[Marxism] Re: RE Award for Judge in Shiavo case...(and more on...
davidquarter at sympatico.ca
davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Wed May 11 18:55:55 MDT 2005
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 15:11:35 -0400
From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
Subject: [Marxism] Re: Award for Judge in Schiavo case... (and more on
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Message-ID: <000801c554ca$efada9f0$6401a8c0 at fredpc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I felt that the facts about the husband's position, which has been
responsible throughout as the evidence always indicated>>>>
As the evidence always indicated to you, perhaps...
<<<<<and as I always
believed, that were raised in the first contribution to this thread
raised issues that helped clarify the claim that the right to die or
the right of specific relatives to "pull the plug" is guaranteed against
court interference by the "right to privacy" a la abortion. Quite a
few radicals have argued, partly out of ultraleft opposition to
using the courts (it seems to me) and partly just as a stick to beat the
rightist-organized campaign in the Schiavo case, that spouses h(or
"families") have the inalienable right to make decisions for their
members on these matters and that this should be a privacy right like
abortion -- that is a personal decision subject to no review. My main
point was to show why this should NOT be so, and the right to court
challenges in cases like the Schiavo one should be maintained.
I thought it was important to note that Mr. Schiavo did not claim that
this was a privacy right, did not claim the courts should not get
involved, and instead won the case on the merits.>>>>
On its own merits? Is that how the validity of an argument is decided for you?
>>>>Yes, I believe that irreversible brain death is death. >>>>
As I already mentioned, it's irreversible according to the medical opinions of some
doctors, not all.
>>>>I believe that
demonstrating that this has occurred should not be made to easy. I am
glad there was much more evidence in this case than the doctors'
It's Unanimous according to who, you? G-d? Mary Poppins?
Thus, I believe Terri Schiavo was probably dead
You can proceed to "thus, I believe..." once you establish the previous statement,
<<<<when, as I hope I would be doing in the same circumstances, he was
fruitlessly trying to show that the doctors were wrong and that her
condition could be improved. His efforts form part of the evidence.
Yes, I believe the undisturbed "calm" of Mrs. Schiavo after the tube was
removed was (for me) the final and conclusive evidence that she was in
fact dead -- that is irreversibly brain dead, which I believe is not a
disability like any other but a form of death. In that sense, she was
probably dead from the time of her collapse.>>>>
Assuming this to be true, are you convinced that the "undisturbed calm" (whatever
that is suppose to indicate) demonstrates your premise -- that she wasn't suffering
hence that she already "dead"...and if so, based on what medical evidence -- what
<<<<<But I don't think it
should be terribly easy to prove that and act on it, and it sure wasn't
in this case. I insist there is no evidence whatever that she was either
hungry or thirsty. Her parents are my source for the claim that she was
calm, which they interpreted as a sort of stoicism, but to me is
evidence that being denied food and water did not change her physical
responses in any way. Yes, I think she was dead.>>>>
Actually, her parents claimed she had been responsive throughout, i.e., while on the feeding tube.
You're claiming she wasn't based
on the " doctors' unanimous diagnosis". Unanimous in your head, perhaps. You can't even get the facts straight.
Whether she was "calm", she couldn't communicate her feelings. That doesn't prove your argument.
Also what's qualification to have for saying that non-responsiveness equals death?
David may want to turn irreversible brain death>>>>
Again YOUR argument supported by the opinions of many medical doctors, but not
by all, and certainly not by every so-called medical expect in the field.
>>>>nto a disability
legally, and he may agree with Bush that the brain-dead (and the
unborn?) are our most vulnerable citizens and therefore the most
deserving of the state's protection, but that is a huge change in the
traditional conceptions of what constitutes human death. I am sure that
Terri Schiavo (whatever was her political affiliation) will be voting
straight Republican for decades to come in Florida, and may have been
doing so for the last 15, but I do not think she was a "most vulnerable
citizen." She was one of the least vulnerable because she was
irreversibly brain dead, which is death for a human being.
I see that David is still waging the hate campaign against Mr. Schiavo,
which was the last refuge of scoundrels in this case: "I want to remove
my wife's tube b/c she's an annoying
b**tch getting in the way my self fulfillment"
There was never any evidence to support the charges against him,>>>>
In fact there was quite a bit of evidence, which the record will show.
This includes from a nurse hired by the husband
who claimed publically and stated this in court that the husband on repeated
occasions referred to
Terri as "a bitch" who he wished "would die".
More "evidence" is from a former girlfriend of the husband who made a similar
claim to the nurse, also under oath.
Obviously, the parents have been arguing this all alone. Finally there is the 500 000
or so of the husband's spending on court fees to that have the tubes removed.
Whether you consider this "evidence" enough is your prerogative. Still, it is enough
that some of us take very seriously!
<<<<throughout the 15 years are completely at odds with this
portrait. My recognition of the fact that the husband was acting
Amusing... as if this is an established "fact" on the basis that he won the court
>>>> was where my differences with the "save Terri" campaigners
began, even before I was convinced of her irreversible brain death,
i.e., death. On both issues, I tried to start with the facts. And the
facts are overwhelming. Really, it is now David who must prove a
different case, >>>>>
Actually you've proven nothing, but maybe you're just too stupid (brain damaged?)
to realize this...
something he attempted and failed to do again and again.>>>>>
Please. Don't flatter yourself. You're beyond stupid.
Much of what J. wrote on the facts was in response to David.>>>>
Jose? Don't believe I read the e-mail, or if I did, I wasn't aware.
is no evidence that David has anything new to say. ><<<<<
A) I carried out a much of this discussion off list. B) You're an idiot. C) You've
haven't even established many of the premises you build your "argument" around.
He is fully entitled
to his view, but there is no need to rehash it again and again.>>>>
>From a guy who probably posts in and around 20 messsage a week and who
problably invented the idea of not letting something rest.
More information about the Marxism