markomalley

Engine, you have a good point. The Catholic Church is the universal church. There are those portions that are in communion with the Holy Father, such as the Latin Rite, the Maronite Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Copts, the Chaldeans, etc. There are those portions that are schismatic, but still orthodox in their beliefs, such as the Greek Orthodox, the Assyrians, etc. Then there are those that are both schismatic and heretical, such as the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, etc. But, you are right...although fractured through schism and heresy, it is one Catholic (universal) church. Thanks for bringing that out.

mj, it is kind of strange to think of it, right now, but it is hardly a surprise. And its not like they haven't had to go through this before, once or twice. With 263 pontiffs preceding him (out of a total of 266, if you subscribe to the writings of St. Malachy) they probably have a very refined process by now.

Salve Regina, mater misericordiae: vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae. Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle. Eia, ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis post hoc exsilium ostende. O clemens, O pia, O dulcis Virgo Maria. Amen. Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei Genetrix. Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi. Requiescat in pace Papa

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/31/Tampabay..._underway.shtml Sciavo has apparently consented to allowing a funderal mass prior to incinerating the body.

OK, so she has died. We can have an endless debate about whether she was released or whether she was murdered. I doubt that anybody's mind will be changed on this issue, no more than anybody else's mind is changed over an abortion debate, no more than anybody's mind was changed over a Bush/Kerry debate. Having said that, I think we could all probably agree that this was a media circus. The acrimony between the two sides of the issue, the Schiavo's and the Schindler's, made what is a difficult situation even worse. (I am trying my hardest to express things as neutrally as possible, so as not to turn this into yet another die/not die thread. If I fail at that, please know that this is my intent) What I'd like to ask of you is this: what can we do to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again? The laws obviously failed here. If you were in favor of keeping hydration/nutrition flowing into her stomach, that is a statement of the obvious. If you were in favor of withdrawing hydration/nutrition, though, it took 8 years from the time the husband made that decision until it actually happened. That has to be viewed as a failure, as well. So what can be done to prevent another Schiavo/Schindler debaucle from happening again? Yes, I know living wills/advanced medical directives, etc. But are there any policy decisions, laws, etc. that can be done to help, as well, for those people who haven't taken the hint here?

That's why I have never said that he was in it for money from the malpractice suit. I have always said that, other than the basic human tragedy involved, that the only real problem here is that Michael Schiavo may (not absolutely, but may) have a conflict of interest that may impact his ability to act as a proxy for his wife. If that issue could be properly adjudicated (and there is no provision of Florida law to allow that kind of adjudication), then the issue could be solved. Doesn't mean I'd like it, but then it would fall into the "NONE OF MY BUSINESS" category.

Her care is being provided for by Medicaid. See here. No problem, but don't you think he should get divorced before getting engaged again? Nobody would begrudge a widower the ability to get romantically involved. Few would begrudge a divorcee the right to move on. But to move on while still married and to insist upon control of the fate of the person you've moved on from??? That's an issue. What makes this especially poignant is that the parents have stated that they would be happy to support a divorce action. In fact, they've gone so far as to plead with Mr. Schiavo to divorce their daughter and move on with his life. Your bigotry is disgusting. Not if his first wife is alive and he doesn't get an annulment... Actually, although I don't attach too much relevance to what they stated, they also say that they made their sworn affadavits for a court hearing back in 2003. So, although you are right about questioning why they waited from 1997 to 2003 to speak up, it's not like they just brought this up for the current media circus in 2005. They also made the insulin charge in those affadavits. They stated in those affadavits that Michael removed pages from the charts. True? Don't know. Existing? Yes See here and here. You're business. Hopefully you have the documentation done that state your wishes and designating a proxy to act if you are in that kind of condition so that it won't be an issue in your case.BTW, welcome to the greasespot.

I understand. I also understand that morphine can be used to depress bodily functions as well. The hyperbole on both sides is getting to the point of silliness...unfortunately, the lack of factual, neutral, independent information in the past several years has turned this entire event into an absolute circus. In light of that, I still maintain my original point: on one hand, it made no sense to anybody that she'd get a morphine "drip" if she's being dehydrated. On the other hand, if this is totally peaceful and euphoric (on one hand) or if she is a total vegetable, incapable of having any kind of awareness of the world around her (on the other hand), there is absolutely no need for morphine suppositories, teddy bears, or music.

And I suppose the Teddy Bears and soft music are for the families, too? From Newsday. Sorry, the hypocrisy of this is rather nauseating. You have one side saying that she is aware and fighting for her life. You have another side that says that she is peaceful and having essentially the time of her life. The one side that says that she is a fighter is saying things that no way could be true (an morphine drip for somebody you're trying to dry up, yeah right). The other side says music and teddy bears...for a total vegetable who is not aware of anything around her (if she is appreciating the teddy bear and music that means she is aware...if she is aware, that means that a person is still in there...why then are you killing her?) Both sides, drop the hyperbole and give me some facts. Schiavo/Felos: if you are telling the truth, why not allow some news cameras in to do a few minutes of filming when the parents are around? (If she is not aware, it will be plainly obvious...even if her parents are there). Schindler family: drop the obvious BS and drop Randall Terry. Its weakening your case. (Not that either side will read those words, of course)

So, let me see if I understand here: - Theresa Schiavo is in a vegetative state. "She" is not really there anymore, because the brain is basically gone. She just has motor functions. - Starvation and dehydration is a very good way to go, right? It is peaceful, in fact, gives one a sense of euphoria before you go (something to do with excessive ammonia) - So, according to the husband's side, there are "no worries, mate," she's going easily. Do I have the picture right here? So, why then is she being given morphine? Both sides agree that she has been given morphine, the only question is the amount (the family's side says she is on a drip -- that makes no sense to me to put an IV in if you're trying to dehydrate something -- and the husband's side acknowledges she's been given morphine suppositories -- see here for details) If its peaceful and easy and euphoric, there should be no need for morphine, right? If she is a total vegetable, there is not really anybody there to give the morphine to, right? So, this makes no sense to me...Can somebody help me out with this?

Well, here's a question about debt, sort of: If you owe on a mortgage, that's debt, right? What's the problem...you owe the person or bank money for your house and it ties you down so you can't move light (was that what's its called)? Well, what about if you sign a lease on an apartment...aren't you promising to pay a year's worth of rent in twelve installments? (or 2 years in 24 installments or whatever) Isn't that a form of debt as well (because you are agreeing to owing something)? Just wondering...this debt stuff didn't start up until after i'd gone. (Or did everybody have to live on month to month places)

I am familiar with the HIPAA Privacy Rules also. But I didn't publish this document to the web; I am just linking to it. The publisher is the "Hospice Patients Alliance." The image file is located on their web site. The post merely has a link to that image.

Didn't say otherwise. And T8-T12 refer to the thoracic spine. CPR, if not administered on a completely flat, solid surface, can cause damage to the thoracic spine. The report, above, indicates damage to multiple ribs, to several of the thoracic vertebral bodies, and a compression fracture to the L1 vertebra. My comments merely indicate that the likelihood is that damage to the L1 would be highly unlikely due to CPR.

If anybody is interested in the subject, I'd like to refer folks to three (IMO) very well-written articles produced by the Hastings Center (a nonpartisan bioethics think tank). The first two articles give a good, neutral, view of the Schiavo case and examine it in light of bioethics: , From the May-Jun 2004 Hastings Center Report. Rethinking Disorders of Consciousness: New Research and Its Implications, from the Mar-Apr 2005 Hastings Center Report. This third article doesn't directly talk about Schiavo, but it does talk about the issue at hand. Medically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration: A Contribution to the Dialogue. All three articles have information that both sides on the issue will agree with. They all also have information that both sides will challenge. Hope that some may enjoy and get something out of them.

Here is the bone scan report. I can go with LongGone's assertion that the ribs were from CPR. Possibly the L1 (although that is a little low, T8-T12 would be more normal) Some words on compression fractures: From the Dynomed Patient encyclopedia.Honestly, the bone scan results sound like something that one would have following a really bad car accident. Although, as people can see from my input on the Schiavo thread in 'tacks (I won't bother repeating it here), I question Schiavo's ability to be a competent guardian, I think that the broken bone issue is questionable. There is no way that Theresa Marie wouldn't have to have treatment for those broken bones. If this was the result of an assault, I am certain that this would have been documented in separate medical records and brought out by the parents or the Guardian ad Litem during earlier court proceedings, had that been the case.

Of all people to misread and mischaracterize my earlier post, why, Hairy, am I completely unsurprised that it would be you? Please do everybody a favor and try reading what is posted rather than reading one line and then jumping to a conclusion and your keyboard. You'll tend to make a little less of a fool of yourself.

Out: if living a Christ-like life was easy, then everybody calling themselves a Christian would do it. Fortunately God is plentiful in mercy (as thankfully most of our spouses are, as well).

I understand and I do read the doctrinal forum from time to time, but have never felt like wading in there. But I do appreciate the invitation. May take you up on it at some point...

Paw, Not in the initial offer letter, but if I accept the offer it will be contingent upon both those two things. I figure a six month termination package will be good and I was planning to ask for a 25% sign-on bonus. Thanks. Jim, You are EXACTLY why I posed the question on the board. I have met the developer and so my observations on him are first-hand. This is not the only product line produced by the company, it has the potential to be the biggest money-maker if handled properly. And, yes, no doubt it will take a lot of tact. Yes, the developer has a HUGE amount of emotional investment in the item, and understandably so. Yes, I recognize that, until such time as the information is no longer exclusively in the developer's head, he will definitely have the upper hand in the situation. We met about three weeks ago up at his place in (of all places) Pennsylvania. I am not 100% confident, but I think that there is the ability to work together. The CEO and I used to work together a couple of years ago and so we don't have the issue of incompatibility, but, still, I fully recognize that business is business. I hadn't really considered asking for stock options and am not familiar with the mechanics of them that much. When options are negotiated, on what basis are they negotiated? The number of shares, the percentage of salary, or the discount rate? I definitely will feel them out on that question as well. As this is a subsidiary of a much larger company, I'm not sure what the larger company's policy is on options and how flexible they are with their stock. But, they can't say "yes" if I don't ask the question. I appreciate the advice though. Really helpful.

I need some advice please. I currently have a job that pays the mortgage and the bills, allows me to keep my kid in parochial school, and allows me to save up for retirement. The upsides of this job are as follows: I work with a bunch of good folks I enjoy the work. My boss is very flexible with me: I have to put in the proper number of hours each week, but its very flexible as to when I put in the hours. If I need to work from home, due to bad weather, contagious sickness, or sick kid, I can do so. [*]The office has a culture of going out of their way to make sure not to have to lay people off. Although the work is (gasp) primarily working on government contracts (/gasp), they aren't the type to lay folks off immediately if a recompete for a contract is lost or upon the end of a contract. The downsides of the job are: The commute. I live halfway between Baltimore and DC and the job is in Arlington VA. That means 30 miles worth of traffic each way each day. On a good day, the commute is 45 minutes. On a bad day, 1-1/2 hours. The hours. So that the job can pay us well while keeping us competitive in the market, we have to bill 45 hours each week. (On a Time and materials contract, that means our rates are 12% lower than they would be if we were on a standard 40 hour week). Fortunately, there is a lot of flexibility with the time. But, it is still 45 hours a week. And sometimes longer if the job requires (just as with any other job). It averages that I'm away from home about 11 hours a day. Career advancement. I am currently a senior analyst. Basically the only way I can move up the food chain is if somebody up the chain quits, retires, or dies. Stability. Although there is a culture of keeping people on to the maximum extent possible, it is still in the "consulting" field, the bottom line won't allow them to keep me on indefinitely if there I am not bringing revenue in. Same as any other business. And, the nature of the job is one of switching employers, even if the company culture is not that way. Travel. Frequently, I have to travel extensively. For example, last year I was on the road about 1 week every month. Although some travel is good, excessive travel stinks. My wife is a teacher with about 13 years of seniority. Her income is used for the "extras." Vacation, summer camp for the kid, buying "stuff," etc. Due to some health problems, she is currently on extended sick leave from work. That sick leave runs out at the end of this school year and she will be filing for disability retirement. That will still bring in some money, but it is going to be cut by about 2/3's. I just received a job offer at a company located about 10 miles from here, also in the Baltimore-DC corridor. This job is managing an $18 million program for a fairly high tech piece of satellite communications equipment. The program is currently in the "garage" phase of development, sort of like the Apple I (for those unfamiliar with the Apple I, it was developed and built in a garage). The CEO of this company (a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company) wants me to operationalize the product line and bring some discipline into the program so that it will be able to respond to anticipated market demand. (The market is the military, civilian Federal, state, and local governments, as well as very possible foreign sales). The guy that designed the product is an entrepenuer type. A brilliant guy, he is rather eccentric and has little or no business sense. He definitely does not have the skills necessary to bring the product line into production. I do. However, he is sort of tempermental and, at this time, is literally the ONLY person who understands how this communications system works. As a result, if he gets PO'd before his knowledge can get captured, if he gets in a car accident, if he has a heart attack, the program is down the tubes...because nobody can duplicate what he knows (at least for now). Obviously, the CEO wants me to fix that situation, as well. The upsides of this job: There is about a 15% pay raise compared to my current salary. The commute is 1/3 of the distance, and goes against traffic rather than with traffic...for me, rush hour would become a thing of the past. The workweek is 40 hours. However, as you can imagine, for a person in management, 40 hours may mean little to nothing, at least until production comes on line. This is a career advancement step. There is ample opportunity for career advancement. The company is a high tech systems integration and manufacturing company. As the company expands, the opportunities expand. The downsides of this job: Especially during the initial few months, the job is high risk. As I said, while the entrepeneur that developed this system is "irreplaceable," he is the most important person in the company. As the system knowledge is expanded, the level of risk, though, goes down. If the program goes down, I will likely be looking for a new job. There will be a whole lot more work, particularly getting the program started. Initially, a lot of late nights and a lot of travel. However, that may improve over time. Because of my wife's impending disability retirement, we are going to need to make some changes. Either some serious lifestyle changes or bringing some more money in. I have ZERO experience working in a high tech small/medium sized business (54 employees and between $30 and $50 million in sales last year). BTW, if somebody is asking about benefits, this business is a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company, so they get large-business type benefits, but they are a subsidiary and so have minimal oversight from outside. And so benefits between the two companies are pretty comparable, as a whole. Minor differences, but nothing that is worth mentioning. Anyway, I am looking for advice...any suggestions as to a decision...any suggestions on negotiating strategies...any thoughts on looking for a counteroffer from my current company (or is the new offer a slam dunk). Any inputs that you can give me would be appreciated. I am possibly stepping out into new territory, so I will appreciate any insights that you all can provide along those lines. (Prayers for wisdom are also more than welcome, as well, too. Thanks)

I don't bother with the 'tacks forum too much anymore because it is a consistent rehash of the same things over and over again. GWB is the savior. GWB is the devil. Campaign 2004 is still running and will, I suspect, still run until January, 2009. Opinions are presented (on both sides) as facts. Facts are dismissed as opinion. After a couple of years, I know who the players are and what side they're on and, frankly, they believe what they believe and won't let anything get in the way of those beliefs. I don't need typing practice; I post in order to inform, persuade, or entertain...I don't post just to get my post count up. So why bother anymore? As to the doctrinal forum, likewise, why bother? I have yet to see anybody's mind be changed through the debates on that forum. Arguing for arguing's sake is sometimes entertaining to read, but is a waste of time to prolong through my posts. There are trinitarians on this board, there are unitarians on this board, there are a-tarians on this board. I have yet to see one change their mind on their beliefs as the result of something posted on "doctrinal." So, again, why bother. As to the prayer forum, I read and pray for folks. But putting a post on a thread that says "praying for you" just seems to be sort of superfluous to me. If a person who requests prayer actually gets some comfort from reading that Mark is praying for them, please let me know and I'll start putting "praying for you" posts on the threads there. As to the "Open" and "About the Way" forums, if I have something to add that I believe will be constructive, I'll post. Otherwise, I just read. The speed hasn't been that much of an issue for me, all in all. If its excessively slow, I leave it alone for a while. If the response time is good, I look. No big thing one way or the other. And no I'm not POd at the moderators. I rarely, if ever, have any interaction with them on an administrative basis. Hope the above is useful to somebody around here.

This is just another example of a legitimate teaching that TWI screwed up. From what I gather, the teaching consistently stressed the responsibility of the wife to submit to the husband but did not teach what Christ-like leadership was. You can't stress one without the other (oh yeah, that's interpretation in the verse...forgot, its ok to take stuff out of the larger context in TWI, right. Sorry) For those who are interested, the rest of the section reads as follows: The bottom line is that, right there in the context, it shows that the relationship between husband and wife should parallel the relationship between Christ and the Church (the Bride of Christ). Clearly the Church should have reverence for Christ, who first gave up His very life for His bride. But if the husband dares assume the Christ-like role in the relationship, then he'd better learn to live like Christ lived. But what did Christ do as a leader: He condescended to take on flesh He was in the most humble of circumstances from birth He took care of the physical needs of His people (Cana, the loaves and the fishes, etc.) He patiently taught the Word to His followers He showed mercy by forgiving sinners He constantly served His followers in all circumstances He willingly went through a totally undeserved living h3ll for all of us (the trial, the scourging, the crowning with thorns, etc., i.e., His passion) He willingly laid down His life in the most gruesome manner, largely for people who couldn't give a rats foot about it. Now, if the Ephesians text is right, it is the husband's job to take on that level of Christ-like leadership. And, before the wife can be expected to show the reverence to the husband like how the Church shows reverence to Christ, the husband needs to take on that form of leadership FIRST. (Just as Christ DID first, prior to the Church showing reverence to Him) But it makes total sense that TWI wouldn't stress that kind of leadership. After all, we are not sheep, we are sons of God, right? And, the Gospels are not written to us, they are written for our learning (whatever the h3ll that means). What a d@mned joke. Sure, it makes sense that TWI taught that its OK for a husband to physically and mentally abuse his wife. It makes sense that TWI taught that its OK for a husband to commit spiritual and physical adultery as well. And it also makes sense that TWI taught that the wife had to simply submit to all of this abuse. After all, we don't have to pay attention to the life of CHrist. That part was written to a bunch of dirty Jews, not to the true sons of God. After all, the true Sons of God don't have to look to Christ for the example of how to live their lives, Christ is no longer present, he is absent and so doesn't count. The true Sons of God need to look at the examples of the "MOG" and the "mini-MOGs" floating around for their examples. And meanwhile marriages are gone and lives are ruined. Yup, I sure miss walking in the liberty of TWI.

OK, so I got your attention. I see 5 pages of posts on the "John Lynn leaves CES" thread. Why? If you aren't a CES'er, what does it matter and how does it affect your life and why do you care? I know there are a few of us that are involved with CES...I know that there are a few more of us that are concerned with the involvement of a few of our friends or relatives in CES...but is that enough to justify 118 posts (as of 7 PM on 3/18)? I guess I'm just wondering why it really matters and why so many people care, to say nothing of why so many people are absolutely up in arms about anything regarding somebody who runs a small offshoot of twi and who hasn't been associated with twi for going on 20 years. Were people that badly hurt by CES so as to want to bring it down like people want to bring down TWI? Or is it just a matter of wanting to dish dirt out? I just don't understand why anybody here even cares one way or the other.

Well, I appreciate all the feedback on this admittedly difficult situation. Here are some cases to consider: Tanya Liu, diagnosed as brain dead from May, 2002, to March, 2004 An interesting story by a "vegetative state" survivor, Kate Adamson. She suffered a double brain stem stroke at the age of 33. Although she was totally unable to communicate with the world, her brain was fully functional. Just some more food for thought. The one question I would have on this issue is this: if the person's brain is functional (i.e., the person can perceive and can think), but unable to communicate in any fashion, what if the guardian, the hospital, or the courts guess wrong? What if that person hadn't given up the fight? I will accept the implicit right of a person to end his or her own life. Not the right-ness, but the right. I will accept a person's right to decide what he or she would want in advance (in fact, I believe that everybody should make that decision so as not to put their relatives in a position). But if the person hasn't declared their wishes in advance, what gives us the right to play God? Because, as I asked earlier, what if we're wrong?

At what point in time is it OK to pull the plug on a person? I ask this because of the Terri Schiavo case. Listening to the husband, she is a total vegetable: unresponsive, unaware of anything around her, essentially a living corpse. Listening to the woman's family, she is responsive, communicates, and is getting better. Watching what video has been released, it is obvious that she is awake and reactive to physical stimuli...the ability to communicate and the amount of brain activity is unclear...but it is pretty obvious that there is something there; it's just unclear how much. Assisted suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions in this country. But even if it wasn't, the person requesting the assistance is requesting it. Nobody is doing it to that person without their consent. Making this more complex for me is the case that happened recently, where a woman who was in a similar situation to Terri Schiavo regained consciousness after many years on a feeding tube. I can understand pulling the plug in the case where a person is brain dead. I can understand the concept of an advance medical directive. But this case sounds too utilitarian for me. Next door to me is a residential facility for severely mentally handicapped adults. Three out of the four people in this facility are unable to walk, unable to communicate, unable to relieve themselves. One of them is so severely handicapped that they are unable to eat. Should it be OK to allow that person to starve to death? I have a (now former) co-worker who has non-Hodgkins Lymphoma that is rampant through his body. It was diagnosed as terminal three years ago. Over a million dollars has been spent on an attempt to harvest stem cells from his blood stream in preparation to completely kill the cancer and then to use his own stem cells to rebuild his blood marrow. It didn't work and he only has a few, very painful months left. That millions of dollars wasted in this effort could have been used for other insurance subscribers (one way to consider this...not my own POV) So I am curious of others' opinions on the question in general: Should a guardian be able to order the removal of a feeding tube from a brain damaged ward who is awake but unable to communicate? Should a guardian be able to withhold food and drink from a severely mentally handicapped ward who is unable to feed him or herself? Should required, but costly, therapy be allowed to be withheld from a terminal patient, providing only pallative care until that patient expires? (after all, its a waste of money that could be used for other people) I DO NOT want to hear your opinion about the Schiavo case. I want to hear your opinion, in general, of when a guardian should be able to order medical actions or the withholding of medical actions that will result in the death of his or her ward? Oh, btw, this should be a huge reminder for EVERYBODY to have an advance medical directive drawn up and notarized NOW)