Euthanasia

[K e r b e r o s]

Stem cell research has been given the go ahead in the UK and there's no evidence that what you've predicted has even begun- but I can't, of course, speak for America.

I can -- Americans are greedy, couch potatoe slobs, and we know it. Bill Maher knows it. Michael Moore knows it. I know it.

Further, your country is doing a backdoor sale to us Americans -- were going to let you discover what you can, then were going to adopt those studies without actually having to legalize Stem Cell research.

Ah, I see. So essentially he's backing up the case for a legalisation of euthanasia? Good stuff.

Thanks for lying for me Chi. I'am against Euthanasia. I'am especially against Starvation. Not good stuff. Bad, horrible murder, especially when Personal consent is not given for the go ahead. You can take back your statement now! *waves* I don't agree with you! :angel:

 

[Edcrab]

So you're thinking that Americans will go over to the UK, for example, and try to sell their aborted children even though that's not legal here? I can see where you're coming from but I'm yet to discover a country running a Stem Cell program that's paying money for potential subjects.

Consent is the single most important concept in the legal world- and thus, if Mrs. Schiavo genuinely stated- before her decline- that she wouldn't want to live like that, then yes, her husband has every right to fight for her choice to be accepted, because she made her decision when she was- apparently- of sound mind and body.

It's interesting that you mentioned comas, because I was recently talking to family members and explaining that if I ever encountered complications I'd want to be given four years at the maximum, then left to die if I hadn't shown the slightest sign of improvement. So, in that situation at least, I'd expect my family members to honour my decision. Perhaps the law should be adapted for so-called "Euthanasia Wills" after all...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Um, I think he might be. We seem to be debating more on who warrants euthanasia. The lack of speech isn't really an issue- it's more on the chance of a recovery and any sign of sentience.

But such things should'nt bely that another Person's consent justifies over another persons, "has'nt given consent".

But from a purely opinion-based angle, if all I could do was laugh and cry and nod while lying near-immobile and letting a machine eat for me, I think I would want to die.

But why would you laugh and cry? You surely had reasons and recognition for such emotional choices and traits, they must've shown some element of sentience. What about babies? Thats pretty much this girl's alleged intelligence -- all they can do is laugh, cry, want to be fed, and want to be loved and cared for.

This womans display was all of that.

 

[Edcrab]

I'm pro-choice, so people are, in my view, entitled to live and die how they see fit and I can't comment on someone else's decision in that situation.

But if I found myself reduced from the articulate adult I am today into a bed-ridden person that we can only describe as "baby-like" I wouldn't want to continue- or more accurately, I wouldn't want my family to coax and nurture the body that once held me.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So you're thinking that Americans will go over to the UK, for example, and try to sell their aborted children even though that's not legal here?

I'm sorry, and I dont mean to be rude, but I did'nt corellate that factor ... but ...

I can see where you're coming from but I'm yet to discover a country running a Stem Cell program that's paying money for potential subjects.

Since you brought it up, it might present itself as a possibility. Its not far-fetched.

Consent is the single most important concept in the legal world- and thus, if Mrs. Schiavo genuinely stated- before her decline- that she wouldn't want to live like that, then yes, her husband has every right to fight for her choice to be accepted, because she made her decision when she was- apparently- of sound mind and body.

However, she gave nethire the consent when she was alleged to being well, and when she was'nt categorized as being well; or as some members might reference sentient.

Therefore, until consent is given, the murder is a murder, and its also violating several oaths, and indeed, breaking the law.

So, in that situation at least, I'd expect my family members to honour my decision. Perhaps the law should be adapted for so-called "Euthanasia Wills" after all...

What if things changed? Could you expect your family would be responsible enough to even wait that long? If you want your plug pulled, your going to have to do it yourself, or whenever you come out of your Coma. Unfortunately, thats just if you wanted things differently.

But see, lets say we replace this chick with you, and you gave consent -- I would'nt be whinning ... much.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I'm pro-choice

I respect that -- as am I.

I wouldn't want to continue- or more accurately, I wouldn't want my family to coax and nurture the body that once held me.

But it still technically holds you ... that is, until you REALLY die.

 

[Apos]

I think this case has proven how utterly disgraceful Republicans in Congress are: how they'll seize on any issue, no matter how painful or personal, for political gain (they even found a memo basically ghoulishly crowing over what a great opportunity this case would be to score points!). The conservatives who discuss this case in the media often simply lie so as to outrage people. Three nutcases even tried to break into her hospital room with bread and water for her... guess what guys: SHE CANT EAT OR SWALLOW IT. It is only by constant nursing care and suction that her mouth has been kept from turning into a rotting breeding ground for bacteria, because saliva won't even drain out of her mouth on its own.

Let's be completely frank. Terry is dead. Her higher brain is gone. Her parents have lived 15 years of obsessive denial (these people wanted to saw all her limbs off and put her on a ventilator in order to keep her alive as long as possible in this state, no joke). She is not "mentally retarded." The mentally retarded have functioning brains, not a skull mostly full of CSF.

Here is her brain, compared to a normal brain.
http://pharyngula.org/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg
Even people with the severest mental retardation or defect still have brains like the one on the right, not the one on the left.

She is not in a coma. She is in PVS, a state in which after three months is considered irreversible. She's been like this for 15 years, over which the dead parts of her brain have been steadily decaying away. The fact that she opens her eyes and twitches and so forth are, clinically, very BAD signs, not good signs, because they demonstrate that the key parts of her higher brain that normally supress these lower brain reflexes and motions and put her into a healing sleep are damaged beyond repair.

All the videos of her supposedly responding are carefully selected bits out of hours and hours of footage. Doctors with no stake in this one way or the other have observed her at great and much more systematic lengths and have concluded that such footage does not demonstrate anything other than wishful thinking: movements that have no conscious will behind them that after hours and hours of trying the same thing happen to match up in some way that looks halfway responsive. None of the doctors who claim that she could recover could offer any scientific rationale for their findings. They were paid to say that on behalf of the parents, and their opinions went against the overwhelming agreement of doctors on the case and off it who have expertise in this area.

Her husband is not a vulture trying to kill her to get out the responsibility. He tried for years to find some way to get her back. Over those years, hope died, because the destroyed portions of her brain simply decayed away, making it obvious that she was gone. Her brain is not going to grow back, and it wouldn't even be "her" anyway even if there was some way to grow them back. Her husband has been offered millions upon millions of dollars to just divorce her and walk away from the issue. He has not. And why? First of all because he knows that Terry did not want this. Second of all, this is no longer in his hands. He is not the only one who claimed that she had expressed the wish not to be maintained: several people testified to that effect, under oath. That is why courts are consistently ruling in favor of the decision to remvoe the tube. A trial was held, a court guardian was appointed, and the court found overwhelmingly that Terry was gone in every sense that matters and that her expressed wishes, as well as supporting evidence based on evidence and testimony about her character, values, and so forth (all from outside the sources of her husband or parents) were not to have her body flogged alive indefinately to no purpose.

The only upside is that Terry cannot suffer for all the people trying to make political hay over her body, because she is effectively dead.

The person in question smiled, laughed, cried, and even waved when she understood a family member was in the room -- her consent, was not gaven; therefore she still has a right to live.

I'm sorry, but that's not Terry Schiavo.

From the court hearings on the subject: "The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision."

And she did express the wish, not just to her husband, but to others, not to be maintained in this state. Her consent WAS given. The only issue was that it was not formally documented. That is what the court case was set up to determine: what her wishes would have been.

This is a decent page explaining the actual facts of the case:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

 

[Pericolos0]

'starvation' is so misinterpreted in the Schiavo case. This woman is already clinically dead, she isn't gonna suffer from starvation because she wont even feel it. She doesn't have any cognitive abilities.

- Terry has no cerebral cortex. There's spinal fluid where that part of her brain used to be.
- They had to surgically implant the feeding tube into her stomach because she lacks the ability to swallow, and would frequently choke to near death. Yes, she is missing so much of her brain that even some involuntary actions don't work.

People who represent this as a "coma" that "people come out of all the time" are living in a fantasy.

the case is so ridiculed, people are fighting over the 'life' of what's the equivalent of a vegetable.

EDIT gah apos was first ;D

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I'm sorry, but that's not Terry Schiavo.

Then how can she recognize her own family members? I believe it is, and we must do what we can to ensure we discover scientific measures to break this tradgedy.

Again, I'm also argueing for Consent. She, when she was well, did not give it -- when she was'nt well, she still did'nt give it. Therefore, her life and responsibility to live, rests in the hands of doctors and herself.

When she makes the choice or a response signifying enough, then I would assume with the result we have now, not to be so bad. However, no consent was given. None. ... and she's being starved right at this instant. I'm also argueing, that starvation is not humane.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

'starvation' is so misinterpreted in the Schiavo case. This woman is already clinically dead, she isn't gonna suffer from starvation because she wont even feel it. She doesn't have any cognitive abilities.

Then how can she laugh or smile? How can she cry when she wants food? Ever see the, "Silent Scream"? I could post it -- but its disturbing.

- Terry has no cerebral cortex. There's spinal fluid where that part of her brain used to be.
- They had to surgically implant the feeding tube into her stomach because she lacks the ability to swallow, and would frequently choke to near death. Yes, she is missing so much of her brain that even some involuntary actions don't work.

We could argue such defincies with people who display a loss of cognitive ability but still have their brains -- I stress consent, and no other.

People who represent this as a "coma" that "people come out of all the time" are living in a fantasy.

So we should kill people in Coma's aswell, despite many have been known to recover at awkward times in their lives?

people are fighting over the 'life' of what's the equivalent of a vegetable.

If vegetable's cried and screamed, would you kill them?

EDIT gah apos was first ;D

But it does'nt mean he's right. :/

 

[K e r b e r o s]

And she did express the wish, not just to her husband, but to others, not to be maintained in this state. Her consent WAS given. The only issue was that it was not formally documented.

Which is what I'am against -- consent not documented other then the male spouse. If the spouse wanted to divorce his wife, he could've chosen a different option much rather then putting her to death. Further, he's going to collect on some serious bucks, not only from the case but from her murder. Such money should be given to the Hospitals.

Further, unless its documented by the courts and legal systems that consent was given [On video and by soundbyte] and is'int argueabley another fart or fashion of miscommunication, then by all means ... but even then, Doctors cannot harm (starve,murder) their patients.

It violates their own oath, and it violates the US Constitution, and it violates the United States law.

 

[Edcrab]

I respect that -- as am I.

But it still technically holds you ... that is, until you REALLY die.

That is a frankly terrifying thought- my grandfather descended into severe dementia following a battle against lung cancer and now I can't help but picture being him, with no chance of survival, flitting in and out of being me and being an incoherent thing that has no right being in my grandfather's body... I'm frankly grateful he didn't suffer too long.

As we've been discussing, if I was incapable of giving consent, I'd expect relatives to follow my wishes as accurately as possible and only make decisions (such as if my situation worsened/improved) in following with my own choice.

A "Euthanasia Will" would have to hold all my desires, because if I lost the power to speak or even move, I'd have to make it clear whether I wanted to live on as a vegetable or die with a shred of dignity.

I'm glad to hear you're pro-choice, and that you can cope with the concept of what is, in essence, assisted suicide if consent is given. I can fully understand why we're debating the problems of situation shifting and the giving of consent itself, especially since few people ever think of making textual declarations, not, of course, thinking their families' will be in court trying to fight for your death/life. But we can hardly make that a legal requirement for everyone on this planet.

If vegetable's cried and screamed, would you kill them?

Well, I would. I eat animals that until fairly recently did just that.

More people need to write these sort of life-or-death (literally) decisions down and have them legally registered.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

That is a frankly terrifying thought- my grandfather descended into severe dementia following a battle against lung cancer and now I can't help but picture being him, with no chance of survival, flitting in and out of being me and being an incoherent thing that has no right being in my grandfather's body... I'm frankly grateful he didn't suffer too long.

An unfortunate thing to hear -- I hope your father found peace. However, lets not take me for a bible thumper whose only against this because of God; let it be known I've not argued in the name of God, and he can sit this one out as far as I'am concerned.

As we've been discussing, if I was incapable of giving consent, I'd expect relatives to follow my wishes as accurately as possible and only make decisions (such as if my situation worsened/improved) in following with my own choice.

Lets discuss the part where you were not capable of giving consent -- and that you had'nt when you were well. I'am sorry to say this lad, but in America, we should'nt be able to kill you according to law.

What if you get better?

A "Euthanasia Will" would have to hold all my desires, because if I lost the power to speak or even move, I'd have to make it clear whether I wanted to live on as a vegetable or die with a shred of dignity.

If you gave your consent before your unfortunate tradgedy, then by all means, I'am fine with it -- just not the social reprecussions.

Well, I would. I eat animals that until fairly recently did just that.

I know -- Heh, I was joshing you.

 

[Apos]

Then how can she recognize her own family members?

She can't. Her parents are making this claim. But every doctor other than the ones they paid, every doctor that can present actual clinical evidence and data, agrees that she has no such capacity. She has no consistent response to anything. The video clips, again, are a few moments of litterally days and days of them filming her trying to make it seem that she was consciously responding to stimuli. What you don't see when you see those clips are litterally hours of trying to get her to seem like shes responding to external stimuli. The "smile" that you see is a rictus that comes and goes randomly without any consistent connection to any external stimuli.

Again, she is not in a coma. She is in a PVS. In a PVS, the body retains some of the mechanical functioning and reflexes of the lower motor cortex, and these are expressed because the higher brain is so damaged that it cannot put or keep the body asleep properly. It's a BAD sign, not a good sign, that she makes motions given her clinical status. It demonstrates that the damage is extremely extensive.

I believe it is, and we must do what we can to ensure we discover scientific measures to break this tradgedy.

You don't understand. There is nothing to fix. Her HIGHER BRAIN IS GONE. The only thing you could do to make her body walk around and act like a real person again would be if you had some magical cure to regrow a missing brain. But even if you could do this, the effect would be no different than a brain transplant: what you would have would not be Terry Schaivo, because the parts of her brain that make up Terry Schaivo were destroyed and even the physical remains have long since decayed away. You'd only be replacing her with someone else. The only question about her function is whether she even has ANY ceb cortex function left at all.

Again, I'm also argueing for Consent. She, when she was well, did not give it -- when she was'nt well, she still did'nt give it. Therefore, her life and responsibility to live, rests in the hands of doctors and herself.

That's not true, and that's also not how the law works. The court found that there was ample evidence that she would not wish to maintained indefinately: that not only had she expressed this to several people (and not just her husband), but that this was consistent with what was known of her values and personality. This proceedure was in place only because she had not codified her wishes in a living will. The court proceedings are in place to be a proxy for such a codification in such a case.

When she makes the choice or a response signifying enough, then I would assume with the result we have now, not to be so bad. However, no consent was given. None.

She has no capacity to think or feel, let alone say anything about her present condition.

 

[el Chi]

Your saying it -- but did they say it? In the case were discussing, NO.

No, that's your opinion as to whether euthanasia is or is not in their best interests. Just as I had mine - don't try and flippantly refute my opinion as if yours was fact.

Change. Scientific Breakthroughs. Maybe, surviving a little bit longer to get better? What do you have to look forward to? Surely more options are available to you given your circumstances are luckier -- but that does'nt mean someone else's life should be ended only because their dues dont mean your own.

For f*ck's sake.
"Right Mrs. Jones, we know it's very unlikely and we know you're in pain and a state of being that degrades your worth as a human being, but who knows a cure for cancer might be out tomorrow! Next week, who knows? So we'll keep you alive in case this miracle occurs, in which case you probably won't get it until it's too late anyways."
If there's a chance someone will get better then of course it may not be right to euthanise them, but the point of euthanasia is to end the suffering of someone who IS NOT GOING TO GET BETTER. They will get worse and worse, then they will die, a ghost of a memory of a shadow of their former selves. I would say that if someone can be spared the agony of that, then that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Being fed through a tube happens to a lot of people -- mental patients, bolemic and annorexic subjects; should they be killed simply because of their irrational behavior when involving food intake and choice?

You're twisting what I've said now. And to no avail. If someone in gaining the undesirable combination of the attributes I listed, then it's fair to say that their quality of life is in a state of decline. A decline that has little to no chance of getting better. Why subject them to the indignity?
If someone has just one of them then it is possible for them to live a good life. You're acting as if I want to go around with a large syringe, putting everyone out of their misery who isn't perfectly healthy and thriving. That's so far away from what I'm saying it's ludicrous.

Other people breathe through holes in their necks because of Cigerette smoking -- and they still manage to live and carry on their lives happily. Should these people be now killed because they breath through a part of their body you dont?

As above.

Car wrecks injure a lot of people -- should people with Spinal problems from wrecks, assaults, or gunshots be put to death, simply because they cannot control their own limbs due to Nervous System damages?

As above.

Shitting themselves --? A lot of people shit themselves; and it does'nt bely someone needs to die. Some people cant control their bowels because of certain diseases or birth defects; yet they can maintain perfectly healthy lives and experiences. Should they die too?

As above.

As for the Person in this case, she was capable of understanding families and friends -- when they entered into her Hospital room or even when they came to visit her at home, she waved, smiled, and laughed.
Should happiness now be punishable by death, because the person is viewed as suffering?

Wow. "Punishable by death." Apparently, I'm not advocating the end to suffering, I'm in full support of a wide-spread death penalty.
Absolute f*cking nonsense. Once again, you're twisting my words into an offensive counter-argument that is barely cohesive.
This old woman was apparently in a semi-sentient state, so I would imagine she would have been, in part, able to make the decision herself.

A life some people know, and some people have come to terms with living as. Not everyone has all or the same problems -- but just because of a few ample ones that happen to name many strong and healthy people who are on the potential of recovering, does'nt mean killing someone without their personal consent is right, in the name of their "alleged" suffering.

Some people are stronger than others, you could argue, in situations like this. But then the people who CAN'T face getting to grips with a life like that shoul;d be allowed the option. You really aren't seeming to understand the fact that people advocate euthanasia for those who want it, not any patient that becomes troublesome to keep alive.

Twisting my words to take the offense? If you had'nt understood the case were talking about here, the women whose now having her feeding tube removed will starve to death.

Thats what my references were about -- please, get them right.

I disagreed with this case already I believe. If not, then let me say that I consider that a terribvle way to end someone's life. Of course it is. Had euthanasia been legal, she could have been giving a lethal injection, just as if she were going to sleep.
So essentially, the moral there is: Euthanasia should be legalised.

No, its the easiest one to go by. By default, unless consent is given by the person in question to be killed, then the murder is actually illegal to specified wills and documents. Even then, the Hospital doctors cannot do harm nor kill.

So, its practically not even allowed according to M.D. doctrination.

Doctors can kill, essentially. You realise that people do get unplugged from life support when things look irretrievably bleak; the patient in question is unconscious with little to no chance of revival, and then family's consent comes into the decision. This is not illegal and is tantamount to euthanasia.
But if the patient themselves gave consent, would you agree that it's their choice? Should we allow their wishes?

Which is actually brutal and against the law to do since it is illegal for doctors to do harm or take the lives of their own patients. You believe wrong, and if it existed, its breaking the law and the people breaking it should be arrested as criminals bearing a plausible capital offense.

Once again, doctors are supposed to work in the patients' best interests and that may not include prolonging their life. Under most nations' laws (except the Netherlands and Switzerland, I believe), they must keep them alive, however that is not the Hypocratic oath entirely.
The fact that they would be breaking the law is not an issue; the issue is whether or not euthanasia should be legalised. You're skipping around that specific point rather delicately.

No, "it has to hurt if its to heal". The man who now won his case in court, ordered his wife to not only suffer more, but to die from her own suffering. She was'nt suffering before -- she was surviving; living. Now her dying memories will be of them pulling the plug.

For a mind as simple as that, even I would recognize some sadness and terrific misunderstand as to why the ethics of preserving my life changed WITHOUT my consent

For a final time; this was clearly a very bad case, but the point is that, had euthanasia been legal, she needn't have met her demise in that way. In fact, she really should have been given an overdose, but then that results in more obvious legal problems.
So to avoid that suffering, a strictly monitored, humane, legalised euthanasia option, provided by health services, would have probably been the best solution.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Her parents are making this claim.

According to the alleged consent given, the father is the only one to have claimed its existed. So, which one is right?

But ever doctor other than the ones they paid agrees that she has no such capacity.

Therefore, if she has no capabilities to give consent, then it should not be given for her. Its by all technicalities, murder.

Again, she is not in a coma.

None here have express she was in a Coma -- I have however gaven examples for Comatose patients. There was a significant difference; hopefully you now know of it.

She is in a PVS. In a PVS, the body retains some of the mechanical functioning and reflexes of the lower motor cortex, and these are expressed because the higher brain is so damaged that it cannot put or keep the body asleep properly. It's a BAD sign, not a good sign, that she makes motions given her clinical status. It demonstrates that the damage is extremely extensive.

I dont care if at every stroke of midnight she lit on fire and screamed: ALALALAHAJAHAHABASKSKSKSKSKSKSKS! She still has not given consent, both before her tradgedy, and after. Its not been documented by Judicial law, therefore, her murder is still illegal.

Her HIGHER BRAIN IS GONE.

Before it left, did it give consent? No. Not documented, and not recorded legally.

The court found that there was ample evidence that she would not wish to maintained indefinately

According to the Spouse yes, but again, its not been recorded legally. Which is why this case remains so controversial.

She has no capacity to think or feel, let alone say anything about her present condition.

Therefore, if she has not gaven consent in these conditions or others legally documented by the courts indefinately, then she still by US law, cannot be killed -- and again with or without consent, its still murder and it violates the Constitution, Law, and Oaths sworn in by American Doctors.

That cannot be argued.

 

[Edcrab]

Well, to summarise my position: if I was in Mrs. Schiavo's position, I'd want to die, and I'd be incensed if the government wouldn't honour that one freedom when they're meant to stand up for so many others- I believe death is just as big a right as life.

So, ultimately, consent is the big issue. If she was aware that her steady decline was guaranteed, I find it difficult to believe that she'd decide not to make a legally-binding textual decision- and that's why there's a court case brewing, involving the government itself.

Doctors and medical scientists say one thing- the family say another. It's often been the case, really, and it's up to the courts to decide who's right- and hopefully observe the truth in motion.

I still think that if her higher brain is gone, she is not, strictly speaking, actually Mrs. Schiavo any more, just a smiling laughing anthropomorphised vegetable.

 

[Apos]

Which is what I'am against -- consent not documented other then the male spouse.

How can you claim to have an opinion on this case when you are ignorant of the basic facts. The court did NOT rely only on the spouse (though its a little shocking that this is not enough for anyone). It relied on testimony from several people, as well as a careful examination of evidence about what her values and wishes were. The evidence was convincing enough that the appeals court, although stating that we should err on the side of keeping someone alive, still found that her wishes were to not be maintained.

If the spouse wanted to divorce his wife, he could've chosen a different option much rather then putting her to death.

This is just sickening slander. The only reason why he doesn't divorce her is that he believes she wouldn't have wanted to be maintained, and if he divorces her, her parents will do just that. Every other reason to divorce her he has. He's even been offerred millions TO divorce her and walk away. He's refused.

Further, he's going to collect on some serious bucks, not only from the case but from her murder. Such money should be given to the Hospitals.

Again, sickening that you'd slander the man without even knowing the most basic facts of the case. All the money won in settlement either went to pay for Terry's care, or to charity. And again, he's been offerred millions to divorce her and keep her alive. He's turned it down. He is obviously sincere.

But even that is based on a misunderstanding, because it's not up to him in that sense. He originally petitioned the court to appoint an impartial guardian, and it is that guardian, through the hearing process, that found that she would not have wanted to be maintained.

It violates their own oath, and it violates the US Constitution, and it violates the United States law.

Again, you're wrong. Doctors cannot euthanize patients: THAT is against their law. However, they are ALSO required by law to respect a patients wish to refuse treatment.

 

[Pericolos0]

i really dont know why you still call it murder kerberos. The only thing that's happening now is keeping an empt body alive. imagine your brains got taken out of your head and transplanted into someone elses head. now you can see yourself through his eyes. An empty body that isn't you anymore kept alive by machinery. if there is such a thing as a soul and afterlife, Schiavo is already there.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, that's your opinion as to whether euthanasia is or is not in their best interests. Just as I had mine - don't try and flippantly refute my opinion as if yours was fact.

Much like you just did ... I dont think I will cater to the alleged responsibilities spoken from hypocritical perspectives.

For f*ck's sake.

I will also not cater to those who wish to cuss and make a civil discussion cumbersome with the weight of childish insults and berating.

Keep this to PM's ... for just sake.

I would say that if someone can be spared the agony of that, then that is not necessarily a bad thing.

But did she give her consent? No. Does the law allow for murder, with or without consent? No, we persecuted Dr. Jack Kervorkian. We still persecute and charge adults within the medical practises who would drug or kill their patients.

We have these Oaths for a reason -- and they were broken!

If someone in gaining the undesirable combination of the attributes I listed, then it's fair to say that their quality of life is in a state of decline. A decline that has little to no chance of getting better. Why subject them to the indignity?

Indiginity is only another word for lowly embarassment -- it was created by the lowest of classes who try and prove themselves amungst the highest of order, and fail.

Indignity? There's nothing indignent to life -- and there's nothing indignet to not giving legal documented consent to end life.

"Punishable by death." Apparently, I'm not advocating the end to suffering, I'm in full support of a wide-spread death penalty.

Are you? You would soon enough argue that certain non-crippeling disabilities should be the means of justified murder for the sake of ending someone else's suffering. I told you this would'nt stop anywhere.

You really aren't seeming to understand the fact that people advocate euthanasia for those who want it, not any patient that becomes troublesome to keep alive.

Lets focus on that word; troublesome. It was troublesome for this womens husband to get his "groove" on with a demented wife. This is essentially the most ultimate form of divorce -- he's going to be getting a lot of money.

Further, her consent was not given. If this Euthanasia had some consent with it, and legal law binding a constitutional defense and upheldance of such capabilities, then I would'nt be here whining.

But I'am here, because we nethire have constitutional remarkings or laws defending the rights to murder, and violations of doctrites oaths.

Had euthanasia been legal, she could have been giving a lethal injection, just as if she were going to sleep.

With all technicalities, Euthanasia was just enacted -- yet they chose to simply remove her feeding tube. What a horrible way to die.

Advanced Euthanasia thinkers did that -- ...

So essentially, the moral there is: Euthanasia should be legalised.

No, because it won't stop at those who really are in suffering. It will divulge into the populace like sickeningly spilled oils will into the ecosystem of an ocean -- it will pollute, destroy, and ultimately kill the system of life affordance and humane sociality.

Dr. Kervorkian was gotten rid of because he violated his practises and the United States law. Such things are already in violation, therefore, they must either be stopped or changed.

Doctors can kill, essentially.

By Oath, By Constitution, BY LAW, NO THEY CAN'T; essentially.

Once again, doctors are supposed to work in the patients' best interests

Yet doctors are also oathed to do no harm -- is starving a patient considered the best interest?

For a final time; this was clearly a very bad case, but the point is that, had euthanasia been legal, she needn't have met her demise in that way.

No, we just commited Euthanasia, and it did nothing to ease her suffering. No quick deaths, no other choices. They simply removed her feeding tube, which just shows the signs of how harsh and misplaced Euthanasia will be if its allowed to flow amungst public ruling.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

i really dont know why you still call it murder kerberos.

Because, if we arrested Dr Jack Kervorkian for commiting murder/suicide attempts with his own patients, then this surely would've broken the bounds further.

We have rules against life taking -- further, the person whose now dying horribly gave no legal or documented consent; furthering the injustice prompting its name to be murder and a violation of the United States Constitution, and a violation to the oath taken by Medical Practises accross the Country.

 

[Apos]

According to the alleged consent given, the father is the only one to have claimed its existed. So, which one is right?

This sentance is too confused for me to understand what it says. The only issue I can make out is that it's the fathers word that she moved and spoke. But even if that were true, it's completely inconsistent with the facts of the case when the court was presented with them, and inconsistent with the clinical findings that have been done over and over. Furthermore, the tapes presented were presented to the same court, and that court found that they were not evidence of what they claimed to be.

Therefore, if she has no capabilities to give consent, then it should not be given for her. Its by all technicalities, murder.

It is withholding medical care from a patient who expressed a wish not to recieve such medical treatment. It's done hundreds of times every month in this country, and without it, we'd be piling up brain dead and PVS corpses left and right.

None here have express she was in a Coma -- I have however gaven examples for Comatose patients. There was a significant difference; hopefully you now know of it.

What you don't seem to understand is that it would be BETTER if she was actually in a coma. PVS is not a condition from which you "wake up." It is caused by the lack of the high brain function that makes things like consciousness, feeling pain, regulating more esoteric body decisions, and so forth, possible.

I dont care if at every stroke of midnight she lit on fire and screamed: ALALALAHAJAHAHABASKSKSKSKSKSKSKS! She still has not given consent, both before her tradgedy, and after. Its not been documented by Judicial law, therefore, her murder is still illegal.

The court in question found that it was her wishes. This is the legal proceedure set up to work in the case where no living will was drawn up, but there is ample evidence to document a refusal of treatment in particular circumstances. It is legal in the state of Florida.

Before it left, did it give consent? No. Not documented, and not recorded legally.

This is ridiculous. She is, for all intents and purposes, brain dead. And she expressed a wish not to be maintained in such a state. That's what matters, and you are just sticking your fingers in your ears trying to pretend that it's not so. But the courts say you're wrong. Virtually every doctor I've talked to say you're wrong. You're wrong.

According to the Spouse yes, but again, its not been recorded legally.

No, not just according to the spouse.

Therefore, if she has not gaven consent in these conditions or others legally documented by the courts indefinately, then she still by US law, cannot be killed -- and again with or without consent, its still murder and it violates the Constitution, Law, and Oaths sworn in by American Doctors.

It already WAS argued, and the courts ruled that she had expressed a wish not to be artificially maintained without hope of recovery, and the appeals court agreed and the supreme court refused to reconsider the matter.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

How can you claim to have an opinion on this case when you are ignorant of the basic facts.

I've not made a claim to opinion -- or esteemed myself as "nose-high-in-the-sky" justified as yourself.

Obviously it demands respect, otherwise you would'nt listen. With this in mind, I got my opinions from the case itself and am not dependant on what your fracture to your own agenda.

This is just sickening slander.

Is it not true? Is it not true?

Again, sickening that you'd slander the man without even knowing the most basic facts of the case.

Yes, but was'nt this man, not of blood from this womens family and still managed to win over taking her life? Taking her life, away from her father and mother? We don't like to think of the case this way, but it is how it actually was.

Someone, not of blood to this women, just won the courts decision over to murder her; and ultimately, I believe in "blood-in responsibilities".

Further, I know the most basic and advanced facts of this case. He's going to get a lot of money from the publicity alone, and he's getting money from this case alone.

Whats slandering, is that he's going to take it, and leave his ex-wifes family with no daughter. He just won murder to be legal.

 

[Edcrab]

Death is a fantasticly useful function of every lifeform- and I think we should employ it to alleviate suffering.

I believe in executing our most disgusting, unrepentant criminals, who brought no end of suffering to others, and I believe in giving those who are suffering themselves the right to die.

I won't get tangled up in the "law breaking" aspect- because I personally think euthanasia should be legalised (as it hasn't caused a spate of monetary-focused "murders" in the countries where it's allowed, such as, to some extent, the Netherlands). I'm not sure I can defend your continued insistence that the husband is a money-grabbing bastard rather than a concerned spouse, despite all the evidence pointing to his genuine concern.

 

[Pericolos0]

We have rules against life taking -- further, the person whose now dying horribly gave no legal or documented consent; furthering the injustice prompting its name to be murder and a violation of the United States Constitution, and a violation to the oath taken by Medical Practises accross the Country.

gah is this wilful ignorance? Its already been mentioned that she will not die horribly, and that theoretically here life is already taken. She's not a cognitive being anymore.

 

[Apos]

Read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

The appeals court agreed that courts should err on the side of life, but that there was, in this case, clear and convincing evidence that Terry did not wish to be maintained in such a state and would thus refuse treatment. How can you claim that this was illegal?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

This sentance is too confused for me to understand what it says.

Understanding your from another country, (I dont know where New Yuck is, but its not anywhere in this nation, let alone, on this earth to boot) it would be hard to understand given your nose-high principles and superiority complexes in debates. New Yuck must be a pretty high-class society.

But I dont need to be telling you this -- you knew that all along! :thumbs: ikidikid ... >>

It is withholding medical care from a patient who expressed a wish not to recieve such medical treatment.

You said it yourself that it was not legally documented and only based upon hearsay not even recorded from the patient herself; Consent was not given. Legally, the court must have consent -- but it did'nt.

Further, since when has treatment categorized as murder? Nowhere in my dictionary does treatment define to a slow, starving death.

What you don't seem to understand is that it would be BETTER if she was actually in a coma.

I understood that already. Thanks for reminding me I already knew.

Thats like telling me I have a nose, and that I did'nt know it yet. :rolling: Silly Apos!

This is ridiculous. She is, for all intents and purposes, brain dead.

So, this does'nt argue consent was given, does it? No. It just further argues there was no such consent, and that this is still murder.

No, not just according to the spouse.

But was it documented? Again, I have to hand it you Apos. You said it yourself; not legally documented.

It already WAS argued, and the courts ruled that she had expressed a wish not to be artificially maintained

Again, you said it yourself; not legally documented. This man won on emotive alone, and stole a daughter from her family.

 

[Edcrab]

Yes, it's officially murder (despite the issue of legally withholding treatment, as it is her right to request- presuming, of course, that she did so), but I wouldn't have any qualms with letting a giggling neuromorticised potato pass over.

The concentration on "the law" is a bit extreme- perhaps, as this is a political discussion in a gaming forum (i.e., this isn't the real world and our decisions and statements won't endanger our futures in politics) we should centre more on the ethical collateral (and personal opinion) rather than some forumites will to stick stubbornly to established practise?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Death is a fantasticly useful function of every lifeform- and I think we should employ it to alleviate suffering.

Perhaps if CONSENT has been given, but again, Euthanasia has a moral corruption that would eventually lead to not needing consent; as already proven by a few members on the forum.

I believe in executing our most disgusting, unrepentant criminals, who brought no end of suffering to others, and I believe in giving those who are suffering themselves the right to die.

Lets say Euthanasia is made legal; I will be heavily for the requirements of consent, as none was given in this case.

I won't get tangled up in the "law breaking" aspect- because I personally think euthanasia should be legalised (as it hasn't caused a spate of monetary-focused "murders" in the countries where it's allowed, such as, to some extent, the Netherlands).

Thats fine, but if it is legalized, were going to fine tune it before it falls into the hands of the ill-responsible.

Its already been mentioned that she will not die horribly,

Yes, she's already starving as im processing in my mind what to say to you. Starvation, is much more horrible, then being lethally injected or shot -- nethire of which was thought about given the new environment for the Euthanasia was provided by a judicial court.

Still, no record of leniency in the choice of death delivering.

The appeals court agreed that courts should err on the side of life, but that there was, in this case, clear and convincing evidence that Terry did not wish to be maintained in such a state and would thus refuse treatment. How can you claim that this was illegal?

There has also been counter evidence that again, has proven no legally documented consent was recorded by video or soundbyte, and since she has no way of cognitively wrigting or understanding the principle of ending her life, such a wrigting would be ridiculous.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes, it's officially murder (despite the issue of legally withholding treatment, as it is her right to request- presuming, of course, that she did so), but I wouldn't have any qualms with letting a giggling neuromorticised potato pass over.

I stress Consent, and Consent only. Was it given? Alleged. Was it recorded? No. Therefore, no legal manifestations can prove its right, constitutional, or woefully agreed upon by her own biological parents that her life be taken from them.

 

[Edcrab]

To counter that, her life is not her parent's property and never has been, and thus I can understand why doctors and politicians will very publicly examine her and determine whether she is still the woman she once was and whether there is evidence of her giving consent.

So, from a legal viewpoint, I'll leave it to the authorities- temporarily at least- before I comment too fully on that aspect.

 

[Apos]

I've not made a claim to opinion -- or esteemed myself as "nose-high-in-the-sky" justified as yourself.

You've invented nasty motives for her husband, presented misleading and ridiculous claims about the situation which stand in direct opposition to the documented facts of the case.

Is it not true? Is it not true?

Yes, it's not true. There is no reason why he couldn't have divorced her and moved on if he was just a slimeball that didn't want to bother with her any more. The parents would have gladly paid him, and third parties offerred to pay him.

Here is what the court found regarding him:

"Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment."

But it doesn't even matter because that's totally irrelevant at this point. It's out of his hands at this point. He didn't make the decision finding that her wishes were to not maintain treatment, and he can't unmake it.

Yes, but was'nt this man, not of blood from this womens family and still managed to win over taking her life? Taking her life, away from her father and mother? We don't like to think of the case this way, but it is how it actually was.

He was speaking for her interests. What does blood matter? She married him and chose his as her legal proxy to speak for her when incapacitated. This is the law all over america. And he did not even just up and decide that the tube should be removed himself. He started a legal hearing process that made that determination.

Someone, not of blood to this women, just won the courts decision over to murder her; and ultimately, I believe in "blood-in responsibilities".

Well, that is not how the law works, sorry.

Further, I know the most basic and advanced facts of this case. He's going to get a lot of money from the publicity alone, and he's getting money from this case alone.

What money? Prove it. He's been offerred millions. He's turned it down. Prove your attacks, or retract them.

Whats slandering, is that he's going to take it, and leave his ex-wifes family with no daughter. He just won murder to be legal.

Why? Why would he do this unless he sincerely believes that this was her wish? He could have walked away from this at any time.

And his ex-wife's family has no daughter. She's gone. She died. It's a completely fantasy to pretend otherwise.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

To counter that, her life is not her parent's property and never has been,

It nethire was her spouses; the two most important factors that bely who her life rests with is her biological of kin, and herself. She gave no consent. Going back one-step, her Parents gave no consent. Thats two against one.

So, from a legal viewpoint, I'll leave it to the authorities- temporarily at least- before I comment too fully on that aspect.

Respected.

 

[Edcrab]

Strange how people can think that, somehow, parents have far more rights when it comes to this sort of thing than a partner who the person actually chose to dedicate their life to- you can't choose your parents, and blood ties mean very little to me- it's the actions of people that I take most stock from.

Citing the Netherlands as an example (although currently their main factor is, as you mentioned, consensual euthanasia) I don't think legalising it will cause some sort of moral landslide. I don't really like the idea of doctors or family deciding my fate either- but it's a tragic, unavoidable circumstance because next to no one thinks to make these statements offically recognised.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You've invented nasty motives for her husband,

Have I? Then why was he having an affair with someone, "allegedly as the hearsaic consent", while she was in the hospital? Hmmm? Explanation?

Yes, it's not true.

Not, it is true to some extent. Lets remember, her life is her own to take; she gave no legally recorded consent, nethire did her parents; therefore vote majority and this man has no choice in the matter.

He was speaking for her interests.

But she spoke for hers and nowhere was it documented consent for murder was conveyed or legally recorded.

Well, that is not how the law works, sorry.

Oh, but it does -- it has in the past; its orginally why Dr. Jack Kervorkian was tried and jailed. :thumbs:

What money? Prove it. He's been offerred millions. He's turned it down. Prove your attacks, or retract them.

Do I need to retract them when you provide me with, even evidence from what you know, he's been offered money? The court will be giving him money, and he will be taking it.

He will also be receiving a certain, "death benefits" upon his wifes deceasing.

Why? Why would he do this unless he sincerely believes that this was her wish? He could have walked away from this at any time.

Which is what disturbs me -- he did'nt walk away; he murdered his wife, albeit blatantly stated, illegally yet legally? ... and now is walking away listening to the sounds of flapping dollar bills and his wives gasps and sufferings.

And his ex-wife's family has no daughter. She's gone. She died. It's a completely fantasy to pretend otherwise.

Yes, the Fantasy world were she magically gave consent ... but Ooops! Not legally recorded, signed -- therefore, making such an event even more illegal.

 

[Apos]

Yes, she's already starving as im processing in my mind what to say to you. Starvation, is much more horrible, then being lethally injected or shot -- nethire of which was thought about given the new environment for the Euthanasia was provided by a judicial court.

Starvation is horrible... when you have conscious experience and can feel pain. Terry cannot. She's in a PVS.

There has also been counter evidence that again, has proven no legally documented consent was recorded by video or soundbyte, and since she has no way of cognitively wrigting or understanding the principle of ending her life, such a wrigting would be ridiculous.

You just don't get it. As per the law, there has been hearing after hearing about this. As per the law, they have found that there is convincing evidence that she would not have wished to be maintained. You keep trying to run around this point, but it renders your whole argument about illegality nonsense. These issues were brought into a court of law, over and over, and each time they found the same things. This is the proper proceedure in such as case, as per the law of Florida! So how can you possibly keep claiming that it was illegal? There is no law saying that there must be a videotape or a living will to determine the wishes of the person in question. Those things would have made hearings unecessary. It is the lack of them that made hearings necessary. So they were held, and there was a legally derived outcome.

If you want to change the law, you can. But it can't affect this case anyway, because laws can't affect cases that arose before the passage of the law.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Strange how people can think that, somehow, parents have far more rights when it comes to this sort of thing than a partner who the person actually chose to dedicate their life to

It's not strange at all -- it was they're daughter being put to death by someone not of the family blood-line. Thats wrong. Further, two voices were heard but not acknowledged (the Parents, and the Woman, who did not give consent).

it's the actions of people that I take most stock from.

... and the actions of the Husband foreboded another relationship over his own wife.

I don't really like the idea of doctors or family deciding my fate either- but it's a tragic, unavoidable circumstance because next to no one thinks to make these statements offically recognised.

It also means that your plug-might-be-pulled earlier then you thought, if Euthanasia was enacted, despite your doctrination of a four year service.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Starvation is horrible... when you have conscious experience and can feel pain. Terry cannot. She's in a PVS.

The most basic pain is hunger. She'll feel that.

If you want to change the law, you can.

I should be asking you this, since Constitutionally and Lawfully speaking Euthanasia does not exist in United States.

 

[Apos]

Have I? Then why was he having an affair with someone, "allegedly as the hearsaic consent", while she was in the hospital? Hmmm? Explanation?

His wife was in PVS, effectively brain dead. She was never coming back. He never made any secret at all about moving on to start a family with this other woman: this wasn't some "affair." Many people have remarried only a year after the death of their spouse. Michael tried for years in what was in the end a pointless attempt to bring her back. He has not divorced her because his martial duties are not over: he still has to fight for what he understands to be her wishes now that she is gone.

Not, it is true to some extent. Lets remember, her life is her own to take; she gave no legally recorded consent, nethire did her parents; therefore vote majority and this man has no choice in the matter.

And he didn't have any choice: if you had a clue about this case, you'd know that. Instead, you just run at the mouth without knowing anything about it.

Again, Michael is not the one that made the decision to remove the tube. He can't unmake it.

But she spoke for hers and nowhere was it documented consent for murder was conveyed or legally recorded.

I'm not going to explain it again. What you are saying is nonsense. Because nothing was recorded on paper, the state of Florida instead has a hearing process to determine the expressed wishes of the PVS patient. That is what the law allows in such a situation.

Do I need to retract them when you provide me with, even evidence from what you know, he's been offered money? The court will be giving him money, and he will be taking it.

Cite please? I already gave a cite for all my claims: I posted links to all the relevant court documents and evidence as to what happened in the case. You might do well to read some of them.

He will also be receiving a certain, "death benefits" upon his wifes deceasing.

All of which has already been earmarked for charity. But that's not even the point. What right have a ghoul like you to cast aspirtions on the character of a man you don't even know? I see no evidence whatsoever that he is anything other than sincere. He's fighting for what he thinks his wife would have wanted. You don't have any evidence to the contrary, but you'll gladly accuse him of being a souless, consciousless vulture if it suits your purposes.

Yes, the Fantasy world were she magically gave consent ... but Ooops! Not legally recorded, signed -- therefore, making such an event even more illegal.

This is a nonsensical response. I think anyone reading this thread would have to agree that you have no actual argument: you're wrong on the facts, and wrong on the law.

 

[Edcrab]

It also means that your plug-might-be-pulled earlier then you thought, if Euthanasia was enacted, despite your doctrination of a four year service.

Well, under Holland's law, that wouldn't really be a fear of mine- since they stick pretty religiously to the "wills" (a term I apologise for repeatedly using, but it's quicker, less morbid and less sensational then something like a "post-mind-loss death agreement"). I like to think, however, that I could trust my family to support my decisions as far as possible- without calling in exenuating circumstances without my pre-declared consent.