Looking for a cost-effective way of marketing your product to passionately pro-life consumers? Check out this great new mailing list from conservative direct-mailing firm Response Unlimited:
TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO FOUNDATION ACTIVE DONORS
6,198 2005 Donors..............$150/M 4,439 Opt-In Email Addresses...$500/MNew List! First time available!
Each of these donors responded to an email during February, 2005, from Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s father on behalf of his daughter. These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler’s legal battle to keep Terri’s estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri.
These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia, and are pro-life in every sense of the word!
Response Unlimited seems to have removed the page from their website since the story broke, but you can still read it cached on Google here.
The New York Times confirmed that the Schindlers sold the rights to the list as part of a deal for the firm to send out an “e-mail solicitation” (i.e. spam) raising money on the family’s behalf. Pamela Hennessy, an unpaid spokeswoman for the Schindlers, was appalled to learn of the list.
“It is possibly the most distasteful thing I have ever seen,” Ms. Hennessy said. “Everybody is making a buck off of her.”
You don’t say?
If righties show up to picket a nursing home, the money probably is not far behind.
Come on Goldy, give the Schindlers a break here. She’s their daughter. Desperate people do not always make wise choices.
You lefties should really back off from criticizing the parents. Who knows what any of us would have done or what missteps we would have taken if we were backed into a corner like they are. Playing “gotcha” against the parents is stepping way over the line.
“Stepping way over the line”? You mean like when those protestors tried to break in to Terri Schiavo’s hospice to give her food and water, not realizing she can’t swallow?
Your side steps over the line all the time, zip. Don’t try to act like a moral policeman. You and your cronies aren’t people to talk. You’re defending your side’s stepping over the line and then telling us not to step over the line in our criticism.
All I can say, zip, is – watch your step. ug arrogance will come back to bite you.
ug arrogance will come back to bite you.
Replace “ug” with “Your”. Wireless keyboard must need new batteries.
zip @ 2
Does that apply to Terri’s husband too, or do you consider him fair game for criticism, harassment, and death threats?
List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: March 29, 2005
Thousands of strangers moved by Terri Schiavo’s plight will likely receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.
Nice. The right wingers used the entire Schiavo episode as little more than another fundraising angle.
Don, No I don’t. Did Goldy or I or anybody on this site harass, criticize or threaten him? No. Way to not repond to my comment (again), Don.
As for “my side: how the hell does Mr. Incredibele up there even know what side I’m on? All I’m saying is the whole tragedy over a woman’s death has reached a new low when lefties start playing “gotcha” against the desperate parents. For the record, I’m on the side of cutting the parents a little slack and showing a little sympathy not spite towards them.
I have no problem with the demonstrations or arrests for symnbolic acts of civil disobedience, which are in the same tradition as the civil rights and anti-war demonstrations of the past.
It’s entirely different when people go beyond expressing their opinions and commit violent acts or threaten public officials. I’m not talking about the tiny group of anarchists who broke windows during WTO, although I certainly do not support or condone their actions — and by the way those folks had NO CONNECTION with the tens of thousands of law abiding demonstrators from labor unions and progressive groups. No, I’m talking about the overwrought nut jobs like the guy who tried to steal a gun he planned to use to get water to Terri Schiavo. Using a gun against someone is not what I would call pro-life.
Now we have another example in our own backyard of just how disturbed — and disturbing — these wackos are when they get carried away. A 44-year-old Bellingham woman has been arrested for e-mailing threats to Governor Gregoire. In addition to demanding money, she told the governor, “Ms. Gregoire, you are dead meat to God,” and “I am not lying. There is going to be a murder attempt on your life, your children’s lives and your husband.”
Man, these religious zealots are scary. They threaten — or commit — murder in the name of God. All the normal human inhibitions — morality, obedience to law, respect for others, fear of punishment — fly out the window once a person talks herself into believing God wants her to do this. I don’t know what Bible this woman reads, but it sure isn’t the one I read. Maybe her bible is Mein Kampf.
Erik,
“the Schindlers sold the rights to the list as part of a deal for the firm to send out an “e-mail solicitation” (i.e. spam) raising money on the family’s behalf.”
The parents were trying to raise money to keep their daughter alive. Are you calling the parents “right wingers”? Are you saying that was their motivation?
The parents were trying to raise money to keep their daughter alive. Are you calling the parents “right wingers”?
No. I am calling the “right wingers” “right wingers.” But then again, it’s 1:34 a.m.
Don @ 8
There are plenty of nut cases hung up on causes on both sides. I’d say the lefty nut Unabomber cancels out thousands of “big talk no action” righty nut cases. In both cases, if the “cause” the nut latches on to (religion for the Bellingham lady, something wierd for the Unabomber) did not exist, they would still be nut cases but with a different “cause”. Blaming religion or right wing ism for the lady’s nuttiness obscures that fact and gets things backwards.
zip @ 7
I would go with your reasoning as long as it applies to everyone involved. Of course it’s excruciatingly hard on the family. The tragedy of what happened to Terri is compounded by the family dispute. Then on top of that the public circus, although here it’s hard to feel sympathy for the Schindlers, as they chose to enlist the media and public to promote their cause. I don’t know if they could have kept the case out of the media but I think so as the Schiavo case certainly isn’t unique. There are over 1,000 PVS cases in the U.S. at any given time and pulling their feeding tubes is a not-uncommon occurrence. It seems to vast majority of Americans, when pushed to the wall, do not want their loved ones to live indefinitely in such a state.
zip @ 11
The “big talk no action” hyperventilators are qualitatively very different from the bomb throwers and snipers, but they do invite a “better safe than sorry” response by authorities.
Don, the only reason I jumped into this thread was to object to criticism of the parents. They were desperate and did what they felt they must. Nobody should be second guessing them. The politicians and interest groups who made this the issue of the year and the press and radio talk who sensationalized (and the pro life groups who bought the mailing lists) deserve all the criticism that is heaped on them, which should be plentiful.
Lots of mailing lists get sold, especially lists that are issue oriented. No big surprise here. And certain not meriting the award of a Noble Peace Prize in Journalism for uncovering this terrible travesty of yet another mailing list getting sold. Or is it rented?
Although I must admit that “Schindler’s List” does have a nice ring to it.
zip @ 14
Understandable, yet I sense a reluctance on your part to object to criticism of Terri’s husband, some of which has been exceedingly vicious. Am I wrong?
Don, I do object to criticism of her husband. It was hidden between the lines in post 14.
Zip, Give it up. The neo-liberals are right. Terri has no right to life and her family should be totally scorned for trying to keep her alive. Obviously, we live in a place devoid of bravery, courage, or conscience. Real liberals would hardly find Terri a cause for celebration, much less a grand opportunity for mockery and derision.
zapporo @ 18 nor would the liberals find a sad situation like this a way to get big bucks for the campaign coffers. The real difference between ‘real liberals’ and your ilk is that ‘real liberals’ have ideals….not just their love of money and power like the Texas Taco et al
We would pay anything to kick your humanist asses. Lets turn the tables and see how many people donate how much money to liberal atheist causes. Humanists Manifesto I, II, & III signers are which groups? N.O.W. Planned Parenthood and People United for Separation of Church & State. Moral decline of America within the Democratic party. ZERO VALUES.
Don’t like it? You will never beat us. You are losing, you don’t see the implosion of your party? American families have values and morals that they will never be manipulated into losing.
Dubyasux@8
I am curious as to what threat (or threats) she made, not that i am a doubting thomas here but during the Clinton healthcare selloff tour, a guy went to jail for looking Bill Clinton in the eye and saying “you suck!”.
Zip @2,
I didn’t criticize the Schindlers. Indeed, I didn’t editorialize at all. Infer what you want from the facts.
That said, I would hope people show as much compassion and understanding for the husband as you ask for the parents.
Fanatic @20 Top of the World, Ma!!!!
Vinegar @ 20: Your hostility is exemplary of what happens when you base your philosophy on a broken fundamentalist view of religious doctrine. We have no values? Bullpucky! We just don’t claim pious righteousness to defend our values.
Zip @ everywhere – For what it is worth, it seems that the criticism is directed almost entirely at the corporate structure trying to make money off of the family tragedy.
And just in a little side note – how has the ‘liberal media’ behaved during this one? Not very liberal… very corporate though.
And speaking of fanatics… what do Republicans and African dictators have in common?
“President Robert Mugabe branded main opposition Movement for Democratic Change party supporters as traitors Tuesday, raising fears of new political violence two days ahead of parliamentary elections.
“All those who will vote for the MDC are traitors,” state radio quoted Mugabe as saying to a ruling ZANU-PF party rally at Mutoko, 140 kilometers (90 miles) northeast of Harare.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/.....index.html
That said, I would hope people show as much compassion and understanding for the husband as you ask for the parents.>>>
You mean the guy that went out and created a new family while pretending to be her husband? The guy that wrote down the odometer milage on the car when she was living with him? Yea I have compassion for him, you bet Goldy!
ok Goldy so life is worthless and you are the shit is that your point?
This is a worthless blog I’m done.
Adriel @ 29 Woo Hoo!
Looks like ultra lib Jesse Jackson is going to see Terri…
Chuck @ 27 – Ok, try and work with me here for just a second. Now, I do not know if you are married or are even in a relationship. But I can tell you that I love my wife so much that if I should ever end up brain-dead for fifteen years, I would want her to go on with her life and find love and happiness again. Honestly, I can not imagine someone wishing otherwise.
No matter what you choose to believe about the facts of the case, this man was told by every doctor for 15 years that his wife was dead and only her body remained. Further, no one has EVER recovered from this state after more then 2 months. He clung to hope for years and devoted his life to her care. Eventually though, he was ready to let her go.
There is no financial incentive. The money is long gone and in any case he offered to give it back if it meant finally letting Terri die. In fact, if you want to make an argument about money, you could throw it at the family in that their demands to have half of the ‘consortium’ (sp?) money from the lawsuit is what started the division in the family.
We will never likely really know the motivations for all concerned. It is just as easy to paint an unfavorable picture of either side – or to see good motivations. So, unless you are playing this family for political gain, I think compassion is in order.
It is called a divorce…you know the right thing to do…
aaron @ 24
The philosophy of christian doctrine has been in existence for thousands of years, it has not changed.
you absolutely claim pious righteousness to defend your values. exactly what are your VALUES? are they in line with the Humanist Manifesto?
Nindid-work with me here for a minute, will you?
wrong! He had ONE Dr all along, Dr Cranford. They had other doctors that reviewed HIS 45 minute report. when the other doctors disagreed w/cranford, the judge (ike don) dismissed their opinions.
Also, MS currently has a life ins policy on terri. He also was awarded $700K for his own personal loss due to her collapse. and he also was awarded $300K. the 1 million was to go to her care and therapy. it did not. medicare has paid for her hospice @ $5000/mo.
Schiavo and his common law wife are also named as board of directors to an Insurance company that the common law wife’s brother and her own. Please look up all the facts, not just the false statements to win an argument.
This is a sad story. We need to learn from it not spend all of our time analizing the motives of each side. Both sides have valid points. All of this could have been avoided with a Living will.
chardonnay @ 35, 36
why should anyone “work with you” when you get the facts so amazingly, laughably wrong?
He was NOT awarded 700K, SHE was. It was placed in a trust that he cannot touch, to be used for her medical care. He received 300K for loss of consortium–apparently such dirty money to the Schindlers that they kicked him out of their house when he wouldn’t give them any. Medicare is NOT paying for her hospice–where the hell are you getting that? Her fund is down to about 375K, apparently.
Schiavo has no common law wife. There is no such thing.
What’s wrong with being on the board of an insurance company?
NONE of the court appointed doctors–and there were 7, according to Cranford–disagreed with him. They were universal in agreeing she is PVS. Same with the three guardian ad litem, assigned to represent Terri’s interests.
The philosophy of Christian doctrine hasn’t changed? Are you daft? Does your church force you to wear clothes of only one fabric? If you pay money, are you granted an indulgence for your sins?
reggie @ 37
what valid point do the Schindlers have? I must be missing something. Are they right about her medical condition? No. (At least not now; some years earlier they admitted she was PVS). Do they have the right to determine her care? No. Do they have her best interests at heart? Certainly not, since they’ve admitted they wouldn’t have pulled the tube even if they knew that’s what she wanted.
I feel for the family’s grief–but what they are doing is wrong.
Let’s starve this fellow too, after all, according to your criteria his life no longer has value…
whaddya say lib exterminators, culture of death groupies and euthansia enthusiasts…just get it over with and save us all a bit of time here?
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/.....3312.story
Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at the DARTmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire has this to say about the experiance of those have have lost their ability to eat or drink. “Nature has given us a wonderfully peacefull way to exit this life.” “The physiology and experiance of those unable to eat or drink due to advanced illness is one that is very gentle and very comfortable.” Though some people see letting her (Terry) die of dehydration as inhumane, doctors say it is a surprisingly gentle process. Reality is, Schiavo has passed where she would be physically able to recover, recieved communion and was annointed and absolved of her sins by two priests at her bedside on Easter. The Schindler families opinion, stated by spokesman Randall Terry, is that it is absolutely not true that she has passed where physically she would be able to recover, saying she smiled and made gutteral sounds late Sunday. Hope is hard to give up.
they @ 40
did he say he wants to die? If so, he has that right under the Constitution.
Did Terri? Definitively?
Ahh, there’s the rub… it’s called convenient hearsay.
And did she say, “Oh yea, please starve me to death”?
Or do you suppose IF indeed she said anything she meant the heroic measures of life support, i.e. forcibly keeping her heart pumping or her blood stream oxygenated.
TJ,
What is wrong with being on the board of an insurance company that is insuring YOUR WIFE, the very wife you are trying to Starve to death? Hmmmmm TJ, I can’t think of any reasons.
what a moron you are. you spew this crap without thinking.
common law wife or girlfriend for 10 years w/children, what the hell is the difference?
real @ 43, 44
the answer to both questions is clearly and convincingly yes.
chard @ 45
you didn’t say it was the company insuring Schiavo. Since you seem to have no real handle on the facts of the case, you’re going to have to provide links to this information.
TJ @ 42
where in the constitution does it say that we have the “right to die?” that is your humanist manifesto, not the constitution. sheesh, two seperate documents. one is LAW one is fantasy.
chardonnay @ 47
You might want to read over the Cruzan case in 1990, where the United States Supreme Court upheld a citizen’s Constitutional right to die. Like I said, you don’t appear to have any concept of the facts in this case.
chard @ 47
and, uh, you realize that the Constitution IS a humanist manifesto, right? It firmly establishes the rule of law, not the rule of man or the rule of God.
TJ…look it up yourself, you seem to have all the government time in the world. terrisfight.org might lead you to the truth.
Pretty it all up as much as you can, death groupies.
Make yourselves feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and don’t dare look your self-deception in the eye.
“They say that Terri is being “allowed to die.” No. She is being made to die. All across America, in hospitals, mental wards and institutions for the severely disabled, there are people who, if we withdrew our care for them, would die. We wouldn’t call this “allowing” them to die. We would call it scandalous neglect.“
“After visiting her bedside recently, Felos declared, “In all the years I’ve seen Mrs. Schiavo, I’ve never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her.” Maybe Felos has forgotten: If she is indeed in a persistent vegetative state, as he maintains, she can’t feel anything, let alone a sense of peace that would make her radiant with beauty.“
“One expert told The New York Times that “no one is denying this woman food and water.” Really? Then why is she dying? Is it merely a coincidence that she might experience kidney failure from dehydration at any time?“
“This expert’s argument is that, since she is in a persistent vegetative state, she has “no knowledge of food.” By this logic it would be morally acceptable to suffocate her with a pillow since she has “no knowledge of air.” She could be dropped out of a 15-story window because she has “no knowledge of gravity.” She could be shot because she has “no knowledge of ballistics.”“
About that climatic word HERESAY that is causing do much problem. Heresay means YOU actually do not hear it something. Pack in LYING or NOT about what you say you heard. Then add in the factors, PAST AND PRESENT TENSE. Present tense: A person who has lost the abilty to speak, can not be directly quoted. Past tense: A person who can still speak can be quoted. I would venture to guess none here have any direct way to know other than by heresay.
Chardonnay –
First of all, TJ’s right, the Supreme Court has, multiple times, affirmed the right to die (including the Cruzan case). So this means that the constitution affords citizens in the US the right to refuse any and all medical treatment, including life saving or life prolonging treatment, like feeding tubes. This is the same decision that gives Jehovah’s witnesses the right to refuse blood transfusions, etc.
Second, try reading the actual source documents, especially the GALs reports. I’ve posted them many times before, here’s one more time, hoping you’ll let the facts sink in.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Nearly everything you say, and that the web site you links to says, is wrong. Flat out wrong. Contradicted by 15 years of sworn court testimony, including the words of the Schindler’s themselves. For example, until 2000 the Schindler’s agreed that Terri was in a PVS, but then changed their mind.
It’s pretty simple, starting in 1998, the Schindler’s, out of desperation and an inability to face reality, started making sh*t up. They relied on dubious diagnoses from unqualified individuals, and continually attempted to push the law beyond the boundary of reasonableness.
That is why the courts continually ruled against them.
No amount of supposition (or more colloquially, bullshit) on your part will make up for the court records showing that you’re wrong. Your ability to produce a wide variety of lies does not balance the simple truth: Terri is in a PVS, the courts have ruled she did not wish to remain in that state, she has the right to refuse treatment, and the courts have ruled that she be allowed to express that right through her guardian.
Every piece of evidence in this case has been considered, weighed and resolved, often more than once. Sorry you can’t accept that.
real, you are arguing with the English language, not us. To allow denotes a passive action. It is the lack of action–ie, feeding her–that is causing her to die, not any action undertaken. The action taken was to keep her alive. The hospice is allowing her rights to be exercised.
Aaron@24. BULLSEYE.
You know what I don’t understand, Char?…
…Why the death groupies are still discussing this.
After all, they won.
The got exactly what they wanted.
They wanted this innocent woman put to death, they cheered when her execution orders were upheld, and now, surely as we are all sitting here, she is purposely and systematically being forced into death by starvation according to their wishes.
They should be rejoicing in their verdict, not still pleading their case.
What more can they want? What reason do they need to continue the discussion?
Perhaps a palliative for what remains of their shriveled conscience?
File under: “Wait–let me rephrase that!”
Pat Mahoney, spokesman for the socially conservative Christian Defense Coalition, said, “If this was an African American trying to eat at a lunch counter or trying to get into the University of Florida, everyone would be outraged.”
real @ 56
while I don’t rejoice for anyone’s death, the time for grief was 15 years ago. But you bet your ass I’m rejoicing for our country. We’ve seen the best and the worst of our government in action. Checks and balances and the rule of law have prevailed. Extremism has been defeated here, and exposed for its hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Great courage has been shown by those who sought truth instead of demagogy–even if it meant death threats and being thrown out of your own church. It’s been a wonderful week for justice in America.
real, you are arguing with the English language, not us. To allow denotes a passive action. It is the lack of action–ie, feeding her–that is causing her to die, not any action undertaken. The action taken was to keep her alive. The hospice is allowing her rights to be exercised. -Comment by torridjoe— 3/29/05 @ 9:55 am
If that twisted nonsense makes you feel all warm and fuzzy TJ, go ahead and keep repeating it to yourself.
Try extrapolating it out though kiddo…
a stroke victim unable to feed himself,
and accident victim with only a broken and wired jaw,
your dog,
your parakeet,
your baby son…
You’re happy with her death, Joe…why still arguing?
A @ 56
These liberals on this board are clueless to what they have signed onto. Are they willing to acknowledge the love of the manifesto? Every group attached to the death manifesto is a democratic supporter. Are they willing to admit the connection of the right to suicide, right to death, right to aborting babies, right to euthanasia? Right to sexual deviancy, right to zero moral responsibility.
Lets see.
Guy’s?
jcricket@53. Emotion reactions are not logical reactions. Highly emotional fever is what extremist are driven by and riveted with. Logic can not rise the the occasion as long as the emotional state has taken over. A teeter-totter is a good example, one end must go down before the other end goes up. The Bible says,” don’t kick against the pricks.” (old adage, not same meaning as today’s useage) Like hitting a brick wall.
real @ 59
wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard the English language described as “twisted nonsense.” What language do you prefer?
I confess I have no idea what you are attempting to extrapolate. Are you suggesting that somehow this case will lead us to start killing people against their will? Link?
chard @ 61
If every group attached to “the death manifesto” is a Democratic supporter, how come a majority of EVANGELICALS disapprove of what Congress and Jeb Bush tried to do, and say her tube should be pulled?
As for rights, I’m not sure how you can say people don’t have the right to commit suicide. How do you plan on punishing them? And I’m not necessarily for euthanasia, although assisted suicide is a great idea that works. The right to abortion is also perfectly sensible. I don’t know what you refer to when you talk about sexual deviancy. But everything else you’ve discussed concerns the right of the individual to have domain over their own bodies, rather than ceding that domain to the government.
“What is happening to Terri Schiavo is “immoral and it’s unnecessary,”
“She is being starved to death. She is being dehydrated to death. And this is inhumane,”
He said there is no “rational reason” for such a thing to happen to happen to Terri.
“I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips,”..
“This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes.”
Any guesses who said this, death groupies?
It was a might big hero of yours.
Jesse Jackson…TODAY
You’re happy with her death and the decisions that led to it Joe…why still arguing?
TJ@58. Amen to that TJ. Down through history, cruel acts of perversions, killings, hate and violent acts against society have been displayed by extremes who usually will claim to be righteously inspired or directed by a Higher calling. That is why what is called the WAY is the mid-path.
Joe, you are basing you statement on the ABC poll that had twisted language. Not appropriate, wait and see just how many people, once told the facts, are on the RIGHT side.
Joe, assisted suicide in Oregon is a complete failure, look it up the facts are in your states newspapers. Most people do not die right away, they suffer and aid cars are called to take the victims to the hospital.
so Joe still no proof of where it says that in the constitution. reveal it please.
“ But everything else you’ve discussed concerns the right of the individual to have domain over their own bodies, rather than ceding that domain to the government.“ -Comment by torridjoe— 3/29/05 @ 10:17 am
Ever hear a hormone raging teen say ‘I just want to die if I don’t get that scholarship, or this car, or that date.”?
Hells bells, she has “domain” and has expressed the desire to die.
Ever say, “if I cant do…., just shoot me!”
Hells bells, you has “domain” and has expressed the desire to die.
Ever hear a distraught person say “I’m so unhappy I wish I would just die”
Once again “domain” and the desire to die.
Go for it Joe, grant their wishes.
I would expect no less from you and your death groupies.
real @ 64
Looks like Jackson is able to walk into a situation he knows nothing about, and act the fool just like conservatives blinded by religion! But of course we’ve known for a couple of weeks now that it’s not a left-right thing, but a religious extremism-rule of law thing. That Jackson’s faith causes him to distort and misspeak is no surprise anymore. It’s happening to many of the zealots (although not sensible people like Rev. Wallis).
Hero Jesse Jackson was caught cheating on his wife.
chard @ 67
No, I’m basing it on the ABC poll, the CBS poll, the Time poll, the Gallup poll–which one would you like to baselessly bash now? There’s no twisted language in the ABC question; you’re eating up what ignorant dorks like DeLay tell you.
Assisted suicide is a failure? How many of the people who wanted to die that way, have not died that way?
I’ve pointed you towards the Cruzan decision. It’s a remarkably easy thing to Google.
TJ @ 68
I see now you are turning on one of your own. Hillaryous. I bet we shall see more trickle down cannibalism within the democratic party. Love it!!! disention in the ranks. what about all those democrat reps that voted for the terri bill? Oh and lets not forget Debbie wasserman lezbian speaking on behalf of the NOW group. She publically supported Terri’s death. Did she run her campaign on her extreme views? Florida will show us what they think, just like they did after Janet Reno kidnapped Elian Gonzales.
Jesse Jackson has sympathy for Micheal Jackson too, had him on his radio program, violated Jackson’s gag order. They share a common bond, besides race, they both been entangled, caught in sex scandals. The differance is Jesse confessed to having an affair and a child by his lover. Micheal is still in trial under allegations. He is not confessing to anything, denies doing anything wrong.
“ But everything else you’ve discussed concerns the right of the individual to have domain over their own bodies, rather than ceding that domain to the government.“ -Comment by torridjoe— 3/29/05 @ 10:17 am
Ever hear a hormonal teen say “If I don’t get that scholarship, that car, that date for the prom, I just want to die”?
Hells bells, “domain” over her own body and a desire to die.
Ever say “If I do this again, just shoot me”?
Hells bells, “domain” over your own body and a desire to die.
Ever hear anyone say, “I’m so unhappy I just want to die”?
“Domain” and a desire to die.
So, go for it Joe, help em all out…grant their desire and put em out of their misery.
They meet your requirements of ‘domain and desire’.
Ack, a missing post… watch for it somewhere after #65
TJ, you are not being honset about your state of oregons assisted suicide statistics. Want to see the article and the references? You are willing to mis-state the facts to defend your death philosophy?
Chardonny@71. There is a differance between extreme right-wing and right-wing as there is differance between extreme left-wing and left-wing. Just cause someone votes a certain way does not mean they are brothers who think alike.
A Dignified Death for the Suicide Agenda?
By Richard M. Doerflinger
The image of physician-assisted suicide providing a
“humane and dignified death” has suffered major
setbacks lately. New revelations show that the
so-called “right to die” movement has misrepresented
the facts and suppressed the truth to promote its
agenda. As a consequence its credibility has suffered
severe self-inflicted damage.
The first blow landed when the Oregon Health Division
on February 23 issued its second annual report on
implementation of the state’s “Death with Dignity
Act.” Since Oregon’s law allowing physician-assisted
suicide took effect late in 1997, this segment of the
state government has had the responsibility to issue
an annual statistical report on the state-sanctioned
suicides reported by physicians.
there is more, look it up.
“Just cause someone votes a certain way does not mean they are brothers who think alike.“ -Comment by Chee— 3/29/05 @ 10:36 am
Well, no damned kidding.
You think you can pass that tidbit on to your fellow libs in regards to us that are NOT?
chee @ 76
disnetion in the ranks buddy. stand united or you shall fall. Everyone else see’s it happening to Democrats, don’t you? Need more proof? Hillary v Dean, Kerry V Biden, they all disagree. then on top of it all, you democrats, being so diverse, slam your very own religous groups. You have followers that are Christians, Catholics, what ever. Do you not realize you insult them with your rhetoric?
chardonnay @ 71
one of my own? I’m neither religious nor Democrat. Busted on the facts again! Boy, you’re entertaining.
chard @ 76
Doerflinger? The pro-life nut from the Catholic Bishops, who thinks a rabbit egg infused with the DNA from a human skin cell is a HUMAN BEING? That guy? Yeah, he represents an objective look at the Death With Dignity Act.
char @ 78
Shays vs DeLay, Warner vs Frist–they all disagree! Guess the GOP has some dissension in the ranks too. Which, funnily enough, I think I’ve already said–this isn’t a left-right issue, it’s a nutbag-rational person issue.
Missing post popped up as #68 and, LOL, #74 … all for you Joe.
zip @ 17
OK, I’m good with that. We’re in the same place.
oh, so now joe is not a democrat. what are you Joe? GREEN? lol
chardummy @ 20
If you could stow the hot air for just a minute, I think if you looked into it you would find liberals are religious in about the same percentage as the general population. Many of the Democratic activists I know are practicing Catholics, and mainstream Protestant churches are full of liberals. Yes, we support separation of church and state — because we know something about history, and the intent of the Framers, and to protect everyone’s religious freedom (including yours). My family originally came to this country to escape religious persecution in Europe. We don’t want that here. By the way, Char, are you a fundamentalist or have you ever attended services of one of the cult groups? I have, and if you think these folks would tolerate someone else’s practice of a different religion, you need some educating. They are no more tolerant of differing religious views than of opposing political views, and if they are ever able to impose a theocracy on our country God help us all (including you).
chardonnay @72, 80
The Democratic party is all about dissension. That’s one of the things that makes me so proud to be a Democrat. I can agree with Jesse Jackson on some things and disagree with him on others. It doesn’t change my opinion of the man.
chardonny@80. Followers, like sheep, dumb and foolish. I choose to set apart, march to the beat of my own drum. As for the you you you you you dems. How about you? People choose to get insulted. I have no control over others. I have no religious groupies. I see religion as a spiritual walk, a personal walk alone. Not into rank or mass hysteria.
Chuck @ 21
Re-read #8, I quoted them there, or look up the web sites of local news organizations (e.g., KING 5).
real @ 68
if any of those people take steps to kill themselves, I have no problem with it. It’s their right. If they want my help they’ll need a court of law to authorize it–and none will grant it, since I’m not a doctor.
chard @ 85
I’m unaffiliated, always have been.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 27
That said, I would hope people show as much compassion and understanding for the husband as you ask for the parents.>>>
Count on Cheesy Chuckie to rain on THAT parade!
Adriel @ 29
#28 did it for you, huh? I understand, I understand.
GOLDY. Good message. I like Jesse Jackson a lot for a lot of good reasons and if he fell from grace, tell me who hasn’t.
Chuck @ 33
In that you’re a stickler for the fine points of law, no doubt you also believe the court orders should be respected, regardless of whether you agree with them.
How very liberal of you Joe, context is everything with you guys… oh yes, moral relativism even in debate.
Arguing Terri it was:
“ But everything else you’ve discussed concerns the right of the individual to have domain over their own bodies, rather than ceding that domain to the government.“ -Comment by torridjoe— 3/29/05 @ 10:17 am
Responding to my turning it around on you, all of a suddden it’s
“if any of those people take steps to kill themselves, I have no problem with it. It’s their right. If they want my help they’ll need a court of law to authorize it–and none will grant it, since I’m not a doctor.“ -Comment by torridjoe— 3/29/05 @ 11:11 am
Well guess what Joe, hubby Schaivo isn’t a doctor and Terri never asked to be put to death.
chardummy @ 35
You play so fast and loose with facts, it’s hard to know whether to ignore your rants, or call you out. You’re either willfully ignorant or a liar. Try reading the GAL report, you’ll find out what happened to Terri’s 700K. It went into a trust Michael had no control over, he didn’t get a cent of it, and there’s about 50K left. I’d sure like to know where he got life insurance on Terri because I want to insure my late goldfish …
real @ 95
“Well guess what Joe, hubby Schaivo isn’t a doctor and Terri never asked to be put to death.”
The facts clearly show that she did, and her husband didn’t pull the feeding tube–legally qualified medical professionals did.
Real Ass @ 40
You’re playing games. Apples to oranges games, to be exact.
No, the facts show NO such thing.
The fact say that hubby says she said … blah blah (insert whatever makes you feel warm and happy).
The facts say there is no DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE of Terri’s wishes.
You’re happy with her death and the decisions that led to it… why still arguing for it?
charliar @ 45
Please provide evidence of a life insurance policy on Terri Schiavo, because I don’t believe you.
I have to admit Judge Don, I haven’t heard of a life insurance policy on Terri, and I cannot imagine a scenario in the past 15 years where one would have been written on her. I suppose it’s possible there was one from early in their marriage, but even I find it unlikely at that young age with no children.
Real Ass @ 59
If you extrapolate out far enough, you came from fertilizer and will end up as fertilizer.
real @ 99
the facts say FIVE different people, including Terri’s mother, heard statements relating to end-life principles. Three of those people heard, in the context of funerals for people kept on life support, her explicit wishes not to personally be kept alive in that manner.
If you want to argue the facts, please name the court that has found facts different from those I present.
Chee @ 62
That fits Chardummy and Real Ass to a T.
Chee @ 66
If they extrapolate out far enough, they may start burning “witches” at the stake again.
You got your way… they are putting that innocent inconvenient woman down – why are you still trying to convince us it’s the right decision?
Chardummy @ 72
When has there NOT been dissension in the Democratic ranks? Unlike the goosestepper party, we don’t make people toe an ideological line.
real @ 106
Why are you trying to convince us it’s not? You’re fighting established law and jurisprudence. I’m trying to get you to respect your country and its founding basis in law and justice. Why do you hate America?
TJ @ 82
“this isn’t a left-right issue, it’s a nutbag-rational person issue”
You’ve nailed it, Joe — and it’s not hard to figure out who the nutbags on this board are. Chardummy for one.
Nice non-sequitor Joe – when did you stop beating your wife?
The argument of one who has none – the unaswerable question.
Nice try.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
You have to take positions in your life, formulte the philosophy by which you live, the lines you will not cross.
My line, my philosophy, is one of life and erring on the side of life, even in respect to disgusting, copkilling, asshole pigs like Mumia Abu-Jamal and every other hunks of garbage on death row.
real @ 110
This case is about due process, the right to die, and spousal rights–all of which have been repeatedly affirmed at all levels of justice. To argue against the necessity to abide by these affirmations, is to argue against the deepest-held principle of American life: that the rule of law is sacrosanct.
Since you are arguing against that principle, I can only conclude that you hate America, and would like to see its downfall.
I searched my pocket Constitition kiddo and just like I told the duuuuude, I cannot find a “right to die”.
Show me: page, verse, line.
Show me.
real @ 111
Interesting that you bring up Mumia. I think the evidence is rather poor in that case against him. However:
1) All his legal team can do is utilize any avenue possible to seek retrial or other readjudication through the courts.
2) Notwithstanding that it appears at this time that he will eventually be executed, and that I think injustice will be done, I do NOT support Congressional intervention into his specific case, because they have no standing to do so. However, I would support a Presidential or Gubernatorial pardon–either of the charges or the sentence–because they have that authority and I think this case warrants it.
Walk the talk – err on the side of EVERY LIFE…even disgusting
scraps of refuse like Mumia et al.
real @ 113
Is your pocket version missing the 14th Amendment?
Cruzan v Director, 1990:
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24 -30 (1905), for instance, the Court balanced an individual’s liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State’s interest in preventing disease. Decisions prior to the incorporation of the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment analyzed searches and seizures involving the body under the Due Process Clause and were thought to implicate substantial liberty interests. See, e.g., Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432, 439 (1957) (“As against the right of an individual that his person be held inviolable . . . must be set the interests of society. . . .”)
~~~~
That’s noted wacko liberal Rehnquist writing for the majority there, by the way.
It’s so sad that people can say the things they do about Terri and her family.They are trying to save their daughter’s life and if none of you can understand that either you have no children or no sense of compassion.
Name one other instance in our legal system where hearsay is accepted as fact in a court of law.
no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
torridjoe @ 39
Like any parent they don’t want their child to die. Love is the motivation here. Misguided? maybe. But a lot of the post on this subject are just as misguided. In all my years in the medical field there are decisions made every day by parents on behalf of their children that make absolutely no sense at. I have seen children that are near death recover for no reason (after the parents made the painful decision to let them go) and I have seen children die because of the decisions made by the parents. All the decision are based out of love for the child. I see no benefit in bashing the schindlers for doing anything to help their child.
That being said Mr. Schiavo’s motivation could also be out of love too. Don’t know and I don’t care. I just hope that this circus is over soon so we can get on to something more important…like say the mariners chances this year.
I hope that better explains my position.
real @ 115
“erring on the side of life” is a made up distinction that has no legal basis. You err on the side of presumption that the courts have not abrograted their responsibility. The court decisions have been validated many times over.
I’m done.
Continue celebrating your death victory… it says much about you.
real @ 118
so you get it now? No state can interfere with her right to die? Good.
ghost @ 117
There are about 30 different ways in which “hearsay” evidence is admissible in Florida.
Question: if she had a written living will, would that constitute enough evidence for you?
theREALanonymous1—
http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult.....ruzan.html
Like all the cases the Supreme Court considers, this one involvesd reviewing the Constitution and making a legal decision on whether or not the wording contained therein applies to the question at hand. The Supreme Court has ruled, and affirmed, that people have the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment, including feeding tubes. So, the Supreme Court, the arbiter of what rights the constitution does or does not extend to US citizens, has ruled that you have the “right to die”. Therefore, the constitution includes the right to die.
If you’re one of those people that believes that because something is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, it is therefore not a right, then you can join Scalia as the lone dissenter. As a practical matter, you’re wrong about how the law works in the US. Judges are regularly called upon to interpret what the wording of a law or statute applies to (both at a state and federal level).
In this case they also set standards for how that right can be invoked – specifically requiring “‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a comatose patient’s desire to terminate her life before allowing her family’s wish to disconnect her feeding tube to be carried out.”
The burden of proof that has been met in the Schiavo case as decided by the Florida courts on many occasions (read the GAL’s report). It’s not simply a matter of what you keep referring to as “hearsay”.
And, for someone who keeps claiming to be on the side of “life”, you do have an awfully nasty case of hatred for loads of people you think aren’t worthy of life because they’re in prison. Considering over 100 people have been freed from death row by DNA (and other) evidence in the past 10-20 years, perhaps it is you who is in love with death.
real @ 121
I’m celebrating justice and our Constitution, not death. Get it right.
reggie @ 119
thanks for the clarification. I think the Schindlers are being entirely disingenuous, but I’m willing to accept that they are confused based on their grief. It’s understandable.
And, for someone who keeps claiming to be on the side of “life”, you do have an awfully nasty case of hatred for loads of people you think aren’t worthy of life because they’re in prison. Considering over 100 people have been freed from death row by DNA (and other) evidence in the past 10-20 years, perhaps it is you who is in love with death.
Comment by jcricket— 3/29/05 @ 12:12 pm
I said they deserved the benefit of doubt when it comes to their lives – I never said I liked them, respected them or valued them or believed them – only that they have the right to a benefit of doubt…
That’s very consistently called erring on the side of LIFE and far less hypocritical of the liberals that fight to save their lives and won’t fight for known innocents as terri and any unborn child.
Screw you and your feigned, self serving phony self righteousness.
You got your way… they are putting that innocent inconvenient woman down – why are you still trying to convince us it’s the right decision?
And cricket learn to read not skim.
I clearly have said, many times I beleived in erring for LIFE even with assholes like Mumia.
I think the Schindlers are understandably grief-stricken by the very sad circumstances their daughter is in, and have an honest difference of opinion with her husband about whether her body should be kept alive, but have gotten caught up in an emotional swirl to the point where they are incapable of accepting reality or separating wishful thinking from medical fact.
#111 “ My line, my philosophy, is one of life and erring on the side of life, even in respect to disgusting, copkilling, asshole pigs like Mumia Abu-Jamal and every other hunks of garbage on death row.“ -Comment by theREALanonymous1— 3/29/05 @ 11:49 am
#115 “My line, my philosophy, is one of life and erring on the side of life, even in respect to disgusting, copkilling, asshole pigs like Mumia Abu-Jamal and every other hunks of garbage on death row.“ -Comment by theREALanonymous1— 3/29/05 @ 11:49 am
#115 “Walk the talk – err on the side of EVERY LIFE…even disgusting scraps of refuse like Mumia et al. “ -Comment by theREALanonymous1— 3/29/05 @ 11:57 am
Agreed Judge Don, with that statement, but clearly we have a difference in the conclusion that should be.
and for all of my fellow religious friends (of which I am one)
Doncha think that it is God’s will that none of the legal challenges succeeded? If you believe as I do, then all of this is his will.
Let’s just pray for the schindlers, and the schiavo’s and leave it at that.
Yes Reggie, I think despite the machinations of the hubby, the courts and the family, the saga of Terri is serving a purpose and she will die when she’s meant to die, as we all are.
theREALanonymous1 @ 115 & 130
EVERY LIFE? What about the 100,000 dead Iraqis? What about the 1,500+ dead Americans? Were the “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” worth all those lives? See you at the peace march, friend!
Hugs and kisses!
Dubyasux@91
It wasnt me that rained on that parade, it was Terri’s husband that pissed on his own parade about 10 years ago…
See you at the peace march, friend!Hugs and kisses! -Comment by Mrs. Cynical— 3/29/05 @ 12:37 pm
Not likely – I have better usses for my time than meaningless gestures like marching.
joe@123…….of course a living will or anything that terri actually signed saying that she didn’t want to live this way would be more than enough. i don’t think people should have to suffer if they don’t want to. i WAS a fan of oregon’s assisted suicide/death with dignity legislation. until now. now i have done alot of reading about it and ,even though i do not expect everything to work the right way all the time, i do expect people to tell the truth when it is evaluated. and they didn’t.see david reinhard’s op ed in the oregonian. they left out the people that didn’t die right away or that suffered.i find that very disturbing. if they are going to be less than honest about the results what else?
i have always donated to hospice too. no longer. when the largest hospice [the one terri is in] let’s in a patient that doesn’t qualify as terminal…what other corners are they cutting?
and why were they letting her husband who is no doctor decide that she can’t be treated with antibiotics for a UTI which is very painful….fortunately he was over ruled finally. but why did they ever let him make that decision in the first place? like no sunshine, no tooth care….ad nauseum.
the whole point of hospice was to provide QUALITY ened of life care that the patient wanted. if you want to just abuse your “loved” one put them in a nursing home.i am shocked at hospice and it is making me re-think alot of things i took for granted.
and just what are these instances where hearsay is accepted as fact in a court of law? especially where someone’s life is at stake?
Mr. theREALanonymous1. But, surely your “philosophy of life and erring on the side of life” would lead you to take actions to stop the mindless slaughter of Iraqis and young Americans! Or is war somehow exempt from your “philosophy?”
Hugs, kisses, and peace!
A just war, one that saves millions from pits of death at the hands of barbarian dictators is not mindless slaughter. Surely, even YOU, realize that…or were you FOR allowing the Nazi’s to continue exterminating the Jews and others less desireable to the regime as well? Free Cuba next.
***
Yes sirree – that bastion of conservative thought, the Village Voice agrees with those other extreme right wing nut cases: Ralph Nader, Joe Leiberman and jesse Jackson:
http://www.villagevoice.com/ne.....489,6.html
theREALanonymous1
Millions of deaths? Right. Cuba next? How many innocent Cubans are being put to death every year by Castro? Or is this somehow about the moral equivallency of communism and death in your mind?
Forgive my cynicism (it runs in the family), but your philoshophy seems to have boundaries beyond which killing is acceptable. Perhaps this will help you understand the different perspectives (and different boundaries) that other people have. Some people believe that war in their name is not accpetable, but pulling the plug on a brain-dead person in accordance with their wishes is acceptable. Both philoshphies can be called a philosophy of death or a philoshophy of life. You are entitled to your opinion, but not the moral high-ground!
Hugs and kisses!
Exactly – how many Cubans are being put to death every year by Castro?
Do you know any Cubans?
I do.
My youngest childs GodMother is a Cuban who escaped as a child with her family.
I know another family, an orthopedist in Tampa and his young family that escaped that barbarian dictator and his regime.
So tell me Mrs C, since you are such a defender of… who knows what…when your next door neighbor is beating his wife, are you going to step in to stop it or close your eyes?
When the brat punk next door is terrorizing little animals are you going to step in to stop it or close your eyes?
When you see parent slapping his child at the market, are you going to step in to stop it or shut your eyes?
Exact same reasons for a just war and not antitheical to a philosophy of life.
Well Deathies, a few more hours and your death wish will be complete.
Celebrate.
Celebrate.
Dance to the music.
Who’s the next inoocent in your sights?
theREALanonymous1 @ 141
> Do you know any Cubans?
Yes, quite a few.
> I do.
Well, Gold(y) Star for you, dear.
As for your other questions, when I see somebody committ a crime, I call the police. BTADT many times. What, on earth, is your point?
You ask why war is antitheical to a philosophy of life? Because, dear, war involves intentionally killing people (and innocent people at that). Remember, you claim to “error on the side of life.” If so, consider starting this process by educating yourself before you spout off about things like rolling over Cuba!
Hugs, kisses, and peace!
ghost @ 137
“of course a living will or anything that terri actually signed saying that she didn’t want to live this way would be more than enough.”
My God–so you’re saying you would accept HEARSAY EVIDENCE in this case?
Whaddya know–me too.
ghost @ 137
here’s one of the hearsay exceptions: of children, in child-abuse cases. Ref:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library.....-81263.pdf
The statute is Florida 90.803(23), enacted 1987.
You asked for one. Want another?
a signed/witnessed legal document is not hearsay. boy….so you really aren’t a lawyer are you?
i want you to show me where in a case that could take someone’s life, or affect it adversly, they accept hearsay evidence.you won’t find any. in the child abuse cases they accept the child’s view of what happened because pedophiles are so good at playing their victims and they were trying to put a stop to that. this is beyond apples and oranges here….try one that actually speaks to what we are talking about here.
Actually, hearsay is admissible in murder cases under certain circumstances, a dying declaration, for example. That is, if the person who got killed said “Christmasghost did it” and then he died, someone who heard him say that could testify to that in court and it is admissible.
So, now what was your point?
ghost @146
Hearsay is any accounting of a statement that is attributed to a person but is not directly stated by that person. Furthermore, that’s using a loose definition of hearsay in the first place. Hearsay evidence is that used to prove the truth of the matter being asserted. Terri’s statements were offered to prove she said them, not to prove what she said was true.
If you want a case where “hearsay” could be used to take someone’s life, I can offer you Schiavo v Schindler. Refer to the upholding of that principal in Browning 1990, Florida SC.
scuse me, “principle.”
More marketing strategies from the East side!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA.....5568603187
once again a signed/witnessed legal document is not hearsay.
you both went right past that.
let’s put it this way. your marriage goes bad, and just after you decide to leave your spouse because of [insert anything here] you have an accident. now your spouse knows you were going to leave. you have no signed will or statements of how you do or do not want to live.they can say anything they want now can’t they? and all because once upon a time in florida a really scary precedent was set by allowing a husband to use hearsay to starve his wife to death.
now it’s your turn. and not only do you get to enjoy that, maybe your spouse will also bring the new person in their lives around to see you as you lay helpless.
but what the heck? you’re disabled…who cares?
read this from the harvard crimson and really think about it……..http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article506716.html
ghost @ 151
I didn’t “go past it,” I strongly refuted it. Hearsay is anything except the person standing in court offering the testimony directly.
I don’t understand the rest of your post. It has no bearing on this case, where there were clear statements made by Terri Schiavo, expressing her desire not to live on life support. The rules for accepting oral statements are clear and distinct. Would you like to read them?
ps — you might want to check the other thread to discover the documentation of her flatline EEG…
you are so wrong….that is the point of the signed and legally binding document. it is not hearsay as in michael says this and that….it’s YOU actually saying it. ask an attorney…he’ll tell you the same thing. that’s who i asked.
did you read the piece from the harvard crimson? it’s very interesting.
and i’m sorry if you misunderstood the rest of my post….i was trying to get you to put yourself in terri’s place. god forbid any of us end up there. really.
and it has all the bearing in the world on this case…can you not understand that there were no clear statements by terri about how she wanted to live or die? it’s just her less than peachy husband’s latest story. which doesn’t jibe with what he said in court to the insurance company.
you watch….the insurance company will come after him after she dies……for fraud.
steven @147……..but that wouldn’t be hearsay would it? it would be a direct statement from the victim. and it would still have to be backed up by evidence.
ghost @ 154
I’m using a Florida attorney to back up my statements. You’re wrong. By your own standard you’re wrong. You say “it’s YOU actually saying it.” Was Terri in court during trial, offering testimony? No. By definition, anything else is hearsay.
and then you inexplicably say:
“can you not understand that there were no clear statements by terri about how she wanted to live or die? it’s just her less than peachy husband’s latest story.”
which is COMPLETELY contradicted by the trial record, which I suspect you have never read. There were MULTIPLE clear statements made by Terri on the subject, made to MULTIPLE people–including her MOTHER and her BEST FRIEND. No wonder you’re so confused–you don’t even have the facts of the trial straight. You still think there were no clear statements, and only her husband to witness them.
Christmasghost spewing forth about the place.
Sorry, pal, you are wrong. Torridjoe correctly points out that hearsay is a judicial term of art. Written, signed, sealed, witnessed documents can be classified as hearsay, as can business records, public records, and witness statement. There are rules about the admissibility of this type of evidence. Here is a link http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul.....tm#Rule801
You are using hearsay in a non-technical sense to mean rumor. I assure you, the courts are onto this “rumor” thing. The courts did not rule that there were rumors that Terri would want the tube pulled! Instead, they followed proper rules of evidence and established that Terri, in fact, did not want to be kept alive in this circumstance.
Real Ass @ 139
At the rate Dubya’s “just war” is going he soon will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam did.
prove it don………everyone knows that 100,000 number is BS except you i guess. even the far left have dropped that…where have you been?
Ghost~
I read the article earlier today. A couple thoughts:
1. Mr. Ford states, “Essentially, then, we have arrived at the point where we starve people to death because he or she cannot communicate their experiences to us.” In Terri’s case, the real question is whether she has experiences to communicate. I know, you question the PVS diagnosis, etc, etc. But isn’t that the fundamental question: does a person in PVS actually have experiences? The medical evidence suggest that don’t.
2. At what point does life end? So long as they can breathe on their own and their heart beats? We can keep people technically alive for a long time. In Terri’s case, since she is unable to swallow on her own, without a feeding tube she either would have starved to death or died of aspiration pneumonia years ago. Many who favor replacing the feeding tube argue that this is somehow different than keeping a person on a breathing apparatus or other radical life sustaining equipment. I have trouble with that distinction in this case.
3. These are extremely difficult issues. I’ve wondered what I would do in place of the Schindlers or Mr. Schiavo. I don’t denigrate the motives of either. However, I don’t think anything about this case has advanced the discussion concerning these issues. As a society, I think we have passed the point of saying that life must be preserved at all costs and by any means. What we must do now is establish and respect the process by which these decisions are made. To me, this is where the case got out of hand…the disparagement of the process by people with an agenda that frankly had nothing to do with Terri Schiavo. For that, may God forgive them.
Ghost@155~
Of course it’s hearsay…the victim is dead and can’t testify to it. That’s what hearsay is…someone testifying as to what someone else said to prove the truth of what was said. A signed document, such as a living will, technically is hearsay, but is generally admissible in court if there is competent evidence that the person really signed it. For example, that’s why a will requires two witnesses to be valid.
Dubyasux @ 159
I remember when Daddy Shrub was trying to justify the invasion into Iraq. “The Iraqis have moved an army of 500,000 men to protect the border.” After massive bombing, we march in and round up 20,000 soldiers. I never did find out whether we killed the other 480,000 in the bombing, or whether this was complete bullshit designed to justify and garner support for the war. That experience made the WMD charges used to justify Shrub jr.’s war look, smell, and feel like propaganda.
christmasghost @ 159
The 100,000 figure came from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. That is a pretty high standard in and of itself. I’m inclined to accept that figure as in the right ballpark. Can you point out a credible source that refutes the research?
steven @ 160
you said:
“the disparagement of the process by people with an agenda that frankly had nothing to do with Terri Schiavo.”
yes, people with an agenda, those would be the “RIGHT TO DIE” “RIGHT TO SIUCIDE” “PRO-ABORTION” AND “PRO-EUTHANASIA” groups. Which all are, coincidentally, backers of the Humanist Manifesto. SOULLESS GHOULS. WOW! Lets see, who also seem to be democratic backers.
Shall we bring up all the FAILED slick willy clinton “military actions?” What happened in Somalia under the Clintons/Lewinsky watch?
steven,
keeping someone alive that is really brain dead would be horrible. but when was the last time a ‘vegetable’ smiled at you? and we have all seen her face light up when she sees her mom. how do you explain that? that’s what worries me.
birth, life and death can all be very messy.or they can be fairly easy.as a woman i can honestly say that there have been times when i wanted to throttle those women[we all know them…pains that they are] that say about childbirth..”what’s the big deal…i had one cramp and then oops…i had a baby” and then there’s the rest of us that have 28 hours of labor. that’s the way it goes with birth. and after having watched relatives and strangers [i worked in a hospital during college] die…i know sometimes it’s peaceful and sometimes it’s horrible.
and after having been on a ventilator last year i would be the first person to say NO to that ever again. that was truly horrible.
we all look at terri and think that we would not want to live that way. BUT……….we are not terri and neither is michael. and surely if we have learned anything from the peterson case…it’s that some husbands don’t have their wives best interests at heart. don’t you think?
and terri can swallow. she swallows her spit everyday. that’s a fact. have you seen her drooling? she just can’t swallow enough to eat.that’s why she hasn’t had aspiration pneumonia. she doesn’t have a naso-gastric tube after all. just a simple feeding tube which alot of people have.
i agree with you that this is just so sad and a no win.
the issue with the hearsay….you said the victim told the police right? so in other words, before dying the victim TALKED to the police. i thought that’s what you were saying.
a witnessed will is not considered hearsay.
ghost @ 165
“keeping someone alive that is really brain dead would be horrible. but when was the last time a ‘vegetable’ smiled at you?”
—the last time I was with someone in PVS? Since that’s a classic symptom of PVS and all.
” and terri can swallow. she swallows her spit everyday. that’s a fact. ”
—oops, there you go again. She cannot swallow. I’d be happy to cite you the ANNUAL medical reports on her inability to swallow, throughout the early to mid 90s.
“a witnessed will is not considered hearsay.”
–how many people do you need to show you conclusively that you’re wrong? 10? 20?
Here are the type of people who are buying the list the Schindler’s have sold: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/191914/848
When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
For those that think smiling is a sign of conciousness (which I’m sure we’d all be confused by), you need to understand the nature of PVS. From Wolfson’s report (pages 30 and 31):
oldverystalewine @ 67 you are a kick, anything that you throw around here is just like a fishing trip for you. In your sick mind you seem to feel that everyone must agree with you. Well guess what, about 85% in the USA disagree with your views on this subject. Get a life stale one……and you keep asking why the decent posters here keep posting about this subject….when you and your girlfriends keep throwing out verbage towards everyone daring them to answer……like I said, get a life stale one, and teach a new life to anonass also.
christmasghoul @ all….. Either I missed something or you really must be about 12 years old. How can you give credence to 5 second snippets of video that have been edited out of hours and hours of filmage? But then again, that is the neocon way. ‘read a book and criticize a passage’ LOL@U Just think what we could do with the Texas Taco’s life taking 5 second quickies and editing them together……would not be pretty….but then again, would probably be correct
The distrusting, those who indicate they do not trust the medical reports of fifteen years obviousy are putting their trust outside the professionals, trusting those who have no medical degrees, no medical experiance or else their simply too upset or paranoid to reason well. It is not reasonable to bypass more adept sources and cling to what is said by the unskilled who are not qualified to interpret what their mind full of sadness mingled with hope imagines they are seeing. A mirage will be seen in the desert by a thirsy person. Auto-reflexes are not controled responses. Hard as the facts may be, they are uncontrollable, not actual smiles, not actually speaking. They say during war, there are no atheists in the foxholes. Just like when your heart is acting up you won’t be calling the unskilled or asking them to diagnosis you, you will want the skilled emergency techs and professionals to check you out.
Goldy,
SP refusal to cover the Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s issue at all, has apparently given you the title of king Washington blogger. However, don’t expect to get invites from KVI soon.
I don’t know the etiquette for linking to other blogs, but there is a piece on DailyKos about one use of the mailing list that is really unbelievable. And this guy is an elected county supervisor. Holy shit.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/191914/848
Tonight’s news had two specialists on speaking on the Shiavo case. They called Tery’s brain devestatingly horribly dysfuntional. And that clinically an autopsy will not tell anything, brains cells can not be counted microscopically. Her pulmonary arrest rhetorically vegetated her brain and there is no hope of recovery. Pathologists will have to go back over all medical records as an autopsy will not prove much. They classed her artificial treatment, feeding tube as a life support that took 40 years to perfect. They say they have trust in her husband. Micheal, dispite the rumors that are being circulated. Terry’s parents still disagree, saying terry is responsive.
wolfson stated on msnbc that he grew up withthe schiavo family.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286506/
chard @ 174
I saw that interview. I don’t think he meant it literally. He grew up in Chicago; they in PA I believe.
steven @ 173
I doubt that guy is raising much cash. Most people will die of old age before getting to the end of his fundraising letter.
Chee @ 174
“Terry’s parents still disagree, saying terry is responsive”
and Dick Cheney still claims WMDs will be found in Iraq …
They called Tery’s brain devestatingly horribly dysfuntional. And that clinically an autopsy will not tell anything, brains cells can not be counted microscopically.
I agree that the autopsy will likely not reveal much, and what is there will be discounted by the right wingers anyway like global warming.
chardummy @ 165
“shall we bring up all the FAILED slick willy clinton “military actions?”
Here’s one — Kosovo. Genocide stopped in its tracks, enemy soundly defeated, murderous dictator overthrown, not a single American military life lost.
Clinton, as a commander in chief, looks a hell of a lot more competent than Mr. Bring-Em-On. Ask yourself this question, if the shit was about to hit the fan, which of those guys would you rather be in a foxhole with?
DON @ 181
THAT IS SO FUNNY!!
If I was a live for the moment, do what feels good type of gal I would pick Clinton as he would offer me a sexual experience followed by a cigar. Doubt he would save my life, seen Lewinsky lately? She paid, he ruined her life while he lives well. Clinton has a long list of foxholes he has taken advantage of. I choose NO for Clinton.
Bush, what can I say, he’s the man. There is democracy and freedom in Iraq and Afganistan, now other countries are following. He loves his wife and daughters, treats them like ladies and is a good husband and father. He has kept this nation safe.
Can we talk about Edwards? Please? Egore?
chardonnay @ 182
I believe it is a matter of record that Clinton did not fuck Monica. She gave him a blow job. Yes, there was the “after dinner” cigar, but, shit, I give Clinton an A+ for will power for stopping at the cigar :-)
Bush, on the other hand, is fucking over thousands of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and children by sending their children/siblings/parents off to fight and be killed or mutulated in a lunatic war. Oh, not to mention raping future generations by racking up record national debt and refusing to show any ability to control his spending habit. Americans were much better off when Shrub was a drunk—he couldn’t plunder the U.S. Tresury at will that way.
And, Chardonnay, don’t underestimate yourself. I suspect that you are George’s kinda gail. If you pushed him a little, you might just convince him to accept your blow job.
Chardonnay @ 182
“There is democracy and freedom in Iraq and Afganistan, now other countries are following.
Right. . . freedom and democracy, you say. Especially if you want the freedom to grow poppies for opium production. Especially if you want to be democratically enabled to kill your political opponents, or the police. Freedom from being encumbered by reliable infrastructure. . . .
“He loves his wife and daughters, treats them like ladies and is a good husband and father.”
Agreed (although, we’ll just overlook the underage drinking thing). On the other hand, a leader should be good to all the wives and daughters, sons and husbands of America. Killing thousands of America’s youth in an act of self-delusion is hardly excused by being good around the home.
“He has kept this nation safe.”
Right. Except that if he had listened to his own terrorism tsar (Clarke), he might have saved 3,000 lives on 11 Sept 2001. Furthermore, if he had had the philosophy of “error on the side of live”, 100,000 Iraqis and 1,500 Americans would still be alive. Bush is a first class war criminal.
dj@184. What I hear you saying is that G.W. Bush’s judement to start a war, “err” on the side of war, has cost us many lives and we are not withdrawing; Americans and Iraqians. What I hear others saying is that Michael, medical profession and Judges who support withdrawing artifical support from Terry “err” on the side of death. Then we have two legal bases where there can be no arguement. Mr. Bush had the legal authority over us, right to send troops to kill and be killed. Right? Mr Schiavo had the legal authority over his wife, right to remove artifical support and allow her to die a natural death rather than linger. Right? The “err on the side of life” wants it both ways.
gwdummy, will be remembered as the worst “resident” in the white house.
He has made blunder after bumbling blunder, and chirps victory, at every stumble.
He is either truly stupid, or figures the rest of us are.
Chee @ 185
Yes, I am saying that most of the so-called “culture of lifers” are blatant hypocrites. They cherry-pick the circumstances when human life is sacred and when it is disposable. There are some people who take the purist stance that all human life is sacred and therefore they reject death penalty, pulling the plug, abortion, and war. But, many “culture of lifers” (e.g. Bush brothers) draw the “cultural” line at executing prisoners. And most of these hypocrites draw on the same argument, invoked for millennia by war mongers from two-bit dictators to Hitler, of a “just war”.
Chee, I agree that Bush has the legal authority to march U.S. soldiers to their death, but I do not agree that his invasion of Iraq was legal. Oh well . . . Bush will get his day in the Hague.
I also agree that Mr. Schiavo previously had the legal authority to remove artificial support from Mrs. Schiavo. But, he did not use that authority. He handed it over to the State Court in Florida, and the Court made the decision. My understanding is that even if Mr. Schiavo has a change of heart, he does not have authority to reverse the Court’s decision and have the feeding tube re-inserted.
DJ@187. Exactly.
Diggindude@186
That honor is reserved for Clinton…
The Pope is on a feeding tube, I say pull that baby out and starve the old guy…
Chuck,
We wont know for a while where gwdummy will land on the totem, but we know where he is now.
Way down there.
I think the pope should at least be retired, geez! republicans will work a guy to death!
He is on a feeding tube to eat, because he had his throat operated on, not his brain removed.
If he had his brain removed, 15 years ago, and was still on a feeding tube, i would agree, yank it.
diggin a deeper hole as we go dude, what are you talking about? The Catholics made the Democratic party in 1962 when they elected JFK. And they stayed there till recently.
So, now the pope is Republican? If I recall correctly, he has been against all the wars, from Reagan to Bush to Clinton and to Bush.
Keep on diggin dude!!
Diggindude@191
Many say she is responsive so her brain may be intact…an MRI would verify it one way or the other…but hubby will not allow that or anything that constitutes therapy….
Chuck @193,
My understanding is that early on she had an experimental procedure to implant electrodes to stimulate her brain, and that they prevent her from getting an MRI. (Can’t have metal in the chamber.) Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong.
But that’s besides the point. She had a CAT scan several years back that showed much of her brain has dissolved, and her skull was filled with spinal fluid. This is the type of gross injury that CAT scans are perfectly capable of diagnosing, without the need for any other diagnostic tool.
Goldy – you are correct about the metal electrodes in her brain. Wolfson mentions this in his GAL’s report (and his recent interview with the Washington Post). Wolfson agrees with you, speculating that the doctors declined to perform an MRI because it would also require further unecessary surgery.
However, by 2002 there was also (obviously) disagreement about nearly every aspect of the case, so I’m sure some of the resistance to performing an MRI was also related to the high level of animosity between both sides.
It is important to note (as Wolfson points out) that the Schindlers did not dispute the PVS diagnosis until around 2000.
Re-reading Wolfson’s report I was struck by the following quote:
(This was 2000-2001). After that point in the trial (where it was ordered that the feeding tube be removed), the Schindlers started introducing “new” evidence that Terri wasn’t in a PVS, that Michael abused Terri, etc. In fact, the Schindlers didn’t attempt to assert that Terri wasn’t in a PVS until 2002.
So, any argument that Michael and/or the courts were avoiding an MRI between 1990 and 2002 is baloney. CAT scans were done, and they were judged sufficient, by everyone involved (including 7 out of 8 doctors) to determine that Terri was in a PVS.
diggin a deeper hole as we go dude, what are you talking about? The Catholics made the Democratic party in 1962 when they elected JFK. And they stayed there till recently.
So, now the pope is Republican? If I recall correctly, he has been against all the wars, from Reagan to Bush to Clinton and to Bush.
Keep on diggin dude!!
Comment by swatter
Oh, no sense of humor. ok sorry.
Chuck@193 Many matters not when the many have no basis for what they say. If many leading nobodies say you should have all your teeth pulled to correct something they know nothing about and have no evidance of, will you so oblige. Probably!