Posted on 04/20/2005 9:22:15 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
I'll keep this short and simple. After six years of membership on FR I've decided to resign from the forum today. I'll keep checking my freepmail for a few days and wind down my posts here, so if any of you wish to contact me please do so there and I will provide you with a means to do so. I hope to continue future posting activities elsewhere - perhaps a blog - but only time will tell.
It's truly been a blast and left me with many fond memories, but all good things had to come to an end. My favorites comprise a long list, the most noted being the exposition of Rathergate, leading freeps of Algore in the 2000 recounts, protesting Hildebeast's book tour, and giving her impeached husband a freeper's welcome to Texas on several of his visits. Thank you to all who made these events fun and entertaining. Unfortunately the past few months have made it clear to me that FR and I are drifting apart on key issues of conservatism. I'll spare the details, pausing only to state that it isn't just the usuals like illegal immigration, but also things like religion, the culture of political correctness, an overall decline in reasoned civil conversation that used to flourish here, and the purposes and uses of the site in general. More concerning, for the past few months I have been unable to even obtain rational discourse and commentary on many routine threads and issues without being personally maligned and attacked - many times out of the blue and on topics unrelated to the given thread - by a small, petty-minded, and vitriolic group of posters who conduct themselves in a manner unbefitting of what this forum used to be when I joined in 1999, and do so with apparent impunity.
I also find that I simply don't have the time to post as much as I once did, and regrettably so.
I'll leave it at that, as my fond memories outweigh the unpleasant ones. A time arises when parting courses on friendly terms is best before something less desirable arises. Therefore I have volunteered my resignation. To everyone who has made my FR experience enjoyable, I thank you and wish you only the best.
Thank you (and for Ex Navy Chick's admonition) for your call to discussion "without any penalty to sexual performance, self-image, or social stature."
Ethics, medicine, law and their shared subsets are subject to disingenuous representation - lies disquised as complicated truths.
Basing our government and our ethics on the Declaration of Independence (while not quite as good as if you do everything I tell you to - grin) would be a good start. It would sufficient to protect the rights - and the life - of even utilitarians.
First, will life be ended? (And/or is the person whose life is to be ended a direct threat to the life of another and can the threat only be ended by the taking of life or is there some lesser force that would be protective?) Second, is liberty threatened? (and the rest) Third, is the persuit of happiness or the right of personal property that happiness, liberty, and ultimately life, depend on threatened?
In Terri's case, the issue was one of liberty to decide whether to have one's body subjected to medical intervention. I can support the right to exercise this liberty, because if you don't "own" your own body, you have no liberty and your life is in constant danger.
However, since her life was at stake, I would have required much more evidence of her actual intent and would have erred on the side of "no documentation, it didn't happen" that lawyers seem to require of doctors.
I was very uncomfortable about the conflicts of interest of Michael Schiavo as Terri's guardian and could not have cooperated with the medical intervention of removal of the tube rather than simple discontinuation of its use.
But, finally, the deal breaker for me was the act of Greer to forbid any provision of hydration and nutrition by natural means. To make the distinction between "reflexive" or "involuntary" action by Terri to swallow and to speak of her as "trapped in her body" is to perpetuate the myth of dichotomy between mind and body. The two are not divisible.
We do not have minds that inhabit our bodies. We *are* our bodies *and* our minds. Our mind is a function of our physical bodies. Furthermore, the doctrine of brain stem function as continued life and brain stem death as definition of death are reflections of the fact that the body will not live with even the most invasive and technical medical intervention if the brain stem is dead.
You haven't answered my question. Are you suggesting that Terri was capable of voluntarily swallowing enough nutrition to keep her alive?
If not, then please explain why this is an issue with you, and why you are constantly bringing it up (other than to annoy me).
"What is your take on the medical intervention to remove the tube and the insertion of an IV for a morphine drip?"
It was a legal intervention to remove the feeding tube, based on the patient's previous statements not to want to live that way. The morphine drip was unnecessary, and it was a mistake to give in to the public pressure to start one.
"She died because of deliberate acts to deny nutrition by a feeding tube ..."
As per her request. She has a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.
"Greer forbade "Natural Means."
As I said before, I'm getting sick and tired of this bull$hit from you. If you can prove to me that Terri could have handled enough nutrition, orally, to keep her alive, then I'll admit you have a point. Without that, you're merely posing a hypothetical.
You are alluding to euthanasia. The Terri Schiavo case was not about euthanasia. And therein was the problem.
The posters on these threads really wanted to support Terri, but had no legal basis -- strictly an emotional one. They needed to make this a case of euthanasia. Therefore, they resorted to lies, distortions, innuendo, rumor, gossip, conspiracies, name-calling (of those involved and of FReepers), and propaganda. The level of ignorance of those supporting Terri was astounding for a Free Republic forum, which added to the frustration.
As an example, let's simply take the latest claim by hocndoc. He says that Judge Greer murdered Terri (and is calling for his prosecution) because he would not allow oral hydration and nutrition after the feeding tube was removed. But, hocndoc refuses to admit that it would not have helped since Terri has dysphagia and couldn't swallow. At best, it would have been a humanitarian gesture only.
Where's the logic? Where's the sanity? Can you blame people for getting just a little frustrated at ignorant comments like these?
The most disheartening aspect of the entire event was not that a three-sided coin - Schiavo's staggering hypocrisy / Greer's judicial arrogance / the self-righteousness of both - was minted from the ore of human fallibility, but that no one with the authority to do so could manage to find the testicles to blast it from the sky once it was tossed into the ethical air and so save an innocent woman's life.
Or you could use the "ignore" button in your brain and do it yourself.
There is no need to reply to everyone that says something with which you do not agree.
IGNORE, DELETE, Move on....
Click on my freeper name. I'm not a "he," and have a background in ethics, as well as Family Medicine and hospice work.
This is not hypothetical. It is the basis for all euthanasia vs. "letting nature take its course."
I am uncomfortable with the concept of substituted judgment(especially in this case), but have not argued that point in this thread.
The morphine drip and the gratuitous trip to the hospital to remove the tube were unethical, if the actual disease were the cause of Terri Schiavo's death. If she had been dying because of her disease, *or* if she were truly without consciousness or any reaction to her circumstances neither was needed. Both were artificial. Greer had ruled that no other medical interventions would be allowed. He could have just as well ordered that the tube be clamped and never used again.
These were the symbolic actions. And, they were meant to ensure her death.
But, the immediate and most sure cause of death was the March 8th order forbidding natural means of hydration and nutrition.
There was a chance - no matter how slim - that Terri could take enough hydration to keep her alive, had she been offered it. The certain, the unavoidable end of that order was her death within a given time period.
No one ever said that Terri said she would never want anyone to feed her, or give her a bit of ice chips or a sip of cool water.
The offering of hydration and nutrition by natural means is outside the power of legitimate law, which is meant to preserve the right to life, liberty and happiness - and in that order.
The doctrine of non-maleficence and the corollary Double Effect or of Unintended Effect is an old, respected scale on which to weigh end of life treatment. Greer chose to kill rather than treat Terri's life as an end in herself. He had the legal right to order that the artificial and medical treatments not be used. There was no legal right to forbid natural means of hydration, any more than he had the right to forbid natural means of respiration.
Think of it this way: if she had been on a ventilator, greer could have legally ordered the machine turned off and the tubing removed. He could not place Terri in a room with no oxygen or place a plastic bag over her head.
I'm tryin'! Thanks so much.
I'm astounded that there were no heroes, no one who did the right thing, regardless of the consequences.
But, I'm horrified that the representatives of the Judiciary were more interested in a turf war than in reviewing the case.
And I'm afraid that the most telling facts are that there were so few comments on the justification that "Terri was never going to get better." And that noone saw the ethical landmarks of the medical intervention to remove the tube and the illegal order refusing natural means of intake for what they were.
These last points indicate a total lack of rational thought in the public discourse - a lack of the basic concepts themselves, much less an understanding of the concepts.
Were we all caught up in the circus and bread, so the best minds never noticed the illegal order of March 8th?
thank you for your calm and respectful tone and reasoned opinion on this matter. i find your personal experience, as a physician who has worked in hospice, especially compelling. you are being attacked simply for the view you hold, neither your tone nor your words have been offensive here. be assured that reasonable people see it that way.
x, I think your statement is inaccurate. GOPcapitalist, in his long-running struggle with capitan_refugio, about whom he complained bitterly, was finally vindicated in his last hour on FR by capitan's exposure and banning.
Perhaps you didn't see A Jovial Cad's subsequent post.
What Cad didn't seem to realize, and you still don't, is that capitan had been unfairly twisting people's tails for a long, long time before matters finally came to a head at the very last second.
I think you're familiar with the complaints. What you may be less familiar with, because you were always in-and-out, is that the complaints were substantive and true. I ought to know, I was one of the suckers over whose eyes that guy pulled the wool, selling me a quote from a plaintiff's brief in one of the Prize Cases as part of the Court's holding -- and then, when I replied in good faith, continuing to string me along by replying as if his post were good. I was such a sucker.
And he did that repeatedly -- misquoting or misattributing footnotes from Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld and various passages from Ex Parte Bollman and Swartout, a habeas corpus case involving two of Aaron Burr's coconspirators and an opinion by John Marshall.
So I think your characterization of GOPcapitalist's complaint is misplaced. Some people do have legitimate complaints, even, sometimes, people you don't care for particularly.
Now, if you have another complaint about GOPcapitalist, perhaps you could give an example. I've seen a lot of his material, and you'll have to refresh my memory and show me how something he posted was abusive or reflected the same sorts of things he complained about in capitan_refugio's posts.
Truth in advocacy: By the time of his banning, I had had capitan_refugio on bozo filter for several days and was no longer replying to any of his posts.
Thanks so much. It's too important a subject to get sidetracked by anything but the protection of basic human rights.
it is extremely important, but now, unfortunately, so many are so invested in their point of view that merely hearing the other side expounded sounds like a personal attack to them. personally, i appreciated hearing the point of view of someone who actually works in the field. thank you again.
I still don't know what to think, but hocndoc's exposition of medical ethics and her level of experience in similar situations give me something to think about.
I had been exposed to the other side's POV in the trot-through George Stephanopoulos arranged with someone on that side of the argument who was very well-versed and articulate; but I still got the feeling, watching Stephanopoulous, that he was acting politically, trying to "show up" the opposition as a bunch of right-wing, "Church of Churchianity" tent-revivalists and droolers. So I didn't quite trust what he and his interviewee were telling me, and I was mildly repelled by what I saw as smugness around the edges.
I still don't have enough information to decide, one way or another, but as a practical result of this affair, the secret enthusiasts of institutionalizing euthanasia for policy and profit have to be encouraged, I think.
Which side was GOPcapitalist on, and did he get flamed unfairly in your opinion? I gather he had a rough ride.
As much as I talk about ethics and science, there's something to the "Yuck factor."
We might be confused about some of the technicalities, but when the time comes, we would naturally feel wrong about not giving a bit of ice chips to Terri.
Forget to take your meds this evening?
For the third time, what makes you believe this?
There's a chance this ..., there's a chance that ... We can go on and on with that kind of logic. There's a chance that I can win the lottery, too, but I'm not spending the money yet.
And you would convict a man and send him to prison because of this "slim chance" that you cannot, and will not, support? That's the part that really frosts my shorts.
At every relived stage of this 15 year odyssey, the truth was either twisted or discounted in order to make that case. It started with unsubstantiated rumors about Michael strangling Terri, Michael injecting her with insulin, stating as fact that Terri only told Michael about "pulling the plug" (and he's biased and lying), that Michael was killing her for the money, that she wasn't really PVS, that a feeding tube isn't life support, that a verbal "living will" is not legal, that hearsay is not admissible, that Terri can really swallow, that Michael and Scott and Joan conspired to lie in court to share the money, that Judge Greer was on the Board of Directors of the hospice where Terri was admitted, that Judge Greer was "on the take" from George Felos (and here's the campaign contributions -- $500. -- to prove it), lie after lie, rumors, denial, propaganda, conspiracies up the ying yang that I hardly touched on .... and this was not found on DU or some such forum, but Free Republic.
I love a good debate. That's why I'm here. But I expect both sides to be arguing the facts and making their case based on those facts. The Terri threads were an embarrassment and a black mark for Free Republic. Many posters commented to me that they were leaving the board because of it, and I've never heard complaints before like that. THAT, to me, is telling.
I understand. That's an excellent point. It would have been a nice humanitarian gesture.
But to call for the prosecution and punishment of a sitting judge because he wouldn't allow it is unconscionable. You should be ashamed.
Yeah, well, I hate lies and the liars who tell them.
I came to this board for honest debate. Lies and distortions have no place on this forum. Certainly you don't support that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.