Opposing lawyers share thoughts on Schiavo case

Palm Beach Daily News ^ | October 1, 2005 | Michele Dargan

[BykrBayb]

I wonder if they provide more funding for AIDS patients because of the inherent risk to the health care workers. (Of course, those who know everything there is to know about everything would say there is no risk. It's all just bigotry.) I also wonder if the higher costs are passed on to the health care workers who are taking those risks. I would guess that some of it is, but most of it probably goes to the facility.

[clyffehall]

It seems that I misunderstood your post about your friend and the nursing home. I read it as being a general statement about the elderly, AIDS patients, and nursing homes; that is, a comment on a general trend rather than on the situation in one particular facility. My mistake, and I beg your pardon.

[clyffehall]

I can't decide if you are sincerely misinterpreting my words, or if you are willfully twisting them in order to indulge in more harangue. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and hit the high spots of your post.

Do you think Terri was the only disabled person?

I thought she was the only one under present discussion (though calling her "disabled" is a bit disingenuous).

When you talk about euthanizing her because of her disability, your argument applies to everyone with similar disabilities.

I said nothing resembling "euthanizing her because of her disability". My position, which I have not stated fully up till now, is that Mr. Schiavo sought,through appropriate channels, to fulfill what he believed to be his wife's wish to not be kept alive via tubes or other extraordinary means. That is a far cry from "euthanizing" someone because they are disabled. Though here again, I note that a liquefied, non-functioning cerebral cortex is miles, worlds, galaxies beyond being a mere disability. Regardless, and let me be clear here, I do not think she was allowed to die because her cerebral cortex had turned to spinal fluid. I think she was allowed to die because that is what her legal guardian, and every court which heard her case, believed she would have wanted.

What exactly do you think genocide is? Is there one particular Jew you think should be euthanized for being Jewish? If you're only talking about one "specific instance," it's not really genocide, is it? Do you think that is somehow more offensive than advocating euthanizing someone for being disabled? Do you honestly believe that advocating euthanizing one person for being disabled automatically excludes everyone else within that group? And even if it does, does that somehow make it acceptable?

See above for my position on "euthanizing the disabled". Like any sane person, I deplore genocide, but allowing to die those people who have expressed a wish to do so under certain circumstances does not remotely qualify as genocide. I have to believe you know this, though for some reason you pretend you do not.

If you're going to demand that I believe you don't support the euthanasia movement, then I demand you give me some reason not to believe it. What is the best proof you have that you support the right to life? In light of your previous arguments against it, you'll need some very strong arguments in favor of life before I even begin to believe you.

I have demanded that you believe no such thing. It is unclear to me what you mean by "the euthanasia movement" (much less "euthanasists"), so I can't say at this juncture whether or not I support it. I believe that people should have the right to decide for themselves what medical procedures they would like applied to them, up to and including the refusal or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration under certain circumstances. This in no way translates to support for genocide or any of the other bombastic phrases you keep utilizing.

Likewise, the phrase "right to life" can mean many things, and I am unsure as to what you mean by it. Look, I'm not pretending to be anything other than what I have said I am. That is, what I have actually said, not what meme you superimpose on my words. I have said that I have a different viewpoint than you; why do you ask me to prove that I have the same viewpoint as you? What I want is to understand your position and how you came to hold it, and maybe share the same information about myself.

I really don't understand your continued hostility.

Peace to you,
Clyffe

[AnimalLover]

After reading your comments to BykrBayb I just had to jump into the discussion.

First of all, I would guess you are a young person, maybe college age or a little more? The reason I mention this is that you are rather naive in that you believe only one side of a story and not consider the total picture.

Concerning Terri's wish, how can you totally believe her husband who really wasn't her husband any more. The fact he had a new family, quite a sum of money to inherited and the possibility that he was a controlling, abusive husband and might be responsible for her being in the situation she was in.

It was never proven her cerebral cortex had turned to spinal fluid. Many reliable doctors who examined her stated that she had minimal cognition and would certainly benefit from therapy. Why was she denied medical care, kept a prisoner in her room, under guard, for several years and not allowed ANY stimulation whatsoever, let alone being wheeled outside for a breath of fresh air.

With respect to the euthanasia situation, there is, IN FACT, a movement afoot in this country to make it legal. First step of course is patient requested, next step patient will have no say. We have several cases in California that fall right in line with Terri's case - the patient wants to live - doctors and spouses are saying NO.

I referenced your age earlier in this post because I am sure you were not around in the '30's and early '40's. I was a youngster then but was old enough to see what was happening in the Nazi movement. Death was sometimes the end result of having a mental problem or disability. My own father who was just a boy, suffered from shell shock among other physical problems due to malnutrition. About 1915 - 1917 his family immigrated to America (via Ellis Island) because things were not going well in Germany. It saved his life and he wound up a productive citizen.

The same thing is happening now in this Country. There is a growing movement to allow mercy killing/euthanasia - and some people follow that line of thought of thinking; "I certainly wouldn't want to live like that!" but, they are not the patient. It's not fair imposing one's thoughts on someone else.

The movement is going along as planned - after all - who would have thought that the test for a politician, judge or anyone who wishes to achieve a major public service post, is that of ceasing the life of an unborn fetus/baby - a future life.

Before challenging anyone please, study all aspects of a case and not take as gospel what might sound logical.

Thanks for listening.

[pickyourpoison]

"the patient wants to live"

Hugh Finn and Marjorie Nighbert wanted to live until the courts said no...there are many other cases out there
simular to Terri's.

[Republic]

Perfect response!

[Wampus SC]

"That has been my take too, and I have no doubts they will use the precident if not stopped."

Yep, and what's next if they get this precedent? They'll use it to get more precedents, each one built on the previous one. So next will be the ability to kill an unwilling person without family involvement. Then, to kill someone who flunks an HMO bean counter's cost/benefit analysis. Euthanasia by spreadsheet. Finally - in this world of PC Groupthink gone mad - the idea will be promoted that anyone who has too many non-PC ideas must have a terrible quality of life, an euthanasia would be a merciful thing to end their suffering. Poor things, just couldn't adjust to the right-thinking utopian paradise where we're "all one" in the glorious new age.

Watch for it. And that's my rant for this evening...

[Wampus SC]

"Felos blames the courts for it taking so long to kill Terri. Can you imagine?"

Yeah, I can imagine how jonesing must have been rough for him. Gotta have that fix NOW!

[Wampus SC]

Well said, BB, and an interesting exchange. Yep, this one's got the earmarks. Such as the presumed slick - but very transparent - way of sidestepping all questions by calling them devious. They always do that since they know that a direct answer to inquiries about their position will get them busted.

Another funny thing. The way one presents an argument, as well as stylistic cues in one's writing, are unique to the individual. And this new one showed up right after a "different" one got totally discredited.

[Wampus SC]

So a RINO, a HINO, a WINO, a CINO, a FRino, The Man From Glad, a wannabe guru and a shark were sitting at a bar. The Man From Glad says, "I'm running for office and there's no way I can lose". "How's that?", says the barmaid. "Because I've got so many ziploc bags that I can hide all my dirty laundry!" (rimshot! cowbell!)

So the barmaid says to the wannabe guru, "What'cha have?" The wannabe guru says, "Nothing, I'm trying to reach Nibbana!" (ba-da-bing!) The barmaid says, "Vodka! Straight! Lots of it!" (rimshot! ba-da-bing! drumroll! ting!)

So the shark says, "I saw my buddies swimming behind a cruise ship today. They heard Felos was on board and were waiting for him to think about it sinking!"(ba-da-boom!) Then the shark says, "I saw Jeb Bush" -- and everybody got up and ran home to board up for a hurricane! (fanfare!)

Thank you! Thank you! Don't forget to tip the waitresses, Hillary the lavatory assistant, and all our other hard working girls! Thank you and good night! See you next month!

[BykrBayb]

(though calling her "disabled" is a bit disingenuous).

It is an established fact that Terri was disabled. If you have proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

I said nothing resembling "euthanizing her because of her disability".

If she was not disabled, would you still be arguing in favor of killing her?

My position, which I have not stated fully up till now, is that Mr. Schiavo sought,through appropriate channels, to fulfill what he believed to be his wife's wish to not be kept alive via tubes or other extraordinary means.

If he really believed that, why did he testify in court that he had sworn an oath to her that he would take care of her for the rest of his life? Why did he state on Larry King that he didn't know what Terri's wishes were, but his wish was for her to be starved and dehydrated to death? And did he honestly believe that all the other abuse and neglect that he subjected her to was in accordance with her wishes? Why are you so eager to believe his claim that runs contrary to all the evidence, but you don't believe his sworn testimony that is supported by all the evidence?

Like any sane person, I deplore genocide, but allowing to die those people who have expressed a wish to do so under certain circumstances does not remotely qualify as genocide.

There is a difference between allowing someone to die, and killing them. Terri was not allowed to die. She wasn't dying. Michael often complained about that. It has already been established that Terri did not express a wish to be killed. Even Michael testified to that fact. So you can stop blaming Terri for her own murder. She didn't orchestrate it, request it, or participate in it. She fought against it to the bitter end.

It is unclear to me what you mean by "the euthanasia movement" (much less "euthanasists"), so I can't say at this juncture whether or not I support it.

Don't be coy. It doesn't suit you. I sincerely doubt that the only thing you know about euthanasia is what you read in the dictionary. You recite the euthanasia movement's propaganda too thoroughly to have gotten it out of the dictionary.

I believe that people should have the right to decide for themselves what medical procedures they would like applied to them, up to and including the refusal or withdrawal of nutrition and hydration under certain circumstances.

I find it revealing that you support the right of people to refuse food and water, but you don't support their right to live. Terri had as much right to food and water as you do.

Likewise, the phrase "right to life" can mean many things, and I am unsure as to what you mean by it.

You don't seem to have any trouble understanding and supporting the right to death. Why is the right to life too complicated for you?

[BykrBayb]

I love the new sign. I bet Howard the maintenance man was up all night making it.
I guess he's good for more than just sweeping up Cocoa Puffs and cuckoo vomit.

[Wampus SC]

Yeah, ol' Howard has 1,001 uses. He's on top of those cocoa puffs, but I might have to get a restraining order against the Cuckoo. I mean, my overhead's bad enough without having the HAZMAT crew here to sandblast the floor every other day!

Howard's proud of that sign, as are we all. I told him it'd be easy to make by taking glowing political promises and bending them more than the politicians do. He didn't want to work on it at first. So I told him that it'd make Linda the Exotic Dancer from North Carolina finally notice him. He wouldn't work on anything else after that...

[BykrBayb]

Linda? I think I remember her. Isn't her stage name "Big Mama?" And isn't she already married to the maintenance man?

[Wampus SC]

Yep. That's why he wants her to notice him so bad.

[BykrBayb]

I think I got her stage name wrong. I think it's Wolfina.

[Wampus SC]

Wolfina always gets the crowd howlin'.

[BykrBayb]

Yeah, but she's nothin' without her backup singers.

[Wampus SC]

They really ought to get a new name. NC State football might think they're plagiarizing them.

But yeah, you ought to hear those gals harmonize on beach music at all those shag contests.

[8mmMauser]

Golly, Clyffehall, you forgot to respond to my post #442 so I will repeat it. You left with nary a word further, then came back later with the same old stuff to others. So here it is again...If someone looks like a troll, quacks like a troll, walks like a troll, maybe he is a friend of felos de se, dethnell or mikey.

But I will defer to the point made by Animal Lover that you are just a kid. Yes, inter alia your swallowing of the Kool Aid that Terri wanted to die indicates you just may be too young to understand it is propaganda. If that is the case, beware of the pride that allows you to consider yourself an intellectual impressed with your own words. Rather than assume you are all cognizant, you may consider you are dealing with folks who have hard knowledge and experience, not some lofty intellectual opinions. We are warriors against the culture of death. We eschew polemic and cut to the battle.

Your posts do have a value, though, in reminding us of the logic used by adversaries and in bumping our thread. It is very helpful for you to bump our thread, and although you may not shine in the eyes of new viewers, it sure helps others to view the plight of people in Terri's situation.

Lastly, as BykrBayb clarified, this forum honors true debate. But you throw up platitudes against facts. That is not the same. So learn and continue on with true items of debate or continue your platitudes to your own peril. .................................

Earlier post

So let me once again state that I have no agenda. I am not threatened by people who disagree with me; I sincerely hope that all of you will no longer feel threatened by any views of mine which are different from your own.

This is a great example of the tired word games we see so frequently. You subtly imply we are threatened by different views. Yeah, right. We are keenly aware of an element of Death Culture which invariably takes the defensive side of the perps. Many of them attempt to sound intellectual and learned with just a twinge of condescention.

Finally, I would add that, though I have indeed seen similar questions to mine asked here in the past, I have never seen any satisfactory answers. Why is that, do you suppose?

That is the simple one. They tried to disrupt, not discuss, and they are gone. We find folks like you can be given all kinds of facts, truths and answers and they are never the right ones for you so you keep pressing. We realize the act of asking the "Have you stopped beating your wife lately" is for effect, not for a rational answer.