Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[notyoueither]

Who did you just quote, George?

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
To some extent, we see ideology driving opinions about factual matters in the Terri Schiavo matter too. Take, for example, the question of what (if anything) Terri told her husband about the circumstances under which she would not want to be cared for. Some people seem to be answering this question with great conviction based on little more than their ideology.

Fortunately, the more careful supporters of keeping Terri alive avoid this trap. They do so by making presumptions, and in particular the presumption in favor of life that President Bush mentioned. Thus, without claiming to know what Terri told her husband, one can argue that, absent written evidence, she should be presumed not to have said she would want to die.

Why? This presumption has a 50-50 chance of being wrong, meaning you might very well be denying her the right to refuse medical care, which is every American's right. This is why the case went to court, and three witnesses spoke, and the court decided that there was sufficient evidence under Florida law to establish she would have wanted to die.

If anything is ideology driven, if the assumption to "favor life".

Less understandable, except as a matter of pathology, is the way some on the ideological left are viewing the matter. I'm referring to what Peggy Noonan calls "the bizarre passion of the pull-the-tube people." As Noonan notes, the likes of the Democratic Underground and James Carville can scarcely contain their glee that attempts to prevent Terri from death through de-hydration have failed. Why? Maybe they have "fallen half in love with death," as Noonan suggests? Or maybe they are just frustrated by losing elections, seeing the tide turn in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East (must Terri die for Bush's "sins"?), etc. Whatever the case, it makes for a sad and sorry spectacle."

:LOL:

People like Carvill are happy because a naked attempt to undermine the rule of law to pander to a minority viewpoint has been defeated.

I think that is a great reason to celebrate

[chequita guevara]

Or maybe the "left" is tired of the right blatently ignoring society's family law whenever it suits its purposes after banging their shoe like Kruschev for the past twenty years about family values. The right wants to force people into a particular family mold, but will happily demonize and interfere with that same ideal in practice if it fits their agenda. The "left," despite being "anti-family" actually has more respect for familes, and thinks that the state shouldn't interfere where it has no business being, i.e., our private lives. The "left" isn't gleeful at the death of the meat sack once called Terri Schiavo. They're just happy they're beating the tar out of the GOP on this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Guynemer
The parents are not scum.

They are scum. They are willfully participating in the character assassination of their son-in-law, which has lead to a serious threat on his life. They lie like a Persian rug all the time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that any nurses actually treating her would likely not be running to the TV, one has to wonder which "nurses" these are. Someone who took care of her in 1995 would have seriously outdated info.

And why would the judge decide to hear statements that fly in the face of the facts? Hell, Terry is so damned active, why doesn;t she just run out of the room??? Its pretty absurd.

You point assumes that it is not current nursing staff. Is that correct?

I admit, the facts I have about this are very skimpy. I'm more interested in the bigger questions, like what happens when spouse and parents differ on fate in such a situation. Should grandparents be included too?

As for 'facts'... doctors and science are not infallible. We have judges for a reason, to make tough decisions. They need more than the whispering from one side to make good decisions. I can't think of any people who would know the patient better at this point than some of the nurses who have both experience with her and experience with other people in difficult situations.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


Why? This presumption has a 50-50 chance of being wrong, meaning you might very well be denying her the right to refuse medical care, which is every American's right. This is why the case went to court, and three witnesses spoke, and the court decided that there was sufficient evidence under Florida law to establish she would have wanted to die.

If anything is ideology driven, if the assumption to "favor life".

1. Huh? Explain your point.

2. Are you excusing illogical acts by pointing towards something even more illogical? That is very childish and tendentious.

[Guynemer]

Che, people don't act like themselves when they are in these sorts of situations. I see it quite a lot. The additional conflict between her parents and her husband only heightens their volitility.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You point assumes that it is not current nursing staff. Is that correct?

I have no clue who they are, but I doubt the current staff will be making such stupid claims- look at the other Schiavo case for a nice summary of the extent of the brain damage.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


They are scum. They are willfully participating in the character assassination of their son-in-law, which has lead to a serious threat on his life. They lie like a Persian rug all the time.

You've been wrong several times before, Che.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


I have no clue who they are, but I doubt the current staff will be making such stupid claims- look at the other Schiavo case for a nice summary of the extent of the brain damage.

I grant the specialists say let her die based on science.

I want to know what the humans who interact with her every day have to say.

[chequita guevara]

It's amazing how someone can say something several times, and people still miss it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


1. Huh? Explain your point.

2. Are you excusing illogical acts by pointing towards something even more illogical? That is very childish and tendentious.

People have the right to refuse medical care under any circumstances- so Terry has a right to die, which is as valid as her right to live. A court was asked to decide (already biased under the law towards life) whether there was sufficient evidence, as spelled out by the Florida law, to establish whether she would have wanted to die. The court found sufficient evidence of a wish to die on terry's part.

Yes, people ***** and moan and dispute the finding- which is why there have been countless appeals of the decision. And the court ruling has stood.

So all your side has going for it is assuming the court system must be wrong cause you don't like the ruling. Yeah, one side is being very illogical and childish. Its your side TCO.

[Guynemer]

Lowering yourself to their level

[chequita guevara]

Sometimes it has to be done. Sometimes someone has to do it. I'm the only one man enough to fight the right the way it needs to be fought.

[notyoueither]

Wow. No inflation of self importance there, eh Che?