| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 06/15/2005 11:23:04 AM PDT by Lead Moderator, reason:
Locked. Reason: Pain in the ass. |
Posted on 06/15/2005 7:59:51 AM PDT by floriduh voter
This is news/activism. Terri Schindler Schiavo is still in the headlines. The death lobby shouldn't kid themselves. We are not going to forget...
LIVE THREAD of Terri Schiavo Autopsy Press Conference. It begins at 11:00 pm est from Clearwater, Florida at the Medical Examiner's Office right down the road from where Terri was starved & dehydrated to death.
The ME will have to address that hmmmmmmmm?
John Throgmartin, ME, here he goes. Dr. Steven Nelson joins him. HERE WE GO.
He said he signed certain papers re:the plans for her rehab and did not.
AND
So a man can be married to and the guardian to one woman and live with another woman and have children with her- why are there laws against bigamy then? Isn't that judgmental of us?
As a matter of act it is judgmental of us to have any laws at all....
My post 688 TRUE. Haven't you read any of Terri's Exit Protocols? Probably not the recent one that's on line. That's what happened to Terri as she was needlessly suffering in a state sponsored murder.
You are messing up this important discussion with your false accusations.
Once the dog analogy is used....it brings out the pro-euthanasia crowd instantly. Then one can really hear what they want to do to the handicapp, etc.....
And if she is unable to speak for herself, spouses have traditionally been able to act on their behalf. It is only in cases where there is dispute that the courts intervene at all.
For you to say a spouse should not have that right, while complaining about the courts intervening uninvited into people's lives is utter hypocrisy. Do you want a court involved in the decision of family or not?
In this case, Terri tried to speak for herself, for all the good it did. When they came to remove the tube, she was told what they intended to do and she yelled out loudly "I wahhhhhh...." as best she could. Too bad the court didn't take that into consideration.
The people witnessing understood she was trying her best to protest, "I want to live..." But spouse Michael knew better and he had the say.
I will use the word in any fashion I see fit.
"A spouse who has lied under oath, a spouse who lives with another woman and has children with her?
Would you feel comfortable with your husband speaking for your life when he has moved on and is in love with a different woman?"
And no one would want that for their daughter.
The Schindlers told Michael that it was time to move on. Find another companion, when it became obvious that Terri would never be able to provide companionship. They testified to this under oath.
You may read into that what you wish. But her very own parents testified they knew there was no hope and understood MS was too young to remain without a companion for the rest of his life.
The Schindlers also testified that even if they KNEW that Terri would NOT want to be kept alive in that condition, they would keep her alive.
They further testified that even if she needed multiple amputations as a result of poor circulation, they would keep her alive. That's not love. That's obsession.
Here's your post, marmema, opining that MS was trying to kill her.
To: tutstar
Insulin administration causes lowering of potassium levels.
I think the husband was into injections of insulin, which can be purchased over the counter, and was trying to kill her.
386 posted on 06/15/2005 9:07:13 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You 'see fit' to falsely accuse others. That's extremely obvious.
I have a feeling some on this thread would be delighted to have Michael as a son-in-law.....disgusting.
Really? Who?
Uh - maybe because this isn't a thread about abortion.
And keep up the inflammatory, lying language. It's so very, very Christian of you.
If the shoe fits, wear it, if not, leave it alone.
"The death ghouls are out in full force on this thread."
{No more so than the Posters Without A Connection To Reality...}
Man...I've been reading all the sniping on this thread and it's kind of sad to watch (read). We can form whatever opinions we need to about her health and how she came to be in that condition. But isn't the real issue about the law? After all it was decided in the courts that she should die based on testimony that was refuted by some witnesses. The "condition" didn't kill Terri, the law did. I think that without a clear indication of the patient's wishes, the law in Florida comes down on the side of death. This was certainly the case here.
The truth is no one posting to this thread has any idea whether or not the autopsy it ligit. Outside of a slight curiosity, I have no interest in what is said about her condition, especially now. The issue to me is still the law that allowed this to happen.
You know Howlin, I just don't understand your animosity.
You were the one who accused me of running on empty when all I did was point out the fact that the medical examiner basically ruled out every cause of death that had been speculated at. About the only thing he was not able to rule out was caffeine overdose as there was no test done for that, but he did say unless she was up all night drinking caffeine or taking caffeine pills (which there was no proof of) he doubted that was the cause.
I was only making a speculation of what might have been a possibility.
Where do you get it that I think everybody is lying?
The Medical examiner could not say what caused her initial collapse, so if I make a speculation how could that be calling them a liar?
Did you hear him say exactly what caused her collapse? If so share it with me as I may have missed it.
The sanctity of marriage must be more than a one-sided thing which applies only to the declaration that a spouse would want to be dehydrated to death.
The husband here believed he could go on with a life with a girl friend, kids, etc., while at the same time deny her care to her parents by saying only he had the right to say what she would have wanted because he was a legal spouse/guardian.
Greer upheld that side of "marriage sanctity", but he ignored the statutes that disqualified the husband from Guardianship because of the husband's abandonment of the other side of "marriage sanctity".
I have no issue at all that MS moved on and I do not begrudge him a life and children... but he had a conflict of interest here and denied her parents the ability to take care of their child. They are family as well, no?
Very telling......
Remember folks!
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.