(Insert Title Here)
Dr. Lou Natic said:
I would have expected you to understand, tiassa, being such a moral being, that on the off chance she does maintain some ability to suffer(no matter how unlikely) it's incredibly wreckless to be starving her to death.
Theorize for me, Doc, where and how she will suffer.
The case in her favor does not reach the heights of conspiracy theories, but bears many of the same markers. Paranoia, late accusations, speculative notions asserted as hard truths.
What I want is simply
evidence.
Right now what we have is six court-appointed physicians finding a PVS, 33 affidavits by doctors hired by the Schindlers contesting PVS (only two of whom have examined the patient at all). We have Senator (Dr.) Frist offering medical diagnoses based on four minutes of videotape. We have a doctor hired by the state of Florida with the intention of stopping Mrs. Schiavo's death who apparently reviewed all the medical records in under 24 hours and pronounced Terri to not be in a PVS without having examined her.
Bring me that signal. We can detect the electrical signals that show pain and stress. That's the first thing the "Save Terri" crowd needs to do, and that's the one thing they haven't done.
And that's a start. Because as I understand it, the possibility that Mrs. Schiavo will suffer leading up to her death involves the communication of that suffering within the body in previously-undetected, unknown ways.
Because starving to death is so excessively extreme that if you did get it wrong it would be one hell of a tragic case. You'd cover your bases to make sure you're not starving a conscious being to death.
If the being is conscious, we should be able to determine that. Where's the signal? Contact? Contact?
People saying "maybe we shouldn't starve her to death" don't need to provide data, they're only suggesting we not torture someone to death. It wouldn't be a tragedy if we failed to torture a vegetable who couldn't feel it to death. No one's going to lose sleep over that.
"Murder", as several of the pro-lifers have it. "Torture" as you've expressed it.
Neither of these terms are supportable at this time.
I'm not a "pro-lifer", I'd gladly wack her on the head with a lead pipe right now.
This is about not slowly torturing a disabled person to death over a 2 week period.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Nothing. But you're rhetoric is dishonest. What's so hard to understand about that?
Establish that it's torture. What's that? You can't? I see.
Your argument seems to be, "meh, we're pretty sure she won't know whats going on, it's best we starve her to death", what?
Actually, Lou, the only reason anyone is unsure is because people like the Schindlers and yourself keep making unsubstantiated assertion. Substantiate. It's that simple. The Schindlers can file any lawsuit they want against anybody they want. They appear to be filing the wrong suits. They appear to be going about the whole thing wrongly.
While you're at it why don't you dangle cheeseburgers in front of her face? Drink water from the faucet in her room and say "mmmm mm! That's good, so refreshing!".
That would be rather pointless.
We also better spit on her and call her a fuckhead, because it's most likely that she won't even know.
She might, but we're pretty sure she won't, so we need to think up wierd ways to torture her
You know, I'm
not going to get my green hat out and insist that people start backing up these accusations of murder and torture. After all, you have the right to make a complete ass of yourself.
But it would be much more useful to this discussion if you would either back it up or stuff the attitude problem.
I always thought I'd embrace the day the world tortures a human being on air over a 2 week period.
But there's something unsettling about all these sissies advocating it.
The whole thing is unsettling, Lou. In the meantime, there are two important notes to make:
• I always thought I'd embrace the day the world tortures a human being on air over a 2 week period. Well, maybe you will. After all, we haven't gone that far, your unsubstantiated, insupportable accusations notwithstanding.
• But there's something unsettling about all these sissies advocating it - Well, at least we know what's important to you. Focus, Lou.
It's like I'm in the twilight zone. I feel obliged to provide the arguments they should be providing.
Do you mean the arguments in response to desperate irrelevancy? Go for it.
I mean, having received from Congress a judicial do-over, having seen due process thrown out, having been given a special privilege and a chance to make their case again, the Schindlers and their supporters failed to do so. Are they intentionally withholding evidence that would support their case? I doubt it. I can't think of a decent reason why they would.
All they had to do was establish the merits of their case. "Terri's Law" basically instructed the court in what to do from there. (Side note: a response to
rbruma's assertion to the other is planned for sometime today.)
They failed to establish those merits.
• • •
Some prior, but relevant comments of mine:
• Interestingly, it does not seem that Congress has ordered that Mrs. Schiavo's pain be monitored and recorded for future considerations ....
• This is where we need that pro-life expertise. Mr. Finn says such a death is painful as hell. Doctors say, "There is absolutely no indication that the body reacts to this with stress." Okay, what is it that the doctors are overlooking?
• If Mrs. Schiavo will recover, what are the signs of progress? If Mrs. Schiavo will feel pain, where and how will that signal be manifested? ... Show us that she will feel pain.
• If Mrs. Schiavo feels pain, we should be able to detect the electrical signal in her body and brain.
• If there is no nervous signal to detect, how is she perceiving pain?
• Certain evidence would prove mighty effective for those arguing to extend Mrs. Schiavo's life: evidence of recovery processes, evidence of pain. Evidence of mere perception would be a good start.
• What's absent from the discussion right now is evidence in support of the pro-life position ... For instance, the medical consensus says there is no evidence of pain. Hugh Finn, whose brother died amid a similar debate, says that's wrong, that such a death "hurts like hell". However, we haven't a scrap of evidence to support that assertion ... That's what I'm asking for. Anything to start.
• The politics of this issue make positions difficult to define. I, for instance, am furious at the procedural irregularities undertaken for superficial and unnecessary reasons. I am furious at the denial of any reverence or dignity of toward human life evident in the pro-life crowd. But all of that hinges on a few basic realities. Despite all their rhetoric, the "Save Terri" crowd has failed to provide anything to address those realities.
• For instance, all I'm asking is one piece of information: evidence of pain. Had that data been available and entered into argument, the judge most likely would have granted the TRO.
• We, who support Mrs. Schiavo's right to determination, who acknowledge the sanctity of the Schiavo marriage, and who respect such societal notions as due process (a guarantee) and equal protection (a guarantee), are waiting for the pro-lifers to come up with any piece of substantive evidence.
• All we need is contact. All we need is a signal. And despite the rhetoric, despite the anguish of Mrs. Schiavo's parents and siblings, what the pro-life crowd has failed to provide is even that small bit of evidence that can give us a place to start.
• Florida Governor Bush has also announced that the state has hired a doctor who claims Mrs. Schiavo has been misdiagnosed .... Well now, isn't that convenient and expected? Nonetheless, if it's true, I'm sure it can be demonstrated. After all, that electrical signal in the brain ought to be available to us .... Even coming from a Republican who is a member of America's most dishonest family, we must pause to consider the possibility. Is Jeb just blowing smoke, or does he have something for us? Cough it up, cough it up.
• Fifteen years of cynicism? Nineteen judges' worth? How many doctors? And suddenly, that cynicism evaporates because we should think this one doctor, who has not examined the patient directly, has nailed it where everybody else has screwed the pooch?
• Somebody please, hand me some data on this woman's perceptive capabilities.
• There's lots of people telling us she's not far enough gone to do this. None of them have shown the case, though.
On the off-chance that she does maintain some ability to suffer, theorize for me, Doc, please: how and where will that suffering manifest itself?
Should we retreat to the "unobservable soul"? Or is there a signal to be found?
As far as I understand it, there is no signal. And it seems that nobody arguing to preserve Mrs. Schiavo's life is either willing or capable of providing evidence in support of their assertions to the contrary. Is there a reason for this?
