My apologies to (some of) the 'save Terri' posters here (a 'vanity' post)

Self ^ | 10/29/03 | Self

[TigersEye]

I can't speak to the rudeness of others but I was polite to you until you were rude to me as is evident in our first exchanges.

[ClancyJ]

What may be considered emotional rhetoric to you is not to those that support Terri - it is desperation and absolute rage for the injustice being done to this woman.

We realize your points BUT - in this case, there is a very high probability that the husband is trying to do away with her and wants only her death.

We realize what the law is but the justice system has refused to help this woman and therefore public outrage is called for. All avenues of redress were taken - yet still the justice system failed to protect the rights of this woman who quite possibility is in the process of being killed.

[Houmatt]

In fact, I have great respect for (at least most of) your posts.

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.

[Normally a Lurker]

Our differences are both philosophical and practial, but I fully understand your perspective, as you apparently do mine, and, further: I appreciate the manor in which you express yourself.

[ClancyJ]

One thing I have come to realize is that we have to be very careful in judging how others feel in a situation. My mother is in a nursing home and I use to feel that would be horrible. Yet - I have come to see that as we progress in different life situations our desires and wants change.

My mother cannot walk, cannot do anything for herself. I could moan and groan that she is miserable because she can't get out and go shopping, go places, have fun. Yet - in her condition, it is not fun to go shopping and out doing things the healthy do. Her wants and desires have changed. I talked to a 102-year old roommate of my mother, talking about how hard it was to take her over to my house in her condition. This lady told me - "Oh, I don't want to go out to my daughter's, it is just really not worth the trouble - I would rather stay here.


So, the same is true of others in less than perfect life situations. The Lord has put in place adaptability for us. Our desires change and new things become pleasant.

Therefore, we can't know that Terri's life is miserable. She has her likes and desires. Altzheimer's patients want their food (sometimes) and their minds have become so confused, they sure are not missing the things younger ones do, they become like children content with other things.

This view has indeed helped me quit comparing my life to what my mother cannot do. In addition, the same applies to the retarded, the mentally defective, and all others except those in severe pain. They adapt and life is still precious to them.

Why do we have the right to take it from them? That is God's job because he knows the whole situation - we don't and never will.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

You are my kindered spirit..... Interesting posts here indeed. Good job.

[TigersEye]

Thank you. It is obvious that you share a heartfelt conviction that life is sacred, precious beyond understanding. Your posts have been terrific!

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?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Wow. This is so very well said that it deserves a wider audience than would be available on the smokey back room location of this thread (likely another of the intents of the author who is no longer responding to tougher questions?).

Written up as a stand alone editorial and published at another site your fine words might achieve wider influence.

Kudos TigersEye.

-Av

[TigersEye]

You are very generous. Thank you!

[viaveritasvita]

I must give you a lot of credit for the public apology! As far as I can remember, we did not personally clash on the issue of Terri Schiavo. (I just couldn't figure why you were posting on the Terri threads!)

An emotional response is not unusual when it's a matter of life or state-sanctioned death. To my way of thinking, if one didn't have an emotional response to a woman being starved to death...well, that would be downright cold-hearted (or, to put it in your terms, too analytical).

There are far too many valid, relevant, and really disturbing questions about this case. I think asking those questions and attempting to sort them out before playing God and snuffing out a life IS a logical position to take.

<><

[KDD]

'Preservation instinct'

What's also confusing is that many purely reflexive actions might be misinterpreted as conscious behaviors, said Dr. Ira Goodman, chief of neurology for Orlando Regional Healthcare.

"People in a vegetative state can look awake and alert," Goodman said. "They actually move their limbs; they can follow you [with their eyes] when you're moving around the room. They close their eyes at night and go to sleep. But there's absolutely no awareness there."

This is because when blood flow to the brain is interrupted, cells in the areas responsible for higher thinking are most vulnerable and die first. Cells deep within the brain -- in the area called the brain stem -- are more resilient to temporary interruptions in blood flow. The brain stem can emerge intact from such incidents.

Because the stem controls involuntary functions such as breathing and eye movement, a person without higher-thinking abilities can still track people or objects with their eyes, groan, move limbs in response to touch or even smile and grimace. Gebel said it is all part of the "preservation instinct" ingrained in human biology.

"If you need to be able to respond to a tiger jumping out of the bushes, you just want your eyes to pick up the movement," Gebel said. "That's all someone in a vegetative state is doing -- following the light or responding to the sound."

When researchers have removed most of a monkey's brain and left the stem intact, the animals maintain cycles of sleep and wakefulness, respond to light or noise and track objects with their eyes, said Dr. Walter G. Bradley, chairman of the neurology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine.

He has seen snippets of a video made by Schiavo's parents in which the woman appears to focus on her mother's face and smile as her mom touches her cheek.

"The smiling is perhaps the most evocative aspect of the [video], but the reflex smile that I saw was associated with face-touching," Bradley said. "That's the sort of thing that can easily be explained by reflex."

'A black hole'

Last October, five physicians examined Schiavo as part of the legal proceedings.

In summarizing their findings, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said: "Although the physicians are not in complete agreement concerning the extent of Mrs. Schiavo's brain damage, they all agree that the brain scans show extensive permanent damage to her brain. The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex."

The doctor appointed by Circuit Judge George W. Greer was Peter Bambakidis, a board-certified neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. According to court records, he said Schiavo's CT scans show "such a profound loss of tissue" that the "normal brain cortex has become lost. It's not there anymore."

One of Michael Schiavo's doctors, Ron Cranford, a neurologist at Hennepin County Medical Center in Minnesota, said her brain scans showed "massive" atrophy of the cerebral hemisphere "compatible with severe irreversible brain damage."

"There is hardly any cerebral cortex left," Cranford said. "It looks like a black hole."

rsuriano@orlandosentinel.com

Our technological ability to sustain human biological functions will soon far outstrip our ability to die a natural death. Indeed, they already do.

But I've also heard that even plants respond to love. But no tubes for me. I don't fear death and there are some things worse then death. I would not wish to live in Terris condition. Some might.

But of this used to be no ones buisness but my doctor, my wifes and mine. Now it's hers mine and the states buisness, it seems.

I live here in Pinellas Co. and have followed this story from the beginning. The story has been hyped all out of shape to the extent that I won't even try to reply to emotional tirades and accusations that fly around on these threads...

[ET(end tyranny)]

Given that rather typical attitude among (most of) the 'save Terri' crowd, I'd like to suggest that you set up a separate forum for 'their' posts, and keep them off of the main forum here . . . for obvious reasons.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to NOT go to those threads?

[TigersEye]

"People in a vegetative state can look awake and alert," Goodman said. "They actually move their limbs; they can follow you [with their eyes] when you're moving around the room. They close their eyes at night and go to sleep. But there's absolutely no awareness there."

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 State

A 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 COOK

BEFORE 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

[TigersEye]

Howdy FRiends! Have you seen this affadavit? What a crushing blow to the "kill her first, diagnose her later" crowd.

[FreepinforTerri]

If you were trying to distract us from the subject of saving Terri's life, you've done an excellent job. Kudos to you on initiating a petty school-yard fight about crap that doesn't matter. I would try the whole 'fake apology' thing, if I were an upstanding person.

[Normally a Lurker]

Sorry that you feel that way about it.

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.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

That is fine, but this case isn't about you or your living will. This is not a right to die case,this is a right to kill case. Please remember that Terri was not dying, she was not in a coma or living with a life threatening illness. She did not have a living will.

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.

[Normally a Lurker]

I have tried to refrain from continuing to discuss this matter with you and others here, but it seems that you will just not let go of me, so to speak - see above and other threads since I made post #46 above, a few days ago. Therefore, I am posting the following invitation-to-take-it-private here as my final post on this topic at this site:

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.]

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Why do you keep posting on these threads then? I am responding to your post. Do you have some sort of special permission from Jim Rob to make statements and post things here, and then demand that others can not refer to what you have posted? Or are you saying that I can not respond to any of your posts? If you don't want to make a public statement, freepmail the person to whom you wish to discuss things.

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.

[FreepinforTerri]

See, that post would make sense--if you knew anything about this case.
This is not a case of a woman whose living will is not being honored, it is a case about people that stand to profit from her death and who have manipulated the system for that purpose.
The case is not about living will rights, and I'm not arguing that with you. Had Terri written an advanced directive and if she were really brain-dead this would be a much different issue. This is the case of you imposing your uniformed opinions on people who are in a desperate effort to save the life of this innocent woman. We're not here to debate, but to provide eachother with the information needed to succeed in this battle.
You may want to be killed and have specified that in your living will. Terri hasn't. Terri has expressed that SHE WANTS TO LIVE. Please don't be an obstacle in our trying to fufill her wishes.