citing accurate and horrid accounts of euthanasia used on children with disabilities he makes the point that guardians alone can't be completely responsible for end of life issues for a person. I agree with this but in the case of TS, the guardian alone hasn't made a decision. If he just walked in, made the decision and that was it I would agree but even prior to the opportunistic handwringing by the Congress and President this was a big issue in Florida among courts, doctors and family. It was a decision not made lightly. More people are going off medical supports daily without so much input.
6) Another good question brought up there (and here, I think) is why Congress went through all this trouble but included in this bill that it "can't be used as precedence?" Why make a single case bill vs. a bill that says "no one can be taken off of mechanical means of sustaining life if anyone disagrees with that choice?" Why make a big deal out of this case when probably dozens of people went off life support in the amount of time it took me to type this note. Why do those people have to die without the President shedding a tear?
7) The cost was brought up. I don't think cost should ever be an issue when determining if someone should get medical treatment. That said, TS isn't being treated. She is merely being sustained with no life to speak of. Yet it still costs money. The very program that Bush and his Congress are cutting (Medicaid) or ignoring (Medicare) will be paying for this to some level. The Hospice that TS is at will pay for the rest, using up a bed and funding that could be used for end-of-life care for people who genuinely need Hospice service (having been a part of such a care program with my father near his end of life, I can't express enough how important their services are). Will TS stay at the Hospice place, even though their mandate is to really be there for a minimal time when the end is near? What will this thinking do to Hospice care across the country? Will they just become another nursing home funded entirely on dwinding Medicare/Medicaid dollars? What happens when that runs out?
Lots of good points on that show, though and sndrake did very well and made really good points in the discussion. I really recommend the short download.
When he flew from TX to make it about him? I can see him being privately concerned, praying, etc. That is normal. Maybe a quietly released statement saying he hopes for the best for all involved. But they played a bit of him doing a speech before tons of people and using TS and her story to garner applause. It is a stump speech for him, nothing more. I totally agree with you, Bob, it is very disheartening.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"From the moment he stepped off of Air Force One, the look in his eyes was to me, unmistakable."
I recognized it as "Concerned Expression #3." What did you think it was?
awesome Tom!
As I've said before, in my opinion Bush and Karl Rove could care less about Terri. This is all just a media blitz. And I find it a little worrying that this all blew up around the same time we found out that Bush and his people lied to us and all our Allies about the sale of nuclear material from N.Korea to Pakistan.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) How did this get linked to the disability movement? I can see the obvious connections but it really seems more of a pro-life/anti-abortion movement connection.
fil et al,
I don't have a lot of time right now for long detailed, specific Q & A right now. But for the first question there - *anything* involving guardianship is by nature a disability issue. Guardianship issues are complex - and they've been pretty much hijacked by the bioethicists and "end of life care" communities.
Another thing, fil, is those examples I gave about infanticide were group decisions - the starvation and dehydration of the infant with Down syndrome was agreed upon by parents and a medical team. It was sanctioned by two different judges. And all defended as a "private" family matter.
Except for a lower number of judges, the dynamics look all pretty familiar, including the public assuming it's just a "pro-life" issue.
Right now, I have a pile of "to do" with deadlines that - realistically - won't all get done. It doesn't help that I more or less lost a lot of the day yesterday. After weeks of going on short sleep, I finally hit a neurological "wall" and found myself pretty much incapable of doing anything except repeating well-rehearsed soundbites.
Today's better - it's probably the first time in a couple weeks I've managed 7 hours of sleep. Still tired, but at least I'm functioning beyond the robot level.
I'll try to jump back in when I can.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Her Mom - my grandmother - suffered horribly at the end because my grandfather didn't want to let her go. She told us she prayed Jesus to come and take her... It was heart-wrenching. I made it clear with my family, too, as well as my will to donate my organs if they can be useful to someone.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
