The President and Terri Schiavo

[Sheepeh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4399555.stm

Since when did Congress and the President get to choose on a whim how the law in interpreted? Isn't that what Judges are for in the first place?

In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favour of life.

Suure. Just like in Iraq, where he let civilians live. Oh, wait a minute...

::bah::

I'm totally in favour of letting her go instead of keeping her like a vegetable. I understand that certain members of this community have been in a similar position to the husband, and I think that it should be the families choice, or on the written instructions of the person involved while they were in a solid state of mind.

What's everyone's views on this? It would be interesting to see how it correlates to the Religion thread...

[madjo]

In my view it was a domestic dispute.. and it shouldn't have become this media circus it was now. Also the president should keep himself busy with much more important issues... although that might make the world a lot less safer place :)

But I think indeed that to let her 'live' like this, would only add to the suffering. I think, if I were to step in the husband's shoes, I'd make the same decision. The longer this coma would have gone on, the lesser the chance of her getting out of this coma.

[Shadowraven]

Just another example of the Conservatives and fundies trying to stick their noses in someone's personal life where they don't belong. I'd like to know just who appointed them purveyors of all wisdom and morality. Just look at the politicians, they can't even run their own lives without making a mess out them.

They always kill me when they say that they are trying to keep big governement out of our lives, but then they go and try to do this.

What they really mean. of course, is that they want Liberals to stay out of their lives, but that Conservatives should control how we all live and think.

Can't have it both ways kids. I don't love a lot of what Liberals have done either, but I dislike the Conservative even more.

It was a family squabble. and the families decision. No one else's.

I have one thing to say to Conservatives: "Mind your own damn business and stay out of our lives!"

[jkrzok]

What really gets me f***ng p***ed off is that this very same President all holier than thou now pushed through a law in Texas while he was Governor there that REQUIRED the state to withdraw the feeding tube from someone in Schiavo's position if they had no health insurance.

That's right. there is a presumption for life if you have f***ing health insurance. But god forbid your right to life gets in the way of a corporations right to profit. The god damn hypocrite. Words cannot express my outrage.

I have to leave now before i break my keyboard.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

Getting away from the politics for a moment, why did the husband want this to happen without the support of the parents? He refused to let two of the siblings stay in the room because they were "acting out of line". Also, he will not even let the parents decide what should be done with the body. And I thought my parents hated their in-laws...

[acozz]

Getting away from the politics for a moment, why did the husband want this to happen without the support of the parents? He refused to let two of the siblings stay in the room because they were "acting out of line". Also, he will not even let the parents decide what should be done with the body. And I thought my parents hated their in-laws...
He wanted to move on with his life (he couldn't divorce her but he had moved in with his most likely future wife). After 15 years I guess enough was enough and he had the tube pulled, in-laws be damned.

[Shadowraven]

What really gets me f***ng p***ed off is that this very same President all holier than thou now pushed through a law in Texas while he was Governor there that REQUIRED the state to withdraw the feeding tube from someone in Schiavo's position if they had no health insurance.

That's right. there is a presumption for life if you have f***ing health insurance. But god forbid your right to life gets in the way of a corporations right to profit. The god damn hypocrite. Words cannot express my outrage.

I have to leave now before i break my keyboard.

Amen brother. I often have the same problem. I'm surprised my keyboard doesn't smoke, I'm typing so hard and fast!

"Thou shalt not get in the way of the holy profit"
--The secret, and unwritten, 11th commandment.

[jkrzok]

Getting away from the politics for a moment, why did the husband want this to happen without the support of the parents? He refused to let two of the siblings stay in the room because they were "acting out of line". Also, he will not even let the parents decide what should be done with the body. And I thought my parents hated their in-laws...

The husband wished to fulfill his wife's wishes as regarded this sort of medical situation.

Her biological family wished to impose their religious wishes.

I imagine her parents would want nothing more than to turn Terri's funeral into a giant religious fundamentalist freak show. Her husband wants to get on with his life quietly.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

he couldn't divorce her

He definitely could have.

[acozz]

From what I read he tried to divorce her and was denied by Florida law or something.

I will try to find a link.

Edit: Maybe not, I must have read it wrong.

[madjo]

He definitely could have.
you can end a marriage from just one side? that is just plain wrong, in the majority of cases you should need two signatures, which in this specific case would prove just slightly impossible.
Although in this case it could be warranted to have a single-sided divorce.

What really gets me f***ng p***ed off is that this very same President all holier than thou now pushed through a law in Texas while he was Governor there that REQUIRED the state to withdraw the feeding tube from someone in Schiavo's position if they had no health insurance.

That's right. there is a presumption for life if you have f***ing health insurance. But god forbid your right to life gets in the way of a corporations right to profit. The god damn hypocrite. Words cannot express my outrage.

I have to leave now before i break my keyboard. easy there :) indeed it is infuriating, that corporate greed goes above human life. Health care isn't about human beings anymore it is about money, and who gets the most etc. etc. Hospitals see patients as clients...
I see it where my mom works, she suddenly had to call the people they treat 'clients', and more of those practices. I think it is done to depersonalise the whole health care system, which in my view is the wrong way to solve problems.

The generation that has the power at the moment is destroying the future of the youth, and the youth seem to be unable to stop it. :(

but I'm getting sidetracked again.. sorry :)

[Sheepeh]

/me looks at the NHS
/me thinks they can have taxes as long as we get an NHS

[rorythedog]

/me looks at the NHS
/me thinks they can have taxes as long as we get an NHS

Agreed.

[Roj]

I have to leave now before i break my keyboard.

First of all, that law which mandates removing a feeding tube if an individual is unable to pay for it constitutes state-sanctioned murder and I don't care which way you slice, dice or rationalize it.

God Bless And Keep Canada's Health Care System.

Yes, that's heartfelt and No it's not facetious.

I have more reason to feel this way than you know.

As to Terry, I have some very definitive and vehement ideas on that topic which I won't get into now - I'm exhausted. Suffice it to say that while I'm not Pro-Choice on abortion but do favor an individuals right to choose euthanasia for him or herself, what just happened was just plain wrong on several counts. However, the reason I feel it was wrong is very likely NOT the reason you would expect and I'm choosing to completely ignore the politics in this case to arrive at my conclusion. The politics alone are a separate discussion but I will sum up all politicians with the following generalization:

They're just above lawyers on the food chain but below pimps and drug pushers, which themselves are above lawyers.

If I'm up to it, I'll post the reasons here this weekend but as of now, don't hold your breath. :)

Good night all...

[acushla]

Getting away from the politics for a moment, why did the husband want this to happen without the support of the parents? He refused to let two of the siblings stay in the room because they were "acting out of line". Also, he will not even let the parents decide what should be done with the body. And I thought my parents hated their in-laws...

I believe that the husband, first and foremost, wanted what he thought was best for his wife and what he feels his wife would have wanted for herself.. Her parents, for whatever reason, were never going to accept any argument or discussion which ended in the removal of the feeding tube. This is what we here in Canada call irrecomcilable differences. Considering everything the parents have put this guy through based on what I perceive to be selfish, altruistic or at best, naive reasons, and having absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation, Id be damned if I would give them her body for burial either.

[Roj]

I believe that the husband, first and foremost, wanted what he thought was best for his wife and what he feels his wife would have wanted for herself.. Her parents, for whatever reason, were never going to accept any argument or discussion which ended in the removal of the feeding tube. This is what we here in Canada call irrecomcilable differences. Considering everything the parents have put this guy through based on what I perceive to be selfish, altruistic or at best, naive reasons, and having absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation, Id be damned if I would give them her body for burial either.
Actually, I perceive the husband to be selfish, cruel and thoughtless, right up to having him bar the parents from vistiting their dying child. In fact, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, be it in the form of a movie or book deal or what-have-you.

But that's an aside to the reasons I have issue with how things were handled.

First of all, I originally took the position that the husband was correct and that the parents were religious fanatics (there are many such) who were just trying to cling desperately to a dogmatic position which had essentially no real practical value. I was perfectly willing to accept that and being pro-eusthanasia, I argued vehemently to support his point of view in several offline discussions.

Then doubt entered the picture.

What kind of doubt? Doubt as to whether the woman lying on that bed was as unresponsive and brain dead as she was made out to be. What created that doubt in me? A smile. Not just a twitching of the mouth. It was in the eyes. My wife spotted it first:

"Roj, she's smiling when her mother is talking to her."
"That can't be Vil, she's brain dead."
"Don't look at her mouth - look at her eyes."

Oops.

“The eyes are the windows of the soul”. Those eyes held something. They weren't the dull and lifeless eyes of someone for whom the lights are on but no one is home. The more I looked, the more I became convinced of the possibility (no more) that Elvis hadn't quite left the building.

It was by no means certain that Elvis hadn't left.

But it was a possibility.

That produced a kernel of doubt. Now, when you're me, a kernel of doubt must be thoroughly explored from a logical perspective. So, if hypothetically she wasn't as brain dead as everyone thought then perhaps she might want to live. Maybe those brief movements when the question was posed to her WERE a meaningful response. Maybe that was all she was capable of in her limited state. That brought up a concept directly connected to something else happening in my personal life. What if someone were trapped in their own mind and unable to communicate? What if they were lost in the fog? And what if, despite all that, they still wanted to be here? I personally might not – but someone else might.

How dare I, in my self-righteousness and zeal for “dignity”, deny another that right? What is right for me might not be right for another – and if they couldn't communicate clearly, I would be committing murder by imposing that on them.

The other fact that made the mess even more convoluted was that we don't know JACK about how the brain works. As far as neurological science goes, we are shamans shaking rattles in the light of the fire we are prancing around with the Great Darkness inches beyond that circle of light. The brain is the most complicated creation we as a species have ever beheld and to assume that we know anything certain about it is the height of arrogance and vanity. What if that lack of knowledge was now operating against Terri?

The answer at that point becamse painfully simple:

We Would Be Murdering Her.

It wouldn't even be humane.

Starvation is not a pleasant process and while it could be argued that she wouldn't feel much, do we really know what she would be feeling?

Physically? Enotionally?

Too many questions.

All without definitive answers.

At that point, I came to see the parents as typical parents and thus understood their position clearly. Why? Because I'm one. I have three kids, 12, 14 and 18. For those of you who aren't parents, let me explain to you a simple fact:

You Protect Them With Every Fiber Of Your Being.

Before I became a parent, I couldn't (and frankly didn't want to) conceive of the fierce protection instinct that having a child brings out. You'll do ANYTHING to secure their well-being. Anything at all – no price is too high. You own well-being can get subjugated to theirs. And it's a one way trip – once you've made that transition, you can't undo it. It doesn't initially come naturally to all. I resisted it for quite a while because, like many a man, the whole concept of fatherhood scared the living daylights out of me and was something I entered into with reluctance. But once you're there, you're THERE.

All that being said, I could see why Terri's parents were willing to take upon themselves the monumental task of caring for her. They had the doubt I had – only more intensely because they were her parents. They had the same protection instinct and it was mde even more intense because the life of their child was at stake. They were willing to give her husband anything to secure the well-being of their child, regardless of her state.

Like I said: “no price too high”.

Forget the dogma. As many of you have now read, that is of no consequence whatsoever to me. And if the concept of the drive of parents to protect their child is difficult to grasp, think of it this way:

The protection of offspring is a trait that's built into the species as a survival credo. It's Big.

So now we have doubt and a protection instinct on Terri's side. What has Terri's husband got in his favor?

He had nothing to lose by her living. She would have been cared for by her parents and out of his hands. A divorce would have been granted and he could have moved on with his life. So, no expenses and no moral dilemma. He obviously had no doubts (or did not want to have any) about the state of his wife. I find that difficult to believe since I, a total stranger who initially favored his position, could develop doubts and I was completely removed from the immediacy of the situation. Then you have the whole issue of why he would want an autopsy done. If he had no doubts, then why an autopsy? To prove to the world that he was right? That's an action indicative of a tinhorn.

I'm not going to get into the political ramifications of this. That's an entirely different discussion and I have no taste for it at this time. What I am going to state is this:

The taking of a life is wrong in such a situation if that individual does not explicity wish it (that includes leaving instructions to that effect). Voluntary euthanasia is one thing – I think that's perfectly fine because it's MY life and if I am in a sound mental state (if only briefly), then I should decide what to do with it if I'm placed in a position where my quality of life would be severely reduced beyond MY ability to deal with it. If there is doubt that I'm incapable of making a sound decision or whether I'm thoroughly bereft of mental capacity, one should err on the side of caution. Why? Because the kind of doubt that arises there is the same reason why I do NOT favor a death penalty. Death is rather permanent. You can't say “oops” and undo it.

That leads to the following:

It is my personal opinion that Terri was murdered (that's what you call it when someone is wrongfully denied the option to live) and that the state helped her husband commit that act. That aside, it is my logical argument that there was meaningful doubt as to whether Terri was brain dead to the point of being unable to have emotions and wishes. The doubt is small but it is there. Furthermore, in the absence of complete and total certainty as to her mental state, the decision to terminate her life was WRONG. Going even further, the method of accomplishing that act was typical of a bureocratic mind: “I will condemn her to death but I won't have the stones to order it in a way that would be humane (a lethal injection of Morphine, for example) because then it would be too obvious to me that I'm committing murder and I really can't live with that”.

There are many facets to this event but at the end of the day, the judge allowing this travesty and the husband who demanded it shuld be profoundly ashamed of themselves. Euthanasia should be allowed but this precedent was not the way to gain it acceptance.

[acushla]

Then doubt entered the picture.

I know less than nothing about this case. I do know this. I had heard about her...I heard about her condition and the fact her husband wanted the life support system removed and her parents were against that. I remember thinking...well...if she is brain dead then, it is a hard decision, but probably the right one. After all...the significant word in 'brain dead' is dead.

Then I saw a video of her in a hospital setting and after the first 15 seconds or so I thought...wait a minute...she's not dead...she's smiling and seems to be responding to things...what the heck are they talking about. I then saw a senator speak in Congress about exactly the same tape I had seen and who drew exactly the same conclusions I had drawn. What's going on I asked.

I then had an opportunity to read an interview with a neuro surgeon who explained that with the type of condition Terri had it would appear to the 'layman' that laughing and various other types of responses would prove that there was life within...but it didn't. It simply represented 'side effects' or characteristics of the brain damage she had. In fact...in his conclusion he made the case that what she had was actually worse than if she was in a coma.

Well, I am not a surgeon and am not about to argue with one. It takes a lot of years and a certain intelligence to become a surgeon...let alone a neuro surgeon. So I have to believe that this man knows more than I do, and since that brings me full circle, then I believe that it would be in her best interests to remove the feeding tube.

A little research found me this:

Medical assessment

Leon Prockop, a professor of neurology at the University of Southern Florida, has studied Terri's CAT scans. He believes that Terri's life effectively ceased fifteen years ago. He said that "She has approximately 20% of her [total] brain tissue left inside her skull and the remaining tissue is damaged. The tissue that controls the higher brain functions is gone. It's disappeared." He continued: "Her death occurred some time ago. That's my opinion....She has lost all frontal lobe functions. In her case, there is a severe absence of brain tissue. This is not guesswork.....Her CAT scan shows a greater degree of brain damage than I have ever seen in a living person. That brain tissue cannot come back. It never has, and it never will." His view "coincides with the vast preponderance of expert medical opinion..."

If it was me I'd beg you to pull the tube.

[Roj]

There's only one problem with all of that:

The cases where the brain mysteriously "re-programmed" itself. You have to remember a couple of things:

1) We know little for certain about the brain

2) As far as we know, we're using less than one tenth of its capacity.

What's the other nine tenths of it doing and might that be the area responsbile for those very rare cases of reprogramming? Nine tenths is a MASSIVE case of redundancy.

As to certainty about our knowledge, it wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of time that "essences" were thought to control our behavior, or more recently that homosexuality was a "sickness".

As I said:

Doubt.

[rorythedog]

The human brain is indeed capable of so much more. Such a shame that we in the "West" keep it busy with so much noise, noise, noise.

[acushla]

The cases where the brain mysteriously "re-programmed" itself. You have to remember a couple of things:

1) We know little for certain about the brain...

Doubt.

I don't know Roj...nobody agrees on everything...that's a fact.

It does seem like grasping at straws when you suggest that 'hey...who knows...maybe the brain will reprogram itself.' Well, yes...and maybe the cow really did jump over the moon. That's fine except for this:

Her CAT scan shows a greater degree of brain damage than I have ever seen in a living person.

That looks like a scientific fact to me...a fact for the times we live in. If it is discovered in 10, 20 100 years from now that it wasn't, fine. The problem is we are living now...not in the future.

[jkrzok]

"She has approximately 20% of her [total] brain tissue left inside her skull and the remaining tissue is damaged. The tissue that controls the higher brain functions is gone. It's disappeared."

You can't reprogram what isn't there.

We have two or three brief video snippets taken over a period of fifteen years that purport to show brain activity. The videos of her showing what look like signs of life ignore the fifteen years of nothing. No laughter or smiling or anything. Pure random movement of muscle does not mean any sort of brain activity. It's wishful thinking to assert otherwise.

Did any doctors after examining her argue against the husband?

[acushla]

Doubt.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you have not seen 'Million Dollar Baby'.

I strongly suggest you do...and then we can discuss this some more, albeit, from a slightly different angle.

[Roj]

Remember when it was scientific fact that the earth was the center of the universe?

Whatever we "know" today, we'll know more tomorrow and that new knowledge might refute what we "know" today. I'm not saying she would have or even could have recovered. I am saying that we don't conclusively know.

And now, because of what has transpired, we never will.

And if we were wrong, we committed murder.

That's not a risk I like taking.

[Shadowraven]

My position on this case started out like Roj's. However, the more I've looked at this case, the more doubts it raises. But Roj has already said it so well that I don't need to repeat it here.

I agree with Roj here, if there is any doubt, we can't carry out any form of euthanasia. Once done you can't say "oops" and take it back if you are wrong.

Roj is right guys. The brain is the one organ we still don't understand definitively. In actual fact, there are a lot of body processes we don't understand. If we understood everything about the body, then reasearch wouldn't be necessary. It is arrogant to assume we already know enough of the answers to make these kind of decisions.

[acushla]

Remember when it was scientific fact that the earth was the center of the universe?

Whatever we "know" today, we'll know more tomorrow and that new knowledge might refute what we "know" today. I'm not saying she would have or even could have recovered. I am saying that we don't conclusively know.

And now, because of what has transpired, we never will.

And if we were wrong, we committed murder.

That's not a risk I like taking.

If you have to put a label on it then I suggest that, under the circumstances, 'Mercy Killing' would be far more accurate.

I suppose the easiest way of looking at this is to simply put ourselves in her position and then answer the question of whether or not we would have preferred for the feeding tube to be removed or not.

I know I would have.

[Roj]

I know I would have.

Me too.

But I'm not her.

[acushla]

Me too.

But I'm not her.

Do unto others...

[Roj]

Do unto others...

"One man's Meat... "

[rorythedog]

"One man's Meat... "


"Dinae' cast a cloot..."

[Roj]

"Dinae' cast a cloot..."

"eh wot, sonny...?" (feebly reaches up and adjusts hearing aid)

[Willow of Oz]

So now we have doubt and a protection instinct on Terri's side. What has Terri's husband got in his favor?

He had nothing to lose by her living. She would have been cared for by her parents and out of his hands. A divorce would have been granted and he could have moved on with his life. So, no expenses and no moral dilemma. He obviously had no doubts (or did not want to have any) about the state of his wife. I find that difficult to believe since I, a total stranger who initially favored his position, could develop doubts and I was completely removed from the immediacy of the situation. Then you have the whole issue of why he would want an autopsy done. If he had no doubts, then why an autopsy? To prove to the world that he was right? That's an action indicative of a tinhorn.

Okay, so, given this, any speculation as to why the husband would want her to, as you say, exit the building?

[rorythedog]

"... til May's oot!".

[Roj]

Okay, so, given this, any speculation as to why the husband would want her to, as you say, exit the building?
Is there any kind of hidden financial remunmeration involved? Book or movie rights? I'd start there if only because money is the single most motivating factor in many people's lives. The million dollars was a pittance compared to movie or book rights.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

I agree with Roj here, if there is any doubt, we can't carry out any form of euthanasia. Once done you can't say "oops" and take it back if you are wrong.



I agree. Her husband, however, definitely did not. I guess we can only hope that Terri had really told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive via life support. This seems like a strange conversation to have if it is not followed by the creation of a living will. This must also be the same conversation in which Terri said that she would want to be cremated. Coming from her husband who has basically committed adultery, can his statements be believed?

[jkrzok]

I agree. Her husband, however, definitely did not. I guess we can only hope that Terri had really told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive via life support. This seems like a strange conversation to have if it is not followed by the creation of a living will. This must also be the same conversation in which Terri said that she would want to be cremated. Coming from her husband who has basically committed adultery, can his statements be believed?

EVERY court this issue went to before chose to believe him.

You don't need a living will in this sort of situation if everyone in the family agrees not to sue. Normally this would be a decision for the spouse alone, if there are no written instructions.

Cremation is again the decision of the spouse, assuming no written instructions.

As for the morally loaded assertion of adultery on the husbands part, as she was for all intents and purposes dead mentally, I figure he's not commiting adultery.

Now quick, without Googleing it, can anyone name the husband?

I find it sad that he's lost his identity in all of this. He's been carrying a terrible burden for fifteen years and I bet most people don't even know his name.

Yes he could have walked away from her at any time and left her to her parents to do as they saw fit. I see it as a testiment to his character and his commitment to his wife to see it through the way he did.

[Willow of Oz]

Now quick, without Googleing it, can anyone name the husband?


shrug. I didn't even know about the case till it was mentioned here, so obviously I don't count.

That said, I just read an interesting article:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/23/204359/812

[Roj]

shrug. I didn't even know about the case till it was mentioned here, so obviously I don't count.

That said, I just read an interesting article:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/23/204359/812
I can refute that entire article and especially the "lessons learned" in one easy sentence:

"We don't know."

Let me elaborate:

Modern "medicine" is still at the level of the Shaman shaking rattles at the dark and we simply don't know enough to be able to make an absolute (since the results are indeed absolute) choice on whether or not to deprive a person of his or her life based on that all-too-flimsy body of knowledge.

We are also likely to remain in that position for the foreseeable future, barring any sudden lightning bolts of insight received on the way to Damascus.

I will add that of late I have acquired first hand experience through personal exposure of just how inadequate the toolset, methodologies and knowledgebase are. I have received the answer "I don't know" in response to hard questioning entirely too many times to be able to take any other practical viewpoint.

That's all I have to say on this topic.

[acushla]

I agree. Her husband, however, definitely did not. I guess we can only hope that Terri had really told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive via life support. This seems like a strange conversation to have if it is not followed by the creation of a living will. This must also be the same conversation in which Terri said that she would want to be cremated. Coming from her husband who has basically committed adultery, can his statements be believed?

...and to think I used to have so much respect for you...

[Shadowraven]

Not to make light of this situation (or go off-topic) but everytime I see the name of this thread it sounds like the name of some new twisted TV series,

That said...

I agree with Roj. We know just way too little about human physiology to make any definite statements yet. It is true that we've come a long way so far, but we still have an even farther way to go. If that were not so we would be able to cure the worse diseases people die from everyday.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Not to make light of this situation (or go off-topic) but everytime I see the name of this thread it sounds like the name of some new twisted TV series,

That said...

I agree with Roj. We know just way too little about human physiology to make any definite statements yet. It is true that we've come a long way so far, but we still have an even farther way to go. If that were not so we would be able to cure the worse diseases people die from everyday.

Then you guys probably have heard of the virus spreading in Angola, Africa. It is so lethal i think 90% of all cases death is certain. There are, as of now, no vaccines or anti-dotes. I wonder how this will turn out. I think about 200 people have died so far.

Read about it here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/04/12/virus.marburg/)

[acushla]

We know just way too little about human physiology to make any definite statements yet.

Although it is absolutely correct to state that 'we know too little about human physiology to make any definite statements' it cannot be used as an excuse to not make decisions based on what we DO know.

[Roj]

Then you guys probably have heard of the virus spreading in Angola, Africa. It is so lethal i think 90% of all cases death is certain. There are, as of now, no vaccines or anti-dotes. I wonder how this will turn out. I think about 200 people have died so far.

Read about it here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/04/12/virus.marburg/)

Hadn't heard of that - welcome to Ebola Mk. II...

[Shadowraven]

Hadn't heard of that - welcome to Ebola Mk. II...

While it appears serious, it seems to be no worse than Ebola itself was. They also said that it was treatable if caught soon enough, and preventable.

The thing that worries me is when I see a disease like tuberculosis becoming resistant to antibiotics. That is due mostly to their overuse and to people not completing their full regimen of treatment. If I remember correctly, TB has a 6-month course of treatment. If you stop taking the meds because you think you're cured and don't need it, you help to breed a more resistant organism.

With the high use (or overuse if you will) of antibiotics and antibacterial cleaners and soaps we are helping to breed a number of resistant germs. At least that is what I've read in the journals and magazines on the subject.

[jkrzok]

Because the Bushies won't let it.

Have you heard the latest Republican sponsored outrage? Gov. Bush got a prosecutor to investigate an alleged time difference between Terri's collapse and Michael's 911 call. In 1990.

Can you tell me what you did in 1990? Specifically? To the tune of a couple of minutes? If this was any sort of an issue, why wait 15 years to investigate it? So now my first priority when finding my wife collapsed should be to find out what time it is. Perhaps I should write it down 'cos I may be asked in 15 years. And then I should ask the 911 operator for a time check.

Do you suppose this might just possibly have anything to do with the autopsy report that showed thet Terri did in fact have no chance of recovery, even though so many saw 'definite' signs of a possible recovery?

"Let me wipe the egg off my face by screwing Michael just a little more."

Or is Michael just facing Republican payback for doing what he thought was morally right when that differed with the Holier-than-thou moral absolutists of the right-wing?

Please let the tragedy end.

[acushla]

Please let the tragedy end.

Well put...as usual.

The thread that just won't die...this wasn't some sort of 'word play'...was it?

I'm quick that way.

[Roj]

Can you tell me what you did in 1990? Specifically? To the tune of a couple of minutes?

Yes.

I went to the Windows / OS/2 Conference in Boston, Mass. on the 20th of August, arrived by Delta Partners, was whisked to the Boston Park Plaza and by 11:35PM (an hour and a half later) was getting laid uproariously and beyond any and all hope of redemption in my hotel room by a colleague who had flown down to attent a conference of her own and whom I had arranged to meet there previously for a rendezvous. No alchohol, narcotics or small rodents were involved, just pure unadulterated go-go juice.

Timing was of the essence.

Just kidding!!!! :) :) ;)

You've gotta bear with me today, I'm feeling decidedly left of center.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Shewolf]

I couldn't tell you w3hat I did last week, specifically :cross-eye

[acushla]

You've gotta bear with me today, I'm feeling decidedly left of center.

I'm curious...how, exactly, can you tell the difference? :cheeky:

[Roj]

I'm curious...how, exactly, can you tell the difference? :cheeky:
The tilt on my flight instruments.

[acushla]

Yes.

I went to the Windows / OS/2 Conference in Boston, Mass. on the 20th of August, arrived by Delta Partners, was whisked to the Boston Park Plaza and by 11:35PM (an hour and a half later) was getting laid uproariously and beyond any and all hope of redemption in my hotel room by a colleague who had flown down to attent a conference of his own and whom I had arranged to meet there previously for a rendezvous. No alchohol, narcotics or small rodents were involved, just pure unadulterated go-go juice.

Timing was of the essence.



Why is it women never write anything like this?

[Roj]

Why is it women never write anything like this?
Hey, I know women who would. The one with me in that litle tale is one of them.

Oops - was that my "out loud" voice?

[Shewolf]

Oh we do write stuff like that! Trust me :silly:
Usually it is girl talk..on here its more guy orientated....

[madjo]

Why is it women never write anything like this?
You mean you never watched Sex and the city?

[acushla]

Oh we do write stuff like that! Trust me :silly:
Usually it is girl talk..on here its more guy orientated....

One of the few times in my life that I rejoice in being wrong.

I feel better already.

[Shadowraven]

Yeah, I can vouch for the fact women DO talk that way. Just not usually in as public a fashion as men do.

Acushla, you're too naive buddy. Live a little. Obviously Roj does! :cheeky:

As for the topic at hand, jkrzok put it very well. The conservatives in this country are extremely vindictive to anyone who thwarts them, and go for blood when you do. No one in their right mind is going to believe that you could accurately say what happened to you 15 years ago. Especially in a stressful situation. People in high stress situations tend to forget much of what happened during them. Stress makes you forget. For them to trot out this ridiculous bullsh*t now is worse than bad taste. The family has gone through enough, let it go. This is revenge, pure and simple. They did the same thing to Clinton when he won the election. That's what they always try to do, destroy the opposition.

The judge made the right legal decision, but the right-wingers just can't stand it. They talk about activist judges on the bench, but if he hadn't made the decision he did, he would have been guilty of just that. The judge made a decision on the legal merits of the case, by following existing law. Just like many other judges have done recently. But that doesn't suit the right-wing agenda so they twist the issue out of proportion and call these judges activists. From the cases I've seen, nothing could be further from the truth. The only thing that happened is the judges refused to advance a right-wing agenda over the law. For some of them that was hard, because following the law went against their personal beliefs. But they did it anyway.

[acushla]

... women DO talk that way.

Not TALK...that way (they ALL talk that way. God, you should have heard the one I was with last night. I thought the one I was with last week was wild...but last nights took the prize. So far.)...WRITE that way.

Write...as in pen and ink and paper. :bulb:

[Shadowraven]

Not TALK...that way (they ALL talk that way. God, you should have heard the one I was with last night. I thought the one I was with last week was wild...but last nights took the prize. So far.)...WRITE that way.

Write...as in pen and ink and paper. :bulb:
Acushla, you wild man! :shocked:

[BALTY]

I used to like you guys. :dead:

[Shadowraven]

I used to like you guys. :dead:
Now Balty, don't be that way! He started it! Really, he did! :cheeky:

[acushla]

Now Balty, don't be that way! He started it! Really, he did! :cheeky:

Actually Roj can claim that honour.

[Shadowraven]

Actually Roj can claim that honour.
Don't try to obfuscate the issue with the facts! :cheeky:

[acushla]

Don't try to obfuscate the issue with the facts! :cheeky:

So tell me...obfuscate...word of the day for June 21st or June 22nd? :cross-eye

[Shadowraven]

So tell me...obfuscate...word of the day for June 21st or June 22nd? :cross-eye
Let's make it the 21st, then we can have another word for the 22nd Stealth Boy!