Micheal Schaivo Cleared To Remove Feeding Tube

[rtwngAvngr]

I said you had a good point, tell me WHY the courts haven't started investigating THAT. It's not like Florida is a bastion of liberal judiciary, right?

I believe there is an investigation on him for spousal abuse. The judge in his most recent decision to pull the tube said IT WAS IRRELEVANT. I know YOUR SIDE supports death at all costs, why? Why do they love death of innocents?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Well, let's say that based on that statement I think you're an arrogant ass who can't stand losing a discussion, and instead resorts to personal attacks.

YOU were the one that first resorted to an attack about me re-arranging my priorities.

If you're that sensitive, maybe it wasn't such a good idea for you to come back here.

Its a damn good thing that what you think is irrelavant then, isn't it?

Guess I'll go have a discussion with someone who is capable of rational replies.

You mean someone with a like mindset that won't call you out on your screwed up position?

On more suggestion - change your board name. You're not smarter than anybody.

heeeheeheee, anyway. This is what you're doing. :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

 

[SmarterThanYou]

I believe there is an investigation on him for spousal abuse. The judge in his most recent decision to pull the tube said IT WAS IRRELEVANT.

This 'investigation' was initiated at the behest of the parents, 13 years after the fact. can you explain?

I know YOUR SIDE supports death at all costs, why? Why do they love death of innocents?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This 'investigation' was initiated at the behest of the parents, 13 years after the fact. can you explain?

No. I can't explain. Frankly it's a different issue. You want to be on the side of the guy who conveniently forgot his wife's wishes when he was seeking money, and then "remembered" her death wish only after his big payday, be my guest. If you can't see the sliminess of this that's too bad. Why are you a slime supporter?

 

[dilloduck]

I believe there is an investigation on him for spousal abuse. The judge in his most recent decision to pull the tube said IT WAS IRRELEVANT. I know YOUR SIDE supports death at all costs, why? Why do they love death of innocents?

Because it would require them to do something that may be painful----libs don't want to do ANYTHING hard

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Many doctors say now with rehabilitation she could be much more functional. The husband has been steadfastly against this rehabilitative therapy. That's sick.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

No. I can't explain. Frankly it's a different issue. You want to be on the side of the guy who conveniently forgot his wife's wishes when he was seeking money, and then "remembered" her death wish only after his big payday, be my guest.

Its all part of the same issue. People are raising hell because of his 'indifference' or being in it only for the money. Fine, I can understand that, but for 13 years theres been little more than talk in a courtroom about this. If there was really something criminal about what was going on something would have been done about it long before now.

If you can't see the sliminess of this that's too bad. Why are you a slime supporter?

Lame again. why the general allegations?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Its all part of the same issue. People are raising hell because of his 'indifference' or being in it only for the money. Fine, I can understand that, but for 13 years theres been little more than talk in a courtroom about this. If there was really something criminal about what was going on something would have been done about it long before now.




Lame again. why the general allegations?

Well the main witness is kind of tied up right now and the husband obviously doesn't want her to recover, though he used her for a payday.

I can't explain a thirteen year gap. Are you really hanging your whole defense on that gap? It's not a general allegation. In this particular case, you are expressly on the side of the scumbag. Why?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Many doctors say now with rehabilitation she could be much more functional. The husband has been steadfastly against this rehabilitative therapy. That's sick.

ok, second and third opinions say she could be more functional. The courts have had the ability, as well as the governor, to inquire and proceed with the therapy yet they chose the strongarm route that got them slammed for being unconstitutional. If therapy can indeed work, I hope that the USSC intervenes, do you think they'll shirk their responsibility?

 

[krisy]

Its all part of the same issue. People are raising hell because of his 'indifference' or being in it only for the money. Fine, I can understand that, but for 13 years theres been little more than talk in a courtroom about this. If there was really something criminal about what was going on something would have been done about it long before now.




Lame again. why the general allegations?

The state social services have stepped in and want an abuse investigation,along with a 60 day stay. They must see something.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Well the main witness is kind of tied up right now and the husband obviously doesn't want her to recover, though he used her for a payday.

I can't explain a thirteen year gap. Are you really hanging your whole defense on that gap? It's not a general allegation. In this particular case, you are expressly on the side of the scumbag. Why?

I'm not hanging a defense on that gap, thats the whole case. If there is indeed something criminal about this then the whole state of florida government is the problem here, right?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The state social services have stepped in and want an abuse investigation,along with a 60 day stay. They must see something.

the point is, this investigation wasn't initiated until the parents had no other choice. This SHOULD have been done 13 years ago, not now. Doing it now reeks of last second desperation by filing a false accusation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

ok, second and third opinions say she could be more functional. The courts have had the ability, as well as the governor, to inquire and proceed with the therapy yet they chose the strongarm route that got them slammed for being unconstitutional. If therapy can indeed work, I hope that the USSC intervenes, do you think they'll shirk their responsibility?

Gee, I don't know. Again, a different issue. Why do you support the wishes of the scumbag?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Gee, I don't know. Again, a different issue. Why do you support the wishes of the scumbag?

Because of the big picture. If the state, parents, or any other group gets to intervene it will effectively remove MY right to decide my fate, or my wifes, if we are placed in a similar situation. Don't use the argument about having a living will or trust because the next time something like this happens and there IS one, that living will/trust is only going to be declared of being signed under duress or some other BS. You KNOW it will happen.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Because of the big picture. If the state, parents, or any other group gets to intervene it will effectively remove MY right to decide my fate, or my wifes, if we are placed in a similar situation. Don't use the argument about having a living will or trust because the next time something like this happens and there IS one, that living will/trust is only going to be declared of being signed under duress or some other BS. You KNOW it will happen.

Ahh. The bigger picture. So much evil is committed for the bigger picture. A classless society, for instance.

No, I don't know it will happen. I think you're being paranoid.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ahh. The bigger picture. So much evil is committed for the bigger picture. A classless society, for instance.

No, I don't know it will happen. I think you're being paranoid.

of course I am. why did I never think of that before. :scratch:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

of course I am. why did I never think of that before. :scratch:

I'm glad we've finally reached an understanding!

 

[Gem]

SmarterThanYou,

Without legal documentation regarding Terri Schiavo's wishes, this case hangs in the balance between her family, who have medical doctors who have examined Terri and state that with heavy rehabilitation she could make amazing strides (obviously, these doctors are on the parents side, yes, but they are doctors nonetheless) and her husband, who has not put as much money into her rehabilitation as he had the means to do so because he felt that she would not want to live this way and instead, put her rehabilitation money into court and legal procedings.

The problem with the ruling progressing in the manner in which you would like it to, is that it has effectively said, "As long as you say to at least two family members, 'Sheesh, I wouldn't want to live like that.' when discussing someone in a wheelchair, in a vegetative state, in a coma, without a leg, etc. the court now has legal precedent to rule that you obviously would want to be killed in any number of situations rather than have money invested in rehabilitation to see what kind of quality of life you could get back.

A girl in my highschool was in a very similar state as Terri Shiavo following a car accident our senior year. Last year, over 5 years after the accident, she got married and now has a child. She speaks a little slower and walks with a limp...but considering her first doctor informed her mother that she would never be able to speak, walk, talk, or interact with people in a meaningful way ever again....I'd say that her husband, child, and family, are ok with the fact that she walks a bit slower.

Am I saying that the cases are identical? No, of course not. Am I saying that I believe that Terri Shiavo could have returned to a "normal" existence with the "right" type of rehab? No.

What I AM saying is that sometimes it is very important to look at precedent. I have stated numerous times, to my husband and my family, that I would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state. However, unless I have it writtten down, actually have a legal written document that states the conditions under which I no longer wish to be kept alive...then Terri Shiavo's case will do much to put me in a dangerous situation...will my husband believe that if I am in a car accident and in a condition like the girl from my high school that THAT is what I meant when I said "I don't want to live like that?" If he and my parents both heard it....a court, especially after Terri Shiavo has been starved to death, would be more willing to say that letting me die would be alright...when, with a bit of rehab, I might have recovered, not completely, but enough.

This case is tragic, for everyone involved. But it is important that we as a society, not make a decision that we will regret later on. Perhaps this is the time, the case, to say..."NO LEGAL DOCUMENTATION...NO LEGAL CESSATION OF LIFE."

Afterall, what if the people who claim to have heard Terri talk about wanting to die are wrong??? What if she didn't mean she wanted to die if it meant starvation? What if she didn't mean, I don't want to live like that if rehab doesn't work...

So many people are fighting for the lives of death row inmates...they scream that these people do not deserve to die because perhaps a mistake was made...perhaps a jury of their peers was wrong. Perhaps, down the road...we will find evidence that exonerates them....yet so many of these same people find nothing wrong with starving a woman to death when the circumstances surrounding HER situation are HIGHLY unusual and suspicious: some doctors claiming she can be rehabilitated to some degree, others saying it is beyond hope, her husband has behaved suspiciously - not allowing parental visits, outside doctors, medical checkups, proper rehab, etc.

Legally, we are in a precarious situation and must tread lightly....I understand that you would want to do what was in your wife's wishes, every spouse would want to do what their partner felt was right for them...but without legal documentation of the fact...the government should be, in my opinion, hard pressed to allow a husband to starve his wife to death.


p.s. The nonsense about living wills and statements regarding health care procedures being "signed under duress" is just that, nonsense. Our legal system already has procedures in place for dealing with claims regarding fradulent contracts, contracts or statements regarding medical care would be handled in very much the same way.

The argument against requiring written documentation is a bit like saying, "The police are out there...but there is still crime....so we should fire all the policemen and have no laws whatsoever because its obviously not working." Just because one or two sick bastards might attempt to force their spouses into signing things they do not want to sign, does not mean that overall, a system that says, you must put your extreme medical care wishes in writing does not alleviate MANY of the issues discussed in this case.

 

[Said1]

of course I am. why did I never think of that before. :scratch:

STOP children what's that sound, everybody look, what's going down?

Ooops, wrong thread.