Posted on 03/22/2005 12:37:06 PM PST by AliVeritas
-A8
The definition of PVS is "no one's home." If there's someone home, then it's not PVS. Simple. My only point was that it can appear to people that someone's home even when no one is. I can prick a PVS patient and he'll react -- that's not conscious, that's reflex, as those parts of the brain are still intact. What's not working is the part of the brain that makes you, well, you.
They have various tests to determine PVS, but MS has not allowed disinterested physicians to perform those tests. The court is allowing the tests that have already been performed. I may think that's wrong, but it's not illegal.
My biggest problem is there are many people with CP who cannot care for themselves or communicate (my cousin is 18 and can communicate a little by some basic sign and basic words). I may look a her and say I do not "want" to live that way, but I would not want to think of someone deciding to with hold food from her. Sure, she can eat on her own, you might think, but she still needs someone to feed her. Luckily, her mother and siblings(if her mother is ever not around) are more than happy to care for her or have a caregiver to help.
I watched these clips and all I could think of was my precious children and how as babies they were helpless and had to be fed mushy foods in order to survive foods not all that different than what Terri has been receiving. I'm deeply grieved not only for this woman, but also for our country. It is defining moment for us as a society. I pity our country. This woman is being murdered in broad daylight, plain and simple.
What do you think that Hillarycare was all about? It was a triage system that included denial of care, a euphemism for euthanasia. I was listening to Michael Medved, this afternoon, when he mentioned Nazism and the culture of death. It suddenly hit me that what this case is all about for the left is eugenics, survival of the fittest. I just didn't get it when they were tieing the case to abortion, but of course, abortion was an outgrowth of the eugenics movement, too. The fact is that the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted to limit the number of babies born into Black ghettos.
If you did this to a dog you would be arrested and most likely have jail time.
That post was disgusting.
What the heck is wrong with people on this topic today! I know many of you have been put in similar situations, is it just guilt from your own decisions that you have to attack a choice for life.
This woman is being murdered, how sad. Where is the Attorney General? Why can't he put her in protective custody. For crying out loud, Janet Reno removed a 6 year old at gun point and returned him to a dictator, she incinerated 150 children in Waco. We can't get our elected officials in the majority to stop the murder of one citizen. What's the point in putting them in office. I predict this will hurt the republicans in the next election because there is no point in keeping them in the majority.
And never mind that laughter coming from that Vegetable...
Actually, the vegetable has more rights, as Hugh Hewitt notes in his blog article 'Endangered Vegetables Get More Protections Than Terri Schiavo'
In the opinion denying Terri Schiavo's parents a preliminary injunction that would have led to the resumption of hydration and nutrition, Judge Wittemore lays out his understanding of the law governing whether such a preliminary injunction ought to issue:
"A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the moving party shows that:
(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues;
(3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and
(4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest." (emphasis added.)
I criticize the decision in the post below because Congress and the president clearly intended a different standard to govern the granting of injunctive relief in this circumstance. I should also have noted that the courts have applied different standards for the granting of preliminary injunctions in different situations --when Congress so intends it.
On such category of special cases is the case where harm is alleged to be imminent to an endangered plant or animal, like the Riverside Fairy Shrimp, the Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly, the Stephens Kangaroo rat, or, yes, Munz's Onion --a genuine vegetable as opposed to the horrific term that has been thrown around in this case.
What's the standard when a District Court considers a situation where harm, is alleged to be imminent to any of these species listed by the federal government as "threatened" or "endangered?" I haven't had time to review the 11th Circuit's case law, but in the Ninth Circuit, the test tilts sharply in favor of protecting the species until all the evidence has been heard and weighed:
"In cases involving the ESA, Congress removed from the courts their traditional equitable discretion in injunction proceedings of balancing the parties' competing interests.," the court ruled in the 1996 case of Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt. 83 F.3d 1068, 1073. The balancing in such cases "always tips sharply in favor of endangered or threatened species." The snail darter case from long ago set in motion the extraordinary protections accorded endangered or threatened species on the finding that this weighted balancing in favor of the species is clearly what the Congress intended.
Hopefully the 11th Circuit will carefully consider the appropriate test for preliminary relief pending trial, and quickly reverse the District Court. If that is the outcome, the Circuit Court will also have to consider carefully how it goes about structuring the remand. More on that later.
-A8
We don't know all the facts of this case but what can ascertain my Mr. S's behavior that he doesn't have her best interests at heart. YOUR ACTIONS SPEAK MUCH LOUDER THAN YOUR WORDS. While I believe government should be limited this is an extreme case. This woman doesn't look like she is suffering, have you watched her clips.
He is living with another woman and has 2 children. He has went outside of his vows. Doesn't this count for anything anymore?
I've said the same thing a couple of times in the past week. Why doesn't everyone get behind abortion like the have Terri Schiavo?
It reeks to me also. I don't give credence to Michael anymore than I do to the Schindlers. What I do give credence to is the law of the land. Everything you listed except moving in with another person and fathering 2 children is conjecture and hearsay and I won't listen to it. Again this in not my decision to make, nor is it yours.
Solylent Green
Oh? Simple?
And pray tell, what's the Scientific test for whether "someone is home"?
Sorry, but this is called Begging The Question. You're saying that if someone is PVS then "no one's home" because that's the definition of PVS. Well fine, but then how exactly does one go about diagnosing PVS accurately?
My only point was that it can appear to people that someone's home even when no one is.
I suppose it can. Or perhaps it can't. If someone's home but they just can't communicate (which we know can be the case), they'd never be able to tell us whether we were right or wrong in saying "no one's home", now would they?
In any event, even if it's true that it can appear that someone's home even though no one is, that doesn't ever give us any basis whatsoever for concluding in any given case that no one's home.
Because it can, just as well, appear - even to Scientists - that no one's home even when someone is.
So, what should be the presumption then? that no one's home unless proven otherwise?
I can prick a PVS patient and he'll react -- that's not conscious, that's reflex, as those parts of the brain are still intact.
That's the materialistic explanation, yes. In other words I don't doubt that you've correctly identified the origin of the nerve impulses causing the reaction, and that Scientists have identified the part of the brain in question with "reflex" brain activity. But how that all relates to "consciousness" and someone being "home" or not, however, is something scientists do not know and can only pretend to explain.
What's not working is the part of the brain that makes you, well, you.
And just what is the "part of the brain that makes you you"? And how do you know?
In case this wasn't clear, I am specifically denying that you, or anyone, knows this with as much certainty as you would like to claim.
It all sounds oh so scientific, but it is not. "The part of the brain that makes you you" is probably not even a scientifically-answerable question, and I am skeptical of scientists who pretend that it is. However big the words they use may be.
What actions have a taken? Stop projecting your thoughts and feelings on my statements!
I did not mean it to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.