Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


via Atrios

There are important issues at stake here, issues that run far deeper than the easy question of, is she truly as brain-dead as Dean? My original input, consisting of passing on info I gained in about five minutes of Google, was aimed at counteracting five or six rather vituperative posts that made it seem as if there were no issue beyond "smart people v. idiots." I can understand why people might like to present things this way, but it's been my experience that there are usually other viewpoints about an issue than just the one presented here.

This is obviously tied in to the abortion debate, and so the sides are the same as in that one. I can only say at this point:

1. If I'm ever in the state she's in, unplug me. I'll make it possible by signing the right stuff in advance. Would that she had done so. But, if my family would somehow derive strength, or hope, or joy by keeping me plugged in, fine. Like I'd know about it, anyway.

2. In the absence of that step, I am amazed - befuddled - by learning, once again, that the fastest way to be demonized here and in our society is to interfere with people's perception of their right (right?) to kill those whom they deem it correct to kill. Nothing divides our society as violently. The people here who come out stridently in defense of their moral certainty of the correctness of killing certain groups of other people - people who are, in other respects, generally thoughtful, gentle-seeming people - well, their resoluteness and drive on the issue are scary.

3. If TS truly is an amoeba - if there's nothing there - and this is a necessary precondition to those calling stridently for her death - what's the harm in humoring her parents, and just handing her over to them, at their expense? Someone here said "dignity", but I suspect they meant their own, as I can't see how killing a life can give that life dignity, while I can see how it might make it easier to argue that such a life is undeserving. Once they're dead, how much defense can they deserve, after all?

4. A strong urge to fight allowing her parents to simply take her away is morbid, and bespeaks either an intensely strong ego that cannot let someone else have their way, or an intensely weak ego that couldn't stand for not getting their own. Why not just stay out of it, and let a parent who is concerned and maybe hopeful do what they can? In the face of a choice of "let her live, on our dime", and "kill her now - I'm sure that's what she wants", why would we ever not simply err on the side of not killing someone? And why do otherwise reasonable people feel so strongly the other way?

I truly don't get this one. Not Bob wants her dead. Ty wants her dead. RT wants her dead. They ridicule people who don't. From where do they derive a moral sanction to make and impose this judgment? Is it merely consistent with their longstanding fight in favor of capital punishment?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore

I truly don't get this one. Not Bob wants her dead. Ty wants her dead. RT wants her dead. They ridicule people who don't. From where do they derive a moral sanction to make and impose this judgment? Is it merely consistent with their longstanding fight in favor of capital punishment?

Truly. 2 or 3 of these 3 were nicer to me when I stated my opposition to abortion. Its like they obtained her voting records and figured out she used to vote Republican.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
I truly don't get this one. Not Bob wants her dead. Ty wants her dead. RT wants her dead. They ridicule people who don't. From where do they derive a moral sanction to make and impose this judgment? Is it merely consistent with their longstanding fight in favor of capital punishment?

My last post on this. A few points:

(1) I don't recall ridiculing anyone over this.

(2) Declining to have a feeding/hydration tube keep you alive is ok with the law, and apparently it's eveb ok with bilmore. It's not ok with the Catholic Church, and that's something I respect. Frankly, I agree that there is a difference between shutting a ventilator off and unplugging a feeding tube. But there apparently isn't a difference under the law in Florida. People get the choice over whether they want the tube or not.

(3) It sure would be nice if she had signed a living will, but she didn't. And, under Florida law, a written document isn't necessary.

(4) Nonetheless, there was a trial to determine if Terri wanted or didn't want the feeding tube. The judge (a conservative Republican, by the way) made findings that she did not want a feeding tube. He made these findings after hearing testimony from live witnesses, including court-appointed medical experts.

(5) These findings have been upheld on appeal.

(6) Should the husband not go with his wife's wishes that she not be kept alive? Why doesn't he just let mom and dad take over? I dunno and I dunno. Although, given the judge's findings that Terri didn't want the tube, his wishes are really no longer relevant.

(7) I understand where the parents are coming from. Their religious faith and their belief that as long as Terri is breathing there is hope for a miracle is why they are fighting. Most of the people supporting them probably feel the same way. I have a child, and I can see myself feeling the same way. I can also see myself in the husband's shoes -- wanting to do what my wife wanted, and not sentencing her to life as a vegetable. My heart aches for all of them.

(8) Maybe this is where bilmore sees ridicule -- I think that the Republican leadership in Congress has behaved despicably. As bad as Delay has been (I imagine some of his comments about the sancity of life, and the need for certainty, will be used in future debates over federal habeas review of death penalty cases), Frist has been worse. He's a doctor, for christsakes. He knows what the medical reports from the court-appointed doctors mean.

(9) I'm done.

[Spanky]

OK kids. I would like to pose a question. Does everyone know who Dr. Helen Caldicott is? If you don't you are lucky. She is an anti-nuclear activist that started Physicians for Social Responsibility. She was nominated for a Nobel Piece Prize. She has written many books, and has recently been on a book tour about her new book. I think it is called “If You Love This Planet”. She is a darling of Hollywood, hanging out with Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford all the time. A documentary about her life, “Eight Minutes to Midnight” was nominated for an Academy award.

Her new issue is that the “Cold War is Not Over”. She is working with the Nuclear Policy Research Institute on this issue. She believes that both Russia and the United States nuclear forces are on a hair trigger alert and that we are on the brink of nuclear annihilation. She believe that if a warning comes that Russian missiles are on the way to the United States, Bush would only have three minutes to make a decision, and if such a launch is detected, that our current policy is to respond with overwhelming nuclear attack, just as if we are still in the Cold War. In other words, the world is still on the brink of nuclear annihilation.

Dr. Caldicott and my mother are best friends. I just had dinner with her and my mom and as usual, the good Doctor and me got into a political debate. I told her that the United States and Russia were not on full-scale hair trigger alerts anymore. To show me that I was wrong, she called Robert McNamara on her cell phone, and had me talk to him. Talk about bizarre. I don’t know when these two hooked up but I guess he is now working with her on her project. I confronted McNamara, and McNamara told me that he thought a mistaken US Strike against Russia was unlikely and that our missiles were no longer aimed at Russia. When I got off the phone with him Dr. Caldicott told me that I had intimidated the former Secretary of Defense so he backed down and changed his tune, and that he was lying (can you believe this woman).

She has a big beef with Bill Clinton because she thinks that he did nothing about this situation. He could have changed what she calls the SIOP plan but would not stand up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (for some reason the Joint Chief’s of Staff are insistent on keeping the whole world on the brink of Nuclear Annihilation). She believes that because Clinton is such a wimp, the US is still on the brink of a nuclear exchange with Russia. I used to be the advisor to the Stanford Republicans when Condi Rice was still at Stanford. We had many events with Condi and in one of them Condi told a student that the US and Russia were no longer poised for a nuclear confrontation. When I told this to “the Doctor” she flipped out. She told me that Condi did not know what is going on. Yes – the current Secretary of State does not know what the US nuclear policy with Russia is.

I asked her to cite me some support of her position, and she showed me some cites from her book, but none of them were primary cites. Her footnotes just cited what other liberals had said. We made a deal. I told her that if she could show me some primary cites (official Pentagon policy positions etc) that the US and Russia were on the brink of nuclear annihilation, I would pass them onto “Condi”. However (now the good part) she told me if I could show her evidence that she was wrong about the current nuclear situation between Russia, and the US she would move back to Australia and forget about politics. She told me that if I could show her that a nuclear exchange with Russia was a remote possibility she would give up politics. She would give up her radio show in Manhattan and move back to her cottage in Brisbane.

Here is chance for the people on this board to do something practical. We can get rid of this woman. Does anyone want to help me find primary cites on what the current nuclear policy with Russia is so I can send this woman back to the land down under

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This dog won't hunt.

The Florida STATE legislature did get involved - and act - on behalf of Terri and her parents. Then the Florida judiciary intervened.

Not that I have followed this "case" closely, but I am pretty sure you have your order backward.

It does amaze me though, the lengths that you, who should be entirely against this kind of political grandstanding bullshit, will go to justify whatever the right was. What's happened to your independent streak, man?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
There are important issues at stake here, issues that run far deeper than the easy question of, is she truly as brain-dead as Dean? My original input, consisting of passing on info I gained in about five minutes of Google, was aimed at counteracting five or six rather vituperative posts that made it seem as if there were no issue beyond "smart people v. idiots." I can understand why people might like to present things this way, but it's been my experience that there are usually other viewpoints about an issue than just the one presented here.

This is obviously tied in to the abortion debate, and so the sides are the same as in that one. I can only say at this point:

1. If I'm ever in the state she's in, unplug me. I'll make it possible by signing the right stuff in advance. Would that she had done so. But, if my family would somehow derive strength, or hope, or joy by keeping me plugged in, fine. Like I'd know about it, anyway.

2. In the absence of that step, I am amazed - befuddled - by learning, once again, that the fastest way to be demonized here and in our society is to interfere with people's perception of their right (right?) to kill those whom they deem it correct to kill. Nothing divides our society as violently. The people here who come out stridently in defense of their moral certainty of the correctness of killing certain groups of other people - people who are, in other respects, generally thoughtful, gentle-seeming people - well, their resoluteness and drive on the issue are scary.

3. If TS truly is an amoeba - if there's nothing there - and this is a necessary precondition to those calling stridently for her death - what's the harm in humoring her parents, and just handing her over to them, at their expense? Someone here said "dignity", but I suspect they meant their own, as I can't see how killing a life can give that life dignity, while I can see how it might make it easier to argue that such a life is undeserving. Once they're dead, how much defense can they deserve, after all?

4. A strong urge to fight allowing her parents to simply take her away is morbid, and bespeaks either an intensely strong ego that cannot let someone else have their way, or an intensely weak ego that couldn't stand for not getting their own. Why not just stay out of it, and let a parent who is concerned and maybe hopeful do what they can? In the face of a choice of "let her live, on our dime", and "kill her now - I'm sure that's what she wants", why would we ever not simply err on the side of not killing someone? And why do otherwise reasonable people feel so strongly the other way?

I truly don't get this one. Not Bob wants her dead. Ty wants her dead. RT wants her dead. They ridicule people who don't. From where do they derive a moral sanction to make and impose this judgment? Is it merely consistent with their longstanding fight in favor of capital punishment?

I don't want her dead. But I feel for her husband. If, God forbid, my wife were to be in that state, it would be a nightmare to be stuck in litigation with them for years and years. (It's bad enough when they drink my wine.) I sympathize with her parents. But we have ways of resolving these conflicts, ways which the Schiavos and the GOP are seeking to overrule.

[Spanky]

Here are some recent emails she just sent to me to back up her position.


-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Caldicott [mailto:hcaldic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:07 PM
To: mark@herrick.org
Cc: 'Bea Herrick'
Subject: hair trigger alert


Mark,

I suggest that you google hair trigger alert and read the many learned articles referring to the situation.

Go to the Center for Defense Information and read Bruce Blair’s numerous columns on the situation.

I will send you more stuff but do this as starters

Helen

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Caldicott [mailto:hcaldic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:28 PM
To: mark@herrick.org; 'Bea Herrick'
Subject: more


Mark,

Google the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, then search for hair trigger alert and read the numerous articles which also address this subject

Helen

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Caldicott [mailto:hcaldic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:34 PM
To: mark@herrick.org; 'Bea Herrick'
Subject: more


Mark,

Google Federation of American Scientists and hair trigger alert.

I tried the DOD web site, not so easy to find hair trigger alert at their site

Helen

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
She's brain-dead. Shouldn't her husband be allowed to pull the plug?

I'm not there - but video I have seen proves otherwise:

____

http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/Terri/mythsvsreality.htm

TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO—MYTHS vs. REALITY

By Megan Dillon
Director of Media Relations
National Right to Life
mediarelations@nrlc.org


For the latest updates on Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s case, please visit www.nrlc.org.

This memo seeks to clarify several misconceptions that have been circulating throughout the media in the case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

MYTH
Terri is in a coma or comatose-like state.

REALITY
None of Terri’s doctors currently maintain that she is in a coma. Some doctors believe that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state while others disagree and believe that she is “minimally conscious.” Most Americans have seen footage of Terri interacting with her mother by now and it is hard to ignore the way in which she appears to light up at the sound of her mother’s voice.

Important note:

The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

MYTH
Terri is on life support. Terri requires machines to live.

REALITY
To state that Terri is on life support or that she requires machines to live implies that Terri is dependent upon what has traditionally been considered life support, such as a ventilator, heart machine, or kidney dialysis.

Terri is a healthy woman with a disability and she is not hooked up to any machines as has been widely reported. She breathes on her own and merely receives nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube, much the same as a baby is sustained by the nutrition he or she receives through a bottle.

MYTH
Terri’s parents refuse to let her go and allow her to die.

REALITY
Terri is not terminally ill — she is a healthy woman with a disability. To induce someone’s death by denying him or her nutrition and hydration is an act of starvation. Terri’s parents have asked for Michael Schiavo to step down as her legal guardian and allow them to care for their daughter.

MYTH
Terri’s case is a right-to-die case.

REALITY
This claim is disputed. Terri’s parents and siblings say that she does not want to be starved to death and are asking the courts to allow them to care for her.

MYTH
Death by starvation and dehydration is painless.

REALITY
Florida law does not allow a dog to be subject to death by starvation, so why should Terri, a human being, be sentenced to such a death?

In Wesley J. Smith’s book, Forced Exit, St. Louis neurologist William Burke said:

“A conscious person would feel it [dehydration] just as you or I would. They will go into seizures. Their skin cracks, their tongue cracks, their lips crack. They may have nosebleeds because of the drying of the mucous membranes, and heaving and vomiting might ensue because of the drying out of the stomach lining. They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! Death by dehydration takes ten to fourteen days. It is an extremely agonizing death.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Here is chance for the people on this board to do something practical. We can get rid of this woman. Does anyone want to help me find primary cites on what the current nuclear policy with Russia is so I can send this woman back to the land down under

I would kinda hope that our missiles are aimed at Russian nuclear missiles. Is there anything else tht it makes more sense for them to be aimed at?

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Jesus fucking christ. Cruzan was decided in 1990. Why the fuck is everyone acting as if this is something new and nefarious?

Again, take me off the fucking feeding tube if anything remotely like this happens to me.

Fill out a living will, then...and hope your SOB husband doesn't do it to save some cash.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
MYTH
Terri is in a coma or comatose-like state.

REALITY
None of Terri’s doctors currently maintain that she is in a coma. Some doctors believe that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state while others disagree and believe that she is “minimally conscious.” Most Americans have seen footage of Terri interacting with her mother by now and it is hard to ignore the way in which she appears to light up at the sound of her mother’s voice.

Important note:

The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

According to CNN, "'Courts have ruled that Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state.'"

I'm willing to concede that courts may have erred, but I tend to doubt it (here and with Mumia).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would kinda hope that our missiles are aimed at Russian nuclear missiles. Is there anything else tht it makes more sense for them to be aimed at?

What is the point of hitting an empty Silo. Obviously we wouldn't launch a preemptive strike. She believes that we still work under the MAD scenario. If we detect a missle come from Russia our policy is to take out Russia completely - every city, every rail road crossing etc. And we make this decision to annihilate russia before the Russian missles have a chance to land. As far as I undestand our missles are not aimed at anyone but the can be aimed anywhere in the world.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is obviously tied in to the abortion debate, and so the sides are the same as in that one.

What do you mean "tied to?" For the pro-life crowd, it is the abortion debate. There is no difference.

2. In the absence of that step, I am amazed - befuddled - by learning, once again, that the fastest way to be demonized here and in our society is to interfere with people's perception of their right (right?) to kill those whom they deem it correct to kill. Nothing divides our society as violently. The people here who come out stridently in defense of their moral certainty of the correctness of killing certain groups of other people - people who are, in other respects, generally thoughtful, gentle-seeming people - well, their resoluteness and drive on the issue are scary.

You have truly gone off the deep end. Who, exactly, is certain about the moral correctness of "killing" certain groups of other people? I have heard people question whether the decision belongs to anyone other than Mr. Schiavo, but I haven't heard a single person - here or elsewhere - who are eager to "kill" anyone.

It is truly pathetic, and demonstrative of how much you have drunk the conservative cool-aid that you can't see the difference.

3. If TS truly is an amoeba - if there's nothing there - and this is a necessary precondition to those calling stridently for her death - what's the harm in humoring her parents, and just handing her over to them, at their expense? Someone here said "dignity", but I suspect they meant their own, as I can't see how killing a life can give that life dignity, while I can see how it might make it easier to argue that such a life is undeserving. Once they're dead, how much defense can they deserve, after all?

The harm? The harm is that it is now up to anyone who objects (be it parently, other relatives or Tom Delay) to make the most sensitive and difficult of life's decisions.

And again, who, exactly, is "stridently calling for her death?"

4. A strong urge to fight allowing her parents to simply take her away is morbid, and bespeaks either an intensely strong ego that cannot let someone else have their way, or an intensely weak ego that couldn't stand for not getting their own.

Has anyone mentioned recently that you are a pompous ass?

And to be clear, it's your arrogance that annoys me, not some depraved desire to kill someone. But I fully expect you to ignore that as it is far easier to believe that some people are just "evil."

Why not just stay out of it, and let a parent who is concerned and maybe hopeful do what they can? In the face of a choice of "let her live, on our dime", and "kill her now - I'm sure that's what she wants", why would we ever not simply err on the side of not killing someone?

You honestly see no danger, in one direction or the other, of changing the long standing precedent that the spouse is the next of kin?

I truly don't get this one. Not Bob wants her dead. Ty wants her dead. RT wants her dead. They ridicule people who don't.

If this is your level of analysis, I don't know why we talk to you. You have become yet another of the pathetic socks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the point of hitting an empty Silo. Obviously we wouldn't launch a preemptive strike. She believes that we still work under the MAD scenario. If we detect a missle come from Russia our policy is to take out Russia completely - every city, every rail road crossing etc. And we make this decision to annihilate russia before the Russian missles have a chance to land. As far as I undestand our missles are not aimed at anyone but the can be aimed anywhere in the world.

We've got all these missiles sitting in silos and submarines, etc. We can have them aimed at nothing in particular, or we can have them targeted at Russians missiles. I would hope it's the latter.

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
1. If I'm ever in the state she's in, unplug me. I'll make it possible by signing the right stuff in advance. Would that she had done so. But, if my family would somehow derive strength, or hope, or joy by keeping me plugged in, fine. Like I'd know about it, anyway.

She isn't "brain dead" as I would consider it. Which makes this the hard case. And making it harder is that this isn't the simple matter of taking her off life support. It's starving her to death.

2. In the absence of that step, I am amazed - befuddled - by learning, once again, that the fastest way to be demonized here and in our society is to interfere with people's perception of their right (right?) to kill those whom they deem it correct to kill. Nothing divides our society as violently. The people here who come out stridently in defense of their moral certainty of the correctness of killing certain groups of other people - people who are, in other respects, generally thoughtful, gentle-seeming people - well, their resoluteness and drive on the issue are scary.

And the inconsistency of everyone involved is quite interesting. Some of the most vehemently ant-death penalty people I know see nothing wrong with the slow, agonizing death of Terry. I, on the other hand, see the exact opposite.

3. If TS truly is an amoeba

I've met Tyrone. Despite his leanings, he's really not all that bad.

Oh...you meant...nevermind

- if there's nothing there - and this is a necessary precondition to those calling stridently for her death - what's the harm in humoring her parents, and just handing her over to them, at their expense? Someone here said "dignity", but I suspect they meant their own, as I can't see how killing a life can give that life dignity, while I can see how it might make it easier to argue that such a life is undeserving. Once they're dead, how much defense can they deserve, after all?

If the parties that be really believed in letting her die with dignity, they wouldn't torture her by starving her for 2 weeks. Give her the needle

4. A strong urge to fight allowing her parents to simply take her away is morbid, and bespeaks either an intensely strong ego that cannot let someone else have their way, or an intensely weak ego that couldn't stand for not getting their own. Why not just stay out of it, and let a parent who is concerned and maybe hopeful do what they can? In the face of a choice of "let her live, on our dime", and "kill her now - I'm sure that's what she wants", why would we ever not simply err on the side of not killing someone? And why do otherwise reasonable people feel so strongly the other way?

All the more so when the husband and his GF have a potential financial benefit from seeing her dead.

I truly don't get this one. Not Bob wants her dead. Ty wants her dead. RT wants her dead. They ridicule people who don't. From where do they derive a moral sanction to make and impose this judgment? Is it merely consistent with their longstanding fight in favor of capital punishment?

This one has everyone on the odd side of the aisle.

Except for Democrats up for re-election. I'm guessing not a one will want to say they voted against Terri's right to live - if in fact they let her die.