Originally posted by NemesioNemesio:
Originally posted by LittleBear
[b]well, with your nouth plenty of "conspiracy theories", and being (at least for I can humble deduce from you own messages ypu are a religioys person)... Why do you continue to attack EVERY defen ...[text shortened]... I am not slandering
you, I see no reason for you to slander me.
Three reasons:
1) Because she is not alive in any meaningful sense. The absence
of a cerebrum means the absence of the capacity for feelings,
emotions, memories, experiences. She is brain dead. I do not
believe that brain dead people have 'rights' to be violated.
Of course... I know. A plant has more rights than a person. (or an ex one).
Well. She might cant be called actually a person. But she'd can (or not) to return to the
condition of what we now call a "person". Few chances, but as Bennett said, I shall prefer
to err on this side... Give her her opportunity. After all, being she brain dead, she doesnt
suffer, ok? So, what is the problem manteining she alive? Your taxes? Lack of care for
other people in her same condition to be kept alive? Her suffering family? Nah...
Nemesio:
2) Her husband is her guardian and proxy for her medical decisions.
He has exhausted the entirety of reasonable therapies (and, despite
what people claim, he has gone through a litany of therapies for the
first seven or eight years of her incapacitation). Upon realizing that
such therapy was useless (see #1 above), he decided to try to realize
her wishes in extubating her.
Please, make me wise. Put a link that demonstrate (or at least support) ypur point of view.
Up to now, what I've read from partial and *impartial* sources. shows exactly the
contrary. May be you are in posesion of proves that all the people doesnt know.
May be be you are hiding evidence...
3) Lastly, the courts have upheld this, but the Schindlers are trying to
make exceptions for this law. This law is in place for a reason: the
bond between husband and wife is a stronger legal bond than between
married child and parents.
Oh, of course! Court employees, lawyers, MD and a lot more of professionals are infallible!
Laws were maked by people, like you and me, and we are fallible.
They (those who apply the law) are moved only for one interest: money. Professional prestige. You name it. There are way too few honest professionals nowadays. They are a lot of pure sh*t when confronted with this cases. They are only looking for a
good retirenment, as many workers should... The difference is way too obvious, They arent being honest with the oath of their professions.
And if you care, I can provide a lot of sources that demonstrated my assertions. Just ask me.
This seems to me a fanatic ataxk againt whatever opposes your opinions.
Not all opinions are equal. Most of the opinions supporting keeping
Terri intubated are based in poor reasoning. I oppose poor reasoning.
So, you are oposing the (may be, Im not an expert in the matter) the only method to keep her alive?
If she isn't suffering, as long as the concepts Bennett has told us, why u wish to see her death?
Because Terri's wishes are being denied. If Terri had decided to
remain indefinitely intubated and people were trying to extubate her,
then I would just as vehemently oppose that (even though I would
believe it silly).
I see. Your claim is way too silly. Please tell me what opportunity she had
to do *any* claim/expression of will?
Terri wishes are being denied? Oh!! I see. You know for sure what those were.
Please enlightment all us, cos no one living person seems to know that for
certain.
For me, it comes down to two datum: 1) Is she alive (no); and 2) are
he wishes being realized now (yes).
These two criteria make it a clear-cut case for me.
I agree. But do you know the answers?
Its seems to me you are arrogating the roll of allmighty person, having enclosed
your (seemingly) proper responses in parentheses.
God bless you, Nemesio. I can't. I'm an atheist.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not Florida law in particular - and I might be wrong all together since I have no professional insight to jura and have never lived in the US. (already preparing to retreat).
................. . I'm curious, Scheel, what part of Florida law do you find objectionable in this case?
But - it's my impression that the US state of law is based on precedence and prior court rulings, meaning that you can have debates running in the juridical system that should really have been solved in the political system. Since a lot of crucial and very principal decisions are made in the court system you also get a very keen interest of the political establishment to control the top of the court system.
As an example: The legislative power of a country should decide with clarity if death penalty is a punishment that can be used. I see absolutely no reason why a court ruling (in 72 ?) should have any influence on that.
I await your corrections to my feeble knowledge of US practice.
Originally posted by ScheelThis is a long story but here's go US Law 101.
It's not Florida law in particular - and I might be wrong all together since I have no professional insight to jura and have never lived in the US. (already preparing to retreat).
But - it's my impression that the US state of law is bas ...[text shortened]... I await your corrections to my feeble knowledge of US practice.
There are two main sources of law in the United States: statutes passed by the Legislatures and "common law" which is based on prior court decisions. Statutes can be made which override the "common law" and frequently are. Many court decisions are interpretations of statutes; if the legislature feels that the courts are misapplying the law they can expressly override the court's understanding by passing a new law.
Above both of these is the US Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Laws which are found to violate the US Constitution are voided by the US Supreme Court. The only way to reinstate a law declared unconstitutional is by amending the Constitution which is quite dificult requiring 2/3 of the members of the Federal legislature and 3/4 of the 50 States to approve. And there are also State legislatures, courts and State Constitutions which are sovereign in their own state. In effect, there is one federal law that applies to things which are by nature national in character (commerce for example) and seperate laws in each state which cover 90% of the routine matters of people's lives.
In this case, the Florida State Constitution has a provision which protects a person from undue governmental interference in their personal lives. Florida's highest court in 1990 ruled that citizens have a right to decline medical treatment and that they can express their wish not to have certain medical treatment in advance orally or in writing. Florida also has a state law specifically stating that a feeding tube is "medical treatment".
I have given a site above http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html which has ALL the details of this case as well as all the Court decisions to read. Court after court has found that Terri Schiavo expressed a wish not to be kept alive if she fell into an irreversible persistent vegatative state (although she did not use that technical term). Court after court has found that she is presently in an irreversible PVS. Therefore, the Florida law is clear that the feeding tube should be removed as per her wishes. Everything else is sheer politics which I do not believe has any place in an individual's court case.
Originally posted by ScheelOh, you are requesting me to especulate. Well, I did it in my previous post. So, mea culpa, take my opinion for what it is worth... that is, nothing.
The principles involved in this case interest me alot - the actual case less. This comes from the fact that I don't think we should base our attitude towards such deep questions on the precedence of single cases. (Yep no.1 - I don't agree ...[text shortened]... d you LittleBear feel different if there were no money involved ?
But you are asking too:
So for the sake of argument would you LittleBear feel different if there were no money involved ?
Honestly, no. There's a lot of crimes commited in the name of Justice, God, whatever... I *could* understand MS feellings of being prisonner of his poor wife (in the hypothetical case he hasnt anything to do with her "collapse" ). Poor man. (Im acting cynically here).
He had a lot of options to get/not get the divorce, and be separated from Terri.
Here, I am confronted with some alternatives:
1. His love to her wife. (Ridiculous, no?)
2. His love to her money. (Comments ommited)
3. His hate to his parents in law.
and someone more.
My concrete answer to your question is: NO.
Money isnt the only motive to kill a person (yes, I said TO KILL).
Any kind of sick pasion may act as an excuse to commit a crime.
Hope this answr your question. Im not a criminalist lawyer, and I havent any autority on my opinnios. They r only that, my humble opinions.
My regards
Michael
Originally posted by Nemesio
1) Because she is not alive in any meaningful sense. The absence
of a cerebrum means the absence of the capacity for feelings,
emotions, memories, experiences. She is brain dead. I do not
believe that brain dead people have 'rights' to be violated.
Originally posted by LittleBear
Of course... I know. A plant has more rights than a person. (or an ex one).
Strawman.
Originally posted by LittleBear
Well. She might cant be called actually a person. But she'd can
(or not) to return to the condition of what we now call a "person". Few
chances, but as Bennett said, I shall prefer to err on this side... Give
her her opportunity.
She has been given every opportunity over the past 15 years.
Both medical and court documents demonstrate that Michael has
tried every legitimate therapy (i.e., not BS therapies like Hammesfeld)
over the past years in an attempt to improve her condition. Michael
went to school for it in an effort to help.
After all, being she brain dead, she doesnt suffer, ok? So, what is
the problem manteining she alive? Your taxes? Lack of care for
other people in her same condition to be kept alive? Her suffering
family? Nah...
The problem, as stated in #2 is that SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE THIS
WAY. If she had wanted to be intubated indefinitely, then I would
be supporting the parents 100%.
Originally posted by Nemesio
2) Her husband is her guardian and proxy for her medical decisions.
He has exhausted the entirety of reasonable therapies (and, despite
what people claim, he has gone through a litany of therapies for the
first seven or eight years of her incapacitation). Upon realizing that
such therapy was useless (see #1 above), he decided to try to realize
[b]her wishes in extubating her.[/b]
Originally posted by LittleBear
Please, make me wise. Put a link that demonstrate (or at least support) ypur point of view.
Up to now, what I've read from partial and *impartial* sources. shows exactly the
contrary. May be you are in posesion of proves that all the people doesnt know.
May be be you are hiding evidence...
Read over the court documents, LittleBear. About 15 links have been
posted regarding the 1) Terri's non-brain function; 2) the therapies
that she has undergone; 3) Michael's overwhelming support for her
recovery in the first 7 years; 4) The nature of PVSs; 5) court findings
(which are unanimous); and 6) the 'clear and convincing evidence' for
Terri's wish not to be intubated.
Originally posted by Nemesio
3) Lastly, the courts have upheld this, but the Schindlers are trying to
make exceptions for this law. This law is in place for a reason: the
bond between husband and wife is a stronger legal bond than between
married child and parents.
Originally posted by LittleBear
Oh, of course! Court employees, lawyers, MD and a lot more of professionals are infallible!
Laws were maked by people, like you and me, and we are fallible.
They (those who apply the law) are moved only for one interest: money. Professional prestige. You name it. There are way too few honest professionals nowadays. They are a lot of pure xxx when confronted with this cases. They are only looking for a
good retirenment, as many workers should... The difference is way too obvious, They arent being honest with the oath of their professions.
This sort of 'conspiracy theory' doesn't convince me. Six courts have
reviewed this case, and all six have found the evidence to be
compelling. In order for your position to be right, literally hundreds,
if not thousands, of professionals have to be wrong, and nearly
a dozen courts ahve to be in error.
The appeals court exists for a reason: to correct errors made by lower
courts. This has been up and down the local, state appalate, state
supreme, federal appalate and even the US Supreme Court (who
found no merit to the appeal).
Either this is the biggest conspiracy, or you are in error. It seems
reasonable to conclude the latter (as I have examined everything I
could get my hands on regarding this case).
Originally posted by LittleBear
So, you are oposing the (may be, Im not an expert in the matter) the only method to keep her alive?
As I said, she is no longer meaningfully alive, so this question does
not make any sense.
Originally posted by LittleBear
If she isn't suffering, as long as the concepts Bennett has told us, why u wish to see her death?
As I said in #2, because SHE, TERRI, did not want to remain intubated
in such a state, as per her statements to three people including her
husband, her proxy and surrogate guardian.
Originally posted by LittleBear
I see. Your claim is way too silly. Please tell me what opportunity she had
to do *any* claim/expression of will?
Terri wishes are being denied? Oh!! I see. You know for sure what those were.
Please enlightment all us, cos no one living person seems to know that for
certain.
The court has found that her wishes were clearly and convincingly
expressed. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them
any less clear and convincing.
Michael doesn't stand to gain ANYTHING by this. When she passes,
he will inherit $0.00. In fact, he's lost a great deal of money fighting
to have Terri's will realized. As we've agreed, he could just walk away
and Terri would be none the wiser.
But he made an obligation to her, to see her will realized. He is finally
going to see her wish granted. If there is an afterlife, I am sure that
she will be relieved to go there (if she isn't there already, being
essentially dead). This will bring closure to this horrible tragedy, and
allow people to move on.
Her parents are, understandably, clinging to a memory of Terri that
has long since expired. I do not fault them, for I know that their
actions are motivated by love. But not all actions motivated by love
are right and just, and I believe that they are wrong to do what they
are doing. But I do not fault them; I pity them for their loss of a
daughter much too early (1990).
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeThanks for answering for me, Ivanhoe.
As far as I am concerned you can answer him in Spanish, Little Bear.
Nemesio will understand. Correct Nemesio ?
I would struggle more with Spanish on this topic than
he would with English, I think. It is my guess that my
Spanish is probably comparable with his English. He
can give it a shot, but runs the (high) risk of my
misunderstanding it.
He further would be alienating everyone else from the
discussion, and, as such, would be better off PMing me.
However, I do not want to engage in a PM discussion
about this issue, since I would be repeating myself even
more than I already am.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeJust for the record: CNN is a right-wing propaganda site.
The statement is there and it was not on some "right wing propaganda site" as you suggested.
..... and I should be ashamed no1 ?
EDIT: you simply were not being carefull regarding the facts. Don't try to hide this by again making all kinds of silly accusations and even more silly rebukes.
Just look at their coverage on the Iraq war.
Originally posted by shavixmirAs I said earlier in some other discussion about the media, in the Netherlands CNN is considered by the left to be a right-wing propaganda site, the mouthpiece of the US government.
Just for the record: CNN is a right-wing propaganda site.
Just look at their coverage on the Iraq war.
Maybe it would be nice if our American friends from the left ánd from the right would comment on this.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, but let's be honest...it's not like Veronica, SBS6 or any of those other channels are any better!
As I said earlier in some other discussion about the media, in the Netherlands CNN is considered by the left to be a right-wing propaganda site, the mouthpiece of the US government.
Maybe it would be nice if our American friends from the left ánd from the right would comment on this.
Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes, but let's be honest...it's not like Veronica, SBS6 or any of those other channels are any better!
I never watch those channels. It would be nice to be able to recieve Fox-news in the Netherlands. People would be able to compare this channel and CNN ....... 🙄