Crikey! Lets keep on crucifying the man for being human. If it had been almost 10 years since your signficant other had been in a situation where they couldn't relate to you physically or emotionally and pretty much every doctor was telling you they weren't going to get better how long would you be willing to stay celebate? I don't believe that Mr. Schiavo did the noblest thing but he did the understandable thing. I believe that one can try to move on while still honoring the wishes of a someone who you loved.
Were you really wondering Cohen? It wasn't that hard to figure out. All it takes is basic background reading on PVS. I know, from some of your breathless reports in the other thread, that you've been watching Fox News Channel and the parade of fools (John Edwards, former pretend psychic host of Crossing Over, not would be VP, was my favorite) who have been claiming that her husk was going to miraculously resuscitiate itself, but that wasn't going to happen.
You're right, he should have gotten a vasectomy and sat by her bed and watched the involuntary reactions of his former wife's body for as long as medical science would allow, no matter what cost.
Once Michael Schiavo decided to start another family with another woman, he was in an adulterous relationship and should no longer have been considered to be Terri's husband. It was wrong of Michael to move on yet still continue to remain married to Terri technically just to keep control of Terri and put her to death to spite her in-laws. There's nothing wrong with Michael wanting to move-on, remarry and start a new family. But he should have DIVORCED her and left her to her parents custody and walked away. What he did was not honorable and not what most people would have done in this situation.
According to the law though there isn't grounds for a divorce if neither parties ask for it. I'm not saying this is noble but how do you know most people wouldn't do the same thing we are all human with both human aspirations to nobility and human weaknesses? This is an unusual case and I don't think anyone knows what they would do until they were in it. For that matter has it ever occured to you that in spite of his human weaknesses the reason Michael Schiavo is putting up with this is because he actually does want to honor Terry Shiavo's wishes and is willing to put up with the hate and legally wrangling to honor those wishes? The truth is unless you have ESP and a time machine none of us know what Michael Schiavo or Terry Schiavo truly think. All we have to go on with is the determination of courts who have exhaustively litigated this case and are unambiguous in their rulings. That's why we have a judicial system to determine these situations.
Sishir, you are in luck, my friend, my aforementioned friends at FNC have half of this equation covered: clip http://mediamatters.org/items/200503250006
It's curious how discussion on this issue has morphed into a euthanasia debate. (when it isn't a partisan poo fling). Isn't it really a 'custody' issue? If her parents and her husband were in agreement here, would the courts be involved at all? I can imagine the grief of her parents, who want her kept alive, being forced to watch their daughter die. And being powerless to stop it. And in that sense, the second part of Poly's post makes sense. Why not let them 'take care' of her. Yet if he felt strongly that her wishes were being denied??? (but why did it take 15 years to press this?). And if he's the appointed 'decision maker' then shouldn't he be allowed to make that 'decision.' (subject to appropriate medical opinions, of course). Crazy that this took the path it did. And in that sense, I'm glad it's over. The whole thing stopped being about 'her' long ago.
according to the law, all that matters is what Terry would have wanted to do. Would she have wanted to be kept alive in that situation or not, would she want to be intubated, feeding tubes, etc. Whoever best knows what she would have wanted (a living will or someone designated to take care of her medical decisions... or if none of those are available, based on past conversations with whomever) thats what decides if she is kept alive. Its called substituted judgment I think. Its sad for her parents but they aren't allowed to make medical decisions for her. Unfortunately in this case, the parents and her husband disagreed on what they think Terry would have done. Issues like this are usually settled in the hospital when the family and doctors and ethnics committee members all meet.
you know, i was wondering, if the erstwhile would-be VP could channel an upborn child, why couldn't he channel terri?
i'm sure they're saving you a place. there's some interesting news in a press release from the National Organization on Disability last november 9, after the election. there was a shift of almost 25 points in GWB's support among the disabled from 2000 to 2004. 16% of that shift occured after the florida supreme court struck down "Terri's Law." http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseac...70&redirected=1&CFID=1622961&CFTOKEN=27807975 -- People with Disabilities Give Unprecedented Support to President Bush November 9, 2004 Vote 2004Pre-election survey’s 6.5 percent winning margin reflects a dramatic break from past voting WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 2004—In a dramatic shift in support toward a Republican presidential candidate, a clear majority of voters with disabilities chose George W. Bush over Sen. John Kerry in last week’s national election. According to a survey conducted by telephone between October 29 and November 1, 2004 by Harris Interactive®, likely voters1 with disabilities preferred President George W. Bush over Senator John Kerry by 52.5 percent to 46 percent. One percent of likely voters1 with disabilities preferred Ralph Nader. “It’s a major break from the past that I think comes as a surprise to almost everyone,” said N.O.D. President Alan Reich. “It’s a very interesting result that many find confounding especially given past voting patterns, but there were clearly new dynamics at play this year.” “Concerns over terrorism and over personal and national security—issues that were not factors in past elections—were very large factors this year. And the strength of the turnout among conservative voters undoubtedly brought more Republican-leaning people with disabilities to the polls than voted in the past. Not to be ignored is the strength of the senior vote, and many in our community are seniors. So the net result of votes cast by people with disabilities was the same as what we saw nationally, only more so. Still, it’s an unexpected result,” Reich said. Reich also said that overall turnout by voters with disabilities was an additional factor that may have helped President Bush. Turnout among likely voters with disabilities was estimated by Harris to be 52 percent, significantly higher than the 2000 voter turnout estimate of 41 percent. Nationally, President Bush won the popular vote by a margin of just 2.5 percent: 50.5 percent to 48 percent. His winning margin among voters with disabilities, according to the survey taken just prior to the election, was 6.5 percentage points. In past presidential elections, people with disabilities have consistently supported Democrats over Republicans by solid majorities. According to Harris Interactive, in 2000, Vice President Al Gore was preferred 56 to 38 percent by likely voters over then-Governor George W. Bush. Bill Clinton carried the disability vote 69 percent to 23 percent over Senator Dole in 1996, and 52 percent to 29 percent over President H.W. Bush in 1992. “It would be a mistake to assume that the election results represent a permanent, fundamental shift in the voting behavior of people with disabilities,” Reich concluded. “The needs are great and the votes of Americans with disabilities must be earned.” The poll results are part of a larger National Organization on Disability survey project studying voter preferences, issues of concern, and barriers to voting during this election season. This survey project has been made possible by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Man, what a tragic consequence of my ill considered actions. You just missed a quality post, here's a little ditty I just wrote, which you won't see (unless you peek of course). APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing Memory and desire, stirring Dull roots with spring rain. Winter kept us warm, covering Earth in forgetful snow, feeding A little life with dried tubers. Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade, And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten, And drank coffee, and talked for an hour. Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch. And when we were children, staying at the archduke's, My cousin's, he took me out on a sled, And I was frightened. He said, Marie, Marie, hold on tight. And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
No, andymoon was making it sound like it was the fault of this Bush Administration that euthanasia was illegal. I was being sarcastic to make a point. Coulda gone the other way....
