Makes you wonder about how the media made it sound like such a majority of Americans thought it was right to murder her.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen nothing in the media that makes that presumption, Jay. What the majority of Americans disagree with is that the President and Congress stuck their noses in where, clearly, they have no business. This was a matter for the Judicial branch.
Do you always make these false assumptions, or are you just ignorant?
Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zogby's a hack. He got totally discredited in the 2004 elections when he predicted Kerry would win and then slanted every poll to make it look like he was right. Ironic Jay should quote such a well-know Democrat, though...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, if you knew anything about polling, you'd know it's all about wording. Of course people are going to be against "starving her to death." It's a terrible way to die. But I'm sure many more would be in favor of giving her enough morphine to end her life peacefully and painlessly. Of course, our laws do not provide for that, so we must work within the existing framework. Depending on how you feel about this issue, that means either supporting euthanasia or opposing right-to-die statutes all together.
[ April 04, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argh. Polls mean nothing. A correct progression of questions can get one answer, or the exact opposite. Wording can change the answer. The number of people.
Don't put so much stock in polls!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.
The screams presumption of guilt on Mr. Schaivo's case, assuming that supporting Terri's parents were supporting Terri.
Why is there a difference in the polls before her death and this one? Probably in the "fairer questions" asked.
quote:The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
But Terri expressed her preference, to her legal guardian and husband. The fight the court had was whether this legal expressed preference could be trumped by the belief of people who were not her legal guardian.
quote:Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.
So they admit the first one was not about Terri's circumstances. Oh, and it is not polite to assume you can use a person's first name in a news article. It creates an atmosphere of familiarity that did not exist between this author and Mrs. Schiavo.
quote:"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
Where is the line between life support and being fed and hydrated. She could neither eat nor drink on her own. They had expensive machines doing that for her. That is life support.
Notice what is not asked? What if the person is in a non-cureable persistant vegetative state?
quote:"From the very start of this debate, Americans have sat on one of two sides," Concerned Women for America's Lanier Swann said in response to the poll. One side "believes Terri's life has worth and purpose, and the side who saw Michael Schiavo's actions as merciful, and appropriate."
That is a biased description. Mr. Michael Schiavo believed his wife's life had worth and purpose up untill the hospitalization. Otherwise I would agree that some people thought her life in the vegetative state had worth and purpose, and others thought her death was merciful and appropriate. There are other issues here as well, as the role of the courts or the role of the legislator.
quote:More than three-fourths of Americans agreed, Swann said, "because a person is disabled, that patient should never be denied food and water."
I agree. My father is in a wheel chair. I won't starve him. There is a difference between being disabled and being in a persistant vegative state.
quote:The poll also lent support to members of Congress to who passed legislation seeking to prevent Terri's starvation death and help her parents take their lawsuit to federal courts.
"When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place," respondents were asked.
Some 18 percent said the feeding tube should be removed and 42 percent said it should remain in place.
This has 0 to do with what Congress did. Congress did not order the tube not to be removed. It ordered more judges to look at the case.
I only wish Congress had the guts to take on this issue and give the judges some firm guidelines.
And where was this Conflicting Evidence? All the evidence all the judges looked at showed that Ms. Schaivo would have wanted to die, and that Mr. Schaivo was the legal gaurdian, legally authorized to act on her behalf.
quote:Swann said her group would encourage Congress to adopt legislation that would federal courts to review cases when the medical treatment desire of individuals is not known and the patient's family has a dispute over the care.
There is nothing wrong with this except the cost. Who pays for the courts to review all these cases? Who pays for the lawyers? Why can a fanatical uncle be able to force a family into bankruptcy because they make a dispute?
And what can the federal courts do? There are no federal laws about either end of life issues, nor appropriate gaurdianship. These are state issues. If they want congress to write new laws on these subjects, that is fine. Don't expect them soon though.
quote:"According to these poll results, many Americans do in fact agree with what we're trying to accomplish," she said.
The poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe there should be exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as a guardian for an incapacitated spouse. Only 39 percent disagreed.
When asked directly about Terri's case and told the her estranged husband Michael "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her" 56 percent of Americans believed guardianship should have been turned over to Terri's parents while 37 percent disagreed.
But there is no such law now. Demanding that the courts make law to cover this case is demanding for activist judges.
And the evil Mr. Schaivo, who's wife was in a vegetative state for 5 years before he started dating another woman, moved in with her, and later fathered children. What was he supposed to do?
Should he have divorced his wife and cut off her medical funding?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, you are a divider. People are entitled to their own beliefs, and bludgeoning them with your won't change that. The more you do things like this the less I'm inclined to listen to anything you say.
Posts: 421 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ya'll need to consider the timing of Jay's post. He posted it at the same time that Rush Limbaugh comes on (the radio) and this was a big topic for Rush today (yeah, I heard it too) so I'm sure Jay thought it was big news (the poll results) - after all, they were having a major discussion about it there.
But I'm in agreement that it is too late now for public opinion to even matter - and this issue has been beaten to death here on Hatrack.
posted
Jay, polls reflected a different set of questions.
People will respond differently to "should a person not requiring artificial life support be starved to death" than to "should a person without a cerebral cortex be kept alive indefinitely."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jay, you are a divider. People are entitled to their own beliefs, and bludgeoning them with your won't change that. The more you do things like this the less I'm inclined to listen to anything you say.
Ah, if only that standard had been applied to the "This is why Bush sucks today" threads, urbanX.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Terri expressed her preference, to her legal guardian and husband.
Really? Is this why he waited so many years to state this. Oh, and changed what he had said from he didn’t know to this is what she wanted.
quote: They had expensive machines doing that for her.
Yes, a bag with on one end with a tube to her stomach is sooooooo expensive. Those dang refilling charges. Oh, she had also not had a gag reflex test in forever since her loving husband wouldn’t allow it.
quote: Notice what is not asked? What if the person is in a non-cureable persistant vegetative state?
That’s because Terri wasn’t in that state.
quote: But there is no such law now.
I thought adultery was illegal everywhere.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, adultery's not illegal in most places, and likely in none in the US (depending on how Lawrence gets interpreted in the long run).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adultery is still a crime in Virginia, and at least on it's face highly distinguishable from Lawrence, in a way that criminalizing fornication isn't. Especially since Lawrence only had 4 justices decide that there was a substantive due process right to private consensual sexual actions between two consenting adults. O'Connor's opinion (the deciding one) was based on the fact that only homosexual sodomy was criminalized in Texas (an equal protection claim).
That adultery is grounds for a divorce does not require that a couple divorce upon adultery. Your illogic is showing, Jay.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance, we now live in a country where you can kill your wife, as long as she's tragically brain-damaged, lying in a hospital bed, unable to speak. She does open her eyes, though. And she can track objects that move across her field of vision. She isn't in a coma. She even has people who want to take care of her. Her parents, her siblings. And pay no attention to the "experts" who say that these apparent signs of intelligent life aren't real. We once had an "expert" make the same sort of declaration about our son Charlie, after a mere half hour of observation, completely discounting the experience of Charlie's parents and other caretakers who knew perfectly well that he really communicated with us. The expert's assumption was that anything seen through the eyes of people who loved Charlie was to be discounted completely. Ironically, though, it is precisely the people whose attention is concentrated by love who are best equipped to judge whether communication is happening -- since it is happening with them. The people who love Terri Schiavo apparently do not include her husband, who seems awfully impatient to get rid of her. And under our bizarre laws, he has the only vote, and her parents and brothers and sisters are completely disregarded. What is the husband's case for killing her? It couldn't possibly be because he wants to be able to marry the woman he's living with now. After all, to accomplish that he need only divorce the brain-damaged woman in a hospital bed. Oh, but wait. If he divorces her, then he won't get as much of that million-dollar settlement that's paying for her care right now. Only if she dies will he get any of that. No, his motive is completely noble and unselfish. He wants to shut off her feeding tube because she "wouldn't have wanted to live like this." Hmmmm. Convenient that she can't speak, isn't it? The incredible thing -- to me, at least, and yet I have to believe it, don't I -- is that he was able to find a judge who would give him the right to kill this woman. Despite the fact that she has loved ones who are desperate to keep her alive and take responsibility for her care. Despite the fact that the husband's motives are suspect at best. Somehow, judges in Florida keep finding a "right to kill" hidden somewhere in the law. Well, we have a precedent for that, don't we. When it comes to legalized killing, our judges are way ahead of our legislatures ...
Lots of other great points in the article.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of his points have already been discussed and discredited on other threads on this site, Jay. Do you have a better source?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay -- just because this is his forum doesn't mean he's right.
Tom -- just because many people disagree with them does not mean that the ideas have been discredited.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kind of somewhat agree with OSC, but, could we please END this? It's over, there's nothing more that can be said, these folks have been dragged through the mud enough as it is. Just let it go. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, that's not really a fair request. It's not like Jay's topic title didn't provide fair warning.
There are lots of topics spoken of more often than lots of people think they should be. But on every single one, someone disagrees with that assessment.
posted
I kind of doubt it’s over since more then likely this will have an effect on upcoming legislation for end of life care. It for sure has caused a ton of living wills to be done. And I imagine that this will help spur some judicial nominations through.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think it has been a positive issue, in that many Americans are producing living wills. People needed to be shaken out of their complacency.
But yeah, synth, I get what you mean. By the way: The Pope is still dead too.... Posts: 1843 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) For instance, we now live in a country where you can kill your wife, as long as she's tragically brain-damaged, lying in a hospital bed, unable to speak. She does open her eyes, though. And she can track objects that move across her field of vision. She isn't in a coma.
She isn't in a coma, true. On the other hand, her brain has been mostly liquidated; there are no signs whatsoever of conscious thought.
2) She even has people who want to take care of her. Her parents, her siblings.
This is true. Except that, according to her husband, she had asked that this not be permitted. Futhermore, they appear to have gone to some lengths to alienate him, making it unlikely to receive his cooperation.
3) And pay no attention to the "experts" who say that these apparent signs of intelligent life aren't real. We once had an "expert" make the same sort of declaration about our son Charlie, after a mere half hour of observation, completely discounting the experience of Charlie's parents and other caretakers who knew perfectly well that he really communicated with us.
Were it a single doctor insisting that Terri was incapable of thought and a dozen doctors insisting otherwise, I'd share your skepticism. The consensus among neuroscientists, however, is that she's just not capable of it.
4) The people who love Terri Schiavo apparently do not include her husband, who seems awfully impatient to get rid of her.
This is remarkably unfair. As Jay pointed out, he waited a long time to kill her off; clearly, this wasn't an easy decision for him. But since he made it, he has stuck to it -- despite the fact that he would profit enormously from backing off his stance.
5) And under our bizarre laws, he has the only vote, and her parents and brothers and sisters are completely disregarded.
I don't find that law too bizarre. It's called guardianship. And while you can argue whether or not he deserves to be her guardian -- and note that a number of legal challenges to this case argued precisely that -- it's worth noting that our own legal process found otherwise.
6) What is the husband's case for killing her? It couldn't possibly be because he wants to be able to marry the woman he's living with now. After all, to accomplish that he need only divorce the brain-damaged woman in a hospital bed. Oh, but wait. If he divorces her, then he won't get as much of that million-dollar settlement that's paying for her care right now. Only if she dies will he get any of that. No, his motive is completely noble and unselfish.
And this is not only rude but inaccurate; it suggests that he is motivated not only by a desire to remarry (which I believe is indeed a possibility) but also raw greed -- which is highly unlikely, given the fact that he has not only refused enormous sums to surrender his guardianship but has also spent almost all the settlement money on Terri's care and various legal fees.
6) He wants to shut off her feeding tube because she "wouldn't have wanted to live like this." Hmmmm. Convenient that she can't speak, isn't it?
Again, this is unfair, as it suggests that anyone who has ever made the choice to turn off life support or otherwise permit a loved one to die has done so because that loved one "conveniently" could not speak.
7) The incredible thing -- to me, at least, and yet I have to believe it, don't I -- is that he was able to find a judge who would give him the right to kill this woman.
Yeah. Twenty judges, all randomly assigned, over the course of several years. He's practically Machiavellian.
7) Despite the fact that she has loved ones who are desperate to keep her alive and take responsibility for her care. Despite the fact that the husband's motives are suspect at best. Somehow, judges in Florida keep finding a "right to kill" hidden somewhere in the law.
Unless we are suggesting that guardians should no longer have the right to make long-term care decisions, and that the state should default to keeping long-term victims alive -- and, as a side note, default to paying for their care with tax money, as it's the only fair option -- then this is, again, an unfair critique.
8) Well, we have a precedent for that, don't we. When it comes to legalized killing, our judges are way ahead of our legislatures ...
And this connection to the abortion issue, I suspect, brings tears to sndrake's eyes on a regular basis.
posted
Doesn't anybody remember that Man show feature where they asked people to sign a petition ending women's suffrage? A LOT OF PEOPLE SIGNED! Just another sign that wording can change people's opinions.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom I didn’t find anything that you “discredited.” Basically all I saw was a bunch of opinions that to be honest really weren’t worth the typing time. Usually to use the term “discredit” you need a few more facts and a lot less opinion.
1. It’ll be interesting to hear about the results of the autopsy. I guess her smiles at her family doesn’t count as conscious thought.
2. Really? So why was it not until he met his new woman that he said all this? 5 years after her accident and before that said he didn’t know. Interesting.
3. There was a doctor that said so. One who treats such patients all the time and had been nominated for a noble prize. And by the way, I’m sure I can get dozens to say it my way, just as easy as you can get dozens to say it your way. Shouldn’t we be on the side of life though?
4. Wow…… really twist my words there Tom. Way to go. Yes, he was all caring for 5 years. Then he got his new woman and was all about killing her, suddenly saying it was what she wanted. Ha! Go figure.
5. Yes, very flawed that a man with a common law wife can still be the guardian for his legal wife. Sick.
6. Is it? So it’s not rude to kill your wife? Oh, ok.
6-b.Is it? Interesting that his story changed too.
7. Well……. I think we’re referring to the primary judge here who made most of the decisions and where the appeals were mostly based off of.
7-b. I guess we’ll never agree on the whole guardian thing.
8. Did you have a point here?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Terri's husband did not get to make the decision because he was her guardian. In fact, she had a guardian ad litem for a while.
What he did get to do was be one of several people who claimed they knew what she wanted, based on casual comments she made.
To me, that is why this IS a national issue. As a nation, we should value life -- "persistent vegetative state" (and sndrake is too busy right now to remind you what an open-ended and non-specific diagnosis that is) or no -- more than that.
To kill a suspected murderer there is a burden of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt." WHY do we not demand that level of proof when assuming we know whether someone would have wanted to be kept alive?
There was plenty of doubt about Terri's wishes, and about her husband's biases. But of course, "no one could possibly want to live that way," so she MUST have not wanted to either.
posted
"WHY do we not demand that level of proof when assuming we know whether someone would have wanted to be kept alive?"
That's an excellent question. Who do you suggest should bear the emotional and financial strain of supporting people who can no longer support themselves -- for the rest of their lives, as long as modern medicine can keep them going? Should they become wards of the federal government, for example?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* Nor should it be. But if we decide as a civilization that we will no longer permit people to die without proof that they want to die -- and, again, we're certainly capable of making this decision -- we have to decide who is going to be responsible for the care of the individuals kept artificially alive.
And until we make that decision, the caregivers should be entitled to choose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear your argument. I disagree -- most emphatically in this case, where he had sued and won a substantial settlement specifically meant for her care, which was then largely spent on legal bills -- and somewhat less emphatically in general.
quote: There were no network news bulletins when Sun Hudson died. No army of protesters keeping vigil outside the hospital, no statement from the president, no comment from the House majority leader.
Instead, he died quietly, resting in his mother's arms. This was on March 15. Had he lived 10 more days, Sun would have been 6 months old.
Doctors say he had a genetic deformity, a lethal form of dwarfism in which the lungs do not grow large enough to support life. They felt that further treatment was futile. His mother, Wanda, argued that all he needed was time to develop. The court sided with the doctors and cleared the way for them to disconnect the ventilator.
This is allowed in Texas under the Advance Directives Act, signed into law in 1999 by Gov. George W. Bush.
quote: Terri Schiavo died at the center ring of a political circus, an intimate tragedy beamed to the world and destined to outlive her as a tool for fundraising and a rallying cry for those whose hypocrisy is exceeded only by the incoherence of their logic. She died with a juggler outside her window.
Meanwhile, Sun Hudson died the kind of death that is routinely suffered by thousands of people for whom treatment is deemed futile. A death the wider world does not notice, much less mourn.
A friend thinks the dichotomy is explained by the fact that his mother was black and unemployed. Maybe.
But even so, you have to wonder if he wasn't the lucky one.
posted
I posted this in another thread, but a significant number of people live in fear that they will be the "lucky" one compassionately killed in a hospital one day:
quote: For many disabled Americans, seeing the final images of Terri Schiavo was like looking at a terrifying picture of themselves -- undervalued and at the mercy of others.
"We do not identify with the spouse or the parents," Diane Coleman, president and founder of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, explained just days before Schiavo's death. "We identify with her. She is one of us."
The battle over the severely brain-damaged Florida woman sparked a wave of congressional and legal wrangling and a renewed interest in end-of-life directives. But for many who are disabled -- whether from a recent accident or a lifelong illness -- the case triggered a much more immediate, personal reaction.
Watching the Florida drama from the opposite coast, it looked as though Schiavo was "put to death for the crime of being disabled," said William G. Stothers, deputy director of the Center for an Accessible Society. "Among the disability rights community, it is a generally held belief that in society at large the view is 'better dead than disabled.' "
Distrustful of the medical establishment and worried they may be considered a "burden," disabled people such as Stothers fear they may be one ER visit away from becoming the next Terri Schiavo.
"What happens if I go to the hospital and they say, 'He's so disabled anyway, should we do these heroic measures?' " said Stothers, who contracted polio 55 years ago and now uses a wheelchair. "It scares me."
Although Schiavo, 41, may not have appeared handicapped in the conventional sense, "to people who have disabilities or advocates for people with disabilities, they [saw] Terri Schiavo as a disabled person," said Lennard Davis, a professor of English and Disability Studies at the University of Illinois in Chicago. "People with disabilities perceive they are on a continuum between themselves and Terri Schiavo."
Immediately after her death Thursday, Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, linked his sister to the cause: "Terri, your life and legacy will continue to live on as the nation is now awakened to the plight of thousands of voiceless people with disabilities that were previously unnoticed."
Internet chat rooms dedicated to disability issues have revealed a range of reactions, said Karen Hwang, 37, a quadriplegic in New Jersey.
"For some people, the big fear is being kept alive in this persistent vegetative state," as Schiavo was for 15 years, Hwang said. "I'm one of them. For others, it's that somebody will put them to death prematurely."
posted
You know, I think they should make it just as easy to make sure you are kept alive at all costs as they do for gay partner rights. I mean, it's just a few forms, right? And you have plenty of time to sign them, cause it's not like something could happen when you're only 21. That way, those who want to make sure they killed by uncaring doctors and family are covered.
Look, I think it was wrong to do this. But if I were in the same situation, and I knew my husband wouldn't have wanted it in the first place, would I respect his wishes?
I should probably read more about how it happened in the first place. How did she end up hooked up for so long in the first place?
Just in case, I have a living will and Durable power of attorney. Everyone who knows me, knows I'd rather be dead. Even on my best days, I'd rather be dead. So there's really no question what my choice in that situation would be.
So, would anyone give a crap if it had been me? Do you think that conservatives would have been as excited to defend "state's rights" and sue to kill me? Think they'd hold vigils outside my window to protest the fact that they were forcing me to live against my will for 15 years?
I doubt it.
Look, people disagree about this issue. That's why it should be a personal choice. I might not choose the same thing you choose, but I'll defend your right to choose it.
Has anyone at Hatrack mentioned Tom DeLay's father? He didn't have a living will or durable power of attorney. They didn't have any trouble pulling his plug.
It's none of my business. That's my motto. Just don't do it in public and we're cool. I think more people should embrace this philosophy.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, people disagree about this issue. That's why it should be a personal choice. I might not choose the same thing you choose, but I'll defend your right to choose it.
Right, a personal choice. Made by the person. And, when the decision is for death, due process review should be required.
And by the way, neither gay marriage opponents nor Tom DeLay supporters are the sole types of people opposed the tube removal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt any member of Not Dead Yet will ever leave it in doubt as to whether he wants to be kept on life support in a persistent vegetative state. Not sure what it is exactly that they're afraid of.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Advanced Directive statute in Texas, for one. It's based on a proposal by the AMA - it's not some crackpot scheme, but the preferred rule of the AMA.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
