The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Terri Schiavo News

Kill is good word for it. Here are a few videos
http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/schiavo.html

What's a schismatic? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Wow this is getting wild <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> ...no, but seriously could someone explain what a schismatic is.

Averagefella,

The legal/medical definition for brain dead, involves no brain function, voluntary or involuntary. A brain dead person cannot breathe on their own, has no voluntary muscular reactions or thinking processes. Many tests are performed to declare a person brain dead, not only the encephalograph.

One of the biggest problems with this case is that not only does the "husband" (to use the term loosely), want to refuse tube feeding to Terri, but he also refuses to allow any rehabilitation therapy, to see if Terri would or could improve. The parents have offered to do all the work and care, pay for any and all treatment, and the "husband" continually refuses everything. Why? Why? Why? Is this a responsible, Biblically correct conduct of a husband?

Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

This woman is NOT brain dead! She may be in some sort of vegetative state, but as shown in the videos I have seen she is more aware than that. She appears to be conscious, with some slight interaction with her surroundings, it is difficult to judge from here. Withholding food from her is not allowing her to die a "natural" death, it is slow starvation. A rose by any other name is still a rose and murder is murder!

I have some experience with brain death testing in hospitals and therefore am able to speak on this subject with some first hand knowledge even though I am not a doctor.

In His Hands,

Ruth

All of her immediate family, their lawyers, many doctors whom they have consulted, and a good number of legislators DISAGREE with you. This isn't a case of allowing someone to die, it's STARVING SOMEONE TO DEATH. As long as Terri gets food and water, she's FINE. Obviously she's not going to be 100% normal for the rest of her life, but so what? Does that make her life less valuable, because she is mentally inhibited? And as far as the Supreme Court decision, again, so what? How often has the Supreme Court been completely wrong about many issues in your lifetime, William? They refused to hear the case. It's been left in the hands of a judge who has decided, based on hearsay testimony alone, that Terri would rather die, even though Terri's own family has said the opposite! He has consistently refused to consider evidence that is incriminating against Michael Schiavo, such as the fact that he decided within a year of winning a $1 million settlement, most of which money was supposed to go to Terri's ONGOING care, to CEASE ALL CARE for her. Judge Greer has refused to consider that!


No, William, brain dead people DO NOT do those things. Talk about medical ignorance! Terri MAY be in a persistent vegetative state, but her parents and doctors they have consulted dispute that diagnosis. However, even if she WERE in a PVS, that's NOT the same as BRAIN DEATH. In the thread I started a few weeks ago I gave you the definition of brain death and it simply does NOT apply to Terri's case.


How come there are paralyzed people who can't speak for themselves? How come there are comatose people who can't speak for themselves? Do you think medical care should simply be ceased for all such people on the word of a spouse, because they can't speak for themselves? That they can't speak for themselves is all the more reason to be especially concerned about ensuring that their lives are not taken unjustly!


Babies require TOTAL CARE as well, you idiot! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />


Oh please, you talk about split families! Michael Schiavo wants to have his wife die AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE REST OF HER FAMILY, while he gallavants about with another woman who is not his wife by whom he has had children. Who's REALLY in favor of splitting families here, William? Worse still, who's in favor of having a woman starved to death because she can't provide care for herself?

The way you've dealt with this issue here totally disgusts me! You have consistently ignored FACTS (yes, FACTS) of the case that have been set before you and have acted in opposition to your own brothers and sisters in Christ, as if we're all just plain ignorant fools who have merely gotten carried away with our emotions and haven't bothered to consider the case. That you would then also dare to dismiss what Fred has said because he's a "schismatic" just boggles the mind! I really suggest you consider the plank that's sticking out from your own eye. God have mercy!

Yankee,

Thanks for posting those videos. Quite frankly I hadn't seen them before. It was good for me to see the responses Terri made with her mother and father.

I'm not sure how much recovery she will experience in time but it is apparent she has some brain function and some limited ability to communicate. I'm not sure how the court appointed physicians could come to the conclusion they did.

It seems there's a couple of lessons for us to learn here. One is that life is sacred and man shouldn't try to play God deciding who shall live and who shall die based on disabilities or limited abilities. The second one is to plan ahead. We should each take this opportunity to prepare a living will which gives the power of attorney to a loved one who can express our wishes if a similar situation were to happen to us.


Wes

And a link about a similar story: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031408.html

This article, from National Review Online, was something of a shock to me:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp

Apparently there has never been a MRI or CAT scan done to make a diagnosis of Terri's condition!

Regarding the hearing that has been held today in federal court: why in the world has that judge not ordered the nutrition/hydration restored until he can make a decision? If she dies before he reaches a decision, justice will not have been done, and all the efforts of Congress will have been in vain. I have begun to think that our judiciary is the most corrupt branch of our government, simply because there effectively are no checks on its power.


Theo

Also on National Review, Andrew McCarthy wrote an essay that mentions the battle of semantics going on--as we see in the expansion of "brain dead" to include "brain damaged."

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503210933.asp

Theo

A formal breach of union, an interruption in friendly relations, a state of disagreement and disharmony, or the condition of being divided, as in opinion.

Oh, that's right. Fred disagrees with William (on baptism, presumably), therefore he is wrong on everything. Ooo-kaaaaay.

Henry, are you SURE you meant that reply for me? I noticed Fred's name and William's, but not mine, however you posted this in response to my post? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Theo. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" />

I appreciate the additional information this report provides. I don't watch much TV and quite frankly haven't been following this story. Of course I've seen some reports in the newspaper and such but haven't taken the time to examine all the facts.

It seems quite clear more has to be done to explore her mental capabilities than has been done. The issues regarding her unfaithful husband are truly sad. His lack of character and love for her is very troubling in her time of need. Thankfully her parents have risen to the challenge and made the whole world aware of the unjustice going on here.

I agree with your assessment of our judicial system in America today. Hopefully the additional attention given by Congress and the President will force the court to do the right thing and to exercise their authority correctly in time to save her life.


Wes

No, it want's addressed to you, just a general thought- I used the quick reply box, which made it look like I was replying to you. Sorry!

Many of the posters have done a good job of answering , or at least linking to online information, that corrects much of the factual errors surrounding this case and is being passed along in the media.

My concern, however, William, is not so much with your misinformed opinion, but with your general callusness toward this situation. Amazingly, you seem to believe any concern for this woman and the inappropriate way her "husband" has mishandled her rehabilitation is misplaced judgment clouded by inordinate emotional attachment. I can only venture a guess that you have no close contact with mentally and physically disabled individuals?

Equally disturbing is how you side with the legality of the issue, rather than the morality of this issue. I find that disconcerting coming from a Bible believer who would hold to the doctrines of GRACE. Appeals to pure legality is the realm of our vast trial lawyer complex that has not only hijacked common sense, but daily oppresses the innocent, all in the name of being legal. The sheer inconsistency of a misapplied, a-moral legal system assures that terrorists will not be humilated with having panties put on their head, yet a "federal head" husband can deprive his disabled, estranged wife of basic needs all because he thinks she may had made some passing comment in the past about not being kept alive. But, she is "braindead" and unable to support herself, so anyone who happens to fall into that broad category should be subject to review of whether or not such a person has genuine quality of life. I hate to employ a cliché here, but this looks like a slippery slope.

Surely Covenant Theololgy cannot be so rigid, but I can see how falling down on the side of the alleged "rule of law" as being a logical conclusion to such views of theonomic philosophy. If disagreeing with what is such a warped understanding of law and federalism makes me schismatic, then by all means, I will remain schismatic.

Fred
www.fredsbibletalk.com

...[img]https://the-highway.com/Smileys/censored.gif[/img] gonna die?" These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I recall him making include "Can't anything be done to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information. He made numerous statements such as "Make sure the parents aren't contacted." I recorded Michael's statements word for word in Terri's chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn't to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter.