Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:47 am
Harrison wrote:She suffered for more than a decade because her parents are fucking cockheads who kept them alive for purely selfish reasons.
Tell me, how was she suffering?
Tell me, how was she suffering?
Page 3 of 5
Tell me, how was she suffering?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:03 am
Harrison wrote:(that post is considering those responses weren't 100% coincedental or cleverly edited to make it seem like cognitive functions...which is more likely)
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:05 am
You didn't answer the question. You claim she was suffering. Tell me how, please.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:50 am
brinstar wrote:Malluas wrote:not being able to feed and drink yourself isn't life support
what lol
dude it's a tube... that keeps you from dying.
how is that NOT "life support"?
so babies. mentally retared kids that are fed by their parents are on life support. I like ya alex.. but what you just said was SO stupid. Go look up the medical definition. She could breath by herself.. aka not on life support.
Maybe your mom sohuld have pulled your "tube" since you were on life support for a few years after birth or even during the time she was pregnant... see what i am gettin at?
there is being helped to live.. and there is life support. Life support is you can NOT be alive without this stuff RIGHT NOW.. you can live without food for a while. completely differnt
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:22 am
She had a tube inserted directly into her stomach. She was incapable of swallowing or drinking or eating. This is considered a form of life support by medical professionals.
She was artificially prolonging her life, and was unable to survive on her own. i.e., she was on life support.
To further clarity, lets look at Websters definition:
medical equipment that assists or replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive;
Eating and drinking are important bodily functions. Again, she was unable to swallow and completely uncognitive, and thus needed the tube. The tube is life support.
She was artificially prolonging her life, and was unable to survive on her own. i.e., she was on life support.
To further clarity, lets look at Websters definition:
medical equipment that assists or replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive;
Eating and drinking are important bodily functions. Again, she was unable to swallow and completely uncognitive, and thus needed the tube. The tube is life support.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:39 am
lyion before her husband stopped therapy she could swallow on her own.... he has been slowly killing her
so lipitor is life support.. lowers cholestral when someone can't do it naturally so they don't die.
you can thus all you want but you are wrong... the lipitor pill completely blows that outta the water. There are plenty of other things, people walkin about with tanks of oxygen they don't have those they will die... babies die without a mom feeding which technically is artificially feeding themselves, etc.
again.... if the person can breath on their own it means they can live for a while.. no breathing is pretty much death on the first day. Thats life support.. a tube to feed.. it used in homes... babies need help eating.. etc
so lipitor is life support.. lowers cholestral when someone can't do it naturally so they don't die.
you can thus all you want but you are wrong... the lipitor pill completely blows that outta the water. There are plenty of other things, people walkin about with tanks of oxygen they don't have those they will die... babies die without a mom feeding which technically is artificially feeding themselves, etc.
again.... if the person can breath on their own it means they can live for a while.. no breathing is pretty much death on the first day. Thats life support.. a tube to feed.. it used in homes... babies need help eating.. etc
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:47 am
lipitor is completely different. you take that with a healthy diet and living sensibly.. it's not going to keep you alive on its own. you can't take lipitor then go down 3 cheeseburgers and be fine and dandy.
babies feeding off their mothers is part of nature, not part of a condition. babies will inevitably develop - they aren't doomed to live life completely unfunctional. again, completely different.
Personally, I've also never seen a person just walking around with oxygen strapped to them living like a fully functional human being. People who use oxygen generally have a lung condition, cancer, emphysema, etc that prevents them from being able to breathe well on their own - however, that oxygen isn't a mean of life support. Those people, if not hospitalized, are also for the most part completely mobile and able to live their lives fairly normally with a few restrictions. Once again.. completely different.
babies feeding off their mothers is part of nature, not part of a condition. babies will inevitably develop - they aren't doomed to live life completely unfunctional. again, completely different.
Personally, I've also never seen a person just walking around with oxygen strapped to them living like a fully functional human being. People who use oxygen generally have a lung condition, cancer, emphysema, etc that prevents them from being able to breathe well on their own - however, that oxygen isn't a mean of life support. Those people, if not hospitalized, are also for the most part completely mobile and able to live their lives fairly normally with a few restrictions. Once again.. completely different.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:52 am
Why are you people trying to reason with a chimp?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:55 am
We try to reason with you, why discriminate between ape and monkey?
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:55 am
predictable.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:00 pm
Ugzugz wrote:Harrison wrote:She suffered for more than a decade because her parents are fucking cockheads who kept them alive for purely selfish reasons.
Tell me, how was she suffering?
uh oh... I think ugz is onto something.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:03 pm
who gives a fuck what life support really means. This bitches brain was broke.
Thats the issue...
Now let me a'xe a question.... When they pulled the feeding tube, did they see any brain activity whatsoever over the course of those 12 days?
If the answer is no they should have shut this bitch down 15 years ago.
Thats the issue...
Now let me a'xe a question.... When they pulled the feeding tube, did they see any brain activity whatsoever over the course of those 12 days?
If the answer is no they should have shut this bitch down 15 years ago.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:04 pm
who gives a fuck what life support really means. This bitches brain was broke.
Damn Ralf, now I have to clean coca-cola off my monitor
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:17 pm
Lyion wrote:She had a tube inserted directly into her stomach. She was incapable of swallowing or drinking or eating. This is considered a form of life support by medical professionals.
She was artificially prolonging her life, and was unable to survive on her own. i.e., she was on life support.
To further clarity, lets look at Websters definition:
medical equipment that assists or replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive;
Eating and drinking are important bodily functions. Again, she was unable to swallow and completely uncognitive, and thus needed the tube. The tube is life support.
ed, read this again and give up your silly argument
please
saying a feeding tube threaded through a hole drilled in your tummy that keeps you from starving to death is somehow not considered life support is like saying soldiers only put bullets in their guns to make them heavier.
argue the circumstances of this case all you want, but abandon the contention that a feeding tube is not life support because it's sheer lunacy
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:29 pm
veeneedefeesh wrote:who gives a fuck what life support really means. This bitches brain was broke.
Damn Ralf, now I have to clean coca-cola off my monitor
You think thats funny you should see me river dance.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:01 pm
ralfmacchio wrote:Ugzugz wrote:Harrison wrote:She suffered for more than a decade because her parents are fucking cockheads who kept them alive for purely selfish reasons.
Tell me, how was she suffering?
uh oh... I think ugz is onto something.
And both people (Lumpy and Gyps) I have asked that question of after they claimed she was suffering for 15 years have not been able to answer - or they refused to... which is the same thing in my book.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:42 am
Personally, I don't think she was suffering at all. She wasn't there. She was a lifeless shell of a human being and she was draining resources that could have been used to help other people who were not lifeless shells of human beings and therefore better off dead, not necessarily for her sake but for the sake of her loved ones and everyone else who had to clean up her shit.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:01 am
Vivalicious wrote:Personally, I don't think she was suffering at all. She wasn't there. She was a lifeless shell of a human being and she was draining resources that could have been used to help other people who were not lifeless shells of human beings and therefore better off dead, not necessarily for her sake but for the sake of her loved ones and everyone else who had to clean up her shit.
What irritates me the most about people who make the claim that we relieved her of the pain and suffering of being comatose/vegitative for 15 years, is that they will immediately use the fact that she was 100% brain dead and non-responsive to any stimuli as the main reason for her to die.
It's stupid and shows how they haven't even begun to think about the situation - they're simply reacting to it emotionally in precisely the manner the media wants them to. They're fucking ignorant sheep with no ability to think or reason for themselves. Maybe we should put THEM out of their suffering... their mental state is on par with where Schiavo's was.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:09 am
The reason she was unplugged was because the court adjudicated based on the evidence that she would not want to live this way.
Perhaps part of me relates because I would not want to live like that.
I have no idea if we relieved her of pain and suffering. All I know is our judicial system tried to do what they felt SHE would want. Not her parents. Not her husband, but her.
The problem I have is when people start equating a person to a piece of property, as the Schindlers have tried to do through this whole exercise, and many on the religious right have also tried to falsely do, saying 'This is not what Terri would want', when in fact the evidence contradicts them wholeheartedly.
Perhaps part of me relates because I would not want to live like that.
I have no idea if we relieved her of pain and suffering. All I know is our judicial system tried to do what they felt SHE would want. Not her parents. Not her husband, but her.
The problem I have is when people start equating a person to a piece of property, as the Schindlers have tried to do through this whole exercise, and many on the religious right have also tried to falsely do, saying 'This is not what Terri would want', when in fact the evidence contradicts them wholeheartedly.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:26 am
I didn't know your question was directed at me since you quoted Harrison, Ugz.
The fact is, no one can prove what exactly she was feeling for the entire stages of her life. She wasn't comatose for the majority of that time.. it's my belief that if she had any remote idea of anything that was going on around her, she was suffering. Can you imagine living your life like that? Trapped with no way to tell someone what was really going on? The only thing they based how she was feeling on was grunts and groans because she couldn't talk. All I can do from a 3rd party standpoint is put myself in the situation and develop my opinion from there. . that's all anyone can do. No one will every be necessarily right or wrong on this case because it's a case of moral dilemma and what each individual believes to be right and wrong.
I believe it's wrong to let any person live under such a poor quality of life for so long with no chance of getting better.. you think it's wrong to let them die. No one knows what Terri truly wanted, because there's simply too much hearsay - I, personally, just have a hard time believing that any person, once told there's no hope, would want to live as a vegetable media posterchild.
The fact is, no one can prove what exactly she was feeling for the entire stages of her life. She wasn't comatose for the majority of that time.. it's my belief that if she had any remote idea of anything that was going on around her, she was suffering. Can you imagine living your life like that? Trapped with no way to tell someone what was really going on? The only thing they based how she was feeling on was grunts and groans because she couldn't talk. All I can do from a 3rd party standpoint is put myself in the situation and develop my opinion from there. . that's all anyone can do. No one will every be necessarily right or wrong on this case because it's a case of moral dilemma and what each individual believes to be right and wrong.
I believe it's wrong to let any person live under such a poor quality of life for so long with no chance of getting better.. you think it's wrong to let them die. No one knows what Terri truly wanted, because there's simply too much hearsay - I, personally, just have a hard time believing that any person, once told there's no hope, would want to live as a vegetable media posterchild.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:45 am
My personal opinion based upon what I believe is that she was still tethered to her body and unable to move on. In that sense she was suffering since she was unable to connect fully with her body to communicate her wishes and she wasn't able to break free of it completely either.
Imagine the horror of 15 years in that state and tell me it was wrong to pull the plug.
Imagine the horror of 15 years in that state and tell me it was wrong to pull the plug.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:47 am
Well said, Mart
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:08 am
Gypsiyee wrote:I didn't know your question was directed at me since you quoted Harrison, Ugz....
you think it's wrong to let them die.
First of all - you don't read very well. The time I called you out was on a different thread. Also, I never once said it was wrong to let her die... quite the opposite. Don't presume to think you can speak for me.
Fact of the matter is this: the same people claiming that starving her to death wouldn't cause her to "suffer" are the same ones claiming that she was "suffering" from being in her vegitative state. Those two claims do NOT line up and it is simple emotional claptrap and rhetoric in an attempt to purport one's agenda upon another.
As I said in another thread, this whole episode of our history is DESPICABLE. NO ONE that thinks they can sit her and judge one way or another is "right"... firstly, it's none of your business, and secondly, you have no clue what the reality of the situation was. You make assumptions based on incomplete information and then stick your noses where they don't belong.
My message to ALL of us is this: Learn to shut your fucking pieholes and mind your own damn business. If you can't manage that much, then do us all a favor and just keep your stupidity to yourself and your little groups of likeminded simpletons. The world is obviously to complex of a place for your limited mental capabilities.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:18 am
Fact of the matter is this: the same people claiming that starving her to death wouldn't cause her to "suffer" are the same ones claiming that she was "suffering" from being in her vegitative state. Those two claims do NOT line up and it is simple emotional claptrap and rhetoric in an attempt to purport one's agenda upon another.
I believe I answered this when you asked it last time, based on Mart's article.
When I said 'you' it wasn't directed at you necessarily, just both sides of the fence for right and wrong. I worded myself incorrectly, that wasn't directed at your personal opinion on the matter.
My nose is no more in it than yours is.. the extent of my opinion on the entire matter is in this thread and the other on Terri Schiavo. It's incredibly difficult not to have any opinion on the case either way when it's been blasted all over the news for so long.
It is the fault of media (and her parents, imo, but that doesn't matter) that this case has become so public. I agree that it is absolutely despicable.
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:03 am
Wrong.
It's not the fault of the media - it's the fault of people like you who drink it up and demand more. The media will show what the media makes money from showing. If you think it's so despicable, stop buying newspapers that headline this shit. If you think it's so despicable, stop watching TV "news" programs that push it. If you think it's so despicable, then stop posting emotionally sensational bullshit like you've been posting.
You can try to ride on Martrae's coattails to dig you out of this one, but I'm not that stupid. First you let the media tell you what to think - now you're a mynah bird repeating Martrae's words. Form an opinion for yourself, for once, or we'll start calling you Finawin, too.
It's not the fault of the media - it's the fault of people like you who drink it up and demand more. The media will show what the media makes money from showing. If you think it's so despicable, stop buying newspapers that headline this shit. If you think it's so despicable, stop watching TV "news" programs that push it. If you think it's so despicable, then stop posting emotionally sensational bullshit like you've been posting.
You can try to ride on Martrae's coattails to dig you out of this one, but I'm not that stupid. First you let the media tell you what to think - now you're a mynah bird repeating Martrae's words. Form an opinion for yourself, for once, or we'll start calling you Finawin, too.