You missed the point...if she even tracks an object for a second that is evidence of higher brain function.
LOL. Are you a doctor? A vet? What? Regardless I wouldn't let you within 10 miles of my ingrown toenail.
hello stupid primate, i am RGUBY and why are you LOLing at danrudy's claim?! becsquse as far as i can tell with my chicxkpea-size brain, it is ROCk-solid & beyond dispute?!
but plz note taht in this contxt, "higher brain fnuction" DOE SNOT mean "able to werstle with phallusophy (sp?), perfrom MAthematical calculations, &/or appreciate cole Proter lyrics."
insted it means "involvign the cerebral cortex" -- you know, the prat of poor primate Terri's brain that has suppoasabledly (based on low-res CT scans!?) been replaced 100% by spinal fluids?
you said on discraded Lies, that a PET or
MIR МРИ MRI scan would revaell nothign new, but only show teh brain damage in gfreater detail. stupid PRIMATE, that "GRATER detail" is the whole P-O-I-M-T, because you need that detail to distinqwish between "ZER0 livnig corstical tissue" and "A LITTLLE BIT of living cxortical tisssue"!
to put it another way! it is clear even to a RAT w/o a medical digree taht Terri Shcavo's abilisty to track a movign object is PROOF that she has some living cerebral cortex (i looked it up in uncle Bob's college BIOology textbook... vision is processd IN THE CORTEX! and eyeball movemints are comtrolled GUESS WEHRE?!?!).
waht does this mean? it means ms. Terri has a little bit of brains left taht could respond to rehabililitatiltive therapy, & maybe she could live out her life as A FRENDLY RETARDED PRESON!
so the real question for you primates is: do we wnat to give a ♥♥♥NICE RETARD♥♥♥ a chance to live her RETARDED LIFE?!
ps. i am a rat and my opinion is taht Terri is useless to me now because she cant open the cupboards wheere unclebob keeps the DELICSIOUS FOOD, nor work the faucets or lift the haevy toilet lid so that RATS can climb up and drink. BUT! i bet she could re-learn to do those thigns, thus makign her useful to RATS. so i vote for hleping her to live!
Rugby, what you see on the video can't be replicated. That's a short section of hours of tape in which they're trying to get her to respond. What you see happen once doesn't happen again, despite many many attempts to make it happen.
The Terri Schiavo case is hard to write about, hard to think about. Those films are hard to look at. I see that face, maybe smiling, maybe not, and I am reminded of a young woman I knew as a child, lying on a couch, brain-damaged, apparently unresponsive, yet deeply loved, living proof of one family's no-matter-what commitment.
I watch nourishment flowing into a slim tube that runs through a neat, round, surgically created orifice in Ms Schiavo's abdomen, and I'm almost envious. What effortless intake! Due to a congenital neuro-muscular disease, I am having trouble swallowing, and it's a constant struggle to get by mouth the calories my skinny body needs. For whatever reason, I'm still trying, but I know a tube is in my future. So, possibly, is speechlessness. That's a scary thought. If I couldn't speak for myself, would I want to die? If I become uncommunicative, a passive object of other people's care, should I hope my brain goes soft and leaves me in peace?
My emotional response is powerful, but at bottom it's not important. It's no more important than anyone else's, not what matters. The things that ought to matter have become obscured in our communal clash of gut reactions. Here are 10 of them:
1. Ms Schiavo is not terminally ill. She has lived in her current condition for 15 years. This is not about end-of-life decision-making. The question is whether she should be killed by starvation and dehydration.
2. Ms Schiavo is not dependent on life support. Her lungs, kidneys, heart, and digestive systems work fine. Just as she uses a wheelchair for mobility, she uses a tube for eating and drinking. Feeding Ms Schiavo is not difficult, painful, or in any way heroic. Feeding tubes are a very simple piece of adaptive equipment, and the fact that Ms Schiavo eats through a tube should have nothing to do with whether she should live or die.
3. This is not a case about a patient's right to refuse treatment. I don't see eating and drinking as "treatment", but even if they are, everyone agrees that Ms Schiavo is presently incapable of articulating a decision to refuse treatment. The question is who should make the decision for her, and whether that substitute decision-maker should be authorised to kill her by starvation and dehydration.
4. There is a genuine dispute as to Ms Schiavo's awareness and consciousness. But if we assume that those who would authorise her death are correct, Ms Schiavo is completely unaware of her situation and therefore incapable of suffering physically or emotionally. Her death thus can't be justified for relieving her suffering.
5. There is a genuine dispute as to what Ms Schiavo believed and expressed about life with severe disability before she herself became incapacitated; certainly, she never stated her preferences in an advance directive like a living will. If we assume that Ms Schiavo is aware and conscious, it is possible that, like most people who live with severe disability for as long as she has, she has abandoned her preconceived fears of the life she is now living. We have no idea whether she wishes to be bound by things she might have said when she was living a very different life. If we assume she is unaware and unconscious, we can't justify her death as her preference. She has no preference.
6. Ms. Schiavo, like all people, incapacitated or not, has a federal constitutional right not to be deprived of her life without due process of law.
7. In addition to the rights all people enjoy, Ms Schiavo has a statutory right under the Americans with Disabilities Act not to be treated differently. Obviously, Florida law would not allow a husband to kill a non-disabled wife by starvation and dehydration; killing is not ordinarily considered a private concern or a matter of choice. It is Ms Schiavo's disability that makes her killing different in the eyes of the Florida courts. Because the state is overtly drawing lines based on disability, it has the burden under the ADA of justifying those lines.
8. In other contexts, federal courts are available to make sure state courts respect federally protected rights. This review is critical not only to the parties directly involved, but to the integrity of the legal system. Federalism requires that the federal government, not the states, have the last word. When the issue is the scope of a guardian's authority, it is necessary to allow other people, in this case other family members, to file a legal challenge.
9. The whole society has a stake in making sure state courts are not tainted by prejudice and unfounded fears - like the unthinking horror in mainstream society that transforms feeding tubes into fetish objects, emblematic of broader deeper fears of disability that sometimes slide from fear to disgust and from disgust to hatred. While we should not assume that disability prejudice tainted the Florida courts, we cannot assume that it did not.
10. Despite the unseemly Palm Sunday pontificating in Congress, the legislation enabling Ms Schiavo's parents to sue did not dictate that Ms Schiavo be fed. It simply created a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether her rights have been violated.
In the Senate, a key supporter of a federal remedy was Tom Harkin, a Democrat and friend of labour and civil rights, including disability rights. Harkin told reporters: "There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disability, and many times there is no one to speak for them, and it is hard to determine what their wishes really are or were. So I think there ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar circumstances who are incapacitated."
I hope I will never be one of those people in the shadows, that I will always, one way or another, be able to make my wishes known. I hope that I will not outlive my usefulness or my capacity (at least occasionally) to amuse the people around me. But if it happens otherwise, I hope whoever is appointed to speak for me will be subject to legal constraints. Even if my guardian thinks I'd be better off dead - even if I think so myself - I hope to live and die in a world that recognises that killing, even of people with the most severe disabilities, is a matter of more than private concern.
Clearly, Congress's Palm Sunday legislation was not the "broader type of proceeding" Harkin and I want. It does not define when and how federal court review will be available to all of those in the shadows, but rather provides a procedure for one case only. To create a general system of review, applicable whenever life-and-death decisions intersect with disability rights, will require a reasoned, informed debate unlike what we've had until now. It will take time. But in the Schiavo case, time is running out.
What difference does Easter make? It is a question which, not least for professional reasons, I must ask myself each year. It helps to put the question like this: What difference would it make if Jesus had not risen? Without the Resurrection, St Paul said, "Our preaching would be in vain". A remarkable man would have lived, died the life of an unsuccessful nobody, and merited at most a few lines in Roman journals. Even his followers - those who had been most affected by the three-year ministry of Jesus - would hardly have kept his memory alive. As the gospels so vividly record, for the disciples the Crucifixion was devastating, a signal that Jesus was not, after all, the Promised One, the Saviour of Israel.A snifter full of brandy to Donna V. for alerting me to the Cardinal's Catholicism; I previously unjustly accused the poor man of Anglicanism, and I hope he can forgive me.
But that is not what happened. The tombstone was rolled away, and Jesus appeared, various times, in different guises. It was not easy to accept; several hundred years after the Resurrection, bishops always felt it necessary to defend the credibility of Jesus rising when preparing people for baptism. The women who first took the message to the Apostles were discredited by them; only when they had seen him for themselves - and in the case of Thomas, actually touched him - did they surrender their incredulity and declare: My Lord and my God!
Without the Resurrection, human society would not have known the one, singular, astonishing thing that underpins the best of our laws and our traditions: that God gave himself to the world in Jesus Christ, was rejected by the world, and became a victim. Without the Resurrection, Jesus would have remained an unknown victim - trampled on, and forgotten; and human society would be none the wiser. But God raised Jesus up, demonstrated His power over death, and gave those who witnessed it the knowledge that the bloodied victim abandoned on Golgotha was, after all, His beloved son.
That knowledge has changed the world. The Jews were the first to know that God was on the side of the widow, the orphan and the stranger; the Christians were the first to know that the victim was the divine Son of God himself. That is why Christian society is distinguished by its overwhelming concern for the helpless victim: the very least of us is worth God suffering and dying for. Our Easter faith does not answer the thousand and one questions that our life poses. But it turns those questions around that one, magnificent fact: we are all worth it. All of us.
What the Resurrection has meant for Britain is hard sometimes to see, because what is most significant is often the thing you need think about the least. If you are a secure, loved child, very little of your time will be spent pondering what life would be like if suddenly you had to fend for yourself. A society in which the helpless and the vulnerable and the persecuted are judged to deserve our protection most is what Britain, as a Christian country, has long assumed; and the assumption has lulled us into the belief that it must always be so. But let us apply a test: the best way to know if Britain is still in any way a Christian society is to see how it treats its most vulnerable people, the ones with little or no claim on public attention, the ones without beauty or strength or intelligence.
People, for example, like Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman in Florida who is at the moment being starved to death after a court ruled that her feeding tube be removed. Her life is not worth living, people say; see, she is dependent on others even for food and water; let nature take its course. But what is natural about starving to death? And what is so wrong with being dependent on others? Babies are dependent on others for food and water; so are many elderly people. Are they less worthwhile? The Christian conscience answers that human beings were created interdependent; only our fallen nature believes we can make it alone.
How well do British institutions and laws protect those most deserving of our protection? There are now 180,000 abortions a year - the highest number ever - because these are 180,000 human lives considered not worth saving. Research embryos, surplus to in vitro treatment, are created, then discarded, because they do not have the right tissue type; or because - as a parliamentary select committee recommended this week - they are the wrong sex; or because they do not have the right genetic code to provide organs for another; or because they are in some way disabled or imperfect. Have the millions of abortions carried out since 1967 corroded our consciences, as well as our institutions?
What is wrong with abortion, euthanasia, embryo selection, and embryonic research is not the motives of those who carry them out. So often, those motives are, on the surface, compassionate: to protect a child from being unwanted, to end pain and suffering, to help a child with a life-threatening disease. But in all these cases, the terrible truth is that it is the strong who decide the fate of the weak; human beings therefore become instruments in the hands of other human beings. That way lies eugenics, and we know from German history where that leads. We are already on that road: for what else is the termination of six million lives in the womb since the Abortion Act was introduced, and embryo selection on the basis of gender and genes?
The difference that the Resurrection makes is that the intrinsic dignity of human life - the source of our hope - comes from knowing that God's only son died the death of one regarded as worthless. In raising Him up, God showed that the one considered worthless in the eyes of human beings is of infinite worth sub specie aeternitatis.
Does Britain still know this? There are signs that it does. After I recently applauded some politicians for speaking out in favour of lowering the time-limit for abortion, I was accused of interfering in politics, and of urging US-style "godlier-than-thou" elections. But I am glad I spoke out, for a nerve was touched, and it gave the chance for many, many people - the majority, according to a number of recent opinion polls - to express their unease at the thousands of abortions that take place each year in our country. That unease can come from only one place: a deep-seated intuition that lives considered worthless are, in fact, lives created by God. The majority of British people believe this. Most of us are, after all, an Easter people.
Charles closed the thread though. Oh, besides having a gay crush on Iron Fist, I'm also a liar, and not an Arab, and not a guy! The shocking revelations continue to roll in.
#688 Iron Fist 3/26/2005 05:42PM PST
Yeah, I know you want me to lick your ass, queer. That is what this is really all about. I don't swing that way, as you well know.
(No disrespect to other homosexual LGF'ers, but I'm tired of Ev's crush/fixation/? whatever with/on me. Pathetic)
He explained that while landmark legal cases like those of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan demonstrated it was "sensible to stop treatment in patients lingering in permanent vegetative states," it was now time to look beyond those cases.
"The United States has thousands or tens of thousands of patients in vegetative states; nobody knows for sure exactly how many," he wrote.
"But before long, this country will have several million patients with Alzheimer's dementia. The challenges and costs of maintaining vegetative state patients will pale in comparison to the problems presented by Alzheimer's disease."
The answer, he suggested, was physician-assisted suicide.
"The challenges and costs", note.... this man gives me the creeps.
First thing: Terri Schiavo is not terminally ill. She is severely disabled with a brain injury. She is not hooked up to any life support systems. For 15 years she has relied on a feeding tube for food and water. Her organs function normally.
So why does anyone want to kill her? "Kill" is the correct word here. Removing her feeding tube will cause her death. She will die by starvation and dehydration. That is a form of execution that is not even imposed on convicted murderers; we electrocute them, or hang them or inject them with swiftly acting chemicals. We don't draw out the act so painfully as Terri is being killed.
For those of us in the organized disability rights movement, it looks like Terri Schiavo is being put to death for the crime of being disabled.
Disability makes many people uncomfortable. How many times have you said, or heard someone say, "I would never want to live like that." Or,"I would rather be dead than be like that."
People have said that to me.
I am severely disabled and use a motorized wheelchair as a result of having polio 55 years ago. Terri Schiavo may be even more severely disabled than me, but we are the same in many of the ways we have been discounted and devalued.
Doctors told my parents to put me into a "home" and forget about me. He will have no life, they said, move on with your own lives.
They ignored the advice. When I went to school, I was teased and made an object of pity. "I would hate to live like you," kids told me. When I went to university, I was told that "at least you still have your mind."When I went to work in the newspaper business, I was expected to remain at an entry level position; when I left to go to graduate school, my work supervisor told a colleague "what else could he ever hope to do?"
People with disabilities in this country are pushed to the ragged edge of our collective consciousness, stereotyped as dependent, unproductive and pitiful. It is not such a long step to considering such persons burdensome and too costly to maintain, and finally and of course regrettably, expendable.
Think of Terri Schiavo for 15 years being held in so-called custodial care in a nursing home along with persons with Alzheimer 's disease,other dementia or cognitive disorders or injuries or birth defects.Terri has had a feeding tube and her guardian (her husband) fought for years to have it removed so that she might die, as he claims she would have wanted.
"It's one thing to refuse a feeding tube for ourselves, but it's quite another when someone else makes that decision," says Diane Coleman, head of Not Dead Yet, a national disability-rights group. "Disability groups don't think guardians should have carte blanche to starve and dehydrate people with conditions like brain injury, developmental disabilities — which the public calls 'birth defects' — and Alzheimer's. People have the right not to be deprived of life by guardians who feel that their ward is as good as dead, better off dead or that the guardian should make such judgments in the first place."
The noisy free-for-all surrounding the Schiavo case as it works its way through the court system again has all the earmarks of political haymaking, rallying the troops in the "Right to Life" and "Right to Die" camps. But there is a serious thread that focuses on the real issue at stake: the right to due process and equal treatment under the law.
Coleman's group has called for a national moratorium on the dehydration and starvation of people alleged to be in a "persistent vegetative state" and not having an advance directive or durable power of attorney. Senator Tom Harkin, a long-time advocate for people with disabilities, said it eloquently last week as Congress stepped into the Schiavo case. "There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disability. There ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar circumstances... Where someone is incapacitated and their life support can be taken away, it seems to me that it is appropriate — where there is a dispute, as there is in this case — that a federal court come in, like we do in habeas corpus situations, and review it and make another determination."
Terri Schiavo has become a tragic figure, and is likely to become a martyr for one group or another. And that itself is a tragedy. We're likely to never really know Terri's own desire in this case. But we as individuals and as a society do have a duty here: And that is to face the fact of the brutal way in which we are permitting her to die.
As a person with a severe disability, I am deeply troubled by the Schiavo saga. I will commit my own wishes to a legal document. But will that be enough? Out here on the ragged edge, we're worried.
It's a universal law of capitalism: when an industry faces a new and significant threat to its profits and powers it turns to the government for protection. Well, bloggers who write on current events are challenging the mainstream media (MSM), the most politically well-connected industry in America. Watch for the MSM to start using their political influence to burden bloggers.Read it all, it's very interesting. Personally, I think it's funny that the media didn't catch on to blogs until the CBS scandal; by then, even moi was blogging which just goes to show you...er...something or other.
But won't the First Amendment protect blogs? Unfortunately, courts already hold that many governmental restrictions on speech don't violate the First Amendment, and I can think of three areas in which the MSM might successfully change laws and regulations to hinder their blogger competitors:
Law agencies controlled by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the brother of US President George Bush, were on their way to seize Terri Schiavo and have her feeding tube reinserted.Via Blogs for Terri
But they backed off when local police said they would enforce a judge's ruling allowing the brain-damaged women to die, The Miami Herald has revealed.
Soon after a judge ordered that Mrs Schiavo not be removed from a hospice, a team of Florida state law enforcement agents planned to rescue her on the orders of Mr Bush, the paper said.
But they did not go ahead after it became clear they would have to confront local police outside the Florida hospice that has become a flashpoint in the worldwide debate on euthanasia.
"We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in," a source with the local police told the paper.
Although the protesters were clinging to the hope that Governor Bush might intervene, they were unaware how close he was to rescuing Mrs Schiavo. For a brief period, local police, who had officers around the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called a showdown, the paper reported.
"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement called to say they were en route to the scene," said an official with the city police, who requested anonymity. "When the Sheriff's Department, and our department, told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off."
The averted stand-off between local police and state forces underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created.
It also shows that agencies answering directly to the Florida Governor had planned to use a loophole in state law that would have allowed them legally to get around the judge's order.
The loophole allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order when an agency appeals against it.
A state judge on Saturday rejected another attempt by Terri Schiavo's parents to have her feeding tube reconnected, rejecting what the couple's lawyer described as their last chance to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.
Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer denied a motion filed Friday in which Bob and Mary Schindler claimed their daughter tried to say "I want to live" just before her tube was removed, saying "AHHHHH" and "WAAAAAAA" when asked to repeat the phrase.
Doctors have said Schiavo's past utterances were involuntary moans consistent with someone in a vegetative state.
The Schindlers ended their federal appeals but are still holding out hope for an unlikely intervention by Gov. Jeb Bush, who has said he has done everything in his power to take custody of Schiavo.
James suffered a rare type of stroke in 1991. It seemed he had "no cognitive ability or awareness after the stroke." But one of James' friends had learned from a doctor about people who had a "locked-in" syndrome who could live "for years-unfortunately" said the doctor. Fearing that his friend, James would be "killed off as medical professionals exerted pressure on the family," Patton Howell and another of James' friends were determined to find a way for James to communicate. They were "persistent and creative" and successful and invited the hospital staff to observe the results. They asked James to tell the staff "I want to live" as a clear message. However the message that James typed was "I DEMAND TO LIVE ASSHOLE" as a "direct message to medical professionals in the room who had been expressing the opinion that keeping him alive was pointless."Doctors are know-nothings.