Posted on 03/23/2005 3:20:34 AM PST by syriacus
1. Dr. Cranford said, to Hannity last night, that PVS persons have no constitutional rights.
2. Cranford has said that Terri is PVS
Question:
Does Terri have the constitutional right to ask to be starved to death?
A de novo trial,would have allowed all evidence to be presented anew,on both sides.
He would fit in very well with Peter Singer at Princeton University who said that newborns should be permitted to be killed if they are defective.
You obviously don't have a law degree or you would understand the difference between a cour of first instance and an appellate court,What the latter can review are matters of law,not facts, The fact Finder,litterally blind judge Greer,makes determination of facts that cannot be reviewed.
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE IN DISPUTE!
That is why the Congress passed a law reqiring a de novo trial.
Is Melvin Greer related to judge Greer?
Really???? Tell that to those who lived through the civil rights era.
I never said I had a law degree. She was given de novo that was reviewed in federal court with the same outcome.
Which was then upheld by 11th circuit.
And will probably be denied cert by the Supreme Court.
So?
What does it matter whether Terri is diagnosed with PVS or not?
Are you suggesting that people who slip into a persistent vegitative state become, by virtue of being in a pvs, "non-persons" -- with no consitutional rights?
If so, then perhaps you should stop referring to Terri as "Terri". "Terri Schiavo" is a nmae given to an individual person. If you think that that person has ceased to exist because of pvs, then I would suggest that you start referring to the body in the hospice bed in Florida as "Terri Schiavo's body" or something that conveys your notion of the non-person-hood of that body.
You might also want to visit this FR Thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368709/posts
See what the good Dr. Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, has to say?
He says that consciousness is what determines personhood.
And, he goes on to say, "For example, a patient in persistent vegetative state will grasp your hand. In fact if you put anything into the patient's hand, the hand will grasp it. But this is a very primitive reaction. A newborn baby will grasp your finger, but there is no consciousness."
Isn't that wonderful? Even newborn babies have no consciousness.
I would think it ghastly if someone were to ever suggest that it was OK to deny a newborn baby food or water, and to justify doing so because "there is no consciousness".
And yet, starving an adult woman seems to be OK because she is not conscious. And we are supposed to know she is not conscious because she is in pvs. And because she is in pvs, she is no really a person.
Ghastly. Just ghastly.
And, if some doctors had their way, she would have no more rights that a newborn child.
See this FR thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368709/posts
In it, you will see Michael De Georgia, MD, head of the neurology-neurosurgery intensive care unit at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, advance the argument that people with pvs do not have consciousness, and that, as a result it is OK to starve them to death, because doing so causes them no pain or suffering. (Pain and suffering, says Dr. De Georgia, require consciousness).
The scary thing about what Dr. De Georgia argues is that he makes this statement: "For example, a patient in persistent vegetative state will grasp your hand. In fact if you put anything into the patient's hand, the hand will grasp it. But this is a very primitive reaction. A newborn baby will grasp your finger, but there is no consciousness."
Get it? If it's OK to starve people with PVS (because they feel no pain and do not suffer), it must also be OK to starve newborn babies who also lack consciousness (and therefore do not feel pain and do not suffer).
Ghastly.
So wrong in so many ways? The first federal judge did not review the facts de novo he only ruled on TRO(injunctive relief)to replace the tube on a temporary basis. He against the new Law did not consider new evidence but using the record from the previous court rulings ruled that there wwas not a likelihood of success and refused the TRO. The 11th district said that he did not make such an irreversible error as to warrant them to overturn it,so they denied the TRO.
THere is still the Law of COngrees that says she gets a trial de novo. But the Courts are refusing to enforce it,by refusing to give her TRO,because without it she will be dead before the trial can start,
Do you understand?
So stop making statements that just demonstrate your absolute ignorance of both the facts and the law in this case,
I can't really respond very well to a string of non-sequiturs such as you have offered, except to say that there have been a few persons of note who were completely unable to feed themselves, and no one suggested that they didn't deserve to live. And if their caregivers had refused them care, charges would certainly have been brought against them.
For example, Christopher Reeve. Would you have wanted his caregiver to walk away from him with a shrug and a "Feed yourself, Superman!" Or Stephen Hawking's, with toss of the hair and a "Figure it out for yourself, genius!"
Of course not. And we are talking here about people who are charged with the care of the incapacitated person, not strangers in the street. We aren't talking, as you seem to be, about some abstract world hunger guilt trip.
Finally, you ask me to justify Africa, North Korea and Somalia: Sorry, please direct your questions to Robert Mugabe, Abshir Farah Hassan, and Kim Jong Il.
You are a sorely, hopelessly, abysmally, misinformed dolt.
Not even the people who are trying to kill her claim that she is brain dead. If she were brain dead, they'd be harvesting her organs.
She is severely impaired, no doubt, but we don't kill people because they have become an inconvenience to us.
Very nice analogies.
"There we have it gentlemen. What more evidence do we need? Judas thank you for the victim. Now stay a while and you can see it bleed"
Dr. Carole E. Liebeman said just that in her interview with the Schindler's and Terri's friends.
Like Terri's friend (from work?), who said, on Greta's "On the Record," that she and Terri were planning to share an apartment together.
Answer: No. The word "kill" means "to cause the death of." In 1989, a group of physicians published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine in which they concluded that it would be morally acceptable for doctors to give patients suicide information and a prescription for deadly drugs so they can kill themselves.Dr. Ronald Cranford, one of the authors of the report, publicly acknowledged that this is "the same as killing the patient."
Blah ...non sequitur....blah blah...non sequitur...other totally unrelated issue...non sequitur..blah ...blah.
I guess you heard that Ralph Nader has joined the hordes of people who are using Terri.
Gosh! Ralph Nader must have morphed into a "right-wing, religious fanatic.
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.