I Don't Mean To Infer
I don't know much. One of the things I don't know anything about is what it's like to lose a child. I hear it's pretty horrible. I also hear that some couples get divorced and/or suffer a wide array of problems in the event of such a catastrophe. It's not improbable that parents who lose a child, or who know that they are about to lose a child, would find a degree of comfort (it's only human) in being seen as martyrs; famous and striving for justice, lavished with sympathy and support, the focus of national attention. I suppose it might be hard to give that up. Real hard. If the President of the United States was a party to your own personal cause, it might even make you think that charging at windmills gives your life meaning. I can understand that. I can understand succumbing to the temptation to make such a tragedy all about yourself and your heroic martyrdom.
24 Comments:
Evil people are preventing us from bringing you water. You are going to die as a result. We did everything we could, you unresponsive goddamned vegetable, you tuber.
Love,
mom and dad
Mom, Dad...Thanks. But I died a long, long time ago. Remember? When you found me with that issue of "Bear", and you hollered, "You're DEAD to me now! DEAD!"
Hey Kelly...What I want to know is when the hell are they going to pull YOUR feeding tube?! Seems to me you're the poster child for PVS. Jesus, talk about a liquified cortex! By the way, what the f--k kind of tinker toy server is this sorry excuse for a blog on anyway??
The internet was made for people like you, Anonymous. Fling insults from behind an impenetrable veil. You must me proud of yourself.
Don't like our blog? Then don't read it.
Hey, Arlo...Don't be so thin skinned, and Kelly seems perfectly capable of standing up for himself without YOU running interference for him. He seems like a bright guy. ...bitter, angry, soulless, cold, shallow, politically stunted and borderline Bobby Fischer...but bright nonetheless. And the comment about "tinker toy server" was not a criticism of the blog, just the server it is on. (I'll type slower for you if it will help you understand.) This is the only site where I consistently get an "internal server error" when I try to post something. As for the content of your blog itself, it is not without its merits - although you and I would certainly disagree on what those merits are.
Hey, Arlo...Don't be so thin skinned, and Kelly seems perfectly capable of standing up for himself without YOU running interference for him. He seems like a bright guy. ...bitter, angry, soulless, cold, shallow, politically stunted and borderline Bobby Fischer...but bright nonetheless. And the comment about "tinker toy server" was not a criticism of the blog, just the server it is on. (I'll type slower for you if it will help you understand.) This is the only site where I consistently get an "internal server error" when I try to post something. As for the content of your blog itself, it is not without its merits - although you and I would certainly disagree on what those merits are.
Hey, Arlo...Don't be so thin skinned, and Kelly seems perfectly capable of standing up for himself without YOU running interference for him. He seems like a bright guy. ...bitter, angry, soulless, cold, shallow, politically stunted and borderline Bobby Fischer...but bright nonetheless. And the comment about "tinker toy server" was not a criticism of the blog, just the server it is on. (I'll type slower for you if it will help you understand.) This is the only site where I consistently get an "internal server error" when I try to post something. As for the content of your blog itself, it is not without its merits - although you and I would certainly disagree on what those merits are.
Actually, I know Kelly to be extremely thin-skinned but this is by design, not accident. Kelly, during his Siddartha faze, spent a couple of years sitting in a cave, thinking about life's mysteries, and rubbing specially harvested oils on his heretofore thick skin.
The years of lighless existence in the cave, coupled with a lack of activity and the application of salves and oils, resulted in Kelly having almost translucent skin. And, all the opening of his mind and body to the wisdom of the universe served to effectively leave Kelly with literally and figuratively thin skin.
In fact, once Kelly finished his time in the cave, he realized that his skin might be too thin. Therefore he became an actor to face constant rejection and derision which would mentally and physically toughen up his skin again.
One day, if we see Kelly on Entertainment Tonight, we'll know he's ready for us to lower our rhetorical canons in his direction and let fly. But for now, please be gentle. Kelly is still very delicate. Please do not criticize him too harshly.
As for his original Schiavo comment, I think the Schindlers are totally in denial and are, in fact, doing everything they can to externalize the causes of their pain instead of facing the fact that they lost their daughter a long time ago. At the same time, I surely don't want to add to their suffering. They've had enough already but they're in everybody's face about it which tests at least my restraint.
Hey, thanks for "running interference" for me. Apparently our name-calling visitor isn't aware that standing up for your friends is what people of character do.
I'd love to engage in some cruel banter, but I need to tenderize my Easter ham (wink wink).
"Name calling"? Oh. Oops. You're right. I'm sorry I called you shallow. That's the only descriptor for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence one way or the other. Consider it retracted.
I've been trying to understand the hostility of the folks contributing to this blog towards this woman in Florida and her family. On the one hand, you claim that she died a long time ago, and therefore you seem to presume that she has no awareness of the world around here. If that is truly the case, what is the harm of permitting the parents to assume the responsibility of caring for her as they see fit? The sacred and secular bonds of marriage that permit a husband to make life-and-death decisions for his incapacitated wife have been broken long ago when he took up with another woman and had children with her. This isn't a criticism of him. He has every right to move on after so many years, but it seems to me that the law permitting him to make decisions for his wife is highly flawed, in that serious doubts are now in play as to whether or not he has his wife's best interests at heart. Furthermore, Terri was apparently raised Catholic, and her parents seem in a better position to make decisions for her at this point in time that align with the tenants of her faith. It seems to me that at this point in time, the motivations of the husband far more suspect than those of the parents. Presumably you do not have children. If you did, you would understand that "martyrdom" is not a motivation for the parents' actions. You would more deeply understand the drive to move heaven and earth to do what you feel is right for an injured child. This is because it is in the eyes of one's own child that a parent sees the fundamental living embodiment of hope, love, mortality & immortality, and the meaning of life.
I happen to believe that the courts in this case have acted correctly in interpreting and implementing Florida law as it is written. That is the obligation of the courts, but the greater good has not been served in this case because the law is flawed.
I also happen to disagree with the actions of the US Congress. I do not believe this is a federal issue. However, I understand the reasoning behind it, and do not ascribe prurient motivations to the members of Congress from both parties that voted for this legislation.
The husband should have long ago abdicated his responsibilities towards Terri. He should have, but he didn't, and it is a tragedy.
If she has no awareness, no consciousness, no cognitive brain function or suffering, and if there is no soul, no heaven or hell, then why is her death a victory for anybody?
Everybody should take a few minutes and draw up a living will. Not so much for what you want for yourself, but what are you willing to put those you love through in the event of your own catastrophic incapacitation. This should be the lesson of the Terri Schiavo tragedy.
I have a 21 month old dd and df and I are talking about trying for another one, but I am so scared and against having a boy. Like a lot of you moms who just have boys, I so don't do the boy thing. Bugs and snot and hitting and cars and wrestling are so not my thing. I used to babysit boys and girls growing up and the girls were so much easier to take care of. In my mind, little boys are so bad and just hellions! They talk back and smack you and kick you and wanna wrestle and jump around all the time.
I about passed out from relief when I found out I was having a girl. I don't know how to raise a boy or what to do with one. I am so scared I might have a boy that dd might be our one and only. I don't even think I could truly love a little boy. I have it set in my mind that I can only have girls, esp. because I want dd to have that sisterly bond with a sister.
I guess I really don't have questions or anything, I just needed to get that off my chest someplace where people will not get offended and understand where I am coming from. Thanks!
P.S. I did not mean to be offensive to little boys, I just have had bad experiences with them. A couple of my friends have boys and they are just so bad and it scares me!
I am sorry to offend anyone!
I have a 21 month old dd and df and I are talking about trying for another one, but I am so scared and against having a boy. Like a lot of you moms who just have boys, I so don't do the boy thing. Bugs and snot and hitting and cars and wrestling are so not my thing. I used to babysit boys and girls growing up and the girls were so much easier to take care of. In my mind, little boys are so bad and just hellions! They talk back and smack you and kick you and wanna wrestle and jump around all the time.
I about passed out from relief when I found out I was having a girl. I don't know how to raise a boy or what to do with one. I am so scared I might have a boy that dd might be our one and only. I don't even think I could truly love a little boy. I have it set in my mind that I can only have girls, esp. because I want dd to have that sisterly bond with a sister.
I guess I really don't have questions or anything, I just needed to get that off my chest someplace where people will not get offended and understand where I am coming from. Thanks!
P.S. I did not mean to be offensive to little boys, I just have had bad experiences with them. A couple of my friends have boys and they are just so bad and it scares me!
I am sorry to offend anyone!
Well, props to anonymous for a much more sober and thoughful response to this thread. A little bit of logical fallacy and ad hominem arguments but everybody's guilty of that from time to time.
So, to answer anonymous's better points:
First, I am not mad at Terri Schiavo. I'm a little bothered by her parents' actions. I understand that this is their daughter and you'd think that anyone would do anything for their child. But, their daughter was an adult, a married adult, and it is entirely likely that she made her wishes known to her husband. Having been a husband, I can tell you that the love you have for your wife is way different than the love you have for your parents, family, or kids. Michael Schiavo's beautiful wife became a person in a persistent vegitative state. She is no longer mentally or physically the person she once was. That's no excuse for euthanasia by itself but she has no brain, no life, and no quality of life. I think her husband would know her thoughts about that. I'm amazed at how supporters of the Schindlers have villified Michael Schiavo. That's insult to injury. The Schindlers are clearly beating a dead horse. They do not have the moral high ground here. Some times you have to let go because things are out of your hands.
Second, I have 3 children. Do you have children? Have you ever had a critically ill child? I have. My oldest son had a liver transplant. I've had to consider issues of when do you let go with a child and when you do turn your concern to alleviating suffering when death would be imminent. I was lucky, my child survived. But I had to consider how much it was reasonable to do to save my son's life, what kind of life I would want him to have, and at what point do you accept the worst. That's something reasonable parents do. They don't just want their child to live, they want their children to have a life worth living. If you've faced a similar situation, you should mention it. My experiences are not theoretical, they really happened.
Third, living near Oregon, I'm intimately aware of the real world practice of death with dignity. Terri Schiavo is living a life that many, maybe even Terri herself, might consider one that is an insult to what it means to be a human being. If you can live anywhere you like and do any job you like, and vacation anywhere you like, then why can't you decide at what point you are robbed of the essentials of human existence and at what point you can end heroic measures to ensure your heart beats? But wait, you said yourself that people should draw up living wills. Clearly you can't summarily dismiss the ideas of death with dignity or pulling the plug. If Terri Schiavo had a living will, it seems you would agree with removing the feeding tube (if the will made those her clear wishes). Unfortunately, many opponents to the removal of the feeding tube seem unconcerned about the wishes of someone who wants death with dignity. Do you think Randall Terry really cares what your living will says? Speaking of which, you mention concern about people being so angry at the Schindlers. What about the vitriol aimed by people like Randall Terry at Michael Schiavo. Agree or disagree with what he's trying to do (though the courts sure do seem to agree), but he's clearly not a mean spirited person or acting out of spite. Geez.
Finally, I'm glad you agree that this was not a matter that Congress should have addressed.
Let's keep this on the thoughtful side and tone down the personal attacks and I guess that should be better than the alternative. Maybe I'm wrong but that happens so infrequently it's hard to imagine that's the case.
You seem to have missed some of my points, so I'll try to distill them down a bit more. "Death with dignity" is something of a catch-all description, and appears to include euthanasia, as well as withholding of extraordinary measures, so I'll not refer to it. Dignity is certainly a relative term. If Terri had a living will, none of this would be an issue, because her intent would have been clear. In the absence of a living will, we are left with the testimony of her husband. I'm not interested in trying to vilify the husband. However, there have been numerous affidavits filed with the courts to indicate that early in her incapacitation, he had expressed that he had no idea what Terri's wishes might be. Even if you accept the argument that he knew her long enough to be able to discern what her wishes might be in the absence of her explicit instruction, his capacity as legal guardian of her best interests has certainly been compromised buy the apparent conflict of interest embodied by taking up with another woman and having two children with her. It is a situation that fundamentally alters, and significantly diminishes the sanctity that the marriage once held, and that is supposed to be the foundation of his capacity as her guardian. However, this is a distinction that the law currently does not recognize, and that is why I said that the judges involved in this case acted correctly, but that the law is flawed. So, who should make these critical decisions?
First, Terri herself. However, she left no written record.
Second, Her husband. However, his own situation over the past 15 years has evolved to a point that reasonable doubt exists as to whether or not he actually has her best interests at heart simply by virtue of his domestic situation. The law rightly recognizes the marriage relationship, and the rights of the spouse regarding issues where critical incapacity of one partner exists. However, the law does not currently have a remedy for situations like the Schiavo case, in which the bonds of marriage have deteriorated in every way over time. Hopefully this will change.
Third, that leaves the family. Mother and Father. The family is supported in their interpretation of Terri's will by the tenants of the Catholic faith in which she was raised. Those tenants are well understood by all, and should not be dismissed.
Randall Terry is a nut. There are enough people on both sides of this saying and doing nutty things, and I'll defend none of them. The nature of the public debate is whether or not to withdraw hydration and nutrition. Both sides have compelling arguments. However, the issue SHOULD be who should be empowered with that decision, not what the decision should be, and a great many outsiders ON BOTH SIDES, including contributors to this blog, are presuming an ability to divine what Terri's will would be based on projecting their own values and experiences.
For the most part, until now I have refrained form projecting my own opinion as to what I might do in this situation. My suspicion is that this is probably not how Terri would have wanted to live, and that the parents are probably mistaken in their attempts to prolong her life. However, I believe that the decision should be theirs simply because the husband's capacity as guardian in this case is severely compromised, and the parents have a stronger claim on Terri's best interests.
Lastly, it seems apparent to me that appeals for thoughtfulness and civility in a blog like this - that leans so far left that it lies prostrate on the gutter - is woefully misplaced. Furthermore, you shouldn't mistake accurate, insightful observation for name-calling. This is especially pertinent with regard to a oozing pustule of a canker sore like Kelly. Note to Kelly: Happy Easter, you encephalitic blowhard. Hope you choke on your ham!
I should also like to point out that there are at least a couple of people posting to this record under the Anonymous by-line. I am not all of them.
I'm not sure you help your argument by ending it with an argument in favor of name calling. Don't get me wrong, your name calling seems really good and I'm not sure I should try and deter such creativity.
I'm not really sure that moving far to the left would really leave you in the gutter, though. Unless, you're making a bowling metaphor where being too far right or left would be in the gutter. The problem with a bowling metaphor is that the playing field is intentionally narrow and I'm not sure that's the metaphor you want to make. If you're talking roads, going to far either way would leave you on the sidewalk. Good for people, bad for cars. Still, not a bad metaphor. It would denote an out-of-bounds quality to an argument.
Yet, here you are on this deplorable, left-wing, screed-masquerading-as-a-blog. Glad to have you. But why are you here when you dislike it so much?
And may I say that you're a great anonymous of all the anonymouses I've seen. Maybe it's time you become bedecked with one of those spiffy, little posting monikers that makes some sort of obtuse and obscure reference to something that no one else would know about, kind of like mine.
Certainly someone hurling insults is remiss if he or she doesn't hurl "pig-fucker" out at some point. Yeah, I know WHY the fucking ham tastes so salty. (Sorry, Arlo if I've violated some sort of semen taste reference copyright of yours).
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous? That you think I’m that stupid is really more insulting than any foul comments you’ve leveled at me thus far – and those comments are really quite insulting.
I’ve worked for a trusts & estates attorney for several years. I draw up numerous powers of attorney every week. I’ve drawn up several living wills. I’ve dealt with countless people who are boarding on competence; people who’s health care and financial situations are contested in court. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m familiar with the legal issues involved in such as case as this.
Your feelings about the fitness of Terri’s husband are irrelevant. Your feelings about her marriage are irrelevant. They are not irrelevant in court. They have meaning. Many people who are granted guardianship or power of attorney through living wills or a health care power of attorney are deemed unfit due to their demonstrable unfitness. Such “unfitness” is adjudicated based on the evidence of their motives. Contrary to what some believe, such a judgment is reached not based on iron-clad law, but on a reasonable assessment arrived at by a fair hearing of all parties involved. Michael Schiavo’s authority was not upheld because his relationship with Terri conforms to YOUR idea of marriage. Nor should it be. However, if his interests were demonstrably selfish, his case would have been dismissed. If a guardian abuses the trust or the best interests of the ward, his guardianship will be terminated. There’s nothing “wrong” with the law in this respect.
There are few things about Terry Shiavo that we can say with assurance. All the rest is supposition. What we know for certain is that her recent EEGs have shown no higher brain activity whatsoever. Taking that into account, I found Kelly's original post to be a rather thoughtful attempt to understand what could motivate her parents at this point. It was a supposition, but a decent one that didn't seem to call for the vitriol anonymous has spewed.
Only yesterday a spokesman for the Schindlers was on TV claiming that Terri's father went into her room, accidentally bumped the bed and Terri startled, recognized him and began mouthing words at him. This is empirically not true. My dog has considerably greater higher brain function than Terri Schiavo at this point and I can say with certainty that he is not trying to mouth words at me. He lacks the cognitive ability for language - just as Terri does. She has no brain waves. None. What her parents claim is a physical impossibility for her.
Their position in that regard is delusional to the point of madness. They have long ago passed the point of being desperate parents hoping against hope for a recovery. They claim that if gangrene were to be a problem for her they would just have her legs amputated so that she could keep going. They claim she communicates. Their judgments is more than flawed. It is insane.
Why? Well that is all speculation. But perhaps it is largely because a world of "experts" have stepped in to offer them false hope. Maybe it is because politicians and fanatics have stepped in to turn Terri herself into a martyr. It makes sense that desperate parents in the midst of an unspeakable and inexplicable tragedy would cling to such offerings in an attempt to give their daughter's life some degree of meaning.
Isn't that what all parent's want? They want their child's life to have purpose and meaning? Terri's life had lost that possibility which might be even harder for a parent to accept than her death. Kelly's post did nothing more than to try and make sense of their behavior and to point out how criminally unfair it is that others should drive the parents to this point for their own gain. It was nothing that should have inspired such bile from anonymous.
I mean really Anonymous. If you had your head any further up your own ass you'd choke on it. Give it up chief.
Selective memory.
Annon owns up to calling Kelly shallow. He/She/It also goes on to call him:
bitter, angry, soulless, cold, politically stunted and borderline Bobby Fischer...
Kelly is many things. Shallow is not one of them. Politically stunted is certainly not on his resume. Blowhard...yes. Interminably pugnacious...yes. Borderline Bobby Fischer? What is a pop cultural reference doing in this diatribe? Owning up to a certain ignorance and self righteous pomposity? Yes. Then this person continues to hide behind a persona non-gratis as if they were the only sane voice in a wilderness filled with left-leaning wolves preying on the poor innocent sheep of his lord and savior big daddy J and his pimpin fat-man with the white beard.
I think Anon needs to get himself / herself / itself a grip and put the fucking lotion in the basket.
Signed-
His unholy goodness
Stiggy
Selective memory.
Annon (only) cops to calling Kelly shallow. He/She/It also goes on to call him:
bitter, angry, soulless, cold, politically stunted and borderline Bobby Fischer...
Kelly is many things. Shallow is not one of them. Politically stunted is certainly not on his resume. Blowhard...yes. Interminably pugnacious...yes. Borderline Bobby Fischer? What is a pop cultural reference doing in this diatribe? Owning up to a certain ignorance and self righteous pomposity? Yes. Then this person continues to hide behind a persona non-gratis as if they were the only sane voice in a wilderness filled with left-leaning wolves preying on the poor innocent sheep of his lord and savior big daddy J and his pimpin fat-man with the white beard.
I think Anon needs to get himself / herself / itself a grip and put the fucking lotion in the basket.
Signed-
His unholy goodness
Stiggy
Kelly, you epitomize cerebral flatulence. I never intoned that you were stupid. Quite the contrary. I acknowledged that you are probably quite bright. Furthermore, I don't think there is much (if any) divergence in our interpretation of the legal issues involved in the Shiavo case. I have said all along that the courts have acted correctly, and I acknowledge that Michael Shiavo - under current law - has probably not demonstrated a lack of fitness to act as guardian. Hear me correctly here: I believe that the process has worked in the Terri Shiavo case. My argument is that the criteria for determining fitness was probably too narrow in this case, where we're talking about something as critical and irreversible as removing life support, given Michael Schiavo's apparent conflict of interest. This is not a legal interpretation. This is the opinion of a solitary member of a society governed by the rule of law, in which we the people, collectively, determine what those laws are and how those laws are going to reflect our values.
Lastly, if you have been insulted by anything I have said, then I deeply and sincerely apologize. I had been under the impression - formed by reading your previous posts - that nothing I could possibly say could possibly be interpreted as insulting to a being so loathsome as yourself.
Note to ps206: Thank you for the suggestion. I was not being remiss by not using "pig-f--ker". I simply think that it is open to question as to whether or not that appellation would be deemed insulting in Kelly's case.
Kelly, you epitomize cerebral flatulence. I never intoned that you were stupid. Quite the contrary. I acknowledged that you are probably quite bright. Furthermore, I don't think there is much (if any) divergence in our interpretation of the legal issues involved in the Shiavo case. I have said all along that the courts have acted correctly, and I acknowledge that Michael Shiavo - under current law - has probably not demonstrated a lack of fitness to act as guardian. Hear me correctly here: I believe that the process has worked in the Terri Shiavo case. My argument is that the criteria for determining fitness was probably too narrow in this case, where we're talking about something as critical and irreversible as removing life support, given Michael Schiavo's apparent conflict of interest. This is not a legal interpretation. This is the opinion of a solitary member of a society governed by the rule of law, in which we the people, collectively, determine what those laws are and how those laws are going to reflect our values.
Lastly, if you have been insulted by anything I have said, then I deeply and sincerely apologize. I had been under the impression - formed by reading your previous posts - that nothing I could possibly say could possibly be interpreted as insulting to a being so loathsome as yourself.
Note to ps206: Thank you for the suggestion. I was not being remiss by not using "pig-f--ker". I simply think that it is open to question as to whether or not that appellation would be deemed insulting in Kelly's case.
mmmmmnegh
Post a Comment
<< Home