The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Vacated body  (Read 17510 times)

pc93

  • Guest
Vacated body
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2003, 09:17:09 pm »

Storm,

The statements you attribute to Terri's father, mother, brother and sister are not true. How you can make the statements you do about her family shows you truly no nothing about the facts of Terri's case whatsoever. Where did you get this information? There is no way in hell that what you say is true. I have met her family and they are not liers. Michael is in the wrong here and you are sticking up for a person who has attempted to commit and continues to attempt to commit plain and simple attempted murder. The husk of a shell you speak about is a person such as you are me, the only difference being that she is a person living with a brain injury (she isn't comatose or PVS but was falsely labelled so by the corrupt kangaroo courts of which Judge Greer is a part) and she has been denied rehabilitation for the last 10 years contrary to law and contrary to Michaels promises of taking care of Terri (including rehab) which by convincing a malpractice jury he was able to acquire 1.2 million or so dollars. That was in Nov. 1992. 3 months later upon receiving the monies for promised care and rehab he puts a Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNR) on her chart and puts her in a nursing home. He then proceeds to deny any kind of rehabilitation whatsoever. This includes a toilet paper roll being placed in her hand to keep her hands from contracting. She received no range of motion therapy and no intensive rehabilitation of any kind. Of course she would continue to be in the current state she is presently in by this denial (against the law I might add) of rehabilitation. Similar cases to Terri's have taken six years of intensive rehabilitation. As it stands I would say that Terri has 10 years of intensive rehabilitation coming to her. I would stipulate that she has her whole life for all the rehabilitation she needs as it is her retained right. It is impossible for me to believe that 5 years after the malpractice lawsuit that he could come forward and say that he remembered that Terri said that she would not want to live attached to machines or live artificially, etc., but he did! There is a clear conflict of interest in the matter of this hearsay evidence. So he got his brother and a sister-in-law to say things to that effect it doesn't mean it's true whatsoever and even if it was it is not grounds for killing her because of her seeing an emotional movie and then saying some remark during or shortly after the movie. There is nothing on paper and Michael is on record as stating that he didn't know what Terri's wishes were to other parties. He is a lier. George Felos was Chairman of the Board of the Hospice where Terri is being held hostage right now. He got involved in this case in 1997 and he subsequently stepped down to, get this, avoid the appearance of impropriety. She is being denied rehabilitation in contravention to her retained rights and Michael and Felos and Co. continue thereby to break both State of Florida laws and Federal laws under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 10 years of denial of proper care and rehabilitation I have no doubt is going to carry a very high penalty for Michael and hopefully for Felos and Co (for the time that they have been involved). Judge Greer himself is as corrupt as they come and I have evidence to prove that by law he shouldn't even be in the current position of Judge that he is in right now plus he himself lies and talked about the case to other parties in regards to how he was going to rule, etc. He has done many other things like allowing the $750,000 funds set aside for Terri's care and rehabilitation to be raided by George Felos and Co. etc. to the tune of over $440,000 dollars in their efforts to kill Terri. He was even getting paid to talk to journalists with this money in his efforts to kill Terri. George Felos lies in State and Federal courts that Terri said "No tubes for me!" (How convenient, he took part in getting a law ammended that allows for pulling of feeding tubes). I was there on Oct. 10th at the Federal hearing before Judge Lazarra and he lied outright. I couldn't believe me ears but there it was! He is a perjurer. Now they say there is only $50,000 dollars of Terri's money left. What? they raided it since 1998 when there was still over $700,000 and now there is only that much left.. now she has to die because now there isn't a conflict of interest because they already stole the money? Oh but the bank officer who ruled over Terri's money allowed this so it is legal. They were in cahoots with Felos. The 2nd District Court of Appeals judge who wrote the opinions against Terri was a insurance adjuster and I have no doubt he was being paid off to get Terri killed. Greer has connections to the The Hospice of Florida Suncoast as well. He is friends with people on the board of directors and fundraisers. Can one believe that this man actually goes and lectures about Guardianship issues? He allowed Michael not to file Guardianship reports for the last 3 years when in fact he was supposed to go to a class and was supposed to submit reports once a year, etc. Michael has a fiancee of over 7 years and 2 children with that fiancee. He is not fit to be Terri's guardian, period. He deserves a prison cell and I have no doubt that that is what he is going to get and hopefully all the other corrupt people responsible for the attempted murder of Terri. Now Judge Demers appointed a default Guardian because he knew both parties couldn't or would not agree upon one and the Guardian-ad-Litem that he appointed (Jay Wolfson) has connections to The of Hospice of Florida Suncoast!!! Demers is complicit in this whole mess. It seems that there is a lot of corruption in Pinellas Pasco County Florida! I was there at the Sept. 11th court hearing before Judge Greer. This man acted like he was for Terri but postponed tube pulling to rule by fax the next week for same. Felos had the balls to request it to be done on Sept. 11th at 5:00pm. I was there. These guys have something to hide and they are not out to protect Terri or carry out her wishes.. only their own wishes to see her dead. Michael/Felos and Co. have interest in seeing Terri dead. Don't believe for one minute that they don't and if you want the proof it will be given. You should be ashamed of yourself for the words against Terri's family. You have no idea as you have never met these people personally. There is no way in hell that they are wrong about Michael. Michael and Felos were seen laughing about the whole matter after the Oct. 10th hearing on their way back to their cars because someone happened to be in the parking lot next to their vehicle. This isn't a joke my friend yet they think it is. And mark my words they are going to pay a dear price for what they have done to Terri. But bottom line is Terri gets to live and get the rehabilitation she's got coming. I guess that people didn't see the firestorm coming until they started messing with Terri life and believe me they got their firestorm hence the actions of the Legislature. I was involved in that firestorm and if you think I'm going to stop fighting for Terri to make sure she lives and gets the promised rehabilitation you have another thing coming.

Juan Schoch
Concerned Florida Resident
United States Citizen
http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/terri_sch...on_campaign.htm
 
Logged

Docliberty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2595
Vacated body
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2003, 09:29:57 pm »

Storm
As I understand it, you take the position that Terri is essentially brain dead.  What information do you base that decision on?
Logged
Doc

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.  I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."  Marion Morrison

"I do not fear my government.  I fear what my government will cause me to become."   Docliberty

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken

Misfit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Vacated body
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2003, 09:53:41 pm »

I notice there's frequent misinterpretations around here....
I equated assisted feeding that someone would need with broken arms to having a feeding tube. Both are assisted feeding methods. A feeding tube is not life support, just as being fed by another person when you can't feed yourself is not life support.


 

Claire

  • Plain Folks
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6577
    • Living Freedom
Vacated body
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2003, 10:38:18 pm »

Quote
Rights derive from the fact of human sapience
Mmmm, Enemyofthestate, I believe that's a credible philosophical position, but not an established fact. And even if one holds that position, it could still be immoral to kill a living creature unnecessarily, and certainly immoral to kill a living creature in an excessively cruel way -- for instance, by starvation.

Since some people with power over Terri's life *have* reportedly said that the ability to feed oneself is a key determinant in whether a disabled person should be allowed to live or be put to death, the observation about broken arms isn't as far off the mark as you might think.

I find it amazing that, if I starved a disabled child or a sick dog to death, I'd be charged with a crime. But if courts and doctors and a highly compromised husband want to do it, it's acceptable. What standard allows such a judgment?

 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 10:47:58 pm by Claire »
Logged
Just as the flattery of friends often leads us astray, so the insults of enemies often do us good. -- St. Augustine, Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 8


When faith ceases to be a challenge to the standards of polite society, it is no longer, or has not yet become, faith. -- Donald Spoto, Reluctant Saint:  The Life of Francis of Assisi


My life is my message. -- Gandhi

Storm

  • Guest
Vacated body
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2003, 11:23:49 pm »

Quote
The statements you attribute to Terri's father, mother, brother and sister are not true. How you can make the statements you do about her family shows you truly no nothing about the facts of Terri's case whatsoever. Where did you get this information?

From the horse's mouth. I am sorry to see that you would assert that I know nothing merely based on the fact that I do not share your emotional bias.  I hope that you will decide to take a step back and realize that no where have I attacked you as a person, nor even critized you as a person. I would have hoped for similar treatment, but I understand that often some let emotions run rampant instead.

BTW your claim that what I have attributed to her brothers is necessarily false and absurd, for if you will read my post you will find that I never attributed ANYTHING AT ALL to her brothers.

Quote
Michael is in the wrong here and you are sticking up for a person who has attempted to commit and continues to attempt to commit plain and simple attempted murder.

You blatantly lie here for I have never offered anything which any reasonable person could even begin to interpret as a defense of the husband even in a drug induced stupor. I have even granted all of the absurd ad hominem attacks for the sake of argument to point out that they have no bearing at all on any of the facts.

Quote
she has been denied rehabilitation

This is the last point to which I will explicitly respond and refute. The reason for this is that this is not a situation in which truth, objectivity, honesty or reason is allowed to be used as the determinant of reality. There is no therapy which has been shown to offer any hope, much less any success for rehabilitating PVS patients. Therefore it is impossible to for this husk to have been denied any such treatment.

I am sorry that your aquaintances have found themselves in this situation where their daughter died more than a decade ago but they are not willing to realize this. As Claire noted in a recent blog, the ability for self delusion is amazing at times. I feel for these people only as much as it is unfortunate that they must accept that their daughter died, but I cannot grant sympathy to them for denying the rights of individuals, the nature of reality, and the place of reason. Emotion does not trump reality, no matter how strong the emotion.

Good luck dealing with this, I wish you the best. I have not enjoyed losing people in my life, nor have I enjoyed such decisions when I had to face them, but in my experience, facing reality was the best medicine.

 
Logged

Storm

  • Guest
Vacated body
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2003, 11:28:26 pm »

Quote
As I understand it, you take the position that Terri is essentially brain dead. What information do you base that decision on?   pc93  Posted on Nov 12 2003, 08:17 PM
-DocLiberty

I believe that I specifically addressed this point, but in case I did not, I never stated anything about this husk being brain dead. There was no reason to refer to this so I did not.

I did however point out that the best that has thus far been fabricated has demonstrated shows nothing more than an infant born without a brain but with a rudimentary brain stem.

What I have pointed out is that there is exists no evidence that any person exists here. I am not so speciescentric to assume that this relies solely upon possessing human dna or fitting some human specific scenario.

I hope that this clarifies the misunderstanding and misattribution.  
Logged

Storm

  • Guest
Vacated body
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2003, 11:53:42 pm »

Quote
Mmmm, Enemyofthestate, I believe that's a credible philosophical position, but not an established fact. And even if one holds that position, it could still be immoral to kill a living creature unnecessarily, and certainly immoral to kill a living creature in an excessively cruel way -- for instance, by starvation.

Claire, are you no playing fast and loose with the idea of a living creature? Is being a living creature the sum total of the criteria for possessing the protections of morality? If so then why?

I personally rely upon the same method which has advanced humanity for thousands of years, that being critical thought. Rather than following tradition and presuming that one knows what morality is, then seeking to force this vision upon others, Bernard Gert studied morality as one would study biology, or any other science and the results are amazing to any willing ot take the time to examine them. First allow me to refute the claim that the killing of any living creature is necessarily immoral. Presumably you breathe. Presumably you eat. Both of these necessitates killing living creatures, no matter your diet. And you cannot claim that "needing to eat" is sufficient reason to violate moral rules, otherwise you would be suggesting that we eat this husk and therefore eliminate any contraversy.  The fact is that if you examine the moral judgements across time and culture you find that there is no moral rule against killing non-moral agents. The difference here is that you use "living creature" to mean moral agent, but the two are not at all synomynous.

I question the double assumption that you make regarding "killing" this husk and that it is cruel. As I understand it lack of nutrients is a relatively painless way to go. But foremost in our minds ought ot be the fact that no one is "killing" this husk even if it were a moral agent. To assert that the refusal of extraordinary measures is "killing" necessitates blaming ALL of us, yes you Claire and me, and everyone of murder of all individuals who do not live the lives that they may desire.  Is this necessary consequence of your proposed principle really one which to which you are willing to abide?

Quote
Since some people with power over Terri's life *have* reportedly said that the ability to feed oneself is a key determinant in whether a disabled person should be allowed to live or be put to death, the observation about broken arms isn't as far off the mark as you might think.

I had assumed that you were speaking about me, but I cannot find anything I have written which fits this criteion nor have I found anything anyone else has written, here or in the media, which fits this criterion. Could you direct me to what you are referring??


Quote
I find it amazing that, if I starved a disabled child or a sick dog to death, I'd be charged with a crime. But if courts and doctors and a highly compromised husband want to do it, it's acceptable. What standard allows such a judgment?

I will not presume to speak for anyone else but I for one will appeal to two things which clearly differentiate the two cases: reality and reason.

In comparing the two you ignore the critical factor of personhood, as well as playing on the legal crap to which we are submitted each day that has nothing to do with truth or reality. This is not a matter of diability as you would have us believe, but rather is a matter of the family's selfish uncompassionate and completely irrational desires versus reality. Yes the emotional argument has been won. YOu win that . No question.. Yes the careful editing and filiming has done its job.. it appears that there is a mildly responsive entitry in these home movies (that have not yet been repeated).  As a question of truth, does this mean that there is a person involved? Not at all. Was Hans the horse a person? Nope, though there was FAR more evidence of sentience in that case than this one..

So you ask what standard would offer different judgments for radically differnt cases? I submit that the standard is that of objective fact... a very simple and emminently checkable standard. What standard does the family offer for their specious claims? Blind emotion which denies reality. Which do you really want to place your trust upon?

As an aside, if the husband is a bastard and guilty of a millionth of what the family attributes to him then it will be VERY easy to prove this and incarcerate him indefintely. But thus far they have not offered even the slightest evidence supporting these claims This should tell us something as a practical matter if nothing else. Their lawyers would use this tactic in a heartbeat if they had anything for it would grant them everything they want, including the money, without any hesitation. So why have they not chosen to follow this path given their increasingly absurd claims? One can only assume that they cannot back up these claims as they claim to be able to do.

Personally I do not care what the fate is of this husk, except in as much as it has been the tool of a distraught famility which has used the government to further decrease the freedom of the individual. I hope at some point that those who have defended the state interference will come to realize that they have compromised principle for emotion.

 
Logged

Storm

  • Guest
Vacated body
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2003, 11:59:27 pm »

A general comment

 I realize that I am a fool for daring to commit the crime of introducing reason into an emotional situation, and I do not fault any for calling me a fool in this situatiion.

In my defense I am an optimistic fool. I continue to hope that those who at least give lip service to reason will take a step back and realize that though this is an emotion situation, there is no reason to let emotion run roughshod over the facts.

Also, to those who choose to be personally involved, I am sorry that you find yourself in this situation, but please keep in mind that those presenting the facts did not create reality but are merely reporting it. Life can be difficult and we must find our own ways in it. I wish all here good luck in that endeavor, regardless of the position one takes on this issue or even the personal attacks which some have chosen to use.

Storm
Logged

mantispid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://www.mantispid.com
Vacated body
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2003, 12:10:30 am »

Quote
I find it amazing that, if I starved a disabled child or a sick dog to death, I'd be charged with a crime. But if courts and doctors and a highly compromised husband want to do it, it's acceptable. What standard allows such a judgment?
If the child is not sapient and has lost all capacity for such, such a starvation should not be a crime... nor should the case of the dog, whether it is sick or not.  However, such instances may be cause for becoming a social outcast, as many others place importance on how one treats certain things, such as animals.

I'm quite attached to my pets, but I realize that if I chose to starve them to death, I could.. and it would not be of moral consequence (though obviously of legal consequence in many juristictions).  However, since I am attached to them, I choose to give them comfortable and rewarding lives (at least I hope I'm fulfilling my role in such).  I recognize that my emotional attachment is not necessarily rational, but I choose to indulge in it.... and choose not to indulge in the emotional pain of causing harm to things I care for.  It is similar to there being no moral consequence to me burning my left hand off with a brazing torch.  I could withstand the physical pain should I choose to do so (who knows, maybe there's one of those RFID chips forceably implanted there), but I would prefer not to have to endure the pain without a reason... oh, and I'm not a masochist ;).


And Claire, I have often thought about the whole eugenics thing, and how it can be dangerous to use something like 'sapience' to determine moral standing.  I know there are times when the question of sapience is in a grey area.  In such cases I always err on the side of sapience being present yet unmeasurable.  It's always best to err on the side of caution.  If I were Terri's husband, her termination would be a matter of honor and obligation... *IF* such a promise was indeed made.  If such a promise was not made, then there is a high likelihood that the husband has some pretty nefarious plans in the works.  If I somehow had power over this case, I would grant Terri's fate to whomever was willing to pay for her continued maintenance.  It seems impossible to know who is and who is not telling the truth at this point about her wishes.


Personally, I believe the entity known as 'mantispid' would cease to be in the event of even minor brain damage... but I'm not so fixated upon the fate of my body as to want to deny whatever entity was left over (or was formed) the use of this body.  In summary, If I get really messed up, whatever is left is free to do as it pleases.  Of course, if this body were to be messed up beyond any level of sapience, I would not want my survivors to have to use their resources on maintaining my body.  Of course, that would be my personal wish.  I can not make such a decision for any other.
 
Logged
"The root of all corruption is the willingness to violate the peaceful free will of others." -mantispid

Mantispid's weblog, "The Free Mind".

mantispid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://www.mantispid.com
Vacated body
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2003, 12:27:07 am »

Quote
A general comment

 I realize that I am a fool for daring to commit the crime of introducing reason into an emotional situation, and I do not fault any for calling me a fool in this situatiion.

In my defense I am an optimistic fool. I continue to hope that those who at least give lip service to reason will take a step back and realize that though this is an emotion situation, there is no reason to let emotion run roughshod over the facts.

Also, to those who choose to be personally involved, I am sorry that you find yourself in this situation, but please keep in mind that those presenting the facts did not create reality but are merely reporting it. Life can be difficult and we must find our own ways in it. I wish all here good luck in that endeavor, regardless of the position one takes on this issue or even the personal attacks which some have chosen to use.

Storm
Storm, please don't take offense to the emotionality of others.  Emotions are a part of who we are.  I know you're particularly skilled and well-disciplined at controlling your emotions.  I consider myself to be fairly good at doing so as well.

However, emotions are not something to be tossed out completely.  If one so chooses, they are quite healthy to indulge in.  Much like it's much more fulfilling to enjoy the taste of blueberry cobbler than it is to objectively evaluate sugar, moisture, carbohydrate, etc. content.  I'm not saying you don't allow yourself to indulge in your emotions from time to time, I'm sure you do.  I hope everyone does!  The trick is to be able to recognize one's emotions for what they are.. means through which the body influences rational thought..and that they are based in instinct...   But as they said on the old G.I. Joe cartoons, "Knowing is half the battle."  If you know you're being influenced by emotion, you can choose to fight it or go with it.

I say let people be emotional when they want to.  All we need to do is help others understand what the role of emotions are.. once they recognize those roles, they can make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to indulge in them or not.


Oh and Storm, I do like the very cold logic, android-like way you present things.  It's a perspective few people have... and certainly helps to keep this message board riled up!

But, anticipating how others react to comments helps facilitate true communication..... and helps to avoid misunderstandings, as imperfect as all of us are.
 
Logged
"The root of all corruption is the willingness to violate the peaceful free will of others." -mantispid

Mantispid's weblog, "The Free Mind".

Docliberty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2595
Vacated body
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2003, 12:59:55 am »

Storm

Thank you for clarifying your position for me.  Your repeated references to Terri as a "husk" and your comments that she had "died over a decade ago" led me to believe that you thought she was brain dead.

Someone fnctioning on brain stem only would be comatose.  Terri is at a much higher level than that as is witnessed by the video of her setting up and her eyes tracking movement.  Her inability to communicate makes it very hard to discern her wishes but this may be overcome to some degree by rehab.  The brain has the ability to establish alternative pathways around damaged areas.  This has been demonstrated repeatedly in stroke and other brain damage patients.

This is what I have discerned from the reports that I have read and heard regarding this case.  Terri does not have the ability to swallow.  She does not have voluntary control over most of her muscles.  She does not have the ability to speak.  All of this clearly points to brain damage.  None of this points to damage of the cognative centers of the brain.  That is not to say that those areas are not damaged, but without the ability to communicate, that cannot be definitively determined.

The point is simply this:  Nobody disputes the fact that she is brain damaged.  The question is how badly.  Only specialists that examine her can determine that and they will likely differ in opinion.  The true test is to start her on rehabilitation and judge the results. By all reports, she has not been given that opportunity.   She will never be 100% again, but perhaps she could be better than she is now.  That is not an emotional assesment but a medical assesment.  

By all reports, the people involved in her care are very invested in her dying.  That impairs their objectivity.  Since we can't cure death, perhaps some further evaluation should be performed by completely neutral parties before the final decision is made.  If the neutral parties determine that she truly is in a PVS then perhaps the husband is taking the correct coarse of action.

I can assure you Storm that my arguments are just as reasoned and unemotional as yours.  I do not know this lady or her family.  I have merely taken what I have seen and read about this case and formed a rough opinion regarding it.  Were I to examine her, that opinion might change or it might be reinforced.
Logged
Doc

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.  I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."  Marion Morrison

"I do not fear my government.  I fear what my government will cause me to become."   Docliberty

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken

rick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1282
    • http://www.frankenrangers.org
Vacated body
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2003, 06:25:18 am »

Dear enemy, I think you are mixing up two essentially different thing. Two broken arms and brain damage have one thing in common: you just can't eat. The result is you're being fed in order to keep you alive. To recover from two broken arms is, of course, easier than to recover from severe brain damage - if that is possible at all. As you won't deprive a man with two broken arms of his chance to recover, you should not do so in case of brain damage. The chances are lousy to say the least, but I think we should feel more than just a little uncomfortable with deliberately killing people. Claire mentioned the "Euthanasie" program of tha Nazis. Would you like that a Lex Terri would be made that all people who no longer can feed themselves should be executed? Or folks with an IQ of less than 90? or those who came out as INTJ in the test? Only 1% of the population, come, and they're such a PITA. Let's kill them and we'll have a stable social order...

I say NO.

Every decision MUST be made individually and under use of brains, not laws.

If you feel uneasy, think it over once more.
Logged
rick

I bear no hate against a living thing I just love my freedom all above the King

Claire

  • Plain Folks
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6577
    • Living Freedom
Vacated body
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2003, 06:31:58 am »

Quote
If the child is not sapient and has lost all capacity for such, such a starvation should not be a crime... nor should the case of the dog, whether it is sick or not.  However, such instances may be cause for becoming a social outcast, as many others place importance on how one treats certain things, such as animals.
 
Mantispid, do you really believe that the only reason to avoid causing physical pain and/or emotional torment to living, feeling (even if not intellectually conceptualizing) creatures is because "others place importance on how one treats certain things"?

Have you never watched an animal suffer? Do you not believe it is both a human and humane good -- in and of itself -- to prevent such suffering and to avoid being the cause of such suffering, except in gravest necessity?

You would starve a dog to death and believe you had done nothing wrong?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2003, 06:33:52 am by Claire »
Logged
Just as the flattery of friends often leads us astray, so the insults of enemies often do us good. -- St. Augustine, Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 8


When faith ceases to be a challenge to the standards of polite society, it is no longer, or has not yet become, faith. -- Donald Spoto, Reluctant Saint:  The Life of Francis of Assisi


My life is my message. -- Gandhi

Storm

  • Guest
Vacated body
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2003, 07:14:04 am »

Doc,

We continue to return to the essential differences here: emotional appeals versus honest and objective facts. I have never disputed that the video made by the parents was not well filmed and well edited to create sympathy and falsely tweek emotions. IN several interviews with the doctors who are responsible for the maintenance of this body all of them agree that the videos are misleading in the extreme. They explained that the causal connection between the eye movement and the objects is completely reversed, that is to say that those filming the video matched their movements to the involuntary movements of the body rather than the other way around.

It is also worth noting that this video is the only "evidence" that has been offered against the fact that this is a text book case of PVS. It is also worth noting that thus far what has appeared in the video has not been verified nor repeated. Would we be so quick to accept such "evidence" if the issue were not subject to these emotional appeals? Would you accept a video of painted rocks as proof of the existence of gold in a closed mine?

Quote
Your repeated references to Terri as a "husk"

I would ask that you read my posts again, for I have never referred to any person as a "husk" I simply differentiated between a person and a vacated body. Do you take the position that you are all and only your body? Are you still identical with your body after you have perished? By assuming that I am speaking of the former occupant of the body when I refered to the body, you beg the question at hand, you assume the conclusion for which you are trying to argue.

If you do take this extreme position that you are identical with your body for all time no matter what, I would point you to Daniel Dennett's Where am I? which can be found in his Brainstorms work, as well as other sources.  In this small and easy to read piece Denett explores the idea of what constitutes the essence of a person.
Logged

Scarmiglione'

  • Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
Vacated body
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2003, 07:32:11 am »

A couple of pennies in the pool,

Speaking from the philosophical realm of total individual freedom and freedom of association and freedom of contract, it seems to me that many years ago Terri entered into a voluntary agreement with her husband that they would care for each as best as they see fit.  In looking at the situation from the aspect of pure individual freedom, this was a choice she freely made.  Perhaps no one could see the potential of this situation, but it is here.  I believe that the husband, morally right or morally wrong, has primary jurisdiction over Terri's well-being, simply because that is the jurisdiction she placed herself into at the time of their marriage.

That's the brutal, cold, logic of the situation as I see it.

My heart hopes that he is motivated only to see her suffering (and perhaps his own?) end.  I also hope that she is not being kept alive against her will.  Ultimately, if Terri is capable of binary communication (yes and no), it should be fairly easy to determine her wishes.  I can understand the viewpoint of being alive, but not being conscious.  The eyes will still react to movement, because our brains are wired to do that.  Our fingers will still curl when touched, like an infant.  But infants aren't conscious either.  Infants are cherished because we hope they grow and improve, their brains developing into fully realized people, and we are encouraged by their almost immediate development towards this goal in the days after they are born.  I can understand the viewpoint that could see an infant with no brain, no hope, no future, no possibility of becoming a person and the absolute futility of raising it.  I can see and understand the viewpoint where life really does become pointless, useless, hopeless, and even worse, where a consciousness is trapped in an unresponsive body.

I've thought hard about this, putting my wife in Terri's place.  And I'm fairly certain that I would try everything to communicate with her and discern her wishes.  Failing that, I would end her suffering.  This is something I already know I will have to face, as my father has made the same request of me.  This means there are two people I love dearly who I have the responsibility to end their suffering if their quality of life deteriorates beyond a level that is ultimately up to me to determine.  The difference between me and Terri's husband is that no law, piece of paper, or forfeiture of insurance benefits would stop me.  Perhaps that is the key to the question of his motivation.

As for the judge who wanted to starve her to death...  Well, that makes me wish there really was a Hell, so he could burn in it for quite a long time.
Logged
We've built a world safe for fools, and are overrun by them.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up