More on Terri Schiavo--UPDATE: Schiavo dead 31 Mar 05

[Tommy J]

IIRC wasn't it mentioned in this thread that the brain (if still present at all) does filter out any pains by starving to death?

It doesn't matter. Her cerebral cortex is kaput, it's a vacuum that exists there now. What does exist is the more tolerant brain stem, but this controls basic lower brain functions. The reason she isn't declared brain dead is because in Florida I believe it requires that the whole brain cease functioning. Legally, however, there is no reason to allow her to stay on life-support since she technically passed away a long time ago. It is like an airliner on autopilot when all the passengers died of anoxia ages ago.

Admiral, look at the below picture and tell some one your answer and you'll see why the Republicans win this argument time and again.

[img]http://hp.msn.com/1R/T{[69,VW1X3L3D49NK8JCS.jpg[/img]

[Dahak]

IIRC wasn't it mentioned in this thread that the brain (if still present at all) does filter out any pains by starving to death?

It doesn't matter. Her cerebral cortex is kaput, it's a vacuum that exists there now. What does exist is the more tolerant brain stem, but this controls basic lower brain functions. The reason she isn't declared brain dead is because in Florida I believe it requires that the whole brain cease functioning. Legally, however, there is no reason to allow her to stay on life-support since she technically passed away a long time ago. It is like an airliner on autopilot when all the passengers died of anoxia ages ago.

Hence the "if still present at all" addition

[Dahak]

Updated as of 7:38 a.m. EST.

The only thing I think that is cruel about this whole thing is that they are letting her starve to death to die. As compassionate people we must find a better way to let people that want to die who are in this state, not be starved to death. We don't even EXECUTE people in such a manner who have committed the most horrific of crimes!

IIRC wasn't it mentioned in this thread that the brain (if still present at all) does filter out any pains by starving to death?

If even one Dr. has any doubt on whether she is feeling starvation pains at all, then I'd say it is not the correct way to let her die. As a society we need to decide if people have the right when their incapacitated to choose to die. And if we say they do, then a non-painful lethal injection seems to me the most compassionate way to end someone's life.

But this concept of letting her decide her fate only to be starved until death is an ABSURD way to me in which to execute her final request.

When they poll people and about 70% of people say they'd chose to be 'unplugged' I doubt that includes being starved to the point of death. Most envision that as being literally pulling an electrical cord out and then one dies at that moment.

If you don't feel pain, it is irrelevant how you do it.
And given her reported status, even throwing her out a plane over the Atlantic would be painless...

Letting her starve is passive. The doctors are not doing anything actively.
If you do something actively, like injecting something, then you're in a completely different world, legally speaking.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I know the whole argument is one big appeal to emotion.

And sadly, that always works over reason in cases like this. If I dressed a mannequin up to look like her and gave it a random control over eyes and facial expression, it'd be just as alive as her.

[RedImperator]

Updated as of 7:38 a.m. EST.

The only thing I think that is cruel about this whole thing is that they are letting her starve to death to die. As compassionate people we must find a better way to let people that want to die who are in this state, not be starved to death. We don't even EXECUTE people in such a manner who have committed the most horrific of crimes!

IIRC wasn't it mentioned in this thread that the brain (if still present at all) does filter out any pains by starving to death?

If even one Dr. has any doubt on whether she is feeling starvation pains at all, then I'd say it is not the correct way to let her die. As a society we need to decide if people have the right when their incapacitated to choose to die. And if we say they do, then a non-painful lethal injection seems to me the most compassionate way to end someone's life.

But this concept of letting her decide her fate only to be starved until death is an ABSURD way to me in which to execute her final request.

When they poll people and about 70% of people say they'd chose to be 'unplugged' I doubt that includes being starved to the point of death. Most envision that as being literally pulling an electrical cord out and then one dies at that moment.

We have made that decision as a society. Dr. Kevorkian is in jail, the only state in the union with a right to die law is Oregon, and Asscroft took them to court over violation of Federal drug laws over it (Martinez has not dropped the case).

It's absolutely absurd that we have to let someone starve to death rather than just give her a lethal injection, but that's legally murder. And if you're a vegetable like Terri Schiavo, or quadripelegiac, or worse, have locked-in syndrome (look that one up if you'd like to have nightmares for a while--I've been for the last two days), you cannot die unless others let you no matter how much you might want to. According to Congress and the state legislatures, if you're imprisoned in your own body, and you're killed according to your own wishes because you're physically unable to do so, whoever does so faces the same amount of time in prison as a drug dealer who shoots a rival or a jealous husband who murders his wife.

[Knife]

If even one Dr. has any doubt on whether she is feeling starvation pains at all, then I'd say it is not the correct way to let her die. As a society we need to decide if people have the right when their incapacitated to choose to die. And if we say they do, then a non-painful lethal injection seems to me the most compassionate way to end someone's life.

I agree, but as pointed out by others is the same fucktards fighting to keep the lady alive (a stretch of the word) are the same who would go ape shit at euthenasia too.

Anyway, all that aside, she can't feel pain. She isn't there. There is nothing to register the pain.

But this concept of letting her decide her fate only to be starved until death is an ABSURD way to me in which to execute her final request.

When they poll people and about 70% of people say they'd chose to be 'unplugged' I doubt that includes being starved to the point of death. Most envision that as being literally pulling an electrical cord out and then one dies at that moment.

True, but of those in the polls who respond to the 'pull the plug' option, I got to believe that they are following this case too and know what is going to happen.

She's gone, can't feel the pain and the doc's are just letting her return to her default condition which will kill her. The state is not killing her in some gruesome manner, rather allowing her to die and removing the artificial means that is keeping her just barely on this side of living (again, stretching that word).

[Durandal]

If even one Dr. has any doubt on whether she is feeling starvation pains at all, then I'd say it is not the correct way to let her die.

You can get an expert witness to testify to just about anything you want. The simple fact is that her brain is not there. It's been replaced by spinal fluid, so she doesn't feel pain. Nor does she feel hunger.

But honestly, I think it'd be best to just give her a lethal injection and be done with it. There's no reason to be cruel and starve her to death just in case she does feel some sort of pain as a result.

[Tommy J]

I know the whole argument is one big appeal to emotion.

And sadly, that always works over reason in cases like this. If I dressed a mannequin up to look like her and gave it a random control over eyes and facial expression, it'd be just as alive as her.

Yes it is. And as seen in the below from a protester on MSNBC is exactly the issue. Most people support the concept of being unplugged, it's that they are starving her to death that doesn't sit well to most. (including myself even though I know intellectually that it doesn't cause pain)

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck is with Tommy J and his insistence that every irrational fucktard in the world needs to be catered to, no matter how stupid his position might be? Don't you fucking realize that you could bend over backwards for these fucktards and they still wouldn't be happy? They would settle for nothing less than this turnip being kept on life-support forever.

Do you have some pathological need to appease people? Is that it?

[Tommy J]

Do you have some pathological need to appease people? Is that it?

No of course not Mike--well, on some issues I believe their are useful compromises we can come to with Fundi's to make some social progress. You and I just agree to disagree about that.

In any case, I'm just saying lets fucking get to the heart of this matter and stop pussy footing around it. For the Fundi's they are using this case to trumpet their cause of 'perserving life' as a result of starving her and appealing to everyone's emotions. [shit look at the picture I posted earlier from MSNBC of a seemingly smiling in pain person] And because our society says lethal injecting this poor woman is murder and thus isn't an option, people are falling for it. I think that's bullshit. And if I could and had the media power I'd point out to Americans who in a vast majority believe intellectually in the right to die, DO NOT LIKE THE CONCEPT OF STARVING SOMEONE TO DEATH.

Don't you see this is exactly how they get on the 'right-side' of issues like this and the Democrats get on the wrong side. It's not about logic. It's not about fact. It's not about intellectually knowing she cannot feel a thing. It's all about that it's SIMPLY DISTASTEFUL TO MOST that starving a human being to their death is wrong.

So that being said, I don't want to 'appease' anyone, but rather get to the heart of the matter or better said ahead of the 'morality curve' of the Neo Conservatives.

[SirNitram]

Annnnnd another thread is destined to descend into Tommy J stamping his feet like a child about how we mustn't, absolutely mustn't, do anything that might upset the big scary red staters.

I hate this fearmongering, illogical shit being spewed again and again.

[Darth Wong]

it's SIMPLY DISTASTEFUL TO MOST that starving a human being to their death is wrong.

Assuming the double-negative was unintentional, you are still wrong. The polls show that most Americans reject the radical religionists' claims this time.

So that being said, I don't want to 'appease' anyone, but rather get to the heart of the matter or better said ahead of the 'morality curve' of the Neo Conservatives.

What the fuck is the difference between that mealy-mouthed meaningless statement and "appease"? Do you ever have ANYTHING to contribute on any remotely controversial social subject other than "I think our position might offend the other side so we should change it"?

[Tommy J]

And you know what at the end of the day what happens, this gets turned into a sound-bite during an election cycle.

"The Democrats, oh ya, the party that believes in the right to chose to die via allowing people to die via STARVATION"

And then what happens. Because of the appeal to emotion another wave of Republicans come barreling into the congress.

[SirNitram]

And you know what at the end of the day what happens, this gets turned into a sound-bite during an election cycle.

"The Democrats, oh ya, the party that believes in the right to chose to die via allowing people to die via STARVATION"

And then what happens. Because of the appeal to emotion another wave of Republicans come barreling into the congress.

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!!

DON'T LISTEN TO SENSE, REASON, OR ANYTHING BUT ME!

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!!

Yea, we heard you the first dozen times, Troll. Fuck off.

[Plekhanov]

And you know what at the end of the day what happens, this gets turned into a sound-bite during an election cycle.

"The Democrats, oh ya, the party that believes in the right to chose to die via allowing people to die via STARVATION"

And then what happens. Because of the appeal to emotion another wave of Republicans come barreling into the congress.

And your solution to this problem you perceive is what? Go along with the republicans on everything and try and enact their shitty fundie policies before they do?

You have to take a stand sometimes Tommy otherwise what’s the fucking point in being in politics if all you do is go along with and infact attempt to pre-empt the fundies trying to drag the US back into the dark ages.

[Tommy J]

"I think our position might offend the other side so we should change it"?

No, re-package our side. Lets tie it up in a box and put a new bow on it, because the brown paper box on our argument now sucks. Atheists and Evolution supporters do a HORRIBLE job at selling their arguments.

In any case, to quote Dr. Evil, I'll zip, zip, zip it on this subject. And I'm sorry my centrist way of looking at things sometimes is offensive to you and some others. It's just me, it is however in business an effective way to get things accomplished in larger corporations. I could be wrong but I believe you support a plethora of opinions on issues, either left, right, or center or appeasement. At the end of the day it's just an opinion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're a fucking idiot - the popular opinion EVEN AMONG EVANGELICALS is fucking huge in our favor on this. Why the fuck would need to present these arguments any differently? You're just a cocksucker.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Tommy, grow a spine. If you don't face the fact that the other side will gladly trample over you if you present yourself, then you can't help anybody you supposedly fight for. Like it or not, people are disappointed and appeased on various issues, you can't help everyone but that doesn't mean we must fall back and admit defeat so one side is wholly happy all the time. That's just bloody stupid and I'll fight against anyone with such a defeatist attitude.

[Durandal]

"I think our position might offend the other side so we should change it"?

No, re-package our side. Lets tie it up in a box and put a new bow on it, because the brown paper box on our argument now sucks. Atheists and Evolution supporters do a HORRIBLE job at selling their arguments.

Why? Oh right, because our arguments actually involve supporting one side rather than pandering to the other. Yeah, you're right. That's a terrible way to argue.

In any case, to quote Dr. Evil, I'll zip, zip, zip it on this subject. And I'm sorry my centrist way of looking at things sometimes is offensive to you and some others.

Centrism is not offensive. It's fucking irritating, because rabid centrists like you are spineless worms who claim to hold one ideal, but are eager and willing to sacrifice that ideal at the first sign of opposition.

It's just me, it is however in business an effective way to get things accomplished in larger corporations.

It's also an effective way to completely fuck things up in larger corporations. Microsoft sacrificed security at the altar of whiz-bang features, and they are paying a very dear price for that compromise.

I could be wrong but I believe you support a plethora of opinions on issues, either left, right, or center or appeasement. At the end of the day it's just an opinion.

Cue the inevitable "It's just an opinion" speech from the spineless centrist.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think one argument I have heard is that they want to completely pay for it, and if she cannot feel or sense anything anyway and is dead, who cares what the parents want?

I don't know why they would want to pay for a dead body.

[The Spartan]

I don't know why they would want to pay for a dead body.

Because they have it stuck in their heads that she's not dead. They think that some day, newer treatments will bring her back to life. It's really just a parent(s) unwilling to accept that they've outlived their child. Can't say that I blame them in that regard, though the lengths to which they're going to try and cling to her are, as has already been said, ghoulish

[Firefox]

I wonder if, ironically, some of those nuts are putting their hope in (embryonic) stem cell research in an effort to save what little brain matter Terri has.

[The Spartan]

I wonder if, ironically, some of those nuts are putting their hope in (embryonic) stem cell research in an effort to save what little brain matter Terri has.

That would be obscenely ironic but since hypocriscy seems to be a way of life for many of these nutjobs... but then, if it means they have to change their stance on stemcell research I'd be all for it. (By which I mean them changing their stance not keeping her body alive.)

[Admiral Valdemar]

Science can do only so much and NO amount of stem cell research will rebuild her brain to what it formerly was. Short of a brain transplant or regrowth that may be possible, the body is useless and her mind is gone. The mind complex was destroyed ages ago and with it, the construct that was Terri Schiavo.

[The Spartan]

Science can do only so much and NO amount of stem cell research will rebuild her brain to what it formerly was. Short of a brain transplant or regrowth that may be possible, the body is useless and her mind is gone. The mind complex was destroyed ages ago and with it, the construct that was Terri Schiavo.

I'm not suggesting that they could rebuild her brain. Just that if they changed their stance on stem-cell research in the false hope that it could revive her that I'd like that so that we can actually get somewhere with it and not have to listen to quite as many asshats screaming about how it's evil.