BuffettNews.com

I see your point Fourplay, if we allow one brain-dead Floridian to die, what's to stop us from extending that policy to include the rest of the state?"

Don't ya just hate it when a thread gets hijacked??

ph4ever wrote:

Sam wrote:

ph4ever wrote:Sam there have been several people that contributed to that website and on that site you will find a copy of the Guardian Ad Litem report. The Guardian represents Terri as appointed by the courts. I have been doing quite a bit of research on this and the Guardian Ad Litem report is most interesting.

As far as the Pope goes please realize that not everyone considers the Pope to be final authority on moral issues.

Connie, There are many people posting views and opines, in here and elsewhere, as I am sure you have noticed. Beyond the hi jack attempts...we have how many pages of opines?

That does not make anyones view or opine, any more or any less correct...just our views. One thing for sure killing her is permanent.

All consider Terri's situation to be tragic and some want to give her every chance at life. Apparently there are those that those that think terminating her life support, i.e. killing her by starving her to death, is perfectly acceptable and humane. That is their choice to decide.

As far as the Pope goes...I did not bring up what the Pope said.
Someone else did.
I am well aware many are not Catholic and have no faith or find meaning or care in what the Pope had/has to say or opined.

I CLEARLY stated I AM NOT Catholic, elsewhere.

If you don't like the mentioning of the Pope's commentarys or opines or whatever you want to call them...

The blog you used even mentioned/referenced what the Pope said....
Perhaps you missed the mention of that...I don't know.

How-so-ever, because some do not find meaning in the Pope's words, views, opines, does not change the fact, that there are many out there who do....

Sam aparently my doing research and contributing to the discussion offends you in some manor.

I'm not just stating read the opinion of some everyday person like you and me off the street. The Guardian Ad Litem was appointed by the courts to research the 30,000 some odd pages of legal and medical papers regarding Teri and render his interpertations. Yes he is just a man but he is a very educated man appointed by the courts. His findings and report have a direct bearing on the case at hand.

As far as me overlooking the blog's mention of the Pope's statement. I am overlooking any religous aspect of this case right now and looking at the medical facts regarding the possibility of her ability to recover. I thought the Guardian Ad Litem report was interesting and thought someone else who might be doing some further research might want to take a look at it as all.

I'm posting interesting information I find as I find it. I hope that dosn't bother you.

No nothing in your post offends me.
You and others may overlook the Pope's or other religious views.
Some may want an only clinical view.
Who knows who is correct in their view?

Do I feel anymore correct in my view than yours? Feel free to demonstrate that I said or inferred such a view or opininion.

I merely pointed out that person was stating his opinions as well.

If that offends you then I cannot help it. I only made comments, and none were insulting or offensive that I saw. While his comments and opine are quite valid...I take mine, yours, and others who comment and opine to be as equally valid.

You posted his comments and surely you expected some feedback on them....

Please by all means, do continue post the information as you find it and to educate people and keep them surmised of the situation. I thank you for doing so!

Do I have the Right to question the motives of her husband that waited 8 years before deciding to remember a one time conversation?

Do I have a Right to question that death by starvation should be considered humane treatment?

As for empathy and what I feel about the whole situation,...do I have the Right to feel the way I do?

Have I ever said no one has the Right to feel differently?

All of us hurt from this tragedy.

Some, maybe all, have tried to think what is best for Terri. Some try to imagine what it must be like for Terri and her family and for her husband.

Can anyone honestly say that they actually know Terri is not inside?
If she is not inside then she cannot be feeling any pain and is whereever the transition from life to death takes us.

Can anyone honestly say who will or will not recover?
Does she deserve every chance at life or any potential or possible recovery?

One thing for sure....killing her will deny any chance....

houston hal wrote:I find your name inappropriate. My child is offended by such filth!!!!

I asked you to edit your posts but you refused, so I've asked a moderator to do it for you. If you truly find my screen name offensive, you should ask someone to have it blocked.

Sam wrote: Do I have the Right to question the motives of her husband that waited 8 years before deciding to remember a one time conversation? I think the Guardian Ad Litem addresses this issue in the report - at least it gave a clear understanding of Michael's position.

Do I have a Right to question that death by starvation should be considered humane treatment? You do have the right to question just as I have the right to question is leaving her in this vegative state that the majority of physicians who have examined her feel she will never recover from a form of cruel and unusal punishment and inhumane treatement.

As for empathy and what I feel about the whole situation,...do I have the Right to feel the way I do?

Have I ever said no one has the Right to feel differently?

All of us hurt from this tragedy.

Some, maybe all, have tried to think what is best for Terri. Some try to imagine what it must be like for Terri and her family and for her husband.

Can anyone honestly say that they actually know Terri is not inside?
If she is not inside then she cannot be feeling any pain and is whereever the transition from life to death takes us. the information I've read regardiing vegatative state all say the longer a person is in a vegative state the less likely they are to recover. The longest vegative state I've found where someone recovered is 3 months vegatative state with recovery.

Can anyone honestly say who will or will not recover? the majority of physicians that have examined her say she won't recover.

Does she deserve every chance at life or any potential or possible recovery? Where do we draw the line. When does leaving someone in a vegative state become an act of kindness/mercy or cruel and unusual punishment?

One thing for sure....killing her will deny any chance....

Please read the report

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Hey Connie!! I haven't seen you in a while. Where's your partner in crime Rhummy?

Have you seen my dog?

ph4ever wrote:

Sam wrote: Do I have the Right to question the motives of her husband that waited 8 years before deciding to remember a one time conversation? I think the Guardian Ad Litem addresses this issue in the report - at least it gave a clear understanding of Michael's position.

Do I have a Right to question that death by starvation should be considered humane treatment? You do have the right to question just as I have the right to question is leaving her in this vegative state that the majority of physicians who have examined her feel she will never recover from a form of cruel and unusal punishment and inhumane treatement.

As for empathy and what I feel about the whole situation,...do I have the Right to feel the way I do?

Have I ever said no one has the Right to feel differently?

All of us hurt from this tragedy.

Some, maybe all, have tried to think what is best for Terri. Some try to imagine what it must be like for Terri and her family and for her husband.

Can anyone honestly say that they actually know Terri is not inside?
If she is not inside then she cannot be feeling any pain and is whereever the transition from life to death takes us. the information I've read regardiing vegatative state all say the longer a person is in a vegative state the less likely they are to recover. The longest vegative state I've found where someone recovered is 3 months vegatative state with recovery.

Can anyone honestly say who will or will not recover? the majority of physicians that have examined her say she won't recover.

Does she deserve every chance at life or any potential or possible recovery? Where do we draw the line. When does leaving someone in a vegative state become an act of kindness/mercy or cruel and unusual punishment?

One thing for sure....killing her will deny any chance....

Please read the report

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Three out of Five doctors.
Okies so you want to kill someone that has no voice...
Who is wanting to push their views permanently upon someone?
Didn't you accuse me of saying only my views were valid or some such?
At least I am against starving someone to death....


Death as we know it is a forever end to life as we know it to be.
Again I ask YOU DO YOU KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT of her status or only what you have read?

As for myself...I only know what I have read and I do find the motives of waiting 8 years to recall an alledged onetime conversation, questionable.

I know I find death by starvation to be quite horrible....no matter what drugs are induced. If she is not there why induce the drugs and admit what you want done is plainly killing someone ... taking a life. Why give drugs to someone that is not there? Is that saying we don't know if she is in there or not?

Will you deny her any further examinations or therapy or treatments, if any, are available? You certainly will if you take her life...

How badly to you want to take her life? Is she suffering, if she is not inside? How can one determine that? Seems you and others have said so, so the rest of us must believe it and condone her death by starvation?
Again who is mandating their views are the only correct one to have?
Who is going for the abolute end?
Death (no matter what nice name you want to call it ) seems pretty permanent end to me!

Who will be next on your list?

Where will you stop?

Who will die of starvation next? And what does that say of your moral obligation to your fellow human?

None of us REALLY KNOW if Terri is inside or not do we?

People are placing their values and judgement on someone else and wanting that person to die.

jxnparrothead wrote:Hey Connie!! I haven't seen you in a while. Where's your partner in crime Rhummy?

Sam wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Sam wrote: Do I have the Right to question the motives of her husband that waited 8 years before deciding to remember a one time conversation? I think the Guardian Ad Litem addresses this issue in the report - at least it gave a clear understanding of Michael's position.

Do I have a Right to question that death by starvation should be considered humane treatment? You do have the right to question just as I have the right to question is leaving her in this vegative state that the majority of physicians who have examined her feel she will never recover from a form of cruel and unusal punishment and inhumane treatement.

As for empathy and what I feel about the whole situation,...do I have the Right to feel the way I do? Show me where I said you didn't have the right

Have I ever said no one has the Right to feel differently?

All of us hurt from this tragedy. agreed 100%

Some, maybe all, have tried to think what is best for Terri. Some try to imagine what it must be like for Terri and her family and for her husband. I believe I fall in that category as well as you

Can anyone honestly say that they actually know Terri is not inside?
If she is not inside then she cannot be feeling any pain and is whereever the transition from life to death takes us. How do you know there is always pain during the transition from life to death? The information I've read regardiing vegatative state all say the longer a person is in a vegative state the less likely they are to recover. The longest vegative state I've found where someone recovered is 3 months vegatative state with recovery.

Can anyone honestly say who will or will not recover? the majority of physicians that have examined her say she won't recover.

Does she deserve every chance at life or any potential or possible recovery? Where do we draw the line. When does leaving someone in a vegative state become an act of kindness/mercy or cruel and unusual punishment?

One thing for sure....killing her will deny any chance....

Please read the report

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Three out of Five doctors. Yes there were 5 doctors that did evalueate her for the court. But let's not forget the countless number of physicians she has seen in California as well as FloridaOkies so you want to kill someone that has no voice... she has no brain left that would enable her to talk. that's why the court appointed the Guardian Ad Litem
Who is wanting to push their views permanently upon someone?
Didn't you accuse me of saying only my views were valid or some such? no, what I said is you act as if it is a personal attack against you if someone disgrees with you
At least I am against starving someone to death.... Her brain - which controlled her personality, her speach, her life is no longer there - she is but a body whose brain is gone but the body dosn't realize it - which is more cruel - allowing her to possibly suffer for God knows how long or to finally be at peace with God?

Death as we know it is a forever end to life as we know it to be. Yes it is however I also believe there is life after death - in heaven or hell be it where you are destined to go. Why deny a person to travel to that plane? If it is time to let go it's time to let go and let the person go. Her time to go was quite possibly long ago. It's not my place to judge. Is it yours?
Again I ask YOU DO YOU KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT of her status or only what you have read? And I ask you DO YOU KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT OF HER STATUS?? I have read the Guardian Ad Litem report which was based on all the documents both medical and legal as well his his visits with all parties concerned. Have you read it?
As for myself...I only know what I have read and I do find the motives of waiting 8 years to recall an alledged onetime conversation, questionable.
The Guardian Ad Litem report addresses this point but again I ask, did you even bother to read it? Also this aleged one time conversation took place in the presence of 2 witnesses whose testmony was deemed as hearsay. Is it not possible that the conversation actually took place considering the 2 witnesses?? And it dosn't matter who they are. It would be like your close friend telling you, and your sister and brother in law that she didn not want to be kept alive by a supported means. During those 8 years she saw countless specialists and was even taken to California for surgery in hopes that what was left of her brain would be stimulated by implants. The surgery did not work.

I know I find death by starvation to be quite horrible....no matter what drugs are induced. If she is not there why induce the drugs and admit what you want done is plainly killing someone ... taking a life. Why give drugs to someone that is not there? Is that saying we don't know if she is in there or not?

Will you deny her any further examinations or therapy or treatments, if any, are available? You certainly will if you take her life...
How badly to you want to take her life? Is she suffering, if she is not inside? How can one determine that? Seems you and others have said so, so the rest of us must believe it and condone her death by starvation?
Again who is mandating their views are the only correct one to have?
Who is going for the abolute end?
Death (no matter what nice name you want to call it ) seems pretty permanent end to me!

Who will be next on your list?

Where will you stop?

Who will die of starvation next? And what does that say of your moral obligation to your fellow human? And who are you to question my moral values or my obligation to fellow humans. First you know NOTHING of my life and what I've been thru or what I have done for other humans. You pass judgement on me with statement when it is not your place to judge me. You talk of morals - what type of morals are you showing here? Last I heard there was only one person with the ability to judge my morals and pass judgement on me and you're not God.

None of us REALLY KNOW if Terri is inside or not do we?

People are placing their values and judgement on someone else and wanting that person to die.

All of the medical information I have read clearly indicates that she has little to no brain left - it's all mush from being deprived of oxygen. In essence she is just on the cusp of brain dead only her body dosn't know it. If you have read something to the contrary please post a link so I may be informed.

I find your line of questioning me (highlighted in blue) to be most disturbing. You act as if I am the sole person responsible for Terri's care and outcome and that simply is not the case and you know it. You post to me in a condeming manner as if I am a evil murder for my beliefs. So in following your line of post does that make you a person who commends human torture. Do YOU know for a fact that she is not living a tortorus existance? Personally if she is suffering I wish her no more suffering at all be it by death or by being placed in the care and custody of her parents. What do you wish for her?? I personally don't care about her husband my only concern is if Terri's possible suffering and what can be done to eliminate such suffering in her life.

Judge not for you be judged yourself and in the same manner that you judge, you will be judged.

creeky wrote:This is a TOTALLY moral argument. It is along the lines of where Abortion should be legal or not that we are having here in Australia at the moment.

As it is a MORAL issue - you will have people either side of the fence - and that is their right.

No amount of posts... words........ arguments..... insults....... persuasion will make someone change their moral stance .....

Thats just how it is ...

I feel the same way. You can debate ethics til you're blue in the face, but neither side will ever be right, and neither side will ever be wrong, and neither side will ever change their stance.

I guess it's the "thrill of the game", as Michael Jordan once said.

It would be a lot easier if there weren't so many decisions in life that fell somewhere between black and white.

houston hal wrote:I see your point Fourplay, if we allow one brain-dead Floridian to die, what's to stop us from extending that policy to include the rest of the state?"

I'm for removing the tube.

Key Lime Lee wrote:It would be a lot easier if there weren't so many decisions in life that fell somewhere between black and white.

that's true!!!

but then I've always said life would be easier if more people saw gray instead of just black and white.

ph4ever wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:It would be a lot easier if there weren't so many decisions in life that fell somewhere between black and white.

that's true!!!

but then I've always said life would be easier if more people saw gray instead of just black and white.

My hair used to be black, but I'm seeing more gray every day.

Elrod wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:It would be a lot easier if there weren't so many decisions in life that fell somewhere between black and white.

that's true!!!

but then I've always said life would be easier if more people saw gray instead of just black and white.

My hair used to be black, but I'm seeing more gray every day.

that's the reason I'm a blonde now. Grey hairs color blonde easy.

jxnparrothead wrote:Don't ya just hate it when a thread gets hijacked??

Nice...... That would be a picture of Captain John Testrake, the pilot of TWA 847, hijacked by terrorists in June, 1985. Let's see, if memory serves, those same terrorists beat the sh*t out of Petty Officer Robert Stetham, U.S. Navy, shot him in the head, and dumped his body on the tarmac.

Pretty tasteless post, IMHO, and about as unfunny as one can get.