Posted on 02/26/2005 5:18:05 AM PST by ViLaLuz
This is my entire post to you.
>>Wolfson suggested that swallowing tests be performed, but that advice was ignored.
Have you read anything about Richard Pearse, or do you disregard his testimony, too? He was the GAL appointed in 1997/98 in case you're not familiar with his name. Look him up.
IMHO, you read and see only what you want to believe. I used to believe the lies I was told until I looked into this case thoroughly.
Let me ask you a question. If Terri could communicate that she is 'in there' and not really just a bunch of reflexes, would you change your position? Or do you wish for her death because she is brain-injured?
I expect an honest reply.<<
Which part did you consider a personal attack? And where is the ad hominem you refer to? Even previous posts to you on past thread, I don't think I've done anything ad hominem as you suggest. Perhaps you have me confused with another FReeper?
Surely you realize that the reason we cannot corroborate the evidence that we need to prove that Terri is 'in there' is because her husband, with the permission of Judge Greer, has denied any testing by independent doctors and will not allow any new evidence to be admitted. They will not even allow Terri to be brought to court to speak for herself. I think they do this because they are so afraid that she would actually tell them she wants to live herself. They are afraid that the whole world would see what a farce this has been from the beginning.
Greer when initially ruling on Terri's PVS, said that the court saw "little" that Terri could be responsive. (I wish I could provide for you the link to this document, but you can probably find it on your own. I'm working off a different computer and I don't have access to those links right now). The fact is in Greer's own words that he did see something, and that HE pronounced Terri as PVS when the Florida statute does not provide for that definition. The fact that Greer saw "something" was enough under the legal definition in Florida to rule that Terri is NOT PVS. According to the Florida definition, Terri didn't have to be able to do things repetitively. She had to do them at all, once, and no more. Greer interpreted the legal definition of PVS incorrectly, and no appellate court will overturn that evidence.
IMHO, our judicial system needs to be fixed.
She's most likely going to away with it because the way the law reads (HUM... Is 'Dogone around here, anywhere??) that it's part of her while attached. I think that's what her lawyer is saying. Evil. It's not sick: It's EVIL.
venality- openness to bribery or corruption
from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
I did not ascribe an openness to bribery or corruption to you. I merely disagree with your opinion.
Ad Hominem- I googled it. This is taken from the website where I found it's definition.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
You are suggesting that I have attacked you and your argument on the basis on who you are. That couldn't be true. Although I understand you have a medical background, this would further bolster your argument for me (personally), however, I still disagree with you. I'm not basing my opinion on anything other than I disagree with the conclusion you have drawn.
I totally agree to being respectful of each other, and I in all sincerity, do not disrespect you, nor do I think that I was disrespecting you in any of my posts. You cannot read what is in my heart over a computer very well. Please don't think I meant any disrespect to you from my earlier post. I simply disagree with you.
I'm very happy that you have taken it upon yourself to find the documents of Pearse and others. What you rendered was your evaluation of the report. My evaluation differs from yours.
I apologize that I did not say outright that we could agree to respect each other. However, I would offer that my thoughts back to you were reflective of someone who did agree with you in this regard. I thought that because of our past comments to each other that the goodwill and respect had been established.
I have read everything you've read, but with a less trusting eye than you, I suppose. All I need to see are the videos of Terri that were taken for the courtroom, to know that Terri does not fit the bill of the Florida statute legal definition of PVS. Opening your eyes WIDE on command, even if done only once, shows that Terri is not PVS according to the legal definition. She may be PVS by other standards, but what she performs in that video 'Big Eyes' is not PVS by Florida's standards.
Perhaps I was confusing you with another FReeper when I thought you had a medical background. If you would like to help in sleuthing this case using your forensic accounting background, perhaps you could look at some of the financial aspects of this case. I find it interesting that Michael only started his deprivation of therapy for Terri AFTER he became guardian of the trust fund, which was awarded $1.2 million. Why did he say Terri had no wishes to be kept alive like this when he was arguing for the money? He knew that there was a life expectancy for Terri in her condition for 51 years. If he thought she was dead then, why did he beg for money to take care of her for that long?
We will just have to agree to disagree on these issues, I guess. I doubt that I will change your mind, and I doubt that you will change mine. My best to you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.