Announcement

**TCO** · March 26, 2005, 02:08

Originally posted by Guynemer
POA is prefered simply because it is clear--what they say goes, cut and dry.

At least, that's the way it is supposed to work, and usually does when your governor isn't named Bush.

Yeah...I understand that it is clear. That is great for people like docs and hospitals that are all about CYA. I am trying to think through the thing in terms of possibilities for misuse. It certainly seems that a statement from the patient has more validity about the patient's rights than a ceded right to decide to another person.

**Mr. Harley** · March 26, 2005, 02:09

Less understandable, except as a matter of pathology, is the way some on the ideological right are viewing the matter. I'm referring to what Neggy Poonan calls "the bizarre passion of the [b]keep-her-alive-no-matter-how-brain-dead." As Poonan notes, the likes of the neocons and Carl Rove can scarcely contain their glee that attempts to prevent Terri from death through de-hydration have failed. Why? Maybe they have "fallen in love with divisive issues," as Poonan suggests? Or maybe they are just frustrated by that the American people don't approve of this or eliminating Social Security for private accounts, seeing the casualties in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East (must Terri die to galvinize the "base"?), etc. Whatever the case, it makes for a sad and sorry spectacle."

I can also quote speculation, and so-called experts, and distort it for the other side.

**Bill3000** · March 26, 2005, 02:10

Originally posted by chegitz guevara They are the reason I'm not a Republian anymore.

che... was a republican?

**Dinner** · March 26, 2005, 02:12

Competent investigation after competent investigation has been conducted and all of the anti-abortion rights peoples' lies can't change that. 19 judges and 12 doctors have presided over this case for the last 15 years and every single one of them has come to the exact same conclusion. Inventing desenting doctors who have never even seen the patient just doesn't cut it in a court of law.

I wish the religious right would just mind their own damn business for once in their life because this is what Terri told her husband, there mutual friends, and he sister in law what she wanted if this ever happened to her. The law is clear as crystal and that's why the supreme court has refused to entertain the rabid religious right's frivolous legal motions some half dozen times. The religious groups are trying to force their personal beeliefs upon other people and that's just not right.

**Ned** · March 26, 2005, 02:12

Originally posted by GePap

Biased? I think there are enough people who have no interest whatsoever in the the outcome of this case who have flatly contradicted the testimony of Michael, someone who has an apparent conflict. Biased? Bull.

What about the three guardians appointed by the courts and the multiple doctors working for the court who studied her and found evidence that all those claims you are bringing up are a buchn of ****??

You know what? There are many witnesses to UFO's. Somehow, that doesn't make UFO's true.

Once you demonstrate to me that the Guardians hired counsel to conduct an investigation into the credibility of Michael and others on the issue of consent, I will back off. Merely hiring doctors to confirm that Terri had no EEG and had a shrunken brain is not the same thing as hiring an attorney for Terri, which the Guardians never did.

**Bill3000** · March 26, 2005, 02:12

Originally posted by Tuberski

I understand why he did it. The why doesn't make it right.

ACK!

Lemme guess... You'd be one of those people who say that gay marriage would ruin the santicity of marriage even though the santicity of marriage is ruined by the lack of morals and priorities in marriage and the divorce rate?

**chequita guevara** · March 26, 2005, 02:12

Originally posted by Ned
I assure you, if a criminal defendent was ordered to be put to death after a trial where they were not represented by counsel, the whole proceding would be declared unconstitutional.

Actually, according to The Chicago Tribune it would be pretty normal, as they found that fully 1/3rd of all those sentenced to die in the State of Texas weren't adequately represented by counsel.

**Drake Tungsten** · March 26, 2005, 02:13

I can't believe how naive some of you are. The man went into court for the malpractice suit and swore he'd take care of Terri for the rest of her natural life. As soon as the money got put in the trust fund however, he started reneging on his promise. At first, he limited himself to do-not-resuscitate orders and denial of antibiotics to treat infections. Eventually, he petitioned the court to pull her feeding tube. And all throughout this, he was busy starting a new family. Sure, it's theoretically possible that he still loves her dearly, but you have to be really damn gullible to look at what's happened and draw that conclusion. That, or motivated by ideological considerations that make you unwilling to accept any possibilities that don't support your side...

**chequita guevara** · March 26, 2005, 02:13

Originally posted by Bill3000

che... was a republican?

'Till 20 years ago, yep. There used to be a strange breed of political animal called a liberal Republican. Now they are an x-beast.

**TCO** · March 26, 2005, 02:14

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

I can also quote speculation, and so-called experts, and distort it for the other side.

You're such a knee-jerk. If you will get over your need to win (that causes you all to elide points), you will realize that the statement is fully aimed at either side in these types of arguments. And if you read the rest of the article (and think and are smart), you will note that the author is citing the danger of people on HIS SIDE of basing their arguments on some feeling or statement that they KNOW what Terri told Micheal, when of couse they can't know that. Do you savvy? He is sounding a cuationary note to his side!?

**Ned** · March 26, 2005, 02:14

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're arguing with me after I clearly stated I'm engaging in character assassinaton?

I will note you were far more willing to believe ill of the husband than the folks, even if we've learned anything from psychiatry, it's always the parents fault!

If this was addressed to me, I have heard numerous independent, adverse witnesses against Michael Schiavo and none against the parents who are not Michael himself, his brother or his lawyers.

**DinoDoc** · March 26, 2005, 02:15

Originally posted by Bill3000

che... was a republican?

He fell in with a Commie cult.

**Tuberski** · March 26, 2005, 02:16

Originally posted by Bill3000

Lemme guess... You'd be one of those people who say that gay marriage would ruin the santicity of marriage even though the santicity of marriage is ruined by the lack of morals and priorities in marriage and the divorce rate?

Wrong. I support gay marriage. Look in any gay marriage thread.

Wedding vows say 'til death do us part. He didn't obey his vow.

Therefore, using moral high ground to defend him is ridiculous.

ACK!

**Bill3000** · March 26, 2005, 02:16

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He fell in with a Commie cult.

More like got saved.

**Capt Dizle** · March 26, 2005, 02:16

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Actually, according to The Chicago Tribune it would be pretty normal, as they found that fully 1/3rd of all those sentenced to die in the State of Texas weren't adequately represented by counsel.

You can't say stuff like that completely out of context. The Chicago Tribune has no standing whatsoever to determine whether or not someone has been adequately represented or not. That is a cheap shot and I know you, che, you can make good arguments so why do you want to spoil your rep by making the kind of sleezy comment like some OJ lawyer. It is beneath you.

The Chicago Tribune can't get the weather right for chrissakes.

Announcement

Schiavo Thread Part Deux

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment