Let me get this straight.

[merh]

The fundies are up in arms about letting Terry Schiavo, a woman with no brain activity, die of natural causes, i.e., remove the feeding tube engineered by medical science that keeps her alive, yet they oppose medical science using stem cells to improve the lives of folks with active and functioning brains that have debilitating diseases that will eventually kill them. Have I got that right?

Now what am I missing here? Is it me or does anyone else see the contradictory nature of these positions? :shrug:


And then there is Sun, the 6 month old black infant that was being kept alive by a respirator in accordance with his mother's wishes only to have his life ended because the doctors thought keeping him alive was a waste of money and the efforts of the hospital staff. Has Tom Delay promised to go after those doctors that murdered Sun by removing him from the respirator contrary to his mother's wishes?

Have I got this straight? What am I missing?

[bleever]

1. Kicked right back up.

[Goldmund]

2. I'm afraid you aren't missing anything.

[merh]

4. Then why are there people on DU having hissy fits about the

court's ruling that Schiavo's wishes should be followed?

I realize that the neo-cons are using Schiavo as a political hot potato and as part of their smoke & mirrors campaign of misdirection and disinformation. Why have DUers fallen for it?

[Goldmund]

8. While I'm not one of those DUers,

it's not correct to say that the only way you can have that opinion about Terry Schiavo is by drinking Neocons' cool-aide. I am sure that those DUers will agree with you that the Neocons' "concern" about Schiavo is political posturing and malicious taking advantage of her situation for their own propaganda. But you must allow people to have an opinion on a specific issue without falling into the trap of accusing them of being under the influence of Neocon propaganda.

It's also a logical fallacy: a DUer thinks that Schiavo's tube shouldn't be removed + Neocons think (or, claim to think) that Schiavo's tube shouldn't be removed => the DUer is drinking Neocon coolaid

is equivalent to

Dogs are animals + giraffes are animals => dogs are giraffes.

Speaking of dogs, I prefer them over cats, just like GWB. Trust me, I'm not "falling for" his propaganda. :)

[Mr_Spock]

11. I agree

I don't know why this personal issue has been politicized so much - I blame the Repukes for that. On the other hand, I'm not sure one way or the other what is the right thing for these people to do. I know what I'd do, but their choices about how they want to spend their money or who is in control of a comatose persons will are none of my business really.

[merh]

13. My statement is not equating DUers that think the feeding tube

should not be removed to fundies, it is questioning why they do not appreciate the totally contradictory nature of the fundies stances regarding medical science "interferring" with life or manipulating life.
I also have concerns as to why some DUers do not appreciate the fact that the fundies are using this woman for their own political gain. If the fundies were asked if they would open their home to this woman and take her in, they would politely refuse and say that nature should be allowed to take its course.

You read far too much into my post.

[Goldmund]

16. What I'm saying is...

...that a DUer (or any other person, for that matter) can think that Terry Schiavo should be kept on the feeding tube completely independently of what the fundies think about this issue.

I have not seen any posts that fail to appreciate "the totally contradictory nature of the fundies stances regarding medical science "interferring" with life or manipulating life". I've seen posts about Terry Schiavo that have nothing to do with what the fundies say or think.

Also, I didn't say that you were equating those DUers to fundies; I said that you were accusing them of falling for Neocon propaganda, which is pretty much a direct quote from your post.

[hollywood926]

10. because no one knows what her wishes were

we have only the word of her husband and the woman he's been cheating on her with for several years.

And BOTH Democrats and Republicans use this issue and others as political hot potatoes. Is this just coming to your attention?

[karlrschneider]

15. How long was he supposed to put his life on hold, in the infinitesimally

small chance Terri would ever be able to function? Until he's dead too?
It has been 15 years and she has only gone 'downhill'. There is no sentience inside her unfortunately moribund body.

[merh]

17. The democrats appear to be reacting to the repukes efforts to

use this woman as their political soap box. Odd, I thought the court's were assigned the duty of determining who was telling the truth about the wife's wishes and had determined that the husband had made a case. Are you really concerned about her needs or are you just pissed at him for not sitting by her side for 15 years, combing her hair?

[atreides1]

18. Then her parents don't really know what her wishes were either.

Are you saying that Michael Schiavo is lying about what his wife's wishes were? And exactly what are you basing this on?

So what is your thought about the doctors in Texas pulling the plug on a baby, and why do you think that the Xtian Taliban and Mr. Delay along with the other horses asses in the Congress did nothing to stop it.

[crispini]

22. Actually, according to this court document:

(warning: large file)
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

both his brother and sister-in-law back up his testimony about her wishes, see p.5. i'd post a snippet but it's a PDF, can't cut and paste.

[mondo joe]

25. That's the point of having next-of-kin status

So someone can speak for you when you can't.

[Dookus]

43. this post is a perfect example

of what's being discussed. I believe it IS possible to have an opinion that Terri should be kept alive. But when people spout bullshit like "he's been cheating on her for several years", then it's drinking the rightwing bullshit koolaid.

[Susang]

48. How do you cheat on someone

Who has no longer has a cerebral cortex? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

20. DU has right-to-lifers

You were aware of that, weren't you? Also, there are no party lines when it comes to being gullible and the noise machine is very, very good. It's as if people suddenly forgot there are doctors and scientists in right wing organizations and finding one to give expert testimony isn't that hard. It's issues like these that really make it clear why Dems in Congress don't fight, there's plenty of Democrats who are as easily duped as the fundies.

[Corgigal]

46. Fallen for it ?

I have been a Democrat for 35 years. I give money and my talent to most Democratic cause. I also don't believe Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. However I am also for the rule of law so whatever the Florida courts decide is fine with me. Schiavo parents did a great job in lobbying their emotion to keep their daughter on this planet. I have no problem with that and I would probably try to do the same.

I have two disabled men in my life who I love dearly. To me it's a disability issue not a "right" to life. She is alive, not the way some people prefer to live but the only way Terry can live right now. Fundy arguments don't really enter my mind.

I always believed I was a Dem and a liberal because it was us, only us, that took care of the weak among us. I never thought, and still don't think a republican gives a damn but will use whatever they can to split "US" up. This issue should have been a democrat position not a republican position and lots of DU'ers don't want to see this.
I thought we were the complicated thinkers not the stark black and white thinkers but on this issue we are just as stark as the right to lifers are. We shouldn't be doing that. Love does wonderful and also awful things to us humans. Yeah I understand the science of what happened to this young lady. I also understand she has no chance of entering our world again, on our terms, but so what? We don't understand the functioning of the human brain that well yet. It wasn't too long ago when we all heard that same BS that animals don't experience pain. In fact, some people still try that one.

I didn't drink any koolaid but I can still see a beautiful person in Terry who others love. Why is that a terrible thing? If I knew that is what Terry wanted, written somewhere and the courts enforced it , then I would back it. This is a failure of both her husband and her parents who should have never allowed such a personal issue to become public. It's a failure that the republicans are using it as a right to life case when they hate most people with disabilities and think they are nothing but lazy. Their voting for the Iraq war make more disabled people on a daily basis and they couldn't give a damn and still cut funding for the VA. I also believe Democrat's are screwing up on this issue because they are using only the science and not the human bond part of this story.

The whole thing is damn shameful.

[rman]

57. because ANYONE can post on DU

-

[coloradodem2005]

3. kick

:kick:

[karlrschneider]

5. AFAICT you've spelled it out exactly.

:eyes:

[oldcoot]

6. It gets worse

If you want to learn more about the history of the Texas law that allowed for the hospital to terminate the baby's care, read this http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/index.html (scroll down to the March 16th entry).

[merh]

9. It is very interesting to read the views of one of the co-authors of

the legislation.

Thank you for this link.

[sandnsea]

27. Texas law

The hospital can decide, that's Texas law. A hospital can decide to remove life support and if the family can't find any other hospital to take the patient, the patient dies. It has to go through an ethics panel and all of that. Removing the right of the legal guardian in Florida would seem to help change this long legal tradition. We're losing another right to make our own medical decisions, seems to me.

Baby Sun should have been removed from life support, but still, who is going to make these decisions? Courts, Congress, insurance companies? Very bad turn we've taken.

[merh]

38. Very bad indeed.

I don't believe that they can go against the wishes we profess in our living wills. We still have a say, we just have to make sure we have it in writing (and that we have really good insurance or money if we chose to be maintained).

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Of course they aren't outraged

Their dear leader Tom DeLay isn't outraged. They only get outraged when the whole lot do. I thought that was so disgusting! :mad:

[stillcool]

7. 15 years of this? it sounds like the parents may be brain-dead also. n/t

[sandnsea]

12. Neonatal care detects that condition

Which the mother didn't have. If she had neonatal care and the condition were detected, she couldn't have had a late term abortion either. But the hospital can decide to kill the infant 6 months after it's born.

I don't understand how they cannot see how nuts they are.

[orleans]

53. they're too nuts to see how nuts they are

[FreedomAngel82]

14. Haven't missed anything

I was so pissed off about the baby Sun. :argh: Makes me so sad. :cry:
Something is going on with the Schivao case. Why her? Why not the others? Something is missing in this story they don't want us to know. It's very fishy.

[atreides1]

21. My Theory

Here's a theory, the Republicans were starting to lose the support of the Xtian Taliban, so they needed something to bring those good Xtian folk back to the fold, Terri Schiavo was the magnet to draw them back.

I truly think that Sun Hudson was the wrong color, seeing as to how most of the Xtian Taliban is white, with a few sprinkles of color.

[merh]

23. I read a post that said she, or her legal guardians, had been

awarded a sum in a malpractice case. Does anyone of any idea as to who is the guardian of her money while she is alive? Are the parents the trustees of the money during her lifetime and, in the event of her death, does her husband inherit the money? Is the hospital/nursing care facility where she resides one of Frist's or some repukes that hates to lose the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are required to take care of her?

Just wondering! :shrug:

Yes, the baby Sun story broke my heart. :cry: How could they do that to the mother? His life expectancy was only another 6 months, was that too much time to ask that she be allowed to have with him?

[sandnsea]

29. He offered to donate it to charity

He turned down a million dollars from somebody to just walk away. It isn't the money, despite what way too many loons believe.

I didn't read that the baby had a 6 month life expectancy. I read that he had a form of dwarfism that results in immediate death because the lungs aren't developed. They didn't know that when Baby Sun was born because mom didn't have neonatal care. So they hooked him up to the respirator before they had a diagnosis, and he's been on the respirator since. I don't know if he might have died at some point even with the respirator, or what his mental state was for sure. Lots of questions there. But I don't think hospitals ought to be making these decisions, it's one step to having insurance companies, Medicaid and Medicare making them and that isn't good.

[merh]

31. I didn't think it was about money for the husband. I think it is about

money for the repukes that are using this sad situation to create the smoke screen to hide behind (DeLay's criminal charges, the protests against the war, propogandagate, etc.) The parents have some type of clout to keep this alive for so long.

I went back and reviewed the article and you are correct, it didn't provide a life expectancy for Sun.

I also agree with you, the hospitals should not be allowed to make the decision.

[Horse with no Name]

40. Thank you

You are right on the money.

[orleans]

55. frist and family own the hca hospital chain

anyone know what hospital terri is in?

[orleans]

56. she's in palm gardens nursing home in largo

i looked on the hca website (the chain in the frist family) and there is a map with the laundry list of medical facilities hca owns. it doesn't look like the place terri is at is on this list. but i thought it was a good connection that was made--one that i wanted to check out.

http://www.hcahealthcare.com/CustomPage.asp?guidCustomContentID=56B0A2BE-268D-407A-BA31-3223710C7EC0

now i'm wondering if jebbie has some type of investment in the palm gardens in largo.

hummm...

[AutumnMist]

19. So do those who support the Terri removing, support the Sun one?

And should we perhaps do away with living wills and just say that if you reach point X your're screwed (or not screwed depending on your view)?

The whole issue goes deeper perhaps than either on many fronts...

[sandnsea]

26. That's the plan I think

There is another case in Texas where a 68 year old man is going to be removed from life support. The law there is that the hospital decides. In Florida, if they can decide legal guardians don't have the final say, that helps remove that legal tradition. Then it's just one step for having insurance companies decide, because that's who makes the hospital decisions anyway.

[merh]

30. Living wills have nothing to do about my inquiries or either case.

When no living wills exist, the decision is left to the next of kin. As pointed out by a poster above, the court found that the husband's position that his wife did not want to kept alive in this manner were supported by other relatives, thus the court, who has the legal duty to make such decisions, found for the husband and ordered that the feeding tube be removed.

Baby Sun's legal representatives, next of kin, his mother, wanted him kept alive. He had no living will so again, the living will has nothing to do with his case.

The issues don't go that deep. They are very simple and based upon law and fact, the court has ordered the tube removed for Ms. Schiavo and baby Sun's parent's wishes should have been respected. The hospital actually violated the law when they turned off the respirator and I hope Sun's parents sue the shit out of them.

[Lindacooks]

24. Yep, that's typical Repuke 'logic'.

Why their heads don't spin completely around is beyond me.

[girl gone mad]

32. Here's another conundrum for you,

from Atrios:

In 1999 then governor Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to withdraw life support from patients, over the objections of the family, if they consider the treatment to be nonbeneficial.

and:


A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive.

St. Luke's notified Jannette Nikolouzos in a March 1 letter that it would withdraw life-sustaining care of her husband of 34 years in 10 days, which would be Friday. Mario Caba-llero, the attorney representing the family, said he is seeking a two-week extension, at minimum, to give the man more time to improve and to give his family more time to find an alternative facility.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

edit: emphasis added.

[imenja]

33. they see both as right to life issues

in both cases. I don't agree with their position, but I don't see it as contradictory either. They believe all life is sacred, whether it's a person in a vegetative state or a zygote in a petri dish.
They think stem cell research is sacrificing one life for another. It's ideologically consistent.

The point you raise is about the quality of life. That is not the right's concern in either of these cases.

I do, however, see other contradictions in their position: Principally, why Terry Schiavo above all others? Why not the little black baby in Texas whose life support was terminated yesterday against the wishes of his parents?

[merh]

36. It is not the right to life for Schiavo, if it were, they would not allow

medical science to interfere with the plans of God. It is a medically designed feeding tube that is keeping her alive. Without the interference or contribution by medical science, she would have died years ago. To oppose the use of a zygote in a petri dish by medical science to try to keep people alive is contrary to the right to life stance.

To leave Ms. Schiavo and the zygote to the natural course of things and in the hands of god, without interference or manipulation by medical science, neither would live. Yes, their positions are contradictory, imho.

[imenja]

41. My personal views on the matter are similar to yours

I was merely stating the conservative position. There is a great tendency of those on both the right and the left to attribute sinister motives to their adversaries. This does not further understanding of any kind. Theirs is a moral position, though I, like you, believe it to be mistaken. To argue that they do not support life because they don't agree with you is . . . , well, common. It's the sort of thing that dominates public discourse today, the sort of thing that Bill Clinton appropriately cautioned against.

By the way, zygotes only exist in petri dishes because of human manipulation. If it were left entirely in the hands of God, without scientific interference, they would exist only in the womb.

Frankly, I don't consider it any of yours, mine, or Tom Delay's business what happens to Terry Schiavo. My concern is about the role of the state in determining what are rightly private matters to be resolved by families. Should it be you or your wife or husband in the vegetative state, then your views about what constitutes a meaningful life will be what matters. The same is true for Tom Delay, Jeb Bush, and the rest of us. I find it terribly sad that this family's tragedy has become a political issue and fodder for gossip by a nation of busy bodies.

[merh]

44. Your contention and judgment are without cause and

I find your reply very insulting. "To argue that they do not support life because they don't agree with you is . . . , well, common. It's the sort of thing that dominates public discourse today, the sort of thing that Bill Clinton appropriately cautioned against."

I have in no way argued that they do not support life and if you get that from my posts then it is your issues not mine, especially since you state that your views are similar to mine. I have simply pointed out the contradictions in their stances and questioned them. Your accusations that I believe they are wrong simply because they differ with me are not only wrong they are insulting and I take issue with your judgments and your righteous tone. I do not need your's or Clinton's warnings.

BTW, Clinton is not my hero and he is definitely not a role model to follow relative to moral or ethical issues. If it were not for his ego, his getting a blow job in the oval office "because he could" (his words, not mine), we would not be in the mess we are in, finding ourselves in a constant state of struggle with fundies over the what is the proper moral compass for this nation. He was a fool, he and Hillary both knew that they were targets of the "right wing conspiracty" since 1992, but his ego and sexual desires allowed him to give the right wing what they wanted. A smart man would have kept it in his pants. A moral man would never have considered having himself pleasured by a young intern while he was married to another.

Because of his stupid indescretions, the right wing and neo-cons were empowered and our party was left impotent. To this day dem leaders and candidates are still trying to prove that they are morally correct and they are still trying to court the votes of the religious right.

I know where zygotes can be found and again, your condescending instructions on this matter are insulting, but I would assume from the tone of your post that is what you intend.

And lastly, how odd it is that you "find it terribly sad that this family's tragedy has become a political issue and fodder for gossip by a nation of busy bodies" and yet, you join in the gossip by discussing the issues in these threads and by passing your judgment on others. Therefore, it would appear that you are as much of a busy body as anyone else. :shrug:

[imenja]

47. you are very easily insulted

I reprint your own post here since you don't acknowledge what you've said:

"It is not the right to life for Schiavo, if it were, they would not allow medical science to interfere with the plans of God."

Above you clearly say it is not "the right to life for Schiavo". As for the rest of my post, I shared my views on the subject. Why you feel insulted by my remarks is frankly baffling. That I raise a disagreement does not mean I insult you.

Your treatise on Bill Clinton is aside from the point. I didn't realize that if I invoke a statement made by another political figure he must be the political hero of the person to whom I'm speaking. You apparently would prefer to discuss Clinton that the points I actually made. I'm not interested in a discussion about his sins. I merely invoked his caution that American politics has gotten to the point where it centers around the politics of personal destruction. People are no longer able to consider an opponent's view point without attributing sinister motives and challenging their integrity as human beings. It is, as I noted common. One sees such posts by the thousands on DU. I personally do not think it helps any of us. Your post did not do that, but, as the quote above demonstrates, you did challenge the idea that the right were not advocating on behalf of Terry's life.

I still see no ideological contradiction between opposing both stem cell research and euthanasia or its equivalent. I see these positions as entirely consistent, since they revolve around a conservative Christian ideal of the sanctity of life. The contradictions you argue for in your OP have to do with quality of life issues rather than life itself. In neither case is the Christian right making quality of life claims. Nor have they argued medical intervention is wrong. Their argument focuses entirely on the idea of the sanctity of life itself, whether that life is an embryo or a woman in a vegetative state. I don't need to agree with a position to understand that others have strong moral convictions that motivate what they do.

The case of the black child in Texas that you mention strikes me as a major contradiction. I could point to a number of others as well: the death penalty, supporting fertility treatment (that results in disguarded embryos) yet opposing stem cell treatment.

As for my engaging in gossip on the issue. I've tried to keep my remarks on the Schiavo case to the issue of the state itself. I don't make remarks, like some I've seen, that Terry is already dead, her parents are using her cause to advance political hatred, whether it's right to pull the plug.....on and on they go. My concerns are with what I see as improper interference by the state in a personal private matter, and that again is the very point of view I expressed in the previous post that you perceived as an insult.

[merh]

52. And the tone of your posts is very condescending and you

attribute meaning to my words that are not accurate.

You wrote: "to argue that they do not support life because they don't agree with you is . . . , well, common." I never argued that. In fact, my language "It is not the right to life for Schiavo, if it were, they would not allow medical science to interfere with the plans of God." does not support your judgment of me or your contention that I argued that they do not support life. My posts simply question the contradiction in their "strong moral convictions". If they base their fight for this woman's life on the premise that all live is sacred and only God can give life and take life, then why will they not allow god's will be done and let her die? But for the assistance of man, the manipulations of medical science, she would die and that would appear to be god's will.

The rest of your post I will not rehash with you. It is apparent that you know you are superior (or so your tone reflects) and I am in no mood to continue this discourse with you ad nausea. I simply suggest you reread your posts to determine whether or not you can detect how condescending they are.

[imenja]

54. I give up

Your perceptions of how I view myself are way off base. I think of myself as superior or even adequate in virtually no area of life.

I simply tried to present my own views on the issue. They are not meant to convey any sense of superiority. They are instead a difference of opinion. I have reread my posts. Since I intended no insult or proclamation of superiority, I see none, no matter how many times I read them.

[VOX]

50. "all life is sacred" -- unless you're a convict on death row, or an Iraqi.

The right wing has absolutely no problem in snuffing out the lives of the convicted, regardless of whether the death penalty has been fairly or legitimately applied.

As for being Iraqi, they're just deemed to be an impediment to all the "spreading freedom." :mad:

[imenja]

51. true

the death penalty. They imagine innocent life as superior to criminals. Even birth control. If you want to prevent abortions, wouldn't making birth control widely available to teenagers be the best solution?

[Tigress DEM]

34. We've been asked to cool it on Schiavo, so the Iraq Protests get bumped up

on the web. By waiting to address the Schiavo thing until after this weekend, we can rob the repugs of their diversion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3302937

[XemaSab]

35. Seems to me to be exactly analogous to

Being against abortion, while also being against prenatal care and WIC and similar programs to curb infant mortality.

Morans.

[ellenfl]

37. this was all started by and is for

the benefit of jeb when he runs for his party's nomination for president. propaganda, pure and simple.

ellen fl

[FlyByNight]

39. I think that being conservative (reactionary actually)...

means one lacks an irony gene. I swear they just don't listen to themselves sometimes.

[Horse with no Name]

42. I would like to repost my answer to another person in another thread

This baby did not have a legally sane advocate to argue his rights as a human being and nobody made sure that he did. A poor black baby with congenital malformations from the ghetto in Houston with a mentally unfit mother and no support system is not a political cause that anyone wants to embrace without having to address that abortions are sometimes necessary, lack of prenatal care in that sector of Houston, and the fact that the mother is on the streets without any type of medication for her obvious mental disease.
IF I were God, I would have d/c'd life support long ago on this child and on Terri to end their needless suffering.
However, I only advocated time for Sun's mother to come to terms with this and feel strongly that a guardian ad litum should have been appointed for this child to serve his interests when his mother clearly could not.

[tavalon]

45. The only thing you're missing in your description

(and I don't think you've really missed it at all, have you) is that the Terry Schiavo situation is nothing more than a manufactured political creation. These people don't care about "innocent life" (if they did they would care about the 1500 American they've killed in Iraq along with the ? how many Iraqis they've killed as well, many of whom definitely qualify for the innocent title) they care about political gain. No more, no less.

I am appalled that Terry Shiavo is being used in this way. It's disgusting. And she can't defend herself which makes it all the more disgusting.

[durablend]

58. "she can't defend herself which makes it all the more disgusting"

Which, of course, is why they can get away with it.

More and more I think about it, they're trying to use this as penance because they (repukes) know with almost total certainty where they're headed to in the afterlife. Letting her go would grant them an immediate ticket to the "incinerator down below" when you combine it with everything else they've done.

[VOX]

49. Another contradiction: BIGGER federal government, no states' rights.

This whole affair is a clear case of intrusive federal government, meddling in an affair that they should not.

This has been a conservative battle-cry from day one: **smaller government, and states' rights**.

So just how much bigger and more invasive is the federal government going to get under this radical right-wing administration? :mad: