Terri's Story

Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation ^ | December 3,2006 | Schindler Foundation

[8mmMauser]

Oh, yeah, what was I saying about PETA? Here is a thread on it.

PETA Trial, Day 7: Letting the Cat Out of the Bag (So To Speak…)

8mm

[wagglebee]

I can think of nobody deserving of the label, "Traitor" in our history, for the life of me than Jane Fonda.

Unless you count Jimmy Carter. He's old, he's a traitor, maybe he should be denied food and water.

[T'wit]

>> Poor thing when a tiny kitten on our doorstep...

I had a friend in suburban Chicago who plucked a teensy, half-drowned kitten out of a flooded gutter. Wise mother that she was, she recognized that the kitty needed self-esteem -- so she named it Vlad the Impaler.

[T'wit]

"Treason doth prosper, what can be the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason."

There are many powerful candidates for most useless eater and Jimmuh Cahtah is certainly near the top. I'd pay to exercise my kidneys on his grave. Nevertheless, call it personal taste, I still vote for Jane Fonda.

[wagglebee]

I agree, when it comes to out and out treason, the distinction would have to go to Hanoi Jane.

[Lesforlife]

Three of us took the audio tape of this Planned Parenthood
sting to Republican Colorado AG, John Suthers office. His deputy told us
there is nothing that can be done!!

I wept saying, "these are children's lives that are being destroyed!"

Outrageous!!

[T'wit]

Maybe you have invented a new parlor game. After Jane Fonda, who is THE worst traitor on the American scene. (We'd better limit this to living persons.) Then we could put it to a Freeper vote and find out who are the top 100 treasonous asps these latter days.

[wagglebee]

So, I should copyright this and plan to collect royalties?

I'd also have to put Ramsey Clark way up on the traitor list. And let's not forget Comrade Cronkite who flat out lied to the American public about the outcome of the Tet Offensive.

[T'wit]

Can't chat any longer -- ttyl & bttt.

[bjs1779]

Forgive me, but I put William Jefferson Clinton at the top of my list.

[BykrBayb]

I found a website that was set up specifically to "help Pennsylvania patients and caregivers gain a better understanding of living wills, health care agents, and this new law." Pennsylvania Medical Society I can't find anything on their website that reveals the actual contents of the law, or any links to anyone who does. They obviously don't really want anyone to understand Pennsylvania's new law, or they'd provide a copy of it. Or at least a link to it.

Okay, I finally found it. Act 169. Enacted by Senate (SB 628 ) Nov 19, 2006. Signed by Gov. Rendell the next day.

This is a dangerous law. On the plus side, it does offer some protection for vulnerable individuals. If your health care agent orders your death, you can rescind the order even if you're not competent, assuming you're able to inform the doctor. That's the only protection I found. Everything else is geared toward killing you.

There is no need for a person to express a desire to forgo any treatment. If you don't specify, there can be no presumption that you would want to live.

Your health care agent does not need to prove he's following your wishes. He's only required to consider them, as well as other factors like your condition, prognosis, finances, etc. Your expressed wishes bear no more weight than any other factor. There is no provision for challenging the decision to starve and dehydrate you to death.

If you do not assign a health care agent, one will be appointed to you. That agent has the same power as one that you could have assigned personally. They have the power to have you starved and dehydrated to death, and there is no provision for anyone else to dispute this. The law is unclear, but it appears your health care provider is the one who appoints your health care agent, according to preset guidelines. Your health care agent can be replaced "for cause," but they don't say what constitutes cause, or the procedure for replacing them. I guess the doctor just picks the next available relative, friend, or neighbor on the list.

Health care workers are protected from prosecution, whether they act in accordance with your wishes or not. As long as they act in good faith. And that doesn't mean they have faith that they're following your wishes. Your wishes bear no more weight than any other factor. They just have to have faith that they're doing the right thing, whether you like it or not.

If you sign an advance directive, it goes into effect when you are "determined by the attending physician to be incompetent and in a terminal condition or in a state of permanent unconsciousness. They don't require the team of doctors that the Nazis required. Just one doctor. They allow no distinction between terminal, end-stage, and unconscious. There may be procedures you would wish to forgo during the end stage of a terminal disease, but if you put that in writing, you will be denied those procedures at any point during the terminal illness, or even in the absence of a terminal illness if you're "permanently unconscious." They removed the wording that would have specifically allowed you to make different provisions for a terminal condition as opposed to brain damage. It's now considered one and the same. And you don't really have to put it in writing at all. You will have a health care agent, whether you assign one, or someone else does. That health care agent wields enormous power to make life and death decisions for you, based in part on what he thinks you might want, but not entirely.

Ain't we got fun?

[Sun]

We have no idea just how many people are duped by lawyers and doctors to sign these kinds of directives.

What a shame. What a crime.

[Sun]

A "Will to Live" is better than a "Living Will" and can be downloaded to be used, or just used as an example, from www.nrlc.org.

Always make sure you know what you're getting into with a "living will." For instance, if you say: "I don't want to be on a respirator," it could mean one thing if it would only prolong an imminent death for months or years, and another thing if it would only be needed for 48 or more hours after an accident, and one could be restored to normal health.

[8mmMauser]

Utah tries a new law.

............................

SB75 "tries to make more clear what the laws are," said the bill sponsor, Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden. "There's some vague parts in there and some lapses in the law."

      Current law is unclear on who has final say in end-of-life care decisions, he said, and the bill seeks to clarify that and what happens afterward.

      It also specifies that having authority to make health-care decisions or to make financial decisions is not interchangeable, although the same person could be chosen for both roles. And it says someone making medical decisions does not have the right to limit social contacts. Feuding siblings or in-laws who disagree on care cannot bar each other from seeing a patient, for instance.

      None of the provisions apply unless the patient is unable to speak for himself, and it wouldn't go into effect until 2008.

      Some disputes might still end up in court, "where they should be resolved if there's no other way to agree," Henry said. It would not have solved all the problems presented in the well-publicized case of Terri Schiavo, subject of a court battle between her parents and her husband over use of a feeding tube.

Measure would clarify authority in end-of-life

8mm

[8mmMauser]

It's only business. Terri Schiavo becomes part of the vocabulary defining the right.

By now, everyone should know that Fox News is politically to the right of ABC News. They both have a visible slant in their coverage. You would think that slant reflects the politics of management, but data suggest otherwise. A new study from two economists at the University of Chicago suggests that political slant in the media does not reflect politics; it reflects business.

The study began with identification of the 1,000 most used partisan phrases from the 2005 Congressional Record. Phrases like "public broadcasting," "oil companies," and "middle class, " were used by Democrats. "Terri Schiavo," "death tax," "nuclear power," and "illegal aliens," came from Republicans. From phrases like these, the researchers constructed an index of partisanship, and used it to analyze news (they excluded editorial pages) in 417 newspapers.

Designing Reality

8mm

[8mmMauser]

You triggered a dark memory in the recesses of my mind, of creepy little Jimmuh and the overwhelming harm he did to our country and just keeps on doing it until he falls over. I was reminded yesterday in a thread where Jimmuh is pictured with the poor Shah before the betrayal.

It was not just his ineptitude but his deep seated commitment to doing as much wrong as possible in only a lifetime. His choice of staff mirrored that ambitious program as they crept into the While House like trailer trash only Bill Clinton could appreciate. They lounged around sipping Billy beer, smoking, and dressed in tee shirts and jeans, besmearing all previous rules of decent behavior. Their beer cans and trash littered the rest of Washington, no place too decent for them to bring standards down a notch or two.

It wasn't just his love of the uncouth that defined him, rather his contempt for the core of decency that has defined America.

Still a tough call. Historians will keep tally and our progeny will know better who did our country the most harm.

The competition is stiff, even today as new candidates strive to beat Jimmuh and Jane for that title. Jummuh set the bar high as he could reach on his tiptoes.

[wagglebee]

It is very rare that I would ever say anything in defense of Bill Clinton; however, I do not think he is a traitor on the level of Carter (Hillary is an entirely different story). Bill Clinton saw the White House as a path to personal enrichment and power, to him it was akin to winning the lottery. Everything he did was about pursuing his own interests and as long as American interests didn't interfere with his, he had no problems promoting America. But, if there was something in it for him, he would sell out America without a second thought. But in the end, his goals were about helping himself, not harming the United States.

Carter was totally the opposite. Here are a few of the things he did that were totally against the interests of the American people:

- He sold out Israel by forcing the Israelis into "peace accords" with their sworn enemy and forced them to agree to terms that included the surrender of territories (the Golan Heights) that they held. In the history of civilization, no country in a position of strength has ever negotiated away an advantage to a weaker enemy. This "leveling of the playing field" directly led to current Israeli problems with Palestinians. We do not know what threats Carter used against Prime Minister Begin, but they were undoubtedly made.

- He totally betrayed the Shah of Iran and allowed our strongest and most loyal ally (aside from Israel) in the Mid East to be taken over by Islamofascists. He then allowed the United States to be made a laughing stock while American citizens were held hostage for over 14 months.

- He betrayed the Taiwanese and set the stage for the Chicoms to become a one of the most serious threats we have ever faced.

- He betrayed the Somoza family in Nicaragua and allowed an ally to become a staging ground for communism in Central America.

And let us not forget that he did all of this while presiding over one of the most disasterous economies in history. He managed to create an unending series of recessions, extreme unemployment, high interest rates, a stagnant stock market and skyrocketing inflation. I have long thought that an economist should write a "case study" on the Carter economy because he somehow managed to create conditions that cannot exist simultaneously under normal economic models (how does one manage near double digit inflation in a recession?).

If this country has ever had a true "Manchurian Candidate" it was Carter.

[T'wit]

Evil is on the march. This is nothing but a broad license to murder, concealed in lawyerly language.

[expatguy]

http://laotze.blogspot.com/2005/06/crossing-of-rubicon-whoever-saves-one.html

[T'wit]

Here we go again. "End-of-life care decisions" is another way to say, "Kill the patient!" The key to all of it is "decisions," and the tendency of these legal definitions and laws is always to let somebody else "make the decision" but without legal penalty.

Even George Greer wouldn't let Michael Schiavo kill Terri on his own say-so. Felos had to go dummy up some testimony from two other Schiavos to make a case, ridiculous though it was. These new laws WILL empower future Michaels, if he so orders and nobody objects. The patient will be duly snuffed and all concerned are exempt from prosecution.