Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

March 26, 2005

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

control of the food and water supply. "

Surely you jest. 'Artificially' in your example refers to the nature of the

food supply itself, 'artificially' in her case refers to the fact that she

cannot eat by herself and needs machinery to feed her. Or do you not agree

that the meaning of words changes depending on context? Or are you simply

disingenuous?

" Babies and invalids are " artificially "

fed. Stop and think about what you are saying. "

I think that you need to think about how you are distorting the meaning of

words in their contexts to reinforce your incredible insult to people who

believe that allowing her to die is a moral choice. But, as usual, it is

those with a facile appeal to god and religion that really violate rules of

decency.

....

" 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? "

oooooh. you really have me cornered, don't you?

March 26, 2005

>

> > 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

And speaking of hypocrisy, prolifers who also hold a pro capital

punishment stance are just that. The two notions are inconsistent

with the so-called " culture of life. "

Deanna

March 26, 2005

" So Steve Reeves should have been exterminated after his accident? "

Well, he couldn't fly any more, could he? Oh, wait, that was ...he

committed suicide didn't he? God, I'm so confused.

March 26, 2005

>

> > 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

Obviously, big legal and ethical questions abound. However, this

woman, Terri Shiavo, (may she rest in peace soon) is not a minor child

under the guardianship of parents. Medically, I think the question of

whether or not she could survive eating as naturally as the rest of

us, is an important one. She has been this way for 15 years, has no

one tried to feed her without medical intervention? Legally, I for

one, am in firm possession of living will, power of attorney and last

will and testament documents. Marraige IS a legal arrangement in this

country. It is a spiritual bond as well. For Christians, the Bible

is clear on it being so. The emotional hype in this particular case

has just been blown out of proportion, imho. And I hope to God my

legal documents would hold some weight IF they were ever needed

(obviously when for the last will, as we all do die). I trust my

spouse to make decisions for me if I am not able. And if I couldn't

trust his judgment, then why in the world would I be married to him in

the first place? CYA comes to mind as well. Cover your a$$ and get

the documents written the way you want them to be, because married or

not, the situation may well come... along with all of the medical

expenses.

Deanna

March 26, 2005

> " So Steve Reeves should have been exterminated after his accident? "

>

> Well, he couldn't fly any more, could he? Oh, wait, that was

> ...he

> committed suicide didn't he? God, I'm so confused.

Sheesh, you guys!

CHRISTOPHER Reeve was Superman. He was the one in the accident. He very

much wanted to live, was not in a vegetative state, and was completely

aware and lucid until he died. He made his wishes very, very clear and

they were followed.

STEVE Reeves was Hercules in all those sandal-and-toga epics of the

60s. I have no idea if he's still alive or what. Check imdb.com.

GEORGE Reeves was also Superman on TV and yes, he committed suicide.

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

March 26, 2005

Re: POLITICS: Symptoms of severe dehydration

> " So Steve Reeves should have been exterminated after his accident? "

>

> Well, he couldn't fly any more, could he? Oh, wait, that was

> ...he

> committed suicide didn't he? God, I'm so confused.

" Sheesh, you guys!

CHRISTOPHER Reeve was Superman. He was the one in the accident. He very

much wanted to live, was not in a vegetative state, and was completely

aware and lucid until he died. He made his wishes very, very clear and

they were followed.

STEVE Reeves was Hercules in all those sandal-and-toga epics of the

60s. I have no idea if he's still alive or what. Check imdb.com.

GEORGE Reeves was also Superman on TV and yes, he committed suicide. "

Was it not obvious that I was joking?

March 26, 2005

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:10:29 -0000, yoginidd <hl@...> wrote:

> Legally, I for

> one, am in firm possession of living will, power of attorney and last

> will and testament documents. Marraige IS a legal arrangement in this

> country. It is a spiritual bond as well. For Christians, the Bible

> is clear on it being so.

I don't know what the law holds in this case, but the Bible is quite

clear that the bond of marriage is broken by adultery. is, by

Christian standards, no longer Terri's husband.

> The emotional hype in this particular case

> has just been blown out of proportion, imho. And I hope to God my

> legal documents would hold some weight IF they were ever needed

> (obviously when for the last will, as we all do die). I trust my

> spouse to make decisions for me if I am not able. And if I couldn't

> trust his judgment, then why in the world would I be married to him in

> the first place?

Well I'm all for honoring legal contracts without the subjective value

judgments of the state affecting their validity... but many people are

married for bad reasons and stay married because of psychological

abuse, etc.

Chris

March 26, 2005

> Was it not obvious that I was joking?

oh sure but I'm pedantic that way.

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

March 26, 2005

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

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

That is precisely my point. In her situation, she lives fine without life

support equipment. She however, requires food and water just the same as

every single human being does. She is being denied food and water with the

intent of causing her death - it is the denial of this basic necessity of

life with the intent of causing death that makes this situation murder.

Removal of life support equipment and thus allowing a natural death to take

place is a different action and is not what is occurring in this situation.

I would not argue the later as being justified in many situations as the

death decision has actually already been made by powers beyond people. Life

support equipment is generally only providing mechanical functioning. It is

different than food and water. When life support equipment is removed, we

still allow food and water and those close frequently pray for miracles

which actually really do happen and the person survives. We do not turn

around and then kill them. Or maybe they are not miracles but bad calls on

the doctors part who really cannot predict natural death anyway - just odds.

>

> 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

No argument that all deaths by illness and old age are caused by people.

Those deaths would be caused by illness and old age. In Terry's case, her

death will not be caused by illness, old age, accident, heart attack,

bulimia or anything else but rather starvation and dehydration ordered by

her husband and the Florida courts with the intention of death resulting.

This is different.

As far as vegetative states - please define that. A vegetable is a plant.

Applying the word to a human can have different meaning and connotations to

different people. I would think if a person was in a vegetative state, then

most bodily functions would not be occurring, they would be unconscious, and

the person would die inspite of anyone's best efforts. This is usually the

case with life support equipment. This is not Terry's case. She has all

bodily functions - there are claims she cannot chew and swallow but nurses

report they use to feed her. So even if you say you are removing the feeding

tubes, why would you not allow anyone to give her a glass of water? If she

could not swallow, then what difference would it make? In fact, a twelve

year old girl went to jail last week for trying. Why? If we are going to

euthanise which is what this is, than lets call it honestly and use lethal

injection which is much more merciful than starvation and dehydration which

is totally inhuman and barbaric. But than euthanising is not legal.

>

>>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.

I really don't want to argue Terry's medical condition - there are lots of

conflicting opinions and lack of testing. But I will say that if her brain

was that dysfunctional and as gone as some have been deluded to believe,

then she would be dead with food and water anyway because bodily functions

would not occur. There is no logic here.

> Her parents, perhaps understandably, THINK they have a relationship with

> her, but it's a

> mixture of memory and illusion.

This is true of most in life but I would add delusion as well. Truth is not

an easy thing to determine for anyone of us. Science is the pursuit of truth

but what is known at this point is a minute fraction of what there is to

know. I really wish we were that smart.

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.

Whether this is the case with her parents or not is not my call, nor do I

believe it is her so called husband's who in reality as we best know it,

left his role as her husband to have another wife and family. This is an

important issue regarding the law and his legal right to determine her

medical care. If these people want to take her and care for her when she is

really not there, so what? If she is brain dead, then she is dead anyway.

She is their child - they committed to fight for her life without condition

that it be of a particular quality. That is their right and choice. Why does

she have to die when they are willing to care for her? Why does she HAVE

to die?

What are the precedents being set here in this case?

>

> -

>

> <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 " >

> IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> <UL>

> <LI><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

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

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL>

> <PRE><A

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

> Idol

> MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

March 26, 2005

>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

I'm as disgusted as you, Heidi. A right to life GOP parade for Terry Schiavo

can bring Bush from Texas to Washington but just like the days of not

speaking after the tsunami disaster, no contact or mention was made of the

Red Lake Reservation tragedy until Thursday. Looks like Prozac didn't stop

Jeff Weiss's pain. Proper food and dignity of life could have done better.

So while politics is busy showing that one person has the right to care,

food and dignity, humanity is the hypocrisy.

Wanita

March 26, 2005

*SIGH* Do we have to go there?

I'm on a political list which of late has been all-Terri, all-the-time.

Every " fact " presented here has been disputed by somebody sometime. And

if there is anything I have noticed from both sides of the debate, it

is that no inconsistency of argument is too great to be put into the

service of whatever their emotionally-driven agenda might be. For

example, I have seen people who claim that Terri is in a PVS who have

claimed that attempts to mouth-feed her (which several nurses claim to

have done successfully in the past) would bring about death by

aspiration which would be more horrible than death by dehydration. Now,

if there's nobody there to experience death by dehydration, there would

also be nobody there to experience death by aspiration (which at least

would be quicker, more convenient for staff and politically

illuminating), But it's also been claimed that she has been given

morphine in hospice. To what end, if she's not there? And if she is,

what are we doing based on hearsay evidence of her husband? And why are

we doing it in a way that we wouldn't do to dogs?

It's all over; the fat lady has even sung " I waaaa.... " She's bleeding

from eyes and mouth now. If somebody stuck a tube down her right now,

she probably wouldn't make it. Let her go; the damage has been done.

And not just to Terri. The right-to-die movement (which I agree with

BTW, though not in this case) has been set back 30 years. They've

played right into the hands of the Randall Terry crowd here. By denying

the medical questions and the questions about due process, they've

shown the pro-lifers (and unaligned others) that their side cannot be

trusted to fairly make those decisions. They've been afraid of this

case as a slippery slope against the right to die, while backing a

dumptruck full of used peroxidized hydrogenated fryer oil up to the

precipice. 3 years from now, if you don't have a living will with every

I dotted, you will not be allowed to die, even if you're an

all-but-corpse on a respirator who has told the entire world every day

of your wishes, even if you have a list of suicide attempts as long as

your arm. State governments will make it so, and they'll call it

" Terri's Law " . The lawyers (but not Felos) will love it.

They won't even let a priest touch her lips with the Sacrament. So much

for freedom of religion...at least she'll get the " real thing " soon

enough.

March 26, 2005

> 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

That's why cutting Medicare looks so important. Heard today on radio there's

on the average 14,000 people everyday in the same state as Terry Schiavo.

Any system that doesn't work won't get fixed by reducing the access to the

monetary supply that keeps it going. Reducing the demand with prevention

will help it work better, if and when needed.

Wanita

March 26, 2005

> Surely you jest. 'Artificially' in your example refers to the nature of

> the

> food supply itself, 'artificially' in her case refers to the fact that she

> cannot eat by herself and needs machinery to feed her. Or do you not agree

> that the meaning of words changes depending on context? Or are you simply

> disingenuous?

First, an intravenous tube and needle really are not exactly " machinery " . Oh

and there is a bottle involved too to hold the liquid. I think you need to

be careful of your own changing of meaning of words and context they are

used in. Tools would be more appropriate, like forks and knives and

glasses. As to her needs of being fed by machinery, several nurses were on

TV attesting that they fed her food against Mr. Shiavo's orders. The orders

were then and are now reinforced by the court that she can have nothing

given to her even orally. A 12 year old girl was arrested for trying to give

her a glass of water. Are you defending this? Is this what you consider

allowing a person to die? Many people cannot feed themselves. Are you

stating that this is condition that justifies forcing them to starve to

death? Are we justified in killing our babies by starvation? What about

people with no arms who cannot feed themselves? Should they be left to die

" naturally " ?

>

> " Babies and invalids are " artificially "

> fed. Stop and think about what you are saying. "

>

> I think that you need to think about how you are distorting the meaning of

> words in their contexts to reinforce your incredible insult to people who

> believe that allowing her to die is a moral choice. But, as usual, it is

> those with a facile appeal to god and religion that really violate rules

> of

> decency.

Excuse me for challenging those who believe in murder. You are most welcome

to argue but the name calling only shows your inability to support your

position. And by what rules of human decency do you abide by since you have

such adversion to the mention of God? Starving a person to death does not

fit any that I know of. Please tell me what I missed in life.

>