Posted on 01/22/2006 11:35:40 AM PST by LouAvul
Yes. Terri could swallow her own saliva. Involuntarily. I have never denied that.
What she could not do was swallow voluntarily. If you gave her a glass of water she would drown. If you gave her food she would choke.
She was incapable of voluntary swallowing.
"I believe that Terri was minimally conscious."
Based ... on ... what?
Why would you want to provide nourishment P.O. to a patient who cannot swallow voluntarily?
Hey. Save me some drillin' time and tell me the truth. I'd really like to hear your version.
Hah! That's your logic, not mine. I never said anything about "removing" life support -- I merely defined it.
I'm thinking about snail mailing them. But I don't want to be in tattle-tale, sore-loser, or whine mode. Maybe I will just to get it off my chest.
Sadly, my honest opinion is that the Vatican has bigger fish to fry now and won't want to make any waves, knowing it will all die down and return to business as usual. You can tell that is a thriving and probably growing parish.
They don't seem to practice what they preach (some do to set good examples), in the way of enforcing any kind of meaningful discipline, so we're on our own. Too many people don't care what the pope says. One post I read on the net said they didn't do anything to prolong his life like a kidney transplant, etc., just let him die because it was his time to go. He could have given up himself long before that, but struggled to keep going to show that life at the end still has worth.
Why bother with moral absolutes, especially when suffering is involved, even though we have an arsenal of painkillers we didn't have before?
A sampling of usenet posts was about 10 to 1 in favor of the latest news. The world loves a happy ending. Christians, especially Republican Christians, are mean and hate-filled. And the Schindlers were demonized over and over. That bothers me a lot, but there's nothing I can do about it.
In more normal times in our recent history, they wouldn't have had to fight like they did. Women and sometimes men sat by bedsides and tried to coax the last bit of nourishment in their hopeless cases, simply because it was the right thing to do.
The world wants to dump their sick, infirm, and hopeless cases so it won't impact their "quality of life" or prolong their suffering.
Instant gratification and relief is the order of the day. It's foolish to honorably play the hand you've been dealt to the bitter end. Up is down and white is black now.
I've really agonized over this. What does God really think about it all? Is he there? It really rocks your faith, especially when you are considered dumb for believing those old silly fairy tales.
Hello, Pat Greer, your husband MURDERED A DISABLED WOMAN. Wasn't that picking on someone's disability?????
I never said she couldn't swallow. She could. It's in the doctor's reports. I said she couldn't swallow voluntarily.
"Testimony from multiple nursing home aides"
Uh-huh. I got testimony from a guy who saw a flying saucer. Think maybe he saw what he wanted to see? Maybe?
And, Judge Greer tampered with witness testimony to CHANGE TERRI'S AGE so that he could say that she wasn't old enough to decide if she meant to say "Where there's life there's hope." GREER TAMPERED WITH THAT WITNESS TESTIMONY and after he did so, he had the dates all wrong based upon Karen Quinlan's case.
Greer was a ZONING COMMISSIONER before he became a probate judge. There are articles on line where Greer admits that he was going to "play it by ear". Well, he certainly has.
How many people have died because of Judge Greer or lost their life savings? PLENTY I'D SAY. Federal Prison for life. He can take walks and reflect. TERRI WAS MURDERED AND JUDGE GREER IS RESPONSIBLE. www.judgegeorgegreer.com (some republican he is).
my sister and i talk, i had to just inform her our brother died. shes is 10 years older then i am and has a drinking problem. she was denied guardianship of my dad because she makes so many problems out of everything. i love her but its better we stay far apart and have a phone relationship. i've taken her in when shes been depressed, she suffers from huge depression but i just refuse to deal with someone who drinks and will not help themsleves. its no powerplay on my part ...i'm just mad and sad my mom didnt get her wishes.
It's hard to believe that a bunch of people could be so hate filled as we see here on this thread (Mikey's bottom dwellers).
I told you, Jodi would have never put up with MS for 10 years standing in the wings waiting for MS to fight a battle with another woman's parents, to carry out another woman's wishes, especially if it was all out of love for the other woman. The motive therefore can not be love for Terri. So what is left? Something that had to be mutually beneficial to both Michael and Jodi. No one knows but Michael and Jodi and the family that surrounds them.
But note: the only way that one could justify what MS did is if he really truly did it out of love for Terri. Since that is not possible given that there was another love of his life in the picture - the motive becomes a selfish one, based on his needs and his desires.
He didn't see any of the visual evidence, and for many years the only side that knew that was the side petitioning to kill Terri.
Does that mean you were opposed to the starvation/dehydration death of Terri Schiavo? You have a funny way of showing it.
She was incapable of voluntary swallowing.
If one believes that the tests that were performed on Terri in her early years of recovery were all that were necessary to make a decision one way or the other, then one might come to the conclusion just as you did.
"I believe that Terri was minimally conscious."
Based ... on ... what?
Based on what I have learned about the vegetative state and how often it is misdiagnosed. Based on research that describes the minimally conscious state. Like I keep saying, this is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. I'm only answering your questions, but your responses have been getting a little harassing. I don't care if you are convinced in what you think or not. You could be right. I could be right. We'll never know because the tests for the minimally conscious state weren't performed.
You keep mentioning to me and other posters about the flying saucer thing. Well, that description would fit you as well as anyone else here. You might be believing what you want to see just as well as me. Go ahead and believe what you want to believe, and I will continue to do the same.
Terri's gone from this life. Leave her alone. Wasn't her death good enough for you?
You may think you know all that there is to know about this case, and maybe you know more than me, but you seem to be trying very hard to get me to change my mind. I won't.
Not very polite posting to someone you asked not to post to you anymore. I am forgiven I suppose? Just because I called two people in one thread a Troll doesn't surmount to anything. I see how many times Freepers get called DUmmies over and over for not waving their Bush PomPoms all the time. So, your point?
Oh. Here I thought you knew.
No, it means that it's illogical to assume that I wish to remove the artificial feeding tube from everyone who has one.
I notice that you didn't ask, "How was Michael Shiavo's testimony self-serving?" That shows at least a glimmer of hope for you. You realize that Mr. Schiavo's testimony is a priori self-serving, because as the plaintiff he would be expected to give testimony supportive of his suit.
Your question above, however, is a bit dumb. One would usually be expected to give testimony supportive of his family member. This is well documented even in cases where you might expect otherwise; for example, mothers are notably prone to testify on behalf of their spouses against their own children in child abuse cases. Mothers testify favorably to their children, even when their children are guilty of serious crimes. Most persons are motivated to be supportive of their close relatives and friends.
Thus, when a man testifies that he "din't do nuthin'," this is suspect because he would be expected to testify in his own interest. And when his mother, brother, uncle, cousin and girlfriend all testify, "Tha's ri'! He din't do nuthin'!" their testimony is also suspect, because they would be expected to testify on his behalf.
This is quite well known. It's why, in criminal trials, an alibi from a close relative, friend of significant other is not given much credence without supportive evidence.
Get it?
Right. We shouldn't assume that you want what you've supported all this time.
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.