Chess politics - Schiavo Case: Social and Financial Issues

Author

Schiavo Case: Social and Financial Issues

Sam Sloan

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

Schiavo Case: Social and Financial Issues

Terri Schiavo has just been pronounced physically dead although her
brain is said to have died 15 years ago as a result of excessive
efforts to lose weight. There is one issue that I have never seen
raised or discussed although I believe that it was prominent in the
minds of the justices who ruled on this case. That is the cost to
society for cases like this.

We are fast approaching the time when the distinctions between life
and death are blurred and it may become possible to keep everyone
alive for hundreds of years if not forever. Since it will be
impossible for everyone to be kept alive forever, somebody will have
to decide which comatose patients will have their respirators turned
off. In the Schiavo case the courts ruled that the husband has the
right to do this. Other courts might have ruled differently.

When we reach the situation where thousands if not millions of people
are being kept alive through a feeding tube or a respirator, somebody
will have to pay for all this. Although it has not been disclosed, I
suspect that some form of insurance, welfare or social services was
paying to keep Schiavo alive, and the costs of doing this are high. It
does not matter who was paying in the Schiavo case, because all of us
were ultimately paying for it. If insurance was paying then all of us
are paying in the form of higher insurance premiums.

Another question concerns the impact on society of such cases. A few
months ago Yasser Arafat was kept alive on life support while his wife
negotiated with politicians as to how his money would be divided up.
As soon as an agreement was reached, she agreed to turn off the
respirator. Right now, Prince Rainier of Monaco is on a respirator.
Some say he is already dead. Others say he is still alive.
Negotiations are underway as to who will succeed him.

There are now reports that the Pope may have to be put on a feeding
tube or a respirator. What will happen if a brain-dead Pope is kept
alive for 15 years while his people wait? Who will be the one to
decide to remove the feeding tube of the Pope?

Sam Sloan

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

The last estimate I saw was that it cost around $80,000 a year to keep
Terri alive on Medicare.

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

The last estimate I saw was that it cost around $80,000 a year to keep
Terri alive on Medicare.

Mike Murray

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:38:06 GMT, sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

quote:

>When we reach the situation where thousands if not millions of people
>are being kept alive through a feeding tube or a respirator, somebody
>will have to pay for all this.

Think outside the box, as it were.

I believe an article similar to the following appeared in the Atlantic
sometime in the mid-1970s.

http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/philosoph...orage/death.htm

Mike Nolan

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:

quote:

>Schiavo Case: Social and Financial Issues

There is no record of Terry Schiavo having ever been a member of the
United States Chess Federation, or even knowing how to play chess.

Find something more relevant to post about, Sam.
--
Mike Nolan

Randy Bauer

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

In article <1112291212.162241.232280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
parrthenon@cs.com says...

quote:

>
>The last estimate I saw was that it cost around $80,000 a year to keep
>Terri alive on Medicare.
>

LIES, LIES, LIES, I tell you, all Parr can do is LIE!!

There have been no dollars spent for Terri's care from Medicare.

There have, however, been lots spent from Medicaid (please note that the above
statements about LIES were written with a wink and a smile).

Lots of people confuse Medicare and Medicaid. Most also think that Medicare is
the larger of the two health care programs, but that is not correct. The cost
driving culprit for Medicaid isn't poor children (although they are the largest
number served, they are a relatively cheap population to cover) it is those with
long term disabilities (both physical and mental) and seniors in nursing homes
and other care facilties. These groups are not covered by Medicare, they are
covered by Medicaid, and they are very expensive.

Randy Bauer

Rightard Whitey

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

> Schiavo Case: Social and Financial Issues
>
> Terri Schiavo has just been pronounced physically dead although her
> brain is said to have died 15 years ago as a result of excessive
> efforts to lose weight. There is one issue that I have never seen
> raised or discussed although I believe that it was prominent in the
> minds of the justices who ruled on this case. That is the cost to
> society for cases like this.
>
> We are fast approaching the time when the distinctions between life
> and death are blurred and it may become possible to keep everyone
> alive for hundreds of years if not forever. Since it will be
> impossible for everyone to be kept alive forever, somebody will have
> to decide which comatose patients will have their respirators turned
> off. In the Schiavo case the courts ruled that the husband has the
> right to do this. Other courts might have ruled differently.
>
> When we reach the situation where thousands if not millions of people
> are being kept alive through a feeding tube or a respirator, somebody
> will have to pay for all this. Although it has not been disclosed, I
> suspect that some form of insurance, welfare or social services was
> paying to keep Schiavo alive, and the costs of doing this are high. It
> does not matter who was paying in the Schiavo case, because all of us
> were ultimately paying for it. If insurance was paying then all of us
> are paying in the form of higher insurance premiums.
>
> Another question concerns the impact on society of such cases. A few
> months ago Yasser Arafat was kept alive on life support while his wife
> negotiated with politicians as to how his money would be divided up.
> As soon as an agreement was reached, she agreed to turn off the
> respirator. Right now, Prince Rainier of Monaco is on a respirator.
> Some say he is already dead. Others say he is still alive.
> Negotiations are underway as to who will succeed him.
>
> There are now reports that the Pope may have to be put on a feeding
> tube or a respirator. What will happen if a brain-dead Pope is kept
> alive for 15 years while his people wait? Who will be the one to
> decide to remove the feeding tube of the Pope?
>
> Sam Sloan
>

The court cases ascertained the right of the surviving spouse to make
the decision if there is no living will. If Terri had been single or
recently married, the courts might have ruled otherwise.

When Florida passed Terri's law, a person arriving at a hospital in
Terri's condition would have become a ward of the state if there was no
living will. This person would have been put on Medicaid. Fortunately,
the law was declared unconstitutional. I don't think the state realized
what they were getting themselves into.

If you have a relative in this persistent vegetative state or a coma, it
is easy to put them on Medicaid by proving you have no resources to care
for them. Terri's monthly bills were $80,000 which would wipe most
millionaires out in a year.

--
Educating rightards every day.

Sam Sloan

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:22:14 GMT, Rightard Whitey
<eelder1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

quote:

>If you have a relative in this persistent vegetative state or a coma, it
>is easy to put them on Medicaid by proving you have no resources to care
>for them. Terri's monthly bills were $80,000 which would wipe most
>millionaires out in a year.

Was is $80,000 per month (as you say) or $80,000 per year as Larry
Parr says?

I suspect that the correct amount is $80,000 per month because it can
cost more than $80,000 per year to keep even a healthy active elderly
person in a nursing home.

Sam Sloan

sgdunn

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

The root cause of the problem is the legal fiction that people consent
to medical treatment when they're unconcious. Unless the patient or his
insurance company have in some way offered to pay the hospital for
treatment, the patient shouldn't be charged for treatment.
A lot of people carry insurance cards in their wallets anyway, and some
types of health insurance policies already include a schedule listing the
maximum amount the company will pay for different procedures, so cover
situations where the patient can't consent, the presence of a wallet card
could be taken as an offer on the part of the insurer to pay the amount
included in such a schedule plus hospital expenses, up to a maximum amount
that the insurance company would post on the Internet or make public in some
other way. In such a system, insurers might offer to have emergency care
instructions specific to each person insured printed on the back of the
insurance card. In such a system, insurance companies might sell plans that
cover any injured person who happens to be present at a businesses or in a
home at the time of a 911 call.
Yes, in theory hospitals are currently required to stabalize any patient
brought in, even if his ability to pay is doubtful, but the reality is
they'll invest more in a patient who has insurance. In emergency rooms,
except under extreme circumstances, they won't even let the patient see the
triage nurse until he's gone to the front desk, filled out a form, and
presented his insurance card, if he has one. And if someone's unconcious, as
Terri Schiavo was, they have to check for a driver's liscense to verify the
person's identity. I'd be surprised if nurses don't check wallets for
insurance cards already.

"Rightard Whitey" <eelder1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qdX2e.20537$Pc.10355@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

quote:

> Sam Sloan wrote:
Billionaires and people with insurance plans that don't require copays
can afford it. None of the rest of us can.

Although it has not been disclosed, I[vbcol=seagreen]
> The court cases ascertained the right of the surviving spouse to make
> the decision if there is no living will. If Terri had been single or
> recently married, the courts might have ruled otherwise.
>
> When Florida passed Terri's law, a person arriving at a hospital in
> Terri's condition would have become a ward of the state if there was no
> living will. This person would have been put on Medicaid. Fortunately,
> the law was declared unconstitutional. I don't think the state realized
> what they were getting themselves into.
>
> If you have a relative in this persistent vegetative state or a coma, it
> is easy to put them on Medicaid by proving you have no resources to care
> for them. Terri's monthly bills were $80,000 which would wipe most
> millionaires out in a year.
>

Not that very many hospitals ever collect that much very often, but
unless a hospital has reason to believe the patient, his spouse, or his
parents have the ability to pay an enormous copayment for a while, they
won't put someone on life support.
Then, to guilt trip people into going bankrupt (or becoming too poor to
hire a bankruptcy lawyer), they require a relative to actively remove the
feeding tube or respirator. Short of getting rid of implied consent by
people who are physically incapable of giving their consent for medical
treatment, there should be a law allowing a family member in such a
situation to passively allowing the patient to die by not having more
formula added to the feeding tube bag (rather than having to remove the
feeding tube or respirator).

quote:

> --
> Educating rightards every day.
>

Justin Case

2005-03-31, 6:00 pm

On 31 Mar 2005 18:40:36 GMT, nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) wrote:

quote:

>sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:
>
>
>There is no record of Terry Schiavo having ever been a member of the
>United States Chess Federation, or even knowing how to play chess.
>
>Find something more relevant to post about, Sam.

mjoann

2005-03-31, 9:55 pm

Rightard Whitey wrote:

quote:

> Sam Sloan wrote:

quote:

> The court cases ascertained the right of the surviving spouse to make
> the decision if there is no living will. If Terri had been single or
> recently married, the courts might have ruled otherwise.

The idea that her husband should control her life is still absurd even
if it wasn't a recent marriage. From what I've read, they got engaged 6
months after meeting. They were only married five years, and they were
still basically kids. The bond of a five year, very young marriage is
completely different from a 20+ year life partnership. She may have even
been looking to leave him, and given the record of modern marriages,
most likely would have divorced him long before now if she hadn't
collapsed. The only people who still held her first in their lives were
her parents and they should have had more say than the man she knew for
less than 7 years.

mjoann

Angelo De Pa1ma

2005-03-31, 9:55 pm

The fiction was that her husband was legally, morally, and in fact
fulfilling her wishes. Lawyers love stuff like this -- "tesimony,"
"depositions," blah blah blah. In other words, bullshit. Anyone can get up
and say anything under oath or otherwise. Scientifically speaking, Terri had
no living will, so her wishes could never be known. End of story.

Let's suppose a different, wealthy, single Terri with three children died
intestate. Normally the probate courts would split the money among her three
kids. What would the court's reaction be if one of the children stepped
forward and claimed that Terri had told him that he was to get all the
inheritance because (name the reason). The claim would be laughed out of
court. "But that's what Terri wanted!!" It's not unheard of for heirs to
make up stuff like this. Nor is it unheard of for a husband to wish his wife
would go away.

Or let's say that Terri experienced a similar cardiovascular event, had been
resucitated sooner but nevertheless slipped into a coma. From the brain
scans and other signs the doctors figure she has a 50% chance of regaining
consciousness and a 50% chance of remaining in a coma for the rest of her
life. However, she has to stay at least a month on a respirator to know for
sure. But her husband claims, as in this case, that Terri never wanted to be
on a respirator for any reason, or any length of time. He demands the
respirator be turned off. Would they unplug her? I would hope not, but after
the last two weeks you never know.

So really this case came down to a point of law -- a rather brutal one if
you ask me -- rather than a point of fact. I say brutal because I could not
imagine what I'd do if a big cop was standing there, preventing me from
giving my dying child a drink of water.

No doubt the final result was best for everyone. In fact everybody concerned
would have been far better off had she died 15 years ago. But the way the
end was achieved was kind of eerie, barbaric, heartless. Terri would have
received better treatment -- and a lot more sympathy from the left -- had
she been a serial killer awaiting her just punishment on death row.

Angelo

"sgdunn" <sgdunn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VfZ2e.90480$755.55167@lakeread05...

quote:

> The root cause of the problem is the legal fiction that people consent
> to medical treatment when they're unconcious. Unless the patient or his
> insurance company have in some way offered to pay the hospital for
> treatment, the patient shouldn't be charged for treatment.
> A lot of people carry insurance cards in their wallets anyway, and some
> types of health insurance policies already include a schedule listing the
> maximum amount the company will pay for different procedures, so cover
> situations where the patient can't consent, the presence of a wallet card
> could be taken as an offer on the part of the insurer to pay the amount
> included in such a schedule plus hospital expenses, up to a maximum amount
> that the insurance company would post on the Internet or make public in
> some
> other way. In such a system, insurers might offer to have emergency care
> instructions specific to each person insured printed on the back of the
> insurance card. In such a system, insurance companies might sell plans
> that
> cover any injured person who happens to be present at a businesses or in a
> home at the time of a 911 call.
> Yes, in theory hospitals are currently required to stabalize any
> patient
> brought in, even if his ability to pay is doubtful, but the reality is
> they'll invest more in a patient who has insurance. In emergency rooms,
> except under extreme circumstances, they won't even let the patient see
> the
> triage nurse until he's gone to the front desk, filled out a form, and
> presented his insurance card, if he has one. And if someone's unconcious,
> as
> Terri Schiavo was, they have to check for a driver's liscense to verify
> the
> person's identity. I'd be surprised if nurses don't check wallets for
> insurance cards already.
>
>
> "Rightard Whitey" <eelder1@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:qdX2e.20537$Pc.10355@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Billionaires and people with insurance plans that don't require copays
> can afford it. None of the rest of us can.
>
> Although it has not been disclosed, I
>
> Not that very many hospitals ever collect that much very often, but
> unless a hospital has reason to believe the patient, his spouse, or his
> parents have the ability to pay an enormous copayment for a while, they
> won't put someone on life support.
> Then, to guilt trip people into going bankrupt (or becoming too poor to
> hire a bankruptcy lawyer), they require a relative to actively remove the
> feeding tube or respirator. Short of getting rid of implied consent by
> people who are physically incapable of giving their consent for medical
> treatment, there should be a law allowing a family member in such a
> situation to passively allowing the patient to die by not having more
> formula added to the feeding tube bag (rather than having to remove the
> feeding tube or respirator).
>
>
>

Mike Murray

2005-03-31, 9:55 pm

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:23:50 GMT, mjoann <xtcmusicfan@netscape.com>
wrote:

quote:

>Rightard Whitey wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The idea that her husband should control her life is still absurd even
>if it wasn't a recent marriage.

Five plus years is recent? Besides, the *court* made the decision as
to which of the opposing parties best represented her expressed
wishes.

quote:

> From what I've read, they got engaged 6
>months after meeting.

How is this relevant?

quote:

>They were only married five years, and they were
>still basically kids.

27 years old is still a kid? I thought adulthood began at 18 or 21 or
something like that. What planet are you from?

quote:

>The bond of a five year, very young marriage is
>completely different from a 20+ year life partnership.

From a legal standpoint, this is utter crap. As a matter of fact,
from a religious standpoint, this is utter crap. What state law, what
religion, recognizes any formal difference between a five year
marriage and a twenty year marriage?

quote:

>She may have even
>been looking to leave him, and given the record of modern marriages,
>most likely would have divorced him long before now if she hadn't
>collapsed.

May have? Most likely would have? How would you know? How would
anyone know? Maybe she would have become alienated from her parents.

quote:

>The only people who still held her first in their lives were
>her parents and they should have had more say than the man she knew for
>less than 7 years.

Of course, that man was not just any man, but her *husband*.

Evidently you don't think much of the Bible's concept of marriage.
Are you some sort of secular humanist?

quote:

>mjoann

Some smart, but IMO misguided people, like Nat Hentoff and Ralph
Nader, have weighed in against the decisions that were made by the
courts. Read them before jumping in with both feet.

Your post does your side of the argument no favor.

mjoann

2005-03-31, 9:55 pm

Angelo De Pa1ma wrote:

quote:

> But the way the
> end was achieved was kind of eerie, barbaric, heartless. Terri would have
> received better treatment -- and a lot more sympathy from the left -- had
> she been a serial killer awaiting her just punishment on death row.

Her "husband" has proven himself cruel and heartless, and the courts
have shown poor judgment in allowing this man's invented wishes to
supersede everything the woman was raised to believe in. Not only did he
choose to starve/dehydrate her against the wishes of the only people who
still care about her, but he has chosen cremation, much to the horror of
her parents. He wants to move her ashes to his family's tomb in a state
where her family no longer lives. Talk about cruel and offensive; the
idea that her ashes will forever be entombed with the dead relatives of
a man who stopped loving her 15 years ago is horrific. Her parents had
to make a huge fuss before he grudgingly allowed her to take a single
drop of communion on her religious holiday. On top of ALL that, he
forbade her parents from being with her when she died even though they
were begging and crying and held back by cops. He barely knew her for 7
years while she was cognizant, and has long moved on to another "wife"
and family. There is no way in hell that his wishes, that are clearly
against the beliefs Terri was raised with, should supersede those of her
family who raised her and knew her her entire life. Words cannot express
how absolutely evil and disgusting Michael Schiavo is!

mjoann

mjoann

2005-03-31, 9:55 pm

Mike Murray wrote:

quote:

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:23:50 GMT, mjoann <xtcmusicfan@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> Five plus years is recent? Besides, the *court* made the decision as
> to which of the opposing parties best represented her expressed
> wishes.

Five years is nothing in the big picture.

quote:

>
>
> How is this relevant?

Silly people who get engaged that quickly hardly have time to truly know
one another. Little children "date" longer than that, and it is hardly
enough to let two people find out if they are truly compatible.

quote:

> 27 years old is still a kid? I thought adulthood began at 18 or 21 or
> something like that. What planet are you from?

Technically adulthood begins at 18, but you have seen how people in
their twenties act, right? I dare you to drive to a local college campus
and see if you honestly think those aren't "kids" who have a lot of
growing up to do.

quote:

>
> From a legal standpoint, this is utter crap. As a matter of fact,
> from a religious standpoint, this is utter crap. What state law, what
> religion, recognizes any formal difference between a five year
> marriage and a twenty year marriage?

Yes, and apparently the legal standpoint wasn't too heavy with common
sense this time. Sometimes courts do amazingly absurd things that are
technically legal.
A longer marriage allows more time to understand the other person and
more development of the relationship. Five years isn't much time, and I
doubt Mr Schiavo even knew a small portion of every wish or idea his
wife ever had. Even in twice that time, there is always something more
to learn.

quote:

> May have? Most likely would have? How would you know? How would
> anyone know? Maybe she would have become alienated from her parents.

Well, she did tell her friends she was considering leaving him.
And, all one has to do is look at divorce statistics to realize the
chances of marriage survival are low.

quote:

>
> Of course, that man was not just any man, but her *husband*.

And not a very faithful one at that...

quote:

> Evidently you don't think much of the Bible's concept of marriage.
> Are you some sort of secular humanist?

Actually, I am a Christian, but I don't believe the Bible allows a man
to murder his inconvenient wife!

mjoann

Bama Brian

2005-03-31, 9:55 pm

Angelo De Pa1ma wrote:

quote:

>
> The fiction was that her husband was legally, morally, and in fact
> fulfilling her wishes. Lawyers love stuff like this -- "tesimony,"
> "depositions," blah blah blah. In other words, bullshit. Anyone can get up
> and say anything under oath or otherwise. Scientifically speaking, Terri
> had no living will, so her wishes could never be known. End of story.
>
> Let's suppose a different, wealthy, single Terri with three children died
> intestate. Normally the probate courts would split the money among her
> three kids. What would the court's reaction be if one of the children
> stepped forward and claimed that Terri had told him that he was to get all
> the inheritance because (name the reason). The claim would be laughed out
> of court. "But that's what Terri wanted!!" It's not unheard of for heirs
> to make up stuff like this. Nor is it unheard of for a husband to wish his
> wife would go away.

In the case at hand, three people heard Terri say what she wanted, including
her brother. This is what the court made its decision on, not just on
Michael's testimony.

IOW, your argument is worthless.

quote:

> Or let's say that Terri experienced a similar cardiovascular event, had
> been resucitated sooner but nevertheless slipped into a coma. From the
> brain scans and other signs the doctors figure she has a 50% chance of
> regaining consciousness and a 50% chance of remaining in a coma for the
> rest of her life. However, she has to stay at least a month on a
> respirator to know for sure. But her husband claims, as in this case, that
> Terri never wanted to be on a respirator for any reason, or any length of
> time. He demands the respirator be turned off. Would they unplug her? I
> would hope not, but after the last two weeks you never know.

Terri was in that hospice for fifteen years. Her husband didn't even start
legal proceedings until seven years ago.

quote:

> So really this case came down to a point of law -- a rather brutal one if
> you ask me -- rather than a point of fact. I say brutal because I could
> not imagine what I'd do if a big cop was standing there, preventing me
> from giving my dying child a drink of water.
>
> No doubt the final result was best for everyone. In fact everybody
> concerned would have been far better off had she died 15 years ago. But
> the way the end was achieved was kind of eerie, barbaric, heartless. Terri
> would have received better treatment -- and a lot more sympathy from the
> left -- had she been a serial killer awaiting her just punishment on death
> row.

It was Michael Schiavo who kept trying to resuscitate his wife, long after
the doctors and Emergency Medical Techs had given up on her. He could have
backed off when she was first found and let her stay dead from the heart
attack she had suffered, if he was the devil you folks make him out to be.

<big snip>
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Bama Brian

2005-04-01, 3:54 am

mjoann wrote:

quote:

> Angelo De Pa1ma wrote:
>
>
> Her "husband" has proven himself cruel and heartless, and the courts
> have shown poor judgment in allowing this man's invented wishes to
> supersede everything the woman was raised to believe in.

And another head pops up on the Whack-A-Rat board.

Three people heard Terri Schiavo express her wishes, including her brother
who testified to that fact in court.

quote:

> Not only did he
> choose to starve/dehydrate her against the wishes of the only people who
> still care about her, but he has chosen cremation, much to the horror of
> her parents. He wants to move her ashes to his family's tomb in a state
> where her family no longer lives. Talk about cruel and offensive; the
> idea that her ashes will forever be entombed with the dead relatives of
> a man who stopped loving her 15 years ago is horrific.

If he really didn't care about her, he'd have given her over to the "loving
care" of her parents long ago. If you had read of her relationship with
the Schiavo family, you'd know that she really preferred their company to
that of her own family.

quote:

> Her parents had
> to make a huge fuss before he grudgingly allowed her to take a single
> drop of communion on her religious holiday.

Both Communion and Last Rites had been administered to her on March 18th.
But it was typical of the Schindlers that they had to have it all done over
again.

quote:

> On top of ALL that, he
> forbade her parents from being with her when she died even though they
> were begging and crying and held back by cops.

Her condition was being assessed by a doctor, so the family was asked to
step out of the room. She died at that time; she could have died at any
other time before or after. Or do you think that Schiavo has ESP that
allowed him to see that she would very shortly die? But then the
Schindlers had to make yet another public hysteria case out of this.

quote:

> He barely knew her for 7
> years while she was cognizant, and has long moved on to another "wife"
> and family.

Barely knew her? He married her because she was his best friend. He spent
all his free time with her. All accounts are that he loved her dearly.

quote:

> There is no way in hell that his wishes, that are clearly
> against the beliefs Terri was raised with, should supersede those of her
> family who raised her and knew her her entire life. Words cannot express
> how absolutely evil and disgusting Michael Schiavo is!

Words cannot express how absolutely uninformed you are. Why don't you do
some research on the subject, that doesn't include either the Schindler's
web site or the local news headlines, and get off the guys' back.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Angelo De Pa1ma

2005-04-01, 3:54 am

"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote

quote:

> May have? Most likely would have? How would you know? How would
> anyone know? Maybe she would have become alienated from her parents.

Say what you will about the sanctity and legality of marriage. If I had to
bet on which relationship was, on average, stronger and more enduring I'd
take parent-child over spouse-spouse any day. Parents rarely divorce,
abandon, or cheat on their kids. Spouses do it all the time.

Having said that I think the "spouse is the boss" law is not just good, it's
very practical. Most of the time when people are in Terri's condition (or
the equivalent, with a terminal illness) their parents are either dead, or
very feeble themselves, or live too far away to be part of the
decision-making process.

That wasn't the case here. The fact that a perfectly reasonable law was in
effect didn't solve the moral dilemma.

Humanity has struggled for millennia to reconcile morality with legality.
Not all laws are moral, or even sensible, 100% of the time. For many, many
reasons this was one of those exceptions.

Mike Murray

2005-04-01, 3:54 am

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:38:28 -0500, "Angelo De Pa1ma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>Say what you will about the sanctity and legality of marriage. If I had to
>bet on which relationship was, on average, stronger and more enduring I'd
>take parent-child over spouse-spouse any day. Parents rarely divorce,
>abandon, or cheat on their kids. Spouses do it all the time.

On the average, I'd have to agree. But as far as human nature goes,
there are exceptions: Chinese female infanticide, Muslim honor
killings of rebellious (or "impure") daughters, crack mothers who sell
their kids for another hit, etc., as well as parents who regard their
children primarily as old-age insurance.

quote:

>Having said that I think the "spouse is the boss" law is not just good, it's
>very practical. Most of the time when people are in Terri's condition (or
>the equivalent, with a terminal illness) their parents are either dead, or
>very feeble themselves, or live too far away to be part of the
>decision-making process.

Or their love and attachment overcome judgment as to what was best for
the child. Terri Schaivo's parents testified in court they would have
kept her alive even if she'd asked them not to, that had she developed
gangrene, they'd have amputated her arms and legs to keep her alive.

Angelo De Pa1ma

2005-04-01, 5:58 pm

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote

quote:

> In the case at hand, three people heard Terri say what she wanted,
> including
> her brother. This is what the court made its decision on, not just on
> Michael's testimony.

I never heard this until you posted it (twice). If this is true it changes
quite a bit about this case.

However, as much as I wish it were true I doubt it is.

During the past month I must have read 150 times that it was her husband who
heard her say she wouldn't want to live in that state. You'd think that one
report would have added, "And by the way, her brother and another person
(whom you don't identify) also heard similar statements."

Two more points on your "three witness" claim: Had he heard her say this,
her brother would probably have acted differently. I also find it amazing
that a person no older than 25 would tell not one, not two, but THREE people
that she'd want the plug pulled if she turned into a zucchini. 25-year-olds
just don't think about death, or themselves being in that circumstance. I'm
50 and I only told my wife my preference (PULL THE DAMNED PLUG!) this past
week.

quote:

> Cheers,
> Bama Brian
> Libertarian

You make a point about being a libertarian. Unless the woman had a living
will, liberty has nothing to do with it. Her husband's testimony is hearsay.

All goddamned week long I've heard born-again libertarians and born-again
federalists on the left ask over and over "Do you want the government
intruding on marriage?" and "Do you want government intruding on personal
liberty?" and similar red herrings related to jurisdiction of state and
federal authorities.

In the opinion of this libertarian those are the wrong questions. The real
questions should be, "In the absence of explicit directions who's the boss?"
and "As a general proposition (ignoring Terri's severe incapacitation)
should the government protect innocent life?"

Barring the "three-person" idea which apparently only you have heard, the
answer to the first question, I believe, should be the family, and if
there's no consensus there the government should err on the side of life.
This is based on morals and common sense, as well as the constitution
("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "...government to secure
these liberties."

To the second quesion I'd say "Yes, of course." Even Libertarians must
breathe a sigh of relief when the FBI catches a serial killer, or when any
branch of government intrudes on or prevents malicious or negligent actions
that result in unnecessary deaths. It's called law and order.

Of course you could argue that Terri and everyone else is better off, and I
would agree. I just don't like the way it was done, how the decision was
made.

Mike Murray

2005-04-01, 5:58 pm

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.235.24.78
X-Trace: sv3-bxoTXZ2/aiYNXVHvZ7hgCyLIV+tBFfLk4RkuJQ+IGIJxeoJo1vkNFgOclr+rjXtBFGR7A5riLVNBsTr!5P153hkwLM2t/fUiNL8LQbDSufC+DJQQbikU/gpf5NJDkDcFNT/HGzOszttd54BzHSy+Fwzs2XNt!/e5VqOs4yrwLXsE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cablespeedwa.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@cablespeedwa.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.31
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com rec.games.chess.politics:270850

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:32:17 -0500, "Angelo De Pa1ma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

>Two more points on your "three witness" claim: Had he heard her say this,
>her brother would probably have acted differently. I also find it amazing
>that a person no older than 25 would tell not one, not two, but THREE people
>that she'd want the plug pulled if she turned into a zucchini. 25-year-olds
>just don't think about death, or themselves being in that circumstance.

From what I've read, she said it in the context of watching a newscast
about someone on life support.

quote:

>Her husband's testimony is hearsay.

Wouldn't it be "hearsay" if her husband reported his brother told him
she said it? Her husband was directly reporting what she said.

quote:

>Barring the "three-person" idea which apparently only you have heard,

I think this is part of the testimony at the *trial* -- a matter of
public record.

Paul Rubin

2005-04-01, 5:58 pm

Date: 01 Apr 2005 10:00:15 -0800
Message-ID: <7x1x9ucr80.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Lines: 47
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com
X-Trace: news.spies.com 1112378415 64.62.206.2 (1 Apr 2005 10:00:15 -0800)
Path: dwarf.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed-3001.bay.webtv.net!news.spies.com!not-for-mail
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com rec.games.chess.politics:270851

"Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> writes:

quote:

> Two more points on your "three witness" claim: Had he heard her say this,
> her brother would probably have acted differently. I also find it amazing
> that a person no older than 25 would tell not one, not two, but THREE people
> that she'd want the plug pulled if she turned into a zucchini. 25-year-olds
> just don't think about death, or themselves being in that circumstance. I'm
> 50 and I only told my wife my preference (PULL THE DAMNED PLUG!) this past
> week.

The three people were supposedly all in the room at the time. The
situation was her grandmother-in-law had just died after being on a
respirator. It's normal for even a 25-yo to speak about death in such
a context. However, it was Michael Schiavo's brother, not Terri
Schiavo's, who remembered this. From the St. Petersburg Times:

It was a somber family gathering in the days after Michael Schiavo's
grandmother died in 1988. Doctors had tried to revive the woman
despite her written directive that she not be resuscitated.

As family talked at a luncheon after her death, someone recalled Terri
Schiavo speaking her mind.

"Terri made mention at that conversation that, "If I ever go like
that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept
alive on a machine,"' Scott Schiavo, Michael Schiavo's brother, told
lawyers years afterward.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/n...shes_reca.shtml

Terri Schiavo's parents also testified under oath (later recanted)
that they wanted to keep Terri breathing even if it was against her
wishes. They said if Terri got diabetes and needed to have her limbs
amputated one by one, they would do it. That if she then needed
open-heart surgery, they would do that. Frankly that sounds far more
ghoulish to me than pulling the plug.

The most informative summary is the guardian ad litem's report:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/.../1203galrpt.pdf

since most of the "news" reports have been awful.

Meanwhile, Pope JP2 has just chosen not to return to the hospital,
i.e. he's decided that he's ready to pass on, rather than end up like
Schiavo, still breathing from being connected up to machinery, but
nonfunctional with no hope of recovery. I figure that if anyone can
say what official Catholic doctrine on such matters is, he's the guy.

Tyrone Slothrop

2005-04-01, 5:58 pm

Angelo De Pa1ma wrote:

quote:

> "Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote
>
on[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I never heard this until you posted it (twice). If this is true it

changes

quote:

> quite a bit about this case.
>
> However, as much as I wish it were true I doubt it is.

Believing that the testimony didn't happen is irrelevant because it is
a matter of court record. In the 2000 trial, Judge George Greer relied
on the testimony of five people on Terri's wishes.

Angelo De Pa1ma

2005-04-07, 6:07 pm

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote

quote:

> In the case at hand, three people heard Terri say what she wanted,
> including
> her brother. This is what the court made its decision on, not just on
> Michael's testimony.

quote:

> Cheers,
> Bama Brian
> Libertarian

parrthenon@cs.com

2005-04-07, 6:08 pm

The last estimate I saw was that it cost around $80,000 a year to keep
Terri alive on Medicare.

Mike Murray

2005-04-07, 6:08 pm

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:38:06 GMT, sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

quote:

>When we reach the situation where thousands if not millions of people
>are being kept alive through a feeding tube or a respirator, somebody
>will have to pay for all this.

Think outside the box, as it were.

I believe an article similar to the following appeared in the Atlantic
sometime in the mid-1970s.

http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/philosoph...orage/death.htm

Mike Nolan

2005-04-07, 6:08 pm

sloan@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) writes:

quote:

>Schiavo Case: Social and Financial Issues

There is no record of Terry Schiavo having ever been a member of the
United States Chess Federation, or even knowing how to play chess.

Find something more relevant to post about, Sam.
--
Mike Nolan

sgdunn

2005-04-07, 6:08 pm

That was the other fiction that became important once Michael Schiavo
started making medical decisions, ostensibly on Terri's behalf. I was
thinking back to the legality of putting her on life support (with the
intent to charge big bucks for it) in the first place.

quote:

> The fiction was that her husband was legally, morally, and in fact
> fulfilling her wishes. Lawyers love stuff like this -- "tesimony,"
> "depositions," blah blah blah. In other words, bullshit. Anyone can get up
> and say anything under oath or otherwise. Scientifically speaking, Terri

had

quote:

> no living will, so her wishes could never be known. End of story.
>
> Let's suppose a different, wealthy, single Terri with three children died
> intestate. Normally the probate courts would split the money among her

three

quote:

> kids. What would the court's reaction be if one of the children stepped
> forward and claimed that Terri had told him that he was to get all the
> inheritance because (name the reason). The claim would be laughed out of
> court. "But that's what Terri wanted!!" It's not unheard of for heirs to
> make up stuff like this. Nor is it unheard of for a husband to wish his

wife

quote:

> would go away.
>
> Or let's say that Terri experienced a similar cardiovascular event, had

been

quote:

> resucitated sooner but nevertheless slipped into a coma. From the brain
> scans and other signs the doctors figure she has a 50% chance of regaining
> consciousness and a 50% chance of remaining in a coma for the rest of her
> life. However, she has to stay at least a month on a respirator to know

for

quote:

> sure. But her husband claims, as in this case, that Terri never wanted to

quote:

> on a respirator for any reason, or any length of time. He demands the
> respirator be turned off. Would they unplug her? I would hope not, but

after

quote:

> the last two weeks you never know.
>
> So really this case came down to a point of law -- a rather brutal one if
> you ask me -- rather than a point of fact. I say brutal because I could

not

quote:

> imagine what I'd do if a big cop was standing there, preventing me from
> giving my dying child a drink of water.
>

I'm glad I've never been in that situation.

quote:

> No doubt the final result was best for everyone. In fact everybody

concerned

quote:

> would have been far better off had she died 15 years ago. But the way the
> end was achieved was kind of eerie, barbaric, heartless. Terri would have
> received better treatment -- and a lot more sympathy from the left -- had
> she been a serial killer awaiting her just punishment on death row.

quote:

> "sgdunn" <sgdunn@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:VfZ2e.90480$755.55167@lakeread05...
consent[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
card[vbcol=seagreen]
amount[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
unconcious,[vbcol=seagreen]
copays[vbcol=seagreen]
It[vbcol=seagreen]
wife[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
care[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

twisok

2005-04-07, 6:09 pm

This was a pretty clear case of the Right to Pain and Misery (RPM)
folks losing control of someone they wanted to keep around to torment
indefinitely, then literally making a federal case out of it.

tw
www.reasontofreedom.com

mjoann

2005-04-07, 6:09 pm

twisok wrote:

quote:

> This was a pretty clear case of the Right to Pain and Misery (RPM)
> folks losing control of someone they wanted to keep around to torment
> indefinitely, then literally making a federal case out of it.

Funny, the right to die people (who you seem to be supporting by
default,) claim there was no pain and Terri was incapable of registering
the torment of being dehydrated and starved.

mjoann

Mike Murray

2005-04-07, 6:09 pm

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:08:57 GMT, mjoann <xtcmusicfan@netscape.com>
wrote:

quote:

>twisok wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Funny, the right to die people (who you seem to be supporting by
>default,) claim there was no pain and Terri was incapable of registering
>the torment of being dehydrated and starved.

Funny, the duty to live people, while continutally holding out the
possibility that Terri was marginally or occasionally conscious, never
mentioned the possibility that she might have been in pain or agony or
panic when in this state, and unable to articulate this. (FWIW, I
believe she was not conscious at any of these times)

twisok

2005-04-07, 6:09 pm

That's why we need to free Jack Kevorkian and what he represents. It's
the humane option I'm looking to make legal.

tw
www.reasontofreedom.com

twisok

2005-04-07, 6:09 pm

mjoann

2005-04-07, 6:09 pm

twisok wrote:

quote:

> This was a pretty clear case of the Right to Pain and Misery (RPM)
> folks losing control of someone they wanted to keep around to torment
> indefinitely, then literally making a federal case out of it.

Funny, the right to die people (who you seem to be supporting by
default,) claim there was no pain and Terri was incapable of registering
the torment of being dehydrated and starved.

mjoann

Will Brink

2005-04-07, 9:53 pm

In article <424C890E.8050701@netscape.com>,
mjoann <xtcmusicfan@netscape.com> wrote:

quote:

> Rightard Whitey wrote:
>
>
>
> The idea that her husband should control her life is still absurd even
> if it wasn't a recent marriage. From what I've read, they got engaged 6
> months after meeting. They were only married five years, and they were
> still basically kids. The bond of a five year, very young marriage is
> completely different from a 20+ year life partnership. She may have even
> been looking to leave him, and given the record of modern marriages,
> most likely would have divorced him long before now if she hadn't
> collapsed. The only people who still held her first in their lives were
> her parents and they should have had more say than the man she knew for
> less than 7 years.

Talk about some pseudo bullshit logic to give her right-to-life idiot
parents the right to keep their carrot of a daughter on machines. The
only true tragedy is the poor SOB had to fight with these retards in the
courts and they had to starve her instead of giving her a shot if
morphine and letting her go out fast. We treat our f-ing animals better
then we treat each other. Get a clue

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink

2005-04-07, 9:53 pm

In article <7t8p411llilvhgkt7bpg9u996e3a0umemg@4ax.com>,
Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:

quote:

>
> 27 years old is still a kid? I thought adulthood began at 18 or 21 or
> something like that. What planet are you from?

Planet Moron it would appear...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

mjoann

2005-04-07, 9:53 pm

Will Brink wrote:

quote:

> In article <7t8p411llilvhgkt7bpg9u996e3a0umemg@4ax.com>,
> Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Planet Moron it would appear...
>

No, planet Adult. When you grow up, you will learn that 27 is still
incredibly immature.

mj

Will Brink

2005-04-08, 5:58 pm

In article <nqGdnS7n9Kt0O9HfRVn-pw@garden.net>,
"Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

> The fiction was that her husband was legally, morally, and in fact
> fulfilling her wishes.

All courts agreed with him. End of story. Next retard please speak up.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

twisok

2005-04-11, 5:59 pm

That's why we need to free Jack Kevorkian and what he represents. It's
the humane option I'm looking to make legal.

tw
www.reasontofreedom.com

sgdunn

2005-04-11, 5:59 pm

quote:

> The fiction was that her husband was legally, morally, and in fact
> fulfilling her wishes. Lawyers love stuff like this -- "tesimony,"
> "depositions," blah blah blah. In other words, bullshit. Anyone can get up
> and say anything under oath or otherwise. Scientifically speaking, Terri

had

quote:

> no living will, so her wishes could never be known. End of story.
>
> Let's suppose a different, wealthy, single Terri with three children died
> intestate. Normally the probate courts would split the money among her

three

quote:

> kids. What would the court's reaction be if one of the children stepped
> forward and claimed that Terri had told him that he was to get all the
> inheritance because (name the reason). The claim would be laughed out of
> court. "But that's what Terri wanted!!" It's not unheard of for heirs to
> make up stuff like this. Nor is it unheard of for a husband to wish his

wife

quote:

> would go away.
>
> Or let's say that Terri experienced a similar cardiovascular event, had

been

quote:

> resucitated sooner but nevertheless slipped into a coma. From the brain
> scans and other signs the doctors figure she has a 50% chance of regaining
> consciousness and a 50% chance of remaining in a coma for the rest of her
> life. However, she has to stay at least a month on a respirator to know

for

quote:

> sure. But her husband claims, as in this case, that Terri never wanted to

quote:

> on a respirator for any reason, or any length of time. He demands the
> respirator be turned off. Would they unplug her? I would hope not, but

after

quote:

> the last two weeks you never know.
>
> So really this case came down to a point of law -- a rather brutal one if
> you ask me -- rather than a point of fact. I say brutal because I could

not

quote:

> imagine what I'd do if a big cop was standing there, preventing me from
> giving my dying child a drink of water.
>

I'm glad I've never been in that situation.

quote:

> No doubt the final result was best for everyone. In fact everybody

concerned

quote:

> would have been far better off had she died 15 years ago. But the way the
> end was achieved was kind of eerie, barbaric, heartless. Terri would have
> received better treatment -- and a lot more sympathy from the left -- had
> she been a serial killer awaiting her just punishment on death row.

quote:

> "sgdunn" <sgdunn@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:VfZ2e.90480$755.55167@lakeread05...
consent[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
card[vbcol=seagreen]
amount[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
unconcious,[vbcol=seagreen]
copays[vbcol=seagreen]
It[vbcol=seagreen]
wife[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
care[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

twisok

2005-04-11, 5:59 pm

mjoann

2005-04-11, 5:59 pm

twisok wrote:

quote:

> This was a pretty clear case of the Right to Pain and Misery (RPM)
> folks losing control of someone they wanted to keep around to torment
> indefinitely, then literally making a federal case out of it.

Funny, the right to die people (who you seem to be supporting by
default,) claim there was no pain and Terri was incapable of registering
the torment of being dehydrated and starved.

mjoann

Mike Murray

2005-04-11, 5:59 pm

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:08:57 GMT, mjoann <xtcmusicfan@netscape.com>
wrote:

quote:

>twisok wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Funny, the right to die people (who you seem to be supporting by
>default,) claim there was no pain and Terri was incapable of registering
>the torment of being dehydrated and starved.

Will Brink

2005-04-11, 9:54 pm

In article <7t8p411llilvhgkt7bpg9u996e3a0umemg@4ax.com>,
Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:

quote:

>
> 27 years old is still a kid? I thought adulthood began at 18 or 21 or
> something like that. What planet are you from?

Planet Moron it would appear...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

mjoann

2005-04-11, 9:54 pm

Will Brink wrote:

quote:

> In article <7t8p411llilvhgkt7bpg9u996e3a0umemg@4ax.com>,
> Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Planet Moron it would appear...
>

No, planet Adult. When you grow up, you will learn that 27 is still
incredibly immature.

mj

Will Brink

2005-04-11, 9:54 pm

In article <424C890E.8050701@netscape.com>,
mjoann <xtcmusicfan@netscape.com> wrote:

quote:

> Rightard Whitey wrote:
>
>
>
> The idea that her husband should control her life is still absurd even
> if it wasn't a recent marriage. From what I've read, they got engaged 6
> months after meeting. They were only married five years, and they were
> still basically kids. The bond of a five year, very young marriage is
> completely different from a 20+ year life partnership. She may have even
> been looking to leave him, and given the record of modern marriages,
> most likely would have divorced him long before now if she hadn't
> collapsed. The only people who still held her first in their lives were
> her parents and they should have had more say than the man she knew for
> less than 7 years.

Will Brink

2005-04-12, 6:01 pm

In article <nqGdnS7n9Kt0O9HfRVn-pw@garden.net>,
"Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:

quote:

> The fiction was that her husband was legally, morally, and in fact
> fulfilling her wishes.

All courts agreed with him. End of story. Next retard please speak up.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

StanB

2005-04-13, 4:04 am

"Will Brink" <WillBrink@NOSPAM-Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WillBrink-44AAB9.18181707042005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

quote:

> Talk about some pseudo bullshit logic to give her right-to-life idiot
> parents the right to keep their carrot of a daughter on machines. The
> only true tragedy is the poor SOB had to fight with these retards in the
> courts and they had to starve her instead of giving her a shot if
> morphine and letting her go out fast. We treat our f-ing animals better
> then we treat each other. Get a clue

Yes, the ghoulish attempt to keep her cadaver alive borders on what the
Soviets did with Lenin.