MANIFESTO OF THE WPPFF/WILD TURKEYS/COALITION OF THE SANE

Me. | 29MARCH05 | Long Cut

[Long Cut]

We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:

1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.

2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.

3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.

4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.

5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.

6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.

7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.

8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.

The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.

We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.

We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.

If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.

We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.

Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.

Let the discussion begin!

Signed,

The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.

[jwalsh07]

So, you are then advocating, if there is not a living will, the person becomes the property of the state and the family is removed from the decision process.

LOL.

The person would then be forced to live, no matter the pain, until the state allows you to die, or God in is his mercy finally takes you.

Has it escaped you that Terri Schiavo was not dying, nor could she feel pain if the PVS diagnosis was correct? Do you know the meaning of the phrase "err on the side of"? Ever heard of the word nuance?

I'd be happy to debate you but you have to debate honestly. That requires not attributiong thoughts or words to me that I haven't written or implied.

[EllaMinnow]

Lucky you!

[Randjuke]

I don't think the state should be involved at all.

OK, I'm not following you here, you feel the state should never have become involved in the Schiavo case?

[jwalsh07]

Obviously.

As a general rule, I don't think the state should be involved in end of life decisions. There are cases, like the Schiavo case, where different parties have different opinions and the lack of a written living will requires litigation. When the state involves itself in that litigation, then the subject of that litigation should eb entitled to all the due process rights of any common ordinary criminal.

Probate judges should not have the power to order the death of citizens.

Be a bit more specific in your next question.

[Servant of the 9]

Ann Coulter has used the standard liberal yankee sneer at the South.

"Also on the pro-killing side are conservatives still pissed off about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 who are desperately hoping to be elected "most consistent constitutionalist" by their local Federalist Society chapters.

If you are against some Federal action, it's because you are really a racist who hasn't gotten over integration.

You can't grow peanuts on your own land or install a toilet capable of disposing two tissues in one flush because of federal government intervention. But Congress demands a review of the process that goes into a governmental determination to kill an innocent American woman — and that goes too far!

Because government still does so many things that it should not do, does that mean we should ask it to do another?

If we can save just one person, won't (insert whatever government travesty is being legislated at the moment here) be worth it?

It's for the Childrun.

Ann has turned into a classic 60s Liberal for a week because it's the only way to make sense of supporting Terri Schiavo's case.
That's what happens to your morals when you study Law.

SO9

[Jim Noble]

PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers

"PVS", as described by Jennet and Plum in their rather speculative Lancet paper in 1972, was never so conceptually solid as to allow its use as a bright line between life and death (this issue is critically reviewed HERE).

It does not matter whether or not Mrs. Schiavo had "PVS" or "almost PVS" or "not quite PVS", as you point out, there are frequent disagreements about diagnosis.

I'm still getting called a Nazi doctor here (and, Jim Rob, I don't like it at all) for pointing out that Tereri Schiavo had profound and irreversible brain damage.

In that light, the real question, obfuscated by all of the players in this case for their own reasons, is, "Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"

Obviously, if the proposition is stated this way (correctly, IMO), the answer will be, "No, absolutely not".

The thanatologists and killers have seized on "PVS" in an attempt to expand the scope of their "mercy" killings, so far successfully.

[ariamne]

Please feel no need to apologize; I didn't take it as a deliberate omission--I saw it as a good opportunity to remind people of the universal appeal of this wonderful man. I will never forget when the Pope went to the wailing wall and asked that the Jews forgive any persecution. What a beautiful, humble, and honorable thing to do!

[processing please hold]

I apologize for posting on this thread again when I said I would not but, let me have one final say please.

From the very first word on this thread Manifesto, to the last, question, and with all the words in between them, not one solitary thing can change the simple fact that a disabled, helpless woman who depended on the kindness of others for her very survival, was murdered...starved to death with the full knowledge of the Congress, the Senate and the President of the United States of America.

Can you please for a moment put aside all the legal mumbo jumbo, the he said's and she said's and see the big picture. A woman who harmed no one, who broke no law, was legally murdered in our country that we are so proud of. Well, I'm not so proud of my country at the moment.

A FReeper asked me the other day if I would send the National Guard in to rescue her and I said Yes. I said heaven and earth should have been moved to save this poor woman. And she reacted to me as if I was insane. That's how divisive this issue is.

I am taken aback by the callous disregard for Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that was denied Terri. Are none of you able to see this? Have you stepped so far into the void that you cannot see that this goes against the grain of everything we have been brought up to believe in our country. That every life is precious. With Terri's murder, this country has taken a new tact.

Those of us with disabled children feel that but by the grace of God go I. Our government has started on a path that permits disabled people to be murdered in their beds. Will some bureaucrat someday down the line decide that my little girls life is not worth living because she is disabled. That's how WE see Terri's murder. That's why we wanted her to live...she did nothing wrong. She was innocent. Terri represents for us that it could have been one of our children. It isn't something so lofty as fulfilling her last request, she had no terminal disease. No fatal illness, she had a philandering husband and a egotistical judge. I'm sorry, I wandered.

A dark chapter in this country's history has begun. A chapter where murdering our disabled has now been sanctioned.

[Trinity_Tx]

"It would have been consistent with Florida law. If MS was found conflicted and removed which he should have been, his testimony becomes garbage. The initial finding is set aside and the new guradian, be it he parents or siblings, simply withdraws the claim."

I'd be all for that, because I never believed his testimony. Had she told him, he should have said something years earlier.

But technically, how would that work? As soon as MS backed out, would a GAL be appointed in the interim? If so, could he just say "nevermind" the 2001 decision, or would they re-try it? You still have the other 2 witnesses up against the single (and no more credible) testimony of Meyers, and her parents, who only said they didn't know what she wanted, and even if she had told them, they wouldn't do it.

I mean, I agree with erring on the side of life. But would the evidence that they did have of her wishes be blown off?

I noticed above somewhere (I've missed a lot of posts juggling) I think it was you who said the 2DCA found a conflict of interest and did nothing about it. But that was with regard to the $ interest - they said that if they used that to disqualify a guardian, it would be a mess, since it is our very closest family members who typically do inherit something.

I don't remember their commenting on his other relationship. It was a point at trial as Pearse testified...
I do think that point should have counted against MS - particularly due to the timing.

I wont argue with your hopes that someday the courts will make this federal. I'm too conflicted. I hate federal gov't, but I also don't trust single local judges with so much power. I would have loved to see it tried de novo. As it is now, tho - I don't see how they operated outside the law as written.

I do see many discretionary things that make it unacceptable to me - like gambling her trust $ on legal fees, not bringing in more court-appointed docs, and worst of all, not giving her therapy and retesting her swallowing after all these years. The only way I could possibly justify not offering anything by mouth is if there was no shadow of a doubt that it would only make inevitable death less humane.

[Randjuke]

Be a bit more specific in your next question.

I would appeciate your being more specific as well. You said you didn't think the state should be involved at all, then amended it to say that the state should become involved where there is a dispute.

Would you suggest the state intervene in all cases where there is a family member who does not agree with the patient's previously chosen power-of-attorney?

[Modernman]

"But if she was uncomfortable, because the staff had been with her so long, we knew. If she moved, we knew what it meant. We knew when she should settle down with a different piece of music."

Cognitive ability. Awareness of her environment.

Anecdotal evidence that shows, at best, an autonomic response

[Modernman]

Now of course, the absolute cardinal rule that applies in any death sentence in our court system, is all of the evidence and testimony must conclude and sum up to 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

This case was not a criminal case. This was a civil case, so the 'reasonable doubt' standard of evidence does not apply.

[Trinity_Tx]

For me, the problem with putting it that simple way is that it doesn't answer the critical aspect of the patient's right to have their wishes to refuse treatment honored.

I have said all along that the question of her wishes is a critical thing to discuss - was the standard high enough? I don't think so, but I'm not sure - I wasn't at trial...

But would a written directive be enough? Many here have said No. That scares me.

What if it were only 1 or 2 out of 10 family members who fought the decision? The law says any "interested parties" can intervene - does that include Randal Terri, speaking for "the interest of society to protect life"?

If her brother and sister were on Michaels side, would it still be "the state murdering an innocent girl"?

Those are important things we need to work out. Just calling it murder feels good maybe, but it keeps us from getting to the point, IMO.


(gotta run again - bbiab)

[processing please hold]

I have said all along that the question of her wishes is a critical thing to discuss - was the standard high enough? I don't think so, but I'm not sure - I wasn't at trial...

There is your doubt. That alone would have saved someone from the death penalty. Why can't you apply the same charity to Terri that you would a criminal?

[MrDem]

I would like you to address each of these issues: 1,2,3 were clear and blatant violations of Florida law.

1) Florida law states that a judge can not act as a guardian of someone who's case they are deciding. Judge Greer did this, which was a violation of that Florida statue.

2) Florida law states that a guardian must final an annual plan, detailing both the financial and care proved the ward. MS did not do this, which was a violation of that Florida statue.

3) Greer has allowed Michael to unlawfully place Terri in a Hospice and engage in a Medicare and Medicaid fraud. She is not terminal and the "certification" presented was not done lawfully.

4) Greer took campaign contributions from MS's lawyers. In most courts I know of, this is an almost instant and immediate reason for a judge recusing himself from those attorney's cases. Greer did not do this, refusing five requests for his recusal.

[unbalanced but fair]

I appreciate your eloquence. But we started down this road along time ago. The first time someone decided to pull the plug on an elderly parent, the first time the decision was made because the patient was going to die soon anyway, or because they're in a coma, etc. We can attempt to justify all of these and we have for many years. A visit to a nursing home will make that apparent. I'm sure you've heard of cases like these. Why one is more, or less, justified than the other.

I've asked these questions before because they point out the quandary we're caught in. Why is pulling the plug on a respirator acceptable but not pulling a feeding tube? Is it okay to suffocate someone but not starve them? And is it okay if they are elderly but not when they are young? And is it okay because they are terminal? What difference does it make if someone will only live a few more days? We all need to look within ourselves and confront our feelings on all of these.

I to have had a disabled family member. And I have lost a sister and my parents. Thankfully, no one had to make such a decision. Have a good night and my prayers for you and your family.

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for posting the excerpt.

"In September of 1990, she was brought home, but following only three weeks, she was returned to the College Park facility because the "family was overwhelmed by Terry's care needs."

Considering that her "home" was with her husband, clearly that is where she was taken, NOT to her parent's home, which would have been identified as such.

Also clearly the "family was overwhelmed" means that MICHAEL didn't want her at home.

Also note, that while MS played the devoted husband, to a T, UNTIL he got the $$$$$ award, as soon as he did, he stopped Terri's rehabilitation, and didn't even want her treated for infection.

[MrDem]

This case was not a criminal case. This was a civil case, so the 'reasonable doubt' standard of evidence does not apply.

HELLO! It was a death case.

[FairOpinion]

"In that light, the real question, obfuscated by all of the players in this case for their own reasons, is, "Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"

Obviously, if the proposition is stated this way (correctly, IMO), the answer will be, "No, absolutely not".

The thanatologists and killers have seized on "PVS" in an attempt to expand the scope of their "mercy" killings, so far successfully."


=====

I think a lot of various issues get inter-twined. Perhaps in some of your other posts you didn't make yourself fully clear and people misunderstood your intent.

While the "diagnosis" that Terri is PVS is what allowed MS to make decisions for Terri, that is why there is so much discussion about her specific condition, I agree that whether or not Terri would get better is not the real issue.

I agree with the way you phrase the question:

"Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"

And if anyone says yes, then how about killing people with moderate or slight braindamage, or other disabilities, etc., pretty soon only those who are able bodies and think the way they are supposed to, as determined by some judge, will be allowed to live.

Terri's case is heartwrenching, because the Court ruled to kill her and because she had a loving family who begged to be allowed to take care of her, and the Court decided for death, anyway.

As I point out occasionally, even animal shelters, who put stray animals to death, spare the life of one, if there is someone willing to adopt them.

Terri had less rights than a stray animal.

The cruelty is in putting her to death, when she wasn't hurting anyone, and had a loving family to take care of her, regardless of the exact amount of the damage to her brain.

[MrDem]

So what's the opinion about this? What a way to devastate the cocky "I'm most certain she is PVS" bs. Everyone knows the saying MONEY TALKS, BS WALKS.

W"To prove my point I am offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans." "I will provide 100 single cuts from 100 different patient's brain CT's. All the neurologist has to do is say which ones represent patients with PVS and which do not." "If the neurologist can be right 6 out of 10 times he wins the $100,000."