Schiavo Case: Santorum Unfit for Office of Presidency

[Intense]

I know. But the point of " if she is hungry she should have asked" was just idiotic. I am not opposed to remove feeding tubes. I wouldn't want one in the first place.

But you know Schiavo would? You realize that supporting government intervention in this matter means your odds of being on life support against your wishes increases, right?

No. Every indication suggested she wanted to remain on the feeding tube. It took an awful long time to snuff her. Why do you suppose that was? Why do you suppose stuff loke this even gets churned up during Campaign Season? Maybe because of Obama's Shitty Track Record? Are you really that desperate?

 

[geauxtohell]

I know. But the point of " if she is hungry she should have asked" was just idiotic. I am not opposed to remove feeding tubes. I wouldn't want one in the first place.

But you know Schiavo would? You realize that supporting government intervention in this matter means your odds of being on life support against your wishes increases, right?

No. Every indication suggested she wanted to remain on the feeding tube. It took an awful long time to snuff her. Why do you suppose that was? Why do you suppose stuff loke this even gets churned up during Campaign Season? Maybe because of Obama's Shitty Track Record? Are you really that desperate?

That is not correct. If her wishes were clearly known, this would be a different issue.

Before you whine about this as a political stunt, consider that it was originally a political stunt by Bush and Co.

 

[geauxtohell]

I know. But the point of " if she is hungry she should have asked" was just idiotic. I am not opposed to remove feeding tubes. I wouldn't want one in the first place.

But you know Schiavo would? You realize that supporting government intervention in this matter means your odds of being on life support against your wishes increases, right?

Again, would not the poking, prodding and "care" have continued her suffering, if in fact she was?

Yes. The truth is we can only guess as to what her state of mentation was.

Though the fact that a large part of her brain had undergone liquefaction necrosis suggests she only had rudimentary brain function.

 

[Intense]

But you know Schiavo would? You realize that supporting government intervention in this matter means your odds of being on life support against your wishes increases, right?

No. Every indication suggested she wanted to remain on the feeding tube. It took an awful long time to snuff her. Why do you suppose that was? Why do you suppose stuff loke this even gets churned up during Campaign Season? Maybe because of Obama's Shitty Track Record? Are you really that desperate?

That is not correct. If her wishes were clearly known, this would be a different issue.

Before you whine about this as a political stunt, consider that it was originally a political stunt by Bush and Co.

No, the Issue was she was so far gone that her current wishes should be discounted and ignored. Even the appeals in Court were based on and limited to whether the Judge had the Authority to decide what was to be done, not whether he made a just call. There were a few shady determinations in the History of that case which suggested foul play, that were swept under the rug.

 

[Missourian]

Ok, fair enough. But I have to ask...........

1) What would YOU have wanted if you were in her exact position? (vegetative state, liquidated brain, no hope for recovery)

2) Do you think it is the role of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government to take decisions away from families and doctors? (Keep in mind this was already played out in court.)

If my brain was liquid, I wouldn't care one way or the other.

If I was in her exact position, I would be more concerned about my folks than my spouse.

the law says once you're married, the parents don't make the decisions.

would you want your wife's parents interfering in a decision made jointly between you and your spouse.

but again, that's not the issue here. the issue here is that the court ruled... multiple courts ruled. and congress tried to interfere in a private matter.

The law isn't always morally right.

The husband had a new girlfriend and a new family and he had a financial motive for her treaty...the law couldn't take those facts into account...the law was clear, a long as he was her spouse, the decision to kill her was his.

How can the law be morally wrong, you ask?

Here is an example.

I'm Terry's father.

I am convinced my daughter can recover.

I lose the final appeal.

Without consulting my wife, I kill the husband.

I go to prison, but my wife, Terry's mother, becomes her legal guardian and Terry lives.

 

[geauxtohell]

No. Every indication suggested she wanted to remain on the feeding tube. It took an awful long time to snuff her. Why do you suppose that was? Why do you suppose stuff loke this even gets churned up during Campaign Season? Maybe because of Obama's Shitty Track Record? Are you really that desperate?

That is not correct. If her wishes were clearly known, this would be a different issue.

Before you whine about this as a political stunt, consider that it was originally a political stunt by Bush and Co.

No, the Issue was she was so far gone that her current wishes should be discounted and ignored. Even the appeals in Court were based on and limited to whether the Judge had the Authority to decide what was to be done, not whether he made a just call. There were a few shady determinations in the History of that case which suggested foul play, that were swept under the rug.

No, it was total hearsay and not legally relevant. Considering that M. Schiavo wasn't even charged over a decade ago or in the intervening years, it was particularly pathetic .

If you have evidence that T. Schiavo wanted to linger on a feeding tube for ever, produce it. If it's the same stuff we have all seen, don't expect us to be impressed.

 

[Missourian]

I know. But the point of " if she is hungry she should have asked" was just idiotic. I am not opposed to remove feeding tubes. I wouldn't want one in the first place.

But you know Schiavo would? You realize that supporting government intervention in this matter means your odds of being on life support against your wishes increases, right?

This is a poor case to point to as a basis of any argument except for having a written living will.

Had the husband been devoted, had there not been financial angle, if the parents and the husband had agreed, had the "artificial means" been more than a feeding tube...and above all...if she had had a living will or discussed her end of life decision with her folks, no one would have intervened.

 

[The Infidel]

if you can interrupt your absurd spew of venom for a moment...

he *was* her family. the law gave him the right to act on her behalf. the courts had reviewed the case up to the appellate level and back. no one believed he wasn't acting in her best interests... except her parents.

this isn't about whether you would have acted in the same fashion. it's about whether the rightwingnut loons in congress should have addressed this issue in legislation.

do you know, the only time baby bush ever interrupted one of his vacations down on the ranch was to come back to DC in the middle of the night to sign that bill into law?

The women's dead right?? case closed he got what he wanted.

much to do about nothing.

The women was never going to recover,but the extra time that was spent looking close at her wasn't the wrong way,We should always look to preserve life not take it,starving to death doesn't sound so good does it.

the scrutiny wasn't the problem. the courts had already looked at it from the trial level through the appellate level and back.

it was the politicizing it by the religious right that was the problem.

Wrong.... it was the murderous liberal left that wanted to kill Ms. Schaivo along with that scumbag that called himself her husband.

Why does the left worship death so much? Really.... why?


And to think you wonder why we, the 'religious right', fear the gov't being in control of our healthcare.


All ya'll want to do is kill the elderly, the useless feeders, and babies. Basically you want to kill the most helpless amoung us

Why????

 

[Avatar4321]

The Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits the states from taking someones life without due process. What crime was Terry Schiavo guilty of that empowered the state to terminate her life? When was she convicted of it.

If any state tries to terminate someones life, the Federal Government has a responsibility under the United States Constitution to prevent it from happening without due process.

I know you think that anyone who is unhealthy or somehow "less" human should be killed. But the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has always been an American value. And it will continue to be so, regardless of much you complain.

There are plenty of things to complain about Santorum on, this sure as heck isn't one of them.

Bullshit. That wasn't about the 14th Amendment or the "state taking a life".

This was about a decision that was made by her husband and her doctor to "unplug" a comatose patient, his wife, with no hope of recovery.

This was also about the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government attempting to interfere in a decision that only belonged to the husband and her doctor.

I know YOU favor "big gubmint activism" forcing what YOU consider "moral" upon the masses, but if I'm ever in a position where I have to make a horrible decision like that I'll thank you and the Federal Government to simply stay the fuck out of my business.

You keep using that word comatose. I dont think it means what you seem to think it means. Because Schaivo wasn't in a coma.

 

[Intense]

That is not correct. If her wishes were clearly known, this would be a different issue.

Before you whine about this as a political stunt, consider that it was originally a political stunt by Bush and Co.

No, the Issue was she was so far gone that her current wishes should be discounted and ignored. Even the appeals in Court were based on and limited to whether the Judge had the Authority to decide what was to be done, not whether he made a just call. There were a few shady determinations in the History of that case which suggested foul play, that were swept under the rug.

No, it was total hearsay and not legally relevant. Considering that M. Schiavo wasn't even charged over a decade ago or in the intervening years, it was particularly pathetic .

If you have evidence that T. Schiavo wanted to linger on a feeding tube for ever, produce it. If it's the same stuff we have all seen, don't expect us to be impressed.

Home
>
Terri's Story
>
Timeline

Timeline
http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline/

It's all here. It always has been. Don't let the Truth rain on your Kangaroo Court. It is all in the past though. Why are you digging up the dead, again?

 

[konradv]

This is a poor case to point to as a basis of any argument except for having a written living will.

Had the husband been devoted, had there not been financial angle, if the parents and the husband had agreed, had the "artificial means" been more than a feeding tube...and above all...if she had had a living will or discussed her end of life decision with her folks, no one would have intervened.

He WAS devoted. He took her everywhere for treatment for years. The financial argument was trumped up. Show us where he didn't spend it on her. The family was disgusting, IMO. They wanted a Terry doll, while Mike was just trying to follow her and anyone else's directions, "if there's no hope, don't use extraordinary measures". Who would want to be kept alive in that condition, particularly if you're religious and are keeping someone from their heavenly reward?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm finding myself in agreement with Avatar here. (It won't happen again.)

They didn't just let Schiavo die. They intentionally killed her. They deprived her of food and water until she starved to death, and it took nearly a week to do.

if we had done that to a terrorist at Gitmo, liberals would be having a fit.

My own feeling was that her husband was kind of a creep. He had moved on in his life, he just wanted to tie up this loose end. Her family wasn't ready to move on. He should have just signed over guardianship to them and let them deal with the problem.

Oh Im sure it will happen again, but I wont hold it against you.

Her husband was a creep. There was no living will. She wasn't in a coma like some people are trying to claim. Her family would have taken care of her and the costs, and he had already had children with another woman. There was a huge conflict there.

The state ordered that they starve her to death. Pure and simple. She was denied due process of the law. The federal government has clear jurisdiction under the 14th amendment to step in and provide due process if the state wont.

 

[Avatar4321]

Bullshit. That wasn't about the 14th Amendment or the "state taking a life".

This was about a decision that was made by her husband and her doctor to "unplug" a comatose patient, his wife, with no hope of recovery.

This was also about the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government attempting to interfere in a decision that only belonged to the husband and her doctor.

I know YOU favor "big gubmint activism" forcing what YOU consider "moral" upon the masses, but if I'm ever in a position where I have to make a horrible decision like that I'll thank you and the Federal Government to simply stay the fuck out of my business.

The thing was, she wasn't "unplugged", she was systematically starved to death over a period of something like 15 days.

Ok, fair enough. But I have to ask...........

1) What would YOU have wanted if you were in her exact position? (vegetative state, liquidated brain, no hope for recovery)

2) Do you think it is the role of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government to take decisions away from families and doctors? (Keep in mind this was already played out in court.)

a large portion of her family didn't want the state to starve her to death.

The state made the decision to terminate her life in a very cruel way.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ok, fair enough. But I have to ask...........

1) What would YOU have wanted if you were in her exact position? (vegetative state, liquidated brain, no hope for recovery)

2) Do you think it is the role of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government to take decisions away from families and doctors? (Keep in mind this was already played out in court.)

I think that I wouldn't want my spouse to show utter contempt for my family.

I guess I just don't have any sympathy for Mikey Schiavo. He didn't start advocating for pulling the tube on his wife until AFTER he won a huge settlement against her doctors. Then he was all about winning this huge settlment to take care of all her needs.

Once he got the money? New wife and pull the plug. C'Ya! And when her family objected, he fought to have her put down. And he kept doing it even after burning through all the settlement money.

if you can interrupt your absurd spew of venom for a moment...

he *was* her family. the law gave him the right to act on her behalf. the courts had reviewed the case up to the appellate level and back. no one believed he wasn't acting in her best interests... except her parents.

this isn't about whether you would have acted in the same fashion. it's about whether the rightwingnut loons in congress should have addressed this issue in legislation.

do you know, the only time baby bush ever interrupted one of his vacations down on the ranch was to come back to DC in the middle of the night to sign that bill into law?

He lost the right to call himself her family the second started cheating on her.

 

[konradv]

I'm finding myself in agreement with Avatar here. (It won't happen again.)

They didn't just let Schiavo die. They intentionally killed her. They deprived her of food and water until she starved to death, and it took nearly a week to do.

if we had done that to a terrorist at Gitmo, liberals would be having a fit.

My own feeling was that her husband was kind of a creep. He had moved on in his life, he just wanted to tie up this loose end. Her family wasn't ready to move on. He should have just signed over guardianship to them and let them deal with the problem.

Oh Im sure it will happen again, but I wont hold it against you.

Her husband was a creep. There was no living will. She wasn't in a coma like some people are trying to claim. Her family would have taken care of her and the costs, and he had already had children with another woman. There was a huge conflict there.

The state ordered that they starve her to death. Pure and simple. She was denied due process of the law. The federal government has clear jurisdiction under the 14th amendment to step in and provide due process if the state wont.

How can you say there was no "due process"? They were in and out of court repeatedly!

 

[Gagafritz]

Obviously everyone should make their wishes known in advance. And, again, i think everyone should be required to designate their wishes and assign a POA. But, if not, it goes down the chain. A spouse should have the finally say if the person cannot speak if they are legally still married , then down the chain to adult children, parents, etc.

 

[jillian]

This is a poor case to point to as a basis of any argument except for having a written living will.

Had the husband been devoted, had there not been financial angle, if the parents and the husband had agreed, had the "artificial means" been more than a feeding tube...and above all...if she had had a living will or discussed her end of life decision with her folks, no one would have intervened.

I think it absolutely means we should have a living will to protect us from religious tyranny in government.

Again, the Court had already held hearing after hearing and assessed that the husband's motivation was not financial. Had they thought it a possibility, they'd have appointed a guardian for her.

Once again, her folks no longer were her guardians. The law makes one's spouse next of kin after marriage. You understand that because we can't euthanize, removing feeding tubes is all we have. she had no brain, she had no sensation.

The ultimate point is, congress had no place acting.

I find it really bizarre that people who think having people be responsible for maintaining health insurance is unconstitutional think congress going into special session to truly violate the constitution and impermissibly pass a law pertaining to a single individual, is ok.

 

[The Infidel]

a feeding tube...and above all...if she had had a living will or

I think it absolutely means we should have a living will to protect us from religious tyranny in government.


Why is religion that is the mnster here, and not you demoncat liberals?

Again, the Court had already held hearing after hearing and assessed that the husband's motivation was not financial. Had they thought it a possibility, they'd have appointed a guardian for her.

So you want to demonize Santorum for 'taking away womens rights' but you think its OK for this woman to be at the mercy of a husband who has a girlfriend and kids with said girlfriend....? Wow... you really are a political hack (sorry, I think its horrid what this man did)

Once again, her folks no longer were her guardians. The law makes one's spouse next of kin after marriage. You understand that because we can't euthanize, removing feeding tubes is all we have. she had no brain, she had no sensation.


Again.... if you liberals think its OK for a man to be in control of a womans body as long as she is helpless, and he wants to kill her to get on with his life. Hypocrites lately???

The ultimate point is, congress had no place acting.


But they can tell me to buy insurance???? Ever hear of the commerce clause???

I find it really bizarre that people who think having people be responsible for maintaining health insurance is unconstitutional think congress going into special session to truly violate the constitution and impermissibly pass a law pertaining to a single individual, is ok.

Lets just hope you never end up in such a mess....you most likely have a husband who said 'till DEATH do you part' and is'nt in any hurry to make that happen.

Jillian your on the wrong side here.... its just my opinion though.


Ive watched you libs try to vilify Santorum for having a 'war on women' but the only ones I have seen waging a 'war on women' are you guys on the left.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, the Issue was she was so far gone that her current wishes should be discounted and ignored. Even the appeals in Court were based on and limited to whether the Judge had the Authority to decide what was to be done, not whether he made a just call. There were a few shady determinations in the History of that case which suggested foul play, that were swept under the rug.

No, it was total hearsay and not legally relevant. Considering that M. Schiavo wasn't even charged over a decade ago or in the intervening years, it was particularly pathetic .

If you have evidence that T. Schiavo wanted to linger on a feeding tube for ever, produce it. If it's the same stuff we have all seen, don't expect us to be impressed.

Home
>
Terri's Story
>
Timeline

Timeline
Timeline

It's all here. It always has been. Don't let the Truth rain on your Kangaroo Court. It is all in the past though. Why are you digging up the dead, again?

Like I said............

 

[Sallow]

The Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits the states from taking someones life without due process. What crime was Terry Schiavo guilty of that empowered the state to terminate her life? When was she convicted of it.

If any state tries to terminate someones life, the Federal Government has a responsibility under the United States Constitution to prevent it from happening without due process.

I know you think that anyone who is unhealthy or somehow "less" human should be killed. But the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has always been an American value. And it will continue to be so, regardless of much you complain.

There are plenty of things to complain about Santorum on, this sure as heck isn't one of them.

Bullshit. That wasn't about the 14th Amendment or the "state taking a life".

This was about a decision that was made by her husband and her doctor to "unplug" a comatose patient, his wife, with no hope of recovery.

This was also about the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government attempting to interfere in a decision that only belonged to the husband and her doctor.

I know YOU favor "big gubmint activism" forcing what YOU consider "moral" upon the masses, but if I'm ever in a position where I have to make a horrible decision like that I'll thank you and the Federal Government to simply stay the fuck out of my business.

You keep using that word comatose. I dont think it means what you seem to think it means. Because Schaivo wasn't in a coma.

You are right. She was basically brain dead.