Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

<salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1112100079.985092.6420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> OK - if you don't listent to talk radio, how come you keep spouting the
> same false information the talk Sean and Rush are spouting? Maybe you
> are getting your information from folks who listen to talk radio. But
> in any case, you are gettting fact after fact wrong. Why not do a bit
> of reasearch - reading the court documets for instance - and see for
> yourself.

I got no facts wrong nor did you present anything of substance or
content.....the issue isn't her degree of disability but rather whom we kill
and why. That this issue is a moral question and not one specifically about
how few or how many brain cells she may have apparently goes right over your
own limited capacity to think.

> Get this - she hasn't simply lost some degree of mental acuity. She has
> lost her cerebral cortex. She has no - zip - nada - mental acuity. No
> thought, no memory, no abilty to understand or comprehend. Such things
> would be impossible for someone without a cerebral cortex, and her
> cortex ain't growing back.


What part of "so what" don't you understand......I've yet to see anyone
dispute that she is brain damaged.... The degree is of some question and
tests establishing this degree to a certainty have not been run.....However
whatever her level of disability, it does not erase her basic human rights.
Since it is questionable what her own position is on euthanasia (not in
writing) and that she does have the funds to pay for her own care, that she
has a loving family or support system...her husband should simply divorce
her and move on with his life (giving up her money is apparently hard to do)
and let her live out her days with feeding tubes intact. Why she must be put
to death in a manner considered too inhumane for our worst serial killers is
quite beyond immoral.. Soggy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114j7u8onr814aa@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What part of "so what" don't you understand......I've yet to see anyone
> dispute that she is brain damaged.... The degree is of some question and
> tests establishing this degree to a certainty have not been run.....

Yes, the tests have been run. She has no activity in her Cerebral Cortex.
It has been determined via scans and EEG readings. You could not be more
comprehensive.

> However
> whatever her level of disability, it does not erase her basic human
rights.

Agreed.

> Since it is questionable what her own position is on euthanasia (not in
> writing) and that she does have the funds to pay for her own care, that
she
> has a loving family or support system...her husband should simply divorce
> her and move on with his life (giving up her money is apparently hard to
do)

There is no money left...he is doing this out of loyalty to her wishes.

> and let her live out her days with feeding tubes intact. Why she must be
put
> to death in a manner considered too inhumane for our worst serial killers
is
> quite beyond immoral.. Soggy

Because for some reason we don't believe that people are allowed to make
their own decisions about where and when they should die. So anyone who
CHOOSES to do so is forced into horrible ways...and those who are condemned
to death by the state are treated humanely. Ironic, no?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> I got no facts wrong

Let's see. You got the legal classification wrong. You got it wrong who
is paying for her care. You it it wrong that the husband has a
financial incentive. You got it wrong when you said she doesn't need
any machines to live. You got it wrong when you said the feeding tube
was just a convienience. You got it wrong when you said a feeding tube
wasn't a life sustaining machine. Heck, just then you got it wrong when
you said you got no facts wrong.

> The degree is of some question and
> tests establishing this degree to a certainty have not been run

OK - that's another fact you got wrong. Look, don't believe me - and
certainly don't believe whoever told you the tests weren't run. Go read
the report of the court which documents the tests that were conducted.

> .....However
> whatever her level of disability, it does not erase her basic human
rights.

Including the right to not be kept alive artificaly. Do you believe
that she doesn't have that right?

> Since it is questionable what her own position is on euthanasia (not
in
> writing)

Questionable? We have the eyewitness accounts of several witnesses -
accounts which have been judged credible in a court - a ruling which
has been reviewed and not challenged.

You are aware that the vast majority of people who are not kept alive
artifically do not have that request in writting. Are you saying all
those people have been denied their right.

> and that she does have the funds to pay for her own care,

Again, who told you she has the funds to pay for her own care?

> that she
> has a loving family or support system..

IE - her husband

> her and move on with his life (giving up her money is apparently hard
to do)

Why do you keep repeating these lies that he has financial incentive
here?

> and let her live out her days with feeding tubes intact. Why she must
be put
> to death in a manner considered too inhumane for our worst serial
killers is
> quite beyond immoral

Inhumane for a serial killer with a cerebral cortex. *NOT* inhumane for
somebody without one. When you are going to come to grips with the fact
that she doesn't have a cerebral cortex?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In rec.sport.football.college Rod & Betty Jo <soggy@pacifier.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:

> <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1112100079.985092.6420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>> OK - if you don't listent to talk radio, how come you keep spouting the
>> same false information the talk Sean and Rush are spouting? Maybe you
>> are getting your information from folks who listen to talk radio. But
>> in any case, you are gettting fact after fact wrong. Why not do a bit
>> of reasearch - reading the court documets for instance - and see for
>> yourself.

> I got no facts wrong nor did you present anything of substance or
> content.....the issue isn't her degree of disability but rather whom we kill
> and why. That this issue is a moral question and not one specifically about
> how few or how many brain cells she may have apparently goes right over your
> own limited capacity to think.

>> Get this - she hasn't simply lost some degree of mental acuity. She has
>> lost her cerebral cortex. She has no - zip - nada - mental acuity. No
>> thought, no memory, no abilty to understand or comprehend. Such things
>> would be impossible for someone without a cerebral cortex, and her
>> cortex ain't growing back.

> What part of "so what" don't you understand......I've yet to see anyone
> dispute that she is brain damaged.... The degree is of some question and
> tests establishing this degree to a certainty have not been run.....However
> whatever her level of disability, it does not erase her basic human rights.
> Since it is questionable what her own position is on euthanasia (not in
> writing) and that she does have the funds to pay for her own care, that she
> has a loving family or support system...her husband should simply divorce
> her and move on with his life (giving up her money is apparently hard to do)
> and let her live out her days with feeding tubes intact. Why she must be put
> to death in a manner considered too inhumane for our worst serial killers is
> quite beyond immoral.. Soggy

People without brains aren't people. You're starting to
sound like one, yourself.

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114j7u8onr814aa@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1112100079.985092.6420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> OK - if you don't listent to talk radio, how come you keep spouting the
>> same false information the talk Sean and Rush are spouting? Maybe you
>> are getting your information from folks who listen to talk radio. But
>> in any case, you are gettting fact after fact wrong. Why not do a bit
>> of reasearch - reading the court documets for instance - and see for
>> yourself.
>
> I got no facts wrong nor did you present anything of substance or
> content.....the issue isn't her degree of disability but rather whom we
> kill and why. That this issue is a moral question and not one specifically
> about how few or how many brain cells she may have apparently goes right
> over your own limited capacity to think.
>
>> Get this - she hasn't simply lost some degree of mental acuity. She has
>> lost her cerebral cortex. She has no - zip - nada - mental acuity. No
>> thought, no memory, no abilty to understand or comprehend. Such things
>> would be impossible for someone without a cerebral cortex, and her
>> cortex ain't growing back.
>
>
> What part of "so what" don't you understand......I've yet to see anyone
> dispute that she is brain damaged.... The degree is of some question and
> tests establishing this degree to a certainty have not been
> run.....However whatever her level of disability, it does not erase her
> basic human rights. Since it is questionable what her own position is on
> euthanasia (not in writing) and that she does have the funds to pay for
> her own care, that she has a loving family or support system...her husband
> should simply divorce her and move on with his life (giving up her money
> is apparently hard to do) and let her live out her days with feeding tubes
> intact. Why she must be put to death in a manner considered too inhumane
> for our worst serial killers is quite beyond immoral.. Soggy

She has no brain activity.

It's also none of anyone's business outside of her legal guardian, her
husband.

Also, there are 75 other patients in the same hospice, some going the same
thing she is. I don't see anyone disputing their guardians rights or making
a big deal out of their dying.

It's simply a matter of her parents not being able to let go, and people
sticking their noses into private matters.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114j7u8onr814aa@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1112100079.985092.6420@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> OK - if you don't listent to talk radio, how come you keep spouting the
>> same false information the talk Sean and Rush are spouting? Maybe you
>> are getting your information from folks who listen to talk radio. But
>> in any case, you are gettting fact after fact wrong. Why not do a bit
>> of reasearch - reading the court documets for instance - and see for
>> yourself.
>
> I got no facts wrong nor did you present anything of substance or
> content.....the issue isn't her degree of disability but rather whom we
> kill and why. That this issue is a moral question and not one specifically
> about how few or how many brain cells she may have apparently goes right
> over your own limited capacity to think.
>
>> Get this - she hasn't simply lost some degree of mental acuity. She has
>> lost her cerebral cortex. She has no - zip - nada - mental acuity. No
>> thought, no memory, no abilty to understand or comprehend. Such things
>> would be impossible for someone without a cerebral cortex, and her
>> cortex ain't growing back.
>
>
> What part of "so what" don't you understand......I've yet to see anyone
> dispute that she is brain damaged.... The degree is of some question and
> tests establishing this degree to a certainty have not been
> run.....However whatever her level of disability, it does not erase her
> basic human rights. Since it is questionable what her own position is on
> euthanasia (not in writing) and that she does have the funds to pay for
> her own care, that she has a loving family or support system...her husband
> should simply divorce her and move on with his life (giving up her money
> is apparently hard to do)

I forgot to mention, there is no more money. You can thank her parents for
that. Because of their lawsuits it has cost $550,000 of her $700,000 to
defend her from her parents. You can't excuse the parents from this because
they knew where the money was coming from.



> and let her live out her days with feeding tubes intact. Why she must be
> put to death in a manner considered too inhumane for our worst serial
> killers is quite beyond immoral.. Soggy
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qpoi41p5ij6ljfomhh55ln036m4qkqui5l@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:03:56 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"
> <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying that all brain damaged patients cannot learn or do certain
>>things? Or that all brain damaged patients are of equal disability? Or
>>that
>>all whom cannot eat or drink without assistance should be killed? Why?
>
> You still have not grasped what a cerebral cortex does as far as what
> a person does or does not do have you?
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Since I made no mention of hers or anyone's cerebral cortex I doubt if you
know what I grasp or don't grasp......however I reject the concept that you
know exactly how brain damaged she is and what her exact limitations are .
Nor did I ever say anything about her specific ability, recovery or
potential....but rather the simple fact that for 15 years she has received
NO attempt at any eating or drinking training...of which for most brain
damaged patients from whatever the source is reasonably unusual. When the
state of FL for a short time had custody her advocate attempted to secure
this eating/drinking therapy, her husband still refused and shortly after on
appeal the states custody was revoked.

Oddly the medical tests and efforts made on her behalf were mostly done
before her medical malpractice payoff...once the million was received her
husband has spent great effort at dispatching with what is now a
inconvenience.

That she is brain damaged and that she does deserve a chance at life are
facts beyond dispute...Soggy.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"rich hammett"
> People without brains aren't people. You're starting to
> sound like one, yourself.
>
> rich


Very good....at least now you know your not particularly
pathological......for those whom are not you must dehumanize the victim
before killing them...I think it is in some mass murderers handbook
somewhere in a chapter on dispatching with guilt. Soggy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Officials are in Argentina this week looking for people that participated in
Nazi Germany, Soon America will start up a processing plant to kill all old
people and medically disabled, this will cut health care cost by 1/3 and
give the government more money to defend and house sex offenders and
murderers. Its part of the building a better America program.

>
> That she is brain damaged and that she does deserve a chance at life are
> facts beyond dispute...Soggy.
>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Dave Thompson"
> It's simply a matter of her parents not being able to let go, and people
> sticking their noses into private matters.

Maybe so or maybe not.....why wouldn't he respect his in-laws enough to go
ahead and let his wife die in her own time without starvation..... She
wasn't suffering nor in any apparent pain. Why not manage her settlement for
her care instead of legal fees to kill her? While a spouse does have a legal
right to make these decisions, it does not follow that a spouse will always
make the right decision. Or that any and all should be above review or
outside consideration......The Seattle guy whom locked his disabled wife in
the hull of a boat for something like 10years does come to mind. Soggy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114jfli9cbcglea@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dave Thompson"
>> It's simply a matter of her parents not being able to let go, and people
>> sticking their noses into private matters.
>
> Maybe so or maybe not.....why wouldn't he respect his in-laws enough to go
> ahead and let his wife die in her own time without starvation.

Because it's not what she wanted.

Should your wife express the same to you without a living will, would you
let your in-laws interfere. I wouldn't.

..... She
> wasn't suffering nor in any apparent pain.

Because she's not there anymore. This is a ridiculous thing to claim.

Why not manage her settlement for
> her care instead of legal fees to kill her?

There would have been no legal fees had her parents accepted the fact that
she was gone.

While a spouse does have a legal
> right to make these decisions, it does not follow that a spouse will
> always make the right decision.

And obviously, in the case of Schiavo's parents, it's no guarantee that the
parents won't act in their own self interest.

Her husband is the legal guardian. His decision is the only one that matters
as far as the courts and reasonable people are really concerned.

Or that any and all should be above review or
> outside consideration......The Seattle guy whom locked his disabled wife
> in the hull of a boat for something like 10years does come to mind. Soggy

I don't know why, it's not the same.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114jd9esflh7n2b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> That she is brain damaged and that she does deserve a chance at life are
> facts beyond dispute...Soggy.

Yes, yes it is in dispute. Her husband is trying to fulfill HER request to
do quite the opposite.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"UffDa!" <euv_uffda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2cka7$l1o$1@news01.intel.com...
> Yes, yes it is in dispute. Her husband is trying to fulfill HER request
> to
> do quite the opposite.
>

Then why did he wait over 7 years? Why didn't she mention it to her parents
or anyone other than him and his siblings? If she did have such a request
was she saying feeding tubes or more likely a respirator? How many twenty
something's have you ever heard exclaim no feeding tubes let me die? You
wish to trust a man whom specifically quit pursuing medical alternatives
after receiving the malpractice settlement? And whom betrayed his marriage
vows and fathered two kids but wouldn't risk his possible million dollar
inheritance with a divorce. Your trust a man whom felt the settlement was
better spent on legal fees to kill her instead of treatment for her comfort
and condition. A man whom could callously disregard her family and their
wishes for their daughter and her welfare......at the very least I'd suggest
his motives are suspect....Soggy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote in message
news:114jgin1catu239@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Maybe so or maybe not.....why wouldn't he respect his in-laws enough to
>> go ahead and let his wife die in her own time without starvation.
>
> Because it's not what she wanted.

Then prudence would have required something in writing....otherwise all we
have is a he said /she said with suspect motives

> Should your wife express the same to you without a living will, would you
> let your in-laws interfere. I wouldn't.

I'd grant my in-laws great latitude, when I married my wife I married her
family as well...sharing worked pretty well

> Because she's not there anymore. This is a ridiculous thing to claim.

Whether a patient is physically suffering is not ridiculous at
all......quality of life issues includes pain

> Why not manage her settlement for
>> her care instead of legal fees to kill her?
>
> There would have been no legal fees had her parents accepted the fact that
> she was gone.

Nor would there have been any if he devoted her settlement to her care.....
next time I need hospitalization I'll see if I'll feel better paying a
lawyer instead of a caregiver.

> And obviously, in the case of Schiavo's parents, it's no guarantee that
> the parents won't act in their own self interest.

They have yet to demonstrate anything other than love for their
daughter......

> Her husband is the legal guardian. His decision is the only one that
> matters as far as the courts and reasonable people are really concerned.

Once he betraying his marriage vows and then embarked on a mission to kill
his wife his custodianship should have been revoked...his judgment is beyond
suspect. A neutral third party with no gain or loss would have been the best
alternative.

> Or that any and all should be above review or
>> outside consideration......The Seattle guy whom locked his disabled wife
>> in the hull of a boat for something like 10years does come to mind.
>> Soggy
>
> I don't know why, it's not the same.

It does aptly demonstrate spouses do not always put their disabled spouses
self interest first....Soggy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114jrn5p96rgo96@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "UffDa!" <euv_uffda@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d2cka7$l1o$1@news01.intel.com...
> > Yes, yes it is in dispute. Her husband is trying to fulfill HER request
> > to
> > do quite the opposite.
> >
>
> Then why did he wait over 7 years?

Maybe he believed she had hope? The scans of her brain were not done until
a few years later. Maybe he had hope, who knows? It doesn't matter.
People are irrational...just look at her parents.


> Why didn't she mention it to her parents
> or anyone other than him and his siblings?

Why have I never told my family (besides my wife)? I don't feel the need.
My wife knows me better than anyone...she makes the call...she's the boss.
;-)

> If she did have such a request
> was she saying feeding tubes or more likely a respirator?

She was non-specific from what I have heard.

> How many twenty
> something's have you ever heard exclaim no feeding tubes let me die?

usually the statement is "if I am brain dead, or completely unable to
function, just pull the plug"

Have you seen "Johnny Got His Gun"? (Jason Robards, etc) If I were him I
would want to die too...

The main character in question can't hear, see, smell, taste and doesn't
have arms or legs...due to awlking on a landmine (circa WWI). He comes out
of a coma in a hospital. During the time he is in the hospital he reflects
on his life and things his father told him. Eventually the doctors get
worried because he's having neck spasms all the time, but he doesn't seem to
be dying. They call in the general and he can't figure it out either but the
soldier with the general recognizes it. "Its Morse code," he says. The
general asks what he is saying and the soldier looks for a minute and then
says " he is saying K-I-L-L- M-E over and over again.

> You
> wish to trust a man whom specifically quit pursuing medical alternatives
> after receiving the malpractice settlement?

He got a complete brain scan of her. She has a flat EEG...she has no higher
brain activity. That's conclusive enough.

> And whom betrayed his marriage
> vows and fathered two kids but wouldn't risk his possible million dollar
> inheritance with a divorce.

There was never "multi-million $"...and I don't see that he cheated on her
since she "died" in 1990.

> Your trust a man whom felt the settlement was
> better spent on legal fees to kill her instead of treatment for her
comfort
> and condition.

She's been treated as well as possible. And I only hope my wife would do
the same for me.

> A man whom could callously disregard her family and their
> wishes for their daughter and her welfare......at the very least I'd
suggest
> his motives are suspect....Soggy

Callously? They have no right. He is fulfilling her wishes...her parents
have no right to interfere. Her parents are suspect. They are completely
illogical and don't care what her wishes are...they are simply imposing
their world view on her's.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Rod & Betty Jo" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:114jstmsccnfo03@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote in message
> news:114jgin1catu239@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Maybe so or maybe not.....why wouldn't he respect his in-laws enough to
>>> go ahead and let his wife die in her own time without starvation.
>>
>> Because it's not what she wanted.
>
> Then prudence would have required something in writing....otherwise all we
> have is a he said /she said with suspect motives

Most people who "have the plug pulled" do so without a living will at the
consent of their guardian. It's been that way for many years. I don't see
anyone talking about actually changing the law, just hysterical handwaving
over this private matter.

>
>> Should your wife express the same to you without a living will, would you
>> let your in-laws interfere. I wouldn't.
>
> I'd grant my in-laws great latitude, when I married my wife I married her
> family as well...sharing worked pretty well

You didn't answer my question, but it figures.

Tell me, did you take a vow in a church. Christian doctrine states that no
one should come between the most sacrosanct unions, even parents. You'd
break your vows and allow this?


>
>> Because she's not there anymore. This is a ridiculous thing to claim.
>
> Whether a patient is physically suffering is not ridiculous at
> all......quality of life issues includes pain

You don't seem to get it. She's not there. There is no pain.

>
>> Why not manage her settlement for
>>> her care instead of legal fees to kill her?
>>
>> There would have been no legal fees had her parents accepted the fact
>> that
>> she was gone.
>
> Nor would there have been any if he devoted her settlement to her
> care..... next time I need hospitalization I'll see if I'll feel better
> paying a lawyer instead of a caregiver.

And then it dries up and he allows the tube to be pulled and he's in the
same boat.

>
>> And obviously, in the case of Schiavo's parents, it's no guarantee that
>> the parents won't act in their own self interest.
>
> They have yet to demonstrate anything other than love for their
> daughter......

Oh horseshit. They have repeatedly lied about her state. Somehow or another
it's about the money or the attention or just their own selfishness.

Were they interfering in her marraige while she were alive, would you just
say that they weren't being overbearing and that they just loved her?


>
>> Her husband is the legal guardian. His decision is the only one that
>> matters as far as the courts and reasonable people are really concerned.
>
> Once he betraying his marriage vows and then embarked on a mission to kill
> his wife his custodianship should have been revoked

More horseshit. You have no idea. This "killing her" crap is just weasel
words. You don't give a damn what the facts are, do you?

....his judgment is beyond
> suspect. A neutral third party with no gain or loss would have been the
> best alternative.

You obviously condone the government interfering in their marraige and in a
personal matter that was legally settled long ago.

>
>> Or that any and all should be above review or
>>> outside consideration......The Seattle guy whom locked his disabled wife
>>> in the hull of a boat for something like 10years does come to mind.
>>> Soggy
>>
>> I don't know why, it's not the same.
>
> It does aptly demonstrate spouses do not always put their disabled spouses
> self interest first....Soggy

And neither do parents, so we have the facts:

Micheal is her legal guardian.

She is brain dead.

These two things have been adjudicated 29 times over 15 years. It's settled.
She and her parents have had their due process.

You have no evidence that she would have wanted otherwise, so Michael claim
can't be challenged.

The parents have no legal standing.

Therre has been no legal wrongdoing.

The congress intervened to pander the religious right and to add kindling to
the effort to weaken the judicial system.

No one has a leg to stand on outside of Michael Schiavo so they have gone
with character assassination and paid for quacks and appeals to emotion.

It is none of anyone's business and the outsiders are all a bunch of
hypocrits and opportunists.

What will they do after she dies?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In rec.sport.football.college Rod & Betty Jo <soggy@pacifier.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> "Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote in message
> news:114jgin1catu239@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Maybe so or maybe not.....why wouldn't he respect his in-laws enough to
>>> go ahead and let his wife die in her own time without starvation.
>>
>> Because it's not what she wanted.

> Then prudence would have required something in writing....otherwise all we
> have is a he said /she said with suspect motives

>> Should your wife express the same to you without a living will, would you
>> let your in-laws interfere. I wouldn't.

> I'd grant my in-laws great latitude, when I married my wife I married her
> family as well...sharing worked pretty well

>> Because she's not there anymore. This is a ridiculous thing to claim.

> Whether a patient is physically suffering is not ridiculous at
> all......quality of life issues includes pain

>> Why not manage her settlement for
>>> her care instead of legal fees to kill her?
>>
>> There would have been no legal fees had her parents accepted the fact that
>> she was gone.

> Nor would there have been any if he devoted her settlement to her care.....
> next time I need hospitalization I'll see if I'll feel better paying a
> lawyer instead of a caregiver.

Heh. Those expenses were to defend against the in-laws
legal attacks against his care decisions. And nobody has
questioned the care he has given her.

>> And obviously, in the case of Schiavo's parents, it's no guarantee that
>> the parents won't act in their own self interest.

> They have yet to demonstrate anything other than love for their
> daughter......

Well, they have demonstrated it some by lying and some by keeping
very bad company (like Randall Terry), but yeah, in general, I
agree about their motives.

>> Her husband is the legal guardian. His decision is the only one that
>> matters as far as the courts and reasonable people are really concerned.

> Once he betraying his marriage vows and then embarked on a mission to kill
> his wife his custodianship should have been revoked...his judgment is beyond
> suspect. A neutral third party with no gain or loss would have been the best
> alternative.

Two of them were appointed. One of them questioned his judgement,
but it turned out that that guardian was withholding and falsifying
information so as to favor the inlaws, and even that guardian said
she was well cared-for.

>> Or that any and all should be above review or
>>> outside consideration......The Seattle guy whom locked his disabled wife
>>> in the hull of a boat for something like 10years does come to mind.
>>> Soggy
>>
>> I don't know why, it's not the same.

> It does aptly demonstrate spouses do not always put their disabled spouses
> self interest first....Soggy

No, but when you're married, it's the expectation that the
spouse will make this kind of decision. You know, leave
father and mother, like in Genesis, etc.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote:

> She is brain dead.
>


BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! Completely Wrong.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

> A neutral third party with no gain or loss would have been the best
> alternative.

Does it bother you in the slightest that you continue to post
information that is flat out wrong? Do you have any pride at all? Isn't
there some part of your consciousness that feel the sligtest bit like
an idiot when you post things that are untrue and people point out what
an idiot you are.

She *has* had neutral third parties with no gain or loss appointed for
you - two of them. And *both* have examined the actual facts of the
case and reached the exact same conclusions (a) no hope for recovery,
(b) expressed a desire to not be kept alive by artifical means in such
a cirsumstances.

Why do you keep stating false information about this case? What is
*your* motivation? Why can't you accept the decision of multiple
neutral thrid parties as to what *her* wishes would be?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In rec.sport.football.college Lobby Dosser <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> "Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote:

>> She is brain dead.

> BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! Completely Wrong.

True, she does have brain stem activity, putting her somewhere
between a worm and a lizard in brain function.

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:

> In rec.sport.football.college Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> "Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote:
>
>>> She is brain dead.
>
>> BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! Completely Wrong.
>
> True, she does have brain stem activity, putting her somewhere
> between a worm and a lizard in brain function.
>
> rich

And some cortex.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:7ar2e.28351$191.27526@trnddc02...
> rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In rec.sport.football.college Lobby Dosser
>> <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> "Dave Thompson" <abre@thedoor.comp> wrote:
>>
>>>> She is brain dead.
>>
>>> BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! Completely Wrong.
>>
>> True, she does have brain stem activity, putting her somewhere
>> between a worm and a lizard in brain function.
>>
>> rich
>
> And some cortex.

As usual, lobby, you have nothing.

You are an unapologetic idiot.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"rich hammett"
> True, she does have brain stem activity, putting her somewhere
> between a worm and a lizard in brain function.
>
> rich

No surprise here.... whenever one wants to kill their fellow man especially
without just cause it is required to dehumanize them...make them less than
human and all is okay....worked well with the Indians, slaves and finally
the Jews. Soggy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>>>>> "Rod" == Rod & Betty Jo <soggy@pacifier.com> writes:

Rod> No surprise here.... whenever one wants to kill their fellow man
Rod> especially without just cause it is required to dehumanize
Rod> them...make them less than human and all is okay....worked well
Rod> with the Indians, slaves and finally the Jews.

Finally? It is a practice that is alive and well. Arabs are the
current favorite subhuman target.


--
Russell Senior ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr@aracnet.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

>>>>> "Rod" == Rod & Betty Jo <soggy@pacifier.com> writes:

Rod> No surprise here.... whenever one wants to kill their fellow man
Rod> especially without just cause it is required to dehumanize
Rod> them...make them less than human and all is okay....worked well
Rod> with the Indians, slaves and finally the Jews.

Finally? It is a practice that is alive and well. Arabs are the
current favorite subhuman target.


--
Russell Senior ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr@aracnet.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged