Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

[Guest guest]

>If anyone is interested I thought I'd post the link to a group which

>posts news that you won't find in the popular media.

>

>

>Here is one sample:

>Mona-Britt

>

>Doctor: Terri Schiavo's Starvation, Dehydration Death Would be Painful

I have little use for most of the mainstream media, but this shouldn't be

called " news " because it isn't true. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative

state and cannot experience pain -- or anything else, for that matter.

Here's a more accurate article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983922.asp?0cv=CB10 & cp1=1

And the key excerpt:

>‘MASSIVE ATROPHY OF THE BRAIN’

> “The CAT scan shows massive atrophy of the brain. It shows there’s

> been significant shrinkage of the entire brain. What Terri Schiavo

> manifests is a classic vegetative state. It looks like she’s looking at

> you, but really she’s not. It looks like she’s grinning at you, but she’s

> really not. You can believe what you want and see what you want, but it’s

> just not there,” said Cranford, also a professor at the University of

> Minnesota.

> The key test is whether someone can track movement with their

> eyes, which Schiavo does not, Cranford said. “Terri does not have visual

> tracking. If you look at the videotapes, she’s really not looking at her

> mother. She’s really not tracking,” Cranford said.

And for some perspective:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/

Some excerpts:

>A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri

>Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her alive.

>But much like in the United States, where consensus is a rare commodity,

>even the Roman Catholic Church is not unified in its stance on Schiavo.

>The Rev. J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston College and an

>expert on the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics, believes that

>past statements made by the pope have been taken out of context,

>misrepresented as church doctrine and applied to the Schiavo case. He says

>Schiavo, who has a moral right to die, has been exploited by the religious

>right to further its agenda—and if the pope himself, who has no known

>living will, were in a similar situation, it would be “an invitation to

>open chaos” at the Vatican. Paris spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Braiker about

>euthanasia, high-tech life support and moral obligations.

>NEWSWEEK: So it’s been taken out of context?

>REVEREND PARIS: It has to be seen in the context. This has to be seen in

>the context of the pope’s 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, which says that

>one need not use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.

>Even if the treatment is in place, if it proves burdensome it can be

>removed. The terms you’ll hear them talk about all the time are “ordinary”

>and “extraordinary.” Well, those words are so confused in the minds of the

>public that they no longer serve any useful purpose. People think of

>extraordinary as respirators or heart transplants. Extraordinary never

>referred to technique or to hardware—it referred to moral obligation. What

>are we obliged to do?

>NEWSWEEK: What is the church doctrine?

>REVEREND PARIS: The church doctrine, and it’s been consistent for 400

>years, is that one is not morally obliged to undergo any intervention.

>And, of course, 400 years ago they weren’t talking about high technology.

>Here’s the example one of the moralists of the 16th century gave: if you

>could sustain your life with partridge eggs, which were very expensive and

>exotic, would you be obliged to do so? The answer is no, they’re too

>expensive. They’re too rare. You can’t get them. They would be too heavy

>an obligation to put on people.

>NEWSWEEK: So you’re saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not

>morally obligatory?

>REVEREND PARIS: For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said

>that one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to

>sustain life.

>

>NEWSWEEK: And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?

>REVEREND PARIS: Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube]

>I’d say is disproportionately burdensome, yes.

>NEWSWEEK: How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect

>religious teaching about death?

>REVEREND PARIS: Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers,

>including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that

>death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the

>glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they

>talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn’t fit

>Christian context. McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral

>theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal

>of the American Medical Association in 1974 called “To Save or Let Die.”

>He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong

>word in theology—these are false doctrines). One is that life is an

>absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe

>that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the

>obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off

>those limits are your capacities to function as a human.

>

>NEWSWEEK: But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an

>“unmitigated evil”? They just don’t want her death to happen unnecessarily.

>REVEREND PARIS: It’s not happening unnecessarily. It’s happening because

>her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human

>relationships. The Republican riposte to this is astonishing: interest in

>states’ rights disappearing, interest in privacy of the individual to be

>free of government intrusion disappearing. If we implemented the policy

>articulated by the Congress and the president, we’d have everyone going

>forever!

-

[Guest guest]

Her brain would DEFNATELY SHRINK if not given omega 3 fatty

acids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the junk she probably got through her feeding tube has not helped her

either...

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>If anyone is interested I thought I'd post the link to a group which

>posts news that you won't find in the popular media.

>

>

>Here is one sample:

>Mona-Britt

>

>Doctor: Terri Schiavo's Starvation, Dehydration Death Would be Painful

I have little use for most of the mainstream media, but this shouldn't be

called " news " because it isn't true. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative

state and cannot experience pain -- or anything else, for that matter.

Here's a more accurate article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983922.asp?0cv=CB10 & cp1=1

And the key excerpt:

>'MASSIVE ATROPHY OF THE BRAIN'

> " The CAT scan shows massive atrophy of the brain. It shows there's

> been significant shrinkage of the entire brain. What Terri Schiavo

> manifests is a classic vegetative state. It looks like she's looking at

> you, but really she's not. It looks like she's grinning at you, but she's

> really not. You can believe what you want and see what you want, but it's

> just not there, " said Cranford, also a professor at the University of

> Minnesota.

> The key test is whether someone can track movement with their

> eyes, which Schiavo does not, Cranford said. " Terri does not have visual

> tracking. If you look at the videotapes, she's really not looking at her

> mother. She's really not tracking, " Cranford said.

And for some perspective:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/

Some excerpts:

>A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri

>Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her alive.

>But much like in the United States, where consensus is a rare commodity,

>even the Roman Catholic Church is not unified in its stance on Schiavo.

>The Rev. J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston College and an

>expert on the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics, believes that

>past statements made by the pope have been taken out of context,

>misrepresented as church doctrine and applied to the Schiavo case. He says

>Schiavo, who has a moral right to die, has been exploited by the religious

>right to further its agenda-and if the pope himself, who has no known

>living will, were in a similar situation, it would be " an invitation to

>open chaos " at the Vatican. Paris spoke to NEWSWEEK's Braiker about

>euthanasia, high-tech life support and moral obligations.

>NEWSWEEK: So it's been taken out of context?

>REVEREND PARIS: It has to be seen in the context. This has to be seen in

>the context of the pope's 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, which says that

>one need not use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.

>Even if the treatment is in place, if it proves burdensome it can be

>removed. The terms you'll hear them talk about all the time are " ordinary "

>and " extraordinary. " Well, those words are so confused in the minds of the

>public that they no longer serve any useful purpose. People think of

>extraordinary as respirators or heart transplants. Extraordinary never

>referred to technique or to hardware-it referred to moral obligation. What

>are we obliged to do?

>NEWSWEEK: What is the church doctrine?

>REVEREND PARIS: The church doctrine, and it's been consistent for 400

>years, is that one is not morally obliged to undergo any intervention.

>And, of course, 400 years ago they weren't talking about high technology.

>Here's the example one of the moralists of the 16th century gave: if you

>could sustain your life with partridge eggs, which were very expensive and

>exotic, would you be obliged to do so? The answer is no, they're too

>expensive. They're too rare. You can't get them. They would be too heavy

>an obligation to put on people.

>NEWSWEEK: So you're saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not

>morally obligatory?

>REVEREND PARIS: For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said

>that one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to

>sustain life.

>

>NEWSWEEK: And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?

>REVEREND PARIS: Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube]

>I'd say is disproportionately burdensome, yes.

>NEWSWEEK: How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect

>religious teaching about death?

>REVEREND PARIS: Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers,

>including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that

>death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the

>glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they

>talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn't fit

>Christian context. McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral

>theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal

>of the American Medical Association in 1974 called " To Save or Let Die. "

>He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong

>word in theology-these are false doctrines). One is that life is an

>absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe

>that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the

>obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off

>those limits are your capacities to function as a human.

>

>NEWSWEEK: But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an

> " unmitigated evil " ? They just don't want her death to happen unnecessarily.

>REVEREND PARIS: It's not happening unnecessarily. It's happening because

>her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human

>relationships. The Republican riposte to this is astonishing: interest in

>states' rights disappearing, interest in privacy of the individual to be

>free of government intrusion disappearing. If we implemented the policy

>articulated by the Congress and the president, we'd have everyone going

>forever!

-

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

>

> >NEWSWEEK: But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an

> > " unmitigated evil " ? They just don't want her death to happen

> unnecessarily.

> >REVEREND PARIS: It's not happening unnecessarily. It's happening

> >because her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any

> >future human relationships. The Republican riposte to this is

> >astonishing: interest in states' rights disappearing, interest in

> >privacy of the individual to be free of government intrusion

> >disappearing. If we implemented the policy articulated by

> the Congress

> >and the president, we'd have everyone going forever!

I agree that the Federal government has no jurisdiction over this, but it's

not really accurate to describe this as government intrusion. There are two

parties, both of which arguably have a legally recognizable interest in a

decision, and they disagree over what that decision should be. It seems

appropriate to me for the *state* government to adjudicate this dispute.

But this raises a question that I've been wondering about. Mrs. Schiavo's

care is being paid for out of a trust fund established with a medical

malpractice settlement. For quite some time I was under the impression that

her condition was the result of a surgery gone horribly wrong, or something

like that. Now that I know that she basically brought it upon herself (a

heart attack caused by bulimia), I'm rather puzzled. What was the basis for

the malpractice suit?

[Guest guest]

> Now that I know that she basically brought it upon herself (a

> heart attack caused by bulimia), I'm rather puzzled. What was the

> basis for

> the malpractice suit?

Her doctors didn't recognize the bulimia.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>Doctor: Terri Schiavo's Starvation, Dehydration Death Would be Painful

>I have little use for most of the mainstream media, but this shouldn't be

>called " news " because it isn't true. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative

>state and cannot experience pain -- or anything else, for that matter.

>Here's a more accurate article.

>http://www.msnbc.com/news/983922.asp?0cv=CB10 & cp1=1

Whether Terry is in a vegatative state is based on opinion. There are

doctors who say she is and others who say she is not. It is arguable and I

really do not believe the argument could be won that she is a vegatable,

except by very board definition of the term. Vegetables are really plants,

a different life form than humans. It is also arguable whether she can or

cannot feel pain. A doctor I know says she most certainly is experiencing a

horrid death. He made the point that lethal injection would be merciful -

by his moral ethics this is MURDER by court order.

If we executed convicted criminals by denying them food and water, this

would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, as well an inhumane.

If it was our pet, say a dog or a cat, laying in our yard injured such that

they could not get up and walk, and we failed to provide help, especially

food and water just ignoring them until they died weeks later, we would be

arrested and charged with inhumane treatment towards an animal. If we took

that pet to the vet, he would provide lethal injection - whether the animal

felt pain or not would not be justification for letting them die by

starvation and dehydration for a period of days upon days.

This is because whatever Terry's condition is does not remove our

responsibility for our actions. Our actions towards other humans is a moral

and ethical issue. To allow a human being to die by denying the most basic

of food and water is not only inhumane, it is murder when done with the

intent of causing their death. You will not be able to win this argument by

rational argument.

Today, I hope that God is real and the Bible is correct in what it says

about judgement. Those who have done this to this woman deserve to be held

accountable for their allegiance to the devil. This country deserves his

wrath as well for not only allowing it but watching it on TV. It is beyond

evil.

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>If anyone is interested I thought I'd post the link to a group which

>posts news that you won't find in the popular media.

>

>

>Here is one sample:

>Mona-Britt

>

>Doctor: Terri Schiavo's Starvation, Dehydration Death Would be Painful

>I have little use for most of the mainstream media, but this shouldn't be

called " news " because it isn't true. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative

state and cannot experience pain -- or anything else, for that matter.

Here's a more accurate article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983922.asp?0cv=CB10 & cp1=1

And the key excerpt:

>'MASSIVE ATROPHY OF THE BRAIN'

> " The CAT scan shows massive atrophy of the brain. It shows there's

> been significant shrinkage of the entire brain. What Terri Schiavo

> manifests is a classic vegetative state. It looks like she's looking at

> you, but really she's not. It looks like she's grinning at you, but she's

> really not. You can believe what you want and see what you want, but it's

> just not there, " said Cranford, also a professor at the University of

> Minnesota.

> The key test is whether someone can track movement with their

> eyes, which Schiavo does not, Cranford said. " Terri does not have visual

> tracking. If you look at the videotapes, she's really not looking at her

> mother. She's really not tracking, " Cranford said.

And for some perspective:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7276850/site/newsweek/

Some excerpts:

>A Jesuit bioethicist believes the religious right is exploiting Terri

>Schiavo and that there is no moral or legal obligation to keep her alive.

>But much like in the United States, where consensus is a rare commodity,

>even the Roman Catholic Church is not unified in its stance on Schiavo.

>The Rev. J. Paris, a bioethics professor at Boston College and an

>expert on the intersection of law, medicine, and ethics, believes that

>past statements made by the pope have been taken out of context,

>misrepresented as church doctrine and applied to the Schiavo case. He says

>Schiavo, who has a moral right to die, has been exploited by the religious

>right to further its agenda-and if the pope himself, who has no known

>living will, were in a similar situation, it would be " an invitation to

>open chaos " at the Vatican. Paris spoke to NEWSWEEK's Braiker about

>euthanasia, high-tech life support and moral obligations.

>NEWSWEEK: So it's been taken out of context?

>REVEREND PARIS: It has to be seen in the context. This has to be seen in

>the context of the pope's 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia, which says that

>one need not use disproportionately burdensome measures to sustain life.

>Even if the treatment is in place, if it proves burdensome it can be

>removed. The terms you'll hear them talk about all the time are " ordinary "

>and " extraordinary. " Well, those words are so confused in the minds of the

>public that they no longer serve any useful purpose. People think of

>extraordinary as respirators or heart transplants. Extraordinary never

>referred to technique or to hardware-it referred to moral obligation. What

>are we obliged to do?

>NEWSWEEK: What is the church doctrine?

>REVEREND PARIS: The church doctrine, and it's been consistent for 400

>years, is that one is not morally obliged to undergo any intervention.

>And, of course, 400 years ago they weren't talking about high technology.

>Here's the example one of the moralists of the 16th century gave: if you

>could sustain your life with partridge eggs, which were very expensive and

>exotic, would you be obliged to do so? The answer is no, they're too

>expensive. They're too rare. You can't get them. They would be too heavy

>an obligation to put on people.

>NEWSWEEK: So you're saying providing Schiavo with food and water is not

>morally obligatory?

>REVEREND PARIS: For 400 years the Roman Catholic moral tradition has said

>that one is not obliged to use disproportionately burdensome measures to

>sustain life.

>

>NEWSWEEK: And in this case, you view this as disproportionately burdensome?

>REVEREND PARIS: Fifteen years of maintaining a woman [on a feeding tube]

>I'd say is disproportionately burdensome, yes.

>NEWSWEEK: How does the stance of Schiavo supporters in the church reflect

>religious teaching about death?

>REVEREND PARIS: Here's the question I ask of these right-to-lifers,

>including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that

>death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the

>glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they

>talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn't fit

>Christian context. McCormick, who was the great Catholic moral

>theologian of the last 25 years, wrote a brilliant article in the Journal

>of the American Medical Association in 1974 called " To Save or Let Die. "

>He said there are two great heresies in our age (and heresy is a strong

>word in theology-these are false doctrines). One is that life is an

>absolute good and the other is that death is an absolute evil. We believe

>that life was created and is a good, but a limited good. Therefore the

>obligation to sustain it is a limited one. The parameters that mark off

>those limits are your capacities to function as a human.

>

>NEWSWEEK: But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an

> " unmitigated evil " ? They just don't want her death to happen unnecessarily.

>REVEREND PARIS: It's not happening unnecessarily. It's happening because

>her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any future human

>relationships. The Republican riposte to this is astonishing: interest in

>states' rights disappearing, interest in privacy of the individual to be

>free of government intrusion disappearing. If we implemented the policy

>articulated by the Congress and the president, we'd have everyone going

>forever!

-

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

> If we executed convicted criminals by denying them food and water, this

> would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, as well an inhumane.

Because there's a thinking feeling human being involved. Terri has 20%

of her brain left; the rest has liquefied. She's not there.

> If it was our pet, say a dog or a cat, laying in our yard injured such

> that

> they could not get up and walk, and we failed to provide help,

> especially

> food and water just ignoring them until they died weeks later, we

> would be

> arrested and charged with inhumane treatment towards an animal.

When the time came, my 18-year-old kitty a few months ago hid herself

under a bush in the neighbor's yard, where she was sure no one would

find her, laid down and stayed there until she died. She was gone for

two weeks when we found her and she'd been dead about a week. She kept

herself from food and water because it was her time.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

>> >NEWSWEEK: But is anyone arguing that for Schiavo to die would be an

>> > " unmitigated evil " ?

I would not argue her death is an evil. I would argue that our actions in

causing her death are evil. She is not dying because we have removed life

support equipment and she is failing to survive on her own. She is dying

because we have decided she should die and thus, are denying her food and

water - basic necessities to ALL life forms.

>> They just don't want her death to happen

unnecessarily.

>> >REVEREND PARIS: It's not happening unnecessarily. It's happening

>> >because her heart attack has rendered her utterly incapable of any

>> >future human relationships.

Terry's parents most certainly have a relationship with her - I do not see

how you could possibly say that her limited capacity meant that relationship

was a delusion, nor interactive.

The Republican riposte to this is

>> >astonishing: interest in states' rights disappearing, interest in

>> >privacy of the individual to be free of government intrusion

>> >disappearing. If we implemented the policy articulated by

>> the Congress

>> >and the president, we'd have everyone going forever!

Congress represents us the people. Congress - be it state or be it federal,

they write our laws. The Constitution says no state cannot civil rights.

They not only have a right, they have a duty to step in. The State of

Florida has written that Terry's husband has the call on whether she live or

die. Those elected officials have the power to write it otherwise as well.

They are the ones who define marraige laws - in Florida, he is defined as

her husband dispite the fact they have not cohabitated for 14 years and he

has cohabitated as husband to another woman. They could and NEED to rewrite

these laws. This situation reveals problems with their law - they should

intervene. Legislatures are the ones who also have it written that Terry

will die by authority of the court - there is a court order and anyone who

so much as even tries to obstruct that court order can be arrested. Last

week, a child was arrested for attempting to give Terry a glass of water.

That court order says that Terry not only cannot have the feeding tube, she

cannot be given a glass of water. Wake up. The court has ordered Terry's

execution. She commited no crime, she broke no law. It is ALL the

legislative bodies responsibilities to do something.

>

> I agree that the Federal government has no jurisdiction over this, but

> it's

> not really accurate to describe this as government intrusion. There are

> two

> parties, both of which arguably have a legally recognizable interest in a

> decision, and they disagree over what that decision should be. It seems

> appropriate to me for the *state* government to adjudicate this dispute.

>

Her death is occurring because of government intrusion - both state and

federal.

> But this raises a question that I've been wondering about. Mrs. Schiavo's

> care is being paid for out of a trust fund established with a medical

> malpractice settlement. For quite some time I was under the impression

> that

> her condition was the result of a surgery gone horribly wrong, or

> something

> like that. Now that I know that she basically brought it upon herself (a

> heart attack caused by bulimia), I'm rather puzzled. What was the basis

> for

> the malpractice suit?

Good point . The suit was filed by her husband. $300,000 of the

award went to him personally and was spent for his education to be a nurse.

Isn't he something!!!

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> But this raises a question that I've been wondering about. Mrs.

Schiavo's

> care is being paid for out of a trust fund established with a medical

> malpractice settlement. For quite some time I was under the

impression that

> her condition was the result of a surgery gone horribly wrong, or

something

> like that. Now that I know that she basically brought it upon

herself (a

> heart attack caused by bulimia), I'm rather puzzled. What was the

basis for

> the malpractice suit?

>

>

,

Here's an excerpt that might answer your question. Email me if you

want the full article.

Thanks,

Mona-Britt

In another emerging revelation, another neurologist who examined the

timeline of Terri's brain scans found that for the first three days of

her initial hospitalization in 1990, her brain scans were normal.

Then suddenly, on the sixth day, her brain scan showed evidence of a

massive injury. He concludes that Terri was hit on the head and

suffered intracranial hemorrhage while in the hospital. The physician

maintains that she did not suffer her brain damage outside the

hospital but while she was hospitalized.

According to the physician, if the reports produced are accurate

(normal CT brain on Feb. 27, injury on Feb. 25, 1990) then she did not

suffer an event of massive ischemia on Feb. 25, 1990, the date of her

alleged " collapse " The physician says that there is no radiologist or

neurologist or neurosurgeon in the world that would dispute this as it

is impossible. The CT on Feb. 27, 1990, would have been grossly

abnormal.

The medical conclusion is that if she did not suffer anoxic damage

on Feb. 25, 1990, then the reason for her brain atrophy was caused by

something that occurred after Feb. 25, namely in the hospital during

February or March of 1990. Medical experts say one develops non-

communicating hydrocephalus in the period of a month by a blood clot

obstructing the CSF outflow from the brain at the Foramen of Magendie

( brain ventricle) by being hit on the head and suffering intracranial

hemorrhage.

The conclusion is that she was either hit on the head or dropped on

her head during later February or early March while in that hospital.

[Guest guest]

>> If we executed convicted criminals by denying them food and water, this

>> would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, as well an inhumane.

> Because there's a thinking feeling human being involved. Terri has 20%

> of her brain left; the rest has liquefied. She's not there.

If the criminal is below a certain IQ (I think it is something like 40), it

is considered cruel and unusual to execute them. Thus they are not given

the death penaly - by ruling of Supreme Court and constitutional rights. Do

you know what Terri's IQ level is or was before this started?

70% of our body is water, I think the brain is a bit higher in fluid than

the rest of the body. I'm not hearing the numbers as to what is abnormal

about Terri's only silly misleading statements. That is probably because

MRI's determine if the levels are normal or not. Terri has not had one in

years - only liars and foolish spreaders of gossip repeat things as facts

when they have no real facts to substantiate such statements. But then talk

is cheap and so is human life to some.

>

>> If it was our pet, say a dog or a cat, laying in our yard injured such

>> that

>> they could not get up and walk, and we failed to provide help,

>> especially

>> food and water just ignoring them until they died weeks later, we

>> would be

>> arrested and charged with inhumane treatment towards an animal.

>

> When the time came, my 18-year-old kitty a few months ago hid herself

> under a bush in the neighbor's yard, where she was sure no one would

> find her, laid down and stayed there until she died. She was gone for

> two weeks when we found her and she'd been dead about a week. She kept

> herself from food and water because it was her time.

I had a cat die at that age. Brain deterioration was significant - she

stayed in the kitchen cabinet and I placed food and water for her there. I

removed the dishes because she also went to the bathroom there. At the very

end, she was crying constant. I had her put down because of compassion and

mercy

..

Terri is not dying of old age or because her brain is gone, she is dying

because the courts and her husband have insured that no water or food be

given to her.

> Lynn S.

>

> ------

> Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

> http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

> http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

I am in Germany. If the courts allowed a similar refusal for treatment here,

I can assure you it would hit the world-wide press as " Nazism Rears its Ugly

Head Again " .

Let her mum and dad take her home so they an look after her....

I am sickened at what is happening in democratic America..

There are so many questions..

What happened on the night she collapsed..do we know " he " had no involvement

in her demise?

If he were so devoted to her, why did he start another family?

Where does his loyalty really lie?

If this issue is allowed to follow through to it's logical conclusion, does

that create a precedent for all the other thousands of people lying in

vegetative states..Should we pull the plug on them too?

How do we know what she wants to do? It's not written in her hand... It's

hearsay....

Are we ABSOLUTELY SURE she wants to die?

I am sure there is a lot going on behind the scenes, ie...this lady costs

the insurance companies too much....get rid of her....

Sorry for being so emotional but to me this stinks...I don't trust the

medical profession so I am not even sure íf this lady didn't have a chance

from the outset....so much is covered up.....

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>>> If we executed convicted criminals by denying them food and water, this

>>> would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, as well an inhumane.

>> Because there's a thinking feeling human being involved. Terri has 20%

>> of her brain left; the rest has liquefied. She's not there.

>

> If the criminal is below a certain IQ (I think it is something like 40),

> it

> is considered cruel and unusual to execute them. Thus they are not given

> the death penaly - by ruling of Supreme Court and constitutional rights.

> Do

> you know what Terri's IQ level is or was before this started?

>

> 70% of our body is water, I think the brain is a bit higher in fluid than

> the rest of the body. I'm not hearing the numbers as to what is abnormal

> about Terri's only silly misleading statements. That is probably because

> MRI's determine if the levels are normal or not. Terri has not had one in

> years - only liars and foolish spreaders of gossip repeat things as facts

> when they have no real facts to substantiate such statements. But then

> talk

> is cheap and so is human life to some.

>

>

>>

>>> If it was our pet, say a dog or a cat, laying in our yard injured such

>>> that

>>> they could not get up and walk, and we failed to provide help,

>>> especially

>>> food and water just ignoring them until they died weeks later, we

>>> would be

>>> arrested and charged with inhumane treatment towards an animal.

>>

>> When the time came, my 18-year-old kitty a few months ago hid herself

>> under a bush in the neighbor's yard, where she was sure no one would

>> find her, laid down and stayed there until she died. She was gone for

>> two weeks when we found her and she'd been dead about a week. She kept

>> herself from food and water because it was her time.

>

> I had a cat die at that age. Brain deterioration was significant - she

> stayed in the kitchen cabinet and I placed food and water for her there.

> I

> removed the dishes because she also went to the bathroom there. At the

> very

> end, she was crying constant. I had her put down because of compassion

> and

> mercy

> .

> Terri is not dying of old age or because her brain is gone, she is dying

> because the courts and her husband have insured that no water or food be

> given to her.

>

>> Lynn S.

>>

>> ------

>> Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

>> http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

>> http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

>> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

>> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

>> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

>> <UL>

>> <LI><B><A

>> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

>> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

>> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

>> archive with Onibasu</LI>

>> </UL></FONT>

>> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

>> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

>> Idol

>> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

>> Wanita Sears

>> </FONT></PRE>

>> </BODY>

>> </HTML>

>>

[Guest guest]

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>> If we executed convicted criminals by denying them food and water, this

>> would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, as well an inhumane.

> Because there's a thinking feeling human being involved. Terri has 20%

> of her brain left; the rest has liquefied. She's not there.

" If the criminal is below a certain IQ (I think it is something like 40), it

is considered cruel and unusual to execute them. Thus they are not given

the death penaly - by ruling of Supreme Court and constitutional rights. Do

you know what Terri's IQ level is or was before this started?

70% of our body is water, I think the brain is a bit higher in fluid than

the rest of the body. I'm not hearing the numbers as to what is abnormal

about Terri's only silly misleading statements. That is probably because

MRI's determine if the levels are normal or not. Terri has not had one in

years - only liars and foolish spreaders of gossip repeat things as facts

when they have no real facts to substantiate such statements. But then talk

is cheap and so is human life to some. "

I just love some of the people on this list. If you believe that the rights

of corporations should be secondary to the rights of the poor to exist, then

you don't care for the rights of individuals. If you believe that that she

should not continue to be artificially fed, then human life is cheap to you.

Right...

> When the time came, my 18-year-old kitty a few months ago hid herself

> under a bush in the neighbor's yard, where she was sure no one would

> find her, laid down and stayed there until she died. She was gone for

> two weeks when we found her and she'd been dead about a week. She kept

> herself from food and water because it was her time.

" I had a cat die at that age. Brain deterioration was significant - she

stayed in the kitchen cabinet and I placed food and water for her there. I

removed the dishes because she also went to the bathroom there. At the very

end, she was crying constant. I had her put down because of compassion and

mercy

..

Terri is not dying of old age or because her brain is gone, she is dying

because the courts and her husband have insured that no water or food be

given to her "

Perhaps your kitty could have been kept alive longer by artificial means.

But, of course, only someone with your particular set of beliefs can feel

compassion and mercy.

[Guest guest]

That's creepy....

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>

>

>

>> But this raises a question that I've been wondering about. Mrs.

> Schiavo's

>> care is being paid for out of a trust fund established with a medical

>> malpractice settlement. For quite some time I was under the

> impression that

>> her condition was the result of a surgery gone horribly wrong, or

> something

>> like that. Now that I know that she basically brought it upon

> herself (a

>> heart attack caused by bulimia), I'm rather puzzled. What was the

> basis for

>> the malpractice suit?

>>

>>

>

> ,

>

> Here's an excerpt that might answer your question. Email me if you

> want the full article.

> Thanks,

> Mona-Britt

>

> In another emerging revelation, another neurologist who examined the

> timeline of Terri's brain scans found that for the first three days of

> her initial hospitalization in 1990, her brain scans were normal.

> Then suddenly, on the sixth day, her brain scan showed evidence of a

> massive injury. He concludes that Terri was hit on the head and

> suffered intracranial hemorrhage while in the hospital. The physician

> maintains that she did not suffer her brain damage outside the

> hospital but while she was hospitalized.

>

> According to the physician, if the reports produced are accurate

> (normal CT brain on Feb. 27, injury on Feb. 25, 1990) then she did not

> suffer an event of massive ischemia on Feb. 25, 1990, the date of her

> alleged " collapse " The physician says that there is no radiologist or

> neurologist or neurosurgeon in the world that would dispute this as it

> is impossible. The CT on Feb. 27, 1990, would have been grossly

> abnormal.

>

> The medical conclusion is that if she did not suffer anoxic damage

> on Feb. 25, 1990, then the reason for her brain atrophy was caused by

> something that occurred after Feb. 25, namely in the hospital during

> February or March of 1990. Medical experts say one develops non-

> communicating hydrocephalus in the period of a month by a blood clot

> obstructing the CSF outflow from the brain at the Foramen of Magendie

> ( brain ventricle) by being hit on the head and suffering intracranial

> hemorrhage.

>

> The conclusion is that she was either hit on the head or dropped on

> her head during later February or early March while in that hospital.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

" Today, I hope that God is real and the Bible is correct in what it says

about judgement. Those who have done this to this woman deserve to be held

accountable for their allegiance to the devil. This country deserves his

wrath as well for not only allowing it but watching it on TV. It is beyond

evil. "

Well, I needed a good chuckle.

[Guest guest]

>When the time came, my 18-year-old kitty a few months ago hid herself

>under a bush in the neighbor's yard, where she was sure no one would

>find her, laid down and stayed there until she died. She was gone for

>two weeks when we found her and she'd been dead about a week. She kept

>herself from food and water because it was her time.

>

>Lynn S.

An 80-year old man I knew did the same. He likely had stomach cancer, but

he didn't want to go to the doctor, he had a good life, he was content,

but just " done " . So he stopped eating. His wife, amazingly, supported his

decision. She COULD have dragged him in to the hospital and had a feeding

tube inserted on the grounds he was depressed or something, but personally

I'm glad she didn't. The Indians seem to have recognized the right of someone

to NOT live if they didn't want to, which seems more rational sometimes.

Anyway, this whole argument based on " humanity " irks me. How about using

some of the millions of dollars spent on this suit and using it to

help, say, vets who got their legs blown off and are out of work now?

Or children injured by American bombs? Or torture camp survivors that

turn out to be innocent? Or helping kids in high schools get help BEFORE

they go on a shooting rampage? THOSE are folks that undeniably can

feel pain and have lots of brain cells.

The question of " feeling pain " could be easily answered using MRI

technology ... the brain cells show change if say, you prick someone with

a pin, if there is nerve activity.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Let her mum and dad take her home so they an look after her....

They did. They brought her back to the nursing home after three months.

> I am sure there is a lot going on behind the scenes, ie...this lady

> costs

> the insurance companies too much....get rid of her....

She doesn't cost them anything; her care comes from a malpractice

settlement already paid out years ago.

> Sorry for being so emotional but to me this stinks...I don't trust the

> medical profession so I am not even sure íf this lady didn't have a

> chance

> from the outset....so much is covered up.....

So you're saying that 20 judges, a dozen doctors, and almost every

employee of the hospitals, nursing homes and hospice she's been in for

over a decade are participating in a cover-up. To what end? To whose

benefit? 's? Who is he to these people that they would do this

for him? Why did no one get so worked up over Sun Hudson, who was only

6 months old and actually could have made it? Because he was from a

poor black family? The hospital removed his respirator because his

mother couldn't pay and he suffocated within minutes earlier this

month. (And who signed the bill allowing this? Gov. Bush in

1999.)

Everyone likes to vilify Schiavo. I just have to ask: What's in

this for him? It doesn't matter really if he can't marry his girlfriend

that much. There's no money involved. He could just walk away. Is it so

hard to believe that he's trying to carry out what he really believes

are his wife's wishes? Do we really want the government THIS involved

in our personal lives? Would you want your parents and the government

stepping into a decision made between you and your husband?

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

" I am in Germany. If the courts allowed a similar refusal for treatment

here,

I can assure you it would hit the world-wide press as " Nazism Rears its Ugly

Head Again " . "

Maybe, but not for reasons having to do with whether it is right to allow

her to die.

" I am sickened at what is happening in democratic America.. "

How about being sick about the murder of 100,000 Iraqis?

" There are so many questions..

What happened on the night she collapsed..do we know " he " had no involvement

in her demise? "

Isn't that really another issue entirely? Has there ever been any reason to

suspect him?

" If he were so devoted to her, why did he start another family?

Where does his loyalty really lie? "

If she is in a persistent vegetative state, perhaps it is not an issue of

'loyalty'.

" If this issue is allowed to follow through to it's logical conclusion, does

that create a precedent for all the other thousands of people lying in

vegetative states..Should we pull the plug on them too?

How do we know what she wants to do? It's not written in her hand... It's

hearsay.... "

I think the point is that if she is in a vegetative state, then she doesn't

WANT, by definition.

[Guest guest]

-

>I would not argue her death is an evil. I would argue that our actions in

>causing her death are evil.

First, I hope you recognize that there's a difference between causing a

death by murder and allowing a natural death to take place.

Second, would you argue that all deaths by illness and old age are " caused "

by people if they don't make the maximum theoretically possible effort to

prevent or delay said deaths? At what point would you decide that the side

effects of such a policy -- legions of people preserved indefinitely in a

vegetative state -- become problematic?

>Terry's parents most certainly have a relationship with her - I do not see

>how you could possibly say that her limited capacity meant that relationship

>was a delusion, nor interactive.

Your phrasing -- " her limited capacity " -- suggests that she does have some

remaining capacity, but she doesn't. She has none. Zero. Her brain has

atrophied tremendously and there's no higher neurological activity or the

means for same left -- there's nobody inside her body. Her parents,

perhaps understandably, THINK they have a relationship with her, but it's a

mixture of memory and illusion. I could claim with equal factual

justification (i.e., none) to have a relationship with my grandfather, who

died years ago and was cremated. I loved him very much, I wish he were

still alive and I sometimes have imaginary conversations with him, but the

difference is that I never believe he's actually here, talking to me.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Whether Terry is in a vegatative state is based on opinion. There are

>doctors who say she is and others who say she is not.

I can find people who will say the Earth is flat. Does that mean its shape

is merely a matter of opinion?

>It is arguable and I

>really do not believe the argument could be won that she is a vegatable,

>except by very board definition of the term. Vegetables are really plants,

>a different life form than humans.

Come on, nobody uses the term " persistent vegetative state " to mean " oh my

god, she turned into spinach! " .

-

[Guest guest]

>>> Anyway, this whole argument based on " humanity " irks me. How about

using

some of the millions of dollars spent on this suit and using it to

help, say, vets who got their legs blown off and are out of work now?

Or children injured by American bombs? Or torture camp survivors that

turn out to be innocent? Or helping kids in high schools get help BEFORE

they go on a shooting rampage? THOSE are folks that undeniably can

feel pain and have lots of brain cells.

Heidi >>>>>>

To add to that: When people suggest that Shiavo's insurance company is

simply tired of paying for her life-support, they should know that the

enormous cost of her life-support gets passed along to all of us other rate

payers. Ultimately we are the ones paying for it.

It seems a tragedy that even a small percentage of medical insurance

payments go to artificially keep people alive for years when so many young

children are without insurance and young families have go without

preventative healthcare due to high insurance rates.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

But Gene - you are " artificially " fed every bit as much as she by virtue of

control of the food and water supply. Babies and invalids are " artificially "

fed. Stop and think about what you are saying. And if you reread what I

wrote, and reread the order of the court, she can not be fed by ANY means,

intravaneously or by mouth. That sir, is a major important point and a very

serious one. If it were a matter of simply pulling the equipment, then why

could she not be allowed to be taken home by her parents to die. This is a

case where she is being murdered because by some value systems, her life is

not worth anything. I'm not arguing it is or isn't - I am arguing that in

her case, she is systematically by order of our government and husband,

intentionally being murdered.

Also think about the fact that removal of life support equipment is

different than what is going on here - when this is done, the person still

has the option of survival. In Terri's case, she is being given no option.

Also people are confusing life support equipment which are things such as

respirators forcing the lungs to function, cardiac pulmonary machines doing

the function of the heart. Life support equipment is not food however it is

consumed - whether by mouth, by baby bottle or by a needle. Intravaneous

feeding is no more life support equipment than drugs are - possibly less so.

It is no more life support equipment than dialysis machines used by people

with failing kidneys - possibly less so. It is no more than respirators

given to people with lung diseases. We do not exterminate such people. Or

do we? And we do not deny any creature food and water with full intention

of causing their deaths. Or do we?

Someone else made the analogy to a cat. My point about mine is that I DO

understand we all are mortal, even cats, and old age and death is not

something we can prevent. I am not about prolonging life into absurbity. I

probably should have added that if it were my mother and not a cat, I would

not go ahead and have her put down. I doubt you would with your mother

either. Or would you?

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

>

>

>

>>> If we executed convicted criminals by denying them food and water, this

>>> would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, as well an inhumane.

>> Because there's a thinking feeling human being involved. Terri has 20%

>> of her brain left; the rest has liquefied. She's not there.

>

> " If the criminal is below a certain IQ (I think it is something like 40),

> it

> is considered cruel and unusual to execute them. Thus they are not given

> the death penaly - by ruling of Supreme Court and constitutional rights.

> Do

> you know what Terri's IQ level is or was before this started?

>

> 70% of our body is water, I think the brain is a bit higher in fluid than

> the rest of the body. I'm not hearing the numbers as to what is abnormal

> about Terri's only silly misleading statements. That is probably because

> MRI's determine if the levels are normal or not. Terri has not had one in

> years - only liars and foolish spreaders of gossip repeat things as facts

> when they have no real facts to substantiate such statements. But then

> talk

> is cheap and so is human life to some. "

>

> I just love some of the people on this list. If you believe that the

> rights

> of corporations should be secondary to the rights of the poor to exist,

> then

> you don't care for the rights of individuals. If you believe that that she

> should not continue to be artificially fed, then human life is cheap to

> you.

> Right...

>

>

>> When the time came, my 18-year-old kitty a few months ago hid herself

>> under a bush in the neighbor's yard, where she was sure no one would

>> find her, laid down and stayed there until she died. She was gone for

>> two weeks when we found her and she'd been dead about a week. She kept

>> herself from food and water because it was her time.

>

> " I had a cat die at that age. Brain deterioration was significant - she

> stayed in the kitchen cabinet and I placed food and water for her there.

> I

> removed the dishes because she also went to the bathroom there. At the

> very

> end, she was crying constant. I had her put down because of compassion

> and

> mercy

> .

> Terri is not dying of old age or because her brain is gone, she is dying

> because the courts and her husband have insured that no water or food be

> given to her "

>

> Perhaps your kitty could have been kept alive longer by artificial means.

> But, of course, only someone with your particular set of beliefs can feel

> compassion and mercy.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

> An 80-year old man I knew did the same. He likely had stomach cancer, but

> he didn't want to go to the doctor, he had a good life, he was content,

> but just " done " . So he stopped eating. His wife, amazingly, supported his

> decision. She COULD have dragged him in to the hospital and had a feeding

> tube inserted on the grounds he was depressed or something, but personally

> I'm glad she didn't. The Indians seem to have recognized the right of

> someone

> to NOT live if they didn't want to, which seems more rational sometimes.

Terri is not an 80 year old, nor is she terminally ill. Your 80 year old

did not stop eating because he had enough of life, he stopped eating because

of the stomach cancer. Please check it out, its common towards the end.

They use to say stories that Indians would leave their ill behind to die

alone. I do not believe that is true but maybe. They also use to say that

the Vietnamese did not care life. That was during the Vietnam war when we

were killing them. I never believed that to be true either.

> Anyway, this whole argument based on " humanity " irks me. How about using

> some of the millions of dollars spent on this suit and using it to

> help, say, vets who got their legs blown off and are out of work now?

> Or children injured by American bombs? Or torture camp survivors that

> turn out to be innocent?

Why not just not give those vets food and water and force them to die. That

would solve their problem.

Or helping kids in high schools get help BEFORE

> they go on a shooting rampage? THOSE are folks that undeniably can

> feel pain and have lots of brain cells.

Why not deny those kids food and water - then they would stop killing

others.

>

> The question of " feeling pain " could be easily answered using MRI

> technology ... the brain cells show change if say, you prick someone with

> a pin, if there is nerve activity.

So Steve Reeves should have been exterminated after his accident?

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...>

wrote:

> Because there's a thinking feeling human being involved. Terri has

20%

> of her brain left; the rest has liquefied. She's not there.

" Barbara Weller, one of the attorneys for Terri's parents Bob and

Schindler, told reporters about her visit with Terri on

Friday. " Terri , if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this

will be over, " she told the disabled woman. Weller said Terri

desperately tried to repeat Weller's words. " 'I waaaaannt ...,'

Schiavo allegedly said. Weller described it as a prolonged yell that

was loud enough that police stationed nearby entered the hospice

room. " She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,' " Weller

explained. The Schindlers' motion says Terri tried to express her

wishes not to be starved to death and that should supersede an

alleged conversation she had with her estranged husband

before her 1990 collapse. That conversation, where she supposedly

indicated she didn't want any extraordinary measures taken to prolong

her life, has been used as the basis for court decisions authorizing

her death. " (Excerpted from: Terri Schiavo's Parents' Last Motion on

Terri Saying " I Want to Live " FL (LifeNews.com)

Mona-Britt

[Guest guest]

> " Barbara Weller, one of the attorneys for Terri's parents Bob and

> Schindler, told reporters about her visit with Terri on

> Friday. " Terri , if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this

> will be over, " she told the disabled woman. Weller said Terri

> desperately tried to repeat Weller's words. " 'I waaaaannt ...,'

> Schiavo allegedly said. Weller described it as a prolonged yell that

> was loud enough that police stationed nearby entered the hospice

> room. " She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,' " Weller

> explained. The Schindlers' motion says Terri tried to express her

> wishes not to be starved to death and that should supersede an

> alleged conversation she had with her estranged husband

> before her 1990 collapse. That conversation, where she supposedly

> indicated she didn't want any extraordinary measures taken to prolong

> her life, has been used as the basis for court decisions authorizing

> her death. " (Excerpted from: Terri Schiavo's Parents' Last Motion on

> Terri Saying " I Want to Live " FL (LifeNews.com)

And apparently the courts--plural--did not find this woman credible.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.knitting911.net

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:46:02 -0800, Lynn Siprelle <lynn@...> wrote:

> So you're saying that 20 judges, a dozen doctors, and almost every

> employee of the hospitals, nursing homes and hospice she's been in for

> over a decade are participating in a cover-up. To what end? To whose

> benefit? 's? Who is he to these people that they would do this

> for him? Why did no one get so worked up over Sun Hudson, who was only

> 6 months old and actually could have made it? Because he was from a

> poor black family? The hospital removed his respirator because his

> mother couldn't pay and he suffocated within minutes earlier this

> month. (And who signed the bill allowing this? Gov. Bush in

> 1999.)

OMG! I never heard of this. What a hypocritical creep.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:46:02 -0800, Lynn Siprelle <lynn@...> wrote:

> Everyone likes to vilify Schiavo. I just have to ask: What's in

> this for him? It doesn't matter really if he can't marry his girlfriend

> that much. There's no money involved. He could just walk away. Is it so

> hard to believe that he's trying to carry out what he really believes

> are his wife's wishes?

Well he wasn't particularly interested in her wishes when he

prohibited her from taking Italian lessons. He checked her mileage to

enforce it too. I didn't get the impression that her wish was his

command.

> Do we really want the government THIS involved

> in our personal lives? Would you want your parents and the government

> stepping into a decision made between you and your husband?

I don't really see how someone should become property of their spouse

upon marriage, to the point that no one else should be able to provide

for them in a situation like this. What evidence do you have that

this was an agreement between the two? If they'd made an agreement

for which they have evidence that could be upheld in a court, ok; but

they don't. I don't think the hospital should be required to sustain

her, but I don't see why other people shouldn't have the right to

willingly support her.

Chris