Terri

dilloduck said:
you wouldn't want to even see her body?
I would have either already seen the body for identification OR for the funeral services after.
 
krisy said:
Oh gosh,MM. I remember that nutcase!!! The grandmother of a friend of mine was apparently one of his victims. They had to have her body exumed(sp?) to find out. It was a very painful time for the family. Wasn't it Drake Hospital on Galbraith that he worked at?



Drake, and others, too, if memory serves. I'm not sure how many Harvey murdered, all told, but I'm sure it was more than a dozen. I hope they're keeping hell hot for that bastard.
 
musicman said:
Drake, and others, too, if memory serves. I'm not sure how many Harvey murdered, all told, but I'm sure it was more than a dozen. I hope they're keeping hell hot for that bastard.


Me too. That whole thing was very scary.And to think,we are supposed to trust doctors and nurses!!!
 
krisy said:
Me too. That whole thing was very scary.And to think,we are supposed to trust doctors and nurses!!!



Have you ever seen the movie, "The Hospital", with George C. Scott and Diana Rigg? Talk about an incentive to keep yourself healthy!
 
freeandfun1 said:
Frankly, she sounds pretty damn heartless to me. Glad she won't ever be MY nurse.... damn! An Angel of death working in a hospital.... scary thought.

I happen to be a happily married hetero MALE. I am not a nurse anymore.

I guess you can't assume everything these days. You know what they say about assume don't you? Like assume Terri was alive?

Feel free to open mouth and insert your very big foot.
 
Jonathan Law
April 2, 2005 LAW0402


Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?

Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?

If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?

How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?

Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?

Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.

Most folks thought it was a good policy.

It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.

Understand this: Schiavo was never on life-support equipment. That's why she should never have been judged under the Florida law. Because she was not on life support, the law had no jurisdiction over her case. Florida courts screwed up.

Life-support equipment is medical equipment that is applied to a person whose kidneys have failed, or whose lungs no longer operate, or whose heart had stopped, etc. It's called "life support" because it replaces some bodily function that has failed, and it is known that if it is removed the person will die almost immediately.

Terri Schiavo was never on life-support equipment. All of her bodily functions operated just fine.

Oh, she was brain-damaged. So that made it OK to kill her? Are we soon going to begin starving to death everyone who is mentally retarded? Or everyone who has suffered brain injuries in accidents?

I suppose the rationale could be that they are an expense to the taxpayers, a burden to their family and of no economic use. Fair enough -- that's good Nazi ethics. Adolf Hitler would be proud, because that's what he did.

Oh, she couldn't feed herself. So that made it OK to kill her? Fair enough. When will we begin starving to death all the quadriplegics who are unable to feed themselves because they can't bring their arms and hands up to their mouths?

After all, many of them are a financial burden to the taxpayers, they require 24-hour help from committed family members or from personal nurses and companions, and they probably don't make much of a financial contribution to our nation's wealth. Is it good morals and good public policy to starve them to death?

If it is wrong to starve to death any of the types of people described above, why was it right to starve Terri Schiavo to death? I submit that if it is wrong to kill any of the above, then it was manifestly immoral to kill Schiavo!

To starve a person to death or to force him or her to die of thirst is the most inhumane, vicious way to kill a person. We did it to Terri Schiavo. And there are millions of Americans who think it's good morals.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5325588.html
 
Shattered said:
Jonathan Law
April 2, 2005 LAW0402


Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?

Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?

If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?

How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?

Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?

Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.

Most folks thought it was a good policy.

It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.

Understand this: Schiavo was never on life-support equipment. That's why she should never have been judged under the Florida law. Because she was not on life support, the law had no jurisdiction over her case. Florida courts screwed up.

Life-support equipment is medical equipment that is applied to a person whose kidneys have failed, or whose lungs no longer operate, or whose heart had stopped, etc. It's called "life support" because it replaces some bodily function that has failed, and it is known that if it is removed the person will die almost immediately.

Terri Schiavo was never on life-support equipment. All of her bodily functions operated just fine.

Oh, she was brain-damaged. So that made it OK to kill her? Are we soon going to begin starving to death everyone who is mentally retarded? Or everyone who has suffered brain injuries in accidents?

I suppose the rationale could be that they are an expense to the taxpayers, a burden to their family and of no economic use. Fair enough -- that's good Nazi ethics. Adolf Hitler would be proud, because that's what he did.

Oh, she couldn't feed herself. So that made it OK to kill her? Fair enough. When will we begin starving to death all the quadriplegics who are unable to feed themselves because they can't bring their arms and hands up to their mouths?

After all, many of them are a financial burden to the taxpayers, they require 24-hour help from committed family members or from personal nurses and companions, and they probably don't make much of a financial contribution to our nation's wealth. Is it good morals and good public policy to starve them to death?

If it is wrong to starve to death any of the types of people described above, why was it right to starve Terri Schiavo to death? I submit that if it is wrong to kill any of the above, then it was manifestly immoral to kill Schiavo!

To starve a person to death or to force him or her to die of thirst is the most inhumane, vicious way to kill a person. We did it to Terri Schiavo. And there are millions of Americans who think it's good morals.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5325588.html


When Terri supposedly expressed her wish "not to live like that" she inadvertantly opened up a can of worms because she didn't leave any instructions as to what she wanted her guardian to do with her instead. State legislatures will now hopefully define tube-feeding so all will understand what it's all about. She may have wanted to just be killed but you cannot make last requests that are illegal.
 
dilloduck said:
If a child of yours died in an accident would you want to see the body? If so , why?

What does this have to do with the Schiavo situation? An accident is an accident.

Wow according to hospice officials now the reason that the asshat(props to D for that word) Bobby Schindler was removed from the room was because he refused to move from the bedside so nurses could examine Terri or whatever else they needed to do. Apparently he got beligerent. Fuck him.
 
dilloduck said:
Try to be serious and answer the question---car accident (does that help ?)
If you have legal guardianship you apparently can do anything you want to with it.

Ok I see the meaning now. Only a sick fuck, legal guardianship or not would do anything but let the body be taken to the morgue, then the funeral home and then be buried in the normal process.
 
OCA said:
What does this have to do with the Schiavo situation? An accident is an accident.

Wow according to hospice officials now the reason that the asshat(props to D for that word) Bobby Schindler was removed from the room was because he refused to move from the bedside so nurses could examine Terri or whatever else they needed to do. Apparently he got beligerent. Fuck him.
I asked this question because people have challenged the Schindlers' desire to keep Terri alive as morbid. I work in an ER and am with parents who are told that there child is dead yet they still want to see the body. I see nothing morbid about this request at all. In fact, it's very helpful in the process of letting go.
 
dilloduck said:
I asked this question because people have challenged the Schindlers' desire to keep Terri alive as morbid. I work in an ER and am with parents who are told that there child is dead yet they still want to see the body. I see nothing morbid about this request at all. In fact, it's very helpful in the process of letting go.

Nobody is talking about just a simple viewing, it was their wanting to keep what was esentially a shell alive for whatever reason.
 
dilloduck said:
When Terri supposedly expressed her wish "not to live like that" she inadvertantly opened up a can of worms because she didn't leave any instructions as to what she wanted her guardian to do with her instead. State legislatures will now hopefully define tube-feeding so all will understand what it's all about. She may have wanted to just be killed but you cannot make last requests that are illegal.

I believe a feeding tube is a form of life support...what's your take on it?

I also think laws permitting euthenasia are way overdue consideration. Fifty years ago, they weren't needed...you got sick, you either got better or died. Now they can keep you "alive" past when nature would have flipped the switch. In some cases, just prolonging a slow, miserable, inevitable death.
 
MissileMan said:
I believe a feeding tube is a form of life support...what's your take on it?

I also think laws permitting euthenasia are way overdue consideration. Fifty years ago, they weren't needed...you got sick, you either got better or died. Now they can keep you "alive" past when nature would have flipped the switch. In some cases, just prolonging a slow, miserable, inevitable death.

My father considered it to be and specifically asked that he not be kept alive by that means. Fortunately his condition was so grave that he died 30 minutes after the respirator was disconnected with our entire family with him.

Euthenasia does need to be looked at but when we allow people to die whenever they feel like and for whatever reason it it sends a message that may not be the one we wish to send.

That is why I started the suffering thread because the avoidance of pain seems to be the goal here.
 
dilloduck said:
My father considered it to be and specifically asked that he not be kept alive by that means. Fortunately his condition was so grave that he died 30 minutes after the respirator was disconnected with our entire family with him.

Euthenasia does need to be looked at but when we allow people to die whenever they feel like and for whatever reason it it sends a message that may not be the one we wish to send.

That is why I started the suffering thread because the avoidance of pain seems to be the goal here.

I believe we only get one bite of the apple, so I believe that life is precious. On the other hand, if someone wants to end their existence here on earth, what right do any of us have to tell them they can't, no matter what their motivation.

As far as suffering goes, IMHO true suffering serves no purpose other than making the sufferer feel badly. I never have been able to reconcile why some consider suffering as this marvelous tidbit delivered to us by a divine being for us to savor. Suffering is a part of life, but it should be avoided when possible, not embraced.
 
MissileMan said:
I believe we only get one bite of the apple, so I believe that life is precious. On the other hand, if someone wants to end their existence here on earth, what right do any of us have to tell them they can't, no matter what their motivation.

As far as suffering goes, IMHO true suffering serves no purpose other than making the sufferer feel badly. I never have been able to reconcile why some consider suffering as this marvelous tidbit delivered to us by a divine being for us to savor. Suffering is a part of life, but it should be avoided when possible, not embraced.

People kill themselves all the time--I think what we are talking about he is legalizing or sanctioning it. When we do that, we send the message that life really isn't all that precious and since we can't have it both ways I would prefer to err on the side of life. IMHO we would be far better served by offering free help to those contemplating suicide.
Many simply do not like having to follow anyone elses' rules. It's a beautiful theory but we are in fact doomed to not always getting our own way. Sacrificing some lower order freedoms can open one up to higher order freedoms. Prioritizing instead of trying to make everything appear of the same worth is simply more along the lines of real life or natures way.
I have NEVER suggested that one seek to suffer because it occurs naturally. I have merely suggested that when faced with it, avoiding it may only prolong it. Experiencing and feeling it tends to make it take it's course quicker and provide learning experience that is valuable if one ever has to deal with it again. It may even teach you how to avoid THAT PARTICULAR type of pain in the future.
 
OCA said:
Nobody is talking about just a simple viewing, it was their wanting to keep what was esentially a shell alive for whatever reason.

I don't think they intended to dress her up like a monkey and put her in a window. They wanted to be with her alive body and nurse whatever mind they felt she had left. Nobody got their wish on this one but in the real world that happens all the time. Like it or not--we all must compromise. Asking to get what they wanted was no differerent than Terri asking for what she wanted. Rights of individuals collide constantly and everyone wants to win--Ain't gonna happen.
 
dilloduck said:
People kill themselves all the time--I think what we are talking about he is legalizing or sanctioning it. When we do that, we send the message that life really isn't all that precious and since we can't have it both ways I would prefer to err on the side of life. IMHO we would be far better served by offering free help to those contemplating suicide.
Many simply do not like having to follow anyone elses' rules. It's a beautiful theory but we are in fact doomed to not always getting our own way. Sacrificing some lower order freedoms can open one up to higher order freedoms. Prioritizing instead of trying to make everything appear of the same worth is simply more along the lines of real life or natures way.
I have NEVER suggested that one seek to suffer because it occurs naturally. I have merely suggested that when faced with it, avoiding it may only prolong it. Experiencing and feeling it tends to make it take it's course quicker and provide learning experience that is valuable if one ever has to deal with it again. It may even teach you how to avoid THAT PARTICULAR type of pain in the future.
Offering help is a great idea. But when the help has been extended, and is either rejected or doesn't actually help, then forcing someone to continue their existence against their will is as bad, if not worse than letting them go.

And there is the other matter of assisted suicide of the terminally ill. If someone wishes to hasten their death to avoid agony, what's the harm. They are going to die whether or not they experience the agony. IMHO, seeing a loved one pass peacefully off into an endless sleep would be much easier to take than watching them scream in agony for weeks on end. Easier for everyone.

There is also a financial consideration. I would want whatever assets I had left to pass to my family, not to the hospital and doctors who extended my life a few weeks.

As far as my comments on suffering, they weren't meant necessarily to dispute what you have been saying, but are my opinions on the subject.
 
MissileMan said:
Offering help is a great idea. But when the help has been extended, and is either rejected or doesn't actually help, then forcing someone to continue their existence against their will is as bad, if not worse than letting them go.

And there is the other matter of assisted suicide of the terminally ill. If someone wishes to hasten their death to avoid agony, what's the harm. They are going to die whether or not they experience the agony. IMHO, seeing a loved one pass peacefully off into an endless sleep would be much easier to take than watching them scream in agony for weeks on end. Easier for everyone.

There is also a financial consideration. I would want whatever assets I had left to pass to my family, not to the hospital and doctors who extended my life a few weeks.

As far as my comments on suffering, they weren't meant necessarily to dispute what you have been saying, but are my opinions on the subject.

It probably is cheaper and easier to sanction assisted suicide in the short run. I'm just not convinced that the easier and cheaper way to do things is necessarily the best for everyone and death is so final. I'd have to here a lot of input from a lot of sources on this one and no-----a poll would NOT be what I would consider input.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top