My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Google and Transparency | Main | Bubble, Bubble, Bubble... »

March 24, 2005


Alex Krupp

Except there is a fatal flaw with this plan. Being in a PVS could only be leveraged to support these causes if someone were willing to pay money to the spouse (which would be donated to said causes) to keep the person alive. However, at the same time this would set a precedent against the end-of-life set of civil liberties. And the kind of person who doesn't care about civil liberties wouldn't donate money to help out poor people.


This is silly. Err on the side of life and the problem goes away. Some of the remarks I hear would be valid if she had a living will and the gov't was intervening. She doesn't have one. Her husband has said he doesn't know her wishes and and this is his decision - even when her parents have tried and tried to take over responsibility.

You guys act as if she has a living will. So all of this bickering makes the left look silly.

Anspar Jonte

Silly? The husband decides. The rightwing glomming onto the parents' emotional appeal for political gain makes the rightwing look silly. We are still a nation governed by laws, at least for the moment. Rightwing radio was talking up that troublesome judicial branch today. Darn, if we could just eliminate the court system and replace it with rubberstamps we could move onto all those other issues we want total control over!

Alex Krupp

This is silly. Err on the side of death and the problem goes away. Some of the remarks I hear would be valid if she had a living will and the gov't was intervening. She doesn't have one.


No Anspar, it is silly. Michael said he doesn't know her wishes and that is what he wishes.
"M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..."

So... a) he wishes that his wife should die, b) without knowing his wife's wishes, and c) even when her parents have tried and tried to take over the responsibility (and his pain!)

And there is more to it: Terri hasn't had a neurological exam in years. Apparently she has not had at least an MRI. Her husband has refused her treatment. Have any of you though t that just maybe her husband has some problems?

So while the courts argue, she is starved to death. Anspar, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I could see you arguing to keep feeding a convicted murderer while the courts decide the killer's fate.

And then you guys complain about the Republicans politicizing this. If the Democrats didn't want to kill her - meaning to just supporther life - then there wouldn't be any room for the Republican's to gain any political advantage. By siding with death, the Democrats have to ignore many of the facts. No wonder people with disabilities are afraid of the death camp. The people on the side of death seem strange. Given what we know, the choice is life.


For you to give bandwidth to this most outrageous diatribe, one that makes fun of the Schaivo tragedy to make cheap political points, reveals you as a gutless, unprincipled and digusting individual.


Ah, look at Al spewing Karl Rove's talking points. Lovely.


Thanks for the inspiration!


I guess this love of life you have must mean that you support universal health care, increased social programs for the poor and generally looking after the poor and unfortunate in our society a lot better than we have been. She is lost, but there are so many others we can help. Right? Right?

Because if you don't see it that way, if you've just glommed onto this issue because it makes you feel good to support "life" then you're just grandstanding and your comments have no merit.


Houston Chronicle - "[Baby]'s death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes...Texas law [signed by Bush] allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree."


I've read the transcripts. These people were model husbands/parents for the first years after the injury to Terri. The Schindlers were fianncially generous to the couple and to Michael after the injury. Then they went bankrupt. They expected Michael to share the malpractice/loss of consortium cash with them.

Michael didn't reciprocate, for whatever reason. (This reminds me of the great line "Why do you hate me? I've never helped you.")

They are still fighting over it, with Terri as the pawn.

Right-to-die lawyer Felos has collected 300-400k of this money from Michael.

If adjudged de novo today, in 2005, Michael, despite his past good deeds, has a conflict of interest grossly disproportionate to any that the parents currently have.

If Terri were a government contract to buy 100 cans of Spam, Michael would be disqualifed to decide who to buy it from under conflict of interest laws.

Case closed. Pro-euthanasia folks should pick another battle to fight. As far as I can tell, plugs are being pulled in records numbers, what's to fight about?

Decklin Foster

The posting is now removed on craigslist. I sent email to abuse@ via the web form to complain, but in the meantime, anyone have a copy so I can read it?


Thank goodness for browser caching. Here you go.

The comments to this entry are closed.