Sciavo autopsy

by rebel8 49 Replies latest watchtower medical

EvilForce

I bet the lawyer bills on this matter have exceeded $ 350,000 or more on this case.
144001

The point he was an adulterous man with bastard children means nothing in today's society. --

Abaddon,
With all due respect, I think a majority of folks would likely disagree with this assertion.
However, how can you be estranged from a vegetable? Sorry to be blunt, but there you have it. Any person in a situation like that will be physically estranged, as in removed from customary environment, but you were criticising him for it
My criticism for Mr. Schiavo is not over the fact that he moved on with his life. It would be unrealistic to expect him not to. Similarly, I have no "moral high ground" to judge him for being an adulterer. Nevertheless, the point of referring to these facts is that Mr. Schiavo moved on with his life. He created an entirely different familial situation for himself. Without legal documents, he effectively divorced his wife. I have no issue with this fact either. My problem lies in his stubborn desire to call the shots for his estranged wife when he had actually moved on with his life, both by finding another woman and by starting a family with her. Obviously, he now has different issues to deal with; new kids, new partner, etc.. It's hard to believe his estranged wife would get the sort of attention she deserved given those circumstances. And, given her parent's desire to take over as her conservator, he should have allowed them to do so.
Also, your contention that my use of the word "estranged" is factually inaccurate doesn't hold water. My dictionary defines "estranged," inter alia, as "removed from an accustomed place or set of associations." Clearly, that definition applied to the late Terri Schiavo in both regards.
You missed this;
traveled to the hospice to visit her when they were informed that she may be approaching death
Why would they inform people who couldn't visit? If the implication a visit would have been allowed at that point is not seen, what say you to the report of it being a police ruling?
Maybe hospice staff thought there was some possibility that the Schindler's could obtain their subhuman son-in-law's consent to be there when his "wishes" finally caused their daughter's death? There could be a lot of reasons why they were informed that her time was fast approaching, but all news reports I saw claimed that Michael Schiavo asked the police to keep the Schindler's out. There is nothing ambiguous about those reports, do you need some links on them?
Re. the money. The only reason that Michael did not give up his financial interests in his wife's estate is he wanted to do so on the condition her parents stopped legal action. They wanted the money and his wife; he only wanted his wife. They never took up the offer, she died as his wife in law, and the estate falls to him.
He already proved that is not what was important to him. I am sorry that isn't good enough for you.
Abaddon, with all due respect, neither you nor I have any basis to assess whether money was a motivating factor for Michael Schiavo. Do you really believe you can make that assessment based purely on what you have read? Are you privy to Michael Schiavo's personal finances and objectives? As I said before, time will tell whether money was a motivating factor. I'm waiting to hear about the book deal.
As for the discussion of parenthood, you could've just given a straight answer. That's all I was seeking, and your failure to provide one lead me to the reasonable assumption I suggested earlier.
I'm happy you to think what you think and disagree. But condemn the poor bastard morally and you end up making yourself look absurd.
Michael Schiavo's conduct is what condemns him morally, not my words.
Oh, and please take this as it is meant, I'd still buy you a round if we were in a bar. And then I'd ask if there was something in your life which makes you react this way. I'm not normally surprised to see people react as they do; I'm sure people can roll their eyes at my predictablities. But this just surprised me, as I say right at the top.
Abaddon, this is the first time I've found myself in disagreement with any of your posts here. An occasional disagreement proves we aren't clones. And I can actually relate to your surprise about my take on this issue, as I myself found my position to be a bit odd. The strange part was, despite my emotional feelings regarding this case, I still believed the courts' decisions against the Schindler's were worthy of deference and respect. I disliked the involvement of Bush in his effort to prove that even the judiciary must jump when he squeaks. But I couldn't get past putting myself in the Schindler's position. The icing on the cake was Michael Schiavo's need to deprive them of being at her deathbed. I cannot respect him, although I do respect the outcome of the case.
I'll get the next round of drinks.
144001

Evil,
I'd bet they are substantially more than $350K; they probably exceed $1 million. Both the Schindlers and the Schiavos likely had assistance from their supporters.
Abaddon

144001, you are using the terms adulterer and bastard to refer to a man and children in a situation where the former wife was brain dead. You might think that is reasonable. I think it is nonsense. Your entire attitude make your insistance "Michael Schiavo's conduct is what condemns him morally, not my words" ring very hollow as you have gone out of your way to condemn him with your choice of words.
My problem lies in his stubborn desire to call the shots for his estranged wife when he had actually moved on with his life, both by finding another woman and by starting a family with her.
Have you asked your partner if they would want you to hand their brain-dead body back to their parents? Or whether they'd rather you carry out your remaining responsibilities to them by seeing their wishes carried out? Go on, ask. His wife (i.e. the person he loved) WAS dead. All there was was a body. This body would have died in 1998 if he had been allowed to terminate sustenance. It was her parent's stubborn refusal to accept facts that caused things to drag on another seven years. He was just exercising his rights as her next-of-kin in law but was prevented from doing so on no good grounds what-so-ever.
Leaving her to them would of violated his remaining responsibility to her; seeing she was not kept alive in a condition she would not want to be alive. You are basically saying he should of washed his hands of her and condemned her to a fate she did not want. It is an absurd argument. Why should he have betrayed her in this way? This is one issue you've thus far evaded responding to.
Obviously, he now has different issues to deal with; new kids, new partner, etc.. It's hard to believe his estranged wife would get the sort of attention she deserved given those circumstances.
And I am afraid, given your earlier tone toward him, and your happiness to refer to inoccent parties as 'bastards' (which is an insult as well as a definiton and was deliberately used insultingly for all its semantic accuracy), your new display of empathy toward his new wife really comes over as damage limitation for your previous statements.
Also, your contention that my use of the word "estranged" is factually inaccurate doesn't hold water. My dictionary defines "estranged," inter alia, as "removed from an accustomed place or set of associations." Clearly, that definition applied to the late Terri Schiavo in both regards.
Thank you for having the courtesy to read my post 144. NOT. I actually say in my last post the above definiton is obviously not what you meant as ANY PERSON would be estranged by that definiton in those circumstances, but that you were criticisng him and thus obviously meant the other definiton.

It seems you're more interested in defending your opinion than in the actual topic we're discussing, as you can't even be bothered to read what I say, or deliberately miss bits out to add credence to your argument. That is the third time it happened. STRIIIKE 3!
all news reports I saw claimed that Michael Schiavo asked the police to keep the Schindler's out. There is nothing ambiguous about those reports, do you need some links on them?
Go on then. But only if you can honestly say you know you'd have let your wifes last few breaths be all about her parents rather than her (see last two paragraphs).
Abaddon, with all due respect, neither you nor I have any basis to assess whether money was a motivating factor for Michael Schiavo.
They wanted the money and his wife; he only wanted his wife. If her parents had allowed her to die in 1998 he wouldn't of had a penny and her 'life' would have ended in a manner more consistent with her wishes. Despite the simplicity of this fact, where he GAVE UP ALL MONEY under condition his wife could die as she wished, you are still claim "neither you nor I have any basis to assess whether money was a motivating factor for Michael Schiavo."
I'm waiting to hear about the book deal.
The guy has been crucified by you and others, let alone his former in laws. Maybe he'd like to tell his own story in his own way, but you obviously feel a subhuman should not do this. Seems you'd be happiest if he remained silent, or maybe you feel he should give profits from a book to charity? And will you condemn her parents if they write a book too? Or ask that they give any profits to charity?
As for the discussion of parenthood, you could've just given a straight answer. That's all I was seeking, and your failure to provide one lead me to the reasonable assumption I suggested earlier.
So, in other words (you obviously have a big problem admitting when you are wrong, so I'll help), you 1/ made an attack on my personality as 2/ you didn't believe it was possible for someone with my opinion to have kids, 3/ I basically tell you you can't deduce shit, 4/ which anyone not obsessed with proving their point would have picked up on, 5/ you then crow and miss the point entirely and 6/ assume I don't have kids, and now, rather than admitting you were wrong on both counts, and that you were making an attack on my character, 7/ you blame me. Start taking some responsibility for your actions man.
You have made your view of him, morally speaking, very clear. In my view you're just as morally wrong for condemning a man for seeing his wife's wishes were carried out - which is what happened.
I disliked the involvement of Bush in his effort to prove that even the judiciary must jump when he squeaks.
Total agreement there.
But I couldn't get past putting myself in the Schindler's position.
The icing on the cake was Michael Schiavo's need to deprive them of being at her deathbed.
Well, I hope you are never treated as disgusting scum by your in-laws for a decade for trying to abide by your wifes wishes. You might then decide their accrimonious hate was simply unsuitable accompaniment to your wife's last breaths. Seems they failed to show him respect too. What about Schiavo's postion, have you put yourself in that?
If you tried to save a loved one with a blood transfusion, and their JW parents hated you for it, and then after all hope was gone and you simply wanted to let your loved one's body go, and for ten years the religous bigotry and blindness of your loved one's parents stopped you completing your loved ones wishes, and their attempts to orchestrate people against you resulted in death threats and traduction of your name for doing what your loved-one wished, you might think twice before letting them be there when the person finally died.
It was about HIM and HER. That's what marriage means. Her parents obsession ended up in making it all about them, whatever they thought they were doing. That would not have changed in her final moments, in my opinion. God knows what stunt they mat have pulled at the last minute.
144001

144001, you are using the terms adulterer and bastard to refer to a man and children in a situation where the former wife was brain dead. You might think that is reasonable. I think it is nonsense.

Abaddon,
You refer to the facts that Michael Schiavo was an adulterer with bastard offspring as "nonsense," yet you've failed to refute these facts or even make an attempt to do so. Your words speak for themselves, and rather than refuting them, you have corroborated my comments with your statements.
Leaving her to them would of violated his remaining responsibility to her; seeing she was not kept alive in a condition she would not want to be alive.
Since Terri Schiavo was not competent to confirm this assertion, the credibility of its source is key. I didn't find Michael Schiavo to be credible. So this allegation has no bearing on my opinion in this case.
And I am afraid . . . your new display of empathy toward his new wife really comes over as damage limitation for your previous statements.
And I am afraid, that you are a very presumptuous individual. I have no empathy for his new wife. She chose her fate.
Also, your contention that my use of the word "estranged" is factually inaccurate doesn't hold water. My dictionary defines "estranged," inter alia, as "removed from an accustomed place or set of associations." Clearly, that definition applied to the late Terri Schiavo in both regards.
Thank you for having the courtesy to read my post 144. NOT. I actually say in my last post ;the above definiton is obviously not what you meant as ANY PERSON would be estranged by that definiton in those circumstances, but that you were criticisng him and thus obviously meant the other definiton.
Hmm, I guess I do have problems reading. This is what I read:
Thus your contention that he was estranged is false. The sad fact is there was nothing left of that which he loved to be estranged from
You've yet to disprove my contention, but have done a splendid job of attempting to dance around your own words.
They wanted the money and his wife; he only wanted his wife.
I didn't know you were a mind reader. Apparently you know exactly what Michael Schiavo wanted.
The guy has been crucified by you and others, let alone his former in laws. Maybe he'd like to tell his own story in his own way, but you obviously feel a subhuman should not do this. Seems you'd be happiest if he remained silent, or maybe you feel he should give profits from a book to charity? And will you condemn her parents if they write a book too? Or ask that they give any profits to charity?
First you say he's not interested in the money, now you are saying that if he is it's ok. Maybe you're conceding that your own position on this issue is based on your emotions rather than facts? No, I doubt you'll be honest enough to do that.
So, in other words (you obviously have a big problem admitting when you are wrong, so I'll help),
The pot is calling the kettle black.
you 1/ made an attack on my personality as 2/ you didn't believe it was possible for someone with my opinion to have kids,
Show me the attack, Abaddon. How is it an attack to guess that someone with your opinion does not have kids? You are quite a defensive person, as no attack was intended, implied, or stated. Get the chip off your shoulder.
3/ I basically tell you you can't deduce shit, .
How hypocritical of you to rail on about personal attacks while admitting that you have engaged in them in this thread.
You have made your view of him, morally speaking, very clear. In my view you're just as morally wrong for condemning a man for seeing his wife's wishes were carried out - which is what happened.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement. It seems you are either conceding that Michael Schiavo is "morally wrong" or that both Michael Shiavo and I are not morally wrong. Which is it?
At the end of the day, Abaddon, you and I will never agree on this topic.
Abaddon

144
This is getting dull as you are basically resorting to logical fallacies rather than engaging in debate;
You refer to the facts that Michael Schiavo was an adulterer with bastard offspring as "nonsense," yet you've failed to refute these facts or even make an attempt to do so. Your words speak for themselves, and rather than refuting them, you have corroborated my comments with your statements.
Straw man argument. I have accepted the dictionary definitons of both those words are correct, but a/ meaningless in today's society and, b/ meaningless when applied to a relationship where one half is brain dead. Thus the above is a misrepresentation of what I actually did say.
Since Terri Schiavo was not competent to confirm this assertion, the credibility of its source is key. I didn't find Michael Schiavo to be credible. So this allegation has no bearing on my opinion in this case.
Baseless ad hom on Michael. In 1998 this guy would have given all the money to charity if the parents had let their brain-dead daughter die. They didn't let him comply with her wishes. In additon to this verification that money was not a motive in endling her respiration, Michael also turned down the offer of $1 million shortly before her death (to hand over guardianship). Thus you have no reasonable argument to base your accusation of Michael lying on.
And I am afraid, that you are a very presumptuous individual. I have no empathy for his new wife. She chose her fate.
This sentence alone makes me convinced this conversation has run its course. Your vapourings and illogicity are now just directed at striking out; you've attacked me personally, bought the children into it, and now his wife. How is it down there? You're one of the only people I've ever met who needs diving apparatus to survive on their moral highground.
I'm also curious asto the psychology behind a sequence such as this. I originally said this is response to you saying they were estranged;
However, how can you be estranged from a vegetable? Sorry to be blunt, but there you have it. Any person in a situation like that will be physically estranged, as in removed from customary environment, but you were criticising him for it - you meant when there is mutual enmity or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness (Mirrian-Webster). The dictionary cuts both ways...
You responded with;
Also, your contention that my use of the word "estranged" is factually inaccurate doesn't hold water. My dictionary defines "estranged," inter alia, as "removed from an accustomed place or set of associations." Clearly, that definition applied to the late Terri Schiavo in both regards.
Now, either you didn't bother reading my post properly as you know you are right and what anyone else says is irrelevent, or you didn't understand what I said, which means...?
I point this the above out to you;
Thank you for having the courtesy to read my post 144. NOT. I actually say in my last post the above definiton is obviously not what you meant as ANY PERSON would be estranged by that definiton in those circumstances, but that you were criticisng him and thus obviously meant the other definiton.
Rather than admit to not reading my post properly and thus making yourself look silly, you continue to distort things to try and save face, as per your comment on 'estranged' in your last post. Sadly this only makes you look sillier. It looks like you are playing to some 'gallery' that exists inside your heads of imaginary readers who are too stupid to see what you are doing - just as long as you keep insisting you are without error in your last post they'll be convinced.
Whether anyone else is still reading this thread is moot; but if they are they're as capable of seeing how dishonest you are with yourself as I am. But you insulting the intelligence of imaginary readers in your head is so engagingly amusing please feel free to hoist yourself on your own petard higher than you already are.
They wanted the money and his wife; he only wanted his wife.
I didn't know you were a mind reader. Apparently you know exactly what Michael Schiavo wanted.
I know he didn't want the money because he said he'd give it up if he was allowed to let his wife die in the manner she'd have wished. This is a fact; what he wanted was demonstrated by his actions. You ignore the facts to cling to your opinion, I use them to support mine.
First you say he's not interested in the money, now you are saying that if he is it's ok. Maybe you're conceding that your own position on this issue is based on your emotions rather than facts? No, I doubt you'll be honest enough to do that.
What I said (rolls eyes completely around skull at umteenth straw man characterisation of what I am saying) is that the only reason he didn't give the money up was due to her parent's refusal of the deal I described. He also refused $1 million which you have no smart comment on. The fact he still is entitled to a share of her estate is soley due to her parent's actions. You can try and give it relevence if you wish, but it only reflects on her parent's stubborness and the waste of time and life of all involved since 1998.

As to ad hims, you implied that only someone without kids could be as heartless towards her parents plight. You lacked the honesty to do this directly, using a more discrete "poison the well" statagy. You implied my heartlessness (an ad hom) rather than stating it, but it was still an ad hom. If you insult one have the guts to either stand behind it or apologise rather than pretend you didn't.
How hypocritical of you to rail on about personal attacks while admitting that you have engaged in them in this thread.
Nope, that was a description of your abilities provided with evidence. Your implcation that I must not have children to be so heartless was not proved. That's the difference between a description and an insult. Clear on that one?
You have made your view of him, morally speaking, very clear. In my view you're just as morally wrong for condemning a man for seeing his wife's wishes were carried out - which is what happened.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement. It seems you are either conceding that Michael Schiavo is "morally wrong" or that both Michael Shiavo and I are not morally wrong. Which is it?
I say (massive sigh) that in my view you're as wrong as YOU think he is.
We're not going to agree on this one 144. I won't bother responding to any reply that continues to distort what I say.
144001

Abbadon,
With all due respect, continuing on in this topic is like flogging a dead horse. My words speak for themselves, as do yours. Your most recent post has added nothing that I feel is worthy of a response.
Pistoff

In the Sciavo case, her estranged husband fought hard and ultimately successfully to starve and dehydrate his estranged wife to death. I think his desires regarding Terri should have been subordinated to those of her parents,

A dozen judges decided that the HUSBAND had the right; others heard her express her wishes!! GIVE IT UP!
No one cares that you disapprove her husband; get over it.
Terry Schiavo died 15 years ago; what was being kept "alive" was a body without a brain or personality. How cruel is that??
Gozz

144001,
your main point is clear as crystal, and was a very harrowing point for me as I discussed this issue with others. It wouldn't matter that a million judges agreed on the same point, and the law, in this case, does appear unfair to me too. It's important to note that no one blames Mr. Schiavo for moving on with his life, but it is curious that he also retained the right to make the most important decision for the woman: the law considered her dead long before the tube was removed; the family was deprived of their wish to take care of her no matter what. That is curious. Many people, if not most, disagree. But it is curious.
And, just so you know:
I made the mistake of reading your first post ont his thread while drinking coffee... of course, some of it ended on my table... very funny
.
144001

Gozz,

Thanks for your post. You have succinctly summarized much of what I put into many posts.

Pistoff,

Personally, I could care less what you think of me, my posts, or anything else. Hsve a nice day.

Sciavo autopsy

Share this