One more thread about the Schaivo case... A Poll

[sleuth]

Something Bill O'Reilly has been claiming the past few days has bothered me. O'Reilly claims that the whole Schaivo debate is centered between the religious Christian right and the secularist movement.

I think O'Reilly is oversimplifying this. From what I have read and heard, the debate is not between the Christian "Right-to-Lifers" and the Secularist "Right-to-Choosers", but rather it seems to be split among the "Spouse = Guardian" vs. "Parents = Guardian" communities.

For example, I myself am a Christian, with Christian upbringing, Christian values (though I don't always agree with the Church's interpretations), and Christian beliefs. BUT, I believe that withdrawing Schaivo's feeding tube was an act of mercy that her husband had the right as guardian to carry out.

To me, my position has nothing to do with the right-to-life vs. right-to-death debate. So where do you fall?

 

[Larry Gude]

This is why...

...the whole thing is so dumbfounding.

This is clear cut states rights.

Florida law states that the spouse speaks for the incapacitated. He tried for years to help her. Then, when it became clear she'd be stuck in a state she did not want to be kept in, he decided to let her go. His fitness was challenged repeatedly by people, who we've seen, wanted to keep her alive no matter what her condition and no matter what her wishes.

He was NOT disqualified and a large number of other people, judges, docs, specialists, OVER years and years and years were part of the decisions to leave him responsible. They all ruled she was a mess and they all ruled he was representing her wishes accurately.

Imagine what life would be like if the federal government choose to disqualify a person from any given right and/or responsibility without proving ANYTHING.

THAT is what this case is about and THAT is why O'reilly and Limbaugh and Hannity and all the rest are so adament in arguing it is something more; they're wrong. Their asses are hanging in the air and they've chosen to fight it out rather than admit they're wrong.

 

[Larry Gude]

I submit that...

Parental guardian rights vs. Spousal guardian rights

...that choice is states rights based. The right comes from the state.

 

[Suz]

What I want to know is why is there a need for a autopsy? Hasn't the woman been through enough (most of which she wasn't aware of)???

 

[alex]

I agree with you Sleuth. For me is was a matter of who is her guardian and who has the right to speak for her regarding treatment. But it is also a matter of State Rights. The state repeatedly gave guardianship to her husband and then the Feds tried to step and take over. That was so wrong and very scary.

What I want to know is why is there a need for a autopsy? Hasn't the woman been through enough (most of which she wasn't aware of)???

It is an attempt to shut up the parents. But no matter what it shows they will never be happy. They have had a taste of the spotlight and will be milking this for as long as they can.

 

[vraiblonde]

I would like to choose "All of the Above". That's why Terri Schiavo is such an important issue and we're all so worked up. It's too bad that she went veggie but, frankly, I don't even know her and millions of other people have died in the 15 years she was out.

This situation has really opened my eyes about the Republicans. I used to like Rush Limbaugh (well, sort of) and thought he was a sensible commentator on politics. Now he's practically advocating that we get a Christian mullah to run our government and make our laws - and he is a regular critic of theocracies. I guess he really only objects to non-Christian theorcracies.

 

[CityGrl]

This is a parents vs. spouse issue.

The government should have never been involved, and her parents should never have taken advantage of the system. The woman was a vegetable and had a right to die in peace with those that loved her surrounding her. She did not have the right to become a public spectacle and a "carrot" for the politicians.

 

[Ken King]

My choice was "None of these debates is at the heart of my position." For me it is a "right to die" issue for those that end up in a state such as Terri and for all the many others that suffer incapacitating diseases or injuries that they have no hope of regaining quality of life or that are left to endure a life filled with nothing but pain and suffering. For those like this there should be a means for them to terminate their lives quickly without any potential for suffering and not call it suicide.

 

[vraiblonde]

not call it suicide.

Why not call it suicide? People should have the right to end their lives no matter what. It's THEIR life!! I think anti-suicide laws are a bunch of crap and a huge government intrusion. Not that I'm so much in favor of people killing themselves, but I don't think it's the government's place to tell you when you can and cannot end your own life.

Here's the irony - you CAN kill your unborn child but you CANNOT kill yourself. What a hoot.

 

[Lenny]

Here's the irony - you CAN kill your unborn child but you CANNOT kill yourself. What a hoot.

In the end, THIS is the most important (and most ignored) facet of this whole deal.

But truth be told, I am unaware of a successful criminal prosecution of anyone who killed themselves.

 

[pvineswinger]

I think the husband should have relinquished control of her medical care. If the parents want to be freaks and keep their brain dead daughter alive- let them. Terri didn't even know that her body was still alive.
Terri Schiavo couldn't feel, think, reason, or deduct ANYTHING!! She was a vegetable. If the parents want to spend their time, money, and effort to keep her alive, they are only fooling themselves. Brain dead is dead, so IMO she's been dead for 15 years.

 

[Makavide]

What I want to know is why is there a need for a autopsy? Hasn't the woman been through enough (most of which she wasn't aware of)???

My understanding is that Florida Law requires an autopsy to be performed on all persons who will be cremated. This is to enusre that no foul play was involved. You can't exhume a cremated body for those rare cases where it may be decided at a later time that something hinky may have taken place.

 

[pvineswinger]

You can't exhume a cremated body for those rare cases where it may be decided at a later time that something hinky may have taken place.

This is still in question?
I'd bet my next paycheck that A LOT of hinky $hit happened!! It was called the Terri Schiavo case!!!

 

[Ken King]

Why not call it suicide? People should have the right to end their lives no matter what. It's THEIR life!! I think anti-suicide laws are a bunch of crap and a huge government intrusion. Not that I'm so much in favor of people killing themselves, but I don't think it's the government's place to tell you when you can and cannot end your own life.

Here's the irony - you CAN kill your unborn child but you CANNOT kill yourself. What a hoot.

The reason I said that was due to the financial issues with insurance companies that do not pay off for a suicide, so if it was deemed a suicide people would base the decision more than likely on the fiscal issue versus the pain and suffering.

 

[sleuth]

My choice was "None of these debates is at the heart of my position." For me it is a "right to die" issue for those that end up in a state such as Terri and for all the many others that suffer incapacitating diseases or injuries that they have no hope of regaining quality of life or that are left to endure a life filled with nothing but pain and suffering. For those like this there should be a means for them to terminate their lives quickly without any potential for suffering and not call it suicide.

So how is this choice not part of the Euthanasia poll option? You're the group that I was trying to capture with that choice. How should I have worded it?

And for anyone else who selected the "None" option, how would you have worded your choice in an X vs. Y format?

 

[vraiblonde]

The reason I said that was due to the financial issues with insurance companies that do not pay off for a suicide, so if it was deemed a suicide people would base the decision more than likely on the fiscal issue versus the pain and suffering.

You scare me. That's the EXACT same thing Larry said when I read my post to him.

 

[sleuth]

I would like to choose "All of the Above". That's why Terri Schiavo is such an important issue and we're all so worked up.

I left that option out intentionally. I wanted to find out what the #1 issue was, because I disagree with O'Reilly's assessment that it's a Christian movement vs. a Secularist movement.

 

[somdcrab]

for me it's a mixture and a total abuse/misuse of personal vs political agendas the only good thing that can come out of it, is those who used their office to push the agenda now have to answer to the people @the polls

 

[Ken King]

So how is this choice not part of the Euthanasia poll option? You're the group that I was trying to capture with that choice. How should I have worded it?

And for anyone else who selected the "None" option, how would you have worded your choice in an X vs. Y format?

You tied it in with the pro-life/pro-choice option associated with abortion and I see them as totally separate and unrelated.

 

[Ken King]

You scare me. That's the EXACT same thing Larry said when I read my post to him.

It's genetics Baby, we are the evil twins you joke about.