PINELLAS PARK --A state judge on Friday temporarily blocked the removal of the feeding tube for severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo as legal wrangling continued over efforts by congressional Republicans to keep her alive.

Pinellas Circuit Court Chief Judge David Demers ordered that the feeding tube remain in place past a 1 p.m. deadline while fellow Judge George Greer, who is presiding over the Schiavo case, deals with conflicting legal issues.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-318schiavo,0,2720746.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Nevermind. My sister-in-law at the courthouse there says that Greer just ordered the tube removed now anyway.

I just want to pose this as a "what-if" with no consideration given to the issue but rather the process.

What if this were a situation where the liberals were attempting to allow a woman to have an abortion and there was wrangling over both sides of the issue, and it was aas hotly contested as it is in this case?

Now, suppose that the situation was that the courts have ordered the abortion stopped. The pro-abortion people pull all kinds of legal stunts to get the abortion done. Perhaps, they find a congressional committee to issue a subpoena that would compel there to be an abortion, etc. You get my point. Just pick a topic and reverse the roles and tell me that you would applaud the other side for all the fancy legal maneuvers. On a simpler level, would you llike it if you were in a car accident and the other side engaged in some fancy lawyering to keep from paying you.

Think about the Pledge of Allegiance case and how angry people are that two words might be stricken from it. That was a simple lawsuit that was filed, won and successfully appealed until it reached the Supreme Court. Even then, it wasn't dismissed on the merits but, rather, on lack of standing. What happens if standing isn't an issue?

This has begun to have nothing to do with the law. It has become a freak show because of all the allegations and counter-allegations and suppositions and innuendoes.

There is only one person that can speak to the motives of Michael Schiavo and that is Michael Schiavo. Not one single person who has stated an opinion about his motives has one shred of actual knowledge about those motives. It is all supposition and speculation. We tend to dismiss his statements because we don't agree with them or we want him to be evil, but the truth of the matter is that we don't know anything for certain. However, he has managed to prove to multiple judges what his and Terri's intentions are regardless of how you feel about those intentions.

Yes, if Terri Schiavo dies, it will be a tragedy as it is when anyone dies. However, at some point, the rule of law has to mean something. All the congressional hearings in the world cannot do anything about that.

That's ridiculous, and you made it ridiculous by making it backwards, that a judge would protect life but the people would clamor for killin'

Your entire statement comes down to this, and I ask you to reconsider: "If a judge says it, it shall be so, no matter what the implications or consequences, and no matter whether the decree was arrived at justly"

This latest Greer ruling can still be appealed.

I believe he has only gotten one judge to go alone with this. Not to mention, his motivations are VERY important ... since this is "about" what he claims Terri said. Removal of the tube is based on his claims as to what she wanted.

Prisoners who are to be executed get a hell of a lot more procedural protection. She should at least get the federal habeas hearing that the Martinez bill would provide.

Incidentally, why does it not surprise me in the least that Cedartroll wants to exterminate the subhuman? (See original thread below.)

SteveL wrote: "I just want to pose this as a "what-if" with no consideration given to the issue but rather the process...[snip stupid analogy]

Thats got to be the most backasswards logic I think I've ever read. Sheesh.

his motivations are VERY important

Of course his motivations are important, but what are they?

I don't have a strong opinion on this case, but I have found that conservatives tend to make rather accusatory statements that don't mean anything on their face. For example, in what was otherwise an excellent post, Ace presented the fact that the Michael Schiavo has a new family and the fact that there was a large malpractice award.

But ...

1. Family - So? Does this mean he had a family prior? What would having a new family necessarily have to do with leaving his ex-wife to be taken care of solely by her family? It may be relevant, but stating this as some sort of smoking gun is not compelling.

2. The money - from what I understand, it's gone. So stating this as a motivation is disingenuous.

This is what puzzles me about the case. Proponents of Terry Schiavo's will to live demonize the man's motives, but don't really present a compelling reason why he is doing what he is doing. And while I agree with the concept of "let her parents take care of her instead of starving her" on its face, I still tend to have caution about what I don't know about the specifics of the case, as well as marvel at conservatives chucking all the typically exhorted declarations of due process, states rights etc.

Before I get flamed, I'm not asserting that I want Schiavo to die, I just remained very skeptical of the popular arguments used against her husband, as well as the tactics and rhetoric in this case.

"Does this mean he had a family prior? " is supposed to end with "prior to Terry's illness?", as in, was he cheating on his wife and wanted her out of the picture.

The parents offered to take her care onto themselves and unburden Michael Schiavo completely, but he still refused.

Now her mother and father have to know their daughter is dying, and know that she is suffering, yet will be unable to see or touch her for the last time.

I hope that inhuman son of a bitch gets sick, and I hope his children learned enough from this episode to let him die miserably rather than offer him even the minimal care required to keep him alive.

Bill--check the comments by Jack at 1:50 and 2:14 in the "Calling All Liberal Bloggers" thread below. Some new evidence (to me) about Michael Schiavo's motivations.

It appears to me that the parents are much more invested in the care of their daughter, and thus, I believe them. Michael has let her teeth rot, she's gotten bedsores, and he has denied her visits by a priest. I don't know WHAT his motivations are- I certainly don't understand them.

The Religious Right faction of America appears to want each death involving a person whose condition makes them unable to think for themselves put under Right to Life wishes. They appear to want to make a good portion of the 2.5 million deaths happening in America as legalistic, expensive to adjudicate, and prolonged as Death Penalty criminal cases.

The Living Will has been challenged by those folks in other cases, and only 15% of Americans currently have one.

Be VERY CAREFUL of what you wish for! This is using the Schiavo case as a way of taking control away from all families and ill individuals that do not believe as the Religious Right does and put it in the Federal Governments hands. Schiavo and 200,000 more of that 2.5 million who are vegetative, end stage brain cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons end stage dementia, and the severely mentally ill that all eventually die of something just like us.

Right now, the Religious Right has the reins of Federal Power, and they want this choice taken from individuals, their doctors and families, even their state courts....and made like the criminal death penalty...where the Feds have final say after millions in costs. RTL fanatics would say "fine" - we have the power to impose our beliefs - and we say no one will die before every heroic measure is taken, no plugs pulled.

What if the public tires of the Religious Right ordering their lives, Hillary & Co come into power, but then HIllary's people control the Federal institutions the Right to Lifers established to control all end of life decisions???

Reminders:

1.Schiavo has been in a bed in a vegetative coma for 15 years. Her condition, half her brain dead and rotted away, would have qualified her as brain dead in several states standards. The video is cut n' paste, not showing reality. Like the filmakers editing to show Ed the Talking Horse figuring out the stable bill by clomping his hoof.

2. There is no money left. She has been indigent for 4 years, her case, legal and medical, has already cost Florida taxpayers several million.

3. Her father, when informed she might die from thrombosis - clots forming in her inactive legs and arms - said her living was so important that he wished the doctors to cut off her legs and arms, if need be - to buy her even a week of extra life that only God should be allowed to take. That is on record. Swell Dad!

4. She, or her husk since there is no cognitive brain matter left, exists with bedsores but no pain meds because she cannot feel pain. Lack of saliva has caused "dry teeth" and extensive dental decay.

5. Death by dehydration/malnutrition is the preferred way out for competant end-stage cancer patients and others with awful other terminal conditions who retain full awareness at the end. That and suicide, or directed use of opiates even if it hastens their death. Doctors talk of all three ways as "good, painless departures" along with what they say ironically is the "Senior's best friend" - gentle pneumonia.

******The real question is individual. Imagine you have a heart attack in the next 10 minutes. No Living Will? Would you wish your husk to remain slowly rotting out in a bed for 15 years with another 30 years possible if your brain - the part of it that was all you - your memories, feelings, personality -was dead?? *********

I have known people that reached end stage cancer and decided to go peacefully by dehydration, by saying they wanted the final morphine coma. I have heard ministers, whose duties are pastoral, not ideological, warn individuals and families that in cases unlike Sciavo's where pain is felt, heroic measures will lead to a horrific prolonged death from bedsore septicemia or cancer hitting the spine and causing convulsions so violent that the bones snap. With the patient going out finally after the screams weaken.

It's not just Schiavo, it's 200,000 others similar to her that die every year, many in great pain, with a total loss of individual or family dignity - that the followers of the "Cult of Life" wish to keep alive at all costs...

I get SUCH a "rusty yates" vibe off the husband in this case. Ugh.

SeeDubya -

Those two comments by Jack are pretty compelling ...

Life is the precious gift from God for believers and nonbelievers. Life is given to live one time, despite it up and down, and no one has right to take it. People, taking life, commit sin if they religious or left to live with their consciousness if they atheist. This case is complicated with many variables, which directly influence the decision of life and death for Terri. Woman can't defend herself due to her conditions, although there are family, husband, and society: judicial system, political officials, and common people.
Family, friends, and now all people, concerned with her life, fighting for her life. Her health and life conditions weren’t presented fair to the public, which resulted in dual opinion and last one include political bureaucrats as well. Her husband, who claims his love and knowledge of what is best, has power as her guardian. Well, his power already lost, when he left house and started new life with other woman. If he cared enough he would be there with her, in happiness and in sorrow. I believe, morally, he doesn’t have anything to say despite the legal rights (he didn’t divorced her? right). Parents are the closest people, her mother and her father; they are the one to decide what is better for their daughter. Not this kind of “husband”, who lives only with healthy woman but leaves her at unwell.
Technological innovations in medicine do a miracle, support, prolong, and bring life to people. There are advantages and disadvantages of such medicine. Such therapy has unusual outcome and circumstances, which sometime is unfamiliar in their application, raise public opinion, and involves issues, associated with the judicial system. I am not aware if there any law that explains such case. I believe that religion shouldn’t go along with the politic. Faithful in God know he give life and he will take, and if medicine able to prolong life, there is the reason for that. It might not know for us, but know for the suffered individual.
One man, suffered from cancer was able to resolve his private business, which was achieved with the state-of-art therapy. So, we need this time and there is a ground why we receive this time. Although there is other side of story, life was prolonged for one woman, suffered from cancer, in order to see her family last time, but she paid for this a horrifying pain couple weeks. Family felt guilty seeing suffering of their close person. Not always known when best time to leave this world is.

Bill--yeah, plus remember he turned down a million bucks the other day from some pro-stem-cell dude.

I'm getting out of here before the flaming Cedar overtakes the forum.

Here is the least inflammatory summary of the Terry Schiavo tragedy that I have been able to find:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

A whole lot of people are really worked up about this case for purely emotional reasons. Many assertions are made, including some right here in Ace's playground, that don't seem to have a factual basis. The issue is painful as it is without a lot of mis- (and dis-) information floating about.

I don't think Terri is being given the option of going into a morphine coma. And, don't you see a HUGE difference between someone refusing food (as often the case is with the elderly) and someone having their food TAKEN away?

This crap that this is the "REligious right" someone wrecking havoc on America and one's right to die -man - this is about a FAMILY fighting for their child. And, about the power of a man, who has moved on, to decide the fate of a woman for whom he obviously has little regard for.

Carin - Some misperceptions in your post.

1. The teeth perhaps could be treated better, but there is no money. The Court guardian of her estate has reserved the last 50,000 of Terri's for final court costs. She is indigent and has been for 4 years. Perhaps a Religious Right dentist would treat her for free, but such folks are in no hurry to give freebie dental care to the ten's of thousands of idigent eldery in nursing homes who also have major dental needs. This is America. We have no universal health care and limited dental access for all indigent people.

2. Bedsores just don't happen from neglect. They regularly happen in most years-long bedridden people despite superb care. Christopher Reeve had the platinum-plated Cadillac version of care and assisted living.

He died from complications from an infection arising from one of his many (treated) bedsores.

3. The money the Schindlers are using to fight Michael Schiavos wishes comes from Religious Right churches. Several fanatics have tried getting in despite his wishes to try bedside "healing prayer" rituals.....one RTL nurse swore that she heard Terri's husk praying with her - a miracle from Jesus Christ himself.....which unfortunately was right before neurologists examined her and found her like expected of anyone missing the entire cerebral cortex of their brain.....completely unresponsive to stimula in a repeatable way.

Michael Schiavo is right to be very leery of a Right to Life fanatic preacher or two that seek to gain entry at will to Schiavo's hospice room. They have an agenda to advance. Just as he would be leery if he was fighting for her life if she still had a brain and a "Death with Dignity" doctor appeared at his doorstep and said he wished to conduct an examination to support his unfriendly court petition.

Why doesn't someone organize a million man/mom/whatever march in Florida. Put a million people between Terry's door and whatever jackass is going to pull the tube?

There's a lot of puffery on both sides of this issue, with some in MSM saying she is on "life support" etc, which is not remotely true, and things like that video which don't really show that much- even critical brain injuries can show some response to stimuli, and can often be mistaken for more than it is.

However, every medical possibility to examine condidtion should be performed, including MRI and PET scans, and evaluations from non-partisans in the field. Even if the parts of her brain that allow higher functions are completely gone, the parts that recognize hunger are most likely still functional, and thus in this case it would be a very cruel death. Especially with immediate family members ready to take over her care-giving responsibilities, I think that the decision should be given to her parents

Hey cedarford, this whole thing kind of messes up the 'master race' doesnt it? Why next thing you know the religious right is going to be defending the elderly and the mentally disabled and the poor. Those bastards! We need to nip this 'Cult of Life' in the bud before our plans for the great Aryan nation are foiled! Keep up the good work. Seig Heil!

http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html

recall petition for judge "Kill the inconvenient" Greer

spread it around.

johnny: Michael won't allow even a MRI. Res ipsa loquitur.

As for Cedarford, does this latest crapulence show he's actually a Nazi, or is he just the illiterate moron we know and loathe? Open question.

Carin - Writes it isn't about the religious right wanting all deaths drawn out as long as possible "this is about a FAMILY fighting for their child."

That would be the FAMILY that was talking about the possiblity of having to cut off all the limbs of a daughter in a persistent vegetative state, the absolute NEED to mutilate her so if it could avoid thrombosis and extend her life?

The same FAMILY that is surrounded by Religious Right fanatics and talking about miracles and prayers restoring her missing brain matter? Who go around the Born Again Circuit fundraising and saying laws are needed to ensure Life is the only choice for people in Schiavo's condition?

The Schindlers or their handlers are Religious Right fanatics, and if we are not careful, they will take advantage of American's emotions to impose their religious views on the whole country by mandating all end of life matters be subject to the Federal Governments decrees.

Then guess how things would go if the Religious right goes down from over-reaching into family matters, but liberal Dems then take advantage of the expanded Federal Gov't powers the Religious Right pushed for and got??

CedarTARD,

Shut the fuck up you blathering idiot. We are trying to have a serious discussion about this and everything you've posted is made up, a lie, or a half truth. Next thing you know you'll interweave one of your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories into this.

It must really suck to be you.

yep, so I've heard, which further reinforces my conclusion,

Excuse me, dehydration is painful.

I hate this case. I am disgusted by the idea that a woman, who may or may not be in a permanent vegetative state (we don't know because the tests haven't been peformed), and who has been neglected, could be starved and dehydrated to death, unable to express any objection. I find the parents troubling - they're so desperate to believe Terry Shiavo can be helped that I'm not certain they're not deluding themselves.

So I've come down on the "don't pull the tube!" side because it's such a horrible death, and if she's not brain dead, it's a death her husband should burn in hell for inflicting. If we're going to err, let's err on the side of reverence for life.

What did I tell you! CedarTARD did it. He managed to concoct some conspiracy. Its probably KKKarl Rove steering this ship. Right asshat?

Spewfan -

Shut me up, you little cocksucker.

As usual, you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of an issue. For a man, I have so far failed to see a single post of yours that doesn't read like an hysterical female moaning she is about to be overcome by an attack of the vapors and faint dead away by comments she - just - feels - awful & beastly.

Rather than piss and whine, take a testosterone shot and call me in the morning.

Cedartroll: hates Jews, Asians, blacks, the disabled, and women.

Anything he's missed?

Incidentally, I think the wierd "staying on your side" business Ace mentioned in his first post is definitely still locked in.

Else why aren't Reynolds et al. posting about this? At least with a link to here...

The tube is out.

Dance, Cedarford, Dance!

Someone,

You forgot to mention The Wealthy™.

I've said my piece before a while back (and got accused of wanting to kill "useless eaters" for my trouble), so I'd just like to repeat Mitchell Morris' call to visit

http://abstractappeal.com

where lawyer Matt Conigliaro has been following the case for years. And, like a good blogger should, he links directly to the court decisions so people can make up their own minds. I haven't seen a better site to understand the legal reasoning involved.

The Schiavo case has long surpassed the McDonalds Coffee Lady case in inaccurate assumptions and "everybody knows" speculation about motives. Try to look beyond Cedarford's involvement here - I know that's hard.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled flaming.

cedarTARD wrote: "Shut me up, you little cocksucker."

I am. Everytime I goad you into being yourself more people tune you out which has the same result. Thanks for playing along.

Like shooting fish in a barrel :)

Incidentally, the Terri Schiavo case is precisely the reason for the graphic on that blue blogad over there on the side of the screen. The face of justice is replaced with the face of death.

Oh, and Cedarford. You didn't say one single thing that is factually correct. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyone else notice the change in the "party of the little guy" lately?

Who is for death over life when the situation is uncertain (Schiavo)? The dems.

Who is for death over life when a potential baby is inconvenient, no matter how repellent the procedure? The dems.

Who is for outing closeted gays that dare to disagree with their agenda? The dems.

Who is fighting tooth and nail to keep minorities from the positions of power like Attorney General and federal courts? The dems.

Who has a former member of the KKK as one of their standard bearers in the senate? The dems.

Who is for establishing into law, different treatment for different ethnic groups? The dems.

Who is for abridging free speech, when that speech offends a certain minority? The dems.

No Spewfan, you are just preaching to your little, small religious right choir.

All the religious right has done with this is make itself scarier to most mainstream Americans.

Millions of Living Wills will be written in the next few weeks from fear that the Right to Life fanatics will meddle or intrude in any family's decisions involving a comatose family member - or fear of tens of millions that they could end up like her and their loved ones and doctors be powerless to intervene against the Religious Right.

Seems time to send in
the US Marshals.

I have read reasoned accounts from both sides saying opposite things, so I fail to understand how anyone (here) can claim to know certain facts. One being - that her brain is fluid. I have read that the proper tests have NOT been done. I have also read that the doctor who testified she was in a vegative state, spent only 45 minutes with her. So, for ME it comes down to who I trust. I stick with the family (although I am very compelled by the writing of Johanson), rather than a man who moved along 10 plus years ago. And, cederford, it's called BRUSHING. The fact that her teeth needed to be removed (when no food is being eaten -no sugar, etc) shows that she has been neglected.

I know ... that religious right is scary ... fighting for life ... praying ... man, they give me the willies.

Cliff: Does the fact that Greer dotted all his 'i's and crossed all his 't's (which, if you haven't noticed, isn't news) mean anything? Well, it means that it's tough to overturn his decision on appeal or collateral attack. Does it mean anything about whether his rulings have been fair, correct, or even not ideologically predetermined? Hell no.

Oops, right. Cedartroll also hates Christians! How could I forget.

Cedarford's just the ass that keeps on farting, isn't he? As for the rest of the world; well, if the Christians are right, Terri Schiavo will soon be in heaven and certain Good People Who Do Everything Right will be wondering why their toenails are melting. So, should we hope the Christians are just delusional worshippers of Binky the Space Clown?

God, Cedarford, it's so nice to see you back.

1) Let's see...living wills fix everything. Check.
2) Right-to-Lifers (Christian conservatives/pro-lifers) are using the woman as a tool. Check.
3) Right-to-Lifers (anti-death penalty/don't know what political leaning people) use the courts to prevent the death penalty being carried out. And they are using the criminal as the tool. Check.
4) Conspiracies lie behind everything. Check.
5) You're a video expert. Check.
6) You're a doctor. Check.
7) You're a socialogist. Check.
8) It's all political. The actual players in this dance aren't fighting a personal battle. Check.
9) Right to Lifers are after the same thing as those that want socialized medicine. Check.
10) You are fucking insane. Check.

Got it.

I guess the woman's parents are pawns and are unaware of their desires.

Now here is a little chuckle for you, Cedarford, since I think you could use it.

This week's Onion Word on the Street:

Question: Last week, the Senate made moves toward approving pro-business legislation that will make it harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy. What do you think?

Funniest Answer: "This is a victory for good, hard-working, God-fearing credit-card companies everywhere. Dry your eyes, Citibank, help is on the way!"

Cedarford - I can certainly understand a judge wanting to bring an end to any drawn out proceeding, but some say this guy has refused to allow further testing that might be important in determining whether or not she is really in a permanent vegeatative state and that this determination is what legally allows her feeding tube to be removed. If even congress has expressed an interest in looking more at the situation (though that doesn't mean a great deal, it does mean something), I do not understand why this judge feels it is so urgent that the feeding tube be removed now (and on a weekend too). After all, its not as if she's going anywhere, so what's the big hurry?

Did Cedarford say something?

Does anyone read his drivel at all?

Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?

Cedardouche can suck my agnostic dick.

Jack M:

How'd I do this time? I need to know if I'm living up to your rare gift of bashing-by-proxy.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Please render judgment, no matter how painful. You can even remove the feeding tube, if you like.

KCT,

You are doing great! Can I make a request please?

You know how you write dirty songs? There's an old Ramone's song call "Sheena is a Punk Rocker".

Would you mind writing one called "Cedar is a Cock Sucker?"

I think it's a potential number one.

After all, we already know Cedar is an actual "number two".

Thanks!

Jack M:

May I ask your permission to use a different song, but on which will yield the same result? I have just the title in mind. Give me an hour and I shall deliver. But, your permission please.

I humbly ask your approval.

Jack M.

This is my pitiful first attempt. I will try again in the next go around. But this is my first attempt, so I feel compelled to share it, nonetheless.

Song: "Cedartista"
Sung in the melody of "Mona Lisa"

Cedartista, Cedartista, men have named you
You outrank all crazies by a Marxist mile
Is it only 'cause you're lonely we have flamed you
For that Cedartista strangeness in your smile
Does your guile stem from madness, Cedartista
Or has just your brain been ripped apart?

Cogent thoughts have been formed in your cortex
Then they lie there, and they die there
You are mad, you're surreal, Cedartista
You're our trolling loony, lovely work of art

Cedartista....Cedartista

Carin & 72 Virgins - Carin writes: One being - that her brain is fluid. I have read that the proper tests have NOT been done

The neurologists that examined her ordered CT scans. They had a previous series available as well. The results were so clear that Schiavo had suffered a devestating, irreparable injury that their consult concluded that MRIs would not add any positive diagnostic value.

Later, some Right - to -Lifers noted that some other Vegetatives had had MRIs and PET, which maps specific areas in the cerebral cortex firing off indicating brain function or lack thereof to stimuli.

They and some Religious Right doctors then demanded that the court vacate it's decision and rehear the case based on "additional tests needed". Obviously, parties to the suit in favor of letting Schiavo's body die were not in favor of vacating the court decision to do tests the neurologists said was medically unecessary to reach their conclusions.

Still, it wouldn't have hurt to do a "just to be sure" series of free MRIs since the taxpayer pays...It wouldn't have been the 1st time doctors ordered unecessary tests. I agree with 72 Raisins on this. But remember that her whole head could have been empty and a substantial part of the Right to Life people would still fight any cessation in life support.

It is also worth noting that the 17 doctors that said she was not in a vegetative state did so only by looking at the Schindler's carefully edited videotape. The same 17 doctors are affiliated with the religious right and have mostly been involved in other Right to Life issues in the past. I heard the same 17 watched a video of "Mr. Ed" and concluded that he was an unusually intelligent talking horse.

More cedarTARD lies but he may have some first hand experience when he says "But remember that her whole head could have been empty..."

KCTrio,

That's a nicer way of saying Cedar's a cock sucker, but it still gets the point across. Nice job!

Jack M.

As you requested, fine sir:

"Cedar Is a Cock Sucker"
Sung in the style of "Sheena Is a Punk Rocker"

Well, the tin foil hats are on and ready to go
Cedar's leadin' the show now
Their cocks are engorged
And they're going to the Twin Towers hole au go go
Cedar just had to say
What the Jews did that day
Cause New York City really had it comin'
Oh yeah, Oh yeah

Cedar is a cock sucker
Cedar is a cock sucker
Cedar is a cock sucker now
He's a cock cock, a cock sucker
Cock cock, a cock sucker
Cock cock, a cock sucker

KCTrio,

That Rocks! My faith in you as my proxy has proven to be fully justified.

Everytime I skip over one of his posts, I'm going to sing that song. "Cedar is...a cock sucker...Cedar is..a cock sucker..noooowwwww!"

Bravo!

LOL..BrewFan..always reading Cedarford (who is, by the way, a cock sucker) so the rest of us don't have to!

Jack M.

You're killing me. You've got the James Taranto thing down perfectly (you know, what he does every time he mentions Kerry, he links to the words "The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way promised 46 days ago to release his military records"). Taranto even changes things around a bit. It used to say "served in Vietnam."

Now, everytime you mention Cedarford, you should (or we all should) put a little asterisk (*) that hyperlinks to the words "who is, by the way, a cock sucker." I'm not sure you can do that within Ace's comments section, though, like they do on Opinion Journal, but it'd be nice if we could. I suppose it'd suffice merely to add the words as a paranthetical with every mention.

KCT--That's a great idea!

So was it written. So shall it be done.

So people are having different viewpoints concerning this case - what else is new?

Flaming Cedarford and making up ridiculous songs must be the most childish thing I've ever seen in a blog. I hope you're finding yourself very funny. Losers.

Flowerbed

Gee, Flowerbed, sorry to let you down.

I guess the debate here isn't good enough for you, huh. Well, let's see, there's been links to debate posted on this thread, arguments layed out by people of reason, the owner of the site putting in his thoughts, and people of different faiths (and atheists) putting out there thoughts. And, there was a doctor I believe. A couple of lawyers.

And a few trolls. And I do believe Cedartista called a few people some bad names, and they responded back in kind.

And then there's some foul language. And some things people consider funny. And some people talking about their personal experiences.

I guess that's not debate for you. Kind of a strange brrew, but some rather like it here. I guess you don't, but then were classless enoughh to tell us.

Sorry we didn't meet your standards.

And so we're losers. And that's the best you can come up with at 3:41 AM EST?

Loser.

Flowerbed:

The act of coming in, summing up things, then whining, without serving up some examples of higher-level debate (where I guess you must know of) is your idea of raising the bar. Seems to me you did just about what you accused everyone here doing.

I'd say there's more variety and interesting things here than at many other Blogs.

Ace attracts a more diverse mix of comments than other Blogs.

Then if you don't like it, go to one of your higher-level Blogs.

Your assessment rings hollow to me, loser, because the Blogosphere has lower levels of slime than this place does (and the places you hint at are the exception). If there are over 8 million Blogs out there, then where would you put this one? Can't make that judgment, can you?

I suggest you hie yourself over to KOS and there you'll find your enlightened ones. He's the highest traffic site on the Internet for this type of Blog. And the stuff over there is far worse than here. The place is frightening. And they control everything.

At least here people with different viewpoints are allowed to disagree. Go over there as a conservative, and you'll get swarmed and destroyed. Then they'll pull your commenting privaleges. Then you can't do anything but lurk.

Point me to a liberal Blog bereft of name-calling, that has some reasonable amount of traffic, and has this enlightened debat you so crave.

I'll point you to some fairly high-traffic conservative Blogs with comments where there is almost no name calling: Roger L. Simon, Blogs for Bush, Patrick Ruffini, Chrenkoff and Wizbang. Show me a liberal Blog that has that, and I'll go take a look and see how I get treated.

But Ace's Blog is my favorite, even though I love the aforementioned others, because of just the things you don't like.

Change the channel if you don't like it here. Or rather, go get back to you gardening.

All,

Just a few (and redundant) points.

Not all of the neurologists who have seen the video tapes of Terri Schiavo, and who believe that the diagnosis of PVS is incorrect, are part of some VRWC, or "Religious Right" army.

I am one of those neurologists.

Second, despite the impulse to flame Cedarford, his points are very well taken that interference from the legislative and judicial branches of government, with regard to end-of-life, terminal, and heroic medical care may prove ruinous to the civil liberties of us all, no matter how the Terri Schiavo case is ultimately resolved.

The issue with regard to her current medical status is frankly a known, unknown. MRI testing will likely be of little, if any value, in determining either her clinical state. It will demonstrate a pictoral representation of her brain structure, but in this case, there is limited predictive or prognostic significance of those data.

And yes, Michael Schiavo's neutrality and motivations are dubious, but so are Terri Schiavo's parents', as evidenced by their admission they would disregard Terri Schiavo's advance directive even if it unequivocally stated to withdraw nutrition and hydration.

I am sympathetic to those who believe Terri Schiavo is being murdered, or killed. But these issues have been adjudicated repeatedly, and Terri's premorbid declarations are being followed, even if she didn't fully understand the implications of those statements when she made them.

If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, that Terri Schiavo would have wanted heroic and life-sustaining treatment, under any and all circumstances, I have yet to read about it.

If someone can find testimony to this effect, it would benefit this discussion for it to be made available.

MeTooThen:

Thanks for the sobering sumnation. And I take your opinions in your chosen field very seriously, and also your opinions of the other aspects of this case seriously.

And Cedarford did make some good points. But they were larded with bashing of people of faith and smacked of conspiracy theories--which underpins nearly everything thoughtful he posts on this site.

So, this impulse to flame the fellow is not rather done in hot haste; rather, it's done after taking the preponderance of posts by the man and smacking back in kind.

I tried to engage him in a debate on many issues, as have many others. There are men and women of intelligence and thoughtful input that have attempted to engage the bastard, and he won't. He simply asserts his point of view with a mallot, then refuses to reply to input that reubts his viewpoints. I've even agreed with him and he still feels compelled to devolve the conversation down a notch or five.

So, we have one of many choices. We can try to debate him, which almost always ends up fruitless, we can try to ignore him, which ends up leaving us with assailments hurled without a response from us, or we can flame back.

Or we can try to add a bit of the funny factor and do that. LauraW is masterful at that. She has the humor factor higher than anyone I know here, with the exception of Allah and the master of the site, Ace.

Why don't you simply take a random look at some threads on this site, and look at the legacy posts, and then give me your thoughts on my assessment of things with Cedarford. Tell me if you agree or not.

I frankly think you are correct about Cedar's point that this means government intrusion into a private matter; but, cannot that point be made without lugging in the right-to-life slam? That slam is an assault on more than one hundred million Americans that fall into that category. And that's why the point made by Cedarford is not quite tolerable to me. Because to get the point and grant it, I would have to listen to the hatred dripping from almost every post this man makes.

I invite you to provide input, if you should so desire. As to you, I have found you inspiring and someone worthy of respect. And I thank you for that.

Take care, kind sir. And thank you for what you do. I have lower disk problems, and if it weren't for your fellow doctors, I wouldn't be typing this missive. I'd be bed-ridden and unemployed.

MeTooThen,

"and Terri's premorbid declarations are being followed"

This is where your argument falls apart. There is no credible evidence she ever made such a declaration. You need to get beyond the idea that because a judge rules a particular way in the finding of facts that that judge is correct. The repeated adjudication you refer to has been procedural. The judge has refused to allow Terri even an impartial guardian ad litem.

Your statement:

"If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, that Terri Schiavo would have wanted heroic and life-sustaining treatment, under any and all circumstances, I have yet to read about it."

You know she probably never said this as you are probably aware most people would never say any such thing. You also know this is totally irrelavent in the absence of a living will.

Assuming you are a neurologist, what would you offer in the way of information that would cause us to accept your opinion as it differs from the opinions reported here?

Brewfan:

Thank you. You're just the type of person I was mentioning; brilliant, persuasive, and full of verve. And you know how to debate in a civil way, but you don't tolerate jackasses.

Help me on this. You are on of my favorite posters here. Do you agree with my comments regarding Flowerbed? And, do you agree with my comments to MeTooThen about Cedartista?

You are a one-man debate machine. Throw me a lifeline, if you would be so kind.

Brewfan and MeeTooThen (and He Who Shall Not Be Named):

Some brilliant commentary from Hinderaker at Powerline:

But neither the Times nor any other source that I've seen makes explicit what seems to me to be the overriding political reality: If Terri Schiavo slowly starves to death over the next ten days--she would probably expire on or about Easter Sunday--in full view, and with the world's attention focused increasingly on her as her end nears, the political ramifications for the Democrats, should they use their political power to ensure her starvation, would be devastating. It could recast the whole "life" issue, on which the Democrats' stand has been that party's most deeply held belief. So it is no surprise that only a few Democrats have been willing to openly oppose the Republicans' effort to save Mrs. Schiavo's life.

I, personally, am not happy with the procedural aspects of this controversy. I don't like to see Congress intervening in what should be a matter for, at last resort, a state court. But this strikes me as the ultimate illustration of the ancient adage that hard cases make bad law. The facts here are appalling. So it is no surprise that Senators and Congressmen feel that if they have the power to prevent Mrs. Schiavo's death, they should use it.

Kind of shows you how someone can share the view that it is rather creepy to have the government (and the legislative and executive bodies at that) intruding into this case, and at the same time see why they did that. Or at least, what motivated them to intrude. I think Mr. Hinderaker's comments show that one needn't blast a machine gun at all people that don't like what the courts have done to Mrs. Schiavo, and are empathetic at the moves made by the Florida and US Congress, and not all right-to-life crazies.

Can't one see that while in the abstract, the legislative body intruding in a court case, in the concrete example of this it might just be warranted?

And before you think this is just political on the right, then look at Mr. Schiavo's attorney's comments and there you'll find the politicalization from the left of this case. And read Ace's moving summary of this whole affair and you have some ground for tolerance of this behavior by the legislature. Is Ace a right-to-life lunatic? I rather think not. But He Who Shall Not Be Named seems to want to castigate Ace in that camp.

Finally, answer me this: Why is a right-to-life person necessarily crazy? Most I know are people that are trying to preserve life. Some might be extreme, but not all. And that's what I despise; the generalization.

BrewFan,

"Assuming you are a neurologist..."

I am.

With all due respect, if you would care to read my previous comments, you will see that I am suspect of the court's findings in these matters, based on the fact that I believe the court was incorrect in the finding as to Terri Schiavo's clinical state.

"You know she probably never said this as you are probably aware most people would never say any such thing. You also know this is totally irrelavent in the absence of a living will."

Actually, I have no personal knowledge or opinoin as to what Terri Schiavo may have said in the past. I am relying on the many reports of this case to come to the conclusions that I have.

And in fact, many people, having seen or heard of a friend or loved on, lying in a critical state, on a ventilator, or suffering for many months or years, often do say, "After seeing so-and-so like that, don't ever let that happen to me," or "My mom suffered so long, I would never want that for myself."

Furthermore, in the absence of an advance directive for health care, premorbid statements are completely relevant when it comes to the issue of substituted judgment. There is nothing else, in fact, to go on.

Having said that, the issue as to her premorbid statements have, of course beed adjudicated, and repeatedly, the court has found sufficient evidence as to her premorbid wishes.

I appreciate your passion in this case. But your claims have little or no basis in fact or experience.

MeTooThen,

Its obvious you don't have the time or inclination to familiarize yourself with Terri's case so we'll just end the discussion.

KCTrio,

I see a grave injustice being done to Terri and her parents. The only thing I'm capable of doing to help is to try and further the discussion on her behalf. A careful review of my comments will show I have no 'Right to Life' agenda, I am a big proponent of living wills and the right to die with dignity. I even have some sympathy for physician assisted suicide for terminally ill people. What I'm against is the government determining an individual is of no more use to society. If anybody out there has any evidence Terri has a living will, verbal or written, other then from testimony given by people with massive conflicts of interest I might back down. But that hasn't happened and I suspect it won't. The fact that there are people ready willing and able to care for her makes this even more heinous. Ok. I'm off the soapbox for a while.

As regards cedarford he is a wretched human being or a troll of legendary proportions. I suspect the former.

Brewfan:

Thanks for that. Yes, you have tried to move the debate forward. I have also tried to do so, yet I think your comments are more insightful than mine. My thoughts had more to do with the motives of the husband. I did what Ace did; I put myself in the shoes of the husband and asked myself: Would I fight this hard for this? Why wouldn't you hand the right of caretaker over to the parents who obviously want that? He put it brilliantly, saying that the honorable thing to do would be to say that while you don't agree with the parents, it's their daughter and they want to hold on to hope, while the husband wants to get on with his life. Why not do that? What's his crusade?

Wouldn't that be the simplest solution? Then, listen to the vile filth that came from the maw of that fuckface lawyer of his and ask yourself who's being political.

You look at the medical angles, the legal angles and the human angle. I just try and reason through this using simple logic. And the logic all points towards suspect motives. And as to the parents having suspect motives, give me a fucking break. If my daughter were in this position, and her spouse was not interested in keeping the food tube coming and I was, I might tell the court or anyone who asked, "No, I don't care what my daughter wanted, I want her to come back to me." Some people believe in miracles. Now, I'm not saying that I'd necessarily do that, but aren't they being honest? When asked if they'd respect their daughter's wishes, they said NO. That's honesty. What's the motive? Is it sinister, or is it the overpowering desire of the human heart wed to love that those parents have, and perhaps a belief in a Devine being that might just answer their prayers. What is wrong with that? Especially if they are willing to fork over the money to live out their dream.

Who amongst us can listen to the desires of those parents and say "Their motives are suspect." Do you really believe that? Their motives are love of their daughter. If that is a motive to be suspect of, I'd prefer that motive to a motive more reflective of man's baser instincts.

Some observations:

1. MeTooThen - I read in the court case from 2002 that tests had concluded that Schiavo's outer cerebral cortex had died. They also had the CT scans to show the missing area, which had liquified away. You say that a patient cannot survive without a cerebral cortex. But the consulting neurologists say it is so!

2. Randall Terry is again the Schindler family spokesmen. The head of Operation Rescue has launched other efforts to keep PVS patients alive. Even if all family members agreed - as was the case with Nancy Cruzan - Operation Rescue members called the whole family party to murder and were arrested for attempting to storm her room and reconnect life support. Randall Terry also believes a Living Will can and should be challenged in Court if "hope for life" exists or questions about the state of mind of the person writing the will exist. Also if the Will in vague in specifying exact conditions where they would prefer to die.

3. I don't know if a poll has been taken on if people would want to live like Schiavo's body is living..15 years in a vegetative state, 40 more years possible with artificial life support. I suspect such a poll would find the vast majority of Americans fearful and strongly opposed to existing in such a condition for so long.

Given that plurality who would opt out of being kept like Schiavo, why do so many of the same people wish to keep Schiavo's body alive??? I suspect only emotionalism provoked by the misleading video - and treating others differently than yourself to be consonate with what religious leaders say must be done is why.

But the other side is staking ground that unless you are one of the 15% of Americans that has a Living Will, the side of prolonging life at any cost is the only option....And, as for the 15% with Living Wills...they believe many should and must be challenged in court if any questions exist about specifics, possibility the person writing it expressed to anyone second doubts about it, or the state of mind of the person writing it (like, were they already impaired with Alzheimers when it was written).

So the potential exists for any dying to be prolonged, the dying person's estate eaten up by legal costs fighting religious intervenors or dissenting relatives - Living Will or not.

4. The Schindlers have said some very disturbing things in court testimony. That keeping Schiavo alive is the only thing that matters. That any heroic measure is justified. If her limbs developed a condition that threatened her life (thrombosises, gangrene) it would be preferable to cut them all off to save her life than to lose their daughter. That open heart surgery or full cancer treatment should be done if necessary. That they thought God might intervene and give back her body'd brain and fully restore her by a miracle. That most disturbingly, that they so favored "life at all costs" they still would vehemently oppose ending her life even if hypothetically, a letter was uncovered written by her that made her wishes perfectly clear - that said she never wanted to live a vegetative existence.

5. KCTrio refers to what Congress tried to do, and still is trying. It is extremely worrying for our system of governance. Conservative Republicans, motivated by religious zeal and emotion - as well as pure pandering to Right to Life fanatics - are trying to undue significant State Rights w/o debate and legally extend Federal intervenor status to any 3rd Party wishing to challenge a local end of life matter. The Senate has acted more sensibly that the House, attempting to limit "save Terri efforts" to just her - whereas the House wishes to change the whole legal and medical system without debate, passed their bill on voice vote in subcommittee, without recorded vote.

The language in the House Bill, which I haven't read (neither have all but a handful of House members since no copies were given them before their Easter recess) - but according to one critic alarmed at it......leaves the door open to challenge abortions as well as end of life matters in Federal court. And extends the Law to all patients dying without full possession of their mental facilities, hundreds of thousands every year - not just Terri. And allows any person or group that chooses to intervene to have Federal Court standing to do so.

Meaning if Mom has Alzheimers and the family has decided she would not wish to exist on artificial life support but expire naturally without respirators or a feeding machine hookup - then that can be blocked in Federal Court by a Right to Life group or individual - especially if publicity can be gained from a celebrity individual or case...There are rumors this was written so at the behest of Operation Rescue to give them Federal standing in any case they wish to insert themselves into w/o any family member having to agree. (Operation Rescue and other fundamentalist groups regularly get told by the Court they have no standing in coma cases or abortion cases because they have no standing since no person associated with the case directly wants them involved)

It is very disappointing to see the Republican Party abandoning its core principles for expediency in pandering to voters. More abandonment of States Rights. Preferring deficit recklessness over responsible fiscal stewardship of government budgets and the national economy. Drawing down the Navy and Air Force to give drug subsidies for non-means tested seniors. Becoming the Party of international neocon adventurism, open borders, and one-sided free trade with our strategic rival, if not our long-term strategic enemy. The Party of "Praise Jesus, pass me another tax cut, and let your kids pay for it all years later."

BrewFan,

"Its obvious you don't have the time or inclination to familiarize yourself with Terri's case so we'll just end the discussion."

Nice rejoinder.

It's "obvious" that you know nothing of medicine, critical-care neurology, brain injury, end-of-life-care, hospice care, terminal illness, or the legal issues involved in taking care of such patients.

And that's the (very) short list.

In the absence of your adding any substantive or factual information to this discussion, I agree with you.

Whatever.

Cedarford,

I want you to know that I pray for you every day.

Let me ask you a question, if you were to die today and stand before the almighty God and he said to you "cedarford, why should I let you into my heavan?" what would you say? If you're not absolutely sure you're going to heaven when you die, I have some good news for you! But you'll have to wait until your next post to hear it. Have a nice day!
:)

MeeTooThen,

You have always seemed to be a level headed commenter here and based on the fact that your comments regarding Terri were lightweight and, by your own admission, redundant I drew the obvious conclusion that you really weren't interested. You probably don't need me to point out that one could be all the things you claim to be and still be uninformed on a particular matter. Don't be so defensive.

Cedartista:

Nice argument from the heap. From there, you devolve to pure insanity, throwing in flashes of whatever horseshit that you wish to play the theme. You spin a pitiful bunch of mush again. How quaint.

So from an atheist who's against pulling the plug on the woman to a born again Christian wanting to do so, they are the same in your eyes. And then, I'm certain, for extra fun, there's some sinister plot controlling both types of people.

MeTooThen: Tell me where I'm wrong about this guy. Read what he wrote, then what I wrote, and tell me how I'm missing something.

Cedar: I'm singing Cedartista; I don't like the song Jack M requested as much, but that's just my preference of music, nothing personal against Jack, you know.

Brewfan:

Same questions I threw at MeTooThen I'm asking of you.

Your quick thoughts would be appreciated. And, how do you like the songs? Just curious. If you say that you find them bad or distasteful, no problem.

KCTrio - I read your points but disagree with your conclusions. Some areas:

I did what Ace did; I put myself in the shoes of the husband and asked myself: Would I fight this hard for this? Why wouldn't you hand the right of caretaker over to the parents who obviously want that? He put it brilliantly, saying that the honorable thing to do would be to say that while you don't agree with the parents, it's their daughter and they want to hold on to hope, while the husband wants to get on with his life. Why not do that? What's his crusade?

I don't believe you really looked at it from the perspective of a man who could be honoring his wife's wishes, as he understands it. By saying, what's the harm??? You sort of presume Schiavo is so out of it her condition doesn't matter to her one way or the other, so what's the harm in just abdicating any responsibility to her wishes and let her parents happiness be the sole determinant of her fate??

............ Then, listen to the vile filth that came from the maw of that fuckface lawyer of his and ask yourself who's being political.

Lawyers can be scummy. Contrast that lawyer to the Schindlers lawyer saying that just before artificial life support was withdrawn, Terri was trying to mouth the words to her, the lawyer, "Let me live" and crying because she feared dying. If lying unethical scumminess was grounds for disbarring, that bitch cut the cake.

You look at the medical angles, the legal angles and the human angle. I just try and reason through this using simple logic. And the logic all points towards suspect motives. And as to the parents having suspect motives, give me a fucking break. If my daughter were in this position, and her spouse was not interested in keeping the food tube coming and I was, I might tell the court or anyone who asked, "No, I don't care what my daughter wanted, I want her to come back to me." Some people believe in miracles. Now, I'm not saying that I'd necessarily do that, but aren't they being honest?

But if you had looked at the angles, as you claimed to - all the motives fall away. There is no money. Schiavo gets indigent care courtesy of the taxpayer. There is no other woman motive - because he has been open about his need to have a family and a real relationship. The guy has turned down Bible-thumper bribes of 1 million and 10 million to walk away and give Schiavo over to be a totem and figurehead of the Right to Life movement. And the parents being pure and above suspicion? They have said that the only motive they have is Terri's existence gives them pleasure, they cherish her life so much that her wishes don't matter if it came down to that choice.

When asked if they'd respect their daughter's wishes, they said NO. That's honesty. What's the motive? Is it sinister, or is it the overpowering desire of the human heart wed to love that those parents have, and perhaps a belief in a Devine being that might just answer their prayers. What is wrong with that? Especially if they are willing to fork over the money to live out their dream.

First, the Schindlers have no money to afford the 100,000 a year it will take to "live out their dream". Schiavo has been on indigent care courtesy of taxpayers for the last 4 years. The lawsuit money from the hospital dried up. A lawsuit that (unfortunately for them) the hospital had to pay because they succeeded in heroic measures to keep Terri Schiavo alive after a heart attack that would have killed her for sure in the 80's. The Schindlers say that religious people will pay for all Teri needs to keep her forever at the Schinders proposed new "Terri's House" - where all the facilities Terri needs will exist and the Schindlers can meet and pray over her 24/7. I doubt their fantasy is anchored in reality. 2nd, yu ask what is wrong with parents that say they don't care what their daughter wanted as long as she exists for their emotional pleasure?? Plenty. What is wrong with a father that says if he gets custody that the only thing that will matter in his life is keeping her alive as long as possible?? Plenty. Plenty, when the guy says that he would happily cut off all her arms and legs if a medical condition like gangrene which hits vegetative people happens - just so "Terri will be with us longer." Plenty, if you count his saying that he would have the taxpayer handle open heart surgery, full cancer care....if that is needed to "keep Terri with us just a week, a month longer..."

Now since you claim to be evaluating the motives and angles, KCTRio, ask yourself from a personal angle....If you went into a PVS state, can you imagine yourself or anyone else saying they would want their arms and legs cut off, prolonged cancer care, major heart surgery???

Who amongst us can listen to the desires of those parents and say "Their motives are suspect." Do you really believe that? Their motives are love of their daughter.

Their motivations are all about themselves - Their emotional need not to let her go, not about their daughter's dignity, wishes, or anything else. Pure selfishness. The court has recognized this.
After 15 years, they say the only thing that matters in their lives is Terri, Terri, Terri. The Court notes in the early years, the Schinders did not visit for weeks, sometimes months on end....but as the court fight started, their "need" became consuming. Ask yourself if you were struck down, would you want a spouse that is trying to respect your wishes not to live trapped for 50 years in a shell, or would you want a fanatical religious zealot group egging your Dad on to say that he'd authorize all your limbs cut off if it buys more precious time for him to love you. And what do you think the Courts opt for when confronted with two radically different perspectives - Michael Schiavos requesting the Court to evaluate Schiavo's wishes which he says as a husband he and others heard her say she never would want to live like that - or Schindler's father saying he wants limbs chopped rather than lose something of his, regardless of her wishes???

Cedarford,

You can have eternal life by being born again? Now, you may be like Nicodemus and not fully grasp what that means but I'll be happy to explain it to you. First you have to repent. Did you know the word repent means to 'turn away'? You need to turn away from the hate in your heart and towards God. Step two after your next comment. OK?

KC,

I'm not sure what questions you mean so if you restate them I'll give it a shot.

Cedarford:

Finally, you engage. But your examples are not analogous.

How do you go from cancer to limbs chopped off? Do you really think these are similar examples?

First of all, you have a woman that may or may not be brain dead. That coupled with a living entity that only needs nourishment to survive. That's the condition, no cancer, no tumors.

So, the central issue here is simple: Is the provision of food an extraordinary or overzelous attempts at keeping her alive? That's why I posted things from the Catholic Catechism, because that document posits those same issues, and one needn't be religious to review those four sets of observations to determine the soundness of the arguments that the Church makes. One must answer the question of whether the provision of nourishment is over-zelous care. I do not think it is. You may form your own conclusion. Fair enough. But don't lug in examples of cancer and other such things because they are not the same.

Your examples provide unique conditions, which must be dealt with separately. So, in the spirit of continuing the debate, I'll use some of your text and provide a rebuttal:

I don't believe you really looked at it from the perspective of a man who could be honoring his wife's wishes, as he understands it. By saying, what's the harm??? You sort of presume Schiavo is so out of it her condition doesn't matter to her one way or the other, so what's the harm in just abdicating any responsibility to her wishes and let her parents happiness be the sole determinant of her fate??

Yes, I am. Notice the wording, carefully, of your use of the word "as he understands it." That's interpretive. No matter how hard you work at constructing a living will, there are things that can happen to any of us that one cannot predetermine and provide an answer. He's working in the dark, guestimating what his wife would want in this situation. Again, the question recurs, how do you know his wife discussed this scenario? They may have discussed cancer, brain surgury, new treatments, experimental drugs, but not this. So that's why it would be prudent to leave the decision in the hands of the parents and get on with his life.

But if you had looked at the angles, as you claimed to - all the motives fall away. There is no money. Schiavo gets indigent care courtesy of the taxpayer. There is no other woman motive - because he has been open about his need to have a family and a real relationship. The guy has turned down Bible-thumper bribes of 1 million and 10 million to walk away and give Schiavo over to be a totem and figurehead of the Right to Life movement. And the parents being pure and above suspicion? They have said that the only motive they have is Terri's existence gives them pleasure, they cherish her life so much that her wishes don't matter if it came down to that choice.

I never claimed to look at all the angles. I looked at as many as I could. Remember, I live in the town that this is occuring, so I get flooded with more information about this case than you. Where does the Bible-thumper bride come in? What's that? What you call Bible-thumpers others might call people of goodness. Who are you to question they? And yes, a parent would derive pleasure from the existence of their child, semi-comatose or vibrant. It is a living, breathing child of humanity. And that's not pleasure of the appetitive sort, it's pleasure of the heart and mind.

You're next paragraph I won't repost, because I've already covered that ground. The central question is whether the provision of nourishment is the same as extraordinary measures. The example of cancer and a father demanding treatment of a new kind to keep his child alive one week longer is not the same and you know it. Or at least you should.

Lawyers can be scummy. Contrast that lawyer to the Schindlers lawyer saying that just before artificial life support was withdrawn, Terri was trying to mouth the words to her, the lawyer, "Let me live" and crying because she feared dying. If lying unethical scumminess was grounds for disbarring, that bitch cut the cake.

The Schindler's lawyer was speaking about her belief in the humanity and possible awareness of one person, her client's parents. You somehow extrapolate to her doing some kind of mind-meld. She's doing her job. Michael's attorney, on the other hand, called on constituents of Barbara Boxer and asked her to speak to them to vote Republicans out of office. Neither behavior is grounds for disbarment, but Mr. Schiavo lawyer's behavior is rather disgusting, reaching across the country to ralley the troops, while the Schindler's attorney is merely speaking about her client's daughter. The husband's attorney is playing politics, the parent's attorney is not.

Finally, let's get back to the central question of this case regarding whether the provision of nourishment is extraordinary measures. Out of this has grown a huge cultural argument, or battle, between two parties. Also, borne from this, has risen court decisions and legislative moves that are stemming from individuals trying to answer the same question. So, think of it this way: If Mr. Schindler didn't know how his wife wanted to be treated should this specific scenario occur, then had he wanted to get on with his life, it would have been prudent to give the wife over to her parents who did want to keep her alive. That would have avoided the legal battles and all the legislative posturing of both the Florida Congress and Jeb Bush.

As for me, if my wife were dying of cancer, and some doctor had a new procedure that gave her a 1 in 100 chance of curing her, but she had 1 year to live on her own, and she told me that she didn't want any new experimental procedures done on her (in this example, I'll assume that she's not coherent anymore, but enjoys some bit of life), I'd fight just like Mr. Schiavo to prevent the procedure. And if my wife's parents wanted to fight for the 1/100 procedure, I would fight them with everything I had. But if my wife got into the condition of Mrs. Schiavo, and I had his attitude, I would give my betrothed to her mother and father.

Brewfan:

The questions I wrote to MeTooThen were:

Tell me where I'm wrong about this guy. Read what he wrote, then what I wrote, and tell me how I'm missing something.

MeTooThen in a recent post said that Cedartista was making a cogent point, and was wondering why I and others were bashing him. I posted an answer. Thus, the questions (or requests) above.

An example of Cedar's rants is below:

KCTrio refers to what Congress tried to do, and still is trying. It is extremely worrying for our system of governance. Conservative Republicans, motivated by religious zeal and emotion - as well as pure pandering to Right to Life fanatics - are trying to undue significant State Rights w/o debate and legally extend Federal intervenor status to any 3rd Party wishing to challenge a local end of life matter. The Senate has acted more sensibly that the House, attempting to limit "save Terri efforts" to just her - whereas the House wishes to change the whole legal and medical system without debate, passed their bill on voice vote in subcommittee, without recorded vote.

The language in the House Bill, which I haven't read (neither have all but a handful of House members since no copies were given them before their Easter recess) - but according to one critic alarmed at it......leaves the door open to challenge abortions as well as end of life matters in Federal court. And extends the Law to all patients dying without full possession of their mental facilities, hundreds of thousands every year - not just Terri. And allows any person or group that chooses to intervene to have Federal Court standing to do so.

Meaning if Mom has Alzheimers and the family has decided she would not wish to exist on artificial life support but expire naturally without respirators or a feeding machine hookup - then that can be blocked in Federal Court by a Right to Life group or individual - especially if publicity can be gained from a celebrity individual or case...There are rumors this was written so at the behest of Operation Rescue to give them Federal standing in any case they wish to insert themselves into w/o any family member having to agree. (Operation Rescue and other fundamentalist groups regularly get told by the Court they have no standing in coma cases or abortion cases because they have no standing since no person associated with the case directly wants them involved)

It is very disappointing to see the Republican Party abandoning its core principles for expediency in pandering to voters. More abandonment of States Rights. Preferring deficit recklessness over responsible fiscal stewardship of government budgets and the national economy. Drawing down the Navy and Air Force to give drug subsidies for non-means tested seniors. Becoming the Party of international neocon adventurism, open borders, and one-sided free trade with our strategic rival, if not our long-term strategic enemy. The Party of "Praise Jesus, pass me another tax cut, and let your kids pay for it all years later."

MeTooThen:

Would you care to deconstruct the flow of thought from the first to that last paragraph for me? Would you care to provide me with a window into the logic that lept from Terry Schiavo, to Alzheimers to Operation Rescue to neocons to means testing to this triumph of the will: "Praise Jesus, pass me another tax cut, and let your kids pay for it all years later."

I've said in the past that this type of ranting is ridiculous in the extreme. It may provide comfort to the writer of the missive, but to us struggling to make sense of a topic, it is at best an idle distraction and at worst an assault on all of us. Sometimes C's rants take the form of the above, at other times they attack the character of individuals trying to engage in debate. Some we ignore, others we attack, and still others we try to make sense of. And sometimes we try to provide some humor.

You explain it. Or perhaps Brewfan can. I've not been here as long as he. Or, if LauraW is out there, perhaps she can.

KCTrio -

I am surprised you are as dense as you appear to be, or pretend to be, about the central players in this Terri Schiavo drama - the conservative Republicans leading the "Save Terri" movement to pander to their Religious Right friends.

I take their newfound enthusiasm for judicial activism and desire to diminish States Rights as just more manifestations of their willingness to abandon core, traditional Republican values for the expediency of the moment.

If that is all too obtuse for you to understand, or understand why it might be a concern to others, that's your problem. not mine.

KC,

If you are asking me to delve into the mind of cedarford I politely decline. I have decided however he is a lost soul in need of saving so I'm going to present the good news to him and perhaps a miracle will occur and we can count cedarford among the ranks of the religious right. Praise the Lord!

Cedarford,

I have not seen the testimony of any of the consulting neurologists, or any of the medical evidence in this case.

But I suspect what you are describing as "liquefied" brain, is most likely an attempt to describe "diffuse laminar necrosis," one of the most severe forms of brain injury following hypoxemic-ischemic, or anoxic insult.

Each of the various brain regions, and brain cells themselves, possess variable resistance to the effects of the loss of blood flow and/or oxygen.

So-called three layered neocortex, or those regions in and around the hippocampus and other midline temporal lobe structures, are some of the most sensitive to interruption of blood flow to the brain or loss of oxygen.

Six layered neocortex, or those areas of cortical mantle found in the other brain lobes, i.e., parietal, frontal, and occipital, tend to be more resistant. But no one loses all there cortical cells. Injury may be widespread, even catastrophic, but is not total.

KCTrio,

"Meaning if Mom has Alzheimer's and the family has decided she would not wish to exist on artificial life support but expire naturally without respirators or a feeding machine hookup - then that can be blocked in Federal Court by a Right to Life group or individual - especially if publicity can be gained from a celebrity individual or case..."

First off, everyone should familiarize themselves with the notion of "substituted judgment" and "surrogate decision maker." This will help you understand the process involved (NB: I am fully aware as to the concerns that Michael Schiavo may not be an appropriate surrogate.)

The example above is flawed, and should read, "Mom has Alzheimer's disease and Mom does not want heroic or prolonged life support..."

Second, in this example, and if the proposed legislation is accurate as described above, any party can bring suit to prevent the withdrawal or cessation of care, even in presence of an advance directive, or "clear and convincing" evidence of premorbid statements and appropriate application of a surrogate decision maker.

Total strangers will now be able to determine how we control our lives, and those of our family and kin.

In my original comments about this case, I said that there are those who are involved because they hold the principled view that no therapy should be terminated, at any time, under any circumstance, if it means that the patient may die (which includes, but is not limited to dying patients).

This stance has nothing to do with Terri Schiavo per se, and to my mind, holds the potential to undo many years of thoughtful and carefully practiced end-of-life, hospice, and other terminal care.

This is exactly how the Terri Schiavo case becomes the end of end-of life care.

There are many important and related questions that immediately arise from this, for example; Who will pay for this extended care? Will patients and their doctors ever be able to engage in a therapeutic relationship without government or third-party interference? Will the withdrawal or termination of therapy be criminalized? How will doctors, hospitals, and other care providers protect themselves against litigation?

These questions are not as fantastic as you might believe.

Again, I have not "taken sides" with regard to the Terri Schiavo case, as I believe all sides as currently represented are tainted and subject to doubt.

And in contrast to BrewFan's claim that I do not know the facts of this case, or am disinterested, rather the converse is true.

But I have tried to alert the readers here as to some of the subtext to this case, as well as point out some of the broader ramifications following its resolution.

MeTooThen:

Thank you. That was haunting. I understand that the possibility of this case yielding the situation you outlined is horrendous. And I know of some individuals that have had to make these decisions (who hasn't? If you are twenty years old or more you've likely had a relative or friend go through suffering illness and death). You, being a doctor, have to deal with it more than most of us. That is why I said a blanket thank you to you earlier in this thread, since it is because of doctors such as you that I am able to continue working.

But does this case lead us down the path that you've outlined, that end-of-life decisions can be made by the State or disinterested third parties? I don't know, but it does seem possible.

You have provided some very important information to me.

However, you did not choose the other paragraphs in Cedar's rant, and I suppose I know why.

Thank you, kind sir, for spending your time in explaining this issue and for what you do.

Cedartista:

Your delightful little brain crafted this special treat:

I am surprised you are as dense as you appear to be, or pretend to be, about the central players in this Terri Schiavo drama - the conservative Republicans leading the "Save Terri" movement to pander to their Religious Right friends.

I take their newfound enthusiasm for judicial activism and desire to diminish States Rights as just more manifestations of their willingness to abandon core, traditional Republican values for the expediency of the moment.

If that is all too obtuse for you to understand, or understand why it might be a concern to others, that's your problem. not mine.

1) The central players in the Terri Schaivo movement are Michael and the Schindlers. They have fought this on for years. Would you care to travel to Tampa? I can introduce you to them and their lawyers.

2) The players expanded because of the dogged determination of Michael and the Schindlers. This has become political on both sides, not just the side that you choose to see. Perhaps it is you who is dense, or rather, lack the clarity to see this. I suppose your brain is so flooded with the desire to find a conspiracy in everything that you fail to see the other side of a debate that doesn't fit whatever theory you've concocted.

3) I could flip this judicial activism argument of yours right around and it would stick better than yours. Judicial activism lies when judges interpret the law to their own whim. Conservatives by their very nature abhor this. So, if a conservative sees a judge acting in a way that makes him appear to be legislating from the bench, then that conservative would try and push that judge out and try to put judges in that don't do such things. It was the liberal judge that caused the social conservative to act, not the other way around.

4) What you have written is your opinion, and I understand how you've arrived at it. What is not obtuse is the veracity of that opinon. It is inaccurate. What is obtuse is what buttresses your opinion.

Look out your window, the black helicopters are coming.

MeTooThen wrote: "I have not seen the testimony of any of the consulting neurologists, or any of the medical evidence in this case."

Then MeTooThen wrote: "And in contrast to BrewFan's claim that I do not know the facts of this case, or am disinterested, rather the converse is true."

Well, which is it? You blasted me for saying you weren't familiar with Terri's case and now you admit you aren't. Or are you? I'm so confused. But then I don't know anything about medicine, yada, yada, yada.

BrewFan,

Do you or anyone else you know have access to the court files in this case?

You and I both know what we know about this case, by extension, in other words, what has been reported.

There is a world of difference between experts actually say, and what reports show, as opposed to what people have been reported to say, or what medical tests are are reported to have found.

I was responding to the question as to Terri Schiavo's medical state. have repeatedly stated that unless one examines her oneself, it is difficult to know what is truly going on.

The question here was in regards to her brain having been "liquified."

If you, on the other hand, do have personal knowledge as to these things, well that's a different matter, and I will of course, defer to you on these issues, henceforth.

Good info on the nature of apoxia on the cortex layers - which I didn't know existed as layers. The court docs just say the cortex is gone except maybe small localized chunks here and there. They refrained from "medicalize" - I guess so as to make the docs layman-friendly. Anyways, I'm adding one of the Schiavo 2002 CT scans for you if you want to look at it. To a layman like me, even to a layman like me, it looks pretty bad. (warning} it loads slooooow with a dialup modem)

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schi...o/CT% 20scan.png

MeTooThen writes:

There are many important and related questions that immediately arise from this, for example; Who will pay for this extended care? Will patients and their doctors ever be able to engage in a therapeutic relationship without government or third-party interference? Will the withdrawal or termination of therapy be criminalized? How will doctors, hospitals, and other care providers protect themselves against litigation?

All those issues deeply bother me, as well. We have a 26.1 trillion unfunded Medicare liability, projected on current technology & practices. I read that 80% of deaths occur in an institutional setting, that 80% of those involve withdrawal of some care at a certain stage, that 70% of those involve someone who is at some point mentally diminished by their illness or underlying condition, or is comatose, or has gone vegetative. And only 15% of those have a Living Will.

If the religious-emotional rush to "Save Terri" leads to law saying all heroic measures must be done to save anyone that lacks a Living Will that stands up to court challenge - which is what Right to Lifers in the House inserted in that Bill - then we can throw out the unfunded Medicare liabilities as ridiculously low - and prepare for a massive payroll tax increase as the mission of medicine becomes legally focused on the prolongation of life at any cost. Hasty legislation makes for bad future situations.

The impact on insurers will/would be significant. Just the threat of it may lead insurers to jack costs up for employers and private individuals in anticipation of major increases in end of life expenses. And I do feel bad for the end of life "community" - those doctors, ethicists, lawyers, even clergy that have helped make the system work OK and have really helped families and patients through some of the worst days of their lives...the threat of litigation from Right to Lifers could mean the end of informal teamwork directed at helping...become CYA...and even mean the end of hospices and end stage care facilities - where the new order of the day would be agressive, costs are no object care performed even involuntarily.

That may be fine with some people, but if the insurers back out, even Right to Lifers might have second thoughts if their bank accounts, kids college funds, and most things of value in the household are seized by hospital creditors to pay for that precious extra month of intensive care for a dying cancer patient who neglected to have a lawyer review his Living Will...And, once such people are made indigent by medical bankruptcy, Medicare has to pay for it.

And even before Schiavo we already were up to a million med bankruptcies a year and talking about having to possibly double the payroll tax by 2020 to keep Medicare...not the red herring of Social Security, solvent. (We are only 6 trillion in the hole on SS!).

And a final thought. If America becomes a country where a substantial share of our pay is devoted to prolonging lives of the vegetative - concentrating on extending Alzheimers comas from 2 years to 10 for example.....(which would increase the population of just totally dependent Azheimers patients from 2 million to 11 million) and payroll taxes go up to 25%, as we cut services for the young and abled..........how do we compete against countries not devoted to allocating their national resources on similar social objectives???

MeTooThen -

I noticed that you asked BrewFan (rhetorically I hope, since the guy never backs up his mouth with any research) if he or anyone else he knows has reviewed the court materials or has access to the court files...Of course he doesn't because if he had he wouldn't be spouting his speculations so confidently.

But anyone curious about court materials and the legal timeline is in real luck because a lawyer in Florida decided to collect and post every document he could find on a Blog he created as a service to others. He has no legal interest in the Schiavo case, and states he doesn't venture an opinion to keep the Site objective and impartial.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

As you go down the timeline, you can click various court docs in .pdf format, plus the page has ooodles of other links. The 11/22/2002 papers in which it was decided that further treatment of Schiavo was of no help, who the interested parties were, the evaluation of the 5 neurologists, plus some neat things like one of the Schindler docs being caught fibbing are all there, as well as "liquification".

Your pal BrewFan might look there, but then he'd lose pleasure at being able to berate people on matters he never read up on or possibly never will understand even if he does read up.

Cedarford....

Poor guy!

Suck one dick and you are a cocksucker forever.

Doesn't even matter that it wasn't very big.

Oh, Well.......

Elephant nose - Are you speaking from personal experience? Like as in even though your dick is clit-sized it still makes your young son an official cocksucker???