Shiavo dead

[bushdog]

BBC has anounced that terry shiavo has died (announced to me by XPhile2868). I'm glad that this is over and she did not have to live as a human flytrap for another 15 years. i'm throwing a party!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4398131.stm

[rice349]

it's about time...the politicizing and media coverage of one person is absolutely disgusting. They touched on the subject on South Park last night in which they pretty much drew the point as to whether or not she wanted to die if in a p.v.s., but rather, how it is more than likely she would not have been wanted to be seen on tv worldwide in that state. I thought that was pretty funny considering nobody ever even thought about that.

[Aurora(inactive)]

South Park always makes a good point about stuff.

I still don't understand why the government got involved. It should have stayed between her husband and her parents. Geesh everything is a law suit these days, nobody can fend for themselves. They always need a lawyer to wipe their own ass. :rolleyes:

[bushdog]

i like how the executive and legeslative brancehs totally overstepped their bounds and got *****slapped by a federal court.

[Anarchist Freedom]

yes that made me pretty happy when president bush got *****slapped like that.

[bushdog]

i was listening to npr on my luch and even though it is irrelevant, the majority of americans dont think he should have been involved.

[viva le revolution]

Finally the poor woman has peace, she had been through enough already!
Thank god she was saved from a demeaning existence the christian-fascists had in store for her.

[Tupac-Amaru]

yea it was about she died...apparently it was costing a fortune to keep her alive...so economically her death is also a good thing.

hey viva le revolution, your the first person is see with a multi-lingual name:

viva (spanish/italian/portugese), le (french), revolution (english/french)...Nice ;) ;)

[Colombia]

It was pretty sad though how the legislative branch overstepped their power and tried to overule the judicial. What should be expected though from republicans?

[More Fire for the People]

It is sad that she had to go in such an undignified way.
If she were to choose to die I think she would have wanted to go peacefully on a drug high feeling no pain - not starvation.

[workersunity]

ya that was a funny southpark, its good that shes in peace now

[NovelGentry]

i like how the executive and legeslative brancehs totally overstepped their bounds and got *****slapped by a federal court.

Yeah, it's always hilarious to watch the members of the bourgeoisie duke it out with one another for the sake of creating the public appearance that there really are "checks and balances" and that their class doesn't have total control yet. The sad part is, it will work.

Few people will ever stop to question the meaning of "Terri's Law" now that there is supposed legal precedent -- but alas, the legal precident has nothing to do with overturning Terri's Law, as the outcome of this trial was specific to her case.

So in reality they have won a huge battle for their ability to push legislature onto people -- legislature with an extremely laughable amount of support within the legal system itself.

What does this mean? It means everyone was duped into thinking the issue was whether or not people should have feeding tubes removed... while even the minor issue on people's minds should be the fact that something like this is now heard on a federal level... the most major issue, which few will see because of the circus in front of it, the fact that our legislature can shove a bill out like that right under our noses and see that it be enforced -- even if in the end enforcing it doesn't develop worst case scenario, what happens when it does?

[Aurora(inactive)]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:54 PM
It is sad that she had to go in such an undignified way.
If she were to choose to die I think she would have wanted to go peacefully on a drug high feeling no pain - not starvation.
I agree...its terrible that she starved to death...I don&#39;t see why they couldn&#39;t have "put her to sleep" if they wanted her to die so bad. Of course thats considered murder...but starving a person who is in a vegitative state isn&#39;t. <_<

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:54 PM
It is sad that she had to go in such an undignified way.
If she were to choose to die I think she would have wanted to go peacefully on a drug high feeling no pain - not starvation.
I concur. Ride that opium train all the way to the fucking morgue.

[NovelGentry]

Assuming she understood what pain was -- which is doubtful given the state of her brain: LIQUID&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

The type of starvation that occured was removal of a feeding tube. It doesn&#39;t come with the normal pain and discomfort of starvation -- in fact, the doctor made it quite clear that even conscious patients or patients able to express pain who had feeding tubes removed in tests (not sure why they couldn&#39;t eat, but they didn&#39;t want to be on life support anymore) -- showed no pain what so ever.

It should also be noted it IS classified as life support -- not just another way of the patient eating.

[RedStarOverChina]

Exactly: why would they starve her to death?? thats like the worst way of dying i can think of (LOL i love good food). Cant they give her a painless death or soemthing?

[NovelGentry]

Legal issue. If you inject her, it&#39;s assisted suicide or murder, if you remove life support, it&#39;s neither.

[Aurora(inactive)]

see thats so screwed up&#33; Now if she was on machines that were pumping her heart and breathing for her, she would have died in a couple of seconds. But just removing the feeding tube, was long and drawn out. Thats what ticked me off about this whole thing...she may have not been able to feel it, but her parents had to watch her deteriorate.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

She&#39;s been dead for 15 years.

She just stopped breathing.

[aztecklaw]

Bam&#33;

I love it when the truth comes out and lays the smackdown on the bogus mainstream media&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290005

Watch the video. You&#39;ll love it.

I don&#39;t know about the Shiavo case, to me its a lose/lose situation. Why make a family&#39;s tragedy a circus for all to see? Bad form.

But I support our media being more responsible in what they report. Report the facts, don&#39;t report the spin.

[bolshevik butcher]

The sad thing is the way that she died, surley there are more humain ways, I mean they can put a dog down for fuck sake.

[ComradeChris]

However, how would a situation like this be handled in a communist government? Would they use resources on this woman to feed here? Would they euthenize her so at least she wouldn&#39;t have to go through starving to death? Or would they just not feed her?

In a capitalist society, the rights go to the guardian in such cases. But I saw no point in the parents no being able to keep her if they wanted to pay for her.

[che-Rabbi]

[QUOTE] Aurora( South park always makes a good point)

Yes like Erics favorite and most copied catch phrase" Kyle you dirty jew&#33;" Very inspiring.
Aywyas i cant decide on this one, i dont think that she should have been allowed to die but i do like how the juge sided with her husband over her parents.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Tupac&#045;[email protected] 31 2005, 04:06 PM
apparently it was costing a fortune to keep her alive...so economically her death is also a good thing.
See now there&#39;s the real danger of this case. I&#39;m sure keeping her alive was a gift in ways to whoever was profiting on that whole feeding tube thing, but what happens when it is not in the interest of the ruling class to keep someone alive? What happens when the insurance companies want to rid themselves of such an expense? Then this whole "right to die" issue becomes a lot more complex...

I don&#39;t think the State should have been involved, but I wasn&#39;t exactly jumping for joy that she died the way she did either.

[Jersey Devil]

In this country we require documentation of any major event in a person&#39;s life i.e, marriage, sale of land, etc... Then why not require a person to have a living will in order to be allowed to die? Anything else, such as her husband&#39;s testimony is nothing more then hearsay. Nevertheless, this certainly did not have to be made, literally, a federal case. The Congress had no right to intervene and the references made, by several supporters of this action, comparing this to the civil rights cases in the southern states that were taken to federal court have no validity as in those cases there was a question as to whether due process was being upheld.

Furthermore, the media has a field day with this which is quite frankly not that important. More relevant issues should be covered instead of these countless superficial issues regarding Schiavo, Peterson, and the "nefarious" Michael Jackson. Meanwhile the bankruptcy bill, the estate tax, and social security privatization are being discussed in Congress.