Exactly.

And Jill, I noticed you even referred the Church with the term "her"...that means a lot to me. Thank you.

Eesh. I can't make the decision for anyone else, but if my family didn't let me die, I'd be pretty ticked. I have a question- if someone asks to be taken off of life-support, or says in their living will that they do not wish to be kept alive by artificial means, should their request be granted? Because this makes it sound like their shell should be kept alive whether or not that's what they want.

Erin,

As you are not a Catholic, and have no desire to spend eternity in heaven, you are free to do whatever you want. At this point in time, and with the choices you've made up til now, I hardly think that your eternal soul is going to suffer much more damage by a cowardly and easy death. Go for it.

Oh, but Erin,
just don't try to do it in a Catholic Hospital.

mk, I'm just asking. If a person specifies in their living will that they would like to be taken off life-support, will a Catholic person be in trouble with their church for aquiescing?

I believe so yes. A Catholic would. But by trouble, we mean something different than you. It's not like we'll have to sit in the corner for a time out.

I just reread your question. We would not be in trouble with the Church. We are never "in trouble with the Church"...we ARE the church. We would however have to explain to God why we refused to help Him carry His cross...why we said no.

Erin -

Excellent question. I'm not sure the answer though.

I can only say that there is a huge difference between artificial life support and artificial nutrition. If you will die because a machine is turned off, then I don't think the Catholic Church has a problem with that. But if you can survive on your own but only need assistance for basic human needs such as food and water, then it is a different story.

We are talking about human rights here. This is something PCer's talk about all the time. Food and water is a basic right. To remove that right just because a person cannot speak or properly communicate is still a violation of their basic needs.

Terri was able to survive on her own. She just needed assistance for her nutrition. When you remove that right of food and water, you are killing a breathing living person. Just because we call someone "in a vegatative state" doesn't mean they have any less rights or value than you or me?

What next if this taking away of rights becomes widly acceptable in society? Don't give food and water to a quadraplegic? Sure, they can speak and tell us their thoughts, but they cannot do anything for themselves and they are a burden to all around them, right?

This is what happens. Everything has to be taken one step further........

Erin,

If you read the above post carefully you will see that they differentiated between a person who is not functioning mentally but is healthy in every other way.

They were careful to state that if the person is able to use the nutrition and hydration without help, that is to digest the food, and filter the water naturally and only need help getting it into them, then you must not withhold it.

This is very different from someone who is say, dying of cancer, and their body is shutting down, no longer able to digest the food or take the water.

Allowing a person to die when it is their time is honoring their dignity just as much as keeping them alive when they are death is NOT imminent...

Of greater significance is that the commentary responds to the claim that John Paul II and Pius XII stand in opposition to each other over the question of whether food and water should be provided to patients in a persistent vegetative state. The commentary acknowledges that the address of Pius XII to a Congress on Anesthesiology, “The Prolongation of Life” (November 24, 1957), is often cited in defense of the view that nutrition and hydration may be taken away from these patients; however, it points out that this is clearly a misreading of the text. Pius was addressing the question of resuscitation in those who had suffered a serious illness and were in the process of dying or already dead. Patients in a vegetative state are not dying. They “breathe spontaneously, digest food naturally, carry on other metabolic functions, and are in a stable situation.” When food and water are removed from these patients, “the cause of their death will be neither an illness nor the ‘vegetative state’ itself, but solely starvation and dehydration.”

We're not monsters.

Erin,

I'm sorry if I was glib. I assumed you meant if you were in a state like Terri. I shouldn't have just blown you off like that. I'm sorry. It's so rare to have a legitimate, honest question about the faith here, that I guess I just assumed you were being facetious.

Erin,
I would need clarification by someone more knowledgable, but I believe the answer to your question is that a Catholic would be committing a mortal sin by participating in the killing of an innocent person who has requested to be taken off of life support or have nutrition and hydration removed in an advanced directive. (Removing nutrition and hydration is permitted if the body is dying and it is counter productive.)

Also a Catholic who wants to abide by Church teaching cannot ask to have life support or nutrition and hydration removed in an advance directive. i believe some reasons may be acceptable, like if something is overly burdensome. Again, I am not an authority on the matter.

Thank you Jill for the recognition of Catholic Church teaching on this matter.

MK- I'm not suggesting that you are. I'm really, honestly not trying to be offensive. I'm just curious about carrying out the wishes of a person specified in a living will. Personally, if I had no mental capacity, if I could not move, think, or feel...I would consider that death. It often seems to me that it is more of a support for a family than for a patient- it prevents a natural grieving process, keeps a false hope alive. If there is no preference specified, I feel that there is no obligation either way for the surviving family members. I'm solely interested in the cases where it is specified that a person would prefer to be allowed to die. Who would hold the blame, in the eyes of the church/god? The person who wrote the living will, or the person who allowed their wishes to be carried out? And how is a surviving family member supposed to balance that kind of guilt?

Erin,
One more thing. Please understand that the Church's purpose is to intactly (is that a word?)pass on the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Jesus. The concern of the Church, as was Jesus', is that you spend eternity in Heaven with him. A Catholic doesn't get "in trouble" by the Church. The Church is there as a guide, drawing on two millenia of history to address modern variations of the same old sin.

I know you must look at the Church negatively. I hope someday you will ocme to appreciate her beauty.

By in trouble, I mean like...how pro-choice politicians are getting excommunicated, I consider that 'getting in trouble' with the church. Could you get excommunicated, or some form of discipline like that? Lol, my knowledge of the Catholic church is almost all historical and kind of drops off after the end of their reform in the late 1600s.

Lol, wait, no, my most recent knowledge of the Catholic church is that they un-excommunicated Martin Luther rather recently. That seems odd to me. How does that work? If you're excommunicated, I think, it's understood that your soul isn't going to be saved, right? But then...they undid it...I'm not going to lie, I don't understand how it works. When they un-excommunicated him, did God look down and say, "Martin? You can come up now!"

Actually, seriously, how does that work? Is it just a technicality?

Erin

I really want to take time and answer this, so I'm going to do it in the morning if that's okay. I'll be so much better then...I'm a morning person and I've just about run out of steam...waaaaay past my bedtime!

No problem, MK. I need to get to bed too- I just seem to have had a little pop of energy in the last hour or so, and it's driving me nuts. I feel giddy.

I think what I have heard was that indirect "euthanasia" (aka removal of life support, ventilators, etc) is morally acceptable in most situations, depending on the case. Most of the time the person is dying and/or has no hope of recovery.

Direct euthanasia (withholding nutrition, poisoning, etc) is ALWAYS morally wrong.

On a personal note, wondering where PAS stands here, in terms of national ethics, because obviously it is the patient themself that ultimately ends their life. But I'm sure the Church is against it, as suicide is a mortal sin.

Interesting story. A cardiologist in STL was charged for attempted murder after putting RAID in his mother's saline drip. She survived thanks to the quick actions of the nurse, and his defense was that he just wanted to help her die quickly and less painfully.

At first his sentence was to work at a different hospital (WHAT?!) and thanks to much public outcry about it, is now serving time in prison.

Erin,

I found this...

Q. What can a person do to ensure that their wishes and their religious beliefs are respected by their family, medical personnel and the courts?

A. The best way is by means of an Advance Directive which states the patients wishes with respect to aggressive medical treatment. There are two basic kinds, a Living Will by itself or an Advance Directive with a Durable Power of Attorney (or Proxy) for Health Care Decisions. The merits of each are as follows:

1. Living Will. By this document a person decides completely in advance whether they want to be kept alive by technology. It is a "yes" or "no" statement, which then places the matter in the hands of the medical community. Many Catholic bishops and moralists consider this an unsatisfactory approach, as it does not provide for unforeseen circumstances. Despite the enthusiasm of the media, many medical professionals, and sadly even some Catholic institutions, Living Wills are NOT the way to go!

2. Advance Directive with a Durable Power of Attorney or Health Care Proxy. These documents give to a friend or family member the authority to make health care decisions according to one's mind as expressed in an Advance Directive. By appointing an agent, or giving someone durable power of attorney, the patient allows for unforeseen circumstances. By stating in an Advance Directive that one wants Catholic teaching adhered to, one can ensure that neither the agent or the medical institution will disregard that teaching. Together they ensure that a trusted person, rather than strangers, will make circumstantially appropriate decisions, in keeping with the Faith.

I just want to jump in here and clarify.
"Excommunication" does not mean one is going straight to hell. Rather, it is a call to the sinner to consider the very grave sin being committed, as well as a statement to the Faithful in general. It is basically saying "You are not in communion with us" and therefore, cannot participate in public Catholic life until you turn from your sins (generally, some kind of public repentance was performed, but not so much in the modern day).
It's the last ditch tough-love effort of a loving Mother, who is always ready to welcome back a wayward child but can't let them be a bad influence on the other children.

Also, as others noted, artificial hydration/nutrition is NOT life support. It is not a breathing machine, etc. It is simply, food and water. The Church is saying that if a person can't feed themselves, others should feed him or her and that it is wrong to starve someone to death whether they can chew and swallow their own food or not.

Further, as I understand it, advance directives/living wills should have a durable power of attorney that kicks in when the person can no longer make their wishes known - naming one or more other people to make decisions for them. So you should discuss these matters CLEARLY with them. They are put into the living will as a guide - but they are not written in stone. They are merely a useful indicator of what the incapacitated persons' wishes were.

Here's a link to Catholic info on excommunication:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

"Catholic doesn't get "in trouble" by the Church. The Church is there as a guide, drawing on two millenia of history to address modern variations of the same old sin."

Beautifully stated.

"I know you must look at the Church negatively. I hope someday you will ocme to appreciate her beauty."

I know I have.

Greetings,

I prompted Jill's post on this. Thank you Jill for the encouragement to pay attention to Catholic teaching!

Just a few things in response to the discussion here. . .

First, a link to the NCBC FAQ on the Persistent Vegetative State
This FAQ is a helpful clarification on PVS because there is confusion about what PVS actually is.

Erin, you wrote, "I'm solely interested in the cases where it is specified that a person would prefer to be allowed to die." This is a key issue here and when PVS is understood correctly, it becomes clear that your problem about a person being allowed to die does not apply to PVS and similar cases. That is because, as the Catholic response from the Vatican explains (and the FAQ on PVS from the NCBC), people in a "persistent vegetative state" are not dying; PVS is not a terminal condition in itself. They are severely disabled, but are stable. If simply given basic care, including food and water, they are not in danger of dying from a terminal condition. This being the case, the basic Catholic moral principle here, is, "thou shall not kill." Allowing a patient to die who is truly near death because of a terminal illness, is simply permitting nature (and God's providence) to take its course. However, causing a person's death by neglecting to feed them is not letting nature take its course--it is active killing by withholding that which is necessary for life.

My doctoral study is on advanced directives (primarily the Texas Advanced Directives Act of 1999, but I've studied living will policy in the US). They were designed by a euthanasia proponent named Louis Kutner that believed the following:

If we can get people to play God and make directives regarding their own death, then:

a. the stigma regarding passive euthanasia will begin to crumble.
b. removing care from patients will become commonplace
c. even patients that have no written directive will have care removed based on their perceived wishes
d. eventually, active euthanasia will ensue

I'd say that Kutner has succeeded. Terri had no advanced directive and was condemned to death anyway. In Texas, physicians may decide against the family to remove care.

MK is right- Living Wills are a scientificly-proven disaster. Even if you don't have a moral opposition to them, they fail to accomplish their intended purpose. Doctors don't have to follow them, they are misinterpretted or ignored 99% of the time, they can never predict the details of the situation they speak of, they can be used to condemn you when new, alternative treatments are available- and they tie the hands of your family that will have full knowledge of the situation and your options. Your family might want to consider a new therapy- only they are unable to because you wrote some ambiguous death wish. Furthermore, treatment costs money that states and insurance companies don't want to pay. They'd sooner enforce the Living Will than let your family attempt to help you.

I wrote about Living Wills here, years before my real research began. It's poorly written (I wrote it while fasting and staging prayer vigils for Terri), but it gets the point across.

Also noteworthy- in my study of euthanasia policy, I found that we would not have passive euthanasia if the Catholic Bishops in California would have stood firm against it. When they came on board supporting the first state advanced directives law, states all began to follow. Now we have ill, elderly, premature and disabled people murdered against their will in all 50 states. It reminds me to support the Church completely, because they exercise considerable influence in life and death policy-making.

Eesh. This topic gives me the heebie jeebies. In my mind, being a vegetable is worse than death, which is probably why this topic weirds me out. Heh, I remember when the Terri Shiavo case started getting hype. I made my living will as soon as my mom let me go talk to our lawyer. Plus, I guess it seems weird to me to simply designate someone to make all the decisions, and in my life, my personal control is a huge thing. I am a major control freak.

Hi Erin.

"how pro-choice politicians are getting excommunicated"

This is a common misconception, but there is nothing in the code of cannon law that supports this (I got into a bit of a tussle with Zeke about this a couple weeks ago). But according to cannon lawyer Ed Peters

"To those wanting the immediate excommunication of pro-abortion politicians, I have to say that canon law simply does not read that way. To make a long story short, an excommunication for abortion has to be linked to a specific abortion and, given the structure of American government and medical institutions, one simply can't link a given legislator's vote with a specific abortion within the limits of causality recognized by canon law. "

You can read his interview here
But yeah, the Church does not excommunicate politicians who support legal abortion. God love you.

In my mind, being a vegetable is worse than death

Well, isn't that bigotted. You aren't OWED your brain function and you're not better than someone who doesn't have the same cognitive abilities. You are no better than they are. When people spout this shallow drivel, I hear a child screaming, "If I can't have my pony, I'll just DIE."

Furthermore, no human being is ever a VEGETABLE. Human beings are always human beings. Disabled human beings are human beings. Brain injured human beings are human beings. Premature human beings are human beings. Elderly human beings are human beings. Cognitively disabled human beings are human beings. Ill human beings are human beings. Even dead (heart ceases to beat, turns cold) human beings remain human beings.

Calling anyone a vegetable is an offense to mankind. It offends me more than anything else. It makes me want to kick some ass.

But yeah, the Church does not excommunicate politicians who support legal abortion.

They should not be welcome at the Lord's table until they repent. What an offense against the Body and Blood of Christ to support/enable child sacrifice and then receive Him!

Hi Jacqueline. Remember when you taught me how to do this? Woo hoo! God love you.

Jacqueline,

Then don't get into it with Doug...you know human beings are not "persons" and all that...although there are times when I'd like to see someone kick his...never mind.

"Personally, if I had no mental capacity, if I could not move, think, or feel...I would consider that death"

Erin, I notice here that you are shifting the definition of what death is. Death has long been (and at least for now, still is) considered by the medical profession and by popular consensus to be equated with death of the body. If the body is alive, the person is alive, and vice-versa. However, if the definition of death were shifted to something like not being able to move, think, or feel, a Pandora's box with potential for great evil would be opened.

Modern medicine confronts many situations where patients recovering from serious illness or injury are in this condition. Intensive care units in hospitals all over the country have people in such a state. And, although some don't', many of them recover. In fact, sometimes, this condition is deliberately induced by a health care team to assist the body to heal from a traumatic treatment regimen, prolonging by medication the period of time before consciousness and wakefulness are permitted to return. (For example, in the summer of 06 I took part in a program at a Catholic hospital that provided training in giving spiritual care in a hospital setting. I knew a patient whose open heart surgery did not go well, and they had to leave his chest open as they stopped surgery and returned him to intensive care. He was kept deliberately unconscious by medication so that his body could be still and he would not have to suffer the awful condition of lying in bed with his chest open. He was like this for several days. Eventually he improved, further surgery was done to close the chest, and the last I knew he had recovered consciousness and was on the road to recovery).

According to a new definition of death, where people could not "move, think, or feel," this would produce the very odd situation where significant numbers of people in hospitals would be dead and then return to life. And this would be the course which certain serious conditions normally take. The man I described above would have been dead in your account. And so, that would mean nurses and doctors were skillfully caring for a "dead" man for about three days. What would have happened if someone had deliberately ended his bodily life during this time of medically deliberate suspension of consciousness? Could you prosecute someone for killing a dead man?

We do not want our culture to go in this direction. Consider the many abuses that would certainly take place. Many instances of coma and PVS in hospitals here in the U.S. are temporary conditions that are an expected phase of a larger process of recovery. Yet, for a period of time, such patients cannot move, think, or feel. Only for some of them does this eventually turn out to become a pathway to a worsening condition which becomes terminal and finally results in death. If we were to consider all of them "dead," in the interim, even the many who go on to recover, what consequences would this have for our society? As a matter of fact, every instance of putting a person "out" by general anesthesia would by your account be making the person temporarily dead. All surgeries done by general anesthesia would be operations on dead people, even though they had beating hearts.

If we start shifting death from being something other than bodily death, we would be putting ourselves into a huge moral mess that would be impossible to untangle.

To learn more about how a Catholic point of view treats the subject of death in today's medically advanced society, see this FAQ on the NCBC website.

"They should not be welcome at the Lord's table until they repent. What an offense against the Body and Blood of Christ to support/enable child sacrifice and then receive Him!"

Oh indeed! This IS in the code of cannon law, though, cannon 915. In fact, Archbishop Burke recently wrote an article about how cannon 915 says that Bishops should withhold the Eucharist from those public figures who support legalized abortion. He is THE MAN! God love you.

However, that is NOT the same as Excommunication.

And yes, any one who is conscious of having an unconfessed mortal sin should take it upon themselves to not receive Communion.

Sometimes, though, personal responsibility is shirked and the bishops have to step in. They do this for persistent, unrepented, public sin (which, a public endorsement/vote for abortion is.)

If I was in a persistent vegetated state I would not want to be kept alive by any means. Then my family and friends could use their time, money and energy for something that can appreciate it. Like maybe helping an underprivileged child.

But no one really wants to be a martyr anymore.

Hi Bobby Bambino ... September 19/07 10:00 AM,

I kinda was interested in your link's answer, because more than a few priests have left their ministry in the last few decades ... often WITHOUT Ecclesial approval.

I was taught that a priest does not marry a couple. He is an official witness to their union. Therefore, the couple is rightly married ... the witness is a fraud.

Ross Foti says no one should be offended by her pictures. Ok then can I show pictures of tissue cleansing and say, "This is what your inside turn into if you eat meat."

http://poetry.rotten.com/tissue-cleansing/index2.html

It's true that's all built up animal byproduct and it's festering in your colon making you sick right now.

I hope you get my point.

As far as I know, the medical community considers death to be irreversable lack of cardiac and lung function. But many consider death to also be irreversable coma (i.e. total brain death). In this case, there is absolutely no chance that a person will wake up, recover, or function properly AT ALL. In this case, it is up to the family, but generally people are either allowed to die naturally given these circumstances (wait for cardiac and lung function to fail), and often if requested organ donation can ethically be performed. Medical professionals say PVS is a gray area, but anything above that would be unethical to do any such thing. Many say in case of PVS it is ultimately up to patient's wishes or their proxy what to do. Often PVS people die quicker than a normal person would and is considered a stage of dying.

That's how I understood it, anyway. Someone here correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi John. Oh, so a few weeks ago Jacqueline showed me how to make my text actually be a link, and I wanted to show her that I was using it. The link I gave above to jimmyakin.org actually has nothing to with the topic at hand. But you are correct that it is indeed the man and women marry each other and not the priest, see catechism paragraph 1623. However, in order for two Catholics to be married, they must adhere to the proper form of marriage as found in the Code of Cannon law. If they do not follow the proper form, a sacramental marriage does not take place. But this is only for Catholics. Non Catholics are not bound by canonical form, and so this is why we assume that non Catholic marriages are indeed valid. The two non Catholic spouses marry each other according to whatever form their religion deems appropriate. Since the Catholics that Jimmy talks about in his blog do not follow the proper form of marriage (although they are not aware of it), their marriage is invalid. BTW, the part of "proper form" that I keep referring to in a Catholic marriage that the couple did not adhere to is that you need a validly ordained priest or deacon, not to MARRY you, but to be a valid representative of the Catholic Church. God love you.

Well, I have worked in LTC for most of my career. Esh, I may really catch it from PLfers here, but I don't want to be kept alive like this either. This is why I have a living will.

Br. Francis,

I think Erin was speaking of herself personally and not looking to mandate her wishes in these situations onto others. I know it would be the same for me.

Some people (especially particularly active people) would consider a life spent confined in a bed, unable to do anything for yourself a life they would not want to live. They might consider it worse than death, but certainly it is only their personal opinion. There are certainly others that wish to live as long as they possibly can, in whatever condition. These people would consider death the very worst possible thing, but certainly it is only their personal opinion.

I think what I have heard was that indirect "euthanasia" (aka removal of life support, ventilators, etc) is morally acceptable in most situations, depending on the case. Most of the time the person is dying and/or has no hope of recovery.

I would like to comment on this also. From a Catholic point of view, the status of a human act as being right (moral) or wrong (immoral) depends, along with other things, on what the person doing the act intends in his mind to be doing. What does the person performing the act want to bring about? What is the goal that he has in mind? What would be the answer to the question, "What result are you aiming for?" In the terms of moral theology, this is called the "end" of the act. (what is the intended end)

Euthanasia, properly speaking, is always morally wrong. This is because in the case of euthanasia, no matter what means are envisioned, the intended result is death itself; the goal that is being deliberately aimed at is the death of the patient. Having the intention of bringing about the patient's death makes any sort of action (or omission, such as neglecting to feed a person who can't feed himself) toward this end wrong. It colors the whole action with the immoral character of killing the innocent by act or omission.

For example, when a family asks that a ventilator be removed from a terminally ill patient, they do not intend the death of their loved one, even though that will probably be the result. They intend to let nature take its course, and to reduce the duration of suffering involved. If the patient then dies it would not be because he was killed, but because his illness overcame him and resulted in his death. Maintaining the ventilator was judged to have lost its benefit and become simply a prolongation by technology of the inevitable point of death with no more real benefit (though a benefit would be there when there was still hope of recovery).

By way of contrast, if a family wants to have a ventilator removed from a loved one because they want this action to cause their loved one to die, their intention means that they are attempting euthanasia which is a form of killing the innocent and always wrong.

We can remove technological interventions which have become no longer beneficial if our reason for doing so is to reduce the suffering that takes place on the way to a death that is now seen to be inevitable. And so when death comes, it would not be caused by us, but by the body succumbing to the terminal condition itself.

The bottom line is, it is never OK to intend to bring about someone's death through the acts or omissions that we choose. This is not the same as not excessively clinging to life to the point where we end up seemingly doing battle with God's plan to bring someone home from this life to the next. The Catholic perspective wants to ensure that in whatever we choose to do or not do, we are never in the position of trying to usurp God's dominion over human life. Are we putting ourselves in God's place, or, are we doing our best to leave Him as Lord over human life even as we do everything we can to heal the sick and injured, and also to love and comfort the dying in a respectful, dignified way?

I do understand both sides. I've also worked in Hospice where people were preparing for the end of life. Comfort care was provided. These were people who chose to stop chemotherapy, or they were people who were terminally ill. They were in the end stages of their illnesses.

Just out of curiosity, why is the Catholic Church referred to as her or she? I've never run across this before.

"Death has long been (and at least for now, still is) considered by the medical profession and by popular consensus to be equated with death of the body."

Incorrect. Death occurs when a person is brain dead. It is possible for the human body to still be alive (ie. organs are still functioning, ect) even if the person's brain has ceased to function. Despite this function, the person is considered dead.

I'm with Erin on this one. I believe that, for me personally, being in an irreversible vegetative state would be worse than death.

There is a difference between existence and life. It is possible to artificially sustain life or to keep an individual's body alive even when that individual's brain is no longer capable of any kind of higher thought. But this is not life. This is a pretended life that can only make a mockery out of what life is supposed to be. I believe that it is a mercy to allow a person's body to die if, by virtue of brain function, they are already dead.

But many consider death to also be irreversable coma (i.e. total brain death).

First of all, brain death is not death. That false definition of death was conveinently invented when doctors found ways to transplant organs and needed organs to transplant. You can not take an organ from a dead body, so the lesser, weaker, unworthy folks that couldn't defend themselves (i.e. the comatose, the PVS) were sacrificed for the "greater good" of saving better, communicative, ambulatory, worthy people. This is murder. This is bigotry. Essentially we're saying that people with lesser functioning are are lesser than those without and should sacrifice themselves for those "better" people to continue to live their "better" lives. Do you see the dangerous line we're walking? If someone is less than another because of ability, let's take kidneys from the mentally retarded that will never be self-sufficient and will stay housebound anyway and give them to people that need them to work and contribute to society. That's an idea! While we're at it, let's start taking kidneys from lesser people on welfare and giving them to better, richer folks that lose productivity by having dialysis. Where does it end? This is what happens when people lose equality. Babies are aborted for being inconvienent, people are euthanized for being too expensive and time-consuming to care for. When all human life is equal, people aren't exploited for their weakness-They are protected and cared for. This is expected of us as moral beings.

In this case, there is absolutely no chance that a person will wake up, recover, or function properly AT ALL.

PIP, I disagree. There is always a chance. Moreover, do you know how many people have recovered from PVS and comas? How many never got the chance because of euthanasia or being murdered for their organs?

Most importantly, even if these people never wake up- they are still people. They still have the right to live. You don't cease to be a person when you suffer a brain injury. All people will die eventually- the comatose will succumb somehow. "Helping" people die is murder- no matter what cognitive or physical state the person is in. Taking vital organs kills people- that is murder.

We have to draw the line.

Then don't get into it with Doug...you know human beings are not "persons" and all that...although there are times when I'd like to see someone kick his...never mind.

@@

It is the fact that personhood isn't attributed to the unborn that has you bummed in the first place, MK.

"The bottom line is, it is never OK to intend to bring about someone's death through the acts or omissions that we choose. This is not the same as not excessively clinging to life to the point where we end up seemingly doing battle with God's plan to bring someone home from this life to the next."
I'm pretty sure that this is what I meant.

My only question is this. Didn't Terri have a living will? I thought she'd specified that she didn't want to be kept alive this way. I was under the impression that her husband was trying to respect her wishes.

My point? Why have a living will if they aren't going to be respected?

Hey there Enigma.

"Just out of curiosity, why is the Catholic Church referred to as her or she? I've never run across this before."

We believe that the Church is the bride of Christ. One sees where we get this from passages like Ephesians 5:21-32. So the bride of Jesus is referred to in the feminine.

Just out of curiosity, why is the Catholic Church referred to as her or she? I've never run across this before.

Enigma, have you ever heard of "Mother Russia"? Same deal, to a large extent. It is personification.

Sometimes said as "Holy Mother Church," it is the idea that the Church is the mother, so to speak, of all Christian believers, or at least all Catholic believers. Additionally, there is often an implication of the "Bride of Christ."

I read a couple spy novels years ago, and believe it or not there was the description in them. No offense meant to anybody if I'm wrong in what I remember.

Doug

Jacqueline,

"First of all, brain death is not death."

Yes, it is. If death is only determined by whether or not the body itself is dead
(ie. no major organ function) then why is it possible to revive people from and have then still be alive?

"You can not take an organ from a dead body, so the lesser, weaker, unworthy folks that couldn't defend themselves (i.e. the comatose, the PVS) were sacrificed for the "greater good" of saving better, communicative, ambulatory, worthy people. This is murder. This is bigotry. Essentially we're saying that people with lesser functioning are are lesser than those without and should sacrifice themselves for those "better" people to continue to live their "better" lives."

Do you have any idea how diligent doctors are about, first, proving that the individual is dead, and then how careful they are about making sure that they can harvest organs? It's not an easy process. Doctors don't simply harvest organs from everyone indiscriminately. The person involved has to have given written consent (signing the back of their driver's license, ect.) and then, in most cases, their families have to agree. It's not nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

"Do you see the dangerous line we're walking?"

Actually, no. If a person who is going to die by your definition anyway in the immediate future and they've already consented to letting others have their organs, what's the harm in taking from the dead what can benefit the living?

You're drawing a chain of events that doesn't logically follow.

"When all human life is equal, people aren't exploited for their weakness-They are protected and cared for. This is expected of us as moral beings."

I'm sorry, the dead aren't alive any longer. Their concerns (if one can argue that they still have concerns) do not have the same value as those of those living.

There is not always a chance of recovery. The brain may be an amazing organ but even it has limits.

"We have to draw the line."

And we have. You simply refuse to accept it.

Heather,

Terri Shiavo did not have a living will. According to her husband, she had previously expressed a verbal desire to him that she did not want to be kept alive in the manner in which she was. He was trying to honor her wishes.

PIP: "The bottom line is, it is never OK to intend to bring about someone's death through the acts or omissions that we choose. This is not the same as not excessively clinging to life to the point where we end up seemingly doing battle with God's plan to bring someone home from this life to the next." I'm pretty sure that this is what I meant.

PIP, then I'd say it's a matter of degree - and at what point do we say, in your case, that it'd be "against God's plan"?

I realize this is very arguable, but there is also the question of when is it still actually "someone" there, rather than just a human body kept going by medical technology.

My opinion - the person that Terri Shiavo had been before was long gone.

Doug

Enigma, thank you for clearing that up. I saw this on the news, but I wasn't clear on all the facts.

Bobby and Doug,

Thanks for explaining.

You can never recover the brain cells you lose. I believe that's why children are so enthusiastically discouraged from huffing household chemicals.

Hi JKeller.

"You can never recover the brain cells you lose."

Right, not naturally. However, this is one of the things they are trying to do with stem cells. By injecting them into a damaged organ that does not heal on its own, the hope is that the stem cells will differentiate into into cells to replace the damaged organ. I know this has been done on many body parts already using adult stem cells, but I don't know if they've done it on the brain yet. I don't know what bearing that info has on the conversation, just wanted to share. God love you.

Doug--

The paragraph about morality earlier was what I thought was the view of the Church rather than myself.

PVS means that the brain is dead except for the part responsible for organ function. Although total brain death and irreversable heart and lung malfunction are the accepted versions of death by the medical community, most people use the patient or proxy's wishes as the line to which the actions concerning PVS is okay.

What I'm trying to say is that if someone is in a PVS and they are concerned about Church law, then no. But I think that if they had specified that they don't want to live like this, then we should respect their wishes. I know I wouldn't want to live like that. If the proverbial lights are on but the person will never ever come home, who gets the say whether or when the lights are going to be turned off? Why, the resident of course.

But anyone above the level specified by PVS, it would be morally wrong to withhold food, hygiene care, etc. If granny is incontinent and her personality changed, I still don't think it is right to starve her to death or put raid in her IV. This stage is indicative that granny will probably soon lose organ function other places as well, and a DNR order can be requested. Until then, she needs to be taken care of properly. Noone says you can't help ease the pain, either, which is a humane action on both parts.

PAS is hard to say. In Oregan it is legal. If the patient ultimately kills themself, it is on their conscience. I have discussed this with a few people. If the doctor says, "Here is a prescription for 100 sleeping pills. I order you to not take more than two, because more than that might kill you," and the patient takes 30, the doctor is partially responsible but it was the patient's ultimate actions.

For the most part, I am inclined to not charge a doctor doing that for murder or similar charge. But I think I should think it through more.

Then don't get into it with Doug...you know human beings are not "persons" and all that...although there are times when I'd like to see someone kick his...never mind.

I realize this is very arguable, but there is also the question of when is it still actually "someone" there, rather than just a human body kept going by medical technology.
*
My opinion - the person that Terri Shiavo had been before was long gone.

I did warn you Jacqueline...

Font Size
A
A
A
Definition of Death

Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life. (These common definitions of death ultimately depend upon the definition of life, upon which there is no consensus.) 2. The permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. (This definition depends upon the definition of "vital bodily functions.") See: Vital bodily functions. 3. The common law standard for determining death is the cessation of all vital functions, traditionally demonstrated by "an absence of spontaneous respiratory and cardiac functions." 4. The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33438

Nice to know that our REPUBLIC legislates death.
::snark::

Enigma,
Re: Terry Schiavo. I bet it was her wishes that he remain faithful to her in sickness and in health, but that didn't stop him from having a girlfriend even as he was so "compassionately" forcing the hospital to starve his wife to death via court order.

I'm sure he just thought maybe he'd be honoring that way too.

That's interesting, Bobby. I think its a good reason why stem cell research is so important to many people.

"I guess it seems weird to me to simply designate someone to make all the decisions, and in my life, my personal control is a huge thing. I am a major control freak"

Erin,

I sympathize with this. Being able to have a certain control over our own lives, as much as is reasonable, is a great good. However, if you were in a long term state of unconsciousness for whatever reason, the issue of whether you still had control would be a moot point. You would not. The only question would be: who do you want to speak on your behalf and make decisions in your name?

The point someone made above about living wills not really doing much to put control in the patient's hands is very true. The problem is the interpretation of the living will. And if the patient has not designated a particular person of his own choice (via a health care proxy/durable power of attorney), guess who gets to interpret what the living will means?--the doctors and the hospital administration. And they do not necessarily have to listen to anyone else, including family and friends of the patient.

No matter how comprehensive living wills try to be, no static document can adequately forsee all possible future negative health events. It will likely happen that a situation will come up that is similar to, but also different in a significant way from the example situations given in the living will. And in this case (and I'm sure this happens often), the document itself is not sufficient to guide treatment. A decision has to be made by someone responsible to speak in the patient's name, thereby interpreting the document to cover areas that it did not make clear.

If you do not designate a proxy to speak in your name, the result would be that instead of someone who knows you speaking for you, a complete stranger or team of stangers (physicians, administrators, hospital ethics board members, etc.) would end up speaking for you. Which would be preferable? I would rather have someone making important decisions on my behalf whom I knew and whose judgement I trusted, rather than a hospital staff doctor I don't know.

JKeller,

I hope you're not confusing embryonic stem cell with adult stem cell research.
Adult stem cells, unlike ESCs, have shown great promise in treating diabetes, heart disease, and genetic disorders. ECS have so far cured nothing.
It would certainly make sense that the time, effort, rhetoric, and money be applied toward what has been shown to hold some promise, which is adult stem cells. Hopefully, ASCs can be used someday alleviate the effects of brain damage.

I'm not going down this path- You people redefine life and death to suit yourselves. It's not life if you want to abort it. It's not life when you want to euthanize it. You have no moral compass- so how can I begin to appeal to your non-functioning consciences?

Death is the cessation of the heart. Nothing less. All other definitions suit another motive- To escape life as a disabled person, to harvest organs, to avoid caring for the sick, to save money, ad nauseum. Our brains don't make us human. A brain injured cat is still a cat. A brain injured person is still a person. Kill an innocent person- you're a murderer.

By the way, Terri never indicated she wished to starve and dehydrate to death. In fact, her friends and family testified to the contrary. Her husband suddenly "remembered" this deathwish 4 years later, after he was awarded a small fortune for her lifetime care (and after he took a mistress on the side). In fact, just months after he got the money, he placed a Do Not Resusitate order on Terri's chart. Her then sought to kill her.

It's also good to note that Michael was an abusive husband. Terri's bone scan showed multiple fractures in different stages of healing and she had her mysterious "collapse" the night she told her family and friends that she was going to leave him. It's suggested by pathologist Micheal Baden that she was choked. Although Michael Schiavo knew CPR, (he was certified in it, as a restaurant manager) he left her facedown, untreated, allowing the lack of oxygen to brain, causing the brain damage. He failed to call 911, but called Terri's parents instead.

Besides the money and the mistress, Michael had a significant vested interest in seeing Terri dead and immediately cremated.

Those that knew Terri explained that she loved music, the outdoors, pictures of her family, etc. Michael denied her all these things in an effort to keep her hidden. Watch videos of her laughing with her mother, laughing at her father's jokes. She could say small words like Mom and Stop.

She was handicapped- not dead. Dead people don't laugh.

I think I need to retire from this conversation. I love Terri and know her family. Listening to ignorant (and morally bankrupt) people defend her 13-day murder is too much for me.

In conclusion, you pro-aborts will attack anyone defenseless if it suits you- the unborn, the elderly, the ill, the disabled. Stop being such cowards! Pick on someone with a fighting chance. Like me, for example. I'd like to see you try that suction machine, currette, starvation crap with me.

Indeed, Mary. Another major problem with ESR is that injecting embryonic stem cells has resulted in tumors (in mice) because they are so unstable. This is why people want to push so much for human cloning because you would need your own ESC so your body won't reject them. God love you, Mary.

Jacqueline,

Your words reflect my mood today. There are just days when I get so sick of soullessness that I almost despair. I try, I really do, to see where these guys are coming from. But their consciences are either warped, weak or lacking all together and it's one depravity after another, piles and piles of behavior that is so cowardly, so morally bereft...

Anyway, You said what I couldn't and you said it beautifully.

Pro choicers: PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE!!!

And Jacqueline, You are so blessed to know Terri's family. I keep staring at her face and thinking...that is what the face of an angel would look like if they had faces...she is sooooo incredibly beautiful! These guys wouldn't want to be like her? They couldn't be like her in a million years, because what you see on her face is Joy, Innocence and Purity of Spirit...things that pro-choicers have never experienced...

Jacqueline, 100 percent agree with you!!

And Jacqueline, You are so blessed to know Terri's family. I keep staring at her face and thinking...that is what the face of an angel would look like if they had faces...she is sooooo incredibly beautiful! These guys wouldn't want to be like her? They couldn't be like her in a million years, because what you see on her face is Joy, Innocence and Purity of Spirit...things that pro-choicers have never experienced...

Well said!

Jacqueline, I also agree with you.

Yeah the Schaivo case is just shady to me. I don't know much about it so that's why I haven't been commenting on that specific case. I think it is just sad how it's all turned out, especially when it became so public.

SLAM!
*standing ovation for Jacqueline*

Care to add an emoticon here, Bethany!

We weren't "picking on" anyone.

We were being quite respectful and naturally inquisitive.

But whatever.

Doug,

I see him like Norma McCorvery, from the Roe decision. I don't think she even ended up having the abortion....?
*
She's a sad, lonely woman trying to be in a "club" now, even if she's switched sides, and she's hoping to be supported by pro-lifers. That's not to say she didn't have plenty of problems before, either.

So we can't measure fetal brain waves but you can read Norma McCorvey's mind? Isn't that special?

Of course if you had said "Now, I think Norma McCorvey is a sad, lonely woman..." but you didn't. You presented that as an external truth...Weren't you saying somethin about always letting us know when it's your opinion?

"There are just days when I get so sick of soullessness that I almost despair. "

Little wonder why the Holy Hearts bleed!

Brother Francis,
To which order do you belong? And how did you get to know our beloved Jill?

Erin,
When is your surgery scheduled? I would like to offer you up in prayer when it's in progress. If it's kosher with you.

Peace.

JK,

I believe she was responding to this...

I realize this is very arguable, but there is also the question of when is it still actually "someone" there, rather than just a human body kept going by medical technology.
*
My opinion - the person that Terri Shiavo had been before was long gone.

As well as the general idea that abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, killing the weak, compromised and mentally marginalized...are all morally acceptable to the pro choice side. All on the grounds that it is better for THEM. The selfishness of it all gets a bit overwhelming at times...

I found this on a website and thought I'd share:

"Dr. Cheshire had this to say about Terri's pain:

"And yet, in my review of Terri's medical records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses as Wooside Hospice told us she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial grimmacing, limb posturing, and facial flustering all of which subsides once she given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning, crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of UTIs."

The Autopsy never said that Terri couldn't feel pain."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/life/schiavo_terris_exit_protocol.htm

OP means order of preachers, which is Dominican.

Correct me if I'm wrong Bro. Francis! :)

Question for all the pro lifers...PLEASE answer.

How many of you consider abortion murder, despite the fact that it legally permissable?

Don't all pro-lifers consider abortion murder?

Me.

MK, I consider abortion murder.

Me too.

Saying that she was not the person that she was before is disrespectful? Because regardless of how you feel about PVS individuals, it's true.

Me too, it's murder.

"Despite the fact that it['s] legally permissable"...has nothing to do with it.
Abortion is murder. Just because the law allows it doesn't suddenly make it okay.

Hitler passed laws okaying the murder of Jews, Catholics, the disabled, Gypsies...and that didn't suddenly make it *not murder*.

Doug,

September 15, 2007
Brain stem may be key to consciousness:

An article in this week's Science News discusses whether the brain stem may play a more central role in consciousness than it's usually given credit for.

It focuses on children with hydranencephaly, a where the cortex fails to develop in children and instead, the space is filled with cerebral spinal fluid.

Typically, affected children survive only a few months after birth, but those that do survive seem to remarkably more conscious than you would guess based on theories that suggest the cortex is where all the action happens to support consciousness.

Swedish neuroscientist Bjorn Merker wrote an article [pdf] in February's Behavioural and Brain Sciences journal arguing that these cases suggest we need to rethink our ideas about how the brain supports conscious thought, and perhaps, even consciousness itself.

Merker argues that the brain stem supports an elementary form of conscious thought in kids with hydranencephaly. It also contains auditory structures capable of preserving hearing in someone without a cortex. In contrast, optic nerve damage in hydranencephaly frequently impairs vision, regardless of what the brain stem does.

Self-awareness and other "higher" forms of thought may require cortical contributions. But Merker posits that "primary consciousness," which he regards as an ability to integrate sensations from the environment with one's immediate goals and feelings in order to guide behavior, springs from the brain stem.

If he's right, virtually all vertebrates—which share a similar brain stem design—belong to the "primary consciousness" club. Moreover, medical definitions of brain death as a lack of cortical activity would face a serious challenge. At the very least, physicians could no longer assume that individuals with hydranencephaly don't need pain medication or anesthesia during invasive medical procedures.

Link to Science News article 'Consciousness in the Raw'.
pdf of BBS article 'Consciousness without a cerebral cortex'.

—Vaughan.

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/09/brain_stem_may_be_ke.html

JK, yes, of course it's disrespectful. I realize that Terri had changed, because she was unable to do things she previously able to do. But Terri was still in there. Even if she didn't have the same personality, she was still terri. Even after she died, she was still Terri.
She didn't turn into another person. She was still Terri, except she was handicapped.

Answer me this. If a woman can awaken from a coma after being in it for 6 years, after everyone assumes "she" is gone, then talk, eat, laugh, and show her personality, memory, etc, just as she was before, then why do you assume you know better and that everyone who has changed is "not there" just because you assume it? Do you know everything there is to know about the brain?

Christa Lily

Obviously, there are many things about the brain that we simply do not understand.

Thanks so much all,

Well Doug,
There is your answer...

(Doug asserted that since abortion was a legal term, no pro-lifers really thought it was still murder. When I finished laughing and cleaned up the milk that flew out of my nose, I thought I'd get your opinion...

Question for all the pro lifers...PLEASE answer.

How many of you consider abortion murder, despite the fact that it legally permissable?
Posted by: mk at September 19, 2007 1:41 PM

Don't all pro-lifers consider abortion murder?
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 19, 2007 1:43 PM

Me.
Posted by: carder at September 19, 2007 1:43 PM

MK, I consider abortion murder.
Posted by: Carrie at September 19, 2007 1:46 PM

Me too.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 19, 2007 1:50 PM

Saying that she was not the person that she was before is disrespectful? Because regardless of how you feel about PVS individuals, it's true.
Posted by: JKeller at September 19, 2007 1:55 PM

Me too, it's murder.
Posted by: Bethany at September 19, 2007 1:58 PM

"Despite the fact that it['s] legally permissable"...has nothing to do with it.
Abortion is murder. Just because the law allows it doesn't suddenly make it okay.

Hitler passed laws okaying the murder of Jews, Catholics, the disabled, Gypsies...and that didn't suddenly make it *not murder*.
Posted by: Milehimama at September 19, 2007 1:59 PM

Doug,

That's the problem with basing you morality on science and external truths. There is only one authority on external truths that doesn't change. And science ain't it. 50 years ago we drilled holes in peoples heads when they behaved strangely, 100 years before that we exorcised them, today you say only brain stem function doesn't signify personhood, tomorrow you will be old news...

While we, who believe abortion is murder, will front and center, as usual.

As Mary had pointed out, this board is interesting because we are not all marching in lock step. I am saying that personally, I do not want to be kept alive this way. I want my living will to be honored.

At the risk of duplication:

Paging Doug...Please repport to the forum..paging Doug...

. . . I think Erin was speaking of herself personally and not looking to mandate her wishes in these situations onto others. I know it would be the same for me.

Some people (especially particularly active people) would consider a life spent confined in a bed, unable to do anything for yourself a life they would not want to live. They might consider it worse than death, but certainly it is only their personal opinion. There are certainly others that wish to live as long as they possibly can, in whatever condition. These people would consider death the very worst possible thing, but certainly it is only their personal opinion.

JKeller,

You bring up one of the most fundamental issues underlying this discussion with this comment. It gives rise to the question: Is suicide OK, or not? Apart from whether or not we should ask others to participate, do we as a society still think killing ourselves is something we should not do?

From a historical point of view there is a major shift going on that we should take note of. Only a few decades ago, I think I'm on safe ground to say that American society, by an overwhelming majority, thoroughly rejected suicide as a viable option, even for the suffering and the down-and-out. Even when I was a kid (back in the 70's), when a suicide happened, it was always portrayed as an awful, horrible thing. The standard reaction to the idea of suicide used to be to completely reject it. Why is our society now beginning to think about it as a morally viable option? We should not overlook that this shift is recent and has huge implications for our entire culture.

Also, you speak of one's idea about whether suicide should be an option or not (you don't mention the word but I take it that the idea is implied) as only a matter of private opinion ("only their personal opinion"). And this brings up the whole issue of whether or not there is any such thing as common moral standards that apply equally to all, or not.

If there is any such thing as a set of basic moral standards that indeed apply to all people (e.g., rape, child abuse, and torture are bad--agreed?), does the traditional moral norm that one ought never kill the innocent (i.e. murder) include suicide in whatever form? . . . It used to.

If a person does not think that there are any moral standards at all that are obligatory for all people, then for such a person the whole discussion is irrelevant, because all that would matter is his own opinion.

I don't think any of us commenting on this blog, of whichever side, are truly complete moral relativists. Surely we agree, I hope, that there are some universal standards of right and wrong that we must all accept and live by. This, in part, is why we make the effort to comment on a blog like this, because we think that others should see things our way--that there is some common norm that should be true for all, and we want to persuade others to see it.

If this is the case, the point of view expressed in JKeller's comment then begs the following question as well: If we agree that all morality is not simply a matter of private, personal opinion, why then should suicide, which our society used to be in wide agreement about as a moral evil, shift from a matter of public morality, to one only of the private realm?

A person in a temporary coma who wakes up and continues living his or her life in the same way= the same person. A junkie who falls into a drug induced coma and wakes ups turns over a new leaf and now leads a sober-drug free life= a different person. A person who has suffered irreversible brain damage and is no longer able to do the things that they used to do or live the life that they had been living previously= a different person.

Notice I don't mention that I think any of these people should be killed for their differences.

OOps, this second paragraph at the top of my just posted comment also should have been italisized as a quote from JKeller:

Some people (especially particularly active people) would consider a life spent confined in a bed, unable to do anything for yourself a life they would not want to live. They might consider it worse than death, but certainly it is only their personal opinion. There are certainly others that wish to live as long as they possibly can, in whatever condition. These people would consider death the very worst possible thing, but certainly it is only their personal opinion.

"Joy, Innocence and Purity of Spirit...things that pro-choicers have never experienced..."

How do you know? You don't know what I do every day, you don't know how I feel. The fact that you assume I can't feel these basic emotions is very insulting to me. I don't think we can have discussions anymore if you don't see me as a human being, me who is sitting here breathing and moving and thinking.

"Doug asserted that since abortion was a legal term, no pro-lifers really thought it was still murder"

Now, MK, we are, after all, just ordinary web-surfin' pro-lifers.

Perhaps Doug was referring to the heavy-hitters in Prolife-ism. Let's see, maybe Bernie Nathanson, former abortionist Levatino, Ms. McCorvey, oh! How about the Scheidler crew? You know, the BIGGIES. We should ask THEM.

(Now watch, he's going to post that he was misread, misinterpreted, you were wrong, and now we'll all be coming 'round the mountain again.)

I believe we have to take into account the advances in modern medicine. We can bring people back from death and save people who are an inch away from death. If this advancing technology did not exist, many of the people we debate about we would not have to worry to because they would have succumbed to whatever had put them in their present condition. Is it suicide to concede that there is nothing we can do to help someone recover from their disease, infections, injuries, etc.?

Also I think my main point is, is it right to disregard a person's legal rights because they infringe upon someone else's morals?

Consciousness in the Raw
The brain stem may orchestrate the basics of awareness

Bruce Bower

In October 2004, Swedish neuroscientist Bjorn Merker packed up his video camera and joined five families for a 1-week get-together in Florida that featured several visits to the garden of childhood delights known as Disney World. For Merker, though, the trip wasn't a vacation. With the parents' permission, he came to observe and document the behavior of one child in each family who had been born missing roughly 80 percent of his or her brain.

INNER BRAIN. Animal studies and observations of children born missing most of the brain's outer layer, or cortex, suggest that the brain stem generates a fundamental form of conscious thought. Here, cutaway of a normal human brain shows the folded cortex atop the brain stem (in box).
W. Krutein / Photovault.com

These children, 1 to 5 years old at the time of their Disney adventure, had suffered strokes as fetuses or had experienced other medical problems shortly before or after birth that destroyed nearly all of the brain's outer layer, or cortex. In this rare condition, called hydranencephaly, cerebrospinal fluid fills the gaping hole within the child's head.

Such youngsters often die in the first year of life as a result of seizures, cerebral palsy, lung abnormalities, and a variety of other physical ailments. With proper medication and the installation of shunts to drain fluid from the braincase, however, some individuals live 20 years or more.

Neurologists typically regard hydranencephaly as an anatomical sentence to a lifelong "vegetative state." Such children supposedly validate a brutally simple equation: Little or no cortex equals no awareness of any kind.

In family activities observed in the Magic Kingdom and elsewhere, the kids quickly cast doubt on that standard assumption. Merker noted that these cortex-deprived, nonverbal children remained alert for much of the day. They reacted to what happened around them and expressed a palette of emotions. A 3-year-old girl's mouth opened wide and her face glowed with a mix of joy and excitement when her parents placed her baby brother in her arms.

The youngsters displayed good hearing but limited eyesight, a curious pattern given that they typically retained small parts of the visual cortex but none of the auditory cortex.

In observations at each child's home, Merker noted that these youngsters recognized familiar adults, liked familiar settings, and preferred specific toys, tunes, or video programs. Although saddled with limited mobility, some kids took behavioral initiatives, such as learning to activate a toy by throwing a switch.

In the February Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Merker, an independent neuroscientist in Segeltorp, Sweden, described how the accomplishments of these children relate to behaviors recorded in prior studies of human-brain function and of animals after surgical removal of the cortex. His analysis generates a provocative proposal: Basic awareness of one's internal and external world depends on the brain stem, the often-overlooked cylinder of tissue situated between the spinal cord and the cortex.

Merker argues that the brain stem supports an elementary form of conscious thought in kids with hydranencephaly. It also contains auditory structures capable of preserving hearing in someone without a cortex. In contrast, optic nerve damage in hydranencephaly frequently impairs vision, regardless of what the brain stem does.

Self-awareness and other "higher" forms of thought may require cortical contributions. But Merker posits that "primary consciousness," which he regards as an ability to integrate sensations from the environment with one's immediate goals and feelings in order to guide behavior, springs from the brain stem.

If he's right, virtually all vertebrates—which share a similar brain stem design—belong to the "primary consciousness" club. Moreover, medical definitions of brain death as a lack of cortical activity would face a serious challenge. At the very least, physicians could no longer assume that individuals with hydranencephaly don't need pain medication or anesthesia during invasive medical procedures.

**********************

"To be conscious is not necessarily to be self-conscious," Merker says. "The tacit consensus concerning the cerebral cortex as the 'organ of consciousness' ... may in fact be seriously in error."
****************************************8

Brain drain

The roots of Merker's thesis emerged more than 50 years ago in the operating room of Canadian neurosurgeons Wilder Penfield and Herbert Jasper. The surgeons pioneered the removal of large chunks of cortex as a treatment for severe, uncontrolled epilepsy. To identify and avoid damaging still-functional brain areas, Penfield and Jasper kept patients awake during the surgery and administered only local anesthesia.

Various mental abilities suffered during and after the operations, depending on the site and extent of the neural loss. Nevertheless, patients maintained a conscious stream of thought, Penfield and Jasper found.

In the course of electrically stimulating various brain areas during operations to identify key functional areas, they noted that current delivered to the right spots could produce every kind of seizure except one—so-called "absence epilepsy" characterized by a sudden loss of consciousness for a few seconds. On the basis of what they knew about the brain, the researchers theorized that structures within and just above the brain stem typically trigger absence epilepsy and collaborated with the cortex to regulate conscious thought and intentional acts.

Animal research, predominantly with rats, has since indicated that three adjacent parts of the brain stem comprise a "neural reality simulator" that gives rise to a fundamental form of consciousness, Merker asserts.

Along the top of the midbrain, which represents the roof of the brain stem, layers of cells interpret the spatial layout of an animal's surroundings relative to its body. Just below, a patch of gray tissue influences emotion-related behaviors, such as aggression, sex, defensive maneuvers, and pain reactions.

Farther down the brain stem lie interconnected regions that regulate the direction of eye gaze and organize decisions about what to do next, such as reaching for a piece of food or pursuing a potential mate.

Together, these structures surround brain stem tissue that connects to sensory areas throughout the cortex.

Merker proposes that, in creatures with a brain stem but little cortex, the neural reality simulator produces a two-dimensional, screenlike map of the world featuring moving shapes. A large cortical endowment beefs up the neural reality simulator, creating an ability to perceive a three-dimensional world composed of solid objects. Neural expansion also allows people to reflect about what they think and feel.

In support of his theory, Merker cites studies conducted over the past 40 years in which rats and cats showed relatively few behavioral problems after surgical removal of the cortex, either in infancy or adulthood. These cortex-deprived animals use vision and touch to orient to their surroundings, learn where to find food in mazes, and remain capable of standing, climbing, grooming, mating, and caring for offspring.

Merker also cites an unusual phenomenon known as the Sprague effect. Complete removal of the visual cortex on one side of the brain renders animals unable to see anything in the half of the visual field opposite the surgical site. Yet a tiny cut to the midbrain restores the animal's ability to detect and approach moving entities, even though it still can't distinguish one object from another.

The Sprague effect underscores the brain stem's visual influence, Merker argues. Visual-cortex removal derails brain stem activity via numerous neural links to the midbrain's spatial cells that suddenly lack meaningful input. A well-placed midbrain cut halts activity by some of those wayward connections, allowing a partial return of sight, in his view.

Any entity with the equivalent of a neural reality simulator, "whether cast in a neural medium or eventually in silicon," would experience consciousness, Merker theorizes.

Cortical divide

Of 27 comments by mind and brain researchers published with Merker's article, nearly half agreed that the inner workings of consciousness lie in the brain stem.

a8833_2855.gif

"The roots of consciousness exist in ancient neural territories we share with all vertebrates," says neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp of Washington State University in Pullman. "By the weight of empirical evidence, all mammals are sentient beings."

In his own research, Panksepp studies the ability of animals to experience biologically based states of mind or feelings that range from hunger and thirst to emotional delight and distress. For instance, Panksepp and a coworker reported in a controversial 2003 paper that rats express "joy" while playing with other rats by making ultrasonic sounds that represent an ancestral form of laughter.

Psychologist Carroll Izard of the University of Delaware in Newark emphasizes that this form of primary consciousness, as Merker would put it, or "primary affect," as Panksepp terms the rats' consciousness, consists of sensory activity in the brain stem. This capacity generates emotions and an awareness of one's surroundings but not an ability to talk about what one has experienced, Izard continues. In the same way, people can become conscious of a feeling that they can't label or describe, a phenomenon that's especially common in healthy infants and in children lacking a cortex, Izard says.

The existence of primary consciousness challenges widespread assumptions among physicians that newborns and fetuses can't feel pain, adds pediatric neurologist K.J.S. Anand of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. Evidence now suggests that adult and immature brains use different systems to process pain, Anand says.

The brain stem and the thalamus, a relay station for sensation just above the brain stem, foster pain responses in babies before and after birth, he asserts. The cortex takes over pain perception as it greatly expands during childhood and adolescence, Anand hypothesizes.

Other investigators criticize Merker for denying the cortex its traditional position as the brain's engine of consciousness. Even if a basic form of consciousness exists, they regard it as at least a partial product of the cortex, not just the brain stem as Merker argues.

Conscious thought probably relies on the workings of connected brain areas within and outside the cortex, contend Susanne Watkins and Geraint Rees, neuroscientists at University College London. "It seems unlikely that activity in any single area of the human brain will be sufficient for consciousness," they write.

Children with hydranencephaly studied by Merker possess remnants of cortical tissue that could have triggered states of awareness, the researchers suggest.

Other commenters, including philosopher Gualtiero Piccinini of the University of Missouri–St. Louis, cite prior evidence that the cortex by itself regulates visual awareness. Following visual-cortex damage, certain patients report no conscious ability to see on one side of their visual field but still unconsciously perceive the identity and location of items in that same visual field. Scientists call this phenomenon blindsight.

The most extensively studied blindsight patient has frequently reported being aware of "something" in his blind visual field, Merker notes. This man retains primary visual consciousness of his surroundings but can't describe what he sees in words, the Swedish researcher contends.

Reclaimed kids

In a 1999 report, D. Alan Shewmon, a pediatric neurologist at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, and his colleagues described home observations of three children, ages 6 to 17, who had been born with hydranencephaly and raised by loving, attentive parents. Each child displayed comparable signs of conscious mental activity, the researchers reported.

For instance, shortly after birth, a newborn girl's brain scan revealed an almost total lack of cortical tissue. Physicians told the girl's mother that the child would live no more than 2 years as a "vegetable." A neurologist concluded that the girl's brain was "like that of a reptile" and that she would never interact with other people.

Shewmon first visited the girl at age 5, observing her behavior at home. Despite difficulty sitting up or walking without aid, she exhibited excellent health. She smiled in response to Shewmon's friendly overtures and immediately looked at objects brought close to her. In a videotaped play session with her mother, the girl uttered "ah-ah" when encouraged to say "mama."

She brightened upon hearing happy songs, but often cried during sad songs. She enjoyed the sensory stimulation of car rides, crying at stops and calming down as motion resumed. She disliked the loud noises of vacuum cleaners and hair dryers. She demonstrated understanding of a few words, including "bunny rabbit" for one of her stuffed toys.

"If these children had been kept in institutions or treated at home as 'vegetables,' there can be little doubt that they would have turned out exactly as predicted," Shewmon says.

After making his own observations of children with hydranencephaly and their families, Merker seconds that point. He notes that well-treated youngsters born with little or no cortex regularly display brief losses of consciousness due to absence epilepsy, a clear sign that at other times they're conscious.

Parents described these lapses of awareness in their children to Merker with phrases such as "she is off talking with the angels."

Perhaps most intriguingly, kids with hydranencephaly demonstrate that the brain stem is not simply a reptilian relic stashed in the brain's basement. "The human brain stem is specifically human," Merker says. "These children smile and laugh in the specifically human manner, which is different from that of our closest relatives among the apes."

For now, the neural puzzle of consciousness remains unsolved. But cortically endowed investigators may have much to learn from cortically deprived kids

You can go to the direct link for all sources and references:
http://sciencenews.org/articles/20070915/bob9.asp

Carder,

You HAVE been paying attention...I owe you big time.

"I don't think we can have discussions anymore if you don't see me as a human being, me who is sitting here breathing and moving and thinking."

Yet we can trash the unborn like trash, call it justifiable homocide (SoMG's reference), and keep a conversation with you?

What color is the kettle?

I don't think we can have discussions anymore if you don't see me as a human being, me who is sitting here breathing and moving and thinking.

What did the unborn baby say to it's mother?

I don't think we can have discussions anymore if you don't see me as a human being, me who is sitting here breathing and moving and thinking.

What did Terri Schindler say to Michael Schiavo?

I don't think we can have discussions anymore if you don't see me as a human being, me who is sitting here breathing and moving and thinking.

A person in a temporary coma who wakes up and continues living his or her life in the same way= the same person. A junkie who falls into a drug induced coma and wakes ups turns over a new leaf and now leads a sober-drug free life= a different person. A person who has suffered irreversible brain damage and is no longer able to do the things that they used to do or live the life that they had been living previously= a different person.
Notice I don't mention that I think any of these people should be killed for their differences.

I guess that you and I may be meaning something different when we say 'different person'. That's probably what is happening here.

JK,

Also I think my main point is, is it right to disregard a person's legal rights because they infringe upon someone else's morals?

It is someones morals that gave you those legal rights? Why do you think we have laws. Because somewhere, someone deemed them to be morally right.

A junkie who falls into a drug induced coma and wakes ups turns over a new leaf and now leads a sober-drug free life= a different person

See, my definition of this person would be that he is same person, who is now making better choices for himself. Not a different person, just the same person, making better choices. He would still have the same personality traits, have the same feelings and emotions, etc. He probably would still have the temptation. But he would still be the same person. (I use "he" so I don't have to say he/she).

It is someones morals that gave you those legal rights? Why do you think we have laws. Because somewhere, someone deemed them to be morally right.

Yes, exactly!

Terri Schiavo had a devoted family ready and willing to care for her. Why wouldn't Michael just let them have her? Why should he care? He could divorce her, go on with his life, and who would blame him for doing so, but let Terri's family have her if they want her. What did he have to lose?

We can never know with absolute certainty what cognitive function Terri had. She may have been aware of a loving family, their care, and of the people around her, as both her family and caretakers at the nursing home insist she did.
No one can say for certain she wasn't.

I'm talking about who you are, not your physical identity. Like if you took leave of your senses and went on a shooting spree you would still be Bethany physically, but you would be a drastically different person than you are today.

JK,

Also I think my main point is, is it right to disregard a person's legal rights because they infringe upon someone else's morals?

It is someones morals that gave you those legal rights? Why do you think we have laws. Because somewhere, someone deemed them to be morally right.

Mary, that I do agree with!

JK,

Like if you took leave of your senses and went on a shooting spree you would still be Bethany physically, but you would be a drastically different person than you are today.

I'm a drastically different person today than I was 2 years ago, 2 day ago and 2 hours ago...we change all the time. Are we going to measure our worth by how much we've changed?

I'm talking about who you are, not your physical identity. Like if you took leave of your senses and went on a shooting spree you would still be Bethany physically, but you would be a drastically different person than you are today.

I would still be myself, who decided to make a horrible, devastating choice. Or myself, who lost her mind. I would be *acting* like a different person, but really I would be the same person.
I'm not talking about a physical entity as much as the spiritual entity.

I never said we should measure our worth by it (but it does happen everyday), I was using it as an example of how it was not disrespectful for someone to call Terri a different person, because that's what she was.

Brother Francis,
To which order do you belong? And how did you get to know our beloved Jill?

Yes, I am a Dominican. The initials OP stand for Order of Preachers ("ordo praedicatorum" in latin). We were founded by St. Dominic in the early 13th century. I am a student at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC, preparing for the priesthood in a few years. Here is a link to a student blog of sorts that we run. It's more of an ongoing news and events bulletin, really, and not a blog in the usual sense. Here is a link to our student web site that gives information about our life and who we are.

How do I know Jill? Before I entered the Dominican order (back in 2003), I worked for Priests for Life for two years as Director of Research. During this time, Jill had occassion to collaborate on some things with Priests for Life. This was how I first met her. We have been friends since. And may I say, that Jill is a wonderful person, and I am grateful to be counted among her friends! Thanks for asking.

Thank you, MK that is exactly the point. I have changed DRASTICALLY over the years, yet I am the same person, with the same emotions, the same reactions, the same personality, the same temptations, the same desires, etc. I am Bethany and always will be Bethany no matter what choices I make in the future, no matter what happens to my body, no matter what happens to my mind. When I die, I will still be Bethany.

Brother Francis,
You haven't weighed in...do you consider abortion murder?

Let's just say we have differing views about personal identity.

How many people have said, after they have changed something about their life or had their life changed by something, "I'm a different person today than I was then", or "I was a different person then". Do they not genuinely believe or mean it?

We can post pictures on here?

I guess I'll break the tension:

I would guess, not personally knowing Br. Francis, that he does consider abortion to be murder or Jill would never consider him in such a favorable light.

How many people have said, after they have changed something about their life or had their life changed by something, "I'm a different person today than I was then", or "I was a different person then". Do they not genuinely believe or mean it?

Yes, I've heard it....It's a figure of speech. An idiom. Like if I say, I was shaking in my boots! I wasn't literally shaking in my boots, it is a figure of speech. It means that they have changed their ways, turned over a new leaf.

I believe it's a state of mind.

Can you expound on that a little?
Are you saying that a drug addict that goes sober literally is a new person? He doesn't have to battle the same temptations anymore? He doesn't have to work hard to make the choice NOT to use drugs?

Bethany, you have the gift of endless debate, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull myself away, I've told my mom that I would come eat dinner with her and my sister. I'll check back in later.

:-)

Aww sorry Jk, I've just had a little extra time on my hands today. Sorry if I'm taking time away from your family! :) I'll talk to you more about it later. :)

Ok, one more.

He has the temptations of a former addict, yes. But he does not live a life of using and all the things that that entails. He doesn't have to be chasing to function and he doesn't have to deal with the pitfalls of coming down, or be the burden on his family and friends. His philosophy is different because he can understand that he doesn't need drugs. Most of all his daily life and activities without drugs is different.

If granny is incontinent and her personality changed, I still don't think it is right to starve her to death or put raid in her IV. This stage is indicative that granny will probably soon lose organ function other places as well, and a DNR order can be requested. Until then, she needs to be taken care of properly. Noone says you can't help ease the pain, either, which is a humane action on both parts.

I fully agree, PIP.
......

PAS is hard to say. In Oregan it is legal. If the patient ultimately kills themself, it is on their conscience. I have discussed this with a few people. If the doctor says, "Here is a prescription for 100 sleeping pills. I order you to not take more than two, because more than that might kill you," and the patient takes 30, the doctor is partially responsible but it was the patient's ultimate actions.

For the most part, I am inclined to not charge a doctor doing that for murder or similar charge. But I think I should think it through more.

Agreed - it's a good issue for discussion and thought. I would think that one could get enough pills to kill them just buying non-prescription stuff. I think if somebody really wants to die that it's okay for that to happen, though there is a question of "sound mind" and so forth.

Doug

"I see him like Norma McCorvery, from the Roe decision. I don't think she even ended up having the abortion....?"

"She's a sad, lonely woman trying to be in a "club" now, even if she's switched sides, and she's hoping to be supported by pro-lifers. That's not to say she didn't have plenty of problems before, either."

MK: So we can't measure fetal brain waves but you can read Norma McCorvey's mind? Isn't that special?

I'm not a mind reader. But you seem to think I am, what with the "human" issue. In fact, I think this tends to happen with women and men...

.......

Of course if you had said "Now, I think Norma McCorvey is a sad, lonely woman..." but you didn't. You presented that as an external truth...Weren't you saying somethin about always letting us know when it's your opinion?

Do you really dispute that she is sad and lonely? I think it's an accurate description of her. I also think that it's often not unreasonable to expect the implication that it's one's opinion to be understood. After all, some people have described others as "soulless" and "satanic," etc.

But okay - it is indeed my opinion and I didn't specifically say so, there.

Doug

The main difference here is:

Is the person dying from a human action?

...or from their illness?

In my opinion it is the patient's right to say "enough." If a patient says, "I don't want to do chemo, I am done." I would not consider that suicide. I would consider that letting "nature take its course." The ultimate cause of death is the disease.

You could SAY that the person has the right to kill their own person, as it is not like we could prosecute them for killing themselves. But more likely than not, a person that simply wants to "kill themselves" as opposed to withholding treatment is much different. Here, we can treat the causes of the emotional suffering, and we can treat pain. Aiding them in killing themselves is up for debate within the community, but I think that this should only be the very last resort. Again I think we can treat suffering and pain and let them die a good death (naturally).

Also, the intentional killing of someone just because you think it would be "better for them" is definitely morally wrong.

MK: "Doug asserted that since abortion was a legal term, no pro-lifers really thought it was still murder"

Carder: (Now watch, he's going to post that he was misread, misinterpreted, you were wrong, and now we'll all be coming 'round the mountain again.)

Ahem, Carder and MK. "No pro-lifers"? You are right, Carder, that is not what I said.

Doug

MK,

JKeller above (2:47) is correct about my opinion.

I want to add that the primary culpability for each act of abortion lies in the hands of the abortionist, for he or she is the person actually doing the killing in each instance.

The moral status of the mother is more complicated. Although what she is doing is always greviously wrong, her personal culpability might be diminished because in some cases the woman is confused about what is really happenning (because of the typical lies and misinformation she receives from the abortion industry), and/or feels coerced into an act that she herself does not really want but feels she has no choice but to undergo because of outside pressure. But this is not always so. There are times as well when the mother knows clearly enough what is going on to be perhaps as culpable as the abortionist.

I should also say here that I have prayed outside of abortion mills myself as a witness to the sanctity of all human life, and I do not agree with the tactics of some pro-lifers who shout "murderer" or "baby-killer" or something similar at the women going in. I support an approach that attempts as best as possible to treat all women entering an abortion mill with love and compassion. We care about them as much as their unborn babies. For so often, they do not really fully realize what they are doing, and the great emotional and spiritual confusion/angst/desparation they are experiencing shows on their faces. They deserve to be approached in an atmosphere of calm, compassionate concern (please note: not the same as patronizing them).

I think the majority of pro-lifers agree with taking a calm approach at the abortion mills and oppose the more condemnatory sort of presence, but it only takes one or two shouting harshly in the midst of a group to make it seem like the whole group agrees with this harshness when in fact they probably do not.

And, just to leave no stone unturned, I also want to say that even though abortionists are primarily responsible for each act of abortion, I do not support violence against abortionists or anyone else as a viable means of furthering the cause of life. For even though he is committing a horrible evil in killing the innocent, his life also has great value and dignity and our goal should be to convert him to see the dignity of the life of the unborn, to repent, and to receive the healing and forgiveness which they will be in great need of when they do convert and the spiritual weight of what they have done comes crushing down upon them.

"Agreed - it's a good issue for discussion and thought. I would think that one could get enough pills to kill them just buying non-prescription stuff. I think if somebody really wants to die that it's okay for that to happen, though there is a question of "sound mind" and so forth."

Exactly. The suicidal patient more likely than not is probably not of sound mind. This is something that is treatable though. Most people would get help when they are suicidal, I don't think the ill are exceptions. But...I still don't think I have a firm grasp on the PAS issue, per se, simply because I haven't seen any specific cases concerning them.

She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes...

MK: That's the problem with basing you morality on science and external truths.

Well, I don't do that, MK. Science does not determine morality, our desires and valuations do. I am not the one that claims "external truths" as for as morality. There isn't any such thing.

......

There is only one authority on external truths that doesn't change. And science ain't it

Again, it's not science that goes to morality, and you have no proof of "one authority."

......

50 years ago we drilled holes in peoples heads when they behaved strangely, 100 years before that we exorcised them, today you say only brain stem function doesn't signify personhood, tomorrow you will be old news...

While we, who believe abortion is murder, will front and center, as usual.

The "exorcism" crowd is still here - while the religion may have changed a little, the emotional reason for it has not. No, brain stem function isn't what makes for personhood.

As individuals, almost all of us will be "old news" tomorrow. There will still be the same aguments about valuation.

Doug

"I think if somebody really wants to die that it's okay for that to happen, though there is a question of "sound mind" and so forth."

Ahh, Doug, always thumbs up for death in whatever its form.

"Wanna die? Go see Doug."

@Bobby (12:09) noon and JK

things are not so cut-and-dried with neurons/brain-cells. The only type of nerve tissue that auto-regenerates is the olfactory-bulb(sense of smell). This is why in Spain it is these stem cells that are THE source of stem cells used for the regeneration for the entire brain and for the severed spinal chord.

neurons communicate with each other via appendages called axons and dendrites. There often is damage to these although the cell itself is quite alive ... it seems functionally 'dead'. There was a technique (in Germany) that repaired these appendages .... often lost with oxygen deprivation. [Wonder how Terri would have done with this?]

Then there was this intriguing (and surprising) experiment by Robert O Becker that used a very small electric current to cure an ulcer, a cancer + regenerate nerve tissue ... 'Cross Currents'.

Well, I don't do that, MK. Science does not determine morality, our desires and valuations do. I am not the one that claims "external truths" as for as morality. There isn't any such thing.

Doug, you cannot be absolutely sure that there "are no external truths", unless you believe that there is an external truth - that truth being, that "there are no external truths". Kind of confusing, if you ask me.

So are some values absolute and others are not?
Or are no values absolute?

If you are consistent, you'd have to admit that your belief that there are no external truths is simply your opinion, and nothing more. Do you agree that that particular belief is nothing more than your opinion? That there could possibly be absolutes, and you're simply not aware of them?

You seem to want us to agree with you, as though this idea of "no external truth" is common knowledge, something everyone knows is a fact.

But it's not, Doug. It's not a fact at all. There is nothing you can do to prove that morals are not absolute. You can prove that cultural norms are not absolute, but you cannot prove that morals are not absolute.

"I think if somebody really wants to die that it's okay for that to happen, though there is a question of "sound mind" and so forth."

Carder: Ahh, Doug, always thumbs up for death in whatever its form. "Wanna die? Go see Doug."

Ridiculous.

No, not in "whatever its form." This is one specific situation - where the individual is cogent, and old enough to make the decision. If you are an adult, and you really wanted to die - let's say you had a disease where the suffering made life not worth it to you - what is wrong with letting you die?

Doug

"Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn't murder."
*
Prove it Doug.
*
MK, it's just realizing that it's a legal term. No matter how much you or anybody else doesn't like the idea of abortion, it is still the law that determines murder or not. It's not your opinion.
*
Does every pro-lifer here actually think abortion is "murder"? Serious question.

The answer is yes.

And I've never met a pro lifer that doesn't.

Did you say NO PRO_LIFERS? No, you're right, you didn't, but you implied that it was unfathomable that there were any, let alone all of us.

"Well, I don't do that, MK. Science does not determine morality, our desires and valuations do. I am not the one that claims "external truths" as for as morality. There isn't any such thing."

Bethany: Doug, you cannot be absolutely sure that there "are no external truths", unless you believe that there is an external truth - that truth being, that "there are no external truths". Kind of confusing, if you ask me.

Bethany, one place of confusion may be "truths." You're not qualifying that. There are plenty of physical truths, for example, external to the mind. Yet by definition morality is not that way. Morality is ideas of what is "right" or "virtuous" etc., in the ethical realm. It boils down to what is wanted and what is unwanted. The good/bad/right/wrong is in the eye of the beholder. If there is a god or gods or other "higher beings" than us, they too may have their opinion, but morality remains in the mind, not outside it. It's a subjective thing - within the mind, not external to it.

How can there be perceptions of the "good/bad'right/wrong" without some mind thinking it?

......

So are some values absolute and others are not? Or are no values absolute?

No moral values are absolute - there has to be "somebody" to make the valuation.

......

If you are consistent, you'd have to admit that your belief that there are no external truths is simply your opinion, and nothing more.

Nope - it's a matter of definition, not "knowing" or not. Morality is ideas in the mind. If no minds, then no such thing.

......

Do you agree that that particular belief is nothing more than your opinion? That there could possibly be absolutes, and you're simply not aware of them?

Again, you need to say moral absolutes, for of course there are things like physical reality which exist regardless of a mind's perception. If there is a bucket in the driveway, it's there whether you or I think of it. Yet neither the bucket nor anything else will be "good" or "bad" without some mind having the feelings, making the valuations.

......

You seem to want us to agree with you, as though this idea of "no external truth" is common knowledge, something everyone knows is a fact.

I think the definition of morality and the principle that morality is ideas goes a long way towards that. I also know that many people want to believe in "God's law" or similar. There, it would still be a mind, even if the mind of God, so it's not incompatible with what I've said. There is also no proof of such supernatural things, so those people are down to banking on their being no proof of a negative, which is no logical proof at all.

.....

But it's not, Doug. It's not a fact at all. There is nothing you can do to prove that morals are not absolute. You can prove that cultural norms are not absolute, but you cannot prove that morals are not absolute.

Again, I think that by definition they are. You can say that "there is no proof there isn't a God," but 1: that is not any logical proof of God, and 2: it would still be the mind of God making the valuations, anyway, even if so. If there was a proven supernatural being with moral feelings, then we could say those were external to us, but they would still be relative to that being, and not absolute.

Doug

Well,
Doug it looks like things have changed since the last time you checked.

http://spectrumcenter.net/auditory.html

In addition to the physiological aspects of listening, active listening also requires intention -the psychological desire to focus on sound. Of all our senses, hearing is the first to develop in utero -by four-and-one-half months gestation, the ear is fully formed and functional. The fetus hears a constant background noise of intrauterine sounds, such as the mother's heartbeat, respiration, and intestinal gurgling, which is interrupted at irregular intervals by the mother's voice. According to Tomatis, the mother's voice penetrates into the intrauterine world via bone conduction, and thus the fetus hears only the higher frequency sounds of the mother's voice. According to Tomatis, the mother's voice is not only an emotional nutrient to the child, but also prepares the child to acquire language after birth. In other words, listening begins in the womb.

http://spectrumcenter.net/sensoryintegration.html

Both Dr. Alfred A. Tomatis and Dr. A. Jean Ayres emphasized the importance of the vestibular system in the inter-relatedness of the senses. The vestibular system is part of the inner ear and its job is to detect motion and gravity, and provides us with our sense of balance. It tells us where we are in space. The vestibular system is a very old sensory system and in evolutionary terms, was the first sensory system to develop. We needed to know whether we were up or down before we needed to see, hear, taste, touch or smell. The vestibular system is the first sensory system to develop in the womb, and starts to develop when the fetus is only two weeks old. It is fully formed and starting to function in the womb by 4 and 1/2 months gestation . Because of this early development the vestibular system has many connections with the rest of the brain, which develops around it; consequently, it is believed to provide the foundation for many other functions . When the influences of vestibular stimuli fail to reach their natural destinations, they cannot adequately contribute to sensory integration.

The tactile system, our sense of touch, is a sensory system that develops very early and therefore has the opportunity to influence the developing brain. Tomatis viewed the skin as part of the vestibular (somatic) integrator because the tissue that goes on to become the skin in the developing fetus emerges from the tissue that forms the ear. The tactile system starts to develop soon after the vestibular system, and it is the only sensory system that is fully functional at birth.....
http://spectrumcenter.net/auditoryprocessing.html
Our ability to analyze sound develops in the womb. The inner ear is the first sensory system to fully develop in utero. The fetus learns to tune in the salient sounds of his mother's voice and ignore background noise. During this stage he learns to recognize the sounds (phonemes) that make up language. Research shows that an unborn fetus will respond with a different movement, to each of the phonemes (building blocks of language) spoken by the mother. This early listening in the womb plays a vital role in the later development of language. At birth a baby is already familiar with and responsive to all spoken sounds; in other words, he is essentially "wired" for language development. Born with an ear already attuned to language sounds, the baby is ready to make rapid progress in attaching meaning to the sounds he hears. Language is not taught to infants; it emerges just as sitting and crawling, if the baby is given a language environment. The important ingredient for language to unfold naturally is normal auditory processing. The foundation for this is established in the womb.
Movement and sound are closely linked as exemplified in the example of the fetus moving in response to the phonemes spoken by his mother. That is because both movement and sound are perceived by the inner ear–the vestibular cochlear system.....

http://www.preventioninflorida.org/pc2006/materials/Dunn1.pdf

Sensory Integration begins at conception, and continues through childhood (maturing at 8- 10 years)
• Continues to be refined throughout our lifetime

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/index.html#columnintro
An additional reason for parents to begin active parenting at conception is the discovery that babies in the womb are also developing more rapidly than previously thought possible. From the second month of pregnancy, experiments and observations reveal an active prenate with a rapidly developing sensory system permitting exquisite sensitivity and responsiveness. Long before the development of advanced brain structures, prenates are seen interacting with each other and learning from experience. They seem especially interested in the larger environment provided by mother and father, and react to individual voices, stories, music, and even simple interaction games with parents. The quality of the uterine environment is determined principally by parents.
The opportunities for parents to form a relationship with the baby in the womb are significant and remarkable. This contrasts sharply with the previous view that prenates did not have the capacity to interact, remember, learn, or put meaning to their experiences. Only a decade ago, doctors typically told pregnant mothers and fathers that talking to a baby in the womb was useless and unrealistic. Now there is mounting evidence for memory and learning in utero and for precocious communication before the stage of language. These abilities of unborn babies underlie the successes reported in a series of scientific experiments with prenatal stimulation and bonding. They are also a basis for the personal stories occasionally shared by children and adults about their experiences before birth.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound5.html
The fetus receives sound information from the outer regions of the mother through its own auditory system. With support from touch, taste, and smell, hearing plays a prominent role in connecting us to the outside world while we are in the womb.
We have to think that the intrauterine environment of the fetus is deeply affecting personality development. It is known that at the moment of birth the newborn baby has nearly all the neurons needed for life. Thus, the womb is the place where the brain develops and begins working.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound3.html
Since we know that the fetus is involved in initiating labor, it is interesting to wonder why the fetus would initiate premature birth. We know that pregnancies filled with stress are more inclined to conclude prematurely. Use of tobacco and cocaine also increase the stress response in the mother and this is probably true for the fetus as well. There is a biologic explanation for the fetus being able to react to maternal stress by initiating labor. In the human species, our fight or flight stress response was often effective for our survival. In modern times, the stress response is seen as a catalyst for disease. It stands to reason that for biologic survival of the species there would be a mechanism to allow initiation of labor under stressful conditions. Especially in the past, it was much more common for the pregnant woman and fetus to be exposed to the risk of cataclysmic death from the environment or infectious diseases and epidemics. In these situations, some of these premature babies might survive. For the mother, delivery of the baby would allow her to direct her energies toward survival and future childbearing. Despite a large amount of research dedicated to prevention of preterm labor, the incidence of prematurity in the US has not decreased (Paneth, 1995).
****personal note - The baby will save the mother by initiating labor prematurly in order to save the mother at risk to his/her health! Too bad we can't return the favor!
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound1.html
In the past, women all over the world have sung lullabies to their babies. These were very important because as we now know the fetus is having first language lessons in the womb.
The ear first appears in the 3rd week of gestation and it becomes functional by the 16th week. The fetus begins active listening by the 24th week. We know from ultrasound observations that the fetus hears and responds to a sound pulse starting about 16 weeks of age (Shahidullah & Hepper, 1992); this is even before the ear construction is complete.
Chronic noise can also be associated with birth defects (Szmeja et al. 1979). I recently received a report from a mother who was in her 7th month of pregnancy when she visited the zoo. In the lion's enclosure, the animals were in process of being fed. The roar of one lion would set off another lion and the sound was so intense she had to leave the scene as the fetus reacted with a strong kick and left her feeling ill. Many years later, when the child was 7 years of age, it was found that he had a hearing deficiency in the lower-middle range. This child also reacts with fear when viewing TV programs of lions and related animals. There are numerous reports about mothers having to leave war movies and concerts because the auditory stimulus caused the fetus to become hyperactive.
At around 4 ½ to 6 weeks gestational age the vestibular and the cochlear systems become differentiated, at 7 ½ the auditory ossicles start to grow, and at 4 ½ months the ear of the fetus is already adult-like in shape and size.
Clearly, the vestibular system progresses rapidly as seen by the active movement of the fetus in utero. As early as the first trimester, regular exercise patterns have been observed with ultra-sound: rolling, flexing, turning, etc. (Van Dongen & Goudie, 1980) . The movements appear as graceful somersaults, flexing of the back and neck, turning the head, waving arms, kicking legs-- all self initiated and expressive in nature. When the baby moves in utero, the heartbeat accelerates. DeMause (1982) summarizes reactions of the second trimester as follows: " The fetus now floats peacefully, kicks, turns, sighs, grabs its umbilicus, gets excited at sudden noises, calms down when the mother talks quietly, and gets rocked back to sleep as she walks about."

Bottom line - why do we argue? Because we like to.

Actually, Doug, we argue because we passionately believe in our cause. We hope to change hearts and minds. We hope that those of you that are so cold and heartless as to sanction the death of millions of unborn children, will become open to grace and accept God's mercy. We argue because we love all of our brothers and sisters, the unborn, the troubled mothers and you. We argue because we feel called to it and because it gives us a venue to reach thousands of people and perhaps sway just one person over to the side of light...

As for myself, I can unequivocally say, that I do not argue because I LIKE to argue. It drains me, and gives me headaches and makes me crabby and makes me profoundly sad. It skews my view of the world and sometimes I find myself crying in the grocery store, or at a red light...because my heart breaks for the dying children and the lost souls that support their murder.

But I promise you. I get no pleasure from it.

I'm happy to hear that you do tho.

THANK YOU MARYKAY. I was going to answer that just today but forgot. That is exactly how I feel. I do NOT enjoy the arguing, and it exhausts me at times.... I do it because, like you said, I passionately believe in this cause.

I wish I had more time to post tonight but I just snuck on for a few seconds and need to go. Talk more later. :-)

Missquote, misstate bonanza.

MK: "Doug asserted that since abortion was a legal term, no pro-lifers really thought it was still murder"

Carder: (Now watch, he's going to post that he was misread, misinterpreted, you were wrong, and now we'll all be coming 'round the mountain again.)

"Ahem, Carder and MK. "No pro-lifers"? You are right, Carder, that is not what I said."

She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes...

Carder, you must have been keeping an eye on MK, then. Is that a mountainous straw man argument you see? Here is what was said:

"Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn't murder."

MK: Prove it Doug.

(Posted by: mk at September 19, 2007 12:20 PM (#1story thread)

The pro-lifers I have seen who realize that abortion is not murder have been on other message boards. I also went through all the statements here:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library.html

and none of them say that abortion is murder.

Claiming that I said "no pro-lifers" completely changes the meaning, from the truth to what is obviously false, based on nothing more than this board here.

Why the need for straw man arguments?

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

Doug

Missquote, misstate bonanza.

MK: "Doug asserted that since abortion was a legal term, no pro-lifers really thought it was still murder"

Carder: (Now watch, he's going to post that he was misread, misinterpreted, you were wrong, and now we'll all be coming 'round the mountain again.)

"Ahem, Carder and MK. "No pro-lifers"? You are right, Carder, that is not what I said."

She'll be coming 'round the mountain when she comes...

Carder, you must have been keeping an eye on MK, then. Is that a mountainous straw man argument you see? Here is what was said:

"Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn't murder."

MK: Prove it Doug.

(Posted by: mk at September 19, 2007 12:20 PM (#1story thread)

The pro-lifers I have seen who realize that abortion is not murder have been on other message boards. I also went through all the statements here:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library.html

and none of them say that abortion is murder.

Claiming that I said "no pro-lifers" completely changes the meaning, from the truth to what is obviously false, based on nothing more than this board here.

Why the need for straw man arguments?

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

Doug

Doug,

I already posted on that...

"Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn't murder."
*
Prove it Doug.
*
MK, it's just realizing that it's a legal term. No matter how much you or anybody else doesn't like the idea of abortion, it is still the law that determines murder or not. It's not your opinion.
*
Does every pro-lifer here actually think abortion is "murder"? Serious question.

The answer is yes.

And I've never met a pro lifer that doesn't.

Did you say NO PRO_LIFERS? No, you're right, you didn't, but you implied that it was unfathomable that there were any, let alone all of us.
Posted by: mk at September 19, 2007 7:37 PM

Did you say NO PRO-LIFERS? No, you're right, you didn't, but you implied that it was unfathomable that there were any, let alone all of us.

Baloney, MK. In no way is that true. I know full well that there are plenty of pro-lifers that would say abortion is murder. Good grief....

Doug

As to your link...

I guess your would have to actually bring up the topic before we would know what they thought...

I could go to a prochoice site and read for days and never find anyone that said abortion wasn't murder...but that doesn't mean they don't, it just means they weren't directly asked.

Well,

Then why would you ask that question? What's more I would bet that at least 99% if not more prolifers think it's murder. If we didn't we'd be pro-choice.
We wouldn't care. If we didn't think it was murder, we'd be all for it...

But feel free to take your own poll...just make sure you ask true pro-lifers, not folks who add "except"...

So now we're back to square one...

"Plenty of pro-lifers realize that abortion isn't murder."

Prove it. Show me one.

"Bottom line - why do we argue? Because we like to."

MK: Actually, Doug, we argue because we passionately believe in our cause.

Point taken, MK, but if you didn't like to argue, you wouldn't, that's the bottom line. Many people feel passionately about women keeping the freedom they have in the matter, and some of them argue and others don't or rarely do so. Between you and me, we like to argue, the both of us.

.....

We hope to change hearts and minds. We hope that those of you that are so cold and heartless as to sanction the death of millions of unborn children, will become open to grace and accept God's mercy.

"The logical fallacy of an ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."

It could said that you're the heartless and cold one, wanting to force women, who most certainly are thinking, feeling beings, against their will, for the sake of the unborn, which are not thinking, feeling beings, and thus it really boils down to you wanting your will forced on the pregnant women. Look, we could all just call each other names, etc....

......

We argue because we love all of our brothers and sisters, the unborn, the troubled mothers and you. We argue because we feel called to it and because it gives us a venue to reach thousands of people and perhaps sway just one person over to the side of light...

Well said. I do believe you feel that way.

......

As for myself, I can unequivocally say, that I do not argue because I LIKE to argue. It drains me, and gives me headaches and makes me crabby and makes me profoundly sad. It skews my view of the world and sometimes I find myself crying in the grocery store, or at a red light...because my heart breaks for the dying children and the lost souls that support their murder.

Considering the number of posts you've made in the last couple days, that's hard to believe. I think that if you really didn't like it that much, that you wouldn't do it.

Doug

MK and Bethany -

I miss Cameron.

*sniff, sniff*

I never thought I would say that!

For the record, the Catholic Church also considers it murder and has since the beginning...

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

Valerie,

I know. Me too. But now we have Doug. Help.

This has been an interesting and thoughtful discussion that I am coming late to - appreciate everyone's thoughts. I want to address a comment I saw a few times, I think from Erin and Heather. They said something like "I don't want to live that way, it's a fate worse than death" - talking about the PVS state.

This statement is emotionally valid, but it is very subjective. For example, everyone would say, "Oh, I would hate to be blind, I could never live like that." But then when you talk to blind people, they are living fulfilling lives, climbing mountains, doing extraordinary things, and relying on other senses that bring out the best in themselves.

Do you trust GOD enough to make whatever handicap you have a blessing to you and your family and the world? We say in the Our Father "thy will be done" and accepting a handicap and making the most of it is all part of following God's will. I know this is easy for me to say as I am of sound body and mind, at the moment, but I know disabled people who are inspirations - a local quadriplegic is a famous artist who skied earlier this year. Even in a PVS state, I hope and pray that I would still think "Thy Will Be Done." I would never want to give up on GOD and His plan for me and just give my life back to Him, like the servant who buried the talent. (Matt 25:25)

Doug,

And now you're going to tell me what I feel...priceless.

Considering the number of posts you've made in the last couple days, that's hard to believe. I think that if you really didn't like it that much, that you wouldn't do it.

That's because Doug, it is unfathomable to you that anyone would do anything that wasn't for personal gain...What? No selfish motive? Crazy Talk! Off with their heads!

Still, it's true.

Lynn,

That was beautifully said. Sadly, Erin doesn't believe in God. As for Heather, she is only beginning to find her way...in time she will come to understand. Mostly because she seeks the truth.

The idea of giving up control, so that you can be totally free, is something that many of these people just can't grasp. To them, giving up control, or submitting to God is the equivalent of becoming a slave. They don't understand that they are already slaves. To lust. To pride. To themselves...Would they we could help them see, that being a slave to God means to no longer be a slave. But to be madly in love, and to have a deep inner peace that can't be shaken by unplanned pregnancy, or bad relationships or losing one's self awareness. It is everything. As Peter said "Where would I go?"

Doug says to MK:

"It could said that you're the heartless and cold one, wanting to force women, who most certainly are thinking, feeling beings, against their will, for the sake of the unborn, which are not thinking, feeling beings, and thus it really boils down to you wanting your will forced on the pregnant women."

Did MK impregnate anyone? Don't think so. How did the woman come to be pregnant? Whoever causes that Life to be conceived inside of her - that's whose Will is being imposed. Any guesses as to whose Will that is?

(and of course the unborn do think and feel, but that is a digression - a tactic Doug uses to make them seem less human)

Blessings to you, MK. I know exactly what you mean. You don't like to argue but you are compelled - I'm the same way. Speaking out against injustice is not usually fun but necessary.

MK: As to your link... I guess you would have to actually bring up the topic before we would know what they thought...

I could go to a prochoice site and read for days and never find anyone that said abortion wasn't murder...but that doesn't mean they don't, it just means they weren't directly asked.

Yes - I agree with you there. I do think there is a logic to this, however, with the godlessprolifers.org members:

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html

Some are for complete abolition of abortion, and some would have exceptions, as:

"Pro-life position: Allow Exceptions for Life of mother, Health of mother, Rape, Incest."

or

"Pro-life position: Allow Exceptions for Life of mother, Health of mother, maybe if fetus is severely deformed"

I think it is obvious that quite a few of them do not think of abortion as "murder." Are they going to allow "murder" if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, or allow it if there is severe fetal deformity?

Doug

Doug says to MK:

"It could said that you're the heartless and cold one, wanting to force women, who most certainly are thinking, feeling beings, against their will, for the sake of the unborn, which are not thinking, feeling beings, and thus it really boils down to you wanting your will forced on the pregnant women."

Lynn: Did MK impregnate anyone? Don't think so. How did the woman come to be pregnant? Whoever causes that Life to be conceived inside of her - that's whose Will is being imposed. Any guesses as to whose Will that is?

It is the will of the woman to either continue the pregnancy or to end it. Pro-lifers want their will to trump the will of pregnant women with unwanted pregnancies.

......

(and of course the unborn do think and feel, but that is a digression - a tactic Doug uses to make them seem less human)

No, Lynn, the unborn here are just as human as you and me, whether they think and feel or not. I realize it's a big argument for a time in gestation. Late enough in gestation it's not really much of an argument - few people don't think that sensation, etc., are not there. And early enough in gestation it's not much of an argument either - few people think it's there.

Doug

Doug,

I already said that if they use the "except" line they aren't really pro-life...at least not to pro-lifers. They are moderate choicers.

I think it is obvious that quite a few of them do not think of abortion as "murder."

I don't think it's obvious at all. If they are willing to make acceptions then they don't think it's murder. If they don't think it's murder then they are not pro-life. They are pro choice in certain circumstances.

If you are pro life you don't rationalize when it is okay to murder. If it's murder, it's murder all the way across the board...

What aren't you getting?

MK: And now you're going to tell me what I feel...priceless.

"Considering the number of posts you've made in the last couple days, that's hard to believe. I think that if you really didn't like it that much, that you wouldn't do it."

That's because Doug, it is unfathomable to you that anyone would do anything that wasn't for personal gain...What? No selfish motive? Crazy Talk! Off with their heads!

Still, it's true.

It's the same thing, down deep. For whatever reason, you want to do it. If you think it is some Godly cause, etc., you still want to do it.

Short of physical compulsion otherwise, we do what we want the most, from among our available choices. This is not saying it will be due to any one motivation, but there is always a desire or desires it can be traced back to.

Doug

I think Doug thinks of himself as a great arguer but you're really terrible. You word parse and say the opposite thing when challenged. There's no point in talking to you really - it's like trying to hold an eel.

For example:

Doug at 8:25 p.m. "the unborn,...are not thinking, feeling beings."

Doug at 8:44 p.m. "Lynn, the unborn here are just as human as you and me, whether they think and feel or not."

What's the difference? They're human at every stage in life. And humans have rights.

As far as the will argument, a woman's will or any person's will is not the right that triumphs over all. What you will matters. I'm sure you have no problem with me forcing my "will" on a rapist or thief. So, it is not categorically true that "MY" or "MK's" imposition of our will is wrong. It depends on the moral objective of what the womans wants to do.

No Doug,

few people think it's there.

YOU don't think it's there. Every pro-lifer on this site thinks it's there. Every pro lifer in the world thinks it's there..."It" being life. We don't give a rat's *** about sentience. YOU do. We don't attribute a persons worth by how much awareness they have. YOU do. We don't think a person has to be conscious to be a person. YOU do. We don't care about their cortex, or their brain stem or their reflexes or their ability to sing dance or do multipication tables. YOU DO! They exist. That's all we need. They are.

Dear God man, after all this time don't you get it?

We already know that it's life. That it's A LIFE.

I've said before that we always have to meet you on your terms...but it's time you understood ours.

We're not trying to prove an external truth. We're not trying to PROVE anything. You required proof and we tried to give YOU what you wanted.

We don't live in your world. We don't want to.
We're not interested in the definition of straw man arguments. We don't care if we call you cold and heartless and according to the text books that's not logical debate. YOU DO!

We only care that babies are dying, and if aruging with your pitiful butt is what we have to do, then we do it.

BUT WE DO NOT ENJOY IT! As a matter of fact, it make us physically ill...

WELCOME TO OUR WORLD!

MK: I already said that if they use the "except" line they aren't really pro-life...at least not to pro-lifers. They are moderate choicers.

You did, MK, and yet it's your opinion versus theirs if they're pro-lifers or not.

If you rule them out, you could likewise rule out everybody except "those who think abortion is murder," and that wouldn't prove anything at all.

I'm also surprised at how few exceptions you would make. There are some really bad fetal deficiencies that can occur. Would you really want a woman to continue such pregnancies against her will? Warning - some of the pictures are "gross."

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED026.html

Doug,

and i say that out of love :)

Doug,

I've seen those pictures before...and honestly? Yes, I would. I myself would carry those children to term, just so I could have a chance to whisper "I love you" before they moved on...

You on the other hand, see them as hideous, gross and would just throw them away. But as I've said, you live in a very small world.

The fate of those children is the same as the blind or the PVS human - don't bury the talent. Thy Will Be Done. And hope that Doug is not anywhere near you when you're in a vulnerable state.

Lynn and MK, I do apologize. I really thought about not saying anything at all, but if I agreed with everyone on this, then I would only be lying. Maybe the 2 of you could help me to see, but for now my living will says that I do not wish to be kept alive by any artificial means. To me this is different, because I am deciding for myself.

Well,

Doug it is also my opinion that atheists are wrong. If I told you that I believed that Jesus Christ was God and my personal savior but that I still considered myself an atheist, don't you think I'd be deluding myself. And don't you think that atheists everywhere would say that by definition, belief in God makes me NOT an atheist.

The people who create the club get to make the rules . And the pro-life rules are, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Heather,

You're not required to be kept alive by artificial means. Terri was not kept alive by artificial means. She had a feeding tube. That's it. No different than a baby needing a bottle. Would you say a bottle was artificial means?

Lynn,

NO kidding. Someone needs to keep him away from sharp objects.

Lynn: I think Doug thinks of himself as a great arguer but you're really terrible. You word parse and say the opposite thing when challenged. There's no point in talking to you really - it's like trying to hold an eel.

Sorry you feel the truth is so "slippery."

....

For example:

Doug at 8:25 p.m. "the unborn,...are not thinking, feeling beings."

Doug at 8:44 p.m. "Lynn, the unborn here are just as human as you and me, whether they think and feel or not."

What's the difference? They're human at every stage in life. And humans have rights.

What "difference" do you see? Even aside from the thinking/feeling argument, "human" is not in doubt, and I've never said anything to the contrary. I was responding to your assertion that I was trying to make the unborn seen less human, which is untrue.

If we say the unborn are humans, then no, not all humans have rights. Society attributes rights at birth. If all humans did have rights, then you and pro-lifers wouldn't be dissatisfied with the status quo in the first place.

So yes, "human," but in no way does that alone mean rights are granted. "Human" and "alive" are not the issue here. Rights, personhood, valuation, desire - that's where the argument lies.

......

As far as the will argument, a woman's will or any person's will is not the right that triumphs over all.

You would have to prove there is such a thing as "the right that triumphs over all," first.

......

What you will matters. I'm sure you have no problem with me forcing my "will" on a rapist or thief. So, it is not categorically true that "MY" or "MK's" imposition of our will is wrong. It depends on the moral objective of what the womans wants to do.

I agree there, and I've never said you are "wrong" in any objective, external, or absolute way. Yet as to what is more important - that the unborn in unwanted pregnancies live, or that women retain the freedom they now have in the matter - there really is an argument there.

Doug

Heather,

My love, never apologize. I realize that a lot of this is new to you, whereas we are old hands. Let's talk about it in the morning...promise? I'll help you see what we mean. It's not as bad as it sounds...Okay?

Heather, there's nothing to apologize for and you should speak freely. Your position is completely understandable. It's very human to feel that you would rather not live with a handicap or deformity whether physical or mental (in the case of PVS).

There is a lot of peace to be had, though, to subjugate your choice to God. He never makes wrong choices.

MK: The people who create the club get to make the rules . And the pro-life rules are, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Nope, MK, it's not as simple as that. There are plenty of pro-lifers who disagree with you. The true "no exceptions" crowd are quite a minority.

Don't let him suck you in Lynn...

Rights, personhood, valuation, desire - that's where the argument lies.

He'll get you on a roller coaster ride.

When arguing with Doug you must remember certain things. He is a literalist.

He doesn't understand that to the pro-lifers there is no difference between human and a human. But to him there is. Nouns and adjectives, I believe.

So when he says human, it's a ploy. Don't fall for it. He believes they are human. But not human beings. He believes they are alive, but not persons. They can't be persons without sentience. They can't be persons because the law never said they were persons. Personhood is a societal construct. We can't have a definition of personhood because that would be an external truth.

While there are physical external truths, there are no moral ones. There is only what Doug wants and what you want (valuation). What you want doesn't count because the law says so...

But whatever you do, don't say human unless you mean human as in toenail. If you mean human as in a person, you must use a human. Otherwise, he'll take you for a ride around the block on his scooter and trust me, his scooter is sllooooooowwwww...

Get out while you can...don't look back...you can do it....Ruuuuuuuuunnnnnnnn

......

MK, this is how I feel. What good will it do to hydrate me and keep me alive if I won't ever have any quality of life? I am not saying that Terri didn't, but I don't want to be in a nursing home. I don't want to be a burden to my family, and I fear the loss of my independence. I have cared for many people with G tubes. One Hispanic lady used to cry every day "I want to die." "I want to meet my maker." and she kept on pulling out her tube.

MK: The people who create the club get to make the rules . And the pro-life rules are, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Nope, MK, it's not as simple as that. There are plenty of pro-lifers who disagree with you. The true "no exceptions" crowd are quite a minority.

Okay Doug. You know best.

Perhaps working in LTC has jaded me. I've just seen so much.

If they don't think it's murder then they are not pro-life. They are pro choice in certain circumstances. If you are pro life you don't rationalize when it is okay to murder. If it's murder, it's murder all the way across the board... What aren't you getting?

MK, you're not getting that that's a circular argument. You're saying that pro-lifers think abortion is murder because if they don't think it's murder then they are not pro-life.

Yikes....

Even among pro-lifers who wouldn't make exceptions, I do think there are some who recognize that it's the law, not their like or dislike of abortion, that determines what is "murder." I will keep an eye out.

Doug

MK: I've seen those pictures before...and honestly? Yes, I would. I myself would carry those children to term, just so I could have a chance to whisper "I love you" before they moved on...

You on the other hand, see them as hideous, gross and would just throw them away. But as I've said, you live in a very small world.

Oh brother... If you wanted to continue the pregnancy, or if any pregnant woman did, that's fine with me - that's being pro-choice. And I didn't say what I would do.

If you would really force another woman, who didn't want to continue such a pregnancy, then I am surprised.

Doug

Heather,

So much of this has to do with suffering and accepting it. Joyfully. Because He did it for you. Every time that you suffer, whether small like scrubbing the toilet, or huge like PVS is an opportunity to offset some of the evil that's out there. We know suffering does this, because that is the example that Our Lord set.

The only suffering that is bad, is the suffering that is wasted. People that offer up terrible sufferings? We Catholics call them victim souls.
Their main way of serving God is to suffer.

You are also giving other Christians a way to practice the virtue of charity. Without souls that need them, they might have no way of offering up their own suffering...by taking care of a sick person, they are also helping to offset evil in the world.

It's complicated, yet simple really. Tomorrow I'll post some stuff about saints and victim souls and it will help you understand better. Okay?

Doug -

Why would you rather a child go through such a short life and never know physical love? That is the cruelest thing I have ever heard. Since the baby is not "perfect" lets just rip it out of the uterus and make sure it is dead so he/she can never feel his/her mother's love. Yea, thats much better.

BTW - Many of times we have posted pictures of abortions only to be told that the pics are fake. Thank you sooooo much for providing us with the proof that it isn't fake.

Here is a picture of a second trimester D&E -

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED028.html

remarkable, it looks just like the ones we have posted.

And then there is this one:

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/PEDHTML/PED248.html

It doesn't say it is from an abortion, but when discussing the "illness" the twins have they use the word "may" alot. As in "may" die. In other words they don't know if the babies will live or not. So it isn't a "going to die anyway" type thing. If you notice the twin on the top part of the picture, you will see a slash in his neck.

The majority of the pictures are not babies that were aborted nor full term. The only conclusion I can come up with is that they died in utero, a natural death, and then stillborn. Since most of these defects would not be noticed until late in the pregnancy the "fetus" would have to come out "naturally" anyway. So either way, aborting or letting the baby have a chance at 2 minutes of love, the mother is going to go through labor and delivery. Why not let the mother have some closure.

okay, we'll pick it up in the morning. I try to look at this from all angles. Some elderly people in nursing homes don't have the family support that Terri did. They are alone and lonely, and many will themselves to die. Unfortunately, I have seen this happen.

Doug,

I'm going to bed now....You have yet to comment on the posts about the brain in the unborn. That should keep you busy...

As for being surprised...I'd be a hypocrite if I said it was okay to murder if the child was deformed. Why would I be okay with "forcing" women to carry healthy "perfect" children but think it was okay to kill children that weren't especially pretty?

And if you don't think those children are hideous and gross, then why did you show them to me? Why not show me perfectly formed babies? Because in your mind, those children don't deserve the same "status" as "perfect" children.

I can't believe that you would think I would be okay with killing a child just because it had some issues...Now I'm surprised.

I defend life. All human life. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Lynn and MK, thanks for not being judgemental here! We'll pick it up tomorrow.

Have I told you today that I love you Val?

:)

He doesn't understand that to the pro-lifers there is no difference between human and a human. But to him there is. Nouns and adjectives, I believe.

Oh come on, MK - do you think that pro-lifers don't know the difference between the adjective and the noun? Something can be "human" and just be your old buddy the toenail clipping, or a hair, etc., but "a human being" or "a human" means much more, necessarily, wouldn't you say?

......

So when he says human, it's a ploy. Don't fall for it. He believes they are human.

That's silly. "Human" means what it means. How about straight out of the dictionary? "Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans" Now what is so hard about that?

......

But not human beings. He believes they are alive, but not persons.

Nope, you did not state that right. That's not what I said.

.....

They can't be persons without sentience.

My opinion, which you asked for.

......

They can't be persons because the law never said they were persons. Personhood is a societal construct.

Yes it's a construct and yes, that is currently the law and society's position. No big mystery about it.

......

We can't have a definition of personhood because that would be an external truth.

That's silly. We do have one - you may not like it but it's there.

......

While there are physical external truths, there are no moral ones.

Nicely said.

......

There is only what Doug wants and what you want (valuation). What you want doesn't count because the law says so..

Now that is just false, once again. There is all manner of valuation, beyond me and you and beyond me and whoever. What a given person wants may or may not agree with the law, but so what - that's just a given.

......

But whatever you do, don't say human unless you mean human as in toenail. If you mean human as in a person, you must use a human.

You seem determined to confuse nouns and adjectives, but there is no good reason for doing so. "Human" the adjective is massively broad and more inclusive. "A human being" or "a human" are much more specific and less inclusive. There is much more implied with them - an organism, etc.

Doug

Goodnight all!

So when I say, "Doug, sometimes I doubt that you are human"? I mean I doubt that you are a toenail???

Hmmmm...I'll have to think about that one...

I'm going to bed now....You have yet to comment on the posts about the brain in the unborn. That should keep you busy...

Okay, MK, have a good sleep. On the other thread I said that there is interesting stuff about the brain, including some kids born pretty much without a cortex. I had not heard of that before, and while there are several explanations I do need to read more on it.

......

I can't believe that you would think I would be okay with killing a child just because it had some issues...Now I'm surprised.

Well, "had some issues" is an understatement, but all right.

Last poll I saw had 55% of people for leaving it up to the woman and her doctor.

30% make exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the woman.

13% would have it always be illegal.

2% were unsure.

Very normal and usual figures for Americans from what I've seen.

So when I say, "Doug, sometimes I doubt that you are human"? I mean I doubt that you are a toenail???

:: laughing ::

There you go again, expecting me to be a mind-reader. (Wonder how many guys that's happened to.)

I would say that you expect people to hold certain sentiments that you do.

I don't think you think I'm a toenail.

Doug (keepin' it straight...) Nighty-night.

Very normal and usual figures for Americans from what I've seen.

For Americans yes...BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROLIFERS !!!!!!!!!

I really thought about not saying anything at all, but if I agreed with everyone on this, then I would only be lying. Maybe the 2 of you could help me to see, but for now my living will says that I do not wish to be kept alive by any artificial means. To me this is different, because I am deciding for myself.

Heather, I think you did very well - quite an honest post.

Doug

13% would have it always be illegal.

That 13% would be what we call, in the vernacular, PRO LIFERS!!!!

But before I go...and I AM GOING...

Watch this...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

I don't know, I guess I am not a pro-lifer.

I think using birth control for pre-marital sex is responsible.
I also think if a pregnant rape victim has a serious, sufficient reason to discontinue pregnancy, I couldn't be the one telling her to.
I am also inclined to believe that if being in a state of pregnancy is a serious health risk to the mother, I coudln't be the one to make her do it.

See you guys around, I guess...

Milehiama,

"I bet it was her wishes that he remain faithful to her in sickness and in health, but that didn't stop him from having a girlfriend even as he was so "compassionately" forcing the hospital to starve his wife to death via court order."

For starters, she only had the most rudimentary of brain functions. She was never going to function again. Don't judge a man until you know what it's like to have gone through what he went through.

And, in my mind, his fight to end her life was the most loving and compassionate thing that he could have done for her. How much easier would it have been to walk away? Heck, I'm pretty sure that at one point people were offering him money to divorce her and leave her care up to her parents. If he was so greedy and selfish, why didn't he take the money and run? Because he loved Terri and wanted to honor her wishes.

Jacqueline,

You are the one that is attempting to redefine life and death.

"You have no moral compass- so how can I begin to appeal to your non-functioning consciences?"

People can have morals and consciences without believing what you believe.

"Death is the cessation of the heart."

Medically this is untrue.

"By the way, Terri never indicated she wished to starve and dehydrate to death."

If she told her husband that she did not want to be kept alive artificially, she did.

"In fact, just months after he got the money, he placed a Do Not Resusitate order on Terri's chart."

And why should one attempt to prolong a life that has already ended?

"It's also good to note that Michael was an abusive husband."

You know, despite how many claims were made about this, no one was able to prove it.

"Besides the money and the mistress, Michael had a significant vested interest in seeing Terri dead and immediately cremated."

Really? Why? Even if he had abused her, it's not like they could convict him for it. No witnesses, no real evidence. Even if he had abused her, he could have walked away.

"Watch videos of her laughing with her mother, laughing at her father's jokes."

Reflex action. It meant nothing.

"In conclusion, you pro-aborts will attack anyone defenseless if it suits you- the unborn, the elderly, the ill, the disabled."

I disagree. I believe that the most cowardly thing any individual can do is to abuse someone who cannot fight back.

"Stop being such cowards!"

Tend to your own before you come after me.

murderers who get the death penalty are put to sleep nice and easy, not so for Terry, they starved her to death.

ahh, the liberals...

If he was so greedy and selfish, why didn't he take the money and run? Because he loved Terri and wanted to honor her wishes.

Or because he caused her original injury and didn't want to take the chance that she'd ever be able to attest to that fact?

Good morning all. The only thing that bothers me here is that Terri had expressed that she didn't want to live this way. Why was she made to? I do not want someone to override my living will, because they feel that they know what's best for me. My living will states "no heroics". I am of sound mind, and I do not want this for myself. I feel that someone is going to prolong my suffering, and I sincerely don't want this to be the case.

There are plenty of people who have families that want them to be full codes @ the age of 98. We have to start manual CPR on them. Not pretty, and they generally don't pull through. I guess that some people want their loved ones to live forever. There is a time to let go.

Enigma, I'm going to paste some of the info that a commenter (James) had posted regarding the Terri Schiavo case in the other thread about her. He is an expert on Terri's case, and I think that the information he posted is very important for everyone to read.

******************
We have seen the Clear and Convincing Evidence that used to condemn Terri to death. Of course there some very trouble facts surrounding these alleged wishes:

Michael waited 8 after the fact before stating that Terri Schiavo would not want a feeding tube.

While Michael did say in 1993 depo that Terri wouldn't want to live in such a condition, at around the same time Michael was asked about the prospect of removing the feedinh tube. Michael's response was "I couldn't do that to Terri."

Michael's claims were in direct contradiction to Michael's sworn testimony and commitments said at the 1992 Mal Trial.

Although, Michael claims he still had hope at the time Terri might recover, Michael was suing for 20 Million dollars.

The the value of suit based on the doctor's failure to diagnosis Terri correctly was derived from expert witnesses on Michael's behalf that estimated that Terri would live to around the age of 50. To that end, her condition would require purchasing a special house and van for her needs. Terri would also need expensive rehab and nursing care too. All of this was caculated to be around 20 Million dollars.

When Michael submitted his 1998 petition to remove the feeding tube, Michael had made his intentions clear that intended to marry Jodi.

It was also determined that around $750,000 existed in Terri's trust and Michael was sole heir of it when she died.

GAL Pearse investigated, and discovered Michael's financial conflict. GAL Pearse, not Michael Schiavo suggested he set up a charity offer to separate himself from the conflict.

Michael set up the charity offer but it had special stipulations.

It required the Schindlers to drop their suit and side with Michael.

This was something that Schindler simply would not do and went against their core believe on the removal of the feeding tube.

Michael would not donate the money to charity unless the Schindlers sided with them.

If the court made the decision, which it did, Michael was under no legal obilgation to donate the money.

At the time the decision was made in 2000 (This is a fundemental key point), Michael was set to inherit $750,000 with no legal obligation to donate the money.

Neither the Schindlers or Michael knew the case would last another 5 years. Michael even wrote that he was suprised to learn that the Schindlers could appeal the decision.

As why Michael refused money bribes in 2005.....

To many people became involved in the case and it was about pushing the agenda.

Felos even told Michael when he considered giving up, that case wasn't about Terri anymore...it was about the agenda.

The Doctors and Terri Schiavo
At time of Terri's death, the Schindlers had nearly 40 doctors on the record who stated that Terri wasn't PVS or new testing was needed to confirm her diagnosis.

Many of these doctors relied soley on the video tape clips and their own personal experiences and expertise in brain injury and PVS.

However, several doctors did manage to examine Terri or at least observe her and many did see her medical records (at least some of them). Take Dr. Sara Mele for instance who was able see Terri medical records from Medaplex.

Michael and his confederates undercut the Schindler's 40 docs by stating that many of them never examined Terri and only relied on the video tape clips.

However, Michael neglects one critical fact that was never pointed out; Michael would not let any doctors to examine Terri (Schinder docs).

In fact, Michael got a court order which prevented any Schindler doc from examining Terri or conducting any tests on her.

This was part of Michael and Felos's plan to prevent the Schindlers from upsetting the PVS diagnosis (which was critical in insuring Terri's death) and getting her treatment.

Michael could always use the defense and he did, that they didn't examine Terri when in fact Michael prevented them from examining Terri.

Dr. Hammersfar and several docs wanted to examine Terri in 2001, but Michael prevented it and Dr. Hammersfar was only able to examine her when the Appeals Court ordered it (during that time Michael petitioned 2 times to have Terri killed).

But when we examine the examination factor, we see that it is quite weak. Observe:
Dr. Barnhill - Examined Terri for 10 minutes one time and I believe for 1 hour another time.
Dr. Karp - Examined Terri for 1 hour.
Dr. Cranford - Examined Terri for 45 minutes.
Dr. Greer - Examined Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Bambakidis - Examined Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Gambone - Examined her for 1 hour once and 10 minutes every 4 mouths after that.
Total Time of examinations over 4 or 5 year period - A little more than 5 hours.

The earlier docs did examine her (Dr. Barras, Dr. De Sousa) much more extensively in the early years, but back then the MCS wasn't widely known and was never revisited by those docs.

I will agree the early docs probably had great deal insight into Terri's condition. After Dr. Barnhill, examinations of Terri were quite weak and the MCS diagnosis became much more well known. However, Terri was never given to most advanced tests to confirm this diagnosis and the autopsy (Dr. Nelson reported it) did say that Terri could have been MCS.

Several Doctors did observe her and deemed her not PVS or questionalable PVS:

Dr. Cheshire - Obeserved Terri for 90 minutes. Saw her medical records and uneditted video tapes.

Dr. Avery - Obeserved Terri for 30 minutes.

Dr. Carpenter - Observed Terri for 30 minutes

Dr. Young - Observed Terri for 30 minutes.

2 Doctors did run examinations on her:

Dr. Hammersfahr - Examined Terri for over 3 hours.

Dr. Maxfield - Examined Terri for nearly 3 hours. Some argue the Dr. Maxfield was a radiologist conducting a neurological examination. However, Dr. Gambone wasn't a neurologist either and conducted a neurological examination in much less time. Both had full disclosure to Terri's medical history.

Between Hammersfahr and Maxfield Terri was examined longer than all of Michael's other doctors combined.

Also the following caregivers were able to make observations too:

Carla Iyer

Heidi Law

Carolyn Johnson

Trudy Capone

You also have the following people who questioned PVS:

Fr. Molnowski

Bob Schindler, Mary Schindler, Suzanne Schindler, and Bobby Schindler

Pat Anderson, Tom Boderson (speech therapist) and David Gibbs

Michael resisted any testing needed to further confirm her diagnosis even though the Schindlers pleaded adamantly that Terri needed further testing based on dozens of affidavits from doctors accross the country.

Later, Michael claimed he wanted an autopsy to prove to the world the extent of Terri's brain damage.

Michael resisted any and all efforts to have Terri further diagnosised but after she was dead had no problem have different tests performed on her to prove her diagnosis.

Some Argue that Terri's CT Scan showed clear evidence of Terri's PVS Diagnosis. While a CT scan does show structural damage, a CT scan can only provide little into functional ability of a damaged brain. A bad CT scan does not automatically mean a person is PVS.

Some argue that Terri had 3 EEGs and they were all flat. Terri's EEGs were not flat but were abnormal. Several of EEGs may have not been completely accurate because of artifact.

Some argue that the autopsy proved Terri's brain was mush. While autopsy did report severe brain damage,it did report the cognitive areas of Terri's brain were intact. Dr. Thogmartin also could not determine what effect 13 days of dehydration had on the shrinkage of Terri's brain or her brain damage.

It should also be noted that Karen Ann Queilan was also PVS. However, her brain damage was focused on her thalmus and not the cerebral cortext. With Terri it was reversed. Terri's cerebral cortex was damaged, but Terri's thalmus was fairly intact (there was still damage). Scientists are beginning to understand that the Thalmus might play more active role in human consciousnes.

In a final note, Terri was never examined again after the 2002 trial even though radical new testing had become available that could have answered many troubling questions experts voiced about her condition.

Terri's wishes - Everyone is saying that there was Clear and Convincing Evidence that Terri Schiavo would have wanted the feeding tube to be removing. However, reviewing these facts put heavy clout on Terri's so-called wishes.

1. Terri Collapses in 1990.

2. In 1992, the Mal Trial is held.

3. Michael testfies the following - "I believe in the vows that I took with my wife,

___
28

1 through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I

2 married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the

3 rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

4. It during this time Michael states to 3 different people (Trudy Capone, Cindy Shook, Fran Casler) that he does not know what Terri's wishes are or even what he should do with her (what are his future plans).

5. Michael is awarded $300,000 LOC and Terri is awarded $750,000.

6. Michael and the Schindlers have a fight.

7. Michael goes to Terri's doctor. He says she isn't going to recover.

8. Micheal gets a new girlfriend and is the inheritor of Terri's $750,000.

9. Michael now believes that Terri Schiavo doesn't want to live in her condition and orders a UTI refusal pursuant to her death (Under the doctor's advice).

10. When Michael is asked about removing Terri's feeding tube, Michael responds - "I can't do that to Terri."

11. Between 1993 and 1995 the first guardianship suit occurs.

12. Days after the suit ends in 1995, Michael does the second UTI refusal. He is unsucessful.

13. At the end of 1995, Michael contacts George Felos through his attorney Deb Bushnell.

14. For the next 1.5 years, legal actions are taken. Michael signs a contact with Felos.

15. July 1997 - Michael mom dies.

16. August 1997 - Felos sends a letter to Bob Schindler about Terri's feeding tube removal.

17. May 1998 - The first petition is submitted.

18. GAL Pearse investigates - He askes Michael; "We there others"(Terri's wishes). Michael says no.

19. December 1998 - GAL Pearse submits his report. Michael is conflicted and his claims are not credible.

20. June 1999 - GAL Pearse is discharged on advice from Felos. No other GAL is appointed.

21. September 1999 - Scott and Joan Schiavo come forward and state they know Terri's wishes after being contacted by Felos.

22. 2000 Trial - Scott and Joan and Michael testify to Terri's wishes. Scott and Joan claim they never told Michael anything over the 9 year period.
Posted by: james [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 31, 2007 7:54 PM

The Following is review of the Clear and Convincing Evidence used to condemn Terri to death:

Michael Schiavo:

Train Trip wish - Terri told Michael when she was 22 years old that if she ever became a burden (disabled), she wouldn't want to live like that. The substance of what Terri's actually said, varies from the different testimonies Michael has given.

TV Wish - A couple of times when watching TV, Terri said to Michael - Who would want to live like that (referring to life support programs.)?

Scott Schiavo:

Terri shared her opinion at a luncheon with Scott that she objected being ever put on ventilator is she at the end of her life (she is dying).

Joan Schiavo:

Was watching a TV program with Joan about a man in coma after diving accident a reportly voiced objection about being allowed to live in such a state. Interestingly, while Joan claimed to discuss elements of the movie, Joan testifed 3 different times that could not remember the movie.

This is all the Clear and Covincing Evidence that there was.

Terri never made any mention of not wanting to be kept alive in PVS state.

Terri never asked for a feeding tube to be removed.

The Clear and Convincing standard is very high.

David Bryer was a patient in Pinellis County, Florida who exactly like Terri Schiavo. He was PVS and I believe his wife went to court to remove the feeding tube.

In 2002, David Bryer died. I do not know if his feeding tube was removed or he died of natural causes.

Apparently though, there was trial on this matter in front of Judge Seth Walker (now retired).

Judge Walker was a pro-life judge and refused to remove his feeding tube.

Diana Lynne in her book Terri's Story presents a piece of his opinion."You feed goldfish.""This court must give deference to human life, no matter its state. The lack of medical ["probability"] of neurological improvement is insufficient to command its termination. We must feed David Bryer."

I don't know if the Clear and Convincing evidence was met in that case but it should be noted that Felos believed the feeding tube should have been removed anyway from Terri Schiavo in light of best interest (In case the Clear and Convincing evidence did not exist.)

It should also be noted that Judge Seth Walker was known for his pro-life religious views. Judge Walker was in the St. Petersburg Division.

In 1997, Felos sought to get case taken out of the St. Petersburg division and placed in the Clearwater Division.

This probably because Felos did not want to take a chance of Judge Walker preciding over the Schiavo case.

Felos was successful and ultimately the case was heard in front of Judge Greer instead of Judge Walker.

Too bad for Terri Schiavo.

She may been spared if Judge Walker heard the case.

http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/uploads/terri012905.mp3

This is an old interview in which Ken Connor talks to John Sipos. 20 Minutes long. Very Good

Talking Points

- Terri has not recieved due process equal to that of convicted mass murderers and yet has recieved a death sentence.- Terri Schiavo never recieved independent counsel

- Terri death sentence is cruel and unsual punishment that would be unconstitutional if given to a death row inmate.- The Florida Supreme court never reviewed to case related to removal of the feeding tube (Judge Baird Order related to it) only the constitutionality over Terri's Law - They were trying to protect their own turf.- Ted Bundy recieved more due process than Terri Schiavo.- Terri never had a GAL at the time the decision was made to remove the feeding tube.- Judge Greer served as advocate and adujucaitor in the Guardianship court - The Schindler's lawyers weren't able to challenge or cross examine Judge Greer.

Connor ends on the note that Terri Schiavo never received independent counsel or a trial by Jury.

http://theempirejournal.com/extras/siposanderson052905.mp3

Pat Anderson Speaks after Terri Schiavo's death. About 30 minutes long.

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=wo_02182005.rm

David Gibbs and Bob Schindler are interviewed in February 2005. About 1 hour long. Very good.

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=wo_06172005.rm

Bobby Schiavo and Lawyer Michael Gayor discuss Terri after she dies and the legalities and problems with it.
Posted by: james at March

Under Felos's examination, Joan testified to the following:

A. Yeah, We watched a movie one time on television. It was about somebody. I don't remember. I don't remember the movie.

Joan testfied that she and Terri watched a movie but Joan says she doesn't remember the movie.

Given that Joan Schiavo suddenly remembered the movie memory after 9 years, this is not suprising.

However, in the testimony paragraph, Joan seems to give contradictory statements regarding her statement that she said she didn't remember the movie

"It was about a guy who had an accident and he was in a coma. There was no help for him"

This statement directly follows her statement that she didn't remember the movie. This sound contradictory.

Later when being questioned by Campbell, Joan's memory suddenly starts to improve despite her repeated claims that she doesn't remember the movie

Q. Can you describe the scene in the movie with the man and the tubes?
A. He was a younger man. I don't remember the movie. If I'm not mistaken, it was diving accident in the pool. He passed away at the end of the movie of the movie. I don't remember the movie. I really don't remember the movie.

Joan repeatly claims she doesn't remember the movie and yet she can recall the it was a diving accident and the man died at the end. Joan also recalls other details about the movie

A. In the movie he was in a hospital setting.

Q. Do you recall where the tubes were coming from?

A. His mouth. He had some in his arm.

Joan just testified she didn't remember the movie. I find very convenient and suspect that Joan could only recall the part where Terri made her alleged comments. This was after 9 years.

During that time I gently spoke to her, built rapport and trust, sang
to her, played music for her, and encouraged her to vocalize. Over the
twenty days or so that I visited with Terri, I observed that, while
Terri is distrustful of strangers, she gradually warmed up to me (and
not so gradually after Bob, Mary and I sang "Those Were the Days" to
her as a trio!). Terri responds to a variety of stimulii, including
responding to both her mother's and my voices, both in person and over
the phone, by fixing her attention and frequently by laughing. When I
sang to her, she often VOCALIZED, in her best effort to sing along with
me. She recognizes and takes great pleasure in certain singers and
songs which ARE her favorites (most especially John Denver
singing "Country Roads"). She learned to love several songs I sang to
her with which she didn't seem to be familiar with, but others she
never learned to appreciate (just not her cup of tea, obviously). She
responded to gentle requests if given time and patience, such as
lifting her right leg (three times out of four requests, the other time
she lifted her left leg instead). While she does not have consistent
control over her eyes to blink or look this way or that, she has
excellent control over her breathing, diaphram and voice, and will
vocalize
in various patterns if asked. While trying to work out a yes/no system
with sounds, Terri initially answered the question "Terri, are you ten
feet tall" by moaning twice, which is the response for "No," then she
spontaneously whispered the word "No" in response to the question
"Terry,
are you purple?". At that point I abandoned the sounding system and
started
trying to teach her to say "Yeah" as best as she could. Bob Schindler
has several recordings of her sort of saying the word "Yeah" shortly
after that.

Unfortunately, I was then taken off Terri's visitors list, but on
successive occasions (as recently as last October, approximately two
years since I last saw her in person), when her father placed
a phone to Terri's ear so I could talk to her, she laughed as soon
as she heard my voice, andtried to sing along with me when I sang
to her over the phone.

Terri is not just "in there," she is very responsive, she loves music,
and she is my friend.
Posted by: james at March 31, 2007 7:52 AM

Five Different Stories

Michael has given 5 different stories regarding Terri's collapse. Lets look at each story.

Story #1 1992 Depo

Michael says he came home around 12:30am or 1:00am. He says that Terri was not up and woke up when he climbed into bed. Terri says good night to him. Next Michael claims he was getting out of bed FOR SOME REASON around 5:00am and hears Terri collapse. He runs to her sees her lying ON HER BACK. Michael says he was holding Terri trying to wake her up but couldn't. Michael goes and calls 911. He goes back continues to hold Terri. Next Michael calls Bobby Schindler andhe arrives few minutes later. The paramedics arrive shortly after that.

Story #2 1992 Mal Trial

Michael says he came home around 11:30pm or 12:00am. Now Michael claims he doesn't recall whether Terri was up or not and whether he talked to Terri or not.

Story # 3 2000 Trial

Michael claims he came home late. Now Michael claims that Terri woke up and heard him. Terri says good night to him. Next Michael claims he was getting out of bed FOR SOME REASON and he hears Terri fall. He goes over to her and he says she is ON HER STOMACH. He rolls her over. He can't wake her up. Michael goes and calls Bobby Schindler and then goes back to Terri. He holds Terri. He rocks her. A few minutes later Bobby Schindler shows up.

Story #4 Larry King Interview 2003

Michael claims he came home around 2:00am. Michael climbs into bed. Terri wakes up and says good night to him and gives him a kiss. Next Michael claims around 4:30am, he woke FOR SOME REASON and he hears Terri fall. He goes over to Terri and rolls her over. He holds her in his arms and tries to shake her up. He calls 911. He calls Bobby Schindler. A few minutes later the paramedics arrive.

Story #5 Michael's Book

Michael claims he arrives home around 12:30am or 1:00am. Michael climbs into bed. Terri wakes up. Terri says Hello and says "I love you." She kisses him and says good night. Around 5:30am, Michael wakes up TO USE THE BATHROOM. He hears Terri collapse. He goes over to her. He rolls her over. He goes and calls 911. He goes back to Terri. Now Michael claims HE CALLED TERRI'S PARENTS. He goes back to Terri. Next Michael calls Bobby Schindler. He goes back to Terri. A few minutes later, Bobby Schindler shows up.
Posted by: James at March 31, 2007 7:49 AM

Michael seems to have altered the testimony of both Scott and Joan Schiavo in his book. I assume this was done to give his book just right impression he wanted and possibly to get additional sympathy.

Scott Schiavo:

pg. 144 Michael writes:"Scott recounted what he told Judge Greer had happened back in February 1988....""Basically, she was gone, and we had to sit there for - it was Friday, and it was almost two days that we sat there and watched this machine blow air into her and suck it out, until she passed away."

However, Scott Schiavo actually testfied to the following:

Q. How long was your grandmother on the ventilator?

A. From the early morning hours till mid afternoon of the same day.

That's certainly not 2 days. Maybe, several hours. Flaw #1."We went to lunch afterward at a restaurant called the Buck Hotel."

But Scott testfied to the following:

A. Yes, there was. At the luncheon that we had, you know, my family, friends, and stuff.

Q. Kind of describe that for us.

A. We went to a, its called a country club but we went there for a luncheon afterwards.

Buck Hotel is not a country club. Flaw #2

"And Terri was sitting right to the left of me, and she turned around and looked me right in the eyes, and she said,'Not me, I would never want to be left that way. Don't ever let them do that to me.'"

However Scott testfied to the following:"And Terri made mention at that conversation,"If I ever go like that, just let me go. don't leave me there. I don't want to kept alive on a machine."

Joan Schiavo:

Pg. 159

"Joan and my brother Bill lost their first child, a little girl, who was born with the umbilical cord around her neck. In that same conversation with Terri about the patient in the movie, Joan began talking about their experience with the death of the baby, and it's a story she also told Judge Greer."We were just sitting and talking about the baby. If she had stayed alive - because of the cord being wrapped around her neck - she probably would have been brain dead, and my husband and I would have to make that decision, if we were faced with it, if we wanted to keep her alive like that or not. And as we were talking, I said that as hard as it would be, it would be a decision where we'd probably pull the plug, because I couldn't stand to see her like that.'Cause it wasn't a life for her, she only a little baby. And Terri agreed with me."

This is a complete fabrication filled half truths.

Observe what really happen. Joan testified to the following:

A. A friend of mine and her husband had a baby. It was their first baby, and the baby was born sickly. They had to put the baby on a ventilator or machines to keep the baby alive. And they had to make that decision if they wanted to take the baby off the tubes and all.

Later joan testfies the following:

Q. The movie on television was that, that occurred before or after the -- did you testify that occurred before the conversations you had about the baby? Let me ask it again. The conversation you had with Terri about a TV show and the diver not wanting be on life support, was that before or after the situation came up with your girlfriend?

A. After.

This definitely reflected in George Greer Ruling:"Into the former category the court places statements regarding Karen Ann Quinlin and the infant child of the friend of Joan Schiavo."
Posted by: James at March 31, 2007 7:45 AM

Below are numerous accounts that showed that Terri was aware of her environment in a very primitive way.

In 1991 PT session Therapists reported that Terri was saying word "stop"

In the Mal Trial video, behaviors where shown to the court that showed Terri was apparently discomforted to some of things that happening to her.

Carla Iyer reported that Terri would say help me, mom, pain numerous times.

Heidi Law reported that Terri would follow her around the room with her eyes.

Fr. Molanowski and Frank Pavone reported Terri was very receptive to prayer.

Numerous caregivers reported that Terri would often laugh at jokes.

David Gibbs saw Terri try to say "I love you." to Mary Schindler.

Bobby Schindlers reported that Terri smiled and laughed when he mentioned he attended a Bruce Springsteen concert.

Tom Broderson discovered that Terri has distinct likes and dislikes to certain types of music.

Some caregivers reported that Terri would fuss if the radio station was changed to music she did not care for.

Terri reacted different to Mary than she did to Bob Schindler and would often put on a "Lemon Face." for Bob.

Suzanne and Barbara Weller reported that Terri tried to say "I want to live."

Terri tried to get out of her chair when she was told on the phone that she was going to be starved to death.

Terri followed Dr. Hammersfahr's commands to open her eyes.

Terri laughed when she was told about her "Lazy Eye"
Posted by: James at March 31, 2007 7:38 AM

More....

Reasons why Congress intervened

While I won't deny that some involved themselves purely for political purposes, below are some of the reason why Congress felt that they should have involved themselves in the Schiavo case.

When it was discovered that an innocent, disabled young woman was going to be starved and dehydrated to death by the order of a court, Congress decided to step in. Upon entering the arena many discovered some disturbing facts that prompted Congress to create federal involvement from the court level.

1. Some realized that Terri wasn't dying. She wasn't being kept alive artificially. She was receiving the provision of food and water because she had trouble swallowing (remember she could swallow but docs feared aspiration so no attempts were made). This wasn't a right to die case. Terri was disabled. Many looked at this from a disability POV.

2. Some looked at the video tapes claiming she was PVS, Comatosed, or brain dead. After seeing evidence of an aware person and consulting neurologists who examined her and consulting the Schindlers and dozens of doctor affidavits, Congress clearly become concerned. There was more the shadow of doubt to doubt Terri's PVS diagnosis.

3. When Congress saw that a human was going to be starved and dehydrated to death and realized that death row inmates were protected from this by the 8th amendment, Congress really became concerned. They further became concerned when they realized that this act couldn't be done to an animal without persecution.

5. Many became concerned based on Terri's wishes on the fact that there was nothing in writing. They became concerned when a adultorous husband was making the decision and the parents only wanted to care for her. Further troubling were caregivers affidavits claiming that Michael was not as sincere as we were lead to believe. Further troubling was fact that when Michael had submitted his 1998 petition to remove Terri's feeding tube, he poised to inherit $750,000 and was poised to marry his financee Jodi.

6. Many became concerned when they discovered that Terri had no lawyer and that Judge Greer acted as the Judge, Jury, and Executionor in the case. They realized that even death row inmates were entitled to legal representation. Terri never had any legal representation. The Schindlers were represented, Michael was represented but Terri was never represented.

7. Congress became concerned that Terri was being sentenced to death when a great deal of doubt was there concerning her condition. Some were disturbed by the cursory examintions by docs claiming she was PVS (1 hour or less). Others realized that Terri wasn't recieving the best medical tests available (no fMRI or PET scans). Further they saw that Terri hadn't been examined in 3 years. They also took note that Terri never had a swallowing test in over 10 years even though GAL Pearse and many other strongly urged Terri to undergo swallowing tests.

8. Some realized the care of Terri was horrible liking being lock up in a hospice room for 3 years.

9. Congress also realized that Terri never recieved a federal review or a trial by jury, 2 things entitled to death row inmates.

Just some reasons why Congress probably got involved.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 10:07 PM

GOOD GOD!!! I DID NOT SAY ONE FRIGGIN DEROGATORY THING ABOUT TERRI SCHAIVO OR HER BROTHER PEOPLE, GET OFF MY A**!!!!
Posted by: Q at March 30, 2007 10:22 PM

The worst of these cases of which I am aware is the tragic dehydration of Marjorie Nighbert. Marjorie was a successful businesswoman until a stroke left her disabled. She was unable to swallow safely, but not terminally ill. She was moved from Alabama to a nursing home in Florida where she would receive rehabilitation to help her relearn how to chew and swallow without danger of aspiration. A feeding tube was inserted to ensure that she was properly nourished during her recovery.

Marjorie had once told her brother Maynard that she didn’t want a feeding tube if she were terminally ill. Despite the fact that she was not dying, Maynard believed that she had meant that she would rather die by dehydration than live the rest of her life using a feeding tube. Accordingly, he ordered all of Marjorie’s nourishment stopped.

As she was slowly dehydrating to death, Marjorie began to beg the staff for food and water. Distraught nurses and staff members, not knowing what else to do, surreptitiously snuck her small amounts. One staffer—who was later fired for the deed—blew the whistle, leading to a hurried court investigation and a temporary restraining order requiring that Marjorie receive nourishment.

Circuit Court Judge Jere Tolton appointed attorney William F. Stone to represent Marjorie and gave him twenty-four hours to determine whether she was competent to rescind the general power of attorney she had given to Maynard before her stroke. After the rushed investigation, Stone was forced to report that Marjorie was not competent at that time.(She had, after all, been intentionally malnourished for several weeks.) Stone particularly noted that he had been unable to determine whether she had been competent at the time the dehydration commenced.

With Stone’s report in hand, Judge Tolton ruled that the dehydration should be completed! Before an appalled Stone could appeal, Marjorie died on April 6, 1995.

Wesley Smith's Research
Posted by: James at March 30

*************************

I have always wondered what happen to the 20 minute Terri Schiavo video that was shown at Mal Practice trial in 1992.
It is interesting that that video was never mentioned again and was never used in the 2000 or 2002 trial as video evidence. The video is never mentioned again in any future affidavit or motion that I could find.

The video was very important for several reasons. Based on the testimony by Michael Schiavo, it showed that Terri was alert, aware, could feel pain, and could swallow.
In it the video shows Terri swallowing at times. It shows Terri reacting to pain. And it shows Terri has feelings and is alert and aware. This all based on Michael's testimony. Observe:

1992 Testimony

A. Right here, basically, you can see she's dressed,

11 she's already had her shower and everything. We would get

12 her dressed, put her shoes and socks on. I'm trying out her

13 hands there. You have to keep the inside of the hands,

14 since she's contracted, you have to keep them dry because

15 infection can set in, and I usually do a little bit of range

16 of motion with her.

17 Q. And while you're doing that, do you talk to her?

18 A. Yes, I am talking to her right now telling her

19 it's okay.

20 Q. She doesn't like that very much?

21 A. No, she doesn't. She does feel pain.

Q. (BY MR. WOODWORTH:) Does she like that kind of

5 treatment very much?

6 A. No, she does not. Here I'm trying to bend her

7 leg.

Q. I notice, Michael, you're holding her head back.

25 why are you doing that?

___
19

1 A. Because she'll fall forward, and if she falls fast

2 she gets excited. It's -- I was told by a doctor she was

3 getting the feeling she's falling.

Q. You hoping he can get her to the point where she

15 swallows?

16 A. Yes. You see here rubbing the bottom of her

17 throat, that's, I don't know what the word is, gets them to

18 swallow when you rub the bottom of their throat. She just

19 swallowed that time.

Q. Does she express discomfort when some of these

9 things are happening to her?

10 A. Yes. Yes, she does.

11 Q. How does she do that?

12 A. She'll moan and groan.

I like to get her outside for fresh air.

This is a video that was never released but shown at the Mal Trial. It showed 4 things about Terri to seems to refute PVS based on Michael's testimony.

1. It shows Terri reacting to pain.

2. It shows Terri has feelings.

3. It shows Terri alert and aware.

4. It shows Terri can swallow to some degree.

Addition, if Terri condition progressed over the years, one can assume that was because of Michael's neglect to get Terri further therapy and rehabilitation.

Michael sarcasticly writes in his book that Schindlers went looking for doctor after doctor until they could find someone that would give Terri a chance.

Finally, Michael remarks that he would bring Terri outside for fresh air. By the time Terri arrvied at hospice, Terri was pretty much jailed in her room for the last 4 to 5 years of her life.

Michael threatened to arrest anyone who attempted to bring her outside or have her attend any social function.

Of course Michael claims he was protecting Terri's right to privacy but I don't buy it. Michael hired a private security guard to protect Terri. Michael could have taken her anywhere and her body guard could have been there to protect Terri's privacy.

post this post from time to time to allow new lurkers to see it. It is important to understand to evilness of Michael's actions and behaviors by studying his famous Malpractice trial testimony. This testimony is basically the root of Michael's evilness and served as basis of fact in many future motions in the attempt to save Terri's life from the clutches of Michael Schiavo. Under heavy emotional stress, Michael made 4 critical promises at the malpractice trial. These promises were made to jury, to the Schindlers, and most importantly to Terri. After the conclusion of malpractice trial, Michael didn't fulfill even one of these promises and proceeded on his quest to have Terri killed. Observe:

Promise #1 - 25 Q. Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
1 A. Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how

2 to take care of Terry.

Michael promised to become a nurse for the goal of taking care of Terri. Michael really did not do this. Shortly after he made this promise, Michael sought to have Terri killed by refusing her treatment for UTI infection. This happened when Michael barley gotten started in his nursing career. Eventually he did become a nurse, but only after repeated attempts to have Terri killed.

Promise #2 - 8 Q. Where do you want to take care of your wife?

9 A. I want to bring my wife home.

10 Q. If you had the resources available to you, if you

11 had the equipment and the people, would you do that?

12 A. Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Michael never brought Terri home. Michael later coped out saying it was too much work. Michael failed to point out that he had $750,000 for Terri's care and another $300,000 that Michael recieved. Addition, Michael also had $250,000 from an earlier settlement and $10,000 that he squirreled away. Finally, both the Schindlers and Schiavos could have contributed which would helped out in the cost. Later, Michael used his money instead to help Jodi purchase a house for both of them. According to Michael, his reason that taking care of Terri was too much work, was reached before the avent of the Malpractice trial. Go figure.

Promise #3 - 13 Q. How do you feel about being married to Terry now?

14 A. I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't

15 trade her for the world. I believe in my -- I believe in my

16 wedding vows.

Yet another promise broken by Michael. Shortly after the malpractice trial, Michael found Jodi and started an intimate realtionship with her. Later in 1994 Michael proposed to Jodi and started calling her his finacee. Even later, Michael didn't have the decentcy to mention Terri in either of his parent's obituaries. Even worse is when he was making this promise, Michael was having intimate relations with Cindy Shook.

Promise #4 - 25 A. I believe in the vows that I took with my wife,
1 through sickness, in health, for richer or poorer. I

2 married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the

3 rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.

This is by far the most important promise that Michael broke. Shortly after he recieved the money, Michael posted a DNR on Terri's chart and later tried to kill her by refusing her treatment for a UTI.

No where did Michael make the promise that Terri was to be killed in accordance with her wishes not to be kept alive artificially. In fact, Terri was supposed to live another 30 years. Even more distrubing is when Michael was asked about removing the feeding tube from his doctor he stated "I couldn't do that to Terri."
Posted by: James at March 30, 20

In 1997 Clara Schiavo, Michael Schiavo's mom died. Her obituary is shown below:
Clara M. Schiavo
Former Levittown Resident
Clara M. Schiavo (nee Henkell), passed away Wednesday, July 2, 1997. For the past five years she was a resident of Seminole, Fla., living formerly for 30 years in Junewood, Levittown. She was the assistant personnel manager for the Gimble Department Store, formerly located in the Oxford Valley Mall, for ten years. She was a member of Hope Lutheran Church in Levitttown for 30 years. She was the beloved wife of William F. and the devoted mother of William F. Jr. and his wife Joan of Mayfair, Stephen O. and his wife Pamela of Fairless Hills, Brian J. and his wife Donna of Newtown, Scott E. and his wife Karen of Indiana and Michael R. and his fianc� Jodi of Fla. She was the dear grandmother of William J., Aleen C., Steven G., Kelly M., Scott R., Lisa M. Thomas M. and Ryan A. She is also survived by her sister, Joan May Enoch of Delran, NJ. Relatives and friends are invited to her viewing Mon., 10:30 a.m. until noon and to her funeral service at noon in the Campbell & Thomas Funeral Home, 905 Second St. Pike (at Old Bustleton Pike), Richboro. Her interment will take place in Sunset Memorial Park.
You will see that Terri Schiavo is not mentioned in the obituary. Jodi Centonze is mentioned instead as Michael's fiance. Michael claims his dad wrote this obituary and her knew nothing about until later. But I do not believe Michael! I think Michael knew exactly that Terri wasn't going to be in the obituary but had his father write it up to get him off the hook.
This seems quite logical when one looks at Michael's dad's obituary in 2002, 5 years later and sees that Terri is still not mentioned. Michael was primary trustee and executor of his dad's estate and inherited over $30,000 when his dad died. The dad's obituary is shown below:
Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) and Philadelphia Daily News (PA)- April 18, 2002
Deceased Name: William F. Schiavo Sr.
PA United States SCHIAVO WILLIAM F. SCHIAVO, SR., April 15, 2002. For the past 10 years he was a resident of Seminole, FL, living formerly for 30 years in Junewood, Levittown. Engineer Associate at AT&T for 35 years and was a member of Hope Lutheran Church in Levittown for 30 years. Beloved husband of the late Clara M. Schiavo (nee Henkell), devoted father of William F. Jr. and his wife Joan of Mayfair, Stephen G. of Fairless Hills, Brian J. and his wife Donna of FL, Scott E. and wife Karen of Levittown and Michael R. and his fiancee Jodi of FL. Loving grandfather of Margaret M., William J., Aleen C., Steven G., Kelly M., Scott R., Lisa M., Thomas M. and Ryan A.; also survived by his sister Helen Hillman and brother Richard Schiavo. Relatives and friends are invited to his service Sat. April 20, at Hope Lutheran Church in Levittown, 2600 Haines Rd., cor of Haines Rd. and Millcreek Pkwy at 9 A.M. Interment Sunset Memorial Park.
Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) and Philadelphia Daily News (PA)
Date: April 18, 2002
Record Number: 298823
Copyright (c) 2002 The Philadelphia Inquirer
You still see Jodi listed instead of Terri. Many have claimed that this was an oversight as the obituaries are virtually identical in structure and that is was a simple copy and paste the funeral home did.
This not entirely true as one can see the obituary has been updated to reflect new information. Observe:
1997 - Stephen O. and his wife Pamela are mentioned but in 2002 Pamela is left off. Stephen's middle initial is also changed to G.
1997- Brian and his Donna lived in Newtown, but in 2002 it was changed to FL.
1997 - Scott and Karen lived in Indiana but in 2002 that had changed to Levittown.
It seemed that the funeral home did go out and seek new information to update the obituary and yet Terri was never mentioned in either one.
What a kind and loving husband Michael Schiavo would mention Jodi over Terri in both obituaries.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 9:39 PM

In 1993, Michael sought to have Terri killed by refusing treatment for her UTI after he promised the courts and the Schindlers that he would take care of Terri for the rest of his life. It only took one doctor's advice to convince Michael Schiavo to take that action. Of course, Michael fails to point out in his book that he would have inherited $750,000 of Terri's money and makes no mention that he was going to donate it to charity. He didn't even tell the Schindlers of his plans to end Terri's life.
In 1998, after several failed attempts to end Terri's life, Michael submitted his petition to court to pull Terri's feeding tube claiming that is what Terri would want despite his sworn testimony in the mal trial. At this point there still almost $750,000 that Michael would have inherited upon Terri's death. Michael said he wasn't interested in the money but makes no effort to offer any charity donation of the Terri's money.
GAL Pearse conducts his investigation and finds Michael is severely conflicted on the financial end due to Terri's outstanding trust fund. Pearse, not Michael, suggests that he setup a charity offer.
Knowing that he is caught up in financial conflict of interest, Michael and Felos devise a legal tactic by setting up a charity offer with very special stipulations.
First, Michael makes the offer valid for only 10 days. Second, Michael says he will only donate the money if the Schindlers side with him and give up the fight.
It appears that Michael puts a stipulation in his offer that knows that Schindlers will not accept and that goes against the Schindlers core position on Terri's feeding tube removal. It is clear this was legal ruse in effort to create the illusion that he was not after the money.
However, in 2001 when Terri's feeding tube is removed, Michael knows he will not have to donate a penny because the Schindlers refused his offer. If Terri had died in 2001 (a very real possibility since the Schindlers got extremely lucky in finding Cindy Shook) Michael would have inherited hundreds of thousands of dollars of Terri's money knowing that he had no legal obilgation to donate it to charity.
Michael continued to make his offer always having the stipulation that Schindlers must accept it otherwise he wouldn't donate the money.
It was clear his offer was bogus. Michael would always make the offer to Schindlers and not the court.
If Michael really was going to donate the money he could made an offer in the following way. I am sure the court would have accomadated this offer.
The the Court:
As the inheritor of Terri's trust fund, if this court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the petition to remove Terri''s feeding is granted, the inheritor of Terri's Trust fund shall pledge the fund to go toward charity.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 9:37 PM

Below is a reply I got from a doctor who submitted an affidavitt on behalf of Terri's life. I recieved it a couple of months ago. I not revealing the doctor's identity for privacy reasons. But, I can tell this was valid correspondence.

1. Terri was NOT a dying patient, and providing food and water
for her was part of normal care appropriate to her condition, it
was NOT heroic treatment. Without food and water, all of us
would die. Thus, Terri's cause of death was NOT her condition
(brain damage), but intentional dehydration, which could have
easily been prevented. If you killed your cat or dog by the
same kind of slow dehydration -- you would go to jail!
2. From the information and the video's that I had seen of
Terri, it is clear that she was not unconscious, and it appears
that she was able to follow some instructions and responded to
other people in the room -- thus whether her diagnosis was
correct is still a big question -- but it is completely false to
say that the autopsy confirmed ANY diagnosis except the fact
that there was significant brain damage and brain atrophy.
However, it is impossible to correlate the appearance of the

brain with the degree of functional impairment. Some patients
with even greater degrees of brain damage (either posthumousely
verified by autopsy or prospectively by MRI imaging) are awake
and responsive.
3. However, the important point is that id DOESN'T MATTER
whether she was truly in the "persistent vegetative state" or
not, it is perfectly clear that she was NOT DYING (not terminal)
and that providing food and water for her was ordinary care and
the intentional removal of food and water (without even ever
trying to find out if she could be fed by mouth) was clearly
intended to cause her death -- and thus, to put it simply, was
HOMICIDE. Even worse, it was a homicide committed with the
complicity of the medical profession and the judicial branch of
government.
4. You cannot "allow someone to die" who is not otherwise dying.
Thus this was NOT a case of "end of life" decision making
involving the removal of treatment which could only prolong the
process of dying, i.e."heroic" treatment -- it was a case of
willfully and intentionally "ending her life".

Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:37 PM

Michael has said on 2 occasions at public events that Terri was his personal property and she was to do with as he saw fit.

The first incident was when Michael appeared at the biased Terri Schiavo symposium in PA this past May.

Michael was approached by Brandi Swindell, a strong pro-life advocate.

Brandi Swindell of Generation Life went into the conference to ask a question of Michael Schiavo but was not recognized during the question time. Brandi approached Michael after the conference to ask him about statements he has made about Terri being his property. Michael told Brandi that “Terry is his property,” he said “I own her.” Brandi then asked him as he was standing next to his new wife, if he owned her also?

The second incident came when Michael appeared in Colorado. Linda Shepherd asked Michael about Terri's parents. Michael yelled at her too:

When he finished his tirade, with congressional candidate Paccione by his side, I raised my hand and said,"I'm the mother of a handicapped child. What about Terri's mother and father - weren't they her family too?"

Schiavo turned his full attention on me and with angry passion told me Terri's parents had lost their rights to her when she married him.(In other words, she was his property to be disposed of.)
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:27 PM

This is supported by the letter sent to Bob Schindler on August 20, 1997 by George Felos.

The written including the following important information:"In addition, I am also trying to gather information regarding what Theresa's wishes would be in this situation, if she were able to express them."

I wonder where Scott and Joan Schiavo were at this time and why Michael or Felos didn't seek them out?

This is a key question.

2 years later after the GAL investigation and report stating that Michael's claims were questionable, Scott and joan suddenly come forward.

Apparently Scott was elicited by George Felos by simple phone call.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:24 PM

The Great Bambakidis

Michael's book Pg. 203

"Each of the five doctors examined Terri individually. All but Dr. Greer allowed their examinations to be videotaped, and the unedited videotapes were provided to the court"

Pg. 208
"The judge tooka full month to evaluate all the doctor's testimonies and, as he did in the previous trial, he carefully reviewed the videotapes that accompanied all but Dr. Greer's presentation."

Michael Schiavo makes two separate remarks that indicate the Dr. Bambakidis videotaped his examination with Terri Schiavo.

However, in court Dr. Bambakidis testfied the following:

1 Q. But, in any event, it was not

2 videotaped?

3 A. It was not.

Dr. Bamabakidis testified he had no objection to his exam be videotaped. Ultimately it was not according to Bambakidis.

Obviously someone is lying! It's either Michael Schiavo or Dr. Bambakidis.

I think it is probably Dr. Bambakidis. Its clear from many of his answers that he was biased toward the Schindlers and was likely he was selected by Felos even though he was supposed to be a neutral doctor. Observe some of Bambakidis's troubling answers.

Q. Who initiated that first conversation?

3 A. Well, Mr. Felos contacted me.

4 Q. I see.

It seems Felos was contacting a neutral doctor.

22 wanted somebody for -- I believe his comment was

23 that they wanted somebody who worked for the

24 Cleveland Clinic.

25 Q. Who is they?
277

1 A. I don't know. You would have to ask

2 the judge.

A very troubling answer. Just who is "They"?

23 Q. And do you recall that I asked you at

24 the conclusion of the hearing if you wanted to go

25 back down to Hospice in the presence of the

389
1 parents?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you had to make your flight?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Now, the arrangement had been for Mr.

6 and Mrs. Schindler to be present during your

7 examination, correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. And the way you knew that was that you

10 had a copy of my letterhead, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So you could have called me, right?

13 A. Well, I could have -- my anticipation

14 when I went to Hospice was that they were there

15 and I fully intended to take a history from them.

16 Then it turned out that they had gone. Was I

17 supposed to call you at that time?

18 Q. After July 10th, after you had returned

19 to Cleveland, you could have taken a history from

20 them over the telephone, couldn't you?

21 A. I could have.

22 Q. And why didn't you call me to get their

23 phone number?

24 A. Well, you know -- I mean, I didn't know

25 what their particular perspective would have been

390

1 with regard to this whether they were able to or

2 not. Certainly if they expressed a desire to do

3 that I would have gladly done that.

4 Q. They did, they expressed a willingness

5 to be present during your exam?

6 A. Ms. Anderson, I mean, this is I could

7 have called them, they could have called me. I

8 would have been happy however it could have been

9 done to obtain a history from them.

Obviously Dr. Bamabakidis wasn't willing to accept the responsibility of what he was called to do.

It's also been reported that Dr. Bambakidis's brother knew Felos. Dr. Bambakidis's brother, Gust Bambakidis belonged to same organization that George Felos belonged to.

I think a videotaped examination was conducted. It probably provided proof to Terri's cognitivness which why is was sealed by Judge Greer and not shown in court.
Posted by: james at March 30, 2007 6:16 PM

Other Schindler Docs

10. Dr. Ralph Akenman - A psychiatrist from Ohio. Specializes in treatment of brain injured patients. Did not observe or examine Terri but says his therapy could possibly help her. Submitted her affidavit in March of 2005. Just a helpful affidavit in my opinion.

11. Dr. Beatrice Engstrand - A neurologist from New York. Did not examine Terri or her medical records. Did state that she could help Terri because of similar patients she has delt with. Disputes PVS. However, she did study under Dr. Plum, the pioneer doctor of the PVS state, so her conclusions may be credible. Urged for a PET scan and fMRI. Submitted affidavit in March of 2005.

12. Dr. Alyse Eytan - A psychairtrist from Chicago. Has followed the Teri Schiavo case in the news. Basically a doctor offering her expert opinion based what she has read and seen. Sounds like a moral POV affidavit. Submitted her affidiavit in March 2005.

13. Dr. Goldsmith - is a regular doctor. Has not examined Terri but has seen the video tape. Questionable on PVS. Believes his therapy could help Terri. Encourages further testing and therapy.

14. Dr. Carolyn Heron. Is a regular doctor from Chicago. Has followed the Teri Schiavo case in the news. Basically a doctor offering her expert opinion based what she has read and seen. Has seen the video tapes. Disputes PVS based on her expertise. Urged additonal testing.

15. Dr. David Hopper - A psychologist specializing in brain injury. Disputed PVS. Recommended further tests.

16. Dr. Lawrence Huntoon - A neurologist from New York. Did view the so called edited video clips. Disputes PVS based on his expertise and knowledge and on the video clips. Believed Terri to be MSC. Stood by his affidavit later by refuting the autopsy results.

17. Dr. Hyink - Speech Language Pathologist from Colarado. Did view the so called edited video clips. Offers her expert medical opinion based what she knows of the case. Urged communication therapy. This patholgist is Laura Shepherd's patholgist, the disabled daughter of Linda Shepherd.

18. Dr. Jill Joyce - Speech Language Pathologist. Did view the so called edited video clips. Disputes PVS based on her expertise and thevideo clips. Offers her expert medical opinion based what she knows of the case. Urges additional therapy.

19. Dr. Phillip Kennedy - A neurologist. Offers his expertise in the case. Urged Terri to undergo a fMRI.

20. Dr. Ricardo Senno. A regular doctor from Illinois - Offers his insight on what he has seen and his expert medical opinion. Only saw photos of Terri on the internet. Conclusions based on this sound weak. It more of moral stand he takes. Urged further testing.

21. Dr. Stanley Terman - A neurologist from California - Reviewed info on Terri including the Wolfson GAL Report. Recommends further testing such as fMRI.

22. Dr. Michael Uszler - A doctor from California. Questions testing done on Terri.

23. Dr. Richard Weidman - A doctor from Washington D.C. Disputes Terri is PVS based on what he ha seen and heard. Urged more testing.

24. Dr. Thomas Zabiega - A neurologist from Illinois. Viewed videos of Terri and other info. Also reviewed the audio recording of Terri. Said the following about the audio recording of Terri Schiavo: believe she is making verbalizations on the tape. In fact, around 45 seconds, when she is asked "How are you doing" she definitely changes her voice and says "good". She appears to say "yeah" several times... then at the end of the tape when she is asked "do your ears hurt" she definitely says "no". Even if none of the words were discernible, the fact that her voice changes during the tape to different questions suggests she is understanding what is being said to her. A patient in PVS does not respond and does not have any changes in verbal output. Disputed PVS. Urges for further testing.

25. Dr. Peter Morin - A neurologist from Maine. Studied info about the case. Raised many moral questions.

26. Dr. Peter Luca - A doctor from Michigan. Addresses his moral POV of view regarding Terri's situation.

27. Dr. Paul Harch - A doctor from Louisana. Sided with Dr. Neubeur to have Terri undergo HBOT treatment.

28. Dr. Peter Brunner - A speech patholgist from Florida. Urged Terri to undergo Vitalstim treatment.

29. Dr. David Coulter - A doctor from Boston. Urged more testing for Terri.

30. Dr. Kyle Lakas - A speech patholgist from Texas. Urged Terri to undergo Vitalstim tretment.

31. Dr. Rodney Dunaway - A neurologist from Texas. Viewed videos. Disputed PVS. Urged further testing.

32. Dr. George Isajiw - A doctor from Pennsylvania. Viewed videos. Disputed PVS. Urged further testing

33. Dr. Leonard Rybak - A doctor from Illnois. Viewed Videos. Disputed PVS. Conferred with Dr. Hammesfarh's diagnosis. Urged Further testing.

34. Dr. Myra Stinson - A speech patholgist from Florida. Viewed videos from 2002 trial and audio recordings of Terri. Disputes PVS. Urged for more swallowing tests.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:06 PM

The Best Schindler Doctors

1. Dr. Jacob Greene Ph. D. - A neurologist from Jacksonville, Florida. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001. He examined her medical records and the video (from the 2000 trial) not to the so called edited ones. Disputes PVS based on the video and her medical records. Submitted another affidavit in February of 2005 in which he Believed she was MCS (became recently known) and recommended further tests. Believed she should have had an FMRI which Terri never received. Did not examine Terri. Greer threw his affidavit out and he was not given the chance to examine Terri. Greer ignored credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (medical records and video tapes). He wasn't even disposed.

2. Dr. Alexander Gimon. - A PHd Neuropsychologist from Florida. Has studied the video clips presented at the October 2002 Medical Evidentiary Hearing. Gives an in dept analysis on each one of the videos. Also reviewed the audio recording. Disputes Terri is PVS. Offered his expert medical opinion based on the tapes and audio clip. Is credible testimony. Greer threw his affidavit out. He was not given the chance to examine Terri. Greer ignored credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (video tapes and audio tapes). He wasn't even disposed.

3. Dr. Richard Neubauer - A specialist doctor from Florida. - Viewed the actual video tape (From 2000 trial).Recommended hyperbaric Therapy for Terri. Seems to be credible medical information. Greer did not consider. He was not given the chance to examine Terri. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001. Submitted another affidavit in March of 2005 and urged that Terri be given a chance at HBOT.

4. Dr. William Russell - A retired neurologist from Florida - Has reviewed the medical records of Theresa Marie Schiavo, a videotape of her (From 2000 Trial), the trial testimony of Dr. Barnhill, the affidavits of Drs. Carpenter and Young and that of Bishop Larkin filed in her guardianship court file, the motion for rehearing, and various letters from Ms Schiavo?s family members. Disputes PVS. Believed Terri to be more aware than Ronald Reagan. Was not given the chance to examine her. Greer did not consider. Greer ignored credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (medical records, video tapes, medical testimony, affidavits, and info from family members). Vouched for Dr. Hammesfahr. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001.

5. Dr. Webber - A specialist doctor from Florida - Has looked at her medical records covering the period from 1991 to 1999. Also, has studied the videotape of Terri and her mother, apparently taped in 1999 or 2000. Disputes PVS. Not given the chance to examine Terri. Greer dismissed credible medical testimony and advise from credible medical sources (medical records and video tapes). He wasn't even disposed. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001.

6. Dr. James Avery - A medical doctor from Florida - Observed Terri for 30 minutes. Questioned PVS diagnosis. Recommended swallowing tests. Greer ignored credible medical testimony from a credible medical source (observation). Submitted his affidavit in February of 2000.

7. Dr. Cheshire - A neurologist from Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida - Observed Terri for 90 minutes, Reviewed her medical records and the video tapes (not the edited ones). Disputes
PVS. Submitted a lengthy affidavit in March of 2000 and believed Terri was misdiagnosised and was MCS. Greer ignored medical testimony from credible medical sources (observation, medical records and video tapes).

8. Dr. John Young - A medical doctor from Florida. - Observed Terri for 30 minutes. Questioned PVS diagnosis. Recommended swallowing tests. Submitted his affidavit in February of 2000.

9. Dr. Sara Mele - A Ph.D. speech pathologist from Chicago - Reviewed her medical records along with all of her records about her therapy at Mediplex. Also reviewed the video tapes and audio recordings. Gives an in-dept analysis of the videos. Disputes PVS. Was not given the chance the to examine Terri. Greer ignored credible medical testimony from various sources.
Submitted her affidavit in 2004.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 6:03 PM

Compelling Stories of people in similiar situations like Terri Schiavo.

Only one difference - They weren't starved and dehydrated to death.

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1896.article

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Carrots_Dont_Cry.asp

http://www.debramoretta.com/detailed-story.asp
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:58 PM

It has been suggested that 9 out of 11 neurologists who examined Terri determined her to be in PVS state. This is a fallacy. There only 7 neurologists who examined Terri and deemed her PVS and most of those neurologists are questionable:

Dr. Garcia DeSousa
Dr. Thomas Harrison
Dr. James Barnhill
Dr. Jeffery Karp
Dr. Melvin Greer
Dr. Ronald Cranford
Dr. Peter Bambakidis

That is 7 neurologists.

Dr. Thomas Harrison - He only interpreted Terri's EEG. It is unknown if Dr. Harrison examined her. It is also unknown if Dr. Harrison ever examined Terri again.

Dr. James Barnhill - Was Felos's personal Death Doc. Examined Terri for about 1 hour the first time. Examined Terri the second time for about 10 minutes. Ordered no tests.

Dr. Jeffery Karp - Examined Terri for about 1 hour. Deemed her PVS. Never examined Terri again.

Dr. Ronald Cranford - Examined Terri for about 45 minutes. Very biased. Did very few tests except for some balloon tracking trials.

Dr. Melvin Greer - Examined Terri for about 30 minutes. Deemed her PVS. His examination seemed incompentent. Didn't remember the color of her eyes and couldn't answer some of his own examination questions.

Dr. Peter Bambakidis - Examined Terri for 30 minutes. Deemed her PVS. Although neutral, there is evidence to suggest that Bambakidis was selected by Felos and biased toward the Schindlers.

Total examination time with 7 neurologists:

About 5+ hours over a 10 year period.

Dr. DeSousa is about the only neurologist who can be deemed credible in examing Terri as he is probably the only neurolgist who examined the most over the years.

Suprisingly, Dr. Desousa was never asked to testify in the 2000 trial.

Now lets look at the Schindler's side:

Dr. Hammesfahr - Examined Terri for over 3 hours and deemed her MCS. Hammesfahr's examination was longer than Cranford, Greer, and Bambakidis combined. Hammesfahr's examination was much more extensive.

Dr. Cheshire - Observed but did not exam Terri for 90 minutes. Based on his observations and review of her medical records, and the video tapes, Terri was MCS.

Dr. Jacob Greer - Reviewed her medical records (or at least some of them) and the video tape from the 2000 trial. Deemed her MCS. The reactions shown on the video tape were not consitent with PVS.

Dr. Alexander Gimon - Did an extensive anlaysis of the 2002 video tapes. Deemed her MCS. Reactions on the video tapes not consistent with PVS. Also reviewed audio recordings of Terri. Not constitent with PVS.

Dr. William Russell - Reviewed her medical records and the video from 2000 trial. Deemed her MCS. Also reviewed Dr. Barnhill's testimony and refuted it.

Dr. Beatrice Engstrand - Believed Terri to be MCS based on her expertise in the PVS state. Studied under Fred Plumm - the pioneer of the PVS state.

Dr. Lawerence Huntoon - Viewed the video clips of Terri Schiavo. Deemed her MCS. Reactions in the videos were inconstitent with PVS. Refuted Autopsy.

Dr. James Kelly - Questioned Terri's PVS diagnosis. Reactions shown in news reports were not constitent with PVS.

Dr. Philip Kennedy - Urged further testing.

Dr. Thomas Mark Zabiega - Urged further testing and therapy. Refuted autopsy.

Dr. Laurie Barclay - Viewed the video clips. Not constitent with PVS. Believed Terri to MCS. Studied under Fred Plumm.

* all mentioned Doctors are nuerolgists.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:48 PM

Here are some interviews, people might interested in listening to:

http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/church/mp3/2006_10_22_PM_The_Untold_S
tory_Of_Terry_Schiavo_DG.mp3

This is David Gibb's sermon on his role and thoughts on the Schiavo case.

It good sermon and I will agree that David Gibbs tends to put a little spin on some things but it really lays out the basic concept of what happen in the Schiavo case:

An innoncent disabled woman who was not dying was starved and and dehydrated to death by our government because her life had no value and based on the will of her husband that she die.

http://www.christianradiomagazine.com/audio/crm20061202.m3u
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:37 PM

In July of 1997, Michael's mom dies (Michael in his book get this wrong and says June of 1997). Michael claims this was the trigger for seeing through Terri's wishes (But this was not true, as Michael started to follow out Terri's wishes nearly 2 years before in late 1995.).

He says that after her death, sometime in the August or September of 1997, Michael goes and talks to Felos and tells him he wants carry out Terri's wishes.(Again, this is false. Michael was communicating with Felos through Bushnell nearly 2 years before and later was signing contracts with Felos).

Felos tells him to talk to other family members about Terri wishes. Michael really doesn't do this because he feels his claims are adaquate.

A little later Felos, sends a letter to Bob Schindler informing him that Terri's life support is going to be removed in due time. Felos makes a key point that he is presently performing an investigation on who may have an insight into Terri's wishes regarding the feeding tube.

In May of 1998, Michael presents his formal petition to disconnect Terri's feeding tube based upon wishes known only to him.

Lets back up. 3 important points have illustrated. First Michael was told to talk to his family members. Second Felos was performing an investigation and third there is no word from Scott and Joan. From apparently the timespan of August 1997 to May of 1998 (nearly 10 months) Scott and Joan Schiavo must have been completely silent and obilvious to Terri's situation. Even though Joan claimed she was Terri's best friend, she appears to be a black sheep at this point.

Scott's claim that he didn't tell Michael because he was in denial doesn't seem to make sense here. It appears Michael had taken severe legal actions to end Terri's life but both Scott and Joan seem to be out of loop for 10 months and never feel the need to speak to Michael about Terri's wishes.

GAL Pearse conducts his investigation and is told by Michael Schiavo that he is the only one that knows Terri's wishes. Pearse submits his reports and says Michael's claims are not credible.

So from May of 1998 to December of 1998 (7 months) Scott and Joan still seem to be completely obilvious of the situation and are silent on the Terri matter.

In September of 1999 nearly a year later, Michael finally reveals that Scott and Joan know Terri's wishes.

This is after nearly 10 months after the GAL told Michael his claims were no good. Michael reveals that he just found these wishes a few weeks before his depo and that they actually told Felos their insights in Terri's wishes.

Judging from the timeframes. It appears that Scott and Joan were completely obilvious to the events surrounding Terri Schiavo. It seems that Michael had not contacted Scott and Joan in nearly 2 years.

Scott and Joan's claims sound very suspect given the timespans involved.

No proof was ever provided to prove these claims and it was all hearsay.

Both Scott and Joan were never disposed by the Schindler's lawyer and their testimonies seemed unfair given this fact. The lawyer didn't have any basis in which to impeach the witnesses.

While the court claimed it had clear and convincing evidence, the court never had any corlaborative proof to Michael, Scott, or Joan's claims.

No single claim was ever backuped by more than one person.

Scott and Joan apparently should have voiced their insights in Terri's wishes at critical times but didn't.
1993 - UTI incident refusal - Michael writes in his book that he had made the decision to let Terri go. Where were Scott and Joan?
1994 - All through the early guardianship battle, Scott and Joan never say anything even though Michael has given hint that Terri would not want to live in her present condition.
1995/1996 - Again a another UTI refusal takes place but again the nursing home stops Michael. Scott and Joan still remain silent on Terri's alleged wishes.
1997 - Micheal's mom dies - He says this what made him proceed with tube removal - Where were Scott and Joan then?
1998 - Michael submits his petition to remove Terri's feeding tube - Again where were Joan and Scott?

December 1998 - GAL Pearse says Michael claims aren't credible - Where were Joan and Scott?

1999 - Suddenly Joan and Scott pop from no where and state they know Terri's wishes.

What's important to remember is that Scott and Joan both admitted under oath the they never revealed or talked with Michael about their insights to Terri's wishes over the 9 year period.

While, it perfectly logical to assume that Scott and Joan never mentioned anything to court until they were called as witnesses in the 2000, giving from the timeline that we have seen is makes no sense that Scott and Joan did not mention anything to Michael over the years even instances after instances of life ending actions and decisions were made by
Michael in attempt to honor Terri's so-called wishes.

Michael was even told to ask Scott and Joan but didn't.

Felos was even looking for people who might have known Terri's wishes in 1997.

Finally, Both also admitted that both they stayed informed of what was happening with Terri. Michael even stated under oath that he had talked about Terri's situation with his inlaws.

They are also very suspect based on comments made by Scott Schiavo in various interviews:"One doctor said,'Mike, you know what? There's nothing else we can do….Why don't you just let nature take its course?' And Mike wouldn't do it".

This is totally inaccurate. Michael proceeded to let Terri go in 1993 via the UTI refusal (Michael even writes about this in his book.) The only reason why he couldn't do was because the nursing home and the Schindlers stopped him.

On a final note, the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard is very high. Its hard to believe that it took Felos 2 years to find Scott and Joan Schiavo and when Felos found Scott and Joan Schiavo is was done by making a simple phone call.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:31 PM

Dr. Cranford on Dehydration:

After seven to nine days [from commencing dehydration] they begin to lose all fluids in the body, a lot of fluids in the body. And their blood pressure starts to go down. When their blood pressure goes down, their heart rate goes up.... Their respiration may increase and then ... the blood is shunted to the central part of the body from the periphery of the body. So, that usually two to three days prior to death, sometimes four days, the hands and the feet become extremely cold. They become mottled. That is you look at the hands and they have a bluish appearance. And the mouth dries a great deal, and the eyes dry a great deal and other parts of the body become mottled. And that is because the blood is now so low in the system it's shunted to the heart and other visceral organs and away from the periphery of the body ...

Kate Adamson on Dehydration:

O'Reilly: When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind?

Adamson: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind,"Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.

O'Reilly: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?

Adamson: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that — especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed — it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.

O'Reilly: It's just amazing.

Adamson: Sheer torture ...

Judge Lynch (Paul Brophy case) on dehydration:

The removal of a nutrition and hydration tube, wrote Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, would likely create some or all of the following effects before death.

The mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material.
The lips would become parched and cracked.
The tongue would swell, and might crack.
The eyes would recede back into their orbits and the cheeks would become hollow.
The lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed.
The skin would hang loose on the body and become dry and scaly.
The urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder.
The lining of the stomach would dry out and the sufferer would experience dry heaves and vomiting.
The body temperature would become very high.
The brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions.
The respiratory tract would dry out, and the thick secretions that would
result could plug the lungs and cause death.
At some point within five days to three weeks the major organs, including the lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and the patient would die.

Terri's Exit Protocol:

Exit Protocolxxxxxxxxxxxx00038
Patient Care Notesxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Hospice
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xOf The Florida Suncoast
Date
4/19/01xxxxxxxxxxxxxClinical Pharmacy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxRe: Medication review and symptom management
Pt. is a 37 yo woman in a vegetative state with no apparent signs of distress. Enteral tube-feeding to be discontinued on 4/20/01.
Current Medications:
1. antacid suspension 1-2 tablespoons prn [prn ="as needed"]
2. Naproxen suspension 375 mg Q8* prn menstrual cramps.[Q8* prn ="every 8 hours as needed". Naproxen is a pain-relieving and anti-inflamatory drug.]
3. Vitamin liquid daily.
Upon discontinuation of enteral feeding the following signs/symptoms may or may not occur. The following is a brief list of symptoms for which to monitor and recommended interventions.
1. d/c ["discontinue"] antacid. d/c Naproxen suspension.
2. d/c Vitamin liquid
3. Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg Q8* prn.
Wait a minute! George Felos, Michael Schiavo, and all the other advocates of feeding-tube removal have been saying repeatedly that dying by denial of nutrition & hydration is "peaceful" and "painless". They've both said so in interviews and press conferences, such as on Larry King Live. So if dying by denial of nutrition and hydration is, as Michael said,"painless and probably the most natural way to die", then why is medication needed for pain and discomfort?
4. Signs of compromised skin integrity — continue vigilant skin care, provide moistener to lips, consult wound-care specialist if needed.
As the body dehydrates, the skin loses its tone and dries out. Left untreated, this will lead to cracking and bleeding. The lips are even more sensitive in this respect."Vigilant skin care" is the liberal use of lotions and moisteners to mask these symptoms. The lips must be continually swabbed with special moisteners, and have lip balm applied to them. In the last stages, though, in spite of such measures, skin breakdown often occurs. Because of the body's debilitated state, normal healing mechanisms do not function. Hence the need to consult wound-care specialists to deal with ulcers and open sores.
5. Signs of dehydration
(A) dry lips, mouth. Swab saliva substitute inside mouth prn.(see next page)
After a few days without water, the body stops producing saliva, necessitating the use of a "saliva substitute" to avoid ulceration in the mouth, and a characteristic foul odor on the patient's breath. The cessation of salivation also leads to other complications which appear in the "pulmonary" section.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx00039

Patient Care Notesxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Hospice
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xOf The Florida Suncoast

Date

4/19/01xxxxxxxxxClinical Pharmacy Note — continued

xxxxxxxxxxxxxSigns of dehydration — continued

(B) decreased urinary output - no change in care plan.

While there may be "no change in care plan", one of the effects of dehydration is incontinence. The patient's diapers or "chux" pads will need to be changed more frequently, until such output ceases entirely.

6. Pulmonary
(A) Inability to clear secretions - reposition and swab mouth, consider scopolamine patch behind ear every 3 days.

Dehydration causes the natural mucus secretions of the mouth, nose, and throat to thicken, as the body struggles to protect these delicate membranes. The lack of saliva exacerbates this problem, preventing the normal swallowing of these secretions. These thick deposits can interfere with breathing. The use of the scopolamine patch promotes drying of these secretions, which prevents their build-up, but hastens the breakdown of the tissues.(B) dyspnea ["difficulty in breathing"]— nebulize low dose 2-5 mg morphine sulfate Q4* prn.

In the last stages of dehydration/starvation, the patient's breathing will become difficult and labored. He or she may even begin gasping for breath, as even the lungs' ability to effect transfer of gases is compromised. Morphine nebulized into a fine spray relaxes bronchial passages and relieves these symptoms. However, because of the resultant decrease in respiratory efficiency, this may hasten death.

7. Multifocal myoclonus or terminal agitation (sometimes caused by electrolyte imbalance). Consider diazepam rectal administration 5-10 mg. May repeat in 4 hours if not resolved then daily - twice daily as needed.

Myoclonus is twitching or spasm of the muscles. Multifocal means "occurring in many different parts of the body". This is usually the result of imbalance in electrolytes, the chemicals, such as salt, potassium, and calcium, which make your bodies internal electrical "batteries" work. Nerve impulses and muscle contractions are governed by electro-chemical reactions utilizing these chemicals. Dehydration causes these chemicals to be out of balance, interfering with normal nerve and muscle function. This can result in nerves and muscles "firing off" uncontrollably, causing spasm. The patient will writhe and become extremely agitated. If you have ever had muscle cramps resulting from strenuous exercise (especially when you have sweat profusely), you have some idea what this feels like. Imagine having this happen all over your body, repeatedly. Diazepam (more commonly known as Valium) is a muscle relaxant

8. Grand Mal seizure, which is highly unlikely given current conditions and lack of contributing factors (meds). Recommend diazepam 15 mg rectally as indicated in seizure management orders.

In the final stages of starvation and dehydration, the same electrolyte imbalances which can cause muscle spasm can also lead to uncontrolled firing of neurons in the brain, according to a similar mechanism. This results in seizures.

Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate regarding this patient's care.

I would observe, in conclusion, that most of the "treatments" described in this Exit Protocol are in fact not directed at easing the patient's true condition, but in masking the symptoms of dying by starvation and dehydration. These treatments are designed to create the appearance of a peaceful "slipping away", when nothing of the sort is happening. The medications hide the fact that the patient undergoes a lengthy and painful deterioration, in which his/her body wastes away cruelly. Remember this the next time you hear or read someone say that Terri should be "allowed" to die.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:23 PM

Starving and Dehydrating someone to death regardless of the person's condition (not dying) and whether the practice is done by the removal of feeding tube or by natural means is a cruel inhumane process ON ITS FACE.

When I say ON IT FACE, I mean the whole sense of it.

Starvation and Dehydration is something that we can't do to a dog, a deathrow imate or terrorists.

And yet the practice of starvation and dehydration was done to Terri.

The fact that feeding tube was simply removed changes little.

Terri was denied food and water.

Terri's death was caused by starvation and dehydration.

It should also be noted that the provision of food and water is a basic humanitarian right.

Children in other countries die from lack of food and water.

Billions of dollars are sent each year to give these children food and water.

The provision of food and water is also a basic need under Maslow's hiarchitory of Needs just like shelter.

So ON THE FACE OF IT, starvation and dehydration whether it be by removal of a feeding tube or by natural means is a inhumane process.

Terri's was subjected to this inhumane process.

Terri was not dying and would have lived another 10 years.

Terri was deprived of the basic humanitarian right to food and water (feeding tube or natural means).

This is not the same as witholding a ventilator or kidney dialysis as those are true life support and person's death are caused by organ failure.

In addition, starvation and dehydration is rather prolonged process as we have seen.

Terri death by a removal of feeding tube fell under the preumbra of starvation and dehydration, an act that is cruel and inhumane.

On a final note, There is nothing in the legal record to indicate that Terri ever wanted a feeding tube removed.

The decision was made on a "Quality of Life" accessment in which court took Terri statments and based on her quality of life assumed that she would not want a feeding tube.

The veracity of Terri's wishes never indicated she didn't want a feeding tube or to be starved and dehydrated to death.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:08 PM

Why Terri's death was a form of Euthansia:

Euthanasia Expert Shows Reasons Terri's Death was Euthanasia rather than Natural Death

LONDON, March 31, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The death of Terri Schiavo - Euthanasia or Natural Death?

The tragic death of Terri Schiavo has reignited the Euthanasia debate in the United States and Canada.

Everyday we witnessed new media reports about Terri Schiavo. We heard conflicting commentary from bio-ethicists, physicians, and religious leaders as to whether dehydrating Terri was euthanasia or simply allowing natural death to occur.

To intentionally dehydrate and starve Terri Schiavo to death was euthanasia and I will clearly explain why.

Euthanasia is an intentional act or failure to act which causes a person’s death for reasons of "mercy."

Therefore euthanasia is an intentional act or failure to act to cause death.

If a person is dying or nearing death their body often begins to shut down, meaning the veins and circulatory system are becoming unable to circulate fluids and food. To withhold fluids and food from a person who is dying or nearing death is not euthanasia but rather accepting the limits of life.

Terri Schiavo’s body was not shutting down and she was not otherwise dying. Withholding fluids and food from Terri Schiavo was not an acceptance of the limits of life but rather an intentional failure to act in order to cause her death. This is euthanasia.

Some bio-ethicists said that providing fluids and food to Terri Schiavo only artificially prolonged her life and possibly caused her pain and suffering. They claimed that the intention of withholding fluids and food was palliative and not euthanasia.

If a person’s body is shutting down then they become unable to benefit from fluids and food. Continuing to provide fluids and food to someone who is nearing death and who’s body is shutting down often causes pain and discomfort because the fluids and food have nowhere to go.

Providing fluids and food for Terri Schiavo was of benefit to her. Terri’s body could assimilate fluid and food without any problems. Therefore withholding fluids and food from Terri was not palliative. In fact, since Terri was not otherwise dying withholding fluids and food would cause pain and suffering.

Some bio-ethicists stated that providing fluids and food by tube to Terri Schiavo was extra-ordinary medical treatment and therefore always optional.

Terri Schiavo was not in need of medical treatment and her feeding tube (PEG) was inserted and effective. She didn’t need medical support, only fluids and food. Anyone, with minimal training, can feed someone in this way. There was nothing extra-ordinary about the care Terri was receiving.

In cases of euthanasia, the intentional act or failure to act is the cause of the person’s death. If the act or failure to act does not cause the death of the person then it is not euthanasia.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, her death was caused by dehydration. Terri was not dying of another cause, before having her tube was withdrawn she was not imminently dying. Therefore the withholding of fluids and food for Terri Schiavo was the intentional cause of her death. This is euthanasia.

Some bio-ethicists have said that Terri was so brain damaged that she was already dead. They claimed that the feeding tube was artificially keeping a dead person alive.

This is a dangerous statement which is based on a eugenic ideology. Nonetheless, Terri was cognitively disabled but she was not brain dead. To say that her life is not worth living is to say that all people who have a severe cognitive disability are not worth living.

Many commentators expressed that Terri’s wishes should be respected. Since Terri’s husband claimed that Terri would not have wanted to live this way, therefore dehydrating Terri to death is simply respecting her wishes.

There should be presumption in favour of life. I recognize that you can never force anyone who is competent to receive anything against their will, but when a person is incompetent to make decisions for themselves we believe one should always be provided the basic necessities of life, including fluid and food.

Terri Schiavo’s death is a case of euthanasia because her death was intentionally caused by dehydration for reasons of "mercy."

Hopefully Terri’s death will result in legislation being enacted to protect people who are cognitively disabled from similar acts of death by dehydration.

Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005

Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 5:13 PM

Everyone knows that KAQ was disconnected from her ventilator on behalf of her parents.

They went to court and the court gave permission and the ventilator was disconnected.

Some people do not know that when the ventilator was disconnected from KAQ, she did not die.

In fact, KAQ lived for another 10 years before dying.

The goal in the KAQ case was to eliminate burdsome medical treatment but not to kill the patient.

The doctors allowed KAQ to breath natural air and she lived for another 10 years.

In the Schiavo case, the goal was to kill the patient not to eliminate the burdsome treatment.

Terri was denied natural food and water. This was in spite of a fact that Terri hadn't had a swallowing test in 12 years. Terri hadn't had swallowing evaluation in over 5 years. The Schindlers provided numerous experts that could have worked with Terri to get her to swallow but were all denied even the chance to explore this possibility.

What even fewer people know was that KAQ actually had a feeding tube.

KAQ lived with a feeding tube for 10 years.

When the family was asked about removing the feeding tube, the family responded "It's her nourisment."

Fortunately the KAQ family was not completely corrupted by the death docs and bioethists and saw reason enough to know that starving and dehydrating a loved on to death would be cruel and inhumane.
Posted by: james at March 30, 2007 5:16 PMBelow are distrubing verfiable facts of the Schiavo case.

1. Michael Schiavo has given 3 separate and conflicting accounts of Terri's collapse. Terri's collapse remains unsolved to this day. No heart attack. No Eating disorder. In fact, Michael accounts of what happen that night changed almost by the hour.

2. Michael had the vet euthanize Terri's 2 beloved cats. He also melted down her wedding rings.

3. Terri's was locked away in hospice for nearly 3 years. Any and all attempts to allow to leave her room were denied. This included attending social functions such as a bird show, attend church services, and to even go outside to feel and enjoy the sun. Terri could leave her room. She just needed a wheelchair which Michael refused to provide.

4. Court hearings were actually conducted to get permission to raise the blinds in Terri's room.

5. Michael refused to mention Terri in both of his parent's obits. Instead he mentioned Jodi as his fiancee.

6. Terri felt pain. Numerous Numerous testimonies and medical documentation bear this fact.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2007 4:34 PM

Yes, Terri Schiavo was indeed starved and dehydrated to death.

Below are some disturbing facts:

Terri was starved and dehydrated to death - whether she was denied a feeding tube or natural food or water does not matter. Terri was subject to an act that can't done to dog, a deathrow inmate or a terrorist. Starvation and dehydration (whether by removing a tube

That 13% would be what we call, in the vernacular, PRO LIFERS!!!!

I understand that, MK. And, "vernacular," good word.

PIP: I don't know, I guess I am not a pro-lifer.

I think using birth control for pre-marital sex is responsible. I also think if a pregnant rape victim has a serious, sufficient reason to discontinue pregnancy, I couldn't be the one telling her to. I am also inclined to believe that if being in a state of pregnancy is a serious health risk to the mother, I coudln't be the one to make her do it.

See you guys around, I guess...

PIP, there are more pro-lifers who allow for exceptions than there are who do not, by far.

There's also the matter of what is politically possible, and the "no exceptions" agenda has no chance, in my opinion.

I'm not "blaming" people for feeling the way they do, but there is a big difference between stubbornly standing on dogma, and pursuing change where there is a realistic chance of it.

Doug

There are plenty of people who have families that want them to be full codes @ the age of 98. We have to start manual CPR on them. Not pretty, and they generally don't pull through. I guess that some people want their loved ones to live forever. There is a time to let go.

Heather, there comes a point where in almost everybody's opinion it's not worth it to keep the life going. Obviously, where the line gets drawn varies widely.

If the person has said what they want to happen, that is one thing. If not, then for family members it can be really tough... I guess it could be really tough even if there is an advanced directive.

Doug

There's also the matter of what is politically possible, and the "no exceptions" agenda has no chance, in my opinion.

That's what incrementalism is for, Doug. ;-)

Yeah, Doug, that makes sense. It just disheartens me when they tell people that otherwise they are not "real pro-lifers."

So...I want abortion to be (practically) illegal, but I'm not cool enough to be a "real" pro-lifer. I heard someone say you are not a "real" one unless you are against birth control. But I am at the point where it's like, "okay, you can call me what you want. If you want to tell me I"m not a real prolifer I guess I am just a 'moderate choicer' and not worth the movement's time."

This is partly why I am talking about rhetoric that is alienating people. That and all the "oh, those stupid liberals" comments.

PIP - labels stink, don't they!

"There's also the matter of what is politically possible, and the "no exceptions" agenda has no chance, in my opinion."

Bethany: That's what incrementalism is for, Doug. ;-)

Dang you're pretty when you say that.

This is partly why I am talking about rhetoric that is alienating people. That and all the "oh, those stupid liberals" comments.

PIP, it takes all kinds of people to make up this world....

There is Zeke, who alienates even many hardcore pro-lifers, who alienate you, etc.

Just gonna have that, I reckon.

Doug

True that!