To: bjs1779
Obviously, your witnesses was discredited by the autopsy report. He was 100% wrong.
When you are in hole, stop digging.
92 posted on
04/20/2006 5:40:10 PM PDT by
daivid
To: daivid
Obviously, your witnesses was discredited by the autopsy report. He was 100% wrong. Sure. Getting back to my original comment, why did they refuse Terri to appear in court despite pleas from the Shindler attorneys? I think most people get it, you are and an exception of course.
93 posted on
04/20/2006 5:55:06 PM PDT by
bjs1779
To: daivid
>> Obviously, your witnesses was discredited by the autopsy report. He was 100% wrong.
I don't follow. I've read the autopsy report several times. It is not obvious at all that Dr. Cheshire's observations have been discredited. Would you kindly cite the references you have in mind and argue your case?
98 posted on
04/20/2006 6:41:05 PM PDT by
T'wit
(Our top bioethicists: 5) Cranford 4) Rachel Carson 3) Ted Bundy 2) Margaret Sanger 1) Eric Pianka.)
To: daivid
There are numerous aspects of the Terri Schiavo case that horrified me. An estranged husband with a live-in mistress and two illegitimate children was made her guardian. Michael did not "remember" her wish to die until after he won the lawsuit for her rehabilitation. Terri was mistreated, Michael not permitting even flowers in her room. There was fraud in keeping her at a hospice. There are many more reasons why this case is disturbing.
I strongly advice that you read what Martin Katz wrote in "The American Thinker" (March 29, 2005) regarding Terri. It sums it up why so many of us continue to be horrified by the treatment she received.
100 posted on
04/20/2006 6:44:41 PM PDT by
Dante3
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson