Well, given the recent events from the Terri Schiavo case, someone sent me this handcrafted living will. I like it. I think I'll print a copy and file it in my personal stuff.....
I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it.
If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a cold beer,(or a dish of ice cream) it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.
Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma.
Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case, and I don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for their run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that they play politics with someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace.
I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf. They should mind their own business, too.
If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.
Signed
_____________________________
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nice.
The Fundies would just call you "irrational" for not agreeing with their POV and proceed to turn your death into a circus anyway...as long as there's a headline in there for them.
Particularly that fucker Jesse Jackson.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Personally, I find it amusing that the only reason this was ever a question is because there WASN'T a will. No reason to be so vehement about it if there is one, because then it's a non-issue.
But that's just me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
For now.
It's a sad, ironic thing that everyone was soooo concerned about Shiavo starving to death after she was brain damaged from a heart attack that was caused from her eating disorder (anorexia, I believe).
No one wants to talk about the cause of her condition: only the final outcome.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Particularly that fucker Jesse Jackson."
Yeah, what the hell was up with that? When did he decide to go all far-right-wing?
"...Shiavo starving to death..."
Dehydrating. Not starving.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No one wants to talk about the cause of her condition: only the final outcome.
Oh, I know I never hear anything about the horrors of eating disorders. Ever. Except several times a semester, but aside from that, never.
That's an odd slippery-slope argument, Jason. Schivo didn't leave any indication that she didn't want to be kept alive and treated, so people raised hell when someone else made those decisions for her. I fail to see a path that leads from there to people raising hell when someone DOES leave clear indication of their wishes on the matter. They're two completely seperate cases, and while it's not a topic of frequent conversation in my universe, I haven't heard anything said that indicates the two are equivalent in any way.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Well, what clearly is being expressed here is the frustration that both the Federal and State governments interfered in a private family matter. Polls taken before and after Schiavo died say that the government had no right to intervene in this dispute. That being said, and given Omega's comments, I'd like to see what would happen if a similar case were to occur but this time, the patient DID have a living will that DID state that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means.
Given recent events, I'd bet that it would happen.
Posted by Alshrim Dax (Member # 258) on :
actually - we have to remember too - that her parents wanted to keep her alive - and that this whole mess was because they felt a need to selfishly cling to the hope that she may, by some fricken miracle snap out of it...
You can harp on the politicians all you want - but this whole mess started with her parents disagreeing with her husband!
Now being devil's advocate...
the parents felt that Shiavo had no right to rule in decision concerning their daughter because he'd 'moved on' .. had children with another woman - and to them, he effectively forfeit his rights to be her legal guardian... THAT is where the debate should be...
It's only sad that the politicians had to come into this at all in order to try to stop the squabbling... Where the politicians went wrong was they used this woman to further some hidden agendas (or not so hidden, i suppose).
In the end, the politicians succeeded in doing nothing to help her ... the courts were right to shoot down President Bush's retarded bill !! (whoring for votes much?).
People could say her husband starved her to death all they want - but the reality that everyone hates to think about - is the fact that; that's what she was doing before she had the heart-attack which deprived her brain of oxygen for so long that she became a vegetable... It's too bad that her family had to pick up the pieces.. no doubt everyone who was/is involved in this case has had a terrible 15 years.
anyhow.. i've tried to see it from both sides .. in the end - the parents should have loved their daughter enough to let her go a long time ago - and avoided this whole circus show! and so the final line of this 'Living will" in the orginal post:
quote:If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.
-- i believe is the best message in the whole thing. but of course, she didn't have a living will .. so the only outcome was a polically charged nightmare.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: No one wants to talk about the cause of her condition: only the final outcome.
Oh, I know I never hear anything about the horrors of eating disorders. Ever. Except several times a semester, but aside from that, never.
That's an odd slippery-slope argument, Jason. Schivo didn't leave any indication that she didn't want to be kept alive and treated, so people raised hell when someone else made those decisions for her.
I hear ya...but just think how much positive stuff might have come from the press focusing on victims that can still be helped... The Right has tried to ignore Shivo's self-destructive behavior as they make her out to be a victim of her husband (a guy that still loved her enough to look out for what she wanted for over a decade).
Living in the epicenter of this fiasco (why always south Florida!?!), I've heard a rightwing radio talk host refer to Micheal Shiavo's childern as "bastards" and he was interviewed by a local TV station where they let him say it on the 10 O'Clock news! Then the local churches got involved and started calling Miachael Shiavo a "sinner" and "murderer".
That's when Shiavo had to hire bodyguards and pull his kids from school/after school activities: he started getting death threats after the church-goes got rilled up.
Then Jesse Jackson got involved and made it all even far worse...to the point where he's politcally pressured some buerocrat at Family Services to send agents down to the hospice and insert a new feedng tube (dispite the court order to remove it). Local cops sent those bozos packing: one said "unless you've got a federal judge with you, you're not getting in here".
Man, if there's any law that should be enacted from all of this, it that any case involving "right to live/die" that goes before a judge should have a gag order slapped on it from the outset, to protect everyone that's actually involved.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The Right has tried to ignore Shivo's self-destructive behavior as they make her out to be a victim of her husband (a guy that still loved her enough to look out for what she wanted for over a decade).
Do we have any reason to think it WAS what she wanted, besides his word? I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but he isn't necessarily the hero here either. There isn't enough information to determine, thus the opinion that we as a society should err on the side of life.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Could a person who drank and smoked excessively ALSO be considered as having "self-destructive behaviour"? How about an individual that catches AIDS because they kept poking things that didn't belong to them without protection?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'd prefer to stay at least 100 feet from this thread, but: a vast number of illnesses can be "blamed," at least in part, on their sufferer. You could have avoided that cold if you had washed your hands more and eaten more fresh fruits and vegetables.
But for the most part we, as a society, don't pursue this sort of claim, partly because these links are all probabalistic. You'll never be able to point at the one cigarette that gave you cancer. And some people will have unprotected sex with large numbers of partners and never get an STD. Medicine is all about being "unfair" when it comes to the natural progression of cause and effect, something most of us should be very grateful for.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega:
Do we have any reason to think it WAS what she wanted, besides his word? I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but he isn't necessarily the hero here either.
I'd have to agree with Omega here, but not because his opinion is to "err on the side of life".
I've heard news stories that Michael Schiavo had denied access to Terri's parents to see their daughter. I've also heard news stories that Michael forbade Terri's parents in any say with regards to funeral arrangements. And I've also heard news stories that Michael Schiavo forbade Terri's parents to go to their daughter's funeral.
Not very good things to do when you need to mend fences in this delicate matter. I'd have to say that Michael's conduct was absolutely horrid during the days leading up to Terri's death. But that does not mean what Terri said before her heart attack was not true.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I've heard news stories that Michael Schiavo had denied access to Terri's parents to see their daughter. I've also heard news stories that Michael forbade Terri's parents in any say with regards to funeral arrangements. And I've also heard news stories that Michael Schiavo forbade Terri's parents to go to their daughter's funeral."
Personally, I'd probably have done the same thing. I find the parents' actions more despicable than the husband's.
And, actually, I seem to recall that he relented on those "forbiddings", aside from the funeral arrangements one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, Miacheal Schiavo only denied the parentys access after they said to the press that they'd insert a feeding tube themselves if it came to that.
Really, what else could he do? The parent's lawyer as already slandering both him and his new family in the press every possible chance and several protestors had already been arrested trying to barge their way in or to block him from entering to see his wife (something he did weekly for a decade).
I cant really blame him for telling the parents to blow...cruel as that is.
Several of Terry Schiavo's friends and former colleagues came forward to testify that Terry did not favor being kept alive through artifical means (it seems there was some discussion over another person in a coma, back before Terry Sciavo's heart attack and she had made her wishes clear- also, it seems that Terry Schiavo was not so devoutly adherant to the Church's- or her parent's- POV on a lot of things).
Whatever side you fall on with regards to the morality involved, I think that the law was (finally) served as it must be- as seperate from political or religous considerations. In spite of the machenations of the Religous Right, the Bush Brothers and the ratings frenzy of the press.
I hope Michael Schiavo gets some well earned anominity with his family.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You know what's reall the most disturbing part of this whole thing? The fact that no more than three US senators got together and "passed" a bill, and no-one's doing anything about it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Please elucidate.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Prediction: by the next Congressional election, at least one elected representative at the state level or higher will have switched, or attempted to switch, from the phrase "judicial activism" to the phrase "judicial terrorism."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Elucidate what? Three Republican senators got together and "passed" that Schiavo-related bill just before Easter by a 3-0 vote. Even though it ultimately had no effect, there should still be a huge outcry. What does it mean for the country when any three members of a house of Congress can just get together and pass all the wacky legislation they like? There's a reason that the Constitution requires one-half of a house to be present before it can do anything.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, really? I'm a complete blank slate on this, but from a Canadian perspective, shouldn't a piece of legislation have to pass through both houses and get signed by the head of state, in this case the President? Meh, provide a link for reading Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, it's mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the legislation. It was also mentioned in several newspaper articles just after it happened.
Yes, even from a US perspective, a piece of legislation should have to pass through both houses and be signed by the president. But, in this case, it pased through one house, passed through 3% of the other house, and then the president signed it. Yet, no-one's calling them on it. I mean, if three senators can pass a bill, what's to stop three representatives from doing the same thing? Three senators, three representatives, and George Bush. Seven people could start passing all the legislation they want to.
And what's to stop them at three apiece? How about one? George Bush, Dennis Hastert, and Bill Frist get together in a room and start churning out whatever laws they please. And I'm not really exaggerating much here. There's hardly a big difference between one congressperson, and three.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Just shows how meek the Democrats have become- they dont want to further alienate the Christian voting populace so the Republicans can do whatever the fuck they want with any sensitive subjects: my favorite (currently) subject is the proposed removal to all references to contraception in public school's health classes and only (Christian approved) abstenance programs taught. No Dem is going near it either.
In my own state, the prople voted on and approved a bill legalizing slot machine gambling. Jeb Bush was opposed to the bill (as was I, frankly) and has changed the bill after the vote so that only certain kinds of video machines are allowed. Now that's illeagal as fuck, but no one's gonna oppose the President's brother.
The TV news is not even reporting on it: so much for the "liberal media". Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Th' hell? How does THAT happen?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont know- but no one's doing anything about it either. Even the ACLU is quiet on this front. Who should we complain to? The Congress? The President?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
One was apparently my senator. I e-mailed him, for all the good that'll do.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I seriously doubt that any elected official reads their recieved mail: electronic or otherwise.
An aide probably skimms them if there's a deluge in a given week.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
By many accounts you're quite wrong about that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Really? You know of an (state or higher) elected official that reads his/her own mail...themself: not some lackey reading it and bringing something to his/her attention that might be a cute human intrest story.
Call me skeptical, but I dont think so.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
As hip as it is to be cynical, the basic skill of politicians is listening to what people want and then creatively explaining why they won't do it, unless they will. So they read letters, e- or otherwise, and take visitors, and all sorts of things. I'm not saying that when you write a letter to Senator Jetson it gets hand delivered to his desk by Mr. McFeely, or that every elected official everywhere pays equally close attention, but ultimately they have to keep track of what the folks back home are saying, because votes are just as important a political commodity as insider influence.
If you're really concerned, maybe you should take a day, drive up to Tallahassee and pay your representatives a visit? You could ask them in person.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mmmmmm....No. Death by Strangualtion is still a crime here after all.
As to "doing what the people want", see my post on Jeb Bush re-writing a bill after it was voted into law.
Yeah...he cares a lot. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I guess I was unaware of the "that one time Jeb Bush did something trumps all other considerations" rule.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not just a "one time" thing: merely a recent example of my elected officials doing what they (and the special intrests they're beholden to) feel is right instead of what the public has made clear they want.
I'm certain it's not a universal problem, but writing a letter to a Florida elected official just now is so much pissing into the wind.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
quote:While the bill does not deal with parents' eligibility, separate budget cuts that are moving through the legislative process would lop off 68,219 parents by reducing the income cutoff to about 24 percent of the federal poverty level.
That means a single mother with two children could earn no more than $308 a month to qualify.
Wow. Makes my asshole Republican reps seem like a swell guys by comparison.
FUnny how this fucks over the people more likely to vote Democrat. Oh wait...no it isn't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Something to the point. Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
As this was the only thread regarding Terri Schiavo, I thought people might find this interesting.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
In a nutshell: The autopsy revealed that Terry was irreversibly brain damaged and her body had only autonomic functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.), and she was blind. And the parents don't believe the autopsy.
B.J.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
That's even more terrible, to know he lived for ten years with a breathing corpse. I'm so used to seeing movies about people like this that I thought there was some small glimmer of hope.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Interesting quote:
quote:He [the parents' lawyer] said the parents continue to believe their daughter wasn't in a persistent vegetative state, and that they may take some unspecified legal action after discussing the autopsy with other medical experts.
Unspecified legal action once they confer with their medical experts. I've been thinking about who they could possibly take legal action against. Considering that the parents are still flogging that "he beat her" story they came up with a few years ago, I'm willing to bet that he's firmly in their crosshairs. The autopsy report clearly favors Michael Schiavo in this case, but the parents have always managed to find a medical professional to look at things and give a completely opposite opinion.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A paid medical "professional" of course. The autopsy said the Shiavo would never even have been able to swallow food it was so fucked.
What bugs me is the numb cunt that came forward to try to have the feeding tube re-inserted by saying that Shiavo told her "I want to live" while she was watching her.
That bitch should be brought up on charges- giving a false statement to police if nothing else.
It's terrible that Shiavo's parents still cant let things rest (her daughterin particular) now that the autopsy's concluded. I guess it's easier to find someone to blame than to accept that bad things happen to good people all the time and that death is often senseless.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)