What If...

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Disregarding any technical feasibilities or if this is even possible.

What if stem cell research could save the lives of people like Terri? What if it could completely restore them 100% memories, personalities, physical abilities and all.

 

[Caveman]

Guessing this may be possible in 20 years... Perhaps Michael Shiavo believes this as well Then again, maybe not.

 

[CycloWizard]

First, her life isn't in danger from her existing condition. Second, consuming one life to improve the quality of life of another is not an ethical endeavor.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

New poll option:

"I would support stem cell research, except embryonic, if it could"

Yea\Nea?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
New poll option:

"I would support stem cell research, except embryonic, if it could"

Yea\Nea?

I don't think anyone opposes non-embryonic stem cell research as it is.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I don't think anyone opposes non-embryonic stem cell research as it is.

Point taken. I'll leave it alone then.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, her life isn't in danger from her existing condition. Second, consuming one life to improve the quality of life of another is not an ethical endeavor.

How about consuming the life of one to save hundreds if not thousands?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Guessing this may be possible in 20 years... Perhaps Michael Shiavo believes this as well Then again, maybe not.

Come on. If there was any credible evidence that the husband was "afraid of her waking up" the court, appeals court, supreme court, federal court, federal appeals court would all have supported revisiting the decision that maintained the husband as her guardian.

Please visit Abstract appeal before posting more baseless innuendo.

 

[Caveman]

I certainly am not trying to condem the man... At the same time, I think the man's personal life speaks volumes about his "dedication" to Terri. Certainly here, nobody would be pollyannaish enough to believe that money or personal freedom might have *possibly* played into this at all? C'mon.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Disregarding any technical feasibilities or if this is even possible.

What if stem cell research could save the lives of people like Terri? What if it could completely restore them 100% memories, personalities, physical abilities and all.

lol BS.

Restoring cellular matter != restoring memories.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Caveman
I certainly am not trying to condem the man... At the same time, I think the man's personal life speaks volumes about his "dedication" to Terri. Certainly here, nobody would be pollyannaish enough to believe that money or personal freedom might have *possibly* played into this at all? C'mon.

(a) there is no credible evidence of the husband being "afraid she'll wake up" or "in it for the money"
(b) her memory has been destroyed along with most of her brain
(c) the husband has turned down at least $1 million and probably $10 million
(d) he's gone through 8 years of suffering to try to let her body rest in peace.
(e) he waited 5 years before starting to live with the woman he is with now.

He may be scum, I have no idea. But there is no evidence to say so. Right-to-life nutcase websites and Fox News notwithstanding.

 

[aidanjm]

oops - just realised I completely mis-read the OP.

(I support embryonic stem cell research, anyway. I don't see the human embryo as a person or individual, I don't think there is anything sanctified about it that needs respecting)

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
New poll option:

"I would support stem cell research, except embryonic, if it could"

Yea\Nea?

I don't think anyone opposes non-embryonic stem cell research as it is.

I'm not in favor of creating embryo's purely for stem cell research. However, I don't see the problem with allowing extra embroyo's (which will be thrown out) to be used for stem cell research. If the embryo already exists, doesn't it make more sense in using it for medical science than for just tossing it in the trash?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Caveman
I certainly am not trying to condem the man... At the same time, I think the man's personal life speaks volumes about his "dedication" to Terri. Certainly here, nobody would be pollyannaish enough to believe that money or personal freedom might have *possibly* played into this at all? C'mon.

Spending a decade (or however many years it is) in the courts in order to be able to respect his wife's wishes and human dignity is my idea of "dedication", actually.

It would be so easy for him to have just walked away from it all, and allowed Terry's family to take care of her for the rest of her life.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

aidanjm

Neither.

I'm simply inquiring ATPN if they would be willing to sacrifice on one issue (opposition to stem cell research) if they could win another (life).

The way the question was meant to be framed is like this.

If it meant you had to allow gay marriage to save X's life, would you?
If it meant you had to ban gay marriage to save X's life, would you?
If it meant you had to allow abortion to save X's life, would you?
If it meant you had to ban abortion to save X's life, would you?
If it meant you had to allow <controversial issue> to save X's life, would you?
If it meant you had to ban <controversial issue> to save X's life, would you?

As the question stands

Would you allow embryonic stem cell research if it meant that a person's life could be saved?

 

[Caveman]

Again, I'm not condeming the man, I'm just saying that people ("on Michael Shiavo's side) only enhance the notion of the cases crookedness with their dogmatic declarations.

(a) there is no credible evidence of the husband being "afraid she'll wake up" or "in it for the money"

Ahh yes, I don't guess this is something you would shout with a megaphone if you thought this might give away any intention.

(b) her memory has been destroyed along with most of her brain.

Probably. But are you sure? How is it that there are documented cases of people literally "back from the dead" after being in comatose states where physicians have described them as "persistantly vegetative"? Remember, lots of folks "knew" the earth was flat

(c) the husband has turned down at least $1 million and probably $10 million OK, so he doesn't want to "appear" motovated by money... There was other money to be gained in the timeline of events here. It's a matter of math.

(d) he's gone through 8 years of suffering to try to let her body rest in peace.

Huh? Please explain.

(e) he waited 5 years before starting to live with the woman he is with now.

Woop-D-Stinkin-Do! Wow, what a shining example of spousal dedication. Impressive.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
If it meant you had to allow <controversial issue> to save X's life, would you?
If it meant you had to ban <controversial issue> to save X's life, would you?

As the question stands

Would you allow embryonic stem cell research if it meant that a person's life could be saved?

Yes, I would allow embryonic stem cell research, if it meant that a person's life could be saved.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Again, I'm not condeming the man, I'm just saying that people ("on Michael Shiavo's side) only enhance the notion of the cases crookedness with their dogmatic declarations.

(a) there is no credible evidence of the husband being "afraid she'll wake up" or "in it for the money"

Ahh yes, I don't guess this is something you would shout with a megaphone if you thought this might give away any intention.

(b) her memory has been destroyed along with most of her brain.

Probably. But are you sure? How is it that there are documented cases of people literally "back from the dead" after being in comatose states where physicians have described them as "persistantly vegetative"? Remember, lots of folks "knew" the earth was flat

(c) the husband has turned down at least $1 million and probably $10 million OK, so he doesn't want to "appear" motovated by money... There was other money to be gained in the timeline of events here. It's a matter of math.

(d) he's gone through 8 years of suffering to try to let her body rest in peace.

Huh? Please explain.

(e) he waited 5 years before starting to live with the woman he is with now.

Woop-D-Stinkin-Do! Wow, what a shining example of spousal dedication. Impressive.

So you don't think he's at all hurt by this? People are out to make this man a murder/villain when ignoring the fact that the courts have sided with him while requiring the closest to "beyond a reasonable doubt" that civil courts offer.

In responce to "probably. But are you sure?" Have you seen her CT scan? She has a huge part of her cerebral cortex liquified. In case you don't know, this is the part of the brain that stores memory, processes inputs (sight, sound), etc. No one has EVER recovered from being in a Persistent Vegitative State. This is different than a coma. I repeat, no one has EVER recovered from such a state.

Also, well done on the rationalizing how the husband turned down the money. If he accepts it, then he was just after the money, but if he doesn't, then he is trying to trick us! Honestly, you can't have it both ways.

What the poster who said d) meant was that he has been in court since 1998 trying to sort this thing out, while having another woman and two children in his life. It does not hurt him at all to allow his wife to live, but he is doing this because it is what she would have wanted.

In your thread about legal issues regarding the case, I don't understand how you can call it "irrational" when in fact there is no alternative in a situation like this.

 

[Caveman]

From the "Abstract Appeal" site... this is neat...

January 1993? Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994? Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998? Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would choose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would choose not to remove the tube

So... we see M. shaivo waiting long enough to get the 1 mil settlement cash... Long after Terri's been a vegetable. But wait... He's so dedicated to seeing that she gets her wishes and that her human rights aren't violated. Does not compute.

Then, he "remembers" what his wife really wanted...

Again, third grade playhouse law at work here to not ask the "obvious, logical" questions...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In this particular case, you could get out your wizard hat and robe.

Stem cells won't help this woman anymore than they are going to build you a house.

 

[Caveman]

So you don't think he's at all hurt by this? People are out to make this man a murder/villain when ignoring the fact that the courts have sided with him while requiring the closest to "beyond a reasonable doubt" that civil courts offer.

In your thread about legal issues regarding the case, I don't understand how you can call it "irrational" when in fact there is no alternative in a situation like this.

Again, I'm not out to condem this man. I'm trying to make sense of all the circumstantial evidence and how we can sentence someone to death with even a shred of doubt (death row example). My point is that even with the "best" that the civil courts can offer will be inherently irrational and baseless if the "law" that they are using to rule the case is flawed. Again... no written proof is necessary here? Common sense would mandate that each person upon turning 18 would have to make a living will. In those "rare" cases when this is not possible due to time and circumstance, why not error on the side of life? Same logic would apply for death row cases.

Is this so hard to figure out?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Caveman
From the "Abstract Appeal" site... this is neat...

January 1993? Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994? Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998? Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would choose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would choose not to remove the tube

So... we see M. shaivo waiting long enough to get the 1 mil settlement cash... Long after Terri's been a vegetable. But wait... He's so dedicated to seeing that she gets her wishes and that her human rights aren't violated. Does not compute.

Then, he "remembers" what his wife really wanted...

Again, third grade playhouse law at work here to not ask the "obvious, logical" questions...

Five years after receiving the settlement, when any hope of any recovery was long, long gone.

 

[Caveman]

Yes, and the world is flat : ) We have a different interpretation of the facts.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Again... no written proof is necessary here? Common sense would mandate that each person upon turning 18 would have to make a living will. In those "rare" cases when this is not possible due to time and circumstance, why not error on the side of life? Same logic would apply for death row cases.

I agree, a living will for all citizens is a good idea.

Until then, the courts have to rely on the evidence that exists. And forcing someone to live against their wishes through extraordinary means is just as bad as allowing them to die.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Caveman
So... we see M. shaivo waiting long enough to get the 1 mil settlement cash... Long after Terri's been a vegetable. But wait... He's so dedicated to seeing that she gets her wishes and that her human rights aren't violated. Does not compute.

Here, read this.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Disregarding any technical feasibilities or if this is even possible.

What if stem cell research could save the lives of people like Terri? What if it could completely restore them 100% memories, personalities, physical abilities and all.

It would take technology that we won't have any time in the enxt several decades.

1. How do you grow back that many nerve cells in an orderly fashion (your body is designed to grow them back, but enough for m aintenance and learning)?
2. How do you get that many cells to make the same kinds of connections that children make when they grow?
3. How do you get them to connect properly to the rets of the brain?
4. How do you get them back to a state that you have no good records of, or much knowledge of, for memories and personality traits?

We WILL NOT be able to do #4. There will be no way, as long as we exist in arrow time, to do that. So you still don't have it.

If stem cells could make a time machine to get all of this done once that tech is figured out...well, you may as well believe Easter has its origins in Christian tradition.

I don't think this hypothetical situation will change anyone's thoughts on stem cell research.