Posted on 10/28/2003 10:27:31 PM PST by Normally a Lurker
In some of my posts (maybe in many of my posts) here in recent days I have been rude to various other posters; most often though just when responding to posts that were insulting and rude to me. However, in reviewing various threads last night I realized that I might have at times been rude to someone who had not initiated that rudeness with me.
To those individuals I hereby apologize.
I do not wish to diminish my apology, but I would like to explain my actions. There are a very large number of posters here who (IMHO) are operating from an emotional basis, rather than a factual and logical basic, and who are very rude with anyone who disagrees with there positions.
When a relatively few objective / logical posters are positioned (by virtue of common opinions) among such a 'crowd,' it's often difficult to distinguish them. This is especially true when, in a short period of time, one has just dealt with 8-10 rude, illogical, emotional posters; and one then encounters another poster presenting the same opinions and asking the same questions, albeit, sans rudeness.
In any case, that is my excuse. But my apology (to those certain objective, logical posters to whom I've been rude) is sincere, and I'll try to do better in the future.
I would give individual apologies privately, but with the unusually large volume of posters in these threads, I'm afraid I'd overlook a few who deserve my apology. (Also, some of you I'm still unsure about.) As appropriate with some of you here, I hope you will be able to sense this though from my future exchanges with you.
Finally a warning to others: For so long as you continue to be rude to me, I will likely respond in kind. And, if you continue repeated the same illogical questions over and over, I will likely become increasingly 'testy' in my responses to you.
Please tell me this was a joke. Ambrose has shown time and time again he could care less about any facet of this woman's life.
If Terri had drowned her kids or killed two people with a pickax I would have been one of those on his side. But instead we have a woman left brain damaged under questionable circumstances, without a living will. We have no evidence she ever wanted to die, just hearsay from three individuals, one of which has engaged in behavior that is highly suspect and should be placed under criminal investigation.
Simply put, short of selfishness or shortsightedness, there is no reason Terri Schindler-Schiavo should die. Period.
I think you should expand your apology to those who are emotionally involved, because these are the people who will be fighting for you if you ever find yourself in a similar situation. And if you think it won't, think again. Euthanasia is already legal in the Netherlands; an "assisted-suicide" law in Oregon.
For anyone to suggest that you and I and those like us delight in the misery of others is a foul lie and reveals a deeply disturbed mind and calloused heart. It is an outrage to find a blanket apology laced with retraction followed by further retractions and dissembling.
There is no moral or ethical defense for the killing of Terri. She is physically healthy and mentally aware. (If intellectual astuteness were the litmus test for life or death there would be far fewer people posting on FR) The court awarded her financial security and she has family to love and care for her.
Only two of those things are required to claim your Constitutionally protected right to life. Physical health and mental awareness. The test for each is stringent, at least it used to be. Physically you must not be fatally injured or diseased beyond help. Pass or fail on that is simple. If after all possible measures have been taken your body dies then you fail.
Lacking any other tests for mental awareness you must not be brain dead, ie lacking electrical activity in the cognitive parts of the brain. Terri passes both of these tests with ease.
Only one other factor can be considered, the conscious will of the patient to limit heroic life sustaining measures that will likely be permanent. The test for determining and accepting that conscious will should be very high. Hearsay casual comments are so non-specific that they set a standard so low that almost everyone could be shot immediately 'by their own request.'
Terri lives or the legal right to live of the less than perfect dies with her. Unborn babies have already lost that right. Who's next?
Wouldn't it just be easier for you to NOT go to those threads?
Apparently Doctor Goodman is not aware of that the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke doesn't agree with him. The man lacks 'full awareness' as described below.
Coma and Persistent Vegetative StateA coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. The affected individual is alive but is not able to react or respond to life around him/her. Coma may occur as an expected progression or complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of an event such as head trauma.
A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.
It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.
Is there any treatment? Once the patient is out of immediate danger, although still in coma or vegetative state, the medical care team will concentrate on preventing infections and maintaining the patient's physical state as much as possible. Such maintenance includes preventing pneumonia and bed sores and providing balanced nutrition. Physical therapy may also be used to prevent contractures (permanent muscular contractions) and orthopedic deformities that would limit recovery for the patients who emerge from coma.
What is the prognosis? The outcome for coma and vegetative state depends on the cause and on the location, severity, and extent of neurological damage: outcomes range from recovery to death. People may emerge from a coma with a combination of physical, intellectual, and psychological difficulties that need special attention. Recovery usually occurs gradually, with patients acquiring more and more ability to respond. Some patients never progress beyond very basic responses, but many recover full awareness. Patients recovering from coma require close medical supervision. A coma rarely lasts more than 2 to 4 weeks. Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after vegetative state. Others may remain in a vegetative state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for a person in a vegetative state is infection such as pneumonia.
Information provided by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health
Article Created: 1999-03-14 Article Updated: 0000-00-00
© 2003 Medical College of Wisconsin
All references to awareness are speaking of 'awareness of the environment'. The medical definitions of awareness don't speak of self awareness in a patient who is unable to respond to the environment because it can't be communicated. Some coma patients recover 'full awareness' these doctors say. If there is 'absolutely no awareness' as Dr. Goodman states then there would be no possibility of recovering any awareness much less 'full awareness.'
Terri doesn't just follow people and objects with her eyes she turns her head as well. She doesn't simply grunt she attempts to verbalize and in the past, before therapy and visitations were prohibited, she clearly spoke words to family and nurses. There are multiple affadavits that attest to that. There are audio visual tapes that have recorded it. Words are not a product of reflex motor activity they are products of complicated cognitive funtions that result from sophisticated coordination of thought and motor skills. But don't take my word for it let's look at what Sara Green Mele, MS, CCC-SLP says about it. For brevity I will edit it. Go to the link for the full affadavit.
Posted: August 2, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOKBEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared Sara Green Mele, MS, CCC-SLP, who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. My name is Sara Green Mele, and I have been engaged in the continuous private practice of speech-language pathology since 1996, and have served on the staff of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago from 1996 to 1999 and from 2001 to the present. Prior to that I practiced cognitive therapy at Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation in Dallas Texas. In both settings I worked with the broad range of brain injured populations. The Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago is affiliated with Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and is recognized in the United States rehabilitation community as the top facility in the United States. The Baylor Institute for Rehabilitation is affiliated with Baylor University Medical Center, and is recognized in the United States rehabilitation community as one of the top ten facilities in the United States. I am a clinical lecturer at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and lecture for continuing medical education credits (CME) through the Rehabilitation Institute's continuing education program as well as at national conferences. In April of this year I participated in the presention of a two-day head injury course entitled Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Management in Traumatic Brain Injury to over two hundred health professionals in Tampa, Florida. My full curriculum vitae is attached.
2. In my practice, I treat many patients who have had diffuse brain injury, both anoxic and hypoxic, and I am familiar with states of impairment known as coma, coma-like, minimally conscious and persistent vegetative state. I regularly participate in the evaluation and cognitive/linguistic diagnosis of patients whose differential diagnosis include such conditions. In connection with my practice of speech-language pathology, I also evaluate patients, and train others in the evaluation of patients for swallowing function. During my career as a speech-language pathologist, I have personally treated approximately thirty patients similar to Terri Schiavo.
3. In evaluating patients for rehabilitation, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago does not track the diagnosis of patients by their referring caregivers, but rather evaluates them for itself because the misdiagnosis rate is so high.
4. While I have not physically examined Terri Schiavo, I have looked at her medical records at MediPlex covering the period from January to July of 1991, including physical therapy, speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy. Also, I have studied the video clips presented at the October 2002 Medical Evidentiary Hearing, along with audio recordings of Terri Schiavo interacting with her father in November of 2002. The observations that follow are all within the parameters of speech-language pathology, and are similar to the observations that I am called upon to make regularly in the course of treating patients as a speech-language pathologist. All conclusions are based on standards used in the speech-pathology profession in the treatment of patients such as Theresa Schiavo.
5. Based on my experience and my observations, Mrs. Schiavo is clearly aware of her environment and interacts with it, albeit inconsistently. She is able to comprehend spoken language, and can, at least inconsistently, follow simple one-step commands. This is documented both in the MediPlex records and in the following behaviors noted in the following video segments:
[edited a lot out here]
10. It is not my opinion that Mrs. Schiavo is in a coma or in a persistent vegetative state. In my opinion, she exhibits purposeful though inconsistent reactions to her environment, particularly her family. Her eye movements, easily observed on the videotape, are particularly suggestive that she recognized family members and responded. She also appeared to have sufficient sustained attention to track a balloon. It is not my opinion that these behaviors are merely reflexive. The entire range of behaviors listed above, and each and every one of them, are inconsistent with a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state.
11. Even without the benefit of any medical treatment which successfully improves this patient's organic medical condition or cognitive abilities, in my opinion Terri would benefit from speech-language therapy, physical therapy and occupational/recreational therapy. Her ability to interact with her environment and her ability to communicate can be enhanced. Her quality of life can be significantly enhanced.
[more edited out]
14. It is my judgement based on my training and clinical experience working with patients similar to Terri that she would, within a reasonable degree of clinical probability, be able to improve her ability to interact with her environment, communicate with others, and control her environment if she were given appropriate therapy and training as outlined above. These recommendations, in my opinion, would greatly improve Terri's quality of life.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
Sara Green Mele, MS, CCC-SLP
I feel just as strongly about my own "living will" rights, and would hate to see any group that believes differently than I do act to override my previously expressed wishes if I'm ever become unable to speak for myself (muchless to have the government dictate something counter to my wishes).
I submit that we have a right to hold different opinions in this regard, and for each of us to act accordingly, but have no right to force our beliefs on someone else.
In any case, the apology was sincere - not 'false' - but was only extended to those who deserved it, a relatively small number.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, I (sincerely) hope you have a nice day.
The FLA legislature is going to have to change their wording on PVS and who it is that is actualy terminal, and what is acceptable for a living will . That is what is going on in this case.
Your are safe, your living will is safe and I for one would not advocate taking your right to die away. I happen to believe that terminal patients should have that right if they have a living will.
I do not think that the government should side with a husband who wants to kill his wife just because he does not want to split his assets with her, because he wants to get married in a church , because her care is a burden to him, she stands in the way of a financial gain and/ or wants to cover up an attempted murder on her.
Just because you or anyone else thinks being disabled is a death sentance, does not mean the person with the actual disability thinks that way. You are, indeed, advocating that everyone should think just like you. To others life is precious disabled or not, and those people have just s many rights in this country as you do. You may find that distasteful and frustrating, but it is the nature of our system. If you want disabled people to be the property of their gaurdian, and have to subcome to the will of another person, and have all of their god given and constitutional rights taken away, why not form an activist group and lobby the governement. That is how the laws are changed in this country.
General Background info:
A few days ago, I sent the following two messages, via Freepmail, to one of the more-rational posters with whom I had exchanged comments on various Terri / Michael Schiavo threads in the (then) prior few days.
Since, at the urging of this sites owner, I deciding just before sending these messages to cease participating in discussion / debate of this topic at this site, these messages were my attempt to continue (or begin) a reasonable discussion of the associated issues, in private, with one of the more rationale posters whom I encountered in discussing this topic here in those prior days.
However, since I've not as yet received any response to those messages from that poster, I am posting them here now as a more general invitation to anyone else here who may wish to discuss / debate this topic with me privately, either via Freepmail or via general email, or at another site of their choosing where such discussion / debate may be more welcomed.
If you are interested in pursuing such discussion, please contact me via Freemail (i.e., a "private reply" to this post).
Message #1 (posted solely for additional background perspective)
Since 'quitting' the 'save Terri' threads (you wouldn't happen to already know why I did that, would you) I've looked at a few of your posts in other types of threads.
I understand the principles that seem to drive you, but given your apparent logical nature in other matters, I cannot understand why you don't use that skill in the 'save Terri' matter, much less why you urge other posters with lesser ability in that regard to post in your stead.
I would be willing to discuss the topic privately with you, if you wish to do so; for so long as you refrain from insults/inflammatory questions/accusation re me "wanting-to-kill," or the like.
The reasons I didn't respond directly to some of your questions (besides them being answered in multiple threads to other posters - as said in response to your 'clock-ticking' insult posts) are:
You started 'with me' by posting to others about me, not to me (I tend to ignore such posters, in that direct posts to them are generally a waste of time), mostly instructing others on how to deal with me - not a very good approach if you want someone to interact with you
Even when you later began addressing posts to me, you mostly just talked about me in the third person to others again instructing them on how to deal with me (in some posts you even referred to me as 'its') - again not a good technique if you want responses from someone
Also, you added Jim Rob to the list of "to crowd" when first posting to me (or at least including my SN in the list) making it seem that you want him to "watch NAL" in this exchange - trying to set me up were you? - this didn't particularly bother me, since many of your cohorts had already done the same - but, again, not a good approach if you want interaction
In any case, if you want to have a private discussion, let me know.
Message #2 (background info / grounds rules / basis for discussion) *
I decided to send you the following to facilitate your response to my earlier message.
Premises / background / basis for our potential discussion:
1. Do you agree that (independent of how we know this) IF Terri wanted not be sustained in such physical/mental condition via feeding tube, ventilator, or the like, that she should not be, i.e. that she should now be allowed to die (or maybe should have been so allowed long ago)?
2. Do you agree that her current condition is such that potential for even a partial recovery, e.g., to a meaningful mentally or physically functioning level is virtually nil (and/or that it meets the criteria that she intended, stated, or implied in #1; again, independent of how we know this).
3. Do you agree that IF #'s 1 and 2 are true, then any mention of her husbands nature, character, actions, wealth, wealth acquiring potential, etc., either before or after her current condition came to be (except to judge credibility on the key issue) is irrelevant, i.e., just a strawman argument?
4. Do you agree that IF #'s 1 and 2 are true, the act of complying with her wishes and allowing her to die should not be referred to as murder, or killing her, or starving her to death, or the like?
5. Do you agree that, in our legal system, only a judge (or jury, if applicable) can determine the credibility of witnesses and the relevancy of evidence presented and make the overall findings (albeit subject to judicial-appeal reviews for compliance with proscribed procedures, etc.)? *
* Even if you disagree with this one, neither of us is privy to sufficient info to second-guess or to support (except philosophically) the testimony given, evidence presented, or process followed.
- - - - - - - - - -
If you disagree with #1, there is no need for a discussion (unless just a philosophical one). But, such disagreement clearly means that you are trying to impose you will against her wishes, and that you might try to impose your will on me against my wishes if I were in her condition.
If you disagree with #2, there is no need for a discussion (unless just a 'medical' one). But, I ask that you give at least one example of someone in her condition recovering after 13+ years in that condition before we start what I think might be an interesting, but basically pointless discussion.
If you disagree with #3, some discussion may be interesting, possibly even worthwhile, but likely would just be a waste time, and could preclude ever getting to the key issue(s). To recap, if you agree with #'s 1 and 2, any discussion of her husband or even of how she arrived at her current condition is simply not relevant - her wishes should now be complied with in any case.
If you disagree with #4, some discussion may be worthwhile, but considerable time will be wasted, and there is great risk the discussion will degenerate into an insult-trading bout. For clarity: tf you disagree with this one, be advised that I may feel compelled to return such insults, more or less in kind, and this would not be helpful to a fruitful discussion.
If you disagree with #5, there is no need for a discussion (unless just a philosophical one). I think that our justice system, albeit somewhat flawed, is the best yet devised by man. And, I'm opposed to replacing it with "mob-rule" where one (large or small) group of individuals can override it in order to impose their beliefs on others. If you believe otherwise, we might have an interesting discussion about this, but it would be pointless in relation to the issue at hand.
If none of these obstacles exist, or if you can overcome them (they are not obstacles for me), then we may very well have a beneficial discussion.
- - - - - - - - - -
BTW, may have noticed that if you agree with #'s 1, 2 and 4, there is no need for a discussion. This would mean that we are in basic agreement on the key issues, i.e., the only issues that are relevant. However, this also would mean that you have no problem with the process that led us to this point, and that you/others have just been discussing rather interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, issues - some possibly for venting or and others possibly just for their amusement.
I acknowledge the circular nature of the above summary and the "no need for discussion if you disagree" with #'s 1, 2 and/or 4. I.e., there's no need for a discussion whether you agree or disagree on these key issues (unless the discussion is simply for philosophical, venting, or entertainment purposes; and/or to facilitate insult trading).
- - - - - - - - - -
I want you to know that I didn't start preparing the above list as a game-playing exercise; rather its circular nature simply evolved. Even so, a discussion may still be worthwhile, BUT:
- If you agree with #'s 1, 2, and 4, you must eventually reconcile your discomfort and just accept the pre-legislative intervention decision as proper; OR,
- If you disagree with any or all of these key points, you will just have to (continue to) vent philosophically and eventually begrudgingly accept the outcome, whatever it may be.
Should we proceed with a discussion, or just cut bait? Your call.
Final Notes:
[* Note: message #2 is slightly expanded (condition #2 added for clarity, whereas I initially thought it was implied by / included with #1) and has some refined wording, when compared with the message as originally sent.]
[Please respond only via Freepmail, i.e., "private reply," so that I may comply with the wishes of the owner of this site.]
[Please recognized that time-restrictions likely will not allow me to only carry on such a private discussion with more than one person, or possibly 2-3 people depending on various factors. So, if more people are interested in pursuing such discussion with me, I may consider the nature and quality of their initial response to this post, rather than using simple first-come selection criteria.]
[I'm considering making a slightly modified version of this post at another site, where anyone may participate in an open discussion of this topic. However, the site that I initially considered, Liberty Post, has a site manager who apparently feels as strongly about this topic as the owner of this site, and such open discussion / debate there may also be frowned upon. So, for now, I'm interested only a private discussion of this topic.]
This is a public forum. I do not have the energy to read your entire post. I am merely discussing your post here, that is all the contact I want with you. If you are asking me to freepmail you,I shall refrain from doing do, because I do not wish to engage you in any discussion, on any topic other than commenting upon what I read on threads on Terri. I don't know if you post on other threads or not. I have no wish to find out.
I don't even know it is you most of the time, I am just responding to what I read. If you are asking me to stop posting on Terri Threads, I will not do that unless Jim Rob asks me to. If you are asking me to stop posting on this thread, I suggest you have the entire thead pulled , because it is a public forum, and I will not be treated as though I am being censored by another freeper. It is Jim's site and I will retreat from here under his direction only. I am making valid points to a post that I read. There is nothing more here. I would never try to run you off of this thread, or any thread just because I disagree with 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.