Schiavo's parents and husband now fighting over method of burial

B/S. Her family dragged that guy thru the mud, and the lunatics that they've set against him might very well murder him or anyone else in his family, they've certainly sent enough death threats out against him. Why the hell should he 'give them the body', just to be nice? They threw away any chance of being nice a long time ago.

Is that where you wanna be when Jesus comes back?

It is their daughter after all. Did she also tell him that she wanted to be cremated and buried 1000 miles from her parents? I think it's bad enough that he got to decide that she dies.

And I'm not saying he murdered her (yet) but in a few weeks a cause will be known and then we'll see if he gets jailed after the fact. Things have a funny way of coming back to bite.

If any of you think this fight over the burial is bad wait until we get them suing each other who owns the rights to the movie that some producer will want to make.

As for the burial, bye church law she can be cremated that is a fact.

Hell the husband even had to ban them from the funeral only because they would try and make another spectical out of that.

This whole thing has been about money nothing more. The only time the lawsuits started was her father asked for money that the husband received from the insurance co. that is a fact.

[edit on 4/4/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by Lanotom
Is that where you wanna be when Jesus comes back?

I am absolutely comfortable with my position on this subject. She wanted to not be on life support when in that sort of state. End of story. She wanted to be cremated and have the urn interned with her husband, end of story. Hell, the bible states that people will have to leave their families and the like as part of the jesus movement, and it also strongly supports marriage, to the extend that a widower who re-marries is an adulterer. So M.Schaivo's statements, short of convicting him of a crime, which has never been done, stand, her parent's desires have no legal nore even biblical standing.

I think it's bad enough that he got to decide that she dies.

Tell that to the sanctity of marriage people. He's her husband, her name changes to his last name, he is her guardian, he has final legal say, they do not.

Things have a funny way of coming back to bite

The only people that are going to get bitten in the ass by this are the hypocrits and hacks in congress who usurped judicial powers, personal liberties, and the rule of law itself.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Lanotom
Is that where you wanna be when Jesus comes back?

I am absolutely comfortable with my position on this subject. She wanted to not be on life support when in that sort of state. End of story. Prove it. She wanted to be cremated and have the urn interned with her husband, end of story. Prove it. Hell, the bible states that people will have to leave their families and the like as part of the jesus movement, and it also strongly supports marriage, to the extend that a widower who re-marries is an adulterer. So having two more kids out of wedlock is... not adultery? So M.Schaivo's statements, short of convicting him of a crime, which has never been done, stand, her parent's desires have no legal nore even biblical standing.
Tell that to the sanctity of marriage people. The "sanctity of marriage people" would never support an adulterer. He's her husband, her name changes to his last name, he is her guardian, he has final legal say, they do not.
...
The only people that are going to get bitten in the ass by this are the hypocrits and hacks in congress who usurped judicial powers, personal liberties, and the rule of law itself.

The law is there to protect people. In this case it was used to kill a woman. One of the greatest things about American law is its adaptability. There was obviously something wrong with the law if a woman, innocent of any crime, was permitted to starve to death. The redirection of authority in this case was ONLY for the purpose of saving a human life.

Maybe the law does need to be changed, but maybe it doesn't. Maybe it needs to be changed a different way... if we were to just admit that Terri was euthanized and not "allowed to die", we could give people lethal amounts of morphine or something and they could die quickly, painlessly, and in a deep sleep rather than being slowly dehydrated and then self-poisoned to death over the course of 14 days.

Our worst convicted serial rapists and killers legally can't be killed in such a torturous way, why are the weakest and most innocent allowed? This is one of those laws that just defies common sense. We have a lot of laws like that... I mean if someone can sue McDonalds for being scalded by their own hot coffee...

Think of the possibilities.
-S
As long as we're talking about the sanctity of marraige, gaurdianship, and trying to keep laws static-
Did you know that in the early 1900's it was legal in most states for a man to beat his wife with a stick as long as it was no wider than his thumb and no longer than his arm? Glad that law changed. Maybe one day there will be a law that prevents a man from starving his wife to death?

[edit on 5-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

Originally posted by ServoHahn
Prove it.[that she had a living will and cremated]

Its been proven in a court of law, thats why the tube was removed. Her husband's say so is sufficient.

So having two more kids out of wedlock is... not adultery?

It certainly looks like adultery to me. What of it?

The "sanctity of marriage people" would never support an adulterer.

Then they are too biased to have anything to do with this.He did nothing illegal. His marriage is valid. By overiding her orally stated and witnessed and binding will and the courts, they are not only usurping the rights of the individual and the judiciary, but also the standing of marriage. Now marriage is that much less meaningful.

The law is there to protect people. In this case it was used to kill a woman.

The law requires that if a person has a living will then it be followed. Congress tried to undo that law.

. There was obviously something wrong with the law if a woman, innocent of any crime, was permitted to starve to death.

Then you disagree that any living will is valid?

The redirection of authority in this case was ONLY for the purpose of saving a human life.

'Prove it'

Maybe the law does need to be changed, but maybe it doesn't.

The law does not need to be changed. What happened was absolutely correct. She had a living will, living wills are legal.

in a deep sleep rather than being slowly dehydrated and then self-poisoned to death over the course of 14 days.

The very people usurping the powers of the courts in this case are the same ones that will never permit euthanization.

Our worst convicted serial rapists and killers legally can't be killed in such a torturous way, why are the weakest and most innocent allowed?

Because its what they want. Taking a person off of life support when they are in such a state is permissible, and she does not have the brain capacity to think 'dang, I'm freeking hungry, why won't these people put that tube back in'.

This is one of those laws that just defies common sense.

Following a will makes perfect sense.

Think of the possibilities.

Indeed, consider the possibilites. Everyone acts like this schiavo case means anyone can be 'killed' if someone else requests it. Incorrect. This case sets absolutely no precendent for such. If there is any precedent, its that the congress can now alter the jurisdiction of the courts. Its that the governor of a state can send state agents to violate a court order. Its that the governor of a state can falsely accuse a resident of murder. Don't err on the side of life, err on the side of liberty.

Maybe one day there will be a law that prevents a man from starving his wife to death?

Maybe one day there will be laws that enshrine a person's liberty and make sure that their wills are recognized and that they have control over their life rather than people who have nothing to do with anything. Maybe one day there will be laws that assure checks and balances within the government and also seperate the powers of the different branches of the government. Maybe one day there will be laws that prevent governors from abusing executive authority for personal wish fufilment. Oh wait, there are laws like that. Too bad a standing legal precedent has been set to help uproot those laws.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Nygdan]

Oh I see, you thought she had a living will. She didn't. That was why the courts got involved. If she had a living will, she'd have been dead years ago. Somewhere in this thread (maybe the one about the stand off) I defined a living will for those who were confused on the board.

It's a legal, written document that has to be notarized. Terri didn't have one of those. This "living will" that YOU'RE talking about is hearsay and not legally binding. My issue was that Mike would have had the legal authority to have Terri taken off of "life support" (feeding tubes don't fall into this category) if she was PVS.. but there is conclusive evidense that she was not, but rather in a semi-conscious state. One where she could understand simple language, commands, and recognise familiar people.

Her state could better be described as severly mentally ill or severly retarded. If you're one of those who thinks that a judge has enough background in medicine to make a diagnosis, I offer you this site which contains a number of documented tests dating to as recently as 2003 which prove that Terri lacked the necessary symptoms to have been diagnosed as PVS. Our understanding of PVS has actually changed quite a bit since Terri was first diagnosed that way.

If you can disregard everything you've heard in the news and review the actual doctor statements, experiments (and maybe read up a little bit on neuro phisiology), and affidavits it might change your mind on how this case LEGALLY went down. Disregarding the ethics of the matter (which is where we get most of our polarization regarding Terri), you might find that the judge who ruled in favor of Michael may have actually overstepped HIS authority.

Now, I'm not a neurologist but I've taken neurology and neuropathology and posted a few things I learned about the human brain. Medical scans (available on the net, I'm supposing) of Terri's brain showed activity in parts that shouldn't have any activity if she were truly PVS. You were part of the discussion, but here it is in case you didn't read it. If you did and didn't care, then that's ok too, but I'm not BSing. Neurology is very tricky and it's not always as simple as one doctor giving a diagnosis (which usually turn out to be simple opinions with more than one motivation). But the facts are out there.

I'm saying that if there WERE a legal, notarized (not verbalized) living will or trust, this whole thing would have been obviously legal and over a long time ago. I think the fight was really more along the lines of "is she in a state where Mike could legally DECIDE that she should be allowed to die" which a judge ruled that she was when legally she wasn't. That is called the rule of law? A judge can do just about anything which I think is rather tyrannical.

Besides, the bill passed only stated that the parents would be allowed to appeal to a federal court... which ruled in favor of Mike anyway, but what harm could it have done to have MORE judges look at the case? I think that this became a legal, then political issue when all it should ever have been was a medical issue.

But then again, I'm a medical student so I might have a bias as to what type of issue it should have been
-S

[edit on 7-4-2005 by ServoHahn]

Originally posted by ServoHahn
This "living will" that YOU'RE talking about is hearsay and not legally binding.

Apparently the courts disagree.

but there is conclusive evidense that she was not, but rather in a semi-conscious state.

A consensus of doctors in the relevant field and involved in the case determined that she is in PVS

If you're one of those who thinks that a judge has enough background in medicine to make a diagnosis,

I don't. I also don't think politicians, or even the general public, watching a video, has the capacity to determine it either.

in case you didn't read it. If you did and didn't care, then that's ok too, but I'm not BSing. Neurology is very tricky and it's not always as simple as one doctor giving a diagnosis

Some doctors think she is pvs, others think she's in a 'waking-coma' state. Eitherway, she stated to her legal guardian, under witness from two other people, that she didn't want to be in that general state and on life support.

I'm saying that if there WERE a legal, notarized (not verbalized) living will or trust, this whole thing would have been obviously legal and over a long time ago.

Then the brain activity is irrelevant.

but what harm could it have done to have MORE judges look at the case?

Because congress overrode the jurisdiction of the courts in that case, and there's been quite a bit of rumbling that the court didn't do what congress wanted. Its a seperation of powers issue. The matter had already gone thru the proper process.

I think that this became a legal, then political issue when all it should ever have been was a medical issue.

Then the tube would've been pulled a long time ago. She was in a state that, if she had a written and formalized living will, she would've had the tubes removed. 'All' that was had was two witnesses and her legal guardian stateing that these were her wishes, rather than a peice of paper stating it.

Hm. I like this debate a lot and I would definately like to keep debating with you, but I think we've reached the point where niether of us is going to convince the other of anything, so I take my hat off to you. Good show. Hopefully next time we can agree on a pop issue, but until then...

Props,
S