In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
>> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
>> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
>> >
>> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released, then
>> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
>> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
>> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>
>Brain stem functions only, non-cognitive...and certainly no more
>conjectural than your contention.
It's a matter of established fact, not conjecture, that her respiration and
heartbeat continued without the assistance of a machine.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:06:55 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >...
> >
>
> On this point, there seems to be some conflicting testimony.
Several of
> her caregivers testified that some of her actions were of higher
order than
> merely breathing. However, her husband refused to allow anything
that
> resembled therapy or rehab -- example given was that she grasped a
> washcloth and the attending caregiver allowed her to continue to do
so --
> the husband became angered and made her take it away saying, "that's
> therapy and that will not happen!" Could it be that by denying
therapy
> earlier, brain atrophy was exacerbated?
First of all, you wrote that example as though you know it is true.
Had you writen, "There is a report that...." your writing would
have had less emotional impact but the reader could have inferred
that you were being objective, and recognized the limits of your
knowledge.
When I wrote about the condition of her brain I was relying on
an analysis of an image that was presented at the same time.
It may be that the analysis is wrong or the image is not
hers, but there is NO doubt that the image exists.
You refer to an incident that may or may not have occurred
as though it is established fact.
Secondly, there is a school of thought, with good evidence,
that therapy can either reduce atrophy or assist the brain to
sompensate for damage by 'reprogramming' remaining healthy
tissue.
There are two discoveries, perhaps still controversial to
the effect that in some brain conditions atrophy takes place
in a stages. In the first phase, the dendrites that interconnect
the neurons shrivel so that the neurons become isolated. The
second discovery is more controversial. That initial stage is
reversable, even in an adult, the dendritic connections between
neurons can be restored.
However if the atrophy progreses the neurons die. That is
at present, irreversible, though there is hope that someday
stem cell therapy may reverse it.
>
> Of course those who supported the death sentence ...
That choice of words pretty much puts to rest any notion of
objectivity or fairness on your part.
> ...
>
> >On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still
with the
> >body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One
argument
> >is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not
interfere".
> >Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping her
here
> >instead of another place.
> >
>
> If the Lord had other plans for her, the feeding tube would not
have
> prevented taking her to that other place.
Nor would I suppose that you believe God's plan could be defeated
at all, let alone defeated by something so trivial as the removal
of the feeding tube.
--
FF
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:06:55 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I'm just wondering who would have been harmed by keeping the woman
>> alive a little longer... what purpose was served by starving her to death?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
>This is where many arguments and theories come in. Was she truly alive? By
>that, I mean was the cognitive portions of the brain functioning at all.
>
On this point, there seems to be some conflicting testimony. Several of
her caregivers testified that some of her actions were of higher order than
merely breathing. However, her husband refused to allow anything that
resembled therapy or rehab -- example given was that she grasped a
washcloth and the attending caregiver allowed her to continue to do so --
the husband became angered and made her take it away saying, "that's
therapy and that will not happen!" Could it be that by denying therapy
earlier, brain atrophy was exacerbated?
Of course those who supported the death sentence simply respond with, "I
don't believe that". However, when you look at other death sentence cases
(and that is what this was, the judge declared that the woman would die by
dehydration and starvation), if a credible witness is found who might prove
that a death sentence would be unjust, further facts in the case are
probed. In this case, the only thing that seems to have been done is to
obtain the testimony of equal but opposite experts. It surely should have
been possible to produce video testimony of the woman responding to various
stimuli, allowing both sides to show their reasoning.
>On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still with the
>body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One argument
>is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not interfere".
>Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping her here
>instead of another place.
>
If the Lord had other plans for her, the feeding tube would not have
prevented taking her to that other place.
>Should she have been kept alive a little longer? How long should that be
>and at what point should the feeding tube be removed? One purpose served
>from her death is the family can finally move on and resolve that she never
>was going to come back to a near normal life. It has to be difficult for
>both sides.
>
One problem with this line of reasoning is that it carries us down the
road of thought that "some lives are more worth living than others".
That's a road that has no ultimate limit and that widens the farther one
travels down said road. In this particular case, it was easy to gen up an
argument that this woman's life was of very substandard existence indeed.
Want to bet that the next time, the standards will be just a little bit
looser? At some point, the thought process will be extended to those who
are physically functional, but severely mentally limited. There will be
strong support for "mercifully ending the existence of those whose
reasoning capabilities will never reach those of a two-year old". What it
really means is, "we don't want to be burdened with their care (and no, I
have no problem with supporting the state in taking care of those who need
such extraordinary care and not placing this burden solely on the families
and relatives)" ... and so it will go with more and more reasons found for
various elements of society to be "relieved of their pain of existence".
The direction that this is taking should scare those from all sides of
political thought.
Not sure who said it, but one wise person once observed that the morality
and steadfastness of a people could be judged by the way in which they took
care of those least able to take care of themselves. It appears that our
society's answer to that question now appears poised to be to eliminate
them.
>I do not profess to know the answers to any of these questions. Doubt that
>anyone on earth does. Only thing I'm sure of is that the politicians should
>stay out of it.
>
They already were. Do you really believe that just because they were
wearing black robes those making the rulings were no less political than
those elected to serve in other branches of government?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:onlnlowe-
>
> Yeahbut WE have Tonya Harding.
So, have anymore of her 'movies' been floating around? Talk about a
curiosity.
In article <qDr6e.8197$up2.2389@okepread01>,
"Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> And there's something about lovely Floriduh that
> just seems to breed this kind of stuff. You had the whole Elian Gonzales
> thing, the 2000 elections, and now this nonsense. I can only wonder what
> the next one will be...
Yeahbut WE have Tonya Harding.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
In article <[email protected]>,
"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, have anymore of her 'movies' been floating around? Talk about a
> curiosity.
Curiosity? Ack! Not something I'd want to see. She's just a bit to "rode
hard and put up wet." I had forgotten about that episode in her
illustrious journey.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote :
> Of course those who supported the death sentence simply respond with, "I
> don't believe that". However, when you look at other death sentence cases
> (and that is what this was, the judge declared that the woman would die by
> dehydration and starvation),
Well, no. The judge declared that Michael Schiavo had the power to decide
on his wife's treatment, and that his word was the one that mattered.
Michael Schiavo could just as easily have decided to leave the feeding tube
in. You've been sucked in by this "death sentence" nonsense that only
clouds the issue.
> if a credible witness is found who might prove
> that a death sentence would be unjust, further facts in the case are
> probed.
Hm. That's a bit at odds with what has happened in a number of actual
capital cases, where the defense has attempted to get new facts or witnesses
introduced and failed.
> In this case, the only thing that seems to have been done is to
> obtain the testimony of equal but opposite experts. It surely should have
> been possible to produce video testimony of the woman responding to
> various
> stimuli, allowing both sides to show their reasoning.
As I understand it, there was quite a bit of that sort of thing - hours of
tape, far beyond the 5-10 seconds we routinely saw on TV. One would think
that the judge had the opportunity to see it, as did the court-appointed
guardian, a neutral party who also determined that Mrs. Schiavo had left the
building, so to speak.
>>Should she have been kept alive a little longer? How long should that be
>>and at what point should the feeding tube be removed? One purpose served
>>from her death is the family can finally move on and resolve that she
>>never
>>was going to come back to a near normal life. It has to be difficult for
>>both sides.
>>
> One problem with this line of reasoning is that it carries us down the
> road of thought that "some lives are more worth living than others".
> That's a road that has no ultimate limit and that widens the farther one
> travels down said road. In this particular case, it was easy to gen up an
> argument that this woman's life was of very substandard existence indeed.
> Want to bet that the next time, the standards will be just a little bit
> looser?
It seems unlikely. Yeah, there are some whackjobs out there who'd like to
euthanize everyone who's handicapped or whatever, but the overwhelming
majority of the argument revolves around whether terminally ill people or
those who are for all intents and purposes brain-dead should be kept alive
against their own will or that of their next-of-kin.
> At some point, the thought process will be extended to those who
> are physically functional, but severely mentally limited. There will be
> strong support for "mercifully ending the existence of those whose
> reasoning capabilities will never reach those of a two-year old".
If that time were to come, I'd fight alongside you. But allowing Terri
Schiavo to die was not a step forward (or back), or a quantum leap in any
particular direction. You're kidding yourself if you think the case in and
of itself is unique or special. Similar scenarios play out all over this
country all the time, with families and spouses fighting over who gets to
decide whether or not to pull the plug.
The only reason the Schiavo case became the absolute circus it did is
because her parents latched on to the charlatans and hucksters that inhabit
some of the darker corners of conservative media and politics (I mean,
Randall Terry? C'mon!). And there's something about lovely Floriduh that
just seems to breed this kind of stuff. You had the whole Elian Gonzales
thing, the 2000 elections, and now this nonsense. I can only wonder what
the next one will be...
>>I do not profess to know the answers to any of these questions. Doubt
>>that
>>anyone on earth does. Only thing I'm sure of is that the politicians
>>should
>>stay out of it.
>
> They already were. Do you really believe that just because they were
> wearing black robes those making the rulings were no less political than
> those elected to serve in other branches of government?
By that standard, we should just abolish courts of law and allow a mobocracy
of the legislature. You think state-sponsored euthanasia is scary, go down
*that* road. Read up on the Reign of Terror.
Jason
>
>
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
> Army General Richard Cody
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
>>tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
>>brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
>>
>
> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released, then
> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Can't help but add a comment. There is no chance
the autopsy will prove anything one way or the
other. Looking at a dead brain won't provide any
of the sought after information. That was
expressed by experts before she died. Besides our
science has not progressed far enough to look at a
dead brain and tell how it functioned while living.
Brain dead all depends on your definition. Her
autonomic system was functioning, so in one sense
she wasn't brain dead. But most people also use
brain dead for failure of the cognitive functions
and the cognitive function was the focus of the
controversy in this case.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still with
> the body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One
> argument is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not
> interfere". Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping
> her here instead of another place.
That's quite an interesting point - while the Schindlers' supporters seemed
to think that a feeding tube categorically was not life support, but rather
"food and water," the doctors who devised the procedure were at great pains
to point out that feeding someone through a tube was a long time in
development before it became a reality. It's a non-trivial procedure, and I
think it's very much a form of artificial life support.
Jason
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:55:49 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Trying to put off the inevitable, even in death.
A while ago they moved John XXIII's body, that's the grave where
they're planting JP II. I suppose whomever had that task was grateful
if a similar arrangement had been made for the previous tenant.
> >
> >I just don't understand why they didn't hook his meat up to life
support
> >and keep him from rotting for twelve years or so, like he insisted
happen
> >to Schiavo. Doesn't matter if you're braindead, gotta preserve the
meat.
> >
> She wasn't brain-dead.
>
Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
--
FF
Kenneth wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 20:02:29 -0700, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >If they have a practical objection then it is pretty much analogous
> >to rejecting Freud's theories on Scientific grounds, no?
>
> No...<g>
>
> Because the motivation is completely different.
>
Well, you lost me here. I thought it a good analog becuase the
motivation was extremely similar.
BTW, I don't understandd what "<g>" means.
--
FF
On 10 Apr 2005 20:02:29 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:
>If they have a practical objection then it is pretty much analogous
>to rejecting Freud's theories on Scientific grounds, no?
No...<g>
Because the motivation is completely different.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
>
> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
> >
> Conjecture, and probably false.
No, not conjecture, CAT-Scan imagery. "Probably false" is probably
a bald-faced lie.
> When the autopsy results are released, then
> we'll see.
One presumes she did not grow a new brain between the time the scan
was done and the autopsy. I suspect your surces will discount the
autopsy results, claiming they are part of conspiracy or some such.
> Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart
beat,
> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
False. Only the brain stem is required for breathing and heartbeat.
No higher brain functions are involved.
Anencephalic infants can have a heartbeat and breath reflex without
any external support. They don't HAVE a higher brain.
--
FF
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead
brain
> >> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her
higher
> >> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
> >> >
> >> Conjecture, and probably false.
> >
> > No, not conjecture, CAT-Scan imagery. "Probably false" is probably
> > a bald-faced lie.
> >
> >> When the autopsy results are released, then
> >> we'll see.
> >
> > One presumes she did not grow a new brain between the time the scan
> > was done and the autopsy. I suspect your surces will discount the
> > autopsy results, claiming they are part of conspiracy or some such.
> >
> >> Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> >> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart
> > beat,
> >> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
> >
> > False. Only the brain stem is required for breathing and
heartbeat.
> > No higher brain functions are involved.
> >
> > Anencephalic infants can have a heartbeat and breath reflex without
> > any external support. They don't HAVE a higher brain.
>
> But are not Brain Dead. Brain Dead is a medical term denoting the
absence
> of ALL electrical activity in the brain. If you are breathing, you've
got
> electrical activity.
> >
A google search makes it clear that there is no medical consensus on
the meaning of "brain death".
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead
brain
> >> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her
higher
> >> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
> >> >
> >> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are
released, then
> >> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> >> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart
beat,
> >> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
> >
> >Brain stem functions only, non-cognitive...and certainly no more
> >conjectural than your contention.
>
> It's a matter of established fact, not conjecture, that her
respiration and
> heartbeat continued without the assistance of a machine.
>
It is a matter of fact, not conjecture, that heartbeat and respiration
are brain stem functions.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >....
> >> I think that's still somewhat a matter of dispute. The autopsy
should lay
> >> those questions to rest.
> >
> >Don't know how a picture showing essentially nothing remaining in
the
> >cavity could leave it in much dispute.
>
> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
haven't
> seen them myself; have you?
>
Google is your friend:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terri-schiavos-brain/
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/csi_medblogs_co.html
--
FF
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his
butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > A google search makes it clear that there is no medical consensus
on
> > the meaning of "brain death".
> >
> >
>
> <http://www.miaims.missouri.edu/~neuromedicine/braindeath.shtml>
>
> is an example.
>
> FWIW, there is no 'medical consensus' on Anything.
Thanks. That is the most clear and thorough I have seen.
It would seem that Mr Miller is correct, "brain death" can
refer to cessation of all brian activity, including brainstem.
That doesn't change my opinion on the legal, ethical, and moral
correctness of the various court decisions. The courts had two
witnesses, one of them her husband, who testified as to Ms
Schiavo's wishes. Those wishes were well within the realm of
commonly accepted.
--
FF
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > George wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> SDAs apparently don't accept evolution.
> >>
> >
> > Who are SDAa?
>
> Seventh Day Adventists
Thanks. I have a friend (probably more than one) who is a
Seventh Day Adventist. He's also the only person I know who
lost his job because of 'drug screening'.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I
have to
> rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their
doctors
> say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
>
No. I rely on the commentary on the imagery and observe the extent
to which that commentary agrees with the image itself and in how much
detail. On the links I provided, the fellow who calls himself a
radiologist makes some observationas that call into question whether
or not that is really her scan (the shunt). Otherwise, his comments
are pretty general. The guy writing at the first link (my own prior
article hasn't shown up yet on google so this is from memory) where
there is a comparison with a healthy brain, goes into detail about
the apparent condition of the remaining tissue. The radiologist
simply indicates how much is there.
Again, the extent of the void is NOT conjecture.
My experience with imagery of the brain has been that a radiologist
interprets the imagery in terms of the structures that are revealed,
a neurologist then interprets that report in terms of functionality.
Contrary to what you see on TV, I think you'll find that most
doctors do not look at the films until they show them to the
patient or family. OTOH, few radilogists interact with the
patient beyond injecting them with dyes as needed and telling
them to hold still.
It may well be that the Schindler's doctor doesn't think the condition
is as bad as the Schiavo's doctor does. By itself, that tells us
nothing.
I expect both parties to be able to get expert testimony to favor their
viewpoint in court.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article
<[email protected]>, "George
E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article
<[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>Doug Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show.
I
> >>>
> >>>haven't
> >>>
> >>>>seen them myself; have you?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Google is your friend:
> >>>
>
>>>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-te
> >rr
> >>>i-schiavos-brain/
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I
have to
> >> rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers,
their doctors
> >
> >> say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
> >>
> >And you base your opinion on what the Schindlers
> >want/think? It should be quite obvious to any
> >observant person that the Schindlers are in full
> >denial. They think all the doctors, who know much
> >more and had more experience than they do, are
> >wrong. I guess that makes you in full denial also.
>
> It may well be that they are in denial. It may also be that they're
right.
> Unless you've been intimately involved with the case, it's just a
mite
> presumptuous of you to state so boldly that it's "quite obvious"
which is
> which. I'm just wondering who would have been harmed by keeping the
woman
> alive a little longer... what purpose was served by starving her to
death?
>
"A little longer", no harm or at worst only a very little bit of
harm. But her body had been kept alive for 15 years after the fatal
injury to her brain and nearly ten years after the lawyers got
involved. That is way beyond "a little longer".
--
FF
When this thread started, a long time ago, it had at least a few "on
topic" words in it:
Pine and Dovetailed corners.
Just about every one of the 50+ posts I have seen since makes me think
you all have sawdust in your cranial cavities.
Take it some where else!
#1 Your not going to solve your religous / medical debates ever.
#2 You shouldn't be trying to solve them in a woodworking newgroup.
#3 The unfortunate circus that occurred in Florida regarding Terri
Schiavo has nothing to do with the subject of this thread which was
regarding the materials and manufacture of a wooden casket.
Can you see the difference or have you been sniffing the varnish too
long?
No wonder people bitch about all the off-topic posts around here.
Dave Hinz wrote:
> ...
> I have. ...
> The scans I saw were CT scans.
Were these the scans from 1996?
> ... The radio-
> pharmacuticals will tag areas of biological activity. Holes in a
> brain nuclear scan are a dramatic way to see damage in fuction, which
> is useful in addition to damage in structure as a CT will show.
>
> Not having been in that situation, I can't say, but I would think I
would
> have insisted on a nuclear scan to show presence or absence of
activity
> in the very damaged parts of the brain.
>
I too am troubled by the lack of more recent or more thorough imagery.
(assuming that indeed the most recent scans are nearly 10 years old)
--
FF
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
> In article <v_y6e.11313$Xm3.7387@trndny01>,
> "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Don't tell fishermen that... They've been using lead for
decades...
>
> I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
> transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There was
> concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down on
the
> split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife ingestion...
as
> I recall those were the reasons.
>
Bismuth perhaps. IIRC, the Romans used the same word for Bismuth,
Antimony and Lead (Plumdum?) because the properties were so similar
they couldn't actually distinguish between them.
Unfortunately for some Romans toxicology was not their forte.
--
FF
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:55:49 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
>
> > Trying to put off the inevitable, even in death.
>
> I just don't understand why they didn't hook his meat up to life
support
> and keep him from rotting for twelve years or so, like he insisted
happen
> to Schiavo.
He was on a feeding tube as was Schiavo. Schiavo wasn't on any other
life support, and her organs weren't failing. IOW, she wasn't dying.
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
> > > transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There
was
> > > concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down
on
> > the
> > > split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife
ingestion...
> > as
> > > I recall those were the reasons.
> > >
> >
> > Bismuth perhaps. IIRC, the Romans used the same word for Bismuth,
> > Antimony and Lead (Plumdum?) because the properties were so similar
> > they couldn't actually distinguish between them.
> >
> > Unfortunately for some Romans toxicology was not their forte.
> >
>
> Plumbum, thus plumbing. However, a touch of learning will reveal
that lead
> is used in piping because it is extremely unreactive. With the hard
water
> of the area, the amount of lead that could leach out of a water pipe
would
> be almost undetectable by today's technology, and didn't bother them
a bit.
>
> Now lead in an acid environment - ingested - is different, but it
doesn't
> make for good mythology.
But weren't the Romans were fond of fermenting their wine in
lead-lined vessels becuase it came out sweeter that way?
"Sugar of Lead" is an archaic name for lead oxide.
--
FF
Larry Bud wrote:
> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:55:49 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
> >
> > > Trying to put off the inevitable, even in death.
> >
> > I just don't understand why they didn't hook his meat up to life
> support
> > and keep him from rotting for twelve years or so, like he insisted
> happen
> > to Schiavo.
>
> He was on a feeding tube as was Schiavo. Schiavo wasn't on any other
> life support, and her organs weren't failing. IOW, she wasn't dying.
According to reports JPII was on a nasal tube. That is only a
temporary measure because they are uncomfortable and irritating
compared to a PEG. I would presume that Ms Shiavo had a PEG
(stomach tube). An esaphogastonmy tube would be inserted
when needed and withdrawn when not, but as previously noted
esaphogastomies are now rare, replaced by the PEG.
--
FF
X_HOBBES wrote:
>> I noticed the same thing... Very nice dovetail joints, and the
>> cypress will last for a very long time. I didn't know about the
>> outer shells in lead/zinc and Elm. I would have expected it to be
>> more ornate, but perhaps the outer shells are -- still haven't seen
>> them.
>>
>> X_HOBBES
>>
[snip]
Not sure about anything more ornate since the actual spaces for burial are
very limited. Maybe this is a case when bigger is not better.
Josie
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:23:22 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>....
>>> I think that's still somewhat a matter of dispute. The autopsy should lay
>>> those questions to rest.
>>
>>Don't know how a picture showing essentially nothing remaining in the
>>cavity could leave it in much dispute.
>
> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I haven't
> seen them myself; have you?
I have. And I've looked at a _lot_ of brain scans. It's an axial view
through the area where the cerebral cortex should be. The ventricles
(fluid-filled spaces, kind of butterfly shaped) have expanded nearly
out to the skull, showing that where previously there had been cerebral
cortex, there was nothing but cerebro-spinal fluid. The cerebral cortex
is what makes you you, the brain stem handles lowest level controls
such as breathing, digestion, pumping of blood - the cerebellum handles
voluntary motion. (oversimplified but basically accurate).
The scans I saw were CT scans. They showed the metal which precluded
an MRI scan. A nuclear scan would have been very telling - since you
couldn't do MRI (due to the metal), a nuclear scan would have been the
next best thing to see biochemical activity in the brain. The radio-
pharmacuticals will tag areas of biological activity. Holes in a
brain nuclear scan are a dramatic way to see damage in fuction, which
is useful in addition to damage in structure as a CT will show.
Not having been in that situation, I can't say, but I would think I would
have insisted on a nuclear scan to show presence or absence of activity
in the very damaged parts of the brain.
Dave Hinz
(worked in engineering on medical scanners for about a decade)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:21:13 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
>>haven't
>>> seen them myself; have you?
>>>
>>
>>Google is your friend:
>>
>>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terr
>>i-schiavos-brain/
>
> Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I have to
> rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their doctors
> say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
Well, fluid isn't brain, Doug.
On 11 Apr 2005 05:01:42 -0700, Pig <[email protected]> wrote:
> Right on. I am sick and tired of Terri this and Terri that. The poor
> woman's condition and wishes were made into a disgusting and sickening
> circus by Dubya, Congress and the religious right. Folks will remember
> come November.
I've got more important issues to decide my vote on, rather than
this one.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:04:11 GMT, Joe AutoDrill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hopefully zinc... lead wouldn't be too healthy.
>
> Don't tell fishermen that... They've been using lead for decades...
Well, centuries. But, besides, it's not going to hurt the pope any.
Lead caskets have been in use since at least Roman times.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:49:09 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <v_y6e.11313$Xm3.7387@trndny01>,
> "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't tell fishermen that... They've been using lead for decades...
>
> I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
> transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There was
> concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down on the
> split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife ingestion... as
> I recall those were the reasons.
You should be aware that some of those "concerns" were a back-door attempt
by the anti-hunting folks at a roundabout gun-control scheme.
Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
> >
> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released, then
> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
Brain stem functions only, non-cognitive...and certainly no more
conjectural than your contention.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:42:09 -0500, "Jason Quick"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Which is, really, immaterial. Whether he accepted his own theories or not
>has no bearing on their validity.
But, validity is not the appropriate dimension along which
to assess his, or any other theory. Utility is.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
On 11 Apr 2005 07:30:49 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:
>
>Kenneth wrote:
>> On 10 Apr 2005 20:02:29 -0700, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If they have a practical objection then it is pretty much analogous
>> >to rejecting Freud's theories on Scientific grounds, no?
>>
>> No...<g>
>>
>> Because the motivation is completely different.
>>
>
>Well, you lost me here. I thought it a good analog becuase the
>motivation was extremely similar.
>
>BTW, I don't understandd what "<g>" means.
Hi,
"<g>" is the Usenet "grin."
I just wanted to be sure that there was nothing heavy about
this for me...
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
> >> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
> >> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
> >> >
> >> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released, then
> >> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> >> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
> >> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
> >
> >Brain stem functions only, non-cognitive...and certainly no more
> >conjectural than your contention.
>
> It's a matter of established fact, not conjecture, that her respiration and
> heartbeat continued without the assistance of a machine.
That is a non-cognitive function of the brain <stem>...you're relying on
there being any function whereas the chance of any cognitive recovery
was hopeless as the pictures shown of brain scans taken several years
prior clearly showed, as earlier posted noted, atrophying of the the
brain itself. While a tragic situation, there was absolutely no hope of
anything better.
Doug Miller wrote:
...
> I think that's still somewhat a matter of dispute. The autopsy should lay
> those questions to rest.
Don't know how a picture showing essentially nothing remaining in the
cavity could leave it in much dispute.
As someone else noted, there undoubtedly will be those who'll continue
to claim those results are wrong, too...too many are seeing this through
their belief system rather than their logical minds.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:44:04 -0700, the inscrutable Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> spake:
>In article <qDr6e.8197$up2.2389@okepread01>,
> "Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And there's something about lovely Floriduh that
>> just seems to breed this kind of stuff. You had the whole Elian Gonzales
>> thing, the 2000 elections, and now this nonsense. I can only wonder what
>> the next one will be...
>
>Yeahbut WE have Tonya Harding.
And that falsely-arrested-as-a-terrorist Poatland attorney.
And we got Mormons. Lots of 'em. And...
----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
haven't
> seen them myself; have you?
>
Yep, or what purported to be. Showed fluid where the brain used to be.
I see blood intruding in MRI/CT fairly often, so if they were hers, she was
bad off.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > It's a matter of established fact, not conjecture, that her
> respiration and
> > heartbeat continued without the assistance of a machine.
> >
>
> It is a matter of fact, not conjecture, that heartbeat and respiration
> are brain stem functions.
>
Was teaching a class of EMTs-to-be one night and used evolution of the organ
to help understand the brain and the sites for various functions. Had a
couple of sour-lookers out in the class, so I checked with some of the
others. SDAs apparently don't accept evolution. Stem is really the first
electrical center, and takes care of almost all autonomic functions.
Somatic higher, then some senses and sensibility on top.
When I gave the evolution of the mammalian heart as a key to understanding
the various electrical paths, they looked sour again, but the rest said it
made things easier to understand....
Doug Miller wrote:
>
...
>
> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I haven't
> seen them myself; have you?
At least what were purported to be on one of the networks--I don't
recall which one, but w/ commentary by a neurologist who (if I got the
credits correct) had examined her case earlier. To me, assuming they
were both genuine and not doctored (so to speak) and I have no reason to
think they were, it didn't even take an expert to see there was
functioning brain mass of any consequence remaining--the cranial area
was mostly solid indicating fluid, not brain tissue.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still with
the
> body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One
argument
> is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not interfere".
> Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping her here
> instead of another place.
>
Interesting that the Greek/Roman tradition, as well as the Orthodox Jewish,
regards breath as life. Anima , Latin for soul/life/breath, derives from
the Greek anemos - wind or breath. If they can breathe, they are alive.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
> > transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There was
> > concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down on
> the
> > split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife ingestion...
> as
> > I recall those were the reasons.
> >
>
> Bismuth perhaps. IIRC, the Romans used the same word for Bismuth,
> Antimony and Lead (Plumdum?) because the properties were so similar
> they couldn't actually distinguish between them.
>
> Unfortunately for some Romans toxicology was not their forte.
>
Plumbum, thus plumbing. However, a touch of learning will reveal that lead
is used in piping because it is extremely unreactive. With the hard water
of the area, the amount of lead that could leach out of a water pipe would
be almost undetectable by today's technology, and didn't bother them a bit.
Now lead in an acid environment - ingested - is different, but it doesn't
make for good mythology.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> But weren't the Romans were fond of fermenting their wine in
> lead-lined vessels becuase it came out sweeter that way?
> "Sugar of Lead" is an archaic name for lead oxide.
>
Ceramic glazes had lead in 'em, that's for sure, and they stored in glazed
amphorae. Wine being acid - well, could be.
http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html is
a fairly reasoned analysis.
Germans adulterated their whites with ethylene glycol to sweeten them, too.
Nothing's too weird for an oenophile.
I'm more inclined to think that entitlements of Roman Citizens and their
addiction to _them_ were more to blame for the decline of the leisure
classes.
I noticed the same thing... Very nice dovetail joints, and the cypress will
last for a very long time. I didn't know about the outer shells in
lead/zinc and Elm. I would have expected it to be more ornate, but perhaps
the outer shells are -- still haven't seen them.
X_HOBBES
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 03:53:08 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Was I the only one who noticed that the Popes casket was made of Pine
and
> >> had Dovetailed corners?
> >>
> >> I wonder who made it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually he was put in a Cypress casket, that was put in a Lead casket
and
> >finally those were put in an Elm casket. The Elm being the outer of the
3.
> >
> I guess they really want to make sure he doesn't get out of that sucker.:)
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:21:44 -0400, "firstjois" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>X_HOBBES wrote:
>>> I noticed the same thing... Very nice dovetail joints, and the
>>> cypress will last for a very long time. I didn't know about the
>>> outer shells in lead/zinc and Elm. I would have expected it to be
>>> more ornate, but perhaps the outer shells are -- still haven't seen
>>> them.
>>>
>>> X_HOBBES
>>>
>[snip]
>
>Not sure about anything more ornate since the actual spaces for burial are
>very limited. Maybe this is a case when bigger is not better.
>
The Pope requested to be buried in the earth. An unusual request.
Earth is in very short supply at the Vatican.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released,
> then
> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
Some portion of the brain did function. What is not know (at least not yet)
is what portions did and was she able to comprehend anything. While some
body function continued, was she still "alive" and what determines "life" as
we define it. Long philosophical, theological and physiological debates will
continue for years on this matter.
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:13:24 -0400, Kenneth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>According to many news reports:
>
>Cypress --> Zinc --> Walnut.
According to many others:
Cypress--> Zinc --> Oak.
I've also seen:
Cypress--> Zinc --> Pine, or Pine --> Zinc --> Cypress.
How many news reporters are able to identify woods by sight? To me it
looked like it could be either oak or pine, but almost certainly not
walnut.
Your guess is as good as mine at this point.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> George wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> SDAs apparently don't accept evolution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who are SDAa?
>>
>> Seventh Day Adventists
Students for Democratic Action?
See: http://www.susqu.edu/facstaff/r/richard/Frog_skin.html
"Double pith a frog. There are several ways to do this. Firmly grasping the
frog in one hand, quickly push a sharp metal probe through the skin from
the back of the neck up into the brain. move the pointer tip around in the
brain to destroy it. This is then a single pithed frog, one in which all
higher brain function has been destroyed. Then, you can take the pointer
and insert it into the spinal column and push it down until the legs extend
and then relax. This is then a double pithed frog, one in which both higher
brain function and reflex function is destroyed. The pointer should be long
enough to reach the end of the spinal column, and should be easy to insert.
If it is not easy, then the probe is probably outside the column."
The brain is a multipart organ and what the person is or isn't can or can't
do depends on the area damaged.
Makes me wonder that our congresspeople did in high school biology.
Josie
"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was I the only one who noticed that the Popes casket was made of Pine and
> had Dovetailed corners?
>
> I wonder who made it?
>
>
>
Actually he was put in a Cypress casket, that was put in a Lead casket and
finally those were put in an Elm casket. The Elm being the outer of the 3.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>It would seem that Mr Miller is correct, "brain death" can
>refer to cessation of all brian activity, including brainstem.
>
>That doesn't change my opinion on the legal, ethical, and moral
>correctness of the various court decisions. The courts had two
>witnesses, one of them her husband, who testified as to Ms
>Schiavo's wishes. Those wishes were well within the realm of
>commonly accepted.
However, Mike Schiavo didn't make known his recollection of that conversation
until some years after it was alleged to have taken place. During the first
several years of her disability, he apparently never thought to mention that
to anyone. That, combined with his apparent financial interest in her demise,
perhaps should have raised a bit more skepticism with the court than it did.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Well, fluid isn't brain, Doug.
>>
> Of course I understand that. The medical question is the degree of
> cognitive
> function that she had remaining.
While there is certainly some room for debate, when the overwhelming
majority of one's cerebral cortex is missing, including most all of the
relevant bits that handle speech, thought processes, etc., it would not be
at all unreasonable to conclude that there's nothing going on up there,
correct?
> Then there's the ethical question: is it
> right to deprive a living human being of sustenance, based on that
> person's
> level of cognitive function?
Certainly, if they express a wish to not exist in that state. I would argue
that we have a duty, in fact, to honor a person's wishes inasmuch as
possible. That of course is the crux of the issue, really - what did she
want, and when did she want it? If her wishes were not in fact expressed
while she was, uh, interactive, should the spouse be allowed to determine
the course of action in any case? My take is that in the absence of any
reasons to restrict spousal rights in this situation (i.e. evidence of
abuse, pending divorce, etc), the spouse should have a nearly absolute right
to decide what goes.
And as for the abuse suggestions that have been made - the sort of physical
trauma that it would take to put someone into the state Terri Schiavo was in
would be immediately evident to a doctor, I'd think, and Michael Schiavo
would've had his rights restricted long ago.
Jason
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>....
>> I think that's still somewhat a matter of dispute. The autopsy should lay
>> those questions to rest.
>
>Don't know how a picture showing essentially nothing remaining in the
>cavity could leave it in much dispute.
I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I haven't
seen them myself; have you?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
>> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
>> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
>> >
>> Conjecture, and probably false.
>
>No, not conjecture, CAT-Scan imagery. "Probably false" is probably
>a bald-faced lie.
I believe that there is some dispute over what that CAT scan actually showed.
As I said...
>
>> When the autopsy results are released, then
>> we'll see.
>
>One presumes she did not grow a new brain between the time the scan
>was done and the autopsy. I suspect your surces will discount the
>autopsy results, claiming they are part of conspiracy or some such.
When the autopsy results are released, then we'll see.
>
>> Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
>> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart
>beat,
>> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>
>False. Only the brain stem is required for breathing and heartbeat.
>No higher brain functions are involved.
Not false at all. You evidently don't understand what "brain-dead" means.
>
>Anencephalic infants can have a heartbeat and breath reflex without
>any external support. They don't HAVE a higher brain.
That is NOT the same as being brain-dead.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <gD%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>
Well, that's true. But only if you count the "reptile" brain. That's
what controls the automatic functions. That's not the part that does
any thinking.
And, like you, I suggest we wait for the autopsy report. Of course,
whatever it is, one side will claim it was faked. I wouldn't want to be
that coroner :-).
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description
In article <K5z6e.8218$up2.3668@okepread01>, "Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Well, fluid isn't brain, Doug.
>>>
>> Of course I understand that. The medical question is the degree of
>> cognitive
>> function that she had remaining.
>
>While there is certainly some room for debate, when the overwhelming
>majority of one's cerebral cortex is missing, including most all of the
>relevant bits that handle speech, thought processes, etc., it would not be
>at all unreasonable to conclude that there's nothing going on up there,
>correct?
Perhaps; but then we come to the second question:
>
>> Then there's the ethical question: is it
>> right to deprive a living human being of sustenance, based on that
>> person's
>> level of cognitive function?
>
>Certainly, if they express a wish to not exist in that state. I would argue
>that we have a duty, in fact, to honor a person's wishes inasmuch as
>possible. That of course is the crux of the issue, really - what did she
>want, and when did she want it? If her wishes were not in fact expressed
>while she was, uh, interactive, should the spouse be allowed to determine
>the course of action in any case? My take is that in the absence of any
>reasons to restrict spousal rights in this situation (i.e. evidence of
>abuse, pending divorce, etc), the spouse should have a nearly absolute right
>to decide what goes.
Apparently you don't consider shacking up with another woman for seven years,
fathering two children by her, to be sufficient reason to restrict the husband
from making such decisions? Doesn't seem to me that he was too interested in
behaving like a spouse.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>
>>>I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
>>
>>haven't
>>
>>>seen them myself; have you?
>>>
>>
>>Google is your friend:
>>
>>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terr
>>i-schiavos-brain/
>
>
> Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I have to
> rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their doctors
> say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
And you base your opinion on what the Schindlers
want/think? It should be quite obvious to any
observant person that the Schindlers are in full
denial. They think all the doctors, who know much
more and had more experience than they do, are
wrong. I guess that makes you in full denial also.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:gzY5e.17147
> >to Schiavo. Doesn't matter if you're braindead, gotta preserve the meat.
> >
> She wasn't brain-dead.
As well, the pope's body was failing in a number of ways. Total life support
would not have been possible either.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>
> Actually he was put in a Cypress casket, that was put in a Lead casket and
> finally those were put in an Elm casket. The Elm being the outer of the
> 3.
I guess the material depends on the news network.
cypress is a constant
Second layer is either lead or zinc, or just a lining of the outer casket.
Outer casket is either Walnut, Oak, or Elm. It may or may not be lined with
the above metal.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
>> >> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
>> >> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
>> >> >
>> >> Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released,
> then
>> >> we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
>> >> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
>> >> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>> >
>> >Brain stem functions only, non-cognitive...and certainly no more
>> >conjectural than your contention.
>>
>> It's a matter of established fact, not conjecture, that her respiration and
>> heartbeat continued without the assistance of a machine.
>
>That is a non-cognitive function of the brain <stem>...
But it's also a clear demonstration that the brain is not *dead*.
>you're relying on
>there being any function whereas the chance of any cognitive recovery
>was hopeless as the pictures shown of brain scans taken several years
>prior clearly showed, as earlier posted noted, atrophying of the the
>brain itself. While a tragic situation, there was absolutely no hope of
>anything better.
I think that's still somewhat a matter of dispute. The autopsy should lay
those questions to rest.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 21:37:14 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:06:55 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >...
> >> >
> >>
> >> On this point, there seems to be some conflicting testimony.
> >Several of
> >> her caregivers testified that some of her actions were of higher
> >order than
> >> merely breathing. However, her husband refused to allow anything
> >that
> >> resembled therapy or rehab -- example given was that she grasped a
> >> washcloth and the attending caregiver allowed her to continue to
do
> >so --
> >> the husband became angered and made her take it away saying,
"that's
> >> therapy and that will not happen!" Could it be that by denying
> >therapy
> >> earlier, brain atrophy was exacerbated?
> >
> >First of all, you wrote that example as though you know it is true.
> >Had you writen, "There is a report that...." your writing would
> >have had less emotional impact but the reader could have inferred
> >that you were being objective, and recognized the limits of your
> >knowledge.
>
> I wrote that example as it was stated by one of the witnesses. I
thought
> that was clear from my writing.
And gave the impression that you accepted what that witness said,
without question.
>
> >
> >When I wrote about the condition of her brain I was relying on
> >an analysis of an image that was presented at the same time.
> >It may be that the analysis is wrong or the image is not
> >hers, but there is NO doubt that the image exists.
> >
>
> And this is different from my citing the testimony from one of the
> personal caregivers, how?
When I first made the statement, not at all different. I comitted
the same error. Since then I've indicated sources. Per Mr
Miller's request, I posted ilnks to two somewhat different
interpretations of the imagery. When he asked, if I could
interpret them independently (my paraphrasal) I told him no,
and explained why I favored one over the other.
>
> >You refer to an incident that may or may not have occurred
> >as though it is established fact.
> >
>
> I cited this as an example given by one of the witnesses,
Without a citation, one does not see that as citring a witness.
> ... testimony
> of one witness who indicated she had cared for the person in question
and
> one example of several that she had cited indicating to her that
there was
> more than just mere brainstem activity in process.
Actually, this is the first time I have read that the witness
testified. It is still not clear if you mean testified in the
formal legal sense, under oath, or in the common sense.
> >>
> >> If the Lord had other plans for her, the feeding tube would not
> >have
> >> prevented taking her to that other place.
> >
> >Nor would I suppose that you believe God's plan could be defeated
> >at all, let alone defeated by something so trivial as the removal
> >of the feeding tube.
>
>
> One of the things I have observed about you in your various
contributions
> to the various discussion threads that have occurred in this group is
that
> you take a very superior, condescending attitude towards the various
> posters
I have observed the same of yourselves, though I think it would be
fair to add that we both sometimes add in a bit of contempt.
> and attempt to inject the notion that you have arrived at all of
> your opinions by making a careful, solemn study of all aspects of the
> various topics under discussion, then arrived at your conclusions via
a
> rational, logical analysis and that if others would only do the same,
they
> would arrive at the same conclusions.
Here my observations of yourself are different. You seem to simply
be presenting conclusions you have been told by people you respect.
> Funny thing is, I can always tell
> what your opinion is going to be; seems like someone who has
undertaken
> such a detached, impartial study would occasionally align with other
> schools of thought --I haven't seen that happen. A more cynical
person
> would suspect that there perhaps there is an underlying worldview
towards
> which your analyses always tend to arrive.
>
Here again, my observations of yourselves mirror your observations
of myself. However, I am not aware of being 'aligned' with any
particular single school of thought, I suppose I may be aligned
with many.
--
FF
On 10 Apr 2005 21:37:14 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 03:06:55 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >
>>
>> On this point, there seems to be some conflicting testimony.
>Several of
>> her caregivers testified that some of her actions were of higher
>order than
>> merely breathing. However, her husband refused to allow anything
>that
>> resembled therapy or rehab -- example given was that she grasped a
>> washcloth and the attending caregiver allowed her to continue to do
>so --
>> the husband became angered and made her take it away saying, "that's
>> therapy and that will not happen!" Could it be that by denying
>therapy
>> earlier, brain atrophy was exacerbated?
>
>First of all, you wrote that example as though you know it is true.
>Had you writen, "There is a report that...." your writing would
>have had less emotional impact but the reader could have inferred
>that you were being objective, and recognized the limits of your
>knowledge.
I wrote that example as it was stated by one of the witnesses. I thought
that was clear from my writing.
>
>When I wrote about the condition of her brain I was relying on
>an analysis of an image that was presented at the same time.
>It may be that the analysis is wrong or the image is not
>hers, but there is NO doubt that the image exists.
>
And this is different from my citing the testimony from one of the
personal caregivers, how?
>You refer to an incident that may or may not have occurred
>as though it is established fact.
>
I cited this as an example given by one of the witnesses, it has the same
veracity as the expert witness you cite who may or may not have been
correct and who may or may not have examined an image of what may or may
not have been from Terry Schaivo. When you originally cited this expert
testimony, you cited it as fact. i.e, you indicated that her brain had
been examined by CAT scan and had been found to have been absorbed by her
body. Nowhere in my cite did I go anywhere beyond indicating the testimony
of one witness who indicated she had cared for the person in question and
one example of several that she had cited indicating to her that there was
more than just mere brainstem activity in process.
>Secondly, there is a school of thought, with good evidence,
>that therapy can either reduce atrophy or assist the brain to
>sompensate for damage by 'reprogramming' remaining healthy
>tissue.
>
>There are two discoveries, perhaps still controversial to
>the effect that in some brain conditions atrophy takes place
>in a stages. In the first phase, the dendrites that interconnect
>the neurons shrivel so that the neurons become isolated. The
>second discovery is more controversial. That initial stage is
>reversable, even in an adult, the dendritic connections between
>neurons can be restored.
>
>However if the atrophy progreses the neurons die. That is
>at present, irreversible, though there is hope that someday
>stem cell therapy may reverse it.
>
>>
>> Of course those who supported the death sentence ...
>
>That choice of words pretty much puts to rest any notion of
>objectivity or fairness on your part.
>
... and it was darn well intended to remove any doubt as to my opinion of
the action that was taken regarding this woman. To discuss the dehydration
and starvation of a human being in some detached fashion seems quite
inhuman. There was way too much of that in the various news stories, using
the terms "persistent vegetative state" and "braindead" with the intent of
making this appear to be the simple disconnection of a person from life
support.
>
>> ...
>>
>> >On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still
>with the
>> >body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One
>argument
>> >is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not
>interfere".
>> >Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping her
>here
>> >instead of another place.
>> >
>>
>> If the Lord had other plans for her, the feeding tube would not
>have
>> prevented taking her to that other place.
>
>Nor would I suppose that you believe God's plan could be defeated
>at all, let alone defeated by something so trivial as the removal
>of the feeding tube.
One of the things I have observed about you in your various contributions
to the various discussion threads that have occurred in this group is that
you take a very superior, condescending attitude towards the various
posters and attempt to inject the notion that you have arrived at all of
your opinions by making a careful, solemn study of all aspects of the
various topics under discussion, then arrived at your conclusions via a
rational, logical analysis and that if others would only do the same, they
would arrive at the same conclusions. Funny thing is, I can always tell
what your opinion is going to be; seems like someone who has undertaken
such a detached, impartial study would occasionally align with other
schools of thought --I haven't seen that happen. A more cynical person
would suspect that there perhaps there is an underlying worldview towards
which your analyses always tend to arrive.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I don't think the Pope has to worry about his health much anymore.
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Second layer is either lead or zinc
>
> Hopefully zinc... lead wouldn't be too healthy.
> --
> Owen Lowe
> The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> ____
>
> "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
> Corporate States of America and to the
> Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
> under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
> and justice for oil."
> - Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
Conan The Librarian <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> ObWW -- I made my own trout net a couple of months ago. It was my
> first attempt at steam-bending and laminating wood, and I learned
> quite a bit (especially what *not* to do). In the end I got a
> serviceable net:
>
Spiffy frame there, Chuck. Is there any evidence that it works?
Patriarch
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
>haven't
>> seen them myself; have you?
>>
>
>Google is your friend:
>
>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terr
>i-schiavos-brain/
Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I have to
rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their doctors
say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>"A little longer", no harm or at worst only a very little bit of
>harm. But her body had been kept alive for 15 years after the fatal
>injury to her brain and nearly ten years after the lawyers got
>involved. That is way beyond "a little longer".
The brain injury was not fatal. She died because they stopped giving her food
and water.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On 11 Apr 2005 14:02:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
>> In article <v_y6e.11313$Xm3.7387@trndny01>,
>> "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't tell fishermen that... They've been using lead for
>decades...
>>
>> I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
>> transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There was
>> concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down on
>the
>> split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife ingestion...
>as
>> I recall those were the reasons.
>>
>
>Bismuth perhaps. IIRC, the Romans used the same word for Bismuth,
>Antimony and Lead (Plumdum?) because the properties were so similar
>they couldn't actually distinguish between them.
>
>Unfortunately for some Romans toxicology was not their forte.
Yeah, their penchant for wine sweetened with "lead salts" was a bit of a
strategic blunder.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> ...
>
>>I think that's still somewhat a matter of dispute. The autopsy should lay
>>those questions to rest.
>
>
> Don't know how a picture showing essentially nothing remaining in the
> cavity could leave it in much dispute.
>
> As someone else noted, there undoubtedly will be those who'll continue
> to claim those results are wrong, too...too many are seeing this through
> their belief system rather than their logical minds.
Whoa! You mean people have logical minds? Could
have fooled me.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:21:44 -0400, "firstjois" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>X_HOBBES wrote:
>>>> I noticed the same thing... Very nice dovetail joints, and the
>>>> cypress will last for a very long time. I didn't know about the
>>>> outer shells in lead/zinc and Elm. I would have expected it to be
>>>> more ornate, but perhaps the outer shells are -- still haven't seen
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> X_HOBBES
>>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Not sure about anything more ornate since the actual spaces for burial are
>>very limited. Maybe this is a case when bigger is not better.
>>
> The Pope requested to be buried in the earth. An unusual request.
> Earth is in very short supply at the Vatican.
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4424477.stm The link shows the
coffin being lowered into the crypt. Everyone seems agreed the inner coffin
is cypress but judging by the picture the whole thing can't be THAT heavy as
the coffin is suspended between two aluminium scaffold towers spanned with a
wooden beam as it's lowered into the crypt. So it can't be lead can it...?
so zinc. Difficult to say what the outer coffin is made of but it does look
like oak.
grumble
Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
> I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
> transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There was
> concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down on the
> split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife ingestion... as
> I recall those were the reasons.
I think the main reason was the last one you mention, specifically
the possible danger to waterfowl. Lead-free or "non-toxic" weights are
commonly made of bismuth, steel, tin or tungsten, and are increasingly
popular among flyfishermen.
Some areas go as far as prohibiting the use of lead weights
(Yellowstone Park, for instance).
ObWW -- I made my own trout net a couple of months ago. It was my
first attempt at steam-bending and laminating wood, and I learned quite
a bit (especially what *not* to do). In the end I got a serviceable net:
http://uweb.txstate.edu/~cv01/net01.jpg
http://uweb.txstate.edu/~cv01/net02.jpg
http://uweb.txstate.edu/~cv01/net03.jpg
http://uweb.txstate.edu/~cv01/net04.jpg
Chuck Vance (who apologizes for the lack of Schiavo content)
Patriarch wrote:
> Spiffy frame there, Chuck.
Thanks. It was fun to make (in an odd highly-stressful sort of
way). :-)
> Is there any evidence that it works?
Er ... not yet. :-) Haven't had a chance to do much fishing
recently, but that will be remedied soon. SWMBO and I are heading to
Sedona next week, so I'll get to flyfish Oak Creek a bit. Then in June
I'm off to North Carolina to flyfish for wild trout in and around the
Smokies.
I'll try to remember to get some pics of it in action. :-)
Chuck Vance
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
>> >tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
>> >brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
>> >
>> Conjecture, and probably false.
>
> No, not conjecture, CAT-Scan imagery. "Probably false" is probably
> a bald-faced lie.
>
>> When the autopsy results are released, then
>> we'll see.
>
> One presumes she did not grow a new brain between the time the scan
> was done and the autopsy. I suspect your surces will discount the
> autopsy results, claiming they are part of conspiracy or some such.
>
>> Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
>> unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart
> beat,
>> without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>
> False. Only the brain stem is required for breathing and heartbeat.
> No higher brain functions are involved.
>
> Anencephalic infants can have a heartbeat and breath reflex without
> any external support. They don't HAVE a higher brain.
But are not Brain Dead. Brain Dead is a medical term denoting the absence
of ALL electrical activity in the brain. If you are breathing, you've got
electrical activity.
>
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 03:53:08 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Was I the only one who noticed that the Popes casket was made of Pine and
>> had Dovetailed corners?
>>
>> I wonder who made it?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually he was put in a Cypress casket, that was put in a Lead casket and
>finally those were put in an Elm casket. The Elm being the outer of the 3.
>
I guess they really want to make sure he doesn't get out of that sucker.:)
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 03:53:08 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Was I the only one who noticed that the Popes casket was made of Pine and
>> had Dovetailed corners?
>>
>> I wonder who made it?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually he was put in a Cypress casket, that was put in a Lead casket and
>finally those were put in an Elm casket. The Elm being the outer of the 3.
>
Howdy,
According to many news reports:
Cypress --> Zinc --> Walnut.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Indeed, Terri Shiavo was beyond brain-dead, much of the dead brain
>tissue had been absorbed into her body. What was left of her higher
>brain was severely atrophied. She was nearly anencephalic.
>
Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released, then
we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:55:49 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
>
>> Trying to put off the inevitable, even in death.
>
>I just don't understand why they didn't hook his meat up to life support
>and keep him from rotting for twelve years or so, like he insisted happen
>to Schiavo. Doesn't matter if you're braindead, gotta preserve the meat.
>
She wasn't brain-dead.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:27:54 -0700, "David F. Eisan"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Was I the only one who noticed that the Popes casket was made of Pine and
>had Dovetailed corners?
>
>I wonder who made it?
Local artisans, I guess. I'll bet the Vatican is a big enough
organisation to have a few on the staff.
According to the TV I watched, it was Cypress. Doesn't matter, it
won't be burnt!
Barry Lennox
Kenneth wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:13:28 -0400, "George" <george@least>
> wrote:
>
> >Was teaching a class of EMTs-to-be one night and used evolution of
the organ
> >to help understand the brain and the sites for various functions.
Had a
> >couple of sour-lookers out in the class, so I checked with some of
the
> >others. SDAs apparently don't accept evolution.
>
> Howdy,
>
> I am a psychologist by trade, and often teach folks certain
> aspects of Freud's theories. I start by explaining that
> theories are best understood as "tools" rather than
> "truths", and, as such, should be assessed in terms of their
> utility rather than their veracity.
>
> When someone tells me that they don't "accept" Freud (or as
> in your example, "evolution") I hear it as if they had told
> me that they don't accept "chisels" or "glue." (Whew, with
> that, we are back On Topic.<g>)
>
Some people don't accept chisels or glue, or don't accept
particular chisels or particular glues, meaning that they
won't use them, consider them to be unsuitable for a
particular job, or have some other material or philosphical
objection.
Which I daresay is a perfect extension of your analogy.
In Science, which may or may not include psychology, I have
had correspondence from psychologists who deny that psychology
is a Science, a theory is useful if it may be used to generate
testable hypotheses. Scientists 'believe in' theories whose
predictions are then confirmed by subsequent experimentation or
observation.
This is where Religion usually parts from Science. Most of
the hypotheses generated by Religions are untestable, or when
tested, the outcome is unobservable by the living.
--
FF
Jason Quick wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still
with
> > the body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions?
One
> > argument is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not
> > interfere". Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is
keeping
> > her here instead of another place.
>
> That's quite an interesting point - while the Schindlers' supporters
seemed
> to think that a feeding tube categorically was not life support, but
rather
> "food and water," the doctors who devised the procedure were at great
pains
> to point out that feeding someone through a tube was a long time in
> development before it became a reality. It's a non-trivial
procedure, and I
> think it's very much a form of artificial life support.
>
The predecessor to the modern feeding tube was the esophagastomy,
an opening through the neck into the esophagus that allowed food
and water to bypass the mouth. It was developed over a century
ago to allow people with severe facial injuries to receive food
and water.
The stomach tube now used is actually a simpler procedure which
is one reason it has become the standard.
For Terri Schiavo seminal issue was not how difficult or expensive
it was to keep her body going, the seminal issue was "What was it
that was being preserved?" Most of our disagreements are disagreements
as to the facts, not the principles.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
>
> >"A little longer", no harm or at worst only a very little bit of
> >harm. But her body had been kept alive for 15 years after the fatal
> >injury to her brain and nearly ten years after the lawyers got
> >involved. That is way beyond "a little longer".
>
> The brain injury was not fatal. She died because they stopped giving
> her food and water.
>
Agreed it was not immediately fatal. But absent invasive life support,
like a feeding tube (although a stomach tube is less traumatic than
one might at first suppose) it was ultimately fatal.
--
FF
Jason Quick wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote :
>
> > In article <K5z6e.8218$up2.3668@okepread01>, "Jason Quick"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > Apparently you don't consider shacking up with another woman for
seven
> > years,
Which means they moved in togeher eight years after Terri's demise.
> > fathering two children by her, to be sufficient reason to restrict
the
> > husband
> > from making such decisions?
>
> No. Think about it for a second - why on earth wouldn't the man just
have
> divorced her, and left her to the care of her deranged parents?
>
Depending on State law, that might not get him off the hook
financially. I don't know one way or the other.
> > Doesn't seem to me that he was too interested in
> > behaving like a spouse.
>
> Maybe
> he's a shit-heel, I dunno, but AIUI he *did* spend a few years trying
to get
> her in better shape, and when the attempts failed to bear fruit, he
moved
> on.
Or maybe the Schindlers are. Maybe all of them or none.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >"A little longer", no harm or at worst only a very little bit of
>> >harm. But her body had been kept alive for 15 years after the fatal
>> >injury to her brain and nearly ten years after the lawyers got
>> >involved. That is way beyond "a little longer".
>>
>> The brain injury was not fatal. She died because they stopped giving
>> her food and water.
>>
>
>Agreed it was not immediately fatal. But absent invasive life support,
>like a feeding tube (although a stomach tube is less traumatic than
>one might at first suppose) it was ultimately fatal.
>
"Invasive life support." That kinda says it all.
I'm glad that you'll never be in the position of making health-care decisions
that affect me or my family.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:13:28 -0400, "George" <george@least>
wrote:
>Was teaching a class of EMTs-to-be one night and used evolution of the organ
>to help understand the brain and the sites for various functions. Had a
>couple of sour-lookers out in the class, so I checked with some of the
>others. SDAs apparently don't accept evolution.
Howdy,
I am a psychologist by trade, and often teach folks certain
aspects of Freud's theories. I start by explaining that
theories are best understood as "tools" rather than
"truths", and, as such, should be assessed in terms of their
utility rather than their veracity.
When someone tells me that they don't "accept" Freud (or as
in your example, "evolution") I hear it as if they had told
me that they don't accept "chisels" or "glue." (Whew, with
that, we are back On Topic.<g>)
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote :
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>Agreed it was not immediately fatal. But absent invasive life support,
>>like a feeding tube (although a stomach tube is less traumatic than
>>one might at first suppose) it was ultimately fatal.
>>
> "Invasive life support." That kinda says it all.
>
> I'm glad that you'll never be in the position of making health-care
> decisions
> that affect me or my family.
Are you aware of how feeding tubes of the type Mrs. Schiavo had work? They
essentially require a hole to be drilled into the stomach from outside.
It's invasive by any definition of the word.
Jason
In article <[email protected]>, "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
>>>
>>>haven't
>>>
>>>>seen them myself; have you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Google is your friend:
>>>
>>>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-te
>rr
>>>i-schiavos-brain/
>>
>>
>> Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I have to
>> rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their doctors
>
>> say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
>>
>And you base your opinion on what the Schindlers
>want/think? It should be quite obvious to any
>observant person that the Schindlers are in full
>denial. They think all the doctors, who know much
>more and had more experience than they do, are
>wrong. I guess that makes you in full denial also.
It may well be that they are in denial. It may also be that they're right.
Unless you've been intimately involved with the case, it's just a mite
presumptuous of you to state so boldly that it's "quite obvious" which is
which. I'm just wondering who would have been harmed by keeping the woman
alive a little longer... what purpose was served by starving her to death?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
George wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still with
>
> the
>
>>body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One
>
> argument
>
>>is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not interfere".
>>Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping her here
>>instead of another place.
>>
>
>
> Interesting that the Greek/Roman tradition, as well as the Orthodox Jewish,
> regards breath as life. Anima , Latin for soul/life/breath, derives from
> the Greek anemos - wind or breath. If they can breathe, they are alive.
>
>
Well, science progress. Must be a terrible fact
to many, but it still remains true.
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:21:13 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>>> I hear conflicting reports about what the pictures actually show. I
>>>haven't
>>>> seen them myself; have you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Google is your friend:
>>>
>>>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-te
>rr
>>>i-schiavos-brain/
>>
>> Are you qualified to interpret what you see there? I'm not. Thus I have to
>> rely on what other people say. And according to the Schindlers, their doctors
>
>> say it's not as bad as the Schiavo's doctors say it is.
>
>Well, fluid isn't brain, Doug.
>
Of course I understand that. The medical question is the degree of cognitive
function that she had remaining. Then there's the ethical question: is it
right to deprive a living human being of sustenance, based on that person's
level of cognitive function?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm just wondering who would have been harmed by keeping the woman
> alive a little longer... what purpose was served by starving her to death?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
This is where many arguments and theories come in. Was she truly alive? By
that, I mean was the cognitive portions of the brain functioning at all.
On a theological line, is there a soul? If so, was the sole still with the
body or did it leave when the brain lost cognitive functions? One argument
is "God will take here when he is ready and we should not interfere".
Perhaps God wanted to take her and the feeding tube is keeping her here
instead of another place.
Should she have been kept alive a little longer? How long should that be
and at what point should the feeding tube be removed? One purpose served
from her death is the family can finally move on and resolve that she never
was going to come back to a near normal life. It has to be difficult for
both sides.
I do not profess to know the answers to any of these questions. Doubt that
anyone on earth does. Only thing I'm sure of is that the politicians should
stay out of it.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> George wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> SDAs apparently don't accept evolution.
>>
>
> Who are SDAa?
Seventh Day Adventists
As I like to tell my wife sometimes: "I can make that".
"David F. Eisan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Was I the only one who noticed that the Popes casket was made of Pine and
> had Dovetailed corners?
>
> I wonder who made it?
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> It's a matter of established fact, not conjecture, that her
>respiration and
>> heartbeat continued without the assistance of a machine.
>>
>
>It is a matter of fact, not conjecture, that heartbeat and respiration
>are brain stem functions.
Clarification: they are functions of a *living* brain stem.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:02:37 GMT, "Searcher1" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>According to the Ass Press. The inner is Cypress, second is zinc and the
>outer Walnut.
>These are supposed to slow down the decomp process.
Trying to put off the inevitable, even in death.
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 06:17:51 GMT, the inscrutable [email protected]
(Dave Mundt) spake:
--snip--
> Ok...this seems a PERFECT moment to introduce a theory that
>has been cranking around in my head (and I DO mean "crank" *smile*.
> Since I enjoy starting conspiracy theory rumors, I want to
>suggest that there was a psychic link between Ms Shiavo and Pope John
>Paul. *I* think that had the doctors embarked on a more intensive
>regime of feeding and therapy, while Ms Shiavo might not have
>recovered, it would have rejuvinated Pope John Paul...
> So...by that logic, the folks who decided to let her die...
>killed the Pope.
To the faithful, if God had wanted either to live longer, he would
have saved them with a miracle, oui? May Laura and the Pope RIP.
> I did appreciate ONE of the OT posts, though, earlier, that
>pointed out that Michael DID spend several years trying very hard to
>get therapy for Terri. It was only after this failed that he
>seemed to accept the inevitable and move on. There have been very
>few discussions that have brought up this point, and, I think it
>is an important one.
Ditto. The worst tragedy is that Terry didn't have a living will or
durable power of attorney for health care which potentially would have
saved her 15 years of Hell. See your state for Advance Directives for
Health Care, the newest trend. I need to go get that tattoo, too.
"DNR"
> I DO think it was a shame that so many groups used this
>tragedy to push their own agenda's...but that seems to be human
>nature.
Amen. (And I mean that in a most non-religious way.)
----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================
In article <v_y6e.11313$Xm3.7387@trndny01>,
"Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't tell fishermen that... They've been using lead for decades...
I believe over the last few years lead for fishing has been
transitioning over to some other conglomeration of metals. There was
concern over personal safety - how many adults and kids bite down on the
split shot to fix it to the line? - as well as wildlife ingestion... as
I recall those were the reasons.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
In article <[email protected]>,
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Second layer is either lead or zinc
Hopefully zinc... lead wouldn't be too healthy.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 05:55:49 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
> Trying to put off the inevitable, even in death.
I just don't understand why they didn't hook his meat up to life support
and keep him from rotting for twelve years or so, like he insisted happen
to Schiavo. Doesn't matter if you're braindead, gotta preserve the meat.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On 10 Apr 2005 12:32:22 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:
>Some people don't accept chisels or glue, or don't accept
>particular chisels or particular glues, meaning that they
>won't use them, consider them to be unsuitable for a
>particular job, or have some other material or philosphical
>objection.
Well, no...
They may indeed choose not to use them, but that is rather
different from "acceptance" and that was precisely my point.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Kenneth wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 12:32:22 -0700, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >Some people don't accept chisels or glue, or don't accept
> >particular chisels or particular glues, meaning that they
> >won't use them, consider them to be unsuitable for a
> >particular job, or have some other material or philosphical
> >objection.
>
> Well, no...
>
> They may indeed choose not to use them, but that is rather
> different from "acceptance" and that was precisely my point.
>
If they have a philosophical objection, as opposed to a practical
one it's pretty much analogous to rejecting evolution on religious
grounds, no? (e.g. Roy Underhill autographed a book for me with
"Just say no to power tools." A vegan might not use hide glue,
and so on.
If they have a practical objection then it is pretty much analogous
to rejecting Freud's theories on Scientific grounds, no?
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >"A little longer", no harm or at worst only a very little bit of
> >> >harm. But her body had been kept alive for 15 years after the
fatal
> >> >injury to her brain and nearly ten years after the lawyers got
> >> >involved. That is way beyond "a little longer".
> >>
> >> The brain injury was not fatal. She died because they stopped
giving
> >> her food and water.
> >>
> >
> >Agreed it was not immediately fatal. But absent invasive life
support,
> >like a feeding tube (although a stomach tube is less traumatic than
> >one might at first suppose) it was ultimately fatal.
> >
> "Invasive life support." That kinda says it all.
It's a simple matter of defintion. If it breaks the skin, it's
invasive.
>
> I'm glad that you'll never be in the position of making health-care
decisions
> that affect me or my family.
>
I've nothing against invasive life support on principle. I'd want it
for any ill family member who has any chance for recovery. No one
in my immediate family who has expresed a preference wants it if their
conditon is like that of Terri Schiavo. You won't see us in court
over that.
I certainly will not be making decisions for you or your family.
Nor, if I have my druthers, will my Senators or Congressman, nor
yours, nor any judges either. I hope that no disputes arise in
your family either.
I have a friend who had a feeding tube put into his wife, contrary
to her wishes, when it was discovered that her coma had been brought
on by an infection, not the normal progress of her illness. She
made a meaningful, though limited recovery. Several years later,
when she clearly was in the end stages of her disease she was
allowed to die from a secondary infection as by then she was beyond
any return to consciousness.
The right decision depends on the circumstances especially the
patient's condition.
--
FF
Jason Quick wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote :
>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>Agreed it was not immediately fatal. But absent invasive life
support,
> >>like a feeding tube (although a stomach tube is less traumatic than
> >>one might at first suppose) it was ultimately fatal.
> >>
> > "Invasive life support." That kinda says it all.
> >
> > I'm glad that you'll never be in the position of making health-care
> > decisions
> > that affect me or my family.
>
> Are you aware of how feeding tubes of the type Mrs. Schiavo had work?
They
> essentially require a hole to be drilled into the stomach from
outside.
> It's invasive by any definition of the word.
>
No one should fear having a feeding tube inserted into themself
or a family member.
Yes, it is invasive by definition but it is far less unpleasant
that you might imagine. The procedure is normally done on an
outpatient basis with a local anesthetic.
Once completed, it is not uncomfortable. Indeed for someone with
disphagia and who is still cognitively intact it is a godsend.
It does not just extend their life, it extends it while
relieving them of the discomfort of choking on ever sip of
liquid they try to swallow. Patients with the feeding tube
may even continue to eat solid food, relying on the tube
mostly for hydration.
Ther reversal of the process is even simpler. The tube enters
the abdomen though a fitting that resembles a bulkhead fitting
used for electrical conduit. To reverse the procedure it is
simply removed and in most cases the incisions heal without
incident. In fact, the incision in the stomach heals so
fast that if the tube accidentally comes out (that does
happen) it must be reiniserted (a routine ER procedure)
within about 90 minutes else a new incision must be made.
--
FF
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 04:42:09 -0500, Jason Quick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote :
>
>> You may have picked a poor example. Freud pretty much rejected his own
>> theories before he died.
>
> Which is, really, immaterial. Whether he accepted his own theories or not
> has no bearing on their validity. Now, Freud may have been full of it for
> other reasons, I dunno, but "he rejected his own theories" isn't a valid
> reason why he was full of it.
Not to mention - Bohr's model of the atom is wrong, and very much so.
But, it's perfect for understanding chemical reactions at a basic level.
[email protected] wrote:
> Kenneth wrote:
>
>>On 10 Apr 2005 12:32:22 -0700, [email protected]
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some people don't accept chisels or glue, or don't accept
>>>particular chisels or particular glues, meaning that they
>>>won't use them, consider them to be unsuitable for a
>>>particular job, or have some other material or philosphical
>>>objection.
>>
>>Well, no...
>>
>>They may indeed choose not to use them, but that is rather
>>different from "acceptance" and that was precisely my point.
>>
>
>
> If they have a philosophical objection, as opposed to a practical
> one it's pretty much analogous to rejecting evolution on religious
> grounds, no? (e.g. Roy Underhill autographed a book for me with
> "Just say no to power tools." A vegan might not use hide glue,
> and so on.
>
> If they have a practical objection then it is pretty much analogous
> to rejecting Freud's theories on Scientific grounds, no?
>
You may have picked a poor example. Freud pretty
much rejected his own theories before he died.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote :
> You may have picked a poor example. Freud pretty much rejected his own
> theories before he died.
Which is, really, immaterial. Whether he accepted his own theories or not
has no bearing on their validity. Now, Freud may have been full of it for
other reasons, I dunno, but "he rejected his own theories" isn't a valid
reason why he was full of it.
Jason
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote :
> In article <K5z6e.8218$up2.3668@okepread01>, "Jason Quick"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> My take is that in the absence of any
>>reasons to restrict spousal rights in this situation (i.e. evidence of
>>abuse, pending divorce, etc), the spouse should have a nearly absolute
>>right
>>to decide what goes.
>
> Apparently you don't consider shacking up with another woman for seven
> years,
> fathering two children by her, to be sufficient reason to restrict the
> husband
> from making such decisions?
No. Think about it for a second - why on earth wouldn't the man just have
divorced her, and left her to the care of her deranged parents?
> Doesn't seem to me that he was too interested in
> behaving like a spouse.
Well, you know, if I were in his position, I'd be dating at least. Maybe
he's a shit-heel, I dunno, but AIUI he *did* spend a few years trying to get
her in better shape, and when the attempts failed to bear fruit, he moved
on. From what I read, it's not like he was out whoring around four nights a
week. He simply had let go emoitionally, and was being thwarted in his
attempts to carry out what he believed her wishes to be. I think it's a
hideous position to be in, really.
Consider the scenario - your wife, after some massive brain hemorrage thing,
has checked out. The doctors are telling you that she'll never recover to
any state of consciousness, but that with a feeding tube she could live for
decades - to use a callous phrase I read, she'll essentially be "organic
furniture.". You're in your late 20s, just entering the prime of life.
Ask yourself this: if her mom and/or dad were possessed of some character
flaw - say, Dad had a gambling addiction - would that be grounds to *not*
give them control? What if Mom was an alcoholic, or Dad was a philanderer?
Jason
I sort of wonder what purgatory it would be, for a soul to be tied to a
body/mind that but for the active interference of man, would have,
should have died years ago.
My prayers for both Terri and the Pope were answered. That she be
allowed to die, and meet her fate in the afterlife, and that the Pope
would not be hooked up and kept alive past his proper time.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Conjecture, and probably false. When the autopsy results are released,
>>then
>>we'll see. Evidence so far indicates that she was not brain-dead:
>>unquestionably, she was able to breathe on her own, and her heart beat,
>>without assistance of machinery. Brain-dead people can't do that.
>
>
> Some portion of the brain did function. What is not know (at least not yet)
> is what portions did and was she able to comprehend anything. While some
> body function continued, was she still "alive" and what determines "life" as
> we define it. Long philosophical, theological and physiological debates will
> continue for years on this matter.
>
>
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:08:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 21:11:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>No wonder people bitch about all the off-topic posts around here.
>
> My apologies! Thank-you for calling this to our attention, Sir! We will
> all now straighten up and fly right! Sir!
Yup. Welcome to Usenet, Matthew. Thread drift happens.
Greetings and salutations....
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:08:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
*snip*
>
> You are, of course, familiar with "chain of consciousness" or associative
>thought processes, are you not? This thread has evolved as a living "free
>association" of thoughts by some dedicated amateur (and some very
>professional) woodworkers that started with an observation of the
>construction of the pope's coffin, followed by the circumstances regarding
>his death, followed by association with other deaths that have received
>significant publicity at the same time. To have cut off discussion after
>observing the construction details would have denied the diverse thought
>processes of the woodworkers involved in the discusssion. To have
>instructed them to pursue said discussions in another group would have
>removed said discussion from its context and been the equivalent of
>requiring that a group of acquaintances jump into a room full of strangers
>to discuss a subject because it was not germaine to the original party in
>which it was started.
>
Ok...this seems a PERFECT moment to introduce a theory that
has been cranking around in my head (and I DO mean "crank" *smile*.
Since I enjoy starting conspiracy theory rumors, I want to
suggest that there was a psychic link between Ms Shiavo and Pope John
Paul. *I* think that had the doctors embarked on a more intensive
regime of feeding and therapy, while Ms Shiavo might not have
recovered, it would have rejuvinated Pope John Paul...
So...by that logic, the folks who decided to let her die...
killed the Pope.
> This is no different than other water-cooler discussions that occur in
>the wetware world. A quick perusal of the group and even this topic
>indicate the overwhelming preponderance of on-topic posts.
>
>>No wonder people bitch about all the off-topic posts around here.
>
It was pretty amazing to me how the thread drifted from a
fairly on topic discussion of materials and techniques used in
building the Pope's coffin, and, how that can apply to our daily
lives to an argument over the tired tragedy of a body being
shut off finally in Florida.
I did appreciate ONE of the OT posts, though, earlier, that
pointed out that Michael DID spend several years trying very hard to
get therapy for Terri. It was only after this failed that he
seemed to accept the inevitable and move on. There have been very
few discussions that have brought up this point, and, I think it
is an important one.
I DO think it was a shame that so many groups used this
tragedy to push their own agenda's...but that seems to be human
nature.
> My apologies! Thank-you for calling this to our attention, Sir! We will
>all now straighten up and fly right! Sir!
>
>
Haw! no we won't... (and that TOO is human nature).
Regards
Dave Mundt
On 10 Apr 2005 21:11:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>When this thread started, a long time ago, it had at least a few "on
>topic" words in it:
>Pine and Dovetailed corners.
>
>Just about every one of the 50+ posts I have seen since makes me think
>you all have sawdust in your cranial cavities.
>
>Take it some where else!
>#1 Your not going to solve your religous / medical debates ever.
>#2 You shouldn't be trying to solve them in a woodworking newgroup.
>#3 The unfortunate circus that occurred in Florida regarding Terri
>Schiavo has nothing to do with the subject of this thread which was
>regarding the materials and manufacture of a wooden casket.
>
>Can you see the difference or have you been sniffing the varnish too
>long?
You are, of course, familiar with "chain of consciousness" or associative
thought processes, are you not? This thread has evolved as a living "free
association" of thoughts by some dedicated amateur (and some very
professional) woodworkers that started with an observation of the
construction of the pope's coffin, followed by the circumstances regarding
his death, followed by association with other deaths that have received
significant publicity at the same time. To have cut off discussion after
observing the construction details would have denied the diverse thought
processes of the woodworkers involved in the discusssion. To have
instructed them to pursue said discussions in another group would have
removed said discussion from its context and been the equivalent of
requiring that a group of acquaintances jump into a room full of strangers
to discuss a subject because it was not germaine to the original party in
which it was started.
This is no different than other water-cooler discussions that occur in
the wetware world. A quick perusal of the group and even this topic
indicate the overwhelming preponderance of on-topic posts.
>No wonder people bitch about all the off-topic posts around here.
My apologies! Thank-you for calling this to our attention, Sir! We will
all now straighten up and fly right! Sir!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
[email protected] wrote:
>
> A google search makes it clear that there is no medical consensus on
> the meaning of "brain death".
>
>
<http://www.miaims.missouri.edu/~neuromedicine/braindeath.shtml>
is an example.
FWIW, there is no 'medical consensus' on Anything.