Posted on 07/15/2005 11:56:01 PM PDT by ElPatriota
I am a conservative. My brother in Law is a liberal. I am visiting them here in Florida and as usual we are having the samE old arguments. The SCHIAVO case poses a new disagreement.
I uas under the impression that Terry's parents **ASKED** for the custody of her daughter, as well as all finanacial responsabilities. (In other words, the government would NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO HER CARE)
My brother in law contends that he never heard the parents in any of the interviews he saw on the news - and they were many - ASK for FULL CUSTODY OF HER, AS WELL AS ALL FINANCIAL RESPONSABILITIES.
So help us, who is right? Me? Him? if neither, what are the facts? (please provide links or references to articles that support the correct position>
How are you on this fine Saturday morning?
May I ask in what capacity you care for these people?
When I was a child, my mother worked in a state hospital for the retarded, and I recall that some of the retarded were not even as aware as Terri. It is beyond me how anyone can say that because a person doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of functionality, it's okay (even desirable) to kill them.
As for your game animals, your the one who said you were going to scoops the brains out of some live chickens and see if they live. That's not a typical method to kill and butcher a chicken. Doing it to prove a point or making a bet on it (like you did) is the mark of a sick individual. It only reinforces what some of us have already ascertained about your character given your ghoulish desire to see people like Terri Schiavo murdered in their beds.
He was so worked up over our unenlightened opinions that he had to go torture some chickens.
This is the day that the Lord has made...so I think I'll decide to be happy in spite it all! :-)
Thanks for asking!
Enjoy the day with your granddaughter. One of these days I'm gonna get me some of them. LOL...
Two of my kids are married off now, so it shouldn't be long, I hope! :-)
She was plump in high school. However, that was EIGHT YEARS before her "collapse" in 1990. By then, she had long since lost her baby fat. She was not a girl any more in 1990. She was married and had a good job -- a slim, attractive young woman.
If you read the Autopsy Report, you'll see that Dr. Thogmartin argued strongly against the notion that Terri suffered from bulimia or any other dietary disorder. Her blood chemistry showed no such thing. Therefore, one must rule out that early and now exploded misconception that she starved herself.
You'll have to develop some other theory why a healthy young woman ended up on the floor at 5:40 in the morning in cardiac arrest.
I have one, if you're interested. It fits the facts very well.
I think he was talking about girly-girls, not poultry, in using the almost-an-English-word "chickes."
The hospice and acute pros have a different mindset as a general rule.
They are much more exposed to death on a daily basis and become desensitized to it to a degree or they can not continue. It's par for the course but years and years of daily exposure to death takes a huge toll on them in my opinion.
There are usually free counseling services available to hospital staff for this very reason.
Yes I have cared for those who appear to have less functioning ability than Terri did. There are thousands upon thousands of them alive and well...mostly all on Medicaid or Medicare wavier.
Never too late to teach your kids about the birds and bees :-)
Two of them are married now. I think they have that figured out! ;-)
LOL..mine don't seem to have a problem with this. I have six Gran-kids already and still counting. You should see my house on the holidays. It's grand central station..but I love it.
Well..have a good chat all. I'm taking off to go play in the sand box for a while. Peace and love.
One good Samaritan offered Michael a million dollars to let her go. Michael refused, obviously because Terri was worth more to him dead than alive. In fact, he was in court hours after her death to sue for her estate. He didn't even wait for her body to get cold. The records were sealed so we don't know how much he made by executing her, but the amount will obviously be substantial. And in years to come, he owns all the book and movie rights to her life. An agent has already been making the rounds in New York, trying to sell a book about Terri.
Yup, Michael had nothing but her best interests in mind in ordering her dehydrated to death (and hold the ice chips).
/do I need a sarc warning?
> Two of them are married now. I think they have that figured out! ;-)
Um. Um. If you think marriage has anything to do with grandchildren, perhaps your own views on the birds and bees are in need of some modernization :-)
HMM, as long as some of the brain is still alive than the person is alive and disabled, not dead. You get your facts straight!!!!!!!!
Your an idiot, her brain was not dead it was damaged. That was a fact. There is a huge difference! If her brain was dead than she wouldn't have been able to make noises, open her eyes, breath on her own, show emotion which she did when certain music was played to comfort her(that is a fact that the hospice workers admitted to after her death), and many other things. I have seen a brain dead person in the ICU. It wasn't pretty and what i saw was a man laying down on machines to keep him alone as he couldn't breath on his own, his eyes were shut, no movemant in his body, no brain activity what so ever(Terri did have some brain activity). This man was dead and was being kept alive to harvest his organs as per the request of his family. I was there and stood near his room. He was a kid who was hunting and accidentally shot himeself between the eyes. Sad really. But he was brain dead!!!!!!! Terri was not. I've seen both and it is clear Terri was brain damaged. If you don't see that than you are well, just stupid!!!!!!
And that's really an issue here. With so much communication between the brain and body necessary for life to continue, it really is not possible to keep the body functioning for a prolonged period when the brain is dead.
A few months ago, I read about a baby whose mother's body was maintained by machines, because she was only three months pregnant when she died, and her mother did not want to lose her grandchild as well as her daughter. The doctors kept the body going as long as they could, but eventually had to deliver the baby by C-section because the mother's body had deteriorated so much that it could no longer nourish the unborn baby properly. Because of the deteriorated state of the mother's body when the baby was born, he had to be placed in intensive care for a few weeks.
None of those claiming it was okay to kill Terri on the basis that she was already "brain-dead" have an explanation for how she remained alive for 14 years in that state, without any intervention other than feeding.
My brother was involved as a lawyer in the case. The parents asked for custody for years and years. They offered up till the day she died to allow them to take over the responsibilities.
Michael would not allow any care to be given to Terri, nor would he allow much visitation from the family. That included typical care of a person in her condition, tooth brushing, etc.
He was and is a pig. The libs, your brother included, just deny in order to try to win the argument. He is wrong and probably will never admit it.
Thank goodness there are caring medical practitioners like 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.