Calling All Tripe:
A Response to Elizabeth Whelan

End of Life Issues — By on March 25, 2005 at 1:42 am

In a recent TCS article on the Terri Schiavo case, Elizabeth Whelan, president of The American Council on Science and Health, says we should call “call tripe when tripe is served.” I wholeheartedly agree which is why I believe we should start by calling Ms. Whelan on the tripe — and the liberal ladling of ad hominem — that she has served. I realize that the media often calls upon Ms. Wheldan precisely because she is known for giving colorful misrepresentations of her ideological enemies. But such nonsense directed toward the respected neurologist Dr. William P. Cheshire Jr. should not go unchallenged.
Ms. Whelan begins by claiming to know the “harsh facts” of Terri Schiavo’s brain state, yet appears to be confused about the difference between a “permanent vegetative state” and a persistent vegetative state in which a patient may be minimally conscious. As Dr. Cheshire correctly notes in his affidavit, actions taken against a minimally conscious patient may be “unintentionally neglectful.” Because a misdiagnosis of her condition could lead to cruel and unethical treatment, it is imperative to make as accurate an estimation of her condition as is possible. The record shows, however, that some of the most basic neurological tests have not been used in making the diagnosis.


Whelan then goes on to attack Dr. Cheshire’s status as “renowned” by pointing to his “limited publications” which focus on the areas of “headache pain and his opposition to stem cell research.” What she left out was that he has also published articles on, among other topics, Parkinson’s, trigeminal neuralgia, hypotensive akathisia, Spinal cord injuries, and cysticercosis. A closer look would have also revealed that out of the fifteen doctors in the neurology department at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Cheshire has published more articles than a third of his colleagues. Does Whelan take the paucity of Pub-Med citations as evidence that the Mayo Clinic is simply full of second-rate slackers?
Whelan does correctly point out that Dr. Cheshire never conducted a physical examination of Ms. Schiavo and that he did not perform neurological tests. That is certainly true. In fact, as Dr. Cheshire makes clear, Ms. Shiavo hasn’t had a neurological examination in over three years. If Whelan had bothered to actually read Dr. Cheshire’s affidavit rather than basing her opinion on press reports she might have noticed that he recommended more testing precisely to avoid the potentially unethical situation of starving to death a woman who may be minimally conscious.
Ms. Whelan also points out that Dr. Cheshire is a member of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD)*, implying that this is evidence that he is “guided by a personal agenda.” Perhaps if Ms. Whelan had set aside her own personal agenda long enough to gather some basic facts she would have discovered that the approaches to Christian bioethics, including those of CBHD, do not necessarily include the removal of nutrition and dehydration for a person in a permanent vegetative state. Dr. Cheshire’s religious views on the issue are moot. What is at issue is the unresolved medical question of Schiavo’s neurological status. Dr. Cheshire makes it clear that he is not opposed to the removal of nutrition and hydration for patients in a permanent vegetative state. The question is not whether withdrawal of treatment is ethical but whether Ms. Schiavo is in need of further testing in order to make a scientifically informed judgment.
As Ms. Whelan notes, all of us are entitled to our own personal views on the Schiavo case. Some views, such as those of Dr. Cheshire, are based on an objective examination of the facts. Others, such as Ms. Whelan’s, are rooted in an emotional response that is based on an appalling ignorance of the relevant scientific evidence. Expressing such an opinion on a third-rate blog would be excusable. But for the president of a consumer education consortium to do so in
a public forum is simply embarrassing.
Related:

  • Hugh Hewitt: “Dr. Whelan originally published her broadside at Dr. Chesire at TechCentralStation, where the op-ed ended with the stange tag line: “She is a life-long Republican.” And that fact is of significance because…? She’s claiming junk science, but she’s writing junk commentary.”
  • Confderate Yankee: “Some more “harsh facts” seem to indicate that Dr. Whelan might need a refresher course at the closest available medical school. The part of Dr. Whelan’s statement above in bold (my bold, not the author’s) simply isn’t true.
    EEGs–electroencephalograms–measure electrical activity on the surface of the brain only. She cannot categorically state there is no deeper brain function because of EEG results, as EEGs do not measure such.

*Full Disclosure: I am also on the staff at CBHD, though I have never met Dr. Cheshire.



  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    I did some digging and reading up on exactly what PVS is and how it’s diagnosed. I just posted my results (plus a bunch of other facts) here.
    I’m well aware that many people will only see what they want to see. Yet I’m still surprised at how some people, including some doctors, simply cannot see Terri’s mind at work behind her actions.

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    I did some digging and reading up on exactly what PVS is and how it’s diagnosed. I just posted my results (plus a bunch of other facts) here.
    I’m well aware that many people will only see what they want to see. Yet I’m still surprised at how some people, including some doctors, simply cannot see Terri’s mind at work behind her actions.

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    I did some digging and reading up on exactly what PVS is and how it’s diagnosed. I just posted my results (plus a bunch of other facts) here.
    I’m well aware that many people will only see what they want to see. Yet I’m still surprised at how some people, including some doctors, simply cannot see Terri’s mind at work behind her actions.

  • Eric & Lisa

    Ed “what the heck” man,
    Impressive work!
    It scares me to death that we are killing this woman. Make no mistake, we are killing her, not Judge Greer, not Michael Shiavo, not any one person is to blame here. All of us who sit thousands of miles away on our computers coming to the same conclusion, that Terri Shiavo is alive and not brain dead, we are responsible.
    My God forgive us.

  • Eric & Lisa

    Ed “what the heck” man,
    Impressive work!
    It scares me to death that we are killing this woman. Make no mistake, we are killing her, not Judge Greer, not Michael Shiavo, not any one person is to blame here. All of us who sit thousands of miles away on our computers coming to the same conclusion, that Terri Shiavo is alive and not brain dead, we are responsible.
    My God forgive us.

  • Eric & Lisa

    Ed “what the heck” man,
    Impressive work!
    It scares me to death that we are killing this woman. Make no mistake, we are killing her, not Judge Greer, not Michael Shiavo, not any one person is to blame here. All of us who sit thousands of miles away on our computers coming to the same conclusion, that Terri Shiavo is alive and not brain dead, we are responsible.
    My God forgive us.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    a minimally conscious patient may be “unintentionally neglectful.” …
    This does sound like a made up category to allow PVS people who have done everything, whose brains have turned to jelly, who are flatliners to be kept alive despite the consequences.
    BTW, shouldn’t yo mention, full disclosure you know, that Cheshire’s CV includes such relevant works to PVS as “The Awful Tooth About Pain?”
    Dr. Cheshire has published more articles than a third of his colleagues.
    LOL! IOW, 2/3 of his colleagues have published more articles than he did!.
    OK, so you admit he’s not exactly above the median on this.
    Dr. Cheshire’s religious views on the issue are moot.
    No, but his apparent unfitness to be an expert on the subject is.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com mumon

    I might also add that Whelan’s not alone. Real experts in PVS and ethics seem to agree with Whelan.
    Unsaid in all of this is who funds this “think tank?”
    Where does the money come from?
    Folks, don’t you want to know where your tripe is coming from?

  • http://decorabilia.blogspot.com Jim Anderson

    Joe Carter writes:
    “Ms. Whelan begins by claiming to know the ‘harsh facts’ of Terri Schiavo’s brain state, yet appears to be confused about the difference between a ‘permanent vegetative state’ and a persistent vegetative state in which a patient may be minimally conscious.”
    But a moment ago he wrote:
    “But Shiavo is not terminal and there is dispute whether she is in a PVS state or whether she is minimally consciousness.” [emphasis added]
    Mr. Carter apparently shares Ms. Whelan’s confusion, and for good reason: “permanent vegetative state” and “persistent vegetative state” are, medically speaking, the same term.

  • http://locustsandhoney.blogspot.com John

    I have heard so many ‘facts’ from the different sides on Schiavo’s case that I no longer trust anything that I read.

  • http://bantamwait.blogspot.com Sid

    So many people who have written about the effort to save Terri have emphasized the hope that she will “recover.” On the other side, those who want to terminate her life say that because she has no higher brain function, she is already dead. It is time to address this serious error.
    Terri is a miracle–a living person who is without sin, and without the capacity to sin. For fifteen years, she has lived as sinless a life as an unborn baby. She has never angered. She has never cursed. She has never experienced an impure thought. She has never defied her father or her mother–and how beautifully and steadfastly have they honored their bond with her. She has served as a perfect example of sinless devotion.
    Who among us, in prayer, has not been frustrated at our inability to shut out the world, to give ourselves to God in perfect concentration and devotion? Is not Terri’s example a gift to us?
    Some may say that to live in Terri’s state is somehow less than human. This is wrong! It is the life our first father and mother, Adam and Eve, led in Eden before, through Eve’s transgression, sin entered the world. Terri is living in that primordial perfect state.
    We were created in the image of God, but we marred that image through the disobedience of Adam. Every child is conceived in the same perfection as our first parents, and our Savior, but takes on Adam’s sin at birth–that’s why even at the moment of birth, a baby’s first act is to cry for her lost innocence. Through Terri, we have a living example of God’s perfect image, uncontaminated by sin. It is not for Terri that we fight to restore life-giving nutrients and water; she will have eternal life with her heavenly Father when she leaves us. It is for the gift she gives to us by her blessed example of a sinless life on this earth.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Sorry Sid, you are way off base. If you do not have the capacity to make choices then you cannot hold yourself to be sinless. The very idea is absurd, by this reasoning a rock on the ground would represent an ideal model of a human because it too doesn’t ever sin.
    While you may fairly argue that it is wrong to have removed the tube it’s pretty difficult to argue that Terri is a ‘model’ for us. Besides you cannot really know. If Terri does have some ability to think left how do you know she isn’t thinking sinful thoughts? Cursing God for her condition? Hating her parents and so on? You’re just making an assumption you can read her mind which is not really fair to us or her at all.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Suppose Congress (or the State of Florida) had passed the below law:
    **************
    No person shall have a medically necessary feeding tube or artificial form of nourishment device removed unless any of the following conditions are met:
    1. The person is in a state of pain, in a terminal illness with no probable hope of recovery and the use of the device will likely cause the person to suffer much more pain.
    2. The person expressed a written desire to not be on an artificial nourishment device.
    3. The person is able to request the removal of the device.
    *******************
    This would have accomplished the pro-lifers’ goal of having the tube given back to Terri. However it would have also established a principle around which people could plan their lives as needed. Instead the GOP has brought off the pro-lifers with a bunch of ‘single shot’ bills that they knew would fail all along.
    When she dies Republicans will caste their eyes down and declare that they tried everything they could…yet the reality is they exploited this woman’s parents for political gain.

  • http://10-8.blogspot.com Phil Aldridge

    I know you’ve all been waiting for it, so here’s my take on the Shiavo case. ;)
    There is probably good reason to keep Terri alive. If we were able to look at it from an omniscient standpoint, removal of the tube is probably unethical. However, so many doctors and so many courts have ruled against her that it is impossible to legally keep her alive. A veritable army of doctors have said she’s essentially gone, her husband has given up hope, and 20-30 trials cannot change any judge’s mind. Not only that, but now that the parents and friends are desperate, there are all these new and shady allegations of abuse that magically surfaced just now. So, basically the family is untrustworthy, the husband is untrustworthy, the judges are untrustworthy, and the doctors can’t all agree on what is going on.
    Bottom line: It’s time to move on. Terri is going to die, probably unethically, but it’s a done deal. The law of the land has rendered it’s verdict in favor of the process Terri has received. It’s over. Everyone is shady, no one looks good or truthful in all this, and I’m tired of hearing about it. It’s gone from a good cause to a grim exercise is futility. It’s macabre now. This chapter in American current events needs to be closed.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick

    “For fifteen years, she has lived as sinless a life as an unborn baby. She has never angered. She has never cursed. She has never experienced an impure thought. She has never defied her father or her mother–and how beautifully and steadfastly have they honored their bond with her. She has served as a perfect example of sinless devotion.”
    This is sick. You fetishizing her into some kind of religious icon. It removes her dignity and grace as a human being. If you really believe that we are made in “Gods image”, then just being human should be enough grace for anyone.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Andrew Sullivan linked to this interesting article by a Christian Libertarian.
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/nb20050324.shtml
    I

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    Suppose Congress (or the State of Florida) had passed the below law:

    This would have accomplished the pro-lifers’ goal of having the tube given back to Terri. However it would have also established a principle around which people could plan their lives as needed.

    Wow! I can’t believe it! Finally there’s something Boon and I agree on!
    … but then it all just goes south again.

    Instead the GOP has brought off the pro-lifers with a bunch of ‘single shot’ bills that they knew would fail all along.

    Actually a bill exactly like you specified is what the Florida legislature tried to pass in their most recent attempt to save Terri. It was Senate Bill 804. You can read the text of the bill here and the voting record here.
    Only one Democrat voted in favor of this bill.

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    Suppose Congress (or the State of Florida) had passed the below law:

    This would have accomplished the pro-lifers’ goal of having the tube given back to Terri. However it would have also established a principle around which people could plan their lives as needed.

    Wow! I can’t believe it! Finally there’s something Boon and I agree on!
    … but then it all just goes south again.

    Instead the GOP has brought off the pro-lifers with a bunch of ‘single shot’ bills that they knew would fail all along.

    Actually a bill exactly like you specified is what the Florida legislature tried to pass in their most recent attempt to save Terri. It was Senate Bill 804. You can read the text of the bill here and the voting record here.
    Only one Democrat voted in favor of this bill.

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    Suppose Congress (or the State of Florida) had passed the below law:

    This would have accomplished the pro-lifers’ goal of having the tube given back to Terri. However it would have also established a principle around which people could plan their lives as needed.

    Wow! I can’t believe it! Finally there’s something Boon and I agree on!
    … but then it all just goes south again.

    Instead the GOP has brought off the pro-lifers with a bunch of ‘single shot’ bills that they knew would fail all along.

    Actually a bill exactly like you specified is what the Florida legislature tried to pass in their most recent attempt to save Terri. It was Senate Bill 804. You can read the text of the bill here and the voting record here.
    Only one Democrat voted in favor of this bill.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Such a bill could have been proposed on the national level as well. What’s telling to me is that the Republicans choose to pass a bill that basically said nothing beyond Terri’s parents had standing to bring a suit in Federal Court. I believe the Republicans that did this knew the courts would remain consistent so they could literally go hog wild preening for the cameras and pro-life campaign dollars knowing in the back of their heads that the courts would keep their mess from getting out of hand.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Interestingly todays NY Times has a short article on the proliferation of “Help us save Terri” ads and solicitations from conservative and evangelical web sites despite the fact that ‘official site’ pleads with people to only donate to the Foundation set up to argue her parents case.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Actually here is the other quote Sullivan pulls out on his site:
    QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Here’s the question I ask of these right-to-lifers, including Vatican bishops: as we enter into Holy Week and we proclaim that death is not triumphant and that with the power of resurrection and the glory of Easter we have the triumph of Christ over death, what are they talking about by presenting death as an unmitigated evil? It doesn

  • http://10-8.blogspot.com Phil Aldridge

    Sid –
    Terri is a miracle–a living person who is without sin, and without the capacity to sin. For fifteen years, she has lived as sinless a life as an unborn baby. She has never angered. She has never cursed. She has never experienced an impure thought. She has never defied her father or her mother–and how beautifully and steadfastly have they honored their bond with her. She has served as a perfect example of sinless devotion.

    Who among us, in prayer, has not been frustrated at our inability to shut out the world, to give ourselves to God in perfect concentration and devotion? Is not Terri’s example a gift to us?

    Some may say that to live in Terri’s state is somehow less than human. This is wrong! It is the life our first father and mother, Adam and Eve, led in Eden before, through Eve’s transgression, sin entered the world. Terri is living in that primordial perfect state.

    That’s pretty sick. She’s not without sin. She is the condition she’s in because of an eating disorder. She’s at least sinned against herself.
    Even though I’m a christian, I resent many of the Christians who have taken interest in the case. It’s getting embarrassing. I wish we could keep this to a legal and ethical debate without having to make Terri the second coming of the Virgin Mary.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I agree there, I think it is improper to speculate on Terri’s sins (or lack of sins). We don’t know why she had an eating disorder, we can’t even be 100% sure the eating disorder was the cause of her heart attack. We do know that this type of condition is horribly unlucky…even for those with disorders.
    Anyway, what moral good is served by asking us to all model outselves after Terri? Should we all get lobotomies to decrease our ability to choose sin? Who will take care of us when we all do that? Larry?

  • Larry Lord

    Did someone say lobotomy?
    “Others, such as Ms. Whelan’s, are rooted in an emotional response that is based on an appalling ignorance of the relevant scientific evidence. Expressing such an opinion on a third-rate blog would be excusable.”
    I will leave to your imagination the obvious response to this statement.
    Of greater interest to me is the fact that Fox News hired John “Communicate with the Dead” Edward for his opinions on the matter!!
    Yes, first Hannity shamelessly shills for self-promoting liars like that “Nobel nominee” Hammersfahrt, and now we talk to one of richest sickest charlatans in the country!
    But wait — is there someone here who would like to argue that perhaps John Edward really DOES have the ability to communicate with dead people?
    And if John Edward is so obviously a huckster and con artist, then what is doing on Fox News talking about Terry Schiavo?
    Or is Fox News really just a right-wing propoganda-spewing network that cares nothing about the truth as long as the ratings and money keep rolling in.
    And isn’t it true that the longer Schiavo is kept alive, the longer Fox and evangelical Christian organizations like Focus on the Family, etc., can ride the “controversy” all the way to the bank?
    Yeah, the selfishness reeks to high heaven.

  • Larry Lord

    Ask yourself again: why did nobody peep when that baby in Texas was killed?
    The answer appears below:
    ————-
    “Help Save Terri Schiavo’s Life!” says the Web site of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian conservative group best known for its campaigns against gay rights. Next to a link to the Web site of her parents’ foundation is a pitch to “become an active supporter of the Traditional Values Coalition by pledging a monthly gift.”
    “What this issue has done is it has galvanized people the way nothing could have done in an off-election year,” said Rev. Lou Sheldon, the founder of the group, acknowledging that the case of Ms. Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, had moved many to open up their checkbooks. “That is what I see as the blessing that dear Terri’s life is offering to the conservative Christian movement in America.”
    —————————

  • Larrry Lord

    And here’s another popular spokesperson on the extreme religious extreme right, Dr. Doolittle!
    ****
    LIMBAUGH: I’m sure before the day is over some whales somewhere or some dolphins somewhere will beach themselves wanting to die, that’s why they beach themselves.
    ****
    I say “strange” because Rush is a well-known drug-abusing serial-womanizing bigoted liar. But he knows who butters his bread.

  • Jack

    Larry, Why are you still here defecating all over discussions? From your own perspective, you have no more meaning or purpose than Terri Schiavo; the only diffrence is that you can yap into the void. You only serve to undermine the case for your own continued existence.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I vote in favor of Larry’s continued existence. He is quite abrasive in his points but they are mostly valid ones.

  • Jack

    I vote in favor of Larry’s continued existence. He is quite abrasive in his points but they are mostly valid ones.
    Hey, he’s the one who considers his life void of meaning and purpose, not me.
    Jack

  • Larry Lord

    Jack, is John Edward a charlatan?
    Are John Edward’s thoughts on Terry Schiavo “scientifically informed”?
    Is Fox News a “public form”?
    Is Fox News akin to a “third-rate blog”?
    Is telepathy with dead people “junk science”, in your opinion, Jack?
    Yes or no answers will suffice. These are straightforward questions.
    Oh, and if anyone else is brave enough to answer the questions, please go right ahead.

  • Larry Lord

    oops — “public form” should be “public forum”

  • Jack

    Jack, is John Edward a charlatan?
    Are John Edward’s thoughts on Terry Schiavo “scientifically informed”?
    Is Fox News a “public form”?
    Is Fox News akin to a “third-rate blog”?
    Is telepathy with dead people “junk science”, in your opinion, Jack?
    Yes or no answers will suffice. These are straightforward questions.
    Oh, and if anyone else is brave enough to answer the questions, please go right ahead.

    What possible difference would any of this mean to a meaningless blip in the history of the universe like you Larry? I mean really? Dead today, dead tomorrow, dead thirty years from now; you are spinning plates to no end. Give me one reason why your words matter at all, and I might contemplate your questions for more than a second or two.
    Jack

  • Larry Lord

    It’s okay Jack. Not everyone has Joe Carter’s guts. You don’t have to answer my questions if you don’t want to.
    Sincerely,
    Larry “The Blip” Lord

  • Jack

    It’s okay Jack. Not everyone has Joe Carter’s guts. You don’t have to answer my questions if you don’t want to.
    Actually, Joe doesn’t answer your questions either, from what I can see.
    If you want to urinate in your own bed and sleep in the soiled sheets, it’s no skin off my nose; but if you are going to go around pissing in other people’s shoes, then then at least offer an explanation for why you have no bladder control.
    But again, I repeat, your life is meaningless Larry; that is the fact you can’t face, as witnessed by the fact that you keep pretending that your words matter. You are the biggest faker here.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Hey, he’s the one who considers his life void of meaning and purpose, not me.
    Excellent! Two votes for Larry’s continued existence.
    But again, I repeat, your life is meaningless Larry; that is the fact you can’t face, as witnessed by the fact that you keep pretending that your words matter. You are the biggest faker here.
    Tsk tsk, arguing with you guys is very time consuming. I can’t blame Larry if he became discouraged a long time ago.

  • Jack

    [QUOTE]Tsk tsk, arguing with you guys is very time consuming. I can’t blame Larry if he became discouraged a long time ago. [/QUOTE]
    Actually, it’s fairly straight forward. Here, I’ll get you started,
    “My words matter because…”

  • Larry Lord

    C’mon now Jack. Calm down.
    Telepathy with dead people is junk science and John Edward is a charlatan of biblical proportions. You can admit that — and you should, loudly and proudly. It’d make you feel better about yourself.
    Try it once and see!

  • Jack

    C’mon now Jack. Calm down.
    Telepathy with dead people is junk science and John Edward is a charlatan of biblical proportions. You can admit that — and you should, loudly and proudly. It’d make you feel better about yourself.
    Ha. So you’re admitting your posts don’t mean anything more than a cockroach farting on a keyboard?

  • Larry Lord

    My words matter, Jack, because a vest has no sleeves.
    Dig it.

  • Larry Lord

    ” you’re admitting your posts don’t mean anything more than a cockroach farting on a keyboard?”
    You tell me, bro. You spent a lot of time these past couple days trying to argue with those farts and you lost.
    Still not willing to discuss John Edward and his claims? I find that interesting.
    Farting cockroaches, chirping crickets. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.

  • Jack

    My words matter, Jack, because a vest has no sleeves. Dig it.
    Well, no, actually I don’t think your posts could pass the Turing test.
    But hey, if that’s the best you could come up with, I’ll consider your future posts with that in mind.

  • Jack

    You tell me, bro. You spent a lot of time these past couple days trying to argue with those farts and you lost.
    Still not willing to discuss John Edward and his claims? I find that interesting.
    Farting cockroaches, chirping crickets. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.

    Lost what? I’ve continually contended that your posts are the meaningless ramblings of a sack of flesh, and you have never even offerred an alternate explanation. Either you and your posts have meaning, or they are just worthless occurences that we can all discount by your own testimony. Which is it?

  • Larry Lord

    “I’ve continually contended that your posts are the meaningless ramblings of a sack of flesh”
    What is meaningless or rambling about my truthful statement that John Edward is a charlatan? And that he was selected by Fox News to opine on matters alleged to relate to the Terry Schiavo case?
    Those observations are concise and meaningful — very relevant, in fact, to any discussion related to the meta-issue highlighted by Joe in the opening thread (good versus bad science as it relates to Schiavo).
    Cockroaches, by the way, are mainly chitin and water — not flesh. Just in case you were interested in being consistent.

  • Jack

    What is meaningless or rambling about my truthful statement that John Edward is a charlatan? And that he was selected by Fox News to opine on matters alleged to relate to the Terry Schiavo case?
    Meaning, as in it matters whether or not whther any of us are right or wrong or just bidding our time until the worms come. You contend the latter.
    Those observations are concise and meaningful — very relevant, in fact, to any discussion related to the meta-issue highlighted by Joe in the opening thread (good versus bad science as it relates to Schiavo).
    Not from your perspective. You’re just yammering in the void; the database is cleared, you have that long awaited stroke, and whatever meaning you pretended your words had are gone. It’s amusing to a mind with no other purpose, but not full of meaning.
    Cockroaches, by the way, are mainly chitin and water — not flesh. Just in case you were interested in being consistent.
    I didn’t call you a cockroach; I referred to you and your posts (by your own philosophy) of having the meaning of a cockroach fart. Try to keep up.

  • Larry Lord

    Yes, let’s try to keep up.
    Here are the questions Jack is afraid to answer:
    Is John Edward a charlatan?
    Are John Edward’s thoughts on Terry Schiavo “scientifically informed”?
    Is Fox News a “public form”?
    Is Fox News akin to a “third-rate blog”?
    Is telepathy with dead people “junk science”, in your opinion, Jack?
    Yes or no answers will suffice. These are straightforward questions.

  • windbag

    The vitriol, Jack. And the evasiveness. And the dismissiveness. And the argumentative pedantry. The only person consistently espousing this brand of nihilism, which you keep attributing to Larry’s “philosophy,” is you. How about you drop it and engage a little?

  • Jack

    Yes, let’s try to keep up…blah, blah, blah
    Larry, pay attention. Words on the screen mean nothing. Questions mean nothing. Unless you are a human being with some purpose beyond wrapping your legs around something or putting things in your mouth, you questions are completely absurd. If I completely agreed with you we all die and it doesn’t matter. If I completely disagreed with you, we all die and it doesn’t matter. Why are you pretending it matters? Will you wake up tommorrow and have one ounce more of purpose if the whole world agreed with you? Disagreed with you?

  • Larry Lord

    “Meaning, as in it matters whether or not whther any of us are right or wrong or just bidding our time until the worms come. You contend the latter.”
    Changing the subject from a discussion about junk science to a discussion about my alleged beliefs re the “meaning of life” is a classic play from the Liars for Jesus playbook. It appears in the chapter entitled “Moving the Goalposts for God.”
    Of course, I’m always happy to discuss the Johnsonite Christian playbook and script with members of that peculiar sect. Jack, you have revealed yourself to be a proud member — a dissembler of the first rank.
    So which is it Jack? Do you want to discuss the goalpost-moving tactics of American 21st Century fundamentalists, or junk science “tripe” a la John Edward?
    I’d suggest the latter, Jack — if only because that is the subject of this thread.
    But if you want to change the subject into a discussion of how certain cowardly fundamentalists run and scamper away when confronted with facts inconsistent with their talking points, I’m always up for that!

  • Jack

    The vitriol, Jack. And the evasiveness. And the dismissiveness. And the argumentative pedantry. The only person consistently espousing this brand of nihilism, which you keep attributing to Larry’s “philosophy,” is you. How about you drop it and engage a little?
    Hey, I don’t contend humans are meaningless occurences with no purpose; that’s Larry’s schtick. I think words do matter. I think it does matter what we choose to do and don’t choose to do with our lives day to day. I come here to discuss truth with people to whom truth matters; not banter words with people who would just as soon soil themselves as consider something worthwhile.

  • Brian

    I have resisted comment on the Schaivo situation because it is so personal for me. You see my brother was in a motorcycle accident 21 years ago and sustained severe closed head injuries and has moved in and out of the diagnosis of PVS multiple times over that period. I am also a P.A. in Neurosurgery. I know that does not qualify me as a physician but it does establish that I am well aquainted with subject.
    My brother has had a feeding tube for much of this time. My parents felt and feel no choice in giving him a warm, loving and safe environment. He does indicate pain and humor at times. I know my family could have easily justified his murder. I know that seems inflamitory but this language of sirene and peaceful in reguards to starvation smacks of Soilent Green. That was the Heston movie where euthanised people were eliminated watching peaceful scenes in a movie while receiving a lethal injection. I have seen this in real life and it is only mercy to those who wish to be free of the baggage of a damaged human.
    The diagnosis of PVS is Physician dependent. Meaning there is no test that can prove or disprove it. Much the same as Chronic fatigue, irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia. That is why you see so much disagreement in reguards to this diagnosis. I don’t believe either side is in danger of malpractice because of its ambiguity.
    So what are we to do in these situations? If you are a christian the words of Christ “as you do unto the least of these” ring true. If you are a secularist Marx “from each according to his ability to each according to their need” or Humphrey “a society should be judged by how it treats those in it’s shadows.”
    I know some of you KNOW what the patient would want, I hope I am not that arrogant. After my brother was brought home I noticed we as a family often disagreed on what kind of movies or music my brother used to like and what he would like now. I knew he liked hard rock (YES!) and often lobbied for that thinking I was standing up for him. To my shame I noticed my new brother liked country music. I have learned something important. My brother needs to be seen as who he is now and not who he was. The point is Terry Schaivo is a different being than the one Michael married. The parents have found that they still can love and care for her and Michael can not and believes the prior Terry would want the new Terry eliminated.
    This is a very complicated subject and I don’t appreciate either sides easy pronouncments of morality. I just worry about the language that describes FORCED starvation as mercy. When was her last swallowing study? Why no ice chips? some patients can actually handle thickened foods and liquids. It seems judge Greer believes ice chips are extraordinary intervention? Honestly the point is not that Terry is not viable. It is that she is inconvienent.
    I don’t want to hear another person say if it was me….. It is not you! Terry is not being voted off the island. F@cking polls!

  • Larry Lord

    “If I completely agreed with you we all die and it doesn’t matter. If I completely disagreed with you, we all die and it doesn’t matter. Why are you pretending it matters?”
    It’s your honesty that matters, Jack. Don’t you get it?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Hey, I don’t contend humans are meaningless occurences with no purpose; that’s Larry’s schtick. I think words do matter….
    Ok, I get it Jack. Your position is that Larry feels nothing matters hence there’s no point in responding to anything he writes. Thank you, we all get it now..

  • Jack

    Changing the subject from a discussion about junk science to a discussion about my alleged beliefs re the “meaning of life” is a classic play from the Liars for Jesus playbook. It appears in the chapter entitled “Moving the Goalposts for God.”
    No, it’s not ‘moving the goalposts’ because you have no goalposts. Nothing. No point to your existence – do you deny this?
    Of course, I’m always happy to discuss the Johnsonite Christian playbook and script with members of that peculiar sect. Jack, you have revealed yourself to be a proud member — a dissembler of the first rank.
    I’d suggest the latter, Jack — if only because that is the subject of this thread.
    The subject of this thread means nothing if, as you contend, it means nothing.
    But if you want to change the subject into a discussion of how certain cowardly fundamentalists run and scamper away when confronted with facts inconsistent with their talking points, I’m always up for that!
    What talking points Larry? You made all the points, and then you answered them; you don’t even need a thread, you are contemplating your lint filled naval. You are the one avoiding the essential and worthwhile questions.

  • Jack

    It’s your honesty that matters, Jack. Don’t you get it?
    Honesty is moral consideration Larry. Other than that there are facts which describe a situation; and those facts are colored by own perceptions and experiences. Honesty and truth only matter if those facts matter to our existence; in what way do the facts of the Schiavo case matter to our existence?

  • Jack

    Ok, I get it Jack. Your position is that Larry feels nothing matters hence there’s no point in responding to anything he writes. Thank you, we all get it now..
    Oh no, I’m sure he feels something. I mean if I kick a dog it feels something. I contend what he feels and what I feel don’t really matter, if his view of the world is true.

  • Larry Lord

    ” I know that seems inflamitory but this language of sirene and peaceful in reguards to starvation smacks of Soilent Green.”
    That’s “Soylent Green.”
    Great movie.
    “Honestly the point is not that Terry is not viable. It is that she is inconvienent.”
    My friend, your script is obsolete.
    The point is that nearly two dozen court cases have established that Terry Schiavo expressed her wishes to die if she became a vegetable.
    Where were all these weeping evangelicals and Jeb Bush when the laws in Florida were passed permitting such wishes to be legally enforceable?
    My guess: lobbying Hollywood for PG-13 ratings or some such nonsense.
    “If you are a christian the words of Christ “as you do unto the least of these” ring true.”
    Well, we know what we do unto the “least of these”. We kill them, like that baby in Texas last week that nobody peeped about. But that’s okay, I’m told, because that baby was “dying” we spent some vague “sufficient” amount of time trying to find a hospital willing to keep it stuck full of machinery for a few more days.
    Now, anybody want to argue that John Edward isn’t a charlatan? Or that Fox News doesn’t put snake oil peddlers on the air to shill pleasing 19th century baloney for its ignorant viewers?

  • Larry Lord

    “in what way do the facts of the Schiavo case matter to our existence?”
    Man, Jack, you are stupider than I thought.
    But no more cowardly than I thought. You got that going for you.

  • Jack

    Now, anybody want to argue that John Edward isn’t a charlatan? Or that Fox News doesn’t put snake oil peddlers on the air to shill pleasing 19th century baloney for its ignorant viewers?
    To hear you pretend that it matters when you don’t really believe it? No. I prefer to have an honest conversation. With an actual human.

  • Jack

    Man, Jack, you are stupider than I thought.
    But no more cowardly than I thought. You got that going for you.

    Stupidity, intelligence, you’re still lying to yourself and others that it matters. You don’t care about honesty Larry; you just want to see your words on the screen in hopes that others will believe you matter when you know yourself that you don’t.

  • windbag

    It would appear to be time to leave Jack alone, red-faced, in the sandbox, and move on to another part of the playground.

  • Larry Lord

    Jack, did this exchange not happen on FoxNews?
    Try to answer directly without dodging the question.
    ——————-
    DOOCY: You mentioned the Terri Schiavo case. Some might wonder, “Well, you know what, I wonder if he could communicate with her.”
    EDWARD: I do believe that the soul, the consciousness, can communicate when they’re in a state, whether it be a mentally incapacitated person, someone who’s in a coma. It’s a consciousness, and the soul has a living consciousness. So whether it’s in a physical vehicle or not, there is still the ability to connect. Many people will have what they call out-of-body experiences, or astral dreams. Two very living people, that are healthy, could have a kind of connection in a dream state that can be validated. So why not somebody who’s in this case?
    DOOCY: So she may not be able to talk with her brain, but she can with her soul —
    EDWARDS: But she’s clear on what’s going — and I can tell you that she’s definitely clear on what’s happening now around her.
    —————————
    It would be hard to believe that this was aired on a serious news program in 2005. Except that Fox has aired a lot of totally bogus news in its never-ending attempt to shill for its ignorant viewers.
    We could ask ourselves why Fox would bother to air the ramblings of a deluded charlatan like John Edward — but we’ll leave those “metaphysical” questions to experts like Jack …

  • Mr Ed

    Well, we know what we do unto the “least of these”. We kill them, like that baby in Texas last week that nobody peeped about. But that’s okay, I’m told, because that baby was “dying” we spent some vague “sufficient” amount of time trying to find a hospital willing to keep it stuck full of machinery for a few more days.
    You’re still going on about the same old garbage, aren’t you Lar. You keep trying to find some hypocrisy here but, sorry, there isn’t Lar. And, as a pro-choicer, I don’t know how much time I’d spend on talking about others “killing” babies. You want hypocrisy? Find a mirror.

  • Larry Lord

    “It would appear to be time to leave Jack alone, red-faced, in the sandbox, and move on to another part of the playground.”
    I tend to agree except I suspect that Jack will poop in every sandbox where he finds me.

  • Jack

    I tend to agree except I suspect that Jack will poop in every sandbox where he finds me.
    Actually, you take care of that of that pretty well yourself. But as I have said, I would be glad to discuss any issue with someone who believes that their words and life have purpose. Larry does not. Why should I imbue his posts with meaning when he contends they have none?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Now that Jack has had his say let me put forward that yes John Edwards is a fraud. Yes Fox is petty and exploitive having him on to opine about Terri’s condition but it isn’t all that surprising or important. Fox is at its heart a tabloid with pretentions of serious journalism, very much in the mold of the British press or its Aussie roots. I expect them to do such things.
    The bigger problem is the rank exploitation by people like Senators & Representatives. These people are suppose to be advocating respect for the law and are supposed to make law for the land. They are not supposed to make laws to serve as fundraising/political PR stunts.
    In our contry we have given the judicial system the task of making findings of fact. These are quite simply the job of figuring out what is going on in an individual case. The system is then supposed to apply the law to their findings of fact. The job of the legislature and executive is to modify the law as needed.
    Bills of Attainer (laws that target just one person) are not strictly prohibited by the Constitution except when they impose criminal punishment. However they are universally recognized by people who have thought rationally on the subject as a bad idea. They encourage cases to be tried in the media and for the benefit of political groups rather than on the facts.
    Blog away if you want about the facts of this case but the fact remains the proper forum for resolving it was the courts. The courts heard the facts and gave both sides ample time and opportunity to rebute the other one. Contrary to what was stated, it is possible to successfully appeal an erroneous finding of fact. It is especially possible if the trial judge was egregious in his errors as many here would have us believe.
    The congressmen at the bottom of this sham knew better. They also knew a good con when they saw it and all that was accomplished was to give Terri’s parents false hope and to rake in a few more dollars for the GOP-Religious Right Industrial Complex. Now the right wingers will cash in a second time as they bemoan Terri’s fate and how they were helpless to do anything more (which, BTW, I demonstrated is a lie)

  • Jack

    Now that Jack has had his say let me put forward that yes John Edwards is a fraud.
    So where does the OP even refer to John Edwards?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You’re still going on about the same old garbage, aren’t you Lar. You keep trying to find some hypocrisy here but, sorry, there isn’t Lar. And, as a pro-choicer, I don’t know how much time I’d spend on talking about others “killing” babies. You want hypocrisy? Find a mirror.
    But Mr. Ed Larry’s point has never been really addressed. When I pushed you on it you conceded there were no easy answers.
    If the principle here is that we should ‘err on the side of life’ and it is wrong to cause death even to avoid a poor ‘quality of life’ (i.e. suffering) then the baby is an example of inconsistency. The only meaningful difference being that he lacked the media circus surrounding him.
    That isn’t to say the hospital didn’t make the right decision in the end. From what has been written, to have left him on life support would have been to condem him to a horribly painful death as his lungs grew faster than his body. But all the arguments that apply there also apply to this case. The decision was ‘within the law’. There was a ‘judicial hearing’. Attempts were made to get everyone to agree and so on.

  • Larry Lord

    Boonton
    “The congressmen at the bottom of this sham knew better. They also knew a good con when they saw it and all that was accomplished was to give Terri’s parents false hope and to rake in a few more dollars ”
    Undoubtedly this is true — strange that the evangelicals here won’t admit it. Even Bombin’ Randall Terry has mumbled about “hell to pay” for those “surprisingly” two-faced politicians.
    What’s even more disgusting is some of these congressional bloodsuckers — Frist and Colburn, for example — are on the record saying the opposite of what they are saying now.
    Perhaps at the bottom of the barrell are those who would argue that the Schindlers graceless selfish actions should be considered “normal” and anyone who doesn’t go “all the way” for their loved ones is worthy of contempt.
    So it’s obvious now to any reasonable adult that the Schindler’s dream to extend their daughter’s life against her wishes for their own weird purposes using legal means is finished.
    So what is the Christian thing to do now? Based on the platitudes most often screeched here, I’d assume that it’s up to Daddy Schindler to go into the hospice with guns a-blazin’ to “save” his daughter. Right? If Daddy Schindler “believes” that Terry is “conscious” than how could he behave otherwise without appearing to be a cowardly shmuck that watched his own daughter get starved to death by The Man?
    I look forward to some answers but I expect I’ll get just another lecture from Mr. Ed and his sorta pathetic clone/sidekick Wacko Jacko.

  • Jack

    So what is the Christian thing to do now? Based on the platitudes most often screeched here, I’d assume that it’s up to Daddy Schindler to go into the hospice with guns a-blazin’ to “save” his daughter. Right? If Daddy Schindler “believes” that Terry is “conscious” than how could he behave otherwise without appearing to be a cowardly shmuck that watched his own daughter get starved to death by The Man?
    Why would you care about the ‘Chritian thing’? Or Buddhist thing? Or JW thing? You’re just an observer with no ‘thing’.
    I look forward to some answers but I expect I’ll get just another lecture from Mr. Ed and his sorta pathetic clone/sidekick Wacko Jacko.
    Hey, it’s just a game to you anyway, isn’t it?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I’ll refrain from judging her parents just as I will from her husband. I think it is best to take them at their word. It is a very hard thing to admit your child is dead, especially if her body still appears alive. Many people simply could not ‘pull the plug’ on their child even with 100% unimpeachable proof it is what their child wanted & their condition is truely hopeless.
    More relevant was the fact that the whole family appeared to have been working together until the husband decided he wasn’t going to split the award (this is according to Greer’s findings). Then things started to get slimy, especially when the parents allow the husband to be slandered as part of this media circus.
    All to often family is all we got in the end and that isn’t always a good thing.

  • Mr Ed

    But Mr. Ed Larry’s point has never been really addressed. When I pushed you on it you conceded there were no easy answers.
    That’s a bit disingenuous. I think gave a fairly comprehensive answer.
    If the principle here is that we should ‘err on the side of life’ and it is wrong to cause death even to avoid a poor ‘quality of life’ (i.e. suffering) then the baby is an example of inconsistency.
    No, I don’t think so for a couple of reasons: first, Sun Husdon was terminally ill. Not only that, to call what he went through a “poor quality of life” is much more than an understatement. People who are born with his condition die either before birth of shortly after, but they all die. They suffocate. Keeping him on life wouldn’t have simply prolonged the suffering, it would have caused more suffering as his lungs grew more until he finally died. The doctors made it clear, at least from what I’ve read, that keeping Sun alive would have done far more harm to him thus would be against their ethic.
    Terri, on the other hand, seems to be in relative comfort and, had she not been starved, would likley have remained in a similar, maybe better, but not worse state. In other words, she was not terminal; she was not dying.
    I know I’ve said this already so forgive me if I’m repeating myself. But the Larry meme seems to go on.
    But all the arguments that apply there also apply to this case.
    Actually, I don’t believe she was given the chance to be moved to another facility.

  • Mr Ed

    I look forward to some answers but I expect I’ll get just another lecture from Mr. Ed and his sorta pathetic clone/sidekick Wacko Jacko.
    Already answered on the other thread when you made that terribly stupid comment the first time. You can go read it if you want.

  • Brian

    =The point is that nearly two dozen court cases have established that Terry Schiavo expressed her wishes to die if she became a vegetable.
    Vegetable? Do you mean in need of life support? Feeding tubes do support life but only in the chronic sense. The 2 dozen courts only accepted Judge Greer’s legal approach to his statement of fact not the same as agreeing with the statement of fact. Micheal only asserted this belief 7 years after her injury.
    Thank you for your kind corrections of my grammer and spelling. Detroit public schools class of 79.
    I would appreciate you not referring to a person as vegetable. My brother is in this exact state and while you may not value his existence I assure you many do.

  • Jack

    I would appreciate you not referring to a person as vegetable. My brother is in this exact state and while you may not value his existence I assure you many do.
    Brian, all the best to your brother. Your care is encouraging

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    People who are born with his condition die either before birth of shortly after, but they all die. They suffocate. Keeping him on life wouldn’t have simply prolonged the suffering, it would have caused more suffering as his lungs grew more until he finally died. The doctors made it clear, at least from what I’ve read, that keeping Sun alive would have done far more harm to him thus would be against their ethic.
    Indeed, then how would you have felt about giving the child an overdose of morphine? Even suffocating for two or three minutes is not a pleasent thing to think about.
    Terri, on the other hand, seems to be in relative comfort and, had she not been starved, would likley have remained in a similar, maybe better, but not worse state. In other words, she was not terminal; she was not dying.
    ironic that you would criticize us for being a culture of comfort (deviating slightly from the pro-life criticism of the ‘culture of death’) yet cite her supposed comfort as a reason to make the decision that was made. If Joe’s argument is valid and life is to be protected then why doesn’t that apply to ‘uncomfortable’ life?
    Another point how can we really know if she is in comfort? Suppose she really did mean it when she said she wouldn’t want to live ‘like that’? Wouldn’t it be odd to just assume she would be comfortable with us violating her wishes (as best as we can guess them)?
    Actually, I don’t believe she was given the chance to be moved to another facility.
    No but this is not the substance of the point. I get the sense you would wave this counter-example away by saying ‘rules were followed’ and a law was enacted with the support of a pro-life lobby. The ‘rules’ were followed in Terri’s case as well. More judical attention was given to this case then most cases that are similar. But in this case we are told we should ignore the results of the process we have set up to resolve such disputes and ‘do something’…whether that is civil disobedience or passing special laws tailor made for one person and one situation.

  • windbag

    Brian,
    It seems the operative question here remains that, whatever you want to label the condition she is in, it has been legally concluded, repeatedly, that she clearly expressed her wishes to die under these circumstances. Just because it is her parents who are aggressively contravening this expressed wish, presumably out of love, doesn’t change the situation. If she had actually written and signed a living will, would folks still be making the same arguments about keeping her going?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    The 2 dozen courts only accepted Judge Greer’s legal approach to his statement of fact not the same as agreeing with the statement of fact
    Actually one of the decisions I cited (I am too tired of retyping them) noted that not only did the Appeals Court agree with Greer’s ‘legal approach’ but essentially agreed with his findings of fact given the evidence.
    Is it possible for the judicial system to get some finding of fact wrong? Yes. Is it likely? Not very. Is it likely when the case has been appealed multiple times, both sides have had excellent laywers advocating their caues and been subject to intense judicial and media review? Not very likely at all. If a finding of fact was wrong in such extreme circumstances is it likely that a media circus of postering politicians, medical huckersters and cranks and information being mixed with disinformation by various advocacy groups will get it like? Not very likely at all.
    I think maybe, for the sake of the argument if nothing else, we should dispense with the idea that Terri’s parents have had an amzing run of bad luck to have drawn numerous lousy and blind judges.

  • Larry Lord

    Ed
    You did give a reasonably comprehensive answer to the Hudson question — you gave your personal view.
    But the “Larry meme” was resurrected in response to the “Brian meme” which, frankly, is far more prevalent view than the view you espoused. Surely you aren’t going to claim that the nuanced and carefully-worded (but still crucially vague in some spots) explanation you gave in half-hearted support of the killing of Sun Hudson is remotely typical of the usual statements made by the “right to life” crowd.
    And this brings up an over-arching issue which is that it’s odd (to me, at least) that relatively thoughtful folks like yourself don’t step up to criticize the vapid broad-brushing pronouncements made by your evangelical Christian “peers”.
    Sheesh. Those John Edward questions are softballs. I would assume that evangelical Christians would loathe people like him. And for Fox News to treat him credibly does a great disservice to your “cause” unless your “cause” truly is dependent on a large mass of really ignorant and gullible people.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Vegetable? Do you mean in need of life support? Feeding tubes do support life but only in the chronic sense. The 2 dozen courts only accepted Judge Greer’s legal approach to his statement of fact not the same as agreeing with the statement of fact. Micheal only asserted this belief 7 years after her injury.
    A vegetable is alive but we agree it has no consciousness (even animals have some degree of consciousness). Hence the term is fine IMO for describing a state where one’s mind is gone but the body remains (whether or not it needs life support). I can see there are cases of extreme brain damage where most of the person’s mind is gone but there is still a person there. I wouldn’t use vegetable as a term in thos cases.
    It’s not offensive in itself, IMO. I don’t know the state of your brother but from what you write it sounds like he has a severe brain injury but he still exists as a person nontheless. I wouldn’t describe him as a vegetable even if he needs constant life support.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Larry’s point is excellent. More than a few Christians have backed away at some of the extremist pro-life ideas that have been spouted in this case. I cited one Christian Liberarian (sadly it was ignored).

  • Jack

    And this brings up an over-arching issue which is that it’s odd (to me, at least) that relatively thoughtful folks like yourself don’t step up to criticize the vapid broad-brushing pronouncements made by your evangelical Christian “peers”.
    Sheesh. Those John Edward questions are softballs. I would assume that evangelical Christians would loathe people like him. And for Fox News to treat him credibly does a great disservice to your “cause” unless your “cause” truly is dependent on a large mass of really ignorant and gullible people.
    The purposelessness of your posts aside, what does this have to do with Joe’s topic? Believe it or not, we don’t all hang out in a big room with John Edward hewing to his every pronouncement. Some of us are completely unaware of how he feels on this, and don’t really think it matters all that much.
    Jack

  • Mr Ed

    Indeed, then how would you have felt about giving the child an overdose of morphine? Even suffocating for two or three minutes is not a pleasent thing to think about.
    I would have drawn the line there. But I don’t see how this applies.
    ironic that you would criticize us for being a culture of comfort (deviating slightly from the pro-life criticism of the ‘culture of death’) yet cite her supposed comfort as a reason to make the decision that was made. If Joe’s argument is valid and life is to be protected then why doesn’t that apply to ‘uncomfortable’ life?
    Thanks for bringing that up. Comfort was probably not the right term. My point was that she is not dying a painful death where every day that she is kept on life support is more painful than the last, until she reaches the inevitable.
    Another point how can we really know if she is in comfort? Suppose she really did mean it when she said she wouldn’t want to live ‘like that’? Wouldn’t it be odd to just assume she would be comfortable with us violating her wishes (as best as we can guess them)?
    We can suppose a lot of things. I think we need to be more sure than supposing when we take a life. Honoring her wishes is one thing; trying to ascertain what her wishes are so we can honor them is another. I’m not sure that happened in this case. The absolute only thing we know for certain is that we honored her husband’s wishes.
    I get the sense you would wave this counter-example away by saying ‘rules were followed’ and a law was enacted with the support of a pro-life lobby.
    How so?
    More judical attention was given to this case then most cases that are similar. But in this case we are told we should ignore the results of the process we have set up to resolve such disputes and ‘do something’…whether that is civil disobedience or passing special laws tailor made for one person and one situation.
    Yes, more judicial attention has been given to this case. But is that a good thing? I mean, if there really are similar cases then why weren’t they given more judicial attention? I don’t think its too off the point to call out the inequity of the amount of attention this case got versus, for example, the average death sentence.

  • windbag

    “Honoring her wishes is one thing; trying to ascertain what her wishes are so we can honor them is another.”
    OK, so I’m curious. If we leave aside the supposed debate about the ambiguity of her wishes, and consider what I’ll call a “hypothetical” situation where her wishes were quite unambiguous: she wished to die. And her parents were still opposed. Would anyone here have a problem with that wish being honored, over the objections of her parents?

  • Jack

    OK, so I’m curious. If we leave aside the supposed debate about the ambiguity of her wishes, and consider what I’ll call a “hypothetical” situation where her wishes were quite unambiguous: she wished to die. And her parents were still opposed. Would anyone here have a problem with that wish being honored, over the objections of her parents?
    This is actually a great question, I know for myself, if she had a living will, that should prevail. I’m guessing that for the vast majority of others who support her life, they would feel the same.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Thanks for bringing that up. Comfort was probably not the right term. My point was that she is not dying a painful death where every day that she is kept on life support is more painful than the last, until she reaches the inevitable.
    But when we say comfort we really mean pain and the point remains. Did Joe say ‘painful life’ wasn’t worthy of protection? When he told us about the story of caring for his mother, obviously she was in pain since he was administering morphine to her. Shouldn’t painful life be protected as well? After all, I suspect the baby’s suffering could have been eased with pain killers as his condition caused a ‘natural death’.
    We can suppose a lot of things. I think we need to be more sure than supposing when we take a life. Honoring her wishes is one thing; trying to ascertain what her wishes are so we can honor them is another. I’m not sure that happened in this case. The absolute only thing we know for certain is that we honored her husband’s wishes.
    Well no one has caused death in either example. You agree there is a difference between taking the baby off life support and administering a lethal dose of morphine to him. There would be a difference if the husband asked that his wife be given a lethal dose of morphine and the courts said yes. Assume for the sake of the argument that Terri is able to express something like “I want water” and then drinks without the aid of a tube (and without ‘swallowing therapy’ requring electric shocks to be sent down her throat). I do not think many people would go along with denying her food and water unaided even if that was the husbands wishes.
    Trying to ascertain her wishes is unavoidable in cases like these. No matter what decision you make it runs the risk of violating what the person wants. Even with a unconvertable living will we can never really be sure that maybe the person has changed their mind but just can’t communicate it to us. Some process is necessary and its a job I don’t envy. I would feel the same way being a judge (or jury) on a capital murder case.
    Yes, more judicial attention has been given to this case. But is that a good thing? I mean, if there really are similar cases then why weren’t they given more judicial attention? I don’t think its too off the point to call out the inequity of the amount of attention this case got versus, for example, the average death sentence.
    Is it a good thing? I don’t think so. The extra attention has not resolved any issues. Those who remain convinced the whole case is wrongly decided will continue to think so no matter what. Let’s face it, if they did decide to do more tests, an MRI and more CAT scans could any conceivable results of those tests change the pro-parents side?
    No useful precedent has been set to guide us in the future. No ‘lesson learned’ other than its probably a good idea for us to make our own living wills so we can spare our families the agony of trying to debate what we would have wanted. I’m not sure if you think the average death sentence gets more or less attention. I cannot recall a death sentence ever being forced into judicial review by a Congressional Bill of Attainer.
    On the other hand suppose they tried to pass a law like the one I suggested. Whether or not you agree with that law it would have at least have been a starting point for preventing some disputed cases in the future and would have at least been more objective.

  • Mr Ed

    Surely you aren’t going to claim that the nuanced and carefully-worded (but still crucially vague in some spots) explanation you gave in half-hearted support of the killing of Sun Hudson is remotely typical of the usual statements made by the “right to life” crowd.
    The Texas law was co-authored by the Texas Right to Life and National Right to Life committees. Maybe you go a bit overboard in your imagination about what the average right to life opinion is. We certainly know its not above you to go overboard in your generalizations.
    And this brings up an over-arching issue which is that it’s odd (to me, at least) that relatively thoughtful folks like yourself don’t step up to criticize the vapid broad-brushing pronouncements made by your evangelical Christian “peers”.
    Maybe for the same reason Boon doesn’t go out of his way to criticize some of your more over-the-top generalizations.
    And for Fox News to treat him credibly does a great disservice to your “cause” unless your “cause” truly is dependent on a large mass of really ignorant and gullible people.
    Only in the minds of people who mistakenly think Fox News is somehow the Evangelical spokesmouth. Take some time out, Lar, talk to some people in real life and see what grown, educated people actually think. Remember what I said about not mistaking Christian for Republican and vica versa?

  • Larry Lord

    ” if she had a living will, that should prevail”
    That’s interesting.
    Does anyone here know if written wills are ever contested by interested parties?

  • windbag

    “This is actually a great question, I know for myself, if she had a living will, that should prevail. I’m guessing that for the vast majority of others who support her life, they would feel the same.”
    I agree. I’m curious what Mr. Ed thinks?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    This is actually a great question, I know for myself, if she had a living will, that should prevail. I’m guessing that for the vast majority of others who support her life, they would feel the same.
    A very great question Jack. Joe began this discussion last week by arguing that withholding the tube was not just ‘non-intervention’, it was murder. Living will or not most of the states will not allow a patient to choose suicide. You can leave a living will saying you’d like to be given an overdose of morphine if you’re in situation X but the best most of the states will do to honor that is refuse intervention.
    So the pro-life side seems to have been of the opinion that removing the tube is closer to giving her an overdose of morphine than it is to simple ‘non-intervention’. If that’s the case then wouldn’t they have to oppose this even if a living will was present?

  • Mr Ed

    OK, so I’m curious. If we leave aside the supposed debate about the ambiguity of her wishes, and consider what I’ll call a “hypothetical” situation where her wishes were quite unambiguous: she wished to die. And her parents were still opposed. Would anyone here have a problem with that wish being honored, over the objections of her parents?
    No. Not legally or morally.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    It would seem then that this really isn’t a question of murder but rather whether the bar was/is set too low.

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    Boonton wrote:
    Such a bill could have been proposed on the national level as well. What’s telling to me is that the Republicans choose to pass a bill that basically said nothing beyond Terri’s parents had standing to bring a suit in Federal Court.

    I tend to doubt that such a law on a national level genuinely falls within the federal government’s constitutional powers. Maybe it does, but an argument over the constitutionality of such a move would be guaranteed.
    On the other hand, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the federal judiciary the authority to review such cases. By merely directing the federal courts to exercise their authority, the Congress was able to take a position which is constitutionally sound and which would be less likely to cause a time wasting argument. According to the public debates and the amicus curie (sp?) briefs files by both house and senate sponsors of their respective bills, it was expected that the judges would find it necessary to restore Terri’s feeding tube. After all, what point is there in having a trial over whether Terri’s rights are being infringed if she has already died?

  • http://www.greatestpursuits.us Ed “What the” Heckman

    Boonton wrote:
    Such a bill could have been proposed on the national level as well. What’s telling to me is that the Republicans choose to pass a bill that basically said nothing beyond Terri’s parents had standing to bring a suit in Federal Court.

    I tend to doubt that such a law on a national level genuinely falls within the federal government’s constitutional powers. Maybe it does, but an argument over the constitutionality of such a move would be guaranteed.
    On the other hand, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the federal judiciary the authority to review such cases. By merely directing the federal courts to exercise their authority, the Congress was able to take a position which is constitutionally sound and which would be less likely to cause a time wasting argument. According to the public debates and the amicus curie (sp?) briefs files by both house and senate sponsors of their respective bills, it was expected that the judges would find it necessary to restore Terri’s feeding tube. After all, what point is there in having a trial over whether Terri’s rights are being infringed if she has already died?

  • Larry Lord

    Ed
    “Remember what I said about not mistaking Christian for Republican and vica versa?”
    Sure Ed. But that’s always your sword and never your shield.
    You always try to pretend that I’m just making up outrageous stuff.
    Bullshxt.
    When I hear you spontaneously complaining about crap coming from the mouths of Republicans who are trying to please evangelicals, I’ll take your advice seriously. Until then, it’s just more hypocricy.
    Republicans, Fox News, evangelicals — this is a trinity that conservative evangelical Christians helped create and continue to foster. You have to be living on Mars to deny this.
    If you don’t like people pointing it out because you are uncomfortable with the associations, I can understand that. But don’t attack the messenger. WHy not be more forthright at pointing out HOW your views differ instead of just whining about how the generalizations are too broad? Why did it take 25 comments to get you to explain why it was okay, from a Christian perspective, to kill Sun Hudson but not Terry Schiavo?
    I don’t need to be convinced that Christians exist with viewpoints contra to those of the placard-toting rubes on TV. I know they exist.

  • Jack

    A very great question Jack. Joe began this discussion last week by arguing that withholding the tube was not just ‘non-intervention’, it was murder. Living will or not most of the states will not allow a patient to choose suicide. You can leave a living will saying you’d like to be given an overdose of morphine if you’re in situation X but the best most of the states will do to honor that is refuse intervention.
    So the pro-life side seems to have been of the opinion that removing the tube is closer to giving her an overdose of morphine than it is to simple ‘non-intervention’. If that’s the case then wouldn’t they have to oppose this even if a living will was present?

    Contrary to the perceptions of some, I don’t think there is a monolithic opinion here. In a case where there is some question, and the patients will is specifically expressed in writing (If I get to certain point, I no longer desires measures which would extend my life) I think we should defer to the written wishes of the patient. Otherwise, why bother to have a written will at all? The goal isn’t to nullify the desires of the patient, it is to insure there is no doubt. In this case, there is reasonable doubt.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    According to the public debates and the amicus curie (sp?) briefs files by both house and senate sponsors of their respective bills, it was expected that the judges would find it necessary to restore Terri’s feeding tube. After all, what point is there in having a trial over whether Terri’s rights are being infringed if she has already died?
    of course because the purpose of the bill was to give the impression of doing something while knowing calmer heads would ensure nothing was done. If Constitutional doubts was the reason Congress could have passed a bill with two sections, the first as I described and the second what they actually did pass. In that case either or both of the bills could be used by the courts to achieve the pro-lifers aim.

  • Larry Lord

    “The goal isn’t to nullify the desires of the patient, it is to insure there is no doubt.”
    Does anyone know whether anyone has ever succeeded in contesting a written will?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Jack, if Mr. Ed & others are really arguing over how high the bar should be then fine. I think its pretty unfair to depict thoseon the other side with comparisons to Nazi’s (as Joe did) or even describe them as murders.
    If there was a bill to give those given death sentences two appeals as opposed to one I wouldn’t think those opposed would fairly be called Nazis or murders.

  • Mr Ed

    Shouldn’t painful life be protected as well? After all, I suspect the baby’s suffering could have been eased with pain killers as his condition caused a ‘natural death’.
    Perhaps. Not all pain is that easily remedied. I hope that the physician and ethics committee took that into account.
    Yes, life in pain should be protected as well. Don’t you think there’s a difference, though, in protecting life in pain and prolonging an increasingly painful life? For example, Joe also said this:

    When the process of dying becomes irreversible or imminent we should transition from curatative care to comfort care. While this may require removing artificial means of life support or, when the digestive system fails, artificial hydration and nutrition, we must not take measures to hasten the ending of life.

    Trying to ascertain her wishes is unavoidable in cases like these. No matter what decision you make it runs the risk of violating what the person wants. Even with a unconvertable living will we can never really be sure that maybe the person has changed their mind but just can’t communicate it to us. Some process is necessary and its a job I don’t envy. I would feel the same way being a judge (or jury) on a capital murder case.
    Nor I. But, as I said, we should try ot err on the side of keeping the patient alive if there is a doubt. In the end we have two bad possibilities: one, we kept a person alive and tried to make them as peaceful and, yes, comfortable as possible against their wishes. The other we let the person die against their wishes. As painful as it may be to witness, as imperfect as it may sound, I’d side towards keeping the person alive.
    Let’s face it, if they did decide to do more tests, an MRI and more CAT scans could any conceivable results of those tests change the pro-parents side?
    I certainly would feel more comfortable that Terri was afforded all we can possibly offer.

  • Mr Ed

    It would seem then that this really isn’t a question of murder but rather whether the bar was/is set too low.
    I would tend to agree. And, again, for the record I never said murder.

  • Brian

    Living wills are contested all the time. The issue is when is it hopeless to continue. The only thing that prevails is if the patient and the family have spelled this out in detail with each other and AGREE prior to tragedy. I have seen families both torn apart and conversly strengthened by these horrible issues. A spouse can always and actually have said that the patient had a change of heart after the will was drafted.

  • windbag

    “No. Not legally or morally.”
    OK, so are there any other circumstances or venues– short of the preparation of a living will– where she could have unambiguiously expressed her wishes not to be sustained, which would satisfactorily convince everyone that this wish should be honored, legally and morally?
    So the big discrepancy over this issue centers around the successive, consistent findings of the courts which concluded, among other things, that her expressed wish *was* in fact to die under such circumstances. And this is not sufficient?
    Continuing with the ‘hypothetical,’ I wonder how many of the people who are prognosticating rather aggressively for reinsertion of the tube, would be satisfied with the statements of a living will, as Mr Ed and Jack would be? As Boonton said, that’s probably the biggest lesson we’re taking away here.

  • Mr Ed

    You always try to pretend that I’m just making up outrageous stuff.
    Sometimes, yes. Mostly you just take the most extreme examples and pretend all us ‘vangelicers are the same.
    Why did it take 25 comments to get you to explain why it was okay, from a Christian perspective, to kill Sun Hudson but not Terry Schiavo?
    Did that really happen? Or did you just skip over to the next topic and forget you asked the question? I don’t know. What I do know is that I’ve explained it at least three times now.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    When the process of dying becomes irreversible or imminent we should transition from curatative care to comfort care. While this may require removing artificial means of life support or, when the digestive system fails, artificial hydration and nutrition, we must not take measures to hasten the ending of life.

    But this is a contradiction in terms. By definition artificial life support is there to pro-long life, therefore removing it will hasten the end of life. If it wasn’t then the artificial support was unnecessary to begin with. An example of that was Quinlin who continued breathing on her own after they removed her respirator (to be fair, no one knew that would happen ahead of time).
    Nor I. But, as I said, we should try ot err on the side of keeping the patient alive if there is a doubt…
    There will be some cases with no doubts but sadly there will always be some cases where doubts will exist. I would say we crossed beyond reasonable doubt in this case but many on the pro-parents side will not hear that. They are, IMO, similar to some of OJ’s supporters who will claim his innocence no matter what evidence is produced. Either this case or OJ we do have a system to resolve these disputes and whatever you may want to say about Greer or the judges above him, he looked at more evidence than anyone on this blog. I think we should honor our legal system because of all the places to judge such serious matters it is better than Congress, the ‘blogsphere’, talk radio and so on. That last week has saw the instituting of rank disgust for the system while accomplishing nothing for the pro-life cause.

  • Jack

    Jack, if Mr. Ed & others are really arguing over how high the bar should be then fine. I think its pretty unfair to depict thoseon the other side with comparisons to Nazi’s (as Joe did) or even describe them as murders.
    If there was a bill to give those given death sentences two appeals as opposed to one I wouldn’t think those opposed would fairly be called Nazis or murders.
    I would have to look again at what Joe wrote; personally I have a ‘no nazi’ argument rule that I follow, unless of course (like the young man who went on a rampage just north of me) the person actually calls themselves a nazi.

  • Brian

    Boonton,
    Thank you for your comments. I think a point for me is how can you define cognition in a person of decreased mental abilities. A low functioning adult may never follow a command. Brain dead refers to brain stem activity not cognition. It is a tool for us to decide whether the lowest of brain functions are active.
    I know you are not trying to be offensive in your terms. I think however you are crude in your use of those terms. Please accept that people that are professionals who see these types of patients all the time are perplexed with categories. Vegetable implies no validity to me. Maybe I am too close to the trees here.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    No problem Brian. I do not use the term myself here because I know it has a medical definition but I am not skilled enough in the terminology to feel comfortable in using it correctly.

  • Mr Ed

    So the big discrepancy over this issue centers around the successive, consistent findings of the courts which concluded, among other things, that her expressed wish *was* in fact to die under such circumstances. And this is not sufficient?
    Not if there is family such as parents, siblings, and such who disagree.
    Continuing with the ‘hypothetical,’ I wonder how many of the people who are prognosticating rather aggressively for reinsertion of the tube, would be satisfied with the statements of a living will, as Mr Ed and Jack would be?
    If my experience is indicative, probably the vast majority.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Again the pro-life side depicted this as not a case of non-intervention but a case of killing. If that is true then why would a living will make a difference? Pro-lifers have been consistently opposed to euthansia even where there is no question of the patients intentions.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Finally found a bit more on Hammesfahr if anyone cares:

    Hammesfahr appeared on Scarborough Country the same night and received a similar introduction as a Nobel Prize nominee. Problem is, that’s not quite the truth — Hammesfahr was never officially nominated for a Nobel Prize. In 1999, a U.S. Congressman recommended him in a letter to the Nobel Committee for his work with stroke patients. But according to the committee’s Web site, such unsolicited letters constitute “invalid nominations” and are not considered.

    Hammesfahr’s professional credibility has in fact come into question before. In 2001, the Florida Department of Health accused him of falsely advertising a neurological treatment and exploiting a patient for financial gain, according to a report from the Associated Press today. With regard to Hammesfahr’s views on the Schiavo case, Dr. Lawrence J. Schneiderman, a bioethicist at University of California, San Diego, told the AP, “He’s a quack, to put it the politest way I can.”

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/03/25/experts/index.html

  • Mr Ed

    But this is a contradiction in terms. By definition artificial life support is there to pro-long life, therefore removing it will hasten the end of life.
    Not necessarily a contradiction. Remember, Joe said if the process of dying “irreversible or immenent”. Isn’t there a difference between hastening and not prolonging? Say, if left untouched, the patient would die in x days, then there is quite a difference between changing the duration from x-1 and changing it to x+1.

  • Larry Lord

    **I wonder how many of the people who are prognosticating rather aggressively for reinsertion of the tube, would be satisfied with the statements of a living will, as Mr Ed and Jack would be?**
    Mr. Ed: “If my experience is indicative, probably the vast majority.”
    I will go out on a short limb and guess that within the next year we will see a case very similar to Schiavo’s except that the patient will have written a living will but some non-guardian relative will claim that the patient was “coerced” or that the patient “renounced” the will somehow. The finding that the will was valid will be upheld by a court of law, then on appeal, and then the entire “activist court” propoganda machine will be kicked into gear — again.
    And we will find out exactly how “satisfied” a certain segment of society is. My prediction: they are only as satisfied as their preachers tell them to be.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Really? so if the patient will die in 5 days with life support but 3 days without it is ok to ‘pull the plug’?
    What’s odd about this assertion is that what many people fear is not having to hang around an extra day or two but hanging around 5 years in a horrible state.

  • Mr Ed

    Either this case or OJ we do have a system to resolve these disputes and whatever you may want to say about Greer or the judges above him, he looked at more evidence than anyone on this blog.
    How many judges was that? Yes, we should respect the institution. But if the people who put the institution of “determining death” in place don’t trust that one, five, or ten judicial rulings is enough to sentence a man to death why would they trust that any less was enough to remove life support?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Again how many more ‘appeals’ will be sufficient?

  • Mr Ed

    And we will find out exactly how “satisfied” a certain segment of society is. My prediction: they are only as satisfied as their preachers tell them to be.
    Yes, Lar, we are all mind-numbed robots just repeating what our pastors say. Remember what we just discussed about obnoxious pronouncements Lar? That was one fine example. Thanks you.
    And, yes, I’m sure you’ll be all too willing to point out the hypocrisy to use. We know how you love that so.

  • Mr Ed

    Pro-lifers have been consistently opposed to euthansia even where there is no question of the patients intentions.
    There has undoubtedly been much use of hyperbole on both sides. But, to be sure, there is quite a difference between terminating life support and euthenasia in the minds of people who have thought at any length about it.

  • Larry Lord

    Again, Ed, did I mention that you belonged to that segment of society?
    No. So why the sensitivity, bro? Ease up. Or perhaps you’re just unwilling to comment on the likelihood of my prediction. For all I know, there are evangelical blogs out there that are already starting to trumpet such a case. Would you let me know, Ed, if that were true?
    Do you deny Ed that people exist who blindly and thoughtlessly repeat what they hear on TV and the radio from extreme fundamentalist sloganeers?

  • Mr Ed

    Really? so if the patient will die in 5 days with life support but 3 days without it is ok to ‘pull the plug’?
    You’re oversimplifying this Boon. You can’t take what I said and make it become the only determining factor. I also stated, many times, pain beyond remedy was to be considered in terminal cases. There are many considerations Boon. You just asked about one and went with it.

  • Larry Lord

    “But if the people who put the institution of “determining death” in place don’t trust that one, five, or ten judicial rulings is enough to sentence a man to death why would they trust that any less was enough to remove life support?”
    Partly the answer is because there are way way way more people on life support than there are death row inmates, and becase many of us would rather live in prison than lie endlessly in a hospital bed incapable of comprehending what is going on around us or in terrible pain.
    Yes, I am suggesting that economic and practical considerations are relevant to determining who gets to live, how they live, and for how long in the United States. Try to keep your heads from exploding (and if they start exploding, remember the story of Sun Hudson — a perfect example of a justified killing of an innocent human being).

  • Mr Ed

    Again how many more ‘appeals’ will be sufficient?
    Off hand, couldn’t tell you. But I can tell you that the Florida Supreme Court denied hearing the case four times. Would that happen in a capital punishment case?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Quite possibly. The US S.C. denies most death penalty appeals.

  • Larry Lord

    Mr. Ed
    “But I can tell you that the Florida Supreme Court denied hearing the case four times. Would that happen in a capital punishment case?”
    Of course, if there was no chance of reversing the outcome. Do you think Supreme Courts are obliged to take every capital case that comes before them?

  • Larry Lord

    No, Rush Limbaugh and evangelicals are just totally different. It’s so unfair to lump them together! Read this rant from Lyin’ Bigot Rush and see if it sounds familiar at all to you.
    Mr. Ed, I’m sure you have some harsh words for Rush. I look forward to hearing them.
    —————–
    LIMBAUGH: A question for those of you who are our friends on the left. Just answer it honestly to yourself: How many of you want Terri Schiavo to die simply because some Christian conservatives want her to live? How many of you have rejoiced when a death row inmate has been saved because of later investigation into DNA? Do you want Terri Schiavo to die because some Christian conservatives want her to live? Is that it?
    […]
    Could it be — and I suspect this is the real answer — could it be that you have been so pent up with rage and frustration over the Christians in this country?
    You just hated the success of The Passion of the Christ. You hated the outpouring of support for that movie, you just despise the red-state, hayseed, holy-roller crowd that you think is steamrollering the country.
    Maybe this is just payback; you want this woman to die because Christian conservatives want her to live. And, since you don’t like Christian conservatives so much you want them to be disappointed. You want them to find out what it’s like to be on the losing side.
    You want them to find out what it’s like to not get away with everything they want just because they’re Christians. Is that it? Does it really have nothing to do with Terri Schiavo; does it have solely to do with the fact that you want payback?
    ————————

  • windbag

    “Off hand, couldn’t tell you. But I can tell you that the Florida Supreme Court denied hearing the case four times. Would that happen in a capital punishment case?”
    I’m betting they would be denied hearing if there wasn’t a shred of doubt about the guilt of the convicted, or about the validity of the findings against the person, or about the grounds for the case’s rejection in the lower courts of appeal. Any attorneys out there care to chime in?
    And I’m betting that it certainly would not be heard if that convicted person had stated unequivocally that they wished to be executed.
    But I also have the sense that that’s not what happens in most capital punishment cases that are heard by any state supreme court. What’s your point in the analogy? That Schaivo is getting less consideration than most death-row sentencees?
    And, man-o-man, is Rush Limbaugh ever a scumbag. Can I get an ‘amen’ here?

  • Larry Lord

    O’REILLY: Number one, there are a lot of Americans who simply want the woman to die. They just want her to die for a number of different reasons. … they want her to die. And I’m sayin’ to myself — why? Why do you care whether she lives or dies?
    ————–
    Gosh that rant sounds familiar, especially the last part.
    But we can rest assured that Jack’s script was 100% original. He wasn’t inspired at all by fine gentlemen like Bill O’Lielly, who have nothing whatsoever to do with the thinking of most evangelical Christians in this country.

  • Mr Ed

    Do you deny Ed that people exist who blindly and thoughtlessly repeat what they hear on TV and the radio from extreme fundamentalist sloganeers?
    Nope. It happens on both sides. Don’t hear you calling the leftist loonies out too often. Or… ever, come to think of it.

  • Mr Ed

    Yes, I am suggesting that economic and practical considerations are relevant to determining who gets to live, how they live, and for how long in the United States. Try to keep your heads from exploding (and if they start exploding, remember the story of Sun Hudson — a perfect example of a justified killing of an innocent human being).
    Tell us, Lar, when did economics come into play in the Hudson case? I mean, aside from when TCH offered to pay courts fees.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    If the mother was rich & could pay the bill would the hosiptal have honored her request to keep him on support? If so you can’t really dismiss economics from playing a role. In the broader picture it is undeniable that economics is a major factor in healthcare in the US.

  • windbag

    Larry:
    “Do you deny Ed that people exist who blindly and thoughtlessly repeat what they hear on TV and the radio from extreme fundamentalist sloganeers?”
    Ed:
    “Nope. It happens on both sides. Don’t hear you calling the leftist loonies out too often. Or… ever, come to think of it.”
    I suspect that, if this was a weblog that dealt with substantively with “leftist loonies'” arguments, or furthermore, if our country was being currently run by them, and their supporters now helped to constitute a majority voting block to dictate policy, or if they inundated us daily with vitriol and lies (see above) on literally dozens of television and radio stations around the clock, then there’s be some criticism.
    As it stands, the “leftist loony” side of your “both sides” is indeed irrelevant by comparative magnitude. Would you acknowledge this asymmetry?
    Still hoping for some form of ‘amen’ on Limbaugh’s intregity. If that’s not considered by all an attempt to foment hatred, then there is no such thing.

  • Mr Ed

    Quite possibly. The US S.C. denies most death penalty appeals.
    But did it even get that far? I’m reading the abstact and I can’t find where the SC was even involved until they were asked to review Terri’s Law. All I’m seeing is a bunch of cases where the Florida SC and District Court denied hearing the case. All of that even after the District COurt found that Greer was in err. And it still went back to Greer.

  • Larry Lord

    From CNN:
    Hammesfahr said he believes Schiavo can be helped by treatment and that numerous other neurologists, some of whom actually examined Schiavo, agreed.
    “I’m not the only person who has said she can be rehabilitated,” he said. “Are we all quacks?
    ————-
    No, Hammesfahrt, amongs you, the others who say she can be rehabilitated, the Sasquatch believers, the creationists, the UFO abductees, and the charlatans like John Edward there are bound to be a few practical jokers who just like to play people for suckers for fun.

  • Mr Ed

    No, Rush Limbaugh and evangelicals are just totally different. It’s so unfair to lump them together! Read this rant from Lyin’ Bigot Rush and see if it sounds familiar at all to you.
    Again with the hypocrisy seeking, Lar? Why can’t you just deal with the issue, Lar? Why spend so much time digging up hypocrisy and just address the issue at hand?
    Is it because you can’t?

  • Mr Ed

    And I’m betting that it certainly would not be heard if that convicted person had stated unequivocally that they wished to be executed.
    Actually, I don’t think it matters. As far as I know, there has to be an automatic appeal of a death sentence.
    But I also have the sense that that’s not what happens in most capital punishment cases that are heard by any state supreme court. What’s your point in the analogy? That Schaivo is getting less consideration than most death-row sentencees?
    Yes.

  • Mr Ed

    Larry,
    O’Reilly is Catholic and a self-proclaimed moderate. I’m sure that doesn’t matter to you but the rest of us can see the difference.

  • Mr Ed

    If the mother was rich & could pay the bill would the hosiptal have honored her request to keep him on support? If so you can’t really dismiss economics from playing a role. In the broader picture it is undeniable that economics is a major factor in healthcare in the US.
    Everything that I’ve read on the subject states that the doctors felt it was unethical to keep providing life support to Hudson. You trust that the doctors in the Schiavo case are being honest. How about this case?

  • Larry Lord

    Mr. Ed
    “All I’m seeing is a bunch of cases where the Florida SC and District Court denied hearing the case.”
    Um, your point?
    “All of that even after the District COurt found that Greer was in err. And it still went back to Greer.”
    That’s how it works. It’s difficult to get a new judge unless you can show that the judge for some reason is incapable of rendering an unbiased decision.
    Focusing on Greer is really silly unless you have solid evidence that the guy is a some kind of dishonorable lying creep (like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly) or nutso in a fundamentalist way (like ex-Judge Moore).

  • Mr Ed

    I suspect that, if this was a weblog that dealt with substantively with “leftist loonies'” arguments, or furthermore, if our country was being currently run by them, and their supporters now helped to constitute a majority voting block to dictate policy, or if they inundated us daily with vitriol and lies (see above) on literally dozens of television and radio stations around the clock, then there’s be some criticism.
    Not sure. But are you alluding to something? You’re not saying the situation is reversed today, are you?
    As it stands, the “leftist loony” side of your “both sides” is indeed irrelevant by comparative magnitude. Would you acknowledge this asymmetry?
    By your view, yes. But I don’t think your analysis above quite accurately describes the situation.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Hey folks, I don’t know, must be the fact that it’s the 5h cold my son’s given me in 6 months, but tuning away from the Jack and Larry show, don’t you guys have anything to say bout Cheshire?
    I mean, c’mon, this is total grist for the mill…and it’s the original topic, if I may be so bold…

  • Larry Lord

    “Everything that I’ve read on the subject states that the doctors felt it was unethical to keep providing life support to Hudson. You trust that the doctors in the Schiavo case are being honest. How about this case?”
    My impression is that the court in both cases heard the testimony and made the right decision based on the facts before them.
    But recall Ed that one of the facts at issue is that the mother could not find a hospital to take care of her child.
    Now imagine that the mother had Oprah Winfrey’s money and influence. Do you think that baby gets to live a little longer? I think if you answer no, you’re naive or lying. But go ahead. Maybe you’ve got an angle on hospital administration and the power of money that I’m missing.
    And then the obvious follow up question: does a law which allows such discrepencies still pass the evangelical Christian smell test (whatever that is)? I’m assuming the answer is YES because it was signed off by the Right to Life Committee.
    And that brings us to Square One again: when Christians claim that all human life is “immeasurable” and “intrinsically valuable” they are being dishonest. I would say extremely dishonest.
    The claim is simple so that ignorant rubes can recite it and scrawl it on their placards. But to pretend that it is a “fundamental” principle from which to seriously address issues such as those presented to patients, their families, and the hospitals which inevitably care for such patients in the 21st century is just plain stupid.

  • Larry Lord

    I don’t much about Cheshire except that (surprise!) he is associated with some “Christian” bioethics group. In other words, he’s biased.
    As for his claims, I honestly don’t know why the Schindlers don’t just go all out at this point. They’ve made complete fools of themselves so far so it’s not clear to me what dignity is remaining for them to lose.
    Here’s what the Schindlers now claim they heard a week ago (a claim which they curiously suppressed from their briefs until now)
    ———
    “She managed to articulate the first two vowel sounds, first articulating AHHHHHHH and then virtually screaming WAAAAAAAA,” the motion said.
    The incident happened in the presence of Schiavo’s sister, Suzanne Vitadamo, and an aunt, the motion said.
    ———————
    Can you believe it?
    Now, if I was willing to lie before a court to satisfy my desire to keep my child in a vegetative state against his wishes, here’s what I would say:
    “Your honor, you won’t believe this *sniff, sniff* but just a few hours ago I saw my son *sniff sniff* and, dear Lord Almighty Jesus Savior on Easter Blessed Weekend, your honor, *sniff sniff* there was a miracle your honor I swear to you, I swear to the Christian Lord my God and Savior Damn Me to Hell if I’m lying, Lord Jesus, there was a miracle this Easter Weekend (now I break down and sob uncontrollably for about twenty seconds)
    It happened like this *sniff sniff* excuse me your honor, I’m just overwhelemed right now … *sniff sniff* … a light appeared from the ceiling where was no fixture … a strange golden light and it shone down on my son’s face …. dear Jesus thank you Jesus … and when the light hit my son’s face he suddenly became very lucid … *sniff* and he looked at me and said, “Dad, I want to live. I don’t have much longer but I need the feeding tube and” (*sniff sniff* dear Jesus thank you for letting me hear his voice again!) then he said “I need the feeding tube but there’s something more important, Dad, you must listen closely. There’s going to be terrible accident and a lot of people are going to die. We can prevent it. I know how. But I need the feeding tube, Dad.” And then the light *sniff sniff* faded away and his eyes glazed over and he went back to being a veg… a veg… a veg…. AWWWWWW GOD DON’T LET HIM STARVE!”
    And then I collapse and have to be taken out of the courtroom on a stretcher.
    That’s how it’s done folks.
    Mr. Ed, would you do any less if you believed your son was conscious and was about to be starved to death against his will?

  • Mr Ed

    I don’t much about Cheshire except that (surprise!) he is associated with some “Christian” bioethics group. In other words, he’s biased.
    And Dr. Ronald Cranford is on the board of right-to-die advocacy group Choice in Dying. He also co-authored a 1984 New England Journal of Medicine report promotong the idea that doctors should discuss euthanasia options and drug choices with their patients. He’s been in the euthanasia advocacy arena for many years.
    Here’s what the Schindlers now claim they heard a week ago (a claim which they curiously suppressed from their briefs until now)
    Sorry dude. This story has been posted on numerous websites for a week. Here’s one from five days ago:
    http://fight4terri.blogspot.com/2005/03/attorney-barbara-wellers-last-visit.html
    Strike two!
    Good thing you stopped. Would have been a short inning.

  • Mr Ed

    But recall Ed that one of the facts at issue is that the mother could not find a hospital to take care of her child.
    Conjecture. Recall, Lar, that TCH did the hospital hunting. Recall that there were questions about the mother’s mental status. Recall that TCH also offered to pay court fees.
    Strike three, you’re out. Next up.
    And that brings us to Square One again: when Christians claim that all human life is “immeasurable” and “intrinsically valuable” they are being dishonest. I would say extremely dishonest.
    Allowing a physician to refuse care for a terminally ill child for which s/he believes further care will only be hamrful is not in opposition to the idea that life is intrinsically valuable or even of immeasurable value.
    I’d say foul, but since you added the claim of dishonestly: strike one. Yes, a short inning it will be after all.

  • Mr Ed

    Aw, game over. I guess its too late.
    I’ sure we’ll pick it up again soon. Until then, Lar, practice, practice, practice.

  • http://www.poliblogger.com/index.php?p=6562 PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science

    “Harsh Facts”

    Glenn Reynolds notes the following TCS Column by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, President and Founder of the American Council on Science and Health, wherein she states (among other things:The medical reality of Ms. Schiavo’s case is this: She has been in wh…

  • Larry Lord

    “Sorry dude. This story has been posted on numerous websites for a week.”
    Was it in the briefs Ed?
    I laugh at your bizarro world baseball. Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that it’s you and your fellow artificial-life-support-whether-you -want-it-or-not-lovin’ rubes that are striking out.
    “Allowing a physician to refuse care for a terminally ill child for which s/he believes further care will only be hamrful is not in opposition to the idea that life is intrinsically valuable or even of immeasurable value.”
    What is all this about s/he “believes”? What happened to being “absolutely sure”? What happened to Supreme Court oversight? What happened to 7 years of litigation?
    Oh yeah — money and politics and practicality. You keep forgetting about that Ed. Why?
    “Recall that there were questions about the mother’s mental status.”
    Oh ho ho ho. Are there no questions about Mommy and Daddy Schiavo’s mental health status?
    As for the hospital hunting and court fees, Ed, that’s just dust you keep kicking up. Boonton pointed out the issue crystal clearly for you. I’m not going to repeat his post again. It’s sad that you keep ignoring reality … the question is why do you keep ignoring it?

  • http://TheEverWiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Everything that I’ve read on the subject states that the doctors felt it was unethical to keep providing life support to Hudson. You trust that the doctors in the Schiavo case are being honest. How about this case?
    If that was the case then it would have been wrong for the doctors to prolonged support even if a willing institution was found or the mother won the lottery. My impression was that the hospital called a bunch of other ones seeking an institution that would keep the baby on support. In other words, if the ethical thing was to pull the plug they were soliciting other medical professionals to act in an unethical manner.

  • Larry Lord

    “Bob and Mary Schindler have now lost more than two dozen legal opinions in both state and federal courts, which have consistently sided with their daughter’s husband — and legal guardian — Michael Schiavo. He has said that he is simply following his wife’s wish not to be kept in a persistent vegetative state.
    Speaking earlier with reporters in Dunedin, Florida, on Saturday, Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos, said, “I would hope that the parents’ side realize that any further legal action will be futile. We can understand their desperate efforts in this case. But I would hope that at some point, they leave that behind and begin to cope with this on a more personal level.”
    i.e., Mr. and Mrs. Schindler: get some counseling from someone besides Randall Terry and Jay Sekulow.
    I still want to know why they tell such weak lies when there are so many better and more compelling lies to tell. Wouldn’t you tell better lies, Mr. Ed, if it were daughter?

  • tsotsi

    Okay so another week is gone. A gazillion bytes of info and opinion has criss-crossed the web at blogs and chat rooms and Terri is still going to die. Are anyone of you, just one, starting to get a clue? You can sit and write and talk till hell freezes over, and my bulldog sitting here licking his balls will have more of an impact on this case than any one of you. When is the light going to go on? What is it going to take to finally ignite the beam of enlightenment in this complacent society called the USA?
    The boiled frog theory is being implemented full steam ahead, as it has been since the late 50s. You lot are so brainwashed into believing that words instead of actions are what make things happen. And who got you to this belief? Why it was those who inhabit the halls of indoctrination. They just tell you it’s education. They have so hoodwinked this society that they now have you believing that the president who if he chooses to can order the invasion of a sovereign nation. He can on his own, order a button pushed and in a short while an entire city on the other side of the world will disappear. But they have you believing that he is powerless to reign in a swamp judge in Florida?? Did you all fall off the apple cart last night?
    So sit around and keep up the words, pretending to be pointy headed intellectuals and then when some branch of govt. comes for you or your loved ones, because you are deemed by some judge to be in a state of mind that doesn’t fit their utopian model of what the world should be, maybe you can talk and type your way out of the situation. I for one will stick with the Founding Fathers, who in their wisdom, forsaw the the day when those placed in positions of power would assume God complexes and provided us with remedies for just such occasions.
    I believe it was Emanuel Bloch who said, “I don’t know what kind of animals I am dealing with. I only know they are animals.”

  • Larry Lord

    “But they have you believing that he is powerless to reign in a swamp judge in Florida?? ”
    Wow, you are truly deluded. Are you Episcopalian or Unitarian?

  • Larry Lord
  • Larry Lord

    The intrinsic immeasurable value of human life …
    http://www.okyellowdog.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/anyboard1/forum?cmd=get&cG=13131323&zu=31313132&v=2&gV=0&p=#1112
    Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
    (Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
    The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
    The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
    The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
    The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don’t agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
    Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
    Opponents of the bills said they’re worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don’t approve of homosexuality.
    Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn’t ban discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.
    “Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not,” he said.
    “I think it’s a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark,” said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
    Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
    —————–
    Oh yeah … the religious freedom to discriminate. I keep forgetting about how the essence of many religious beliefs boils down to “die in hell, sinnners.”

  • Brian

    Larry,
    thou doth protest too much! If creationist were as vacant as you imply or christians as hate filled, show them a better way. Prove your enlightened state of mind and convince them and me that you have a better way. Unless you are just into feeling superior.
    As part of the vast right wing conspiracy I formally apologize for every hypocrit who has ever crossed your path. I am a liar and fake myself who has been exposed hundreds of times….by you would say my delusion of God. Please do not judge people in a group by the extreems. Do Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and Ted Kennedy represent who and what you are? Al Franken and Ann Coulter type attacks are useless and time consuming at best. You seem sharper than that.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don’t agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
    Procedure with which they don’t agree is one thing but patient? I can see why a doctor should be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion, prescribe birth control or other procedures that may violate his beliefs but I don’t see why a doctor should be permitted to refuse to treat a patient simply because he ‘disagrees’ with the patient. That’s going to far, medical licenses are issued by the gov’t as part of a public policy to ensure that only professionals and institutions of minimial quality are allowed to practice medicine. If you aren’t going the libertarian route and abolishing medical licenses then I don’t think those getting them should be permitted to exercise patient discrimination.

  • Larry Lord

    “Al Franken and Ann Coulter type attacks”
    And therein lies the problem. If you can’t see the difference between Ann Coulter and Al Franken, you’ve already driven over the cliff. Let me know how cold the water is.

  • Larry Lord

    Boonton
    “I can see why a doctor should be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion, prescribe birth control or other procedures that may violate his beliefs”
    Depends on the doctor’s job description. The doctor needs to make clear before he/she is hired that the doctor has religious hang-ups, and those hang-ups need to be advertised so that patients don’t reasonably rely on being treated by a doctor without religious hang-ups.

  • Larry Lord

    Fundamentalist values
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/28/122815/867
    You see, the vast majority of Americans do understand that most judges are not involved in murder conspiracies or conspiracies to spread godless secular humanist ideologies.
    This is why, for all the noise they make and all the pandering to fundamentalists by the GOP, fundamantalism and willful ignorance is doomed.
    Just wait until the centerpiece of the Johnsonite sect — “ID creationism” — blows up in their faces. That’ll be even uglier for them and a lot more fun for the majority of us to watch.
    Do you suppose most Americans support the idea of pharmacists dispensing drugs only when the pharmacists’ preacher says it’s okay to do so?
    I suppose not.
    I’m right.

  • Mr Ed

    Procedure with which they don’t agree is one thing but patient? I can see why a doctor should be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion, prescribe birth control or other procedures that may violate his beliefs but I don’t see why a doctor should be permitted to refuse to treat a patient simply because he ‘disagrees’ with the patient. That’s going to far, medical licenses are issued by the gov’t as part of a public policy to ensure that only professionals and institutions of minimial quality are allowed to practice medicine. If you aren’t going the libertarian route and abolishing medical licenses then I don’t think those getting them should be permitted to exercise patient discrimination.
    That’s why I think the whole complaint about the bill is a ruse. Think about it, it was supported by the Michigan Catholic Conference, What’s the big issue with Catholics? Abortion, euthanasia, etc. Gay rights? No. Besides, this bill is about refusing to perform certain services, not refusing to perform services on certain people. The bill notes:

    Sec. 5. (1) A health care provider may assert as a matter of conscience an objection to providing or participating in a health care service that conflicts with his or her sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.

    (a) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to a health care service if a patient’s condition, in the reasonable medical judgment of an attending physician or medical director, requires immediate action to prevent the death of that patient.

    (b) A health care provider shall not assert an objection to providing or participating in a health care service based on the classification of a patient or group of patients protected under the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, 1976 PA 453, MCL 37.2101 to 37.2804, or based on a disease or other medical condition.

    (2) If a health care provider asserts an objection to a health care service that at the time the objection is asserted constitutes a regular or substantial portion of the health care provider’s current and defined position, the employer may give the health care provider not less than 6 months’ notice of the termination of his or her employment. As used in this section, “regular or substantial portion” means that 10% or more of the health care provider’s daily or weekly hours of duty consist of providing or participating in that health care service.

    emphasis mine
    I think is should be clear to most people that this bill is intended to provide physicians a way of objecting to provide services such as abortion, euthanasia (were it to become legal), orders to withdraw life support, etc.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I suppose but then I have never heard of a case where a doctor was disciplined because he refused to perform an abortion, prescribe birth control or disagreed with a decision on whether or not to ‘pull the plug.’
    What exactly is this law proposing to remedy? Are there doctors in Michigan who are technically required to perform abortions and need this as an escape clause to keep their licence along with their beliefs? I personally think it is fine to let doctors refrain from violating their beliefs but a “I only treat Evangelical patients” is too much for me to accept when they get a license from the state!

  • Jack

    You see, the vast majority of Americans do understand that most judges are not involved in murder conspiracies or conspiracies to spread godless secular humanist ideologies. This is why, for all the noise they make and all the pandering to fundamentalists by the GOP, fundamantalism and willful ignorance is doomed. Just wait until the centerpiece of the Johnsonite sect — “ID creationism” — blows up in their faces. That’ll be even uglier for them and a lot more fun for the majority of us to watch.
    Larry,
    Do you ever discuss the matter at hand, or just continue to react to your pet issues?

  • Larry Lord

    Does the Pope have a living will?

  • Larry Lord

    Mr. Ed
    “this bill is intended to provide physicians a way of objecting to provide services such as abortion, euthanasia (were it to become legal), orders to withdraw life support, etc.”
    Funny that it doesn’t mention abortion or euthanasia if that is the bill’s intent.
    Why are some people always always willing to play dumb for the religionistas?
    I laugh outright at the “sincerely held moral beliefs” language in the bill — have fun with that, folks. Also section (b)(2) is about as vague as legislation can get. And why should people be allowed to do their job half-assed for six months before they get tanked? Ridiculous.
    You want to be an ass and start throwing your “sincerely held moral beliefs” in your employer’s face? Bye-bye. Six weeks notice is plenty of time. Cripes, in six months I could write a thick book of bad poetry and start my own religion.

  • Mr Ed

    What exactly is this law proposing to remedy?
    I’m not sure what the situation is in Michigan. It may be in response to recent cases wherein care providers who refused to prescribe or administer the “morning after” pill were fired.
    I personally think it is fine to let doctors refrain from violating their beliefs but a “I only treat Evangelical patients” is too much for me to accept when they get a license from the state!
    The case you mention would not be allowed under this law since it is specifically prohibited under the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act to descriminate based on “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status”. Again, that’s why I think this complaint is a ruse.

  • Mr Ed

    Funny that it doesn’t mention abortion or euthanasia if that is the bill’s intent.
    That would be silly, now, wouldn’t it Lar? Why limit it to such specifics and then have to write another bill or amend this one when a new situation arose?
    You want to be an ass and start throwing your “sincerely held moral beliefs” in your employer’s face? Bye-bye. Six weeks notice is plenty of time.
    For a person who has had ample experience being an ass, you sure seem to lack the knowledge of what one is. Imagine, if you will, that you actually had strong convictions that your employer wanted you to violate. Is this something you should be fired for?

  • Larry Lord

    “Why limit it to such specifics and then have to write another bill or amend this one when a new situation arose?”
    Are you serious? What’s the “new situation”? You yourself said that the intent was to deal with abortion and euthanasia and withdrawing life support. There’s no attempt whatseover to deal specifically with those “life/death” issues in the passages of the bill you posted here.
    “Imagine, if you will, that you actually had strong convictions that your employer wanted you to violate. Is this something you should be fired for?”
    Golly willikers, Ed, whether I “should” be fired is a fact-dependent situation. Should a pharmacist at Walgreens be fired for not giving a female her birth control pills?
    Yes.
    Should a lawyer be fired for not committing perjury?
    No.
    You see, Ed: I have an imagination and I choose to use it. It’s one aspect of my “God allegedly gave me a brain so I should use it” set of values.
    For many months I asked platitude spouting evangelicals here to use their imaginations with respect to terminally ill and/or “brain dead” patients and it was like pulling teeth. Even with the Schiavo case it was hellish getting you to admit that babies could be killed against their mothers wishes for the simple reason that a hospital can’t be located in a timely manner to keep the infants hooked up to life support.
    Use your imagination, Ed.
    The big step for you and others here is to start imagining that you’re gay with an adopted daughter. Start working your brain up to this scenario. We’ve some fertile ground to explore there.

  • Jack

    The big step for you and others here is to start imagining that you’re gay with an adopted daughter. Start working your brain up to this scenario. We’ve some fertile ground to explore there.
    I’ve noticed your definition of ‘imagination’ here seems to be “ridiculous scenario meant to prove my point of view”, in which case I’m one unimiginative guy. But I am very creative.

  • Mr Ed

    Are you serious? What’s the “new situation”? You yourself said that the intent was to deal with abortion and euthanasia and withdrawing life support. There’s no attempt whatseover to deal specifically with those “life/death” issues in the passages of the bill you posted here.
    If we could know what the new situation was then we could include it in the bill. Right? The point of the bill is what it says. The situations may be different but it doesn’t change the overarching dilemma.
    Golly willikers, Ed, whether I “should” be fired is a fact-dependent situation.
    Sure it is. But you’re over-simplifying if you thing the two cases you provided cover all the bases. Use your imagination Lar. By the way, this bill wouldn’t let a pharmacist refuse to prescribe birth control since it is a large part of his job description.
    Even with the Schiavo case it was hellish getting you to admit that babies could be killed against their mothers wishes for the simple reason that a hospital can’t be located in a timely manner to keep the infants hooked up to life support.
    Is that how you remember it?
    The big step for you and others here is to start imagining that you’re gay with an adopted daughter.
    Can’t you see the problem with this argument? You’re not asking me to imagine that I’m gay (presumably something over which I have no control). But you’re asking me to imagine I’m gay and have made the choice to adopt a daughter. Get it Lar?
    Now, I can imagine there is a case where a homosexual has an adopted daughter and, because of the Elliot-Larsen civil rights act, I am prohibited from descriminating against that daughter based on her “familial status”. Further, I’m prohibited from denying either you or your daughter a service that comprises over 10% of my job description.

  • Larry Lord

    Imagine a world where beliefs based on reason and experience matter more than ancient poems recited by crooked preachers.
    Ooops — I’m sorry. We already live in that world. Boo hoo for you, Jack.
    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Death-Penalty-Bible.html?hp&ex=1112072400&en=9a49d3c08e33202d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    Death Sentence Thrown Out Because of Jury’s Bible Reading
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: March 28, 2005
    Filed at 2:45 p.m. ET
    DENVER (AP) — The Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death sentence Monday of a man convicted of raping and killing a cocktail waitress because jurors consulted the Bible during deliberations.
    The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” could lead jurors to vote for death.
    The justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for the 1994 slaying of Rhonda Maloney.
    Harlan’s attorneys challenged the sentence after discovering five jurors had looked up Bible verses, copied some of them down and then talked about them behind closed doors.
    ———————
    Say it with me: those jurors were a bunch of frigging idiots who made a joke out of our legal system and Christianity itself, just like the rubes with the placards weeping for the cameras in Florida.
    Reality: a slap in the face for fundamentalists.
    No wonder they’re so teed off all the time.

  • Larry Lord

    “By the way, this bill wouldn’t let a pharmacist refuse to prescribe birth control since it is a large part of his job description.”
    Are 10% of a pharmacist’s duties on any given day OR on any given week filling out birth control prescriptions?
    Is that true in every pharmacy in Michigan?
    Again Ed: imagination.
    “You’re not asking me to imagine that I’m gay (presumably something over which I have no control). But you’re asking me to imagine I’m gay and have made the choice to adopt a daughter. Get it Lar?”
    Yeah. So what’s the problem. You can imagine your gay but you can’t imagine being gay and adopting a daughter? Let’s imagine that your daughter is blind, was born in Iraq, and was orphaned by a US missile, and you live in San Francisco with your partner and were opposed to the war. Just to keep it real.

  • Mr Ed

    What was it that made a “joke out of our legal system” Lar? Whas it that they actually held such beliefs or that they read the Bible during deliberations? I’m curious.

  • Jack

    Imagine a world where beliefs based on reason and experience matter more than ancient poems recited by crooked preachers.
    Ooops — I’m sorry. We already live in that world. Boo hoo for you, Jack.

    That’s alright Lar, I enjoy how you can go from a pithy little statement to a 1st grade level of communication in a matter of seconds, and pretend you are ‘reasonable’ or ‘experienced’.
    Just part of the magic show; “Pay no attention to the fact that I can’t carry on an adult conversation – look, I found a silly news article to distract you! Tada! For my next trick, I’ll call somebody a liar – it’s a clever rhetorical device designated to prevent me from actually having to defend my own beliefs, which are repugnant to most civilized people..”

  • Larry Lord

    “Whas it that they actually held such beliefs or that they read the Bible during deliberations?”
    The issue wasn’t reading the Bible. The issue was mistaking the Bible’s instructions for the legal instructions which were they obliged to follow.
    It’s like the post office firing a mail carrier because he’s gay and then the jury consulting Leviticus to see if that’s okay. That’s something that morons do when left to their own devices, or what theocratic societies like Iran do.
    Why do fundamentalist rubes hate America?

  • Larry Lord

    Jack, just fyi: you are a liar and a rather blatant and despicable one at that.
    The amusing thing is that when I write my comments I am always careful to imagine what the response will be and I try to word my comments carefully to ward off the easy arguments. That said, there are some solid (albeit losing) arguments that can be made against many of the positions I take.
    Ed sometimes comes close at least. You should just sit back for a while Jack. Watch and learn.

  • Mr Ed

    Are 10% of a pharmacist’s duties on any given day OR on any given week filling out birth control prescriptions?
    It really doesn’t matter Larry. This has been going on for years and most pharmacy chains already make consessions for pharmacists who oppose prescribing birth control. If they don’t they simply deplete an already short supply of potential employees. This bill wouldn’t change that either way.
    Let’s imagine that your daughter is blind, was born in Iraq, and was orphaned by a US missile, and you live in San Francisco with your partner and were opposed to the war. Just to keep it real.
    Okay, if you can imagine that you are a flying pig, I’ll try to imagine your scenario.

  • Mr Ed

    The issue wasn’t reading the Bible. The issue was mistaking the Bible’s instructions for the legal instructions which were they obliged to follow.
    Are you saying this is a new thing? People have been bringing their own values into the jury room for years. I hope you’re not implying this is different than a person voting against death in a capital case based on moral grounds.
    That said, there are some solid (albeit losing) arguments that can be made against many of the positions I take.
    Its amazing you can fit that head through the door.

  • Larry Lord

    “if you can imagine that you are a flying pig”
    Right on. Maybe an inflatable one hovering about David Gilmour on Floyd’s “Animals” tour.
    “I hope you’re not implying this is different than a person voting against death in a capital case based on moral grounds.”
    People who are morally opposed to capital punishment are typically excluded from sitting on juries who will be asked to engage in capital sentencing.
    But you make my point for me, Ed. The point is that people who need to consult an ancient book to make a decision in a legal case aren’t relying on their morals or their brains.
    Again, if that sort of behavior thrills you, then you’re a full-blooded theocrat and all my warnings about the Christian Taliban are made that much more legitimate.
    “most pharmacy chains already make consessions for pharmacists who oppose prescribing birth control”
    Really? Like what sort of “concessions”.
    “If they don’t they simply deplete an already short supply of potential employees.”
    I didn’t know there was such a demand for small-minded pharmacists. But I do understand that some parts of the country are so culturally impoverished and empty that educated skilled professionals who enjoy working and living with a variety of human beings besides ignorant white ones have no desire to live there. Is that the shortage you’re talking about?

  • Mr Ed

    People who are morally opposed to capital punishment are typically excluded from sitting on juries who will be asked to engage in capital sentencing.
    Only if they’re honest about it. Do you deny that some would lie in order to save a person Lar?
    The point is that people who need to consult an ancient book to make a decision in a legal case aren’t relying on their morals or their brains.
    Some, perhaps. But to say that every person who consults the Bible regarding certain difficult decisions is, well, terribly ill-informed and hypocritical. That same person may not consult the Bible but they certainly seek wise counsel–if they are indeed wise.
    Again, if that sort of behavior thrills you, then you’re a full-blooded theocrat and all my warnings about the Christian Taliban are made that much more legitimate.
    Ah, the obligatory gibe. Well, Lar, the mere fact that you can put “Christian” and “Taliban” in the same sentence shows that either you know little about Christians and the Taliban or that your desire to insult supercedes your desire to be honest. I can believe both.
    Really? Like what sort of “concessions”.
    They back up the APA policy that states that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense drugs based on moral objections. The policy states that the pharmacy needs to make alternate arangements to allow the patient to get the prescription filled. That means coordinating with other pharmacies or keeping other pharmacists on call.
    I didn’t know there was such a demand for small-minded pharmacists.
    Evidently there’s still a market for small-minded scientists.
    But I do understand that some parts of the country are so culturally impoverished and empty that educated skilled professionals who enjoy working and living with a variety of human beings besides ignorant white ones have no desire to live there. Is that the shortage you’re talking about?
    Why such the bigot Lar?
    You do know, don’t you, that most pharmacists who refuse to prescirbe birth control are Catholic, don’t you? And of course you’re aware that a huge number of practicing Catholics in America are ethnic minorities, aren’t you? And you’re clearly aware that poor southern whitey is most likely Protestant. Why would it be, then, that you would naturally disparage whitey when whitey is not the issue here?

  • Larry O’Lord

    “Do you deny that some would lie in order to save a person Lar?”
    No. Why?
    ” But to say that every person who consults the Bible regarding certain difficult decisions is, well, terribly ill-informed and hypocritical.”
    Perhaps. Who said that?
    “Well, Lar, the mere fact that you can put “Christian” and “Taliban” in the same sentence shows that either you know little about Christians and the Taliban or that your desire to insult supercedes your desire to be honest”
    Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists with fantasies of controlling national policy exist. You can’t deny it. Stop trying. You make yourself look silly.
    “The policy states that the pharmacy needs to make alternate arangements to allow the patient to get the prescription filled. That means coordinating with other pharmacies or keeping other pharmacists on call.”
    What a waste of resources — all to please some hung-up religious freak.
    “You do know, don’t you, that most pharmacists who refuse to prescirbe birth control are Catholic”
    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that most Catholic pharmacists who refuse to prescribe borith control are, in fact, white. Like lilly-freaking Irish white.
    Please make me laugh and call me an anti-Irish bigot.

  • Larry O’Lord

    “Do you deny that some would lie in order to save a person Lar?”
    No. Why?
    ” But to say that every person who consults the Bible regarding certain difficult decisions is, well, terribly ill-informed and hypocritical.”
    Perhaps. Who said that?
    “Well, Lar, the mere fact that you can put “Christian” and “Taliban” in the same sentence shows that either you know little about Christians and the Taliban or that your desire to insult supercedes your desire to be honest”
    Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists with fantasies of controlling national policy exist. You can’t deny it. Stop trying. You make yourself look silly.
    “The policy states that the pharmacy needs to make alternate arangements to allow the patient to get the prescription filled. That means coordinating with other pharmacies or keeping other pharmacists on call.”
    What a waste of resources — all to please some hung-up religious freak.
    “You do know, don’t you, that most pharmacists who refuse to prescirbe birth control are Catholic”
    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that most Catholic pharmacists who refuse to prescribe borith control are, in fact, white. Like lilly-freaking Irish white.
    Please make me laugh and call me an anti-Irish bigot.

  • Jack

    Jack, just fyi: you are a liar and a rather blatant and despicable one at that.

    See? Can’t make two reasonable statements in a row without calling respondents a liar. Larry, you got nothig going for your arguments other than desperarate gesticulations.
    The amusing thing is that when I write my comments I am always careful to imagine what the response will be and I try to word my comments carefully to ward off the easy arguments. That said, there are some solid (albeit losing) arguments that can be made against many of the positions I take.
    Ah, yes, you think you’re playing chess. And you think you can win or lose. See, Larry, actual adult have conversations don’t require this; I don’t know what short-circuited your communicative abilities; abandonment? abuse? But an internet forum is not going to help your social and emotional inadequacies. Dude, I know you consider yourself a rationalist, but that doesn’t rule out psychological counseling.

  • Mr Ed

    No.
    Then my point stands.
    Perhaps.
    Another point stands.
    Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists with fantasies of controlling national policy exist.
    Many groups with aspirations of controlling national policy exist, Lar. That doesn’t make them equal to the Taliban. Do you know who the Taliban were Lar? Do you know what they stood for? What they believed? By the way, I don’t use the term Islamofascist either. You see Lar, I believe terms have meanings. And I don’t believe hyperbole proves anything.
    I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that most Catholic pharmacists who refuse to prescribe borith control are, in fact, white. Like lilly-freaking Irish white.
    Of course you would, but you’d be wrong. You would because you are prejudiced–probably for all of the typical reasons.

  • Jack

    So, is Jesse Jacksons’ support of Terri Schiavo going to tear apart the Democratic Party? Is the left disintegrating?
    Jesse Jackson Urges Fla. Woman Be Kept Alive

  • Jack

    Wow. The spectrum widens.
    Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder

  • Mr Ed

    Say it with me: those jurors were a bunch of frigging idiots who made a joke out of our legal system and Christianity itself, just like the rubes with the placards weeping for the cameras in Florida.
    As usual, Larry and his cohorts on the Left leave out crucial bits of detail. Larry, and most Leftist bloggers I’ve read on the subject, would have us believe that these jurors willy-nilly whipped out a Bible during deliberations in an attempt to enforce Biblical laws. But what do the details of the story tell us?

    Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court’s decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts “as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham.” The lawyers also made several references to Mr. Harlan’s soul and his habit of reading the Bible with his father, the court said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29bible.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1112131487-ki+JWoELz6COuaN5l0pa9A
    Given this “new” information, aren’t the jurors within the law to consider the Bible texts? I mean, the defense of all people asked that the jury consider Biblical wisdom. How would they know that wisdom? Yes, by reading the Bible.
    What does the Colorado law state?

    Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/national/29bible.html?8bl
    Further, the Bible wasn’t actually read, rather it was quoted.

    In their dissent, Justices Nancy Rice and Rebecca Love Kourlis said the evidence did not show biblical passages influenced jurors. “It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court,” Rice wrote.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=7&u=/ap/20050329/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_bible
    Taking small bits of information and running with it to prove some larger point really makes you look silly Lar.

  • Jack

    Thanks for the bigger picture Ed. The truth is always more subtle, isn’t it?
    On the death penalty case I worked on the defendant’s lawyer specifically referred to Scripture in the penalty phase of the trial, in an effort to save his client’s skin.
    If jurors can’t consult Scripture, perhaps lawyers should be prevented from appealing to it?
    Jack

  • Larry Lord

    Ed
    Yes, please enjoy Nancy and Rebecca’s dissent.
    I would “have you believe” nothing except the facts: the Supreme Court in Colorado felt that the jurors were out of line. So do I.
    Do jurors check their minds at the door? They shouldn’t. But these jurors obviously did. And they were busted.
    As for Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson, I am not surprised or persuaded by much that comes of that character’s mouth.
    As for the Christian Taliban, let’s pay attention to Mr. Rudolph’s trial. Perhaps you’ll learn something about fundamentalist Christians, Ed. It’s about time you did.
    And can you tell me why the Schindlers told such weak lies to the court last Friday? Would you tell such weak lies to the court, Ed, if you “truly believed” that your daughter was being murderered? What else would you do, Ed, if you “truly believed” that your daughter was being murdered a la Terry Schiavo?
    We’re all anxiously waiting to see if your actions speak as loudly as you and your fellow fundamentalists’ extraordinarily loud words.
    Jack: which part of “watch and learn” did you not understand?

  • Mr Ed

    Yes, please enjoy Nancy and Rebecca’s dissent.
    I did, thanks. It was very informative.
    I would “have you believe” nothing except the facts: the Supreme Court in Colorado felt that the jurors were out of line. So do I.
    Funny, then, that you left so many facts out.
    Do jurors check their minds at the door? They shouldn’t. But these jurors obviously did. And they were busted.
    Still not reading the facts Lar? Did these jurors leave their minds at the door or did they do exactly what the defense and the state of Colorade asked them to do? Yes, I think the facts speak for themselves despite your attempts to portray these jurors as “frigging idiots”.
    As for the Christian Taliban, let’s pay attention to Mr. Rudolph’s trial. Perhaps you’ll learn something about fundamentalist Christians, Ed. It’s about time you did.
    Being raised in a Fundamentalist household. I know quite a bit Lar. I know that the vast majority of Fundamentalist Christians believe the we are admonished in Scripture to obey the law of the land.
    We’re all anxiously waiting to see if your actions speak as loudly as you and your fellow fundamentalists’ extraordinarily loud words.
    Loud words? Glass houses Lar, glass houses. Anyway, through the rambling I gather that you want to see some actions. What do you want to see Lar?

  • Larry Lord

    “Did these jurors leave their minds at the door or did they do exactly what the defense and the state of Colorade asked them to do?”
    Clever Christian jurors would have used a bit of, er, discretion shall we say. These people were clueless. They were wrapped up a little too tightly.
    As I said: they were busted.
    For what it’s worth, counsel are given greater leeway during closing arguments. But if I’m not mistaken, juries are also warned not to consider those arguments as evidence. The evidence is what was presented earlier. Counsel are not permitted to present new evidence and theories during closing arguments.
    But again, this is beside the point. A bit of discretion would have helped those jurors. They lacked such discretion.
    And just fyi: such a lack of discretion is a hallmark of creationists — that is why I look forward to more of this kind of nonsense in the future.
    Speaking of clueless musings, how about li’l Sis Schiavo today?
    “She recognizes me,” Suzanne Vitadamo said Monday. “She’s weaker but she’s still trying to talk.”
    Why the weak lies? Why can’t the feeding tube lovers come up with fascinating and compelling lies? Wouldn’t you do better than that if it was your sister that was being murdered?

  • Larry Lord

    Fyi — Jackson is clever to hype his support now, when the legal wrangling is over and the nation is mourning Johnie Cochran.
    I bet you Tom Delay is wishing he had followed Jesse’s lead.
    Speaking of mourning, it’ll be interesting to see how evangelicals eulogize Jerry Falwell. He’s a rather important evangelical leader, wouldn’t you say, Ed?

  • Larry Lord

    “Anyway, through the rambling I gather that you want to see some actions. What do you want to see Lar?”
    Someone should rig up some mysterious lights to dance over the hospice at night, perhaps forming a halo or cross configuration. That’ll put the “supporters” over the top.

  • Jack

    Jack: which part of “watch and learn” did you not understand?
    Which part of ‘seek counseling” did you not understand?
    Jack

  • Jack

    when the legal wrangling is over and the nation is mourning Johnie Cochran.
    Bah hah. I have to give it to you, sometimes you are a very funny man.

  • Jack

    Speaking of clueless musings, how about li’l Sis Schiavo today?
    “She recognizes me,” Suzanne Vitadamo said Monday. “She’s weaker but she’s still trying to talk.”
    Why the weak lies? Why can’t the feeding tube lovers come up with fascinating and compelling lies? Wouldn’t you do better than Wouldn’t you do better than that if it was your sister that was being murdered? that if it was your sister that was being murdered?

    Lar, not everyone is bright enough to sell off their loved one’s parts to the highest bidder; we can’t all be clever opportunists like yourself.

  • Mr Ed

    Clever Christian jurors would have used a bit of, er, discretion shall we say. These people were clueless. They were wrapped up a little too tightly.
    Clever? You mean deceptive?
    For what it’s worth, counsel are given greater leeway during closing arguments. But if I’m not mistaken, juries are also warned not to consider those arguments as evidence. The evidence is what was presented earlier. Counsel are not permitted to present new evidence and theories during closing arguments.
    Of course its beside the point, the jury didn’t weigh it as evidence. They did what the defense and the state asked them to: they sought a moral compass.
    And just fyi: such a lack of discretion is a hallmark of creationists…
    Whenever I see your favorite red herring I know you realize that you lost the argument.
    My work here is done.

  • Larry Lord

    Dr. Cranford rocks Joe Scarbungo’s world:
    —————-
    SCARBOROUGH: Now, the question on everybody’s mind tonight is this: How is Terri Schiavo doing? You know, it’s been 10 days. She is starting her 11th day now without food and water. Let’s go back to Pinellas Park [Florida], where Lisa Daniels [MSNBC daytime anchor] is standing by — Lisa.
    DANIELS: Well, Joe, at this point, we are going to delve into the medical aspect of the story. I want to bring in Dr. Ronald Cranford. He’s a neurologist at Hennepin Medical Center in Minneapolis. And, Doctor, before we continue, I want our viewers to understand what your role was in the legal case. I understand that Michael Schiavo and his team asked you to examine his wife. Is that correct?
    CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, they did.
    DANIELS: And from my understanding, I just want to be accurate, you examined Terri Schiavo for about 45 minutes. Is that right?
    CRANFORD: I think 42 minutes, but 45 is fine, sure.
    DANIELS: All right. Well, we want to be accurate here. What was your conclusion at the end of —
    [crosstalk]
    CRANFORD: Wait a minute. You are not accurate on a lot of things here. You’re saying a lot of — she’s not starving to death. Do you understand that? She is dehydrating to death.
    DANIELS: Well, why do you say that? Tell us how you came to that conclusion?
    [crosstalk]
    CRANFORD: Can I tell you why? Because I have done this 25 to 50 times. I don’t know how many times Joe has done it, but I’ve done it 25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days.
    Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days [as guest Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition suggested earlier in the program]. She died in 11 days, 11.5 hours. And Terri Schiavo will die within 10 to 14 days. And they are dying of dehydration, not starvation. And that’s just a lie. And Joe doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about. And you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
    DANIELS: Well —
    CRANFORD: I have been at the bedside of these patients. I know what they die from. I’ve seen them die. And this is all bogus. It’s all just a bunch of crap that you are saying. It’s totally wrong.
    DANIELS: Well, with all due respect, Doctor, it sounds like you think that you know what you are talking about, so let’s ask you about that.
    CRANFORD: Sure.
    DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?
    CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.
    DANIELS: Why are you so sure, Doctor?
    CRANFORD: Because I examined her. The court-appointed guardian examined her. Four neurologists at the hospital where she was has said she’s carried a diagnosis of vegetative state for 12 years. Every neurologist that examined her, except for Dr. [William] Hammesfahr [a neurologist selected by Terri Schiavo’s parents], who is a charlatan, has said she is in vegetative state. That’s what the court found. Just because you don’t like —
    [crosstalk]
    DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan — Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?
    CRANFORD: You don’t know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible — you don’t have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?
    The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you’re asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?
    SCARBOROUGH: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait a second.
    [crosstalk]
    SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second, if I can interrupt here.
    CRANFORD: Go ahead. Joe, interrupt me.
    SCARBOROUGH: Why don’t you go ahead and tell the rest of the story there? Why don’t you tell us that the radiologist that looked at the two CAT scans said she showed improvement in 2002 over 1996? You know, you seem so sure of yourself. The Associated Press reported yesterday —
    CRANFORD: Joe, the judge didn’t believe him.
    SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You’re so sure of yourself — respond to this. AP had a report yesterday. They said seven doctors have looked at her. Four said she was in persistent vegetative state. You were one of them, hired by Michael Schiavo to do that. There were three others that looked at her that disagreed. How can you be so absolutely sure that everybody that agrees with you is 100 percent accurate and everybody on the other side is a charlatan?
    CRANFORD: Joe, Judge — Judge [George W.] Greer disallowed, didn’t believe what [Dr. William] Maxfield [a doctor selected by Terri Schiavo’s parents] said. You got your numbers wrong. There were eight neurologists saw her. Seven of the eight said she was in a vegetative state. Only one said she wasn’t.
    SCARBOROUGH: I am quoting an Associated Press report from yesterday.
    CRANFORD: Joe, you’ve got to get your facts straight.
    SCARBOROUGH: I have got my facts straight.
    CRANFORD: Get your facts straight. You’ve got your facts way off.
    SCARBOROUGH: Why don’t we talk about — hold on a second.
    CRANFORD: Go ahead.
    SCARBOROUGH: You talked about a 1996 scan.
    CRANFORD: No, 2002, 2002.
    SCARBOROUGH: Let’s talk about it. A radiologist told the court that the 2002 scan actually showed improvement over the 1996 scan. Is that inaccurate? Did the AP report that wrong?
    CRANFORD: Absolutely. Maxfield said it was improved. And Judge Greer didn’t buy it because the others said it wasn’t improved. It was probably worse than it was before.
    SCARBOROUGH: Is he a charlatan also?
    CRANFORD: Yes. Maxfield is an HBO [hyperbaric oxygen], vasodilator — look it up, Joe. See what vasodilator does. See what hyperbaric oxygen, see in these cases, and you tell me they are not charlatans. Just because you don’t agree with me — I don’t call everybody a charlatan. I’m not calling [Dr. Richard] Cheshire [who has argued that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state] a charlatan. I think he’s a reputable neurologist. I think he examined her, he interviewed her. So, just because I disagree, I don’t call them charlatans. But you have got your facts so far off that it’s unbelievable, Joe. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about. You’ve never been at the bedside of these patients. And this will come out in the next three to five years about this condition and starvation.
    SCARBOROUGH: You were there 42 minutes, Doctor.
    CRANFORD: Yes, I was.
    SCARBOROUGH: You are only one doctor that’s been there. And somehow, in your 42 minutes of observing her, you have all the answers and everybody that disagrees is dead wrong, I guess.
    CRANFORD: No, that’s just a — you know what? You’ve gotta see what Judge Greer said. You’ve gotta see what the appeals court said. If you read that, Joe, you will understand why the judge decided the way he did.
    SCARBOROUGH: All right.
    CRANFORD: He didn’t believe Hammesfahr. He didn’t believe Maxfield. And it’s not starvation. And Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days. She died in 11 days and 11.5 hours, 11 days and 11.5 hours.
    SCARBOROUGH: All right.
    CRANFORD: OK?
    SCARBOROUGH: Thank you, Doctor.
    CRANFORD: My pleasure.
    SCARBOROUGH: You know what? This is the disappointing thing. You try to have a conversation. You try to talk about what is going on. And I found this as an attorney, too. I have been attorneys for plaintiffs. I have been attorneys for defendants. And what I always find out is, there are certain doctors — I am not claiming that this doctor is a charlatan. I don’t know his body of work. I am not claiming that he is a hired gun.
    But too many doctors out there can be bought off by attorneys on either side. And then they come out, instead of telling you the facts, you get into debate like you are talking to an attorney. It is very, very disappointing.

  • Jack

    So?

  • Mr Ed

    So, indeed, Jack.
    Cranford knows what he’s talking about, that’s for sure. He’s been to so many death beds because he’s on the board of a right-to-die advocacy group. If you have a relative that needs to go, he’s the man you want on your side. Of course, those same people who call Cheshire a rightwing fanatic are oddly silent about Cranford’s associations. Silent also about Cranford’s contribution to a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating that doctors discuss methods of suicide with their patients.
    Nobody in this case is unbiased. That’s why its futile to attack people rather than address the issue.

  • Larry Lord

    The issue isn’t “bias” Ed.
    The issue is “competence”.
    Nice attempt at spin, though. On which wingnut website did you dig up that “salacious” info about Cranford? I bet he drinks soy latte’s, too, and avoids beef jerky. Just another elitist lefty …

  • Mr Ed

    If the issue isn’t bias then why did you remark on Cheshire’s associations to Christian groups? No, Lar, the issue is bias. Though competence comes into play, Cranford acknowledged Cheshire’s complete competence in the Scarborough interview you posted. So, we have two competent neurologists, both with an axe to grind, both on separate sides of the issue. Which do you choose to believe?
    On which wingnut website did you dig up that “salacious” info about Cranford?
    Sorry pal, this was my own research. His association to the right-to-die advocacy group is listed on his own CV on the U of M website. Kind of a no brainer, eh Lar?

  • Larry Lord

    “If the issue isn’t bias then why did you remark on Cheshire’s associations to Christian groups?”
    That’ll teach me to post when I’m under the weather.
    But I wasn’t referring to Cheshire when I made my comments about bias — I was referring to the charlatans referred to by Cranford. Perhaps even Cheshire would agree about the other hacks — that would be refreshing.
    I’m confused about what “axe” you suppose that Cranford is “grinding.” Does Judge Greer have an “axe” to grind? And the Judge’s on the Court of Appeals? Do they have “axes” to grind? And the Florida Supreme Court? What “axes” do they have to grind?
    You seem to be impling that Cranford enjoys killing people who aren’t in persistent vegetable states and whose wishes about life-support and end-of-life treatment are unclear.
    That, of course, is bogus.
    On the other hand, the Christian agenda on these issues is rather clear — at least the publicly broadcast version of that agenda. That version is that if there is any doubt IN ANYONE’S MIND that a person is conscious and wants to live, then you can’t pull the plug. Has Cheshire renounced that agenda irrefutably?
    He should. But that might adversely affect his ability to continue to sit comfortably next to the “pro-life” tongue waggers.

  • Larry Lord

    Weird fetus fetish in the news:
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/30/fetus.stolen.ap/index.html
    Go figure.

  • Larry Lord

    “Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, said the jurors had gone outside the law. “They went to the Bible to find out God’s position on capital punishment,” she said.
    ——————————
    What is God’s position on capital punishment? More specifically — what did Jesus say about the concept of an “eye for an eye”?
    I wonder if the jurors were able to solve this popular conundrum, which even the most pointy-headed pointy heads can not agree on.
    All we know is that Ed does not claim that the Bible mandates the death penalty for murder. I think.

  • Larry Lord

    Jack, who I guess would call himself a Christian, hurls insults:
    “not everyone is bright enough to sell off their loved one’s parts to the highest bidder; we can’t all be clever opportunists like yourself”
    Yeah, I’m like Igor in the Frankenstein movies. I’m making a mint off selling my “loved one’s” body parts.
    So, Jack, have the Schindler’s sold the movie rights to their story yet? When is their book coming out?
    Clever opportunists indeed.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    The decision in the death penalty case was proper. The job of the jury is NOT to debate the ethics of the death penalty but to determine whether the actual law that authorizes the penalty applied to the case at hand. The job of debating the morality of death penalty laws is for the legislature and executive branches of gov’ts that pass such laws.
    It would have been just as proper to have tossed the sentence out if it had been revealed that they had brought in secular books advocating/criticizing the death penalty.

  • Jack

    It would have been just as proper to have tossed the sentence out if it had been revealed that they had brought in secular books advocating/criticizing the death penalty.
    So is long as they don’t ‘bring the books in’ they are free to consider whatever criteria they desire?
    Jack

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Cranford knows what he’s talking about, that’s for sure. He’s been to so many death beds because he’s on the board of a right-to-die advocacy group. If you have a relative that needs to go, he’s the man you want on your side. Of course, those same people who call Cheshire a rightwing fanatic are oddly silent about Cranford’s associations. Silent also about Cranford’s contribution to a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating that doctors discuss methods of suicide with their patients.
    Nobody in this case is unbiased. That’s why its futile to attack people rather than address the issue.
    Interestingly, Mr Ed, in the excerpt Larry posted Cranford went out of the way to show respect toward Cheshire:

    CRANFORD: Yes. Maxfield is an HBO [hyperbaric oxygen], vasodilator — look it up, Joe. See what vasodilator does. See what hyperbaric oxygen, see in these cases, and you tell me they are not charlatans. Just because you don’t agree with me — I don’t call everybody a charlatan. I’m not calling [Dr. Richard] Cheshire [who has argued that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state] a charlatan. I think he’s a reputable neurologist. I think he examined her, he interviewed her. So, just because I disagree, I don’t call them charlatans. But you have got your facts so far off that it’s unbelievable, Joe. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about. You’ve never been at the bedside of these patients. And this will come out in the next three to five years about this condition and starvation.

    I don’t see justification in your mocking of Cranford as a Jack Kvorkian type (i.e. if you have a relative you want to off ‘he’s your man!’). Cranford has seen this sort of thing a lot because he treats patients with severe brain injuries. Such patients are likely to end up in situations where DNR’s, ‘should we pull the plug?’ issues come up. This doesn’t justify depicting him as a euthansia fanatic who wants to kill people if they so much as become diabetic and need insulin!
    In my experience doctors are a bit like car mechanics, they never seem to agree with each other when the case is complicated. It does appear, though, that the parents do not have a strong medical case on their side. This is especially true when you strike from their side the people who only had a cursory look at the record and those that are apparant charlatans like Himmarsfab & Maxfield.

  • Jack

    Jack, who I guess would call himself a Christian, hurls insults:
    Lar, insults are your primary means of communication. Just trying to communicate at your level. Plus, you are implying that something I said wasn’t true.
    “not everyone is bright enough to sell off their loved one’s parts to the highest bidder; we can’t all be clever opportunists like yourself”
    Yeah, I’m like Igor in the Frankenstein movies. I’m making a mint off selling my “loved one’s” body parts.
    Nah, Igor dug up dead people. You don’t wait for them to die before you start calculating the savings.
    So, Jack, have the Schindler’s sold the movie rights to their story yet? When is their book coming out?
    Clever opportunists indeed.

    Oh, I’m sure you’ll be first in line since other people’s pain is your primary form of entertainment.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    So is long as they don’t ‘bring the books in’ they are free to consider whatever criteria they desire?
    My understanding of the case was that they were not allowed to bring in outside materials to use in their decision making process. That seems pretty clear cut to me, so if they used the Bible to help them decide a death penalty was proper its a violation.
    Now I don’t know if there are any rules regarding how a jury debates the case. If, for example, they turn their deliberation into a mini-debate on the merits of the death penalty with religious jurors quoting scripture from memory and other ones quoting secular philosophers. I could be wrong but I believe the law generally takes a hands off approach of regulating how the jury conducts its debate; trying to achieve its goal by limiting outside influence as much as possible and instructing the jurors on what they should do.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Another fact to consider is that they also swear to perform their duty as jurors. While they may not be regulated in their debate Christians should take note that there is an ethical duty to honor their pledges. If they can’t apply the law because they feel scripture demands they impose the death penalty more or less often then their obligation is to be upfront about that.

  • Larry Lord

    Gotta love the Republicans for Bigger More Invasive Government! Here is Constitutional scholar Laura Bush on how to handle familial disputes relating to end-of-life care:
    ——————————–
    “First lady Laura Bush said Wednesday that the federal government should intervene in such disputes. While traveling to Afghanistan she told reporters, “It’s a life issue.”
    “The federal government has to be involved,” Bush said. “It really does require the government to be involved.”
    ———————————
    Sure it does, Laura. Keep repeating the mantra and maybe someday a majority of rubes will recite it with you.

  • Larry Lord

    Jack
    “Nah, Igor dug up dead people.”
    Sometimes he just stole preserved medical specimens. Kind of like this nutty woman:
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/30/fetus.stolen.ap/index.html
    Any bets against her being a fundamentalist Christian, Jack? What other group of humans displays this strange fetus fetishizing behavior?

  • Jack

    Another fact to consider is that they also swear to perform their duty as jurors. While they may not be regulated in their debate Christians should take note that there is an ethical duty to honor their pledges. If they can’t apply the law because they feel scripture demands they impose the death penalty more or less often then their obligation is to be upfront about that.
    Sure, I think full disclosure is important in the jury selection process; which would apply to those who are against the death penalty for whatever moral or political reasons.
    Jack

  • Jack

    Any bets against her being a fundamentalist Christian, Jack? What other group of humans displays this strange fetus fetishizing behavior?
    Sure she’s not a friend of yours Larry? I hope you aren’t trafficking in this sort of thing now; stick to de-humanizing your own family members, will ya?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    What’s relevant is not whether you are for or against the death penalty but whether you can apply the law to the facts of the case on hand. Either way it would appear we do not disagree on the decision to toss out the sentence so I’ll leave it there!

  • Larry Lord

    “I think full disclosure is important in the jury selection process; which would apply to those who are against the death penalty for whatever moral or political reasons.”
    Of course. Ever heard of voir dire, Jack? Do you think such questions are not asked of potential jurors?
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=voir+dire+death+penalty
    You keep forgetting your lesson plan, Jack: watch and learn.
    Let the adults argue until your brain has had time to mature. You can recite platitudes and self-evident non-contributory poop after your nap.

  • Larry Lord

    Any bets against her being a fundamentalist Christian? What other group of humans displays this strange fetus fetishizing behavior?
    ——————–
    Tough questions — worth asking again.

  • Jack

    Of course. Ever heard of voir dire, Jack? Do you think such questions are not asked of potential jurors?
    Sure. I was at one of the largest law firms in the midwest for six years; even worked on a death penalty case. How about you? Watch a lot of crime shows?
    You keep forgetting your lesson plan, Jack: watch and learn.
    I suppose someone could learn something about driving from watching a car wreck.
    Let the adults argue until your brain has had time to mature. You can recite platitudes and self-evident non-contributory poop after your nap.
    Lar, if those were the rules, you would have had a time out long ago. We are all still waiting for some adult behavior from you. You know, something other than “Wahhhh!, so and so’s a liar!, Bahhhh!, so and so’s a meany!, Nahhhh! no one will play ball with me!!!”

  • Larry Lord

    “I was at one of the largest law firms in the midwest for six years; even worked on a death penalty case.”
    I’m sure you were a fantastic secretary.
    You really do crack me up, Jack. Keep ‘em coming!
    I’m counting the posts until you resurrect your “nothing matters anyway” argument. That was most amusing.

  • Jack

    I’m sure you were a fantastic secretary.
    Should be obvious by now I don’t type nearly that fast.
    You really do crack me up, Jack. Keep ‘em coming!
    Almost as much fun as mocking the disabled and their loved ones, eh, Larry.
    I’m counting the posts until you resurrect your “nothing matters anyway” argument. That was most amusing.
    Actually you do a fantastic job of making your own posts irrelevant without me.

  • Larry Lord

    “Should be obvious by now I don’t type nearly that fast.”
    How could that be obvious? I don’t have John Edward’s telepathic abilities.
    I assumed you typed with blazing speed and the bottleneck was … elsewhere.

  • Mr Ed

    I don’t see justification in your mocking of Cranford as a Jack Kvorkian type (i.e. if you have a relative you want to off ‘he’s your man!’). Cranford has seen this sort of thing a lot because he treats patients with severe brain injuries. Such patients are likely to end up in situations where DNR’s, ‘should we pull the plug?’ issues come up. This doesn’t justify depicting him as a euthansia fanatic who wants to kill people if they so much as become diabetic and need insulin!
    Of course I didn’t, Boon. But the fact that Cranford has been involved in so many high-profile right to die cases, has been on so many governmental panels on withholding life support and is on the board of Choices in Dying tells me that he has a vested interest in moving public policy in a decidedly pro-euthanasia direction. This fact alone, no matter how sincere and heart-felt his beliefs are, should have tipped of Judge Greer that he has an agenda. Greer was so astute in pointing out other physicians with an agenda. I can’t help but wonder why he didn’t point out Cranford’s.

  • Mr Ed

    The decision in the death penalty case was proper. The job of the jury is NOT to debate the ethics of the death penalty but to determine whether the actual law that authorizes the penalty applied to the case at hand. The job of debating the morality of death penalty laws is for the legislature and executive branches of gov’ts that pass such laws.
    Then the defense should not have been allowed to ask the jurors to consider Biblical wisdom. And the state of Colorado should not tell jurors to seek a moral compass. It seems the qhole system was engineered towards a certain outcome and when it happened everyone balked.

  • Larry Lord

    “I can’t help but wonder why he didn’t point out Cranford’s.”
    Just maybe, Ed, it has something to do with the fact that Cranford’s diagnosis agreed with that of the other non-charlatan non-“self-promoter” neurologists who examined Terry Schiavo.
    It’s sort of like how you needn’t question a scientist’s “biases” and “agenda” when she says that she has no doubt that life on earth evolved. That is what nearly all the experts say and it is also what any reasonable person concludes when they understand the facts.
    Based on what you’ve seen and heard, Ed, do you believe that Terry Schiavo tried to tell her relatives last week that she wanted to live? “Ahhhh! Waahhh!” Do you believe that stuff Ed? If so, why? Can you articulate a compelling reason why Terry Schiavo would suddenly be able to communicate in this way after 15 years of vegetableness?
    “Then the defense should not have been allowed to ask the jurors to consider Biblical wisdom.”
    I agree and closing argument theatrics is one of the weaknesses of our legal system.
    “It seems the whole system was engineered towards a certain outcome and when it happened everyone balked.”
    I agree with that, too. I think Colorado is trying to grow up but the Heritage Foundation keeps pulling Colorado’s pants down.

  • Larry Lord

    Karen Brauer of “Pharmacists for Life” shows folks how to Lie for Jesus: blatantly and shamelessly.
    ——————————–
    O’REILLY: I got you. Now, when the customer complained, what happened there? Did you refer that customer to somewhere else?
    BRAUER: I asked — I — she did not complain to me. OK? What happened is, she came in for a refill. I informed her that we did not carry the drug at the time. And I offered to call a copy of her prescription to the pharmacy of her choice.
    O’REILLY: And then she complained. But did you — how — why would she complain about that, if you didn’t have the drug on hand?
    BRAUER: Somehow she found out that this pharmacy actually did have the drug at the time.
    O’REILLY: So you lied to her.
    BRAUER: Yes, I did.
    ——————————-
    You see how it works? Karen Brauer knows that Jesus will wink at her lies when Judgment Day comes. Karen Brauer knows that Jesus approved of such lies — especially in the context of Jesus’ favorite social issues, namely, abortion, homosexuality, and end-of-life-care.

  • Jack

    How could that be obvious? I don’t have John Edward’s telepathic abilities.
    But a similar ability to feint and dissemble…

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Choices in Dying tells me that he has a vested interest in moving public policy in a decidedly pro-euthanasia direction. This fact alone, no matter how sincere and heart-felt his beliefs are, should have tipped of Judge Greer that he has an agenda. Greer was so astute in pointing out other physicians with an agenda. I can’t help but wonder why he didn’t point out Cranford’s.
    Except it doesn’t. Assume he does support legalization of euthansia. How does that give him an agenda for this case? Certainly he doesn’t support euthansia for everyone. If Terri was conscious then he would want to say so. After all, what could be more harmful for a movement to legalize euthansia than killing a woman by mistake?
    To illustrate this, imagine a lawyer who supported the death penalty. If he was asked to sit on a capital case, is it really logical to assume he would be biased with an agenda to inflict the death penalty no matter what?
    Then the defense should not have been allowed to ask the jurors to consider Biblical wisdom. And the state of Colorado should not tell jurors to seek a moral compass. It seems the qhole system was engineered towards a certain outcome and when it happened everyone balked.
    Then the rules are the rules and ‘no outside materials’ means no outside materials.

  • Mr Ed

    To illustrate this, imagine a lawyer who supported the death penalty. If he was asked to sit on a capital case, is it really logical to assume he would be biased with an agenda to inflict the death penalty no matter what?
    But we’re not talking about a person who merely supports euthanasia. We’re talking about an activist who is actively pursuing pro-euthanasia legislation. Also, say, for example, he truly believes Terri should be euthanized–even for ‘humane’ motives. But he knows that she won’t be without a diagnosis of PVS. Would he have a motive to maybe fudge the facts a bit in the direction of a PVS doagnosis? Possibly. I’m not saying he did, but I think he had motives. Just as people are saying that Cheshire has a motive for saying Terri may not be in PVS even though he thinks she may be.
    Then the rules are the rules and ‘no outside materials’ means no outside materials.
    Again, Boon, the dissenting opinion in this case stated: “It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court”. Noting that the Bible wasn’t read, but quoted.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    But we’re not talking about a person who merely supports euthanasia. We’re talking about an activist who is actively pursuing pro-euthanasia legislation. Also, say, for example, he truly believes Terri should be euthanized–even for ‘humane’ motives. But he knows that she won’t be without a diagnosis of PVS. Would he have a motive to maybe fudge the facts a bit in the direction of a PVS doagnosis? Possibly. I’m not saying he did, but I think he had motives. Just as people are saying that Cheshire has a motive for saying Terri may not be in PVS even though he thinks she may be.
    OK, did he support legislation to euthansize every living person in the world? No. He supposedly supported euthansia when a given set of circumstances was present. (For simplicity let’s just call them PVS even though there’s a bit more than that). What would he say about a patient who didn’t have PVS? Why he would say nothing should be done as far as euthansia.
    So if he was biased for an action to support his legislation how would that play out when examining Terri if she wastn’t in PVS? How would a death penalty supporter feel about prosecuting what they suspect is an innocent person for a capital offense? I suspect the supporter would worry about setting up a martyr for the anti-death penalty movement.
    Of course, the doctor could be so enamored with euthansia that he wants to just use it on everyone he can. The way a kid with a new cell phone is going to call everybody he can think of the first day he takes it out of the box. Dr. Kvorkian, IMO, was exactly like that. However from what little I read it looks like the good doctor tries to be fair in his evaluations (note how he differentiated between charlatans and the doctor he felt just honestly disagreed with him).
    Again, Boon, the dissenting opinion in this case stated: “It is important to note that the concept of extraneous information does not include the general knowledge a juror brings to court”. Noting that the Bible wasn’t read, but quoted.
    No outside materials means no outside materials. If you want to quote the Bible or your favorite secular philosopher this is a lesson to do your homework before you’re called to take a pop quize! If nothing else don’t you feel good that they ‘erred on the side of life’?