Did you right wing dolts ever apologize to Michael Schiavo?

[drsmith1072]

My understanding is that Terry Schiavo's family was willing to bear the cost of keeping her alive. Why would you not want to go ahead and allow a person's mother and father to do that if it's not going to cost you anything?

He was next of kin. That's all that matters if one doesn't have an advance directive.

That's all that matters in the eyes of the law...but there is a difference between legal and right.

Slavery was legal, that didn't make it right.

Segregation was legal, that didn't make it right.

Women were legally denied a vote, that didn't make it right.

But I thought righties supported the sanctity of marriage?? As her husband shouldn't he be the one to make that decision and express her wishes since she could not??

 

[drsmith1072]

If you don't want your next of kin making decisions for you, I'd suggest you get an advance directive and name a DPA to do so.

First of all, he was not the next of kin in a genetic sense. Aside from that, as noted by another, there is a difference between what is "legal" and what is right. If her parents...who actually were related to her and who had a completely unselfish love for her...wanted to keep her body functioning while bearing the cost of doing so, only a complete A Hole would interfere with that. What a jerk. There's just no way around it. The guy is a jerk.

WOW!!! Do you really believe this drivel?? So what is marriage to you and what is it's meaning because you seem to be arguing that the fact that he was her HUSBAND doesn't count for anything. LOL

You can never tell with these wacko righties. One minute they are arguing and preaching the sanctity of marriage and then when that argument no longer suits their current SPIN they choose to start arguing that marriage isn't really that important and should be ignored.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Terri Schiavo case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just the facts ma'am...

-------

Did the paranoid right ever apologize for all the slanders thrown Michale Schaivo's way?

We had a right wing nut Senator who also happened to be a sleazy MD with interests in nursing homes (nursing homes that ... from tax payers) mis-diagnosing Terri's condition from the Senate floor.

We had the wacky religious right going after this guy as a murderer (paranoid fantasies are common when attacking people over the so called 'right to life' issues).

How about you people here? Ever say something about Michael Schiavo or Terri's condition that was just plain idiocy?

Schiavo Autopsy Released
Brain Damage 'Was Irreversible'

even the damned Pope got IT wrong thinking these vegetative states are people who are alive/sentient...

gawd, the right wing fringe (that is leading the GOP these days) is unworthy of a hearing in civilized discussion.

d.

What exactly are the rightwing dolts supposed to apologize for?

That's what I thought, you can't stand behind your statements. Typical leftwing idiot.

 

[concept]

Terri Schiavo case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just the facts ma'am...

-------

Did the paranoid right ever apologize for all the slanders thrown Michale Schaivo's way?

We had a right wing nut Senator who also happened to be a sleazy MD with interests in nursing homes (nursing homes that ... from tax payers) mis-diagnosing Terri's condition from the Senate floor.

We had the wacky religious right going after this guy as a murderer (paranoid fantasies are common when attacking people over the so called 'right to life' issues).

How about you people here? Ever say something about Michael Schiavo or Terri's condition that was just plain idiocy?

Schiavo Autopsy Released
Brain Damage 'Was Irreversible'

even the damned Pope got IT wrong thinking these vegetative states are people who are alive/sentient...

gawd, the right wing fringe (that is leading the GOP these days) is unworthy of a hearing in civilized discussion.

d.

yikes. carefull with the baiting....

Baiting? Speaking truth to power is sometimes viewed as baiting, but hey.

Yeah it's a good thing you used Wiki as a source then.

Idiot.

 

[drsmith1072]

You didn't answer the question. From whom should doctors take direction? A patient has the absolute right to refuse any treatment; when the patient is unable to speak for themselves, the next of kin or DPA is afforded that right. Following those directives is not considered "harm".

Frank normally never answers the question, nor backs anything he says. Usually he just responds to something he doesn't like with a catchphrase or quote he copied and pasted from someone else, repeats it a few times, and thinks he's making some point.

Meanwhile, if you question anything he says, he won't defend himself or refute you - just go for person attacks instead. Kinda pathetic...

Any date on when "The Unauthorized Biography of CrusaderFrank" by SmarterThanHick will hit the shelves?

First do no harm in this case meant the doctors should not have removed the feeding tubes and sentences Terri to a death not seen since the Nazi Concentration Camps.

They should have had some ethics and told the Judge "Find some other way!"

That's funny because in your other thread you blame to government for removing her feeding tube and now you are blaming the doctors. LOL poor frank can't keep his propaganda and spin straight. LOL

 

[SmarterThanHick]

it's funny cuz he comments on someone else having no class, and yet he has shown no maturity, no supported argument, no longitudinal argument, and refuses to response to refutation against his garbage...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

and what's the next line of the oath? come on, i know you can do it!

"The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"

What's it gonna be, Genius?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

it's funny cuz he comments on someone else having no class, and yet he has shown no maturity, no supported argument, no longitudinal argument, and refuses to response to refutation against his garbage...

What "refutation"?

Last we spoke you were leaving people on the pavement to bleed out because that's how you interpreted "First do no harm...

 

[drsmith1072]

and what's the next line of the oath? come on, i know you can do it!

"The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"

What's it gonna be, Genius?

Why do you keep quoting this?? Dean is arguing that the government should not make the decision and yet the righties in congress were trying to get the government involved to remove the decision from the husband and the family. So what is your point?? Do you have a REAL point??

Do you support government involvement when it suits your needs and rail against it when it counters your beliefs??

Oh and frank why didn't you answer hick's question?? What are you afraid of?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What "refutation"?

Nearly every response I've given to you, including the one Dr.Smith just pointed out.

To educate you once again on the Hippocratic oath:
"First do no harm" indicates a lack of all action that can harm the patient. This speaks to complete inaction (the lack of doing something) when harm is possible, and should not be confused with sustaining/renewing action in a preventative manner.

"Then do good" refers to actual action, be it new action (e.g. transport to ambulance), renewing a previous action (e.g. refill a prescription), or sustaining a continued action (e.g. continue CPR).

Based on this, it's clear that "do no harm" does not translate to "actively give food through a tube". Note how the former refers to inaction, and the latter is an action.

Let's apply your newly learned knowledge to your scenario. If someone was bleeding in the street, first thing is to ensure no harm is done by moving the patient in a way that might hurt them more. Then, when the source of the bleeding has been identified, you treat the patient (then do good).


I look forward to you completely ignoring all points made yet again, possibly just copying and pasting that some quote yet again, and not supporting a lick of anything you say, yet again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What exactly are the rightwing dolts supposed to apologize for?

That's what I thought, you can't stand behind your statements. Typical leftwing idiot.

left wing? hardly. are you so far to the right you cannot see clearly?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yikes. carefull with the baiting....

Baiting? Speaking truth to power is sometimes viewed as baiting, but hey.

Yeah it's a good thing you used Wiki as a source then.

Idiot.

wiki? refute what is in it before you open your mouth and confirm your ignorance. stop acting like this is an academic journal, you boob. wikipedia is a good reference point for many many things. very few sources used here are reliable and/or closed to a closer scrutiny.

get real you fuckin' loser. get real.

 

[Avatar4321]

But I thought righties supported the sanctity of marriage?? As her husband shouldn't he be the one to make that decision and express her wishes since she could not??

How exactly is there any sanctity left in the marriage when he is shacking up with a new girlfriend and has a clear conflict of interest in making the decision?

 

[jillian]

But I thought righties supported the sanctity of marriage?? As her husband shouldn't he be the one to make that decision and express her wishes since she could not??

How exactly is there any sanctity left in the marriage when he is shacking up with a new girlfriend and has a clear conflict of interest in making the decision?

1. The judges who heard the case found no conflict.
2. Should he have stayed celibate for the rest of his life? She was BRAINDEAD.
3. (and most important) IT WASN'T GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Hysterical how all the folks who whine about government encroaching in our personal lives only want government to interfere when it has to do with what goes on in our bedrooms.

But heaven forbid government should make sure a kid has health ed...

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you keep quoting this?? Dean is arguing that the government should not make the decision and yet the righties in congress were trying to get the government involved to remove the decision from the husband and the family. So what is your point?? Do you have a REAL point??

Do you support government involvement when it suits your needs and rail against it when it counters your beliefs??

Oh and frank why didn't you answer hick's question?? What are you afraid of?

Why the blatant dishonesty? no one in congress was trying to remove the decision from the family. They were specifically giving it to her family. The second her husband cheated on her, he had an interest in seeing her dead.

And the family had already refered the issue to the courts to settle whether she lived or died. Once it became a matter for the courts aka government to make a decision, it's compeletely rational for Congress to create public policy for the courts to find in the favor of life.

Your dishonesty about taking the right from the family is ridiculous.

 

[KittenKoder]

Until the Obamaborg apologize for Obama, I am not worried about the rightwingers apologizing for anything.

 

[Avatar4321]

Until the Obamaborg apologize for Obama, I am not worried about the rightwingers apologizing for anything.

Especially not for being right.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

no one in congress was trying to remove the decision from the family. They were specifically giving it to her family. The second her husband cheated on her, he had an interest in seeing her dead.

That's not your decision to make. You nor anyone else is in a place to claim someone no longer has a vested interest in someone. You want to point to the fact that he moved on years later as reason he didn't have her best interest in mind? Why? It wasn't like her body living was preventing him from doing anything. But again, you're in no position to make that judgment.

Until the Obamaborg apologize for Obama, I am not worried about the rightwingers apologizing for anything.

how's that immaturity working out for you?

 

[Avatar4321]

no one in congress was trying to remove the decision from the family. They were specifically giving it to her family. The second her husband cheated on her, he had an interest in seeing her dead.

That's not your decision to make. You nor anyone else is in a place to claim someone no longer has a vested interest in someone. You want to point to the fact that he moved on years later as reason he didn't have her best interest in mind? Why? It wasn't like her body living was preventing him from doing anything. But again, you're in no position to make that judgment.

Yeah, i am in a position to make that judgment. I have a brain. I can see. I can evaluate information. I know right from wrong. And starving your wife because your shacking up with a new woman is wrong.

 

[Political Junky]

no one in congress was trying to remove the decision from the family. They were specifically giving it to her family. The second her husband cheated on her, he had an interest in seeing her dead.

That's not your decision to make. You nor anyone else is in a place to claim someone no longer has a vested interest in someone. You want to point to the fact that he moved on years later as reason he didn't have her best interest in mind? Why? It wasn't like her body living was preventing him from doing anything. But again, you're in no position to make that judgment.

Yeah, i am in a position to make that judgment. I have a brain. I can see. I can evaluate information. I know right from wrong. And starving your wife because your shacking up with a new woman is wrong.

It's hard to believe anyone is a stupid as you are.