The GOP's TITANIC Shiavo mistake...

B

Bruzilla

Guest
Were all together down here in Florida for the Easter holiday, and I got a chance to discuss the case with my sister-in-law who was at Sciavo's hospital as a nurse today, and she brought up a good point.

She said that Schiavo ended up in her current state due to a chemical imbalance brought about by various eating disorders. If there's one thing people like this have in common is that they have a very low opinion of themselves. They have a sense of self-loathing and are very sensitive to their appearance. Her feeling was that a person with this mindset would be very likely to see footage of someone wasting away in a hospital bed and say "I don't ever want to be like that!" It's her professional opinion that Michael Sciavo's comments are far more likely to be true than comments by the parents that Terry would want to be kept alive in that state.

I mentioned Ken's morpine issue to her, and she told me that Terry's mind is gone, but her body is still 100 functional, which means involuntary reflexes are still working. When her body is subjected to something that would ordinarily cause pain, her body reacts as anyone's body would. The fact that she can't be talked to or reasoned with, so whenever something is done to her, her body can make drastic reactions to any pain impulse from the nerves, so they use the morphine to deaden the nerves. For example, just the act of taking a blood sample or giving her an injection could cause her to go into spasms or to flip out of the bed, so the morphine allows them to work on her without any secondary physical injuries.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bruzilla said:
I got a chance to discuss the case with my sister-in-law who was at Sciavo's hospital as a nurse today
I'd be curious what the nurses are saying about this. I mean, those babes know everything because they're always there. Do they say Michael Schiavo is trying to kill his moderately retarded wife or do they say she's in a "persistent vegetative state" (new buzzphrase for the talking heads)?

PS, the brother was on TV last night and he says that she didn't have a potassium imbalance at all, nor did she have heart failure. He said that Michael Schiavo tried to strangle her to death and that's why she collapsed. :jet:
 
vraiblonde said:
PS, the brother was on TV last night and he says that she didn't have a potassium imbalance at all, nor did she have heart failure. He said that Michael Schiavo tried to strangle her to death and that's why she collapsed. :jet:
Oh brother...:rolleyes:
 
D

dems4me

Guest
I guess this sort of deep thinking shouldn't be done on a Friday night, but I think what should be established is the legal definition of life to see what is legall determined to be considered killing someone. Does it mean she is alive because her body is still functioning (via brain input or muscular reflexes) or is she not alive? If she is not alive than it wouldn't be considered killing someone but I think she is alive. And like Christy all life forms should be cherished... this isn't even like the Kervorkian mercy killings -- they knowingly consented to the best of their ability. Here it's just one man's word (her husbands) and he wants to pull the plug because he can't stand by her anymore and stick it out any longer... her parents have agreed to be there for her in the long haul. If this case goes through and she is killed (depending on what the legal definition of living is) then it could be a grave precedent it sets in other cases... :shrug: The al quada prisoners in Guitanamo (sp?) are being treated more decent. To starve someone and not give food or water is just cruel, especially for someone that never did anything as dastardly as others.

If someone was to starve themselves to death it would be considered suicide because it's taking one's life... no one gets to be beneficiary, etc... because it's considered suicide... will that change seeings how starving someone and not giving them water is NOW not considered killing someone? I know that's out there on a limb but -- what kind of legal precedent will this killing of someone create... where will the shades of grey then move to become?

What about the kids on college campus this week starving themselves for higher wages of custodial staff, etc... they were doing it as an ultimate stand because starving oneself is not natural and eventually causes death. I'm sure they weren't starving themselves for the euphoric high that would be created. So roundaboutedly... what is the legal definition of life? If she is under the legal definition then yes I think it's wrong for the husband to order the drs. to kill her. And why for gosh sakes is she still menstrating? Wouldn't someone have given up the hope of her having children by now? If you can kill her without her written consent and based on purely and stricly heresay, surely you can give her a hysterectomy. I just don't get what the big fuss is suddenly about after all these years... if the husband can't hack it... move on... her parents and other immediate family has no qualms taking over. The courts are saying death and the pres. and gov B are saying life... unfortunately the courts win and Death is her reward... this just seems soo backwards to me. :frown: JMO
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
vraiblonde said:
I'd be curious what the nurses are saying about this. I mean, those babes know everything because they're always there.
Oh please! :duh: The nurses I had to deal with when my dad was in the hospital were about as sharp as a sponge. :duh:
 

alex

Member
Wait - didn't you hear ..... She told the parents LAST WEEK the she didn't want to die!! That is their last argument in their current appeal. What took them so long to tell some one about this (if it happened).

I think Vrai said it on another post - This is not about a right to life it is about a right to REFUSE treatment and WHO gets to speak for Terri - her husband or her parents.

How bad a man can Micheal Shiavo be when he went to school to learn how to care for his wife, when for 8 years he tried all types of treatments to help her?
 
D

dems4me

Guest
alex said:
Wait - didn't you hear ..... She told the parents LAST WEEK the she didn't want to die!! That is their last argument in their current appeal. What took them so long to tell some one about this (if it happened).

I think Vrai said it on another post - This is not about a right to life it is about a right to REFUSE treatment and WHO gets to speak for Terri - her husband or her parents.

How bad a man can Micheal Shiavo be when he went to school to learn how to care for his wife, when for 8 years he tried all types of treatments to help her?


I disagree... it's beyond the now trivial point of who can speak for her... it's now an issue of life or death and what kind of precedent will it set for legally killing someone :shrug: or what is the definition of life... I always though anything living and breathing was life. But if you are going back to the older topic of who can speak of her... it certainly shouldn't be determined by a man that has allegedly abused her (parents side of story) versus the mans side of story (he's doted on her for 8 years), etc... I don't see anything officially documented where he did dote on her... just heresay from his camp as well. If it came down to being able to kill people was legal because you couldn't understand them and its alot about just reflexes and them not being alive... I guess it'd be ok to start killing my dog and cats... What exactly is your definition of life because surely breathing and heartbeating on its own certainly isn't on the list -- after all its just a reflex that coincidentally flexes and never misses a beat ? :shrug:
 
D

dems4me

Guest
dems4me said:
...... And like Christy all life forms should be cherished...
Sorry Christy, that didn't quite come out the way it was supposed to I meant... like Christy's philospohy, I agree.. all life forms shoudl be cherished. I wasn't going for an ameoba (sp?) kind of reference to ya. :huggy:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
dems4me said:
:ohwell: I've .... never ...... seen ...... it... :ohwell: Don't ........ like ...........scary ............ movies... :ohwell:
A tip, Dems---"Mommie Dearest" should only be watched as a comedy.
 

alex

Member
dems4me said:
I disagree... it's beyond the now trivial point of who can speak for her... it's now an issue of life or death and what kind of precedent will it set for legally killing someone :shrug: or what is the definition of life... I always though anything living and breathing was life. But if you are going back to the older topic of who can speak of her... it certainly shouldn't be determined by a man that has allegedly abused her (parents side of story) versus the mans side of story (he's doted on her for 8 years), etc... I don't see anything officially documented where he did dote on her... just heresay from his camp as well. If it came down to being able to kill people was legal because you couldn't understand them and its alot about just reflexes and them not being alive... I guess it'd be ok to start killing my dog and cats... What exactly is your definition of life because surely breathing and heartbeating on its own certainly isn't on the list -- after all its just a reflex that coincidentally flexes and never misses a beat ? :shrug:
Guess we will have to disagree on this issue then. TO me and a lot of people in this country it IS about a right to refuse treatment and who gets to make that decision. The decision wasn't made because no one understands her attempts to communicate, it was made because after numerous attempts to help her, after many medical opinions it was determined that there was nothing left to do and because Terri expressed to her husband that she would not want to live like this.

Life to me is NOT laying in a bed, brain dead, being feed by a tube. She is not communicating with anyone because her brain is dead. What type of life is that for anyone. For me, life should have meaning and a meaningful life is not being a bedridden, brain dead pet for people who can not accept my death.

Does this mean that you believe if a person is dying of say, cancer, they should be keep alive indefinetly (sp?) by machines? Modern medicine can just about do all of the functions of our bodily organs now adays so using your agrument for life everyone, no matter how ill, should be kept a live for as long a modern medicine can provide.
 
Last edited:
D

dems4me

Guest
alex said:
Guess we will have to disagree on this issue then. TO me and a lot of people in this country it IS about a right to refuse treatment
:blahblah:

Yes, Alex sweets, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see the documentation stating all the efforts for rehabilitation, there's too many discrepancies in this particular case. Most cases, I can understand (somewhat except for starving a former eating disordered person to death). I see it akin to someone trying to commit suicide, didn't quite finish off the job and then the spouse coming along to help and pull the trigger yet again toput them out of their misery.

Sorry to have digressed... back to the case, at hand, I both agree and disagree with this case. With this case there are shadows of doubt and the possibility of spousal abuse, etc... it's bad enough that he wants her to cease and stop living now that these issues are coming to the forefront... but now... he wants her to be cremeated which goes against her parents wishes... (and possible catholic beliefs?).... after cremation they won't be able to exhume the body for broken bones or whatever... :frown: I'm somewhat in agreement with the majority, but where there's suspicion (like the President :ohwell: I err on the side of Life). If someone has cancer, that is entirely different... they succumb to cancer, you just don't stop feeding and giving water to the patient and deliberately kill them. And again, in order to decide if this is indeed a "killing" (a murder of sorts in the legal definition)... what is the legal definition of "life" :shrug: You need to have a set definition of what is "life" in order to have a set definition for the term "killing", "death" or what have you. :shrug: People's definition of life vary from person to person... so.. what is the legal definition of "life" and does Terry meet that criteria :shrug:

In short, I can see why most disagree with my philosophy but, as long as there is a God and prayers, I believe in miracles and I don't feel man should interfere. :ohwell: JMO. :peace:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

somdcrab

New Member
dems4me said:
alex said:
Guess we will have to disagree on this issue then. TO me and a lot of people in this country it IS about a right to refuse treatment
:blahblah:

Yes, Alex sweets, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see the documentation stating all the efforts for rehabilitation, there's too many discrepancies in this particular case. Most cases, I can understand (somewhat except for starving a former eating disordered person to death). I see it akin to someone trying to commit suicide, didn't quite finish off the job and then the spouse coming along to help and pull the trigger yet again toput them out of their misery.

Sorry to have digressed... back to the case, at hand, I both agree and disagree with this case. With this case there are shadows of doubt and the possibility of spousal abuse, etc... it's bad enough that he wants her to cease and stop living now that these issues are coming to the forefront... but now... he wants her to be cremeated which goes against her parents wishes... (and possible catholic beliefs?).... after cremation they won't be able to exhume the body for broken bones or whatever... :frown: I'm somewhat in agreement with the majority, but where there's suspicion (like the President :ohwell: I err on the side of Life). If someone has cancer, that is entirely different... they succumb to cancer, you just don't stop feeding and giving water to the patient and deliberately kill them. And again, in order to decide if this indeed a "killing" (a murder of sorts in the legal definition)... what is the legal definition of life :shrug: You need to have a set definition of life in order to have a set definition for "killing" someone.

In short, I can see why most disagree with my philosophy but, as long as there is a God and prayers, I believe in miracles and I don't feel man should interfere. :ohwell: JMO. :peace:

:yeahthat:
 
D

dems4me

Guest
Larry Gude said:
...as in 'interfere' with machines and such other human intervention?


Modern science has helped man and I don't think it would be in existance if the Lord wanted to NOT help mankind. There's rehabilitation... I say, give Terry over to her parents for rehabilitation and therapy and if there is no improvement in a year... bring the case back up and then set legal paramaters for the definition of life and death (if there isn't one already established), etc... :shrug: I just don't see two wrongs making a right, especially when somone that has been abused, used for her settlement money, will end up dying as a result. Yes, she is machine fed, but sometimes you have to crawl before you can walk.... even infants are spoon fed, etc... but again, I'm an optimistic person when it comes to these situations and believe in miracles and prayers and if its not your time to go, its definately not your time to go sort of theory.
 
Top