Help Stop A Murder

[linwood]

That's the same thing I quoted from you before.

Yes it is.
I was hoping you`d get it this time

If I must say it again, a disability does not need to be overcome,

It does if it is so great it keeps you from leading a happy productive life.

nor does it bar a person from leading a happy life, whether you consider it healthy or normal.

It dos if you can`t overcome it

As someone with a disability from disease, I do take offense at your comments.

I`m sorry you`ve misinterpretted my comments this way.

I need medications every day and am unhealthy enough to be denied health insurance.

So these medications, they help you overcome your disability so you can lead a happy life.
No?

My life is not normal by any stretch, but I am quite happy.

"Normal" is subjective.
Your life is indeed "normal" for you.

Disabled people do not need to become undisabled or normal to be happy; We all are entitled to live.

I never said anything about becoming "indisabled".
I said most disabled people can overcome their disability and lead a happy life.

The blind person learns to read braille and use a dog and/or cane.
This is how that person overcomes their disability.

The deaf person learns sign language and visual monitors throughout their homes.

This is how they overcome their disability.

 

[linwood]

We all are entitled to live.

Agreed but on the flip side.

Are we not all entitled to die?

 

[Israel]

Was it much before she became her husbands possession in the eyes of the church?

She never became his possession in the eyes of the Catholic Church. That's why Pope John Paul II tried to intervene on her behalf. They teach that a woman, married or unmarried, is her own unique person with her own right to life. The Catholic Church doesn't support euthanasia.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050127/en_afp/vaticanpopeeuthanasia_050127134013

 

[linwood]

Do you know what she told her mother and father? Her Priest? Her friends?

uhh..no..no..I don`t.
In fact thats exactly what I asked you I myself said that we can`t know.

Do you really think you can trust a man who inherits millions of dollars, enough to pay off his debts, if she dies?

Please supply some evidence of the worth of the life insurance policy in question.
How do you know he will inherit millions?
The news I`ve been reading is that it is a million dollar policy.

Where have his debts come from?

I`d say keeping a legal team strong enough to defeat the legal team of the state of Florida over and over again can get pretty damn expensive.

I`d say he would have been financially better off had he simply divorced her years ago.

Can you honestly say you've never met anyone that would kill for a million dollars?

Your last sentence said he was getting "millions" as in more than one.
Which is it?

He doesn`t have a million dollars nor will he recieve a million dollars.

Have you any clue what the cost of a lawyer is for the most mundane reasons?

This lawyers going to cost ..alot .

I`m not defending Shiavo, I`m merely saying we don`t know what the hell is going on and the only person who does is Shiavo.

He may be lying, I myself don`t see much of a motive.

However the laws that are being pushed through By Bush will set precedent that is unacceptable to the well being and rights of the people of my state.

Bush has repeatedly broken constitutional law to keep this woman alive.

These laws do not affect just this one woman, they affect me and my children and everyone in the state of Florida.

The constitution cannot just be changed to fit one persons needs to the detriment of all other people.

 

[Israel]

It does if it is so great it keeps you from leading a happy productive life.

Who can judge if a person is happy, but that individual themself? Not a surrogate, certainly.

So these medications, they help you overcome your disability so you can lead a happy life.
No?

No. I was happy before I got medications. Medicine may allow me a longer life, but my medication doesn't give happiness. I think you're confusing it with Prozac.

"Normal" is subjective.
Your life is indeed "normal" for you.

So, normal doesn't really mean anything. What's normal for me is normal for me, what's normal for you is normal for you; that makes as many "normals" as there are people in the world. By that standard, everything abnormal is really normal too.

 

[linwood]

Who can judge if a person is happy, but that individual themself? Not a surrogate, certainly.

i`d argue Terry did when she told her husband she`d rather die than live the way she does now.

I cannot say she said that for sure but you cannot say she didn`t.

We fall back on the law.

No. I was happy before I got medications. Medicine may allow me a longer life, but my medication doesn't give happiness.

If the life they allow you to live is not happy why live it?

I think you're confusing it with Prozac.

So, normal doesn't really mean anything. What's normal for me is normal for me, what's normal for you is normal for you; that makes as many "normals" as there are people in the world. By that standard, everything abnormal is really normal too.

Exactly

 

[Israel]

I never said anything about becoming "indisabled".
I said most disabled people can overcome their disability and lead a happy life.

The blind person learns to read braille and use a dog and/or cane.
This is how that person overcomes their disability.

The deaf person learns sign language and visual monitors throughout their homes.

This is how they overcome their disability.

And here, too, is my problem with your comments. The blind person is no less happy nor less of a person, when they are too young to read braille. Indeed, the thousands and millions of blind people who lived before Braille was recently invented, were not affected by modern conveniences, yet they were still wonderful human beings

I have seen some people choose not to fight their conditions. They are no less of a person if they choose not to have a machine, a dog or a cane.

The deaf person in the Third World is no less happy or less of a person because they cannot afford technology to give an them an inkling of what it is like to have hearing.

"Overcoming a disability" as you put it is just conveniences and technology. Conveniences and technology may make life more efficient, but they do not define a disabled person as more or less of a person, more or less entitled to live.

 

[linwood]

And here, too, is my problem with your comments. The blind person is no less happy nor less of a person, when they are too young to read braille. Indeed, the thousands and millions of blind people who lived before Braille was recently invented, were not affected by modern conveniences, yet they were still wonderful human beings

Please tell me where I ever implied that disabled people were anything less than a person.

I am again sorry that you continue to read into my words but there is nothing I can do about it other than continue to clarify them.

I have seen some people choose not to fight their conditions. They are no less of a person if they choose not to have a machine, a dog or a cane.

Again, please tell me where I`ve made this implication.

You seem to be assuming that because I believe Shiavo may be correct and innocent of all the accusations against him and that it`s ok to let Terry die I do not value her life.

This could not be more wrong.

I think Terry should be allowed to die if it is what she stated she wanted.

No one but Terry can determine the value of her own life and if she told her husband what he claims she told him she has made that decision.

It should be respected if it can be confirmed.

If it can`t then we have no choice but to follow the law because the law isn`t only for terry it is for all citizens of florida and to change it for her will have impact and negative impact on all Floridians.

"Overcoming a disability" as you put it is just conveniences and technology. Conveniences and technology may make life more efficient, but they do not define a disabled person as more or less of a person, more or less entitled to live.

Please show me where I even implied such a thing.
I do not like my words twisted and will not stand for it.

Put up or shut up.

Show me where I said what you claim I said.

Overcoming a disability has to do with desire, will, and strength of character.
Overcoming a disability actually has nothing to do with the technologies I spoke of .
I mentioned them merely to show how one overcomes a disability.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Speaking as another person with disabilities, I'd like to speak up on behalf of Linwood's side. Our disabilities might interfere with our thought processes, our ability to communicate with others, or being able to function well on a day-to-day basis, but they do not completely inable us from doing these things.

No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to starve to death, especially when there is someone willing to take care of them. (It sounds like there is.) But it also appears that there is much more to the story than we were originally led to believe, so I don't think I can judge anyone or their actions, except to condemn what is considered universally inhumane. (Again, not sure if we're getting the whole story there, either.)

 

[linwood]

I have no problem with Terrys parents caring for her for the rest of her life.

In fact it is the solution my ethics find the only reasonable course.

However if Terry did indeed prefer death to the life she has then my ethics tell me she should be allowed that right.

But if the only way either Terry or her parents can get what they want is to affect the rest of this state in probably negative ways I must choose the path that holds less injustice for all.

 

[Israel]

Please supply some evidence of the worth of the life insurance policy in question.
How do you know he will inherit millions?
The news I`ve been reading is that it is a million dollar policy.

I was not referring to any life insurance policy, but rather to the settlement with the hospital which was ruled liable in causing Terri's condition. Any life insurance policy would be a seperate amount in addition to this sum of money.

Where have his debts come from?

I`d say keeping a legal team strong enough to defeat the legal team of the state of Florida over and over again can get pretty damn expensive.

I`d say he would have been financially better off had he simply divorced her years ago.

He can't. He's paying for his lawyers now with the payout from the malpractice lawsuit. The money from the suit goes to her or her guardian. If he divorces her, then he has no money to pay debts he already has to his lawyers. If he stays married to her, the money is his, so long as she doesn't incur large medical bills, such as from at-home nursing care. If he's married to her when she dies, he could inherit both the settlement and the insurance, pay off his lawyers, and perhaps have some left over for himself and his new girlfriend's playboy lifestyle.

He doesn`t have a million dollars nor will he recieve a million dollars.

Once again, you just aren't informed. As her guardian, he's already recieving money from the malpractice suit.

I`m not defending Shiavo, I`m merely saying we don`t know what the hell is going on and the only person who does is Shiavo.

A woman's unable to make a decision, so the only person who should have any say is her husband? That's a a bit too male chauvenistic, I think.

He may be lying, I myself don`t see much of a motive.

Money, money, money, money! Green stuff, big bucks, hitting the big time!
Plus, there's the ridicule and public assassination of his name that would take place in all the papers if he gave up now.

However the laws that are being pushed through By Bush will set precedent that is unacceptable to the well being and rights of the people of my state.

Oh, protecting a woman's life, and setting a precendent for protecting other people's lives is just so awful!

Bush has repeatedly broken constitutional law to keep this woman alive.

The US Constitution was written to protect our basic rights and supercedes any state constition and protects Bush if he did decide to break Florida law. Thus far, only the legislature is actually accused of overstepping its boundries in giving him certain authorities. If amid the US Constitutional rights to defending yourself, free speech, and religion, you do not see a thematic fundamental right to live, you must still consider the unwrittten innate protections of our human rights legally established in the Nuremburg Trials of the Nazis.

The constitution cannot just be changed to fit one persons needs to the detriment of all other people.

One person's needs will always eventually become another's needs, as well. Either all our lives are protected by the law, or anyone, even you or I, could be killed by the courts.

 

[Israel]

Please tell me where I ever implied that disabled people were anything less than a person.

Let's start at your second post. Hmm, your reason you give for saying Terri should die:

A disabilty is something you can overcome and lead a happy healthy normal life.
Terry cannot do that.

Now we've already agreed the last part of your statement, about achieving a "normal" life is all bunk and twaddle, because you don't believe anything is normal, so let's look at what we're left with. A few posts later, your statement becomes:

I said most disabled people can overcome their disability and lead a happy life.

Thus, if "most can", this also precludes that "some cannot". The reverse of your statement, according to my elementary school English teacher, is that "Some disabled people cannot overcome their disablity and lead a happy life."

Then you define how to overcome a disability,

The blind person learns to read braille and use a dog and/or cane.
This is how that person overcomes their disability.
The deaf person learns sign language and visual monitors throughout their homes.
This is how they overcome their disability.

Now you contradict the above, saying:

Overcoming a disability actually has nothing to do with the technologies I spoke of .

Ok, so now you think that it's about character. Well and good, but we are still left with those disable people disenfranchised by your earlier statement, the some who cannot lead a happy life. We are left to ask what you would do with them? You make it clear that a life that is not happy is not necessarily worth living.

No one but Terry can determine the value of her own life...

Except the courts, her legal guardian, the doctors and caretakers who refuse to give her food until she starves...They are all making decisions about the value of her life. Even you are, by backing the rights of the husband to make that decision.

....I believe Shiavo may be correct and innocent of all the accusations against him and that it`s ok to let Terry die...

Starving Terri to death is not letting her die, it is making her die, just the same as if you starved anyone else. The reason you give starving her, killing her, is that she doesn't have

you`re common variety of "A disability"

I am saying that, whether her disability is common or uncommon, her life is no less valuable, and that the value judgement you're making, based on your own personal beliefs, is a devaluation of the lives of all disabled people. You cannot say that one disabled life is ok to starve to death, and not devalue the rights of disabled people.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

With therapy and time she can have some level of recovery? It's been 15 years since the 'incident' in question (by the way, I think the bit about the 'possible criminal act' on the behalf of the husband was a nice touch, (though possibly libelous and thus not well thought out from a legal perspective)cos you need to show right from the get go that he's a shonky character capable of anything, cos you can't make your point otherwise, can you?)) if therapy would help then why has she not received any in the last 15 years? If the husband is saying 'no therapy' against the advice of experts, then why are we muddying the waters with what criminal acts he may or may not have been involved in and just saying ,'The doctors say that with therapy she could improve and he's refusing to allow it.' The actual wording is,'it shows us', us being her parents. Of course they believe that...they're her parents. Parents will often believe things that go against all reason just because they are parents and they WANT it to be that way.
Having said that, let me say this. The only thing she is being aided with is feeding, yes? She's breathing and everything else on her own? You can't starve her to death...that's just wrong.
The husband claims he is following her wishes, but because there was no documentation to this effect then no-one can make a judgement on that one way or the other, and in her current state they may well not be her wishes anymore and she is just incapeable of notifying anyone of her change of heart. There are plenty of people who say they would rather be dead than in a wheelchair, but they change their mind if it happens.
He's obviously moved on with his life if he has 2 children with someone else...one wonders why this is a fight he continues with when it would be easier to just pay his bills while he still has access to the money and then walk away.

 

[kiwimac]

She is NOT disabled. She is simply not there. Simple response to stimuli does not make a person or all animals would be accorded the stautys of 'person'

Kiwimac

 

[Pah]

In the absence of other legally recognized guardians, the father has a voice. This father does not because he can not speak for Terri so he resorts to the press and internet when denied by the court

 

[Quoth The Raven]

In the absence of other legally recognized guardians, the father has a voice. This father does not because he can not speak for Terri so he resorts to the press and internet when denied by the court

I think the whole starving to death thing is a bit inhumane though...if turning off machines isn't going to do it, I would think the same means as putting down animals should be called for. You wouldn't keep your dog alive for 15 years with a feeding tube.

 

[Israel]

She is NOT disabled. She is simply not there. Simple response to stimuli does not make a person or all animals would be accorded the stautys of 'person'

Kiwimac

I'm not saying that simple response to stimuli does make a person. However, you must ask then, what does it mean to be a person? She was born a human being, she lives, eats, breaths, sleeps, and even to use the old arguement against slavery "Does she not bleed the same as you?" Would you say that the absence of response denies a person their personhood, and condemn the comatose or severely mentally retarded?

You don't know what is in her mind, how alert and aware she is. Read some of the stories of people who have woken from comas, many talk of being quite aware of visitors and their surroundings, just unable to communicate.

By the way, her condition is medically a severe mental retardation from oxygen deprivation. This is a disability.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I'm not saying that simple response to stimuli does make a person. However, you must ask then, what does it mean to be a person? She was born a human being, she lives, eats, breaths, sleeps, and even to use the old arguement against slavery "Does she not bleed the same as you?" Would you say that the absence of response denies a person their personhood, and condemn the comatose or severely mentally retarded?

You don't know what is in her mind, how alert and aware she is. Read some of the stories of people who have woken from comas, many talk of being quite aware of visitors and their surroundings, just unable to communicate.

By the way, her condition is medically a severe mental retardation from oxygen deprivation. This is a disability.

Is she doing more than just involuntary response to stimuli? Is this whole thing largely to do with her parents not being able to let go (forgive my ignorance, it's not news over here, and unlike the Laci Petersen case it isn't something I've stumbled across and followed) and therefore creating signs of conciousness that aren't there?

 

[Israel]

I think the whole starving to death thing is a bit inhumane though...if turning off machines isn't going to do it, I would think the same means as putting down animals should be called for. You wouldn't keep your dog alive for 15 years with a feeding tube.

People deserve better than dogs. Some patients live for ten, fifteen, twenty years on a feeding tube. Even some young children require feeding tubes to grow to adulthood. I see nothing about modern medicine that should cause this disdain. Dogs indeed, hmmph.

No one is arguing that Terri is in so much pain and ill health, rather we know she is a healthy woman. She sits in her hospital bed and has an existence probably very similar to many nursing homes. If we overlook her rights, what about the aged and disabled in Sunnybrook? We are all going to die sometime, the question is the manner of death. Are we forced to die because we are inconvenient to someone else? Or are we allowed to live every precious moment until it is our natural time to go? The person who justifies the unnatural course cannot help but endorse suicide, and also murder.

 

[Israel]

Is she doing more than just involuntary response to stimuli? Is this whole thing largely to do with her parents not being able to let go (forgive my ignorance, it's not news over here, and unlike the Laci Petersen case it isn't something I've stumbled across and followed) and therefore creating signs of conciousness that aren't there?

She does make concious responses to stimuli, documented by court appointed experts as well as the parents. The problem is that her brain was incurably damaged years ago, and she is more often incapacitated than responsive.
She is now physically healthy, the arguement is over her mental condition. The husband and his attorneys argue that since she doesn't respond all the time, this is cause for euthanasia.
Over the years, she has made some progress in the area of motor skills. The family and some of her doctors believe she can make more progress toward re-learning to speak. The parents are even willing to completely take over her care to help her to recover as much as she can.