Legerdemain's reasons to kill Terri:ah, and there is the rub, deny me a feeding tube and I can still eat. Let's give her substenace without a tube and see if she eats...if not, it is time to let the body die...geesh.....it does not take a rocket scientist in this situation........
Again, I have posted this question before, where is it stated that ones constitutional rights include being force fed. Take the tubes out and let nature take its course.
Again, take out the feeding tubes and see if she can live...at this time you are force feeding her. Heck, send in the godsquad to pray when they do it..maybe a miracle will happen and she will live a happy productive life... Come on, this is a shell of a body only..
Deep_6's reasons for killing Terri:
What's a year for Terri? She's not going anyplace, right?
...if she is indeed without a cerebral cortex to allow her to make the least of voluntary movements [eating or drinking], then a choice would have to be made regarding the length of time she should be kept on life support.
Terri can not eat. No, it's not that she 'can't feed herself", it's that she can not voluntarily swallow. That is the reason for the feeding apparatus; the life support.
Meanwhile.... Terri may or may not understand what's happening outside that shell of a body; a coffin of sorts. But I'll bet it's not very comfortable in there, if she is hearing anything, or can think..
If those that want to assume that Terri has the full capability to experience sound, sight, and thought...... They must also consider that Terri can not now, or ever will, respond to that stimuli. That is fact. Without a cerebral cortex, only involuntary actions are possible. There is no possibility for voluntary actions to take place. That is medical fact.
Terri is in a vegetated state and it is physically and mentally impossible for Terri to respond. She does not have that capability and she will never, ever have that capability.
And now, a blast from the past:
Berlin, 1 Sept. 1939
Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death after a discerning diagnosis.
A. Hitler
Notice any difference?
Me either.
FatherOfLiberty, re #162. Good points!
In light of what's happening with Terri, it would behoove us to look at other sections of Florida law [and the laws in each of the other 49 states as well.] Yesterday I posted that the Wildlands Project [communism] is being implemented in Florida via the Florida Statutes. The Wildlands Project has as a MAJOR component POPULATION REDUCTION/EUGENICS. [See the maps:
http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/htm/show/page2.htm and
http://www.discerningtoday.org/wildlands_map_of_us.htm ]
There are laws in Florida covering Juvenile Delinquency which could be just as abused as they are in Terri's case. A child can be taken from his parent for breaking any law THE COURTS or legislature trump up (such as it is a crime for a child to be taught that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible). The following statutes for adjudicating mental incompetency in this climate of runaway judicial tyranny and Godlessness could be a method for the Final Solution against any who would oppose the Luciferian NWO tyranny. The Supreme Court has already ruled, either by commission or omission that it is constitutional for the government to drug people when there is a compelling state interest [case in point, a dentist - Dr. Sells? - who was accused of medicaid fraud. The government said he was psychotic and had to be drugged to stand trial. He said he was not psychotic, had passed their own test 100 percent, had not committed fraud and could prove it if he was not forced to be medicated, and that the real reason they wanted to medicate him was because he saw the government start the fire at Waco]. I'd say the government's true intentions toward the citizens of this country are barely concealed anymore.
The 2003 Florida Statutes
Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTH Chapter 394
MENTAL HEALTH View Entire Chapter
394.4598 Guardian advocate.--
(1) The administrator may petition the court for the appointment of a guardian advocate based upon the opinion of a psychiatrist that the patient is incompetent to consent to treatment. If the court finds that a patient is incompetent to consent to treatment and has not been adjudicated incapacitated and a guardian with the authority to consent to mental health treatment appointed, it shall appoint a guardian advocate. The patient has the right to have an attorney represent him or her at the hearing. If the person is indigent, the court shall appoint the office of the public defender to represent him or her at the hearing. The patient has the right to testify, cross-examine witnesses, and present witnesses. The proceeding shall be recorded either electronically or stenographically, and testimony shall be provided under oath. One of the professionals authorized to give an opinion in support of a petition for involuntary placement, as described in s. 394.467(2), must testify. A guardian advocate must meet the qualifications of a guardian contained in part IV of chapter 744, except that a professional referred to in this part, an employee of the facility providing direct services to the patient under this part, a departmental employee, a facility administrator, or member of the Florida local advocacy council shall not be appointed. A person who is appointed as a guardian advocate must agree to the appointment.
(2) A facility requesting appointment of a guardian advocate must, prior to the appointment, provide the prospective guardian advocate with information about the duties and responsibilities of guardian advocates, including the information about the ethics of medical decisionmaking. Before asking a guardian advocate to give consent to treatment for a patient, the facility shall provide to the guardian advocate sufficient information so that the guardian advocate can decide whether to give express and informed consent to the treatment, including information that the treatment is essential to the care of the patient, and that the treatment does not present an unreasonable risk of serious, hazardous, or irreversible side effects. Before giving consent to treatment, the guardian advocate must meet and talk with the patient and the patient's physician in person, if at all possible, and by telephone, if not. The decision of the guardian advocate may be reviewed by the court, upon petition of the patient's attorney, the patient's family, or the facility administrator.
(3) Prior to a guardian advocate exercising his or her authority, the guardian advocate shall attend a training course approved by the court. This training course, of not less than 4 hours, must include, at minimum, information about the patient rights, psychotropic medications, diagnosis of mental illness, the ethics of medical decisionmaking, and duties of guardian advocates. This training course shall take the place of the training required for guardians appointed pursuant to chapter 744.
(4) The information to be supplied to prospective guardian advocates prior to their appointment and the training course for guardian advocates must be developed and completed through a course developed by the department and approved by the chief judge of the circuit court and taught by a court-approved organization. Court-approved organizations may include, but are not limited to, community or junior colleges, guardianship organizations, and the local bar association or The Florida Bar. The court may, in its discretion, waive some or all of the training requirements for guardian advocates or impose additional requirements. The court shall make its decision on a case-by-case basis and, in making its decision, shall consider the experience and education of the guardian advocate, the duties assigned to the guardian advocate, and the needs of the patient.
(5) In selecting a guardian advocate, the court shall give preference to a health care surrogate, if one has already been designated by the patient. If the patient has not previously selected a health care surrogate, except for good cause documented in the court record, the selection shall be made from the following list in the order of listing:
(a) The patient's spouse.
(b) An adult child of the patient.
(c) A parent of the patient.
(d) The adult next of kin of the patient.
**(e) An adult friend of the patient.
**(f) An adult trained and willing to serve as guardian advocate for the patient.
(6) If a guardian with the authority to consent to medical treatment has not already been appointed or if the patient has not already designated a health care surrogate, ***the court may authorize the guardian advocate to consent to medical treatment, as well as mental health treatment. Unless otherwise limited by the court, a guardian advocate with authority to consent to medical treatment shall have the same authority to make health care decisions and be subject to the same restrictions as a proxy appointed under part IV of chapter 765. ***UNLESS the guardian advocate has sought and received express court approval in proceeding separate from the proceeding to determine the competence of the patient to consent to medical treatment, the guardian advocate may not consent to: [IOW, if a Kangaroo court approves, the guardian may consent on the behalf of the ward to the following:]
**(a) Abortion.
**(b) Sterilization.
**(c) Electroconvulsive treatment.
**(d) Psychosurgery.
**(e) Experimental treatments that have not been approved by a federally approved institutional review board in accordance with 45 C.F.R. part 46 or 21 C.F.R. part 56.
The [Kangaroo] court must base its decision on evidence that the treatment or procedure is essential to the care of the patient and that the treatment does not present an unreasonable risk of serious, hazardous, or irreversible side effects. The court shall follow the procedures set forth in subsection (1) of this section.
(7) The guardian advocate shall be discharged when the patient is discharged from a receiving or treatment facility to the community or when the patient is transferred from involuntary to voluntary status. The court or a hearing officer shall consider the competence of the patient pursuant to subsection (1) and may consider an involuntarily placed patient's competence to consent to treatment at any hearing. Upon sufficient evidence, the court may restore, or the hearing officer may recommend that the court restore, the patient's competence. A copy of the order restoring competence or the certificate of discharge containing the restoration of competence shall be provided to the patient and the guardian advocate.
History.--s. 10, ch. 96-169; s. 50, ch. 97-96; s. 12, ch. 2000-263.
There are so many people on the streets: runaways, mentally disturbed, homeless; who will know if they are disposed of in places like $uncoast, after their organs are harvested for profit? Who will be their advocate? How many 'enemy combatants' will find their way to these proceedings, with a 'professional' "adult trained and willing to serve as guardian advocate for the patient" as their only bulwark against a tyrannical state?
___________________________________________________________
Excerpt from "Secret US Human Biological Experimentation"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm Human Experiments: Sliding Backward
Congressman Christopher Smith
Since the Nuremberg trials, the image of humans used as laboratory animals has been etched into America's, if not the world's, cultural psyche. The Nazi atrocities prompted creation of the Nuremberg code of universal medical ethics. America's laws, modeled on this code, strictly forbid experiments on humans without obtaining their informed consent. But that recently changed.
Americans typically are trustful that they will not be used as human guinea pigs. This explains why American’s were so outraged a few years ago when they learned of syphilis experiments on black men in Tuskegee beginning in the 1940s who did not give their consent. It seemed inconceivable that such a thing could occur in our own country. Despite these deeply disturbing disclosures, however, the government recently relaxed the ethical code for research. The Food and Drug Administration issued a new rule last October that allows human experiments on patients without their consent.
The stated goal of the new regulations is to permit medical advances in treating life-threatening conditions when current treatments are either unproven or prove useless. A commendable goal, however, is little comfort to those individuals who find they have been experimented on without their consent. The primary motivation for the rule is not to help the patients experimented on, but to collect data. While FDA points out that the experiments may help patients, they also may hurt them. The Nuremberg code clearly places the patient's welfare as the overriding consideration in medical procedures.
Experiments on humans can help doctors develop better ways to treat illnesses. And that is why FDA relaxed the rule. But Dr. Arthur Dyck, professor of Population Ethics at Harvard University, points out that this new regulation risks "some very troubling dangers ... The Nuremberg code said there must be consent, and for darn good reason."
Under the new rule, researchers may conduct experiments on anyone, including fetuses, prisoners, and pregnant women. FDA argues that its system is very protective of patients. For instance, the government is setting up an institutional review board (IRB) that will "ensure that risks to subjects are minimized." But any risks beyond standard care appropriately should only be made by the patients themselves.
To complement the IRB, the agency establishes procedures to consult with representatives from patients' communities. But these precautions do not address the potential concerns of the individuals themselves. Typically, IRB and community representatives will not know the incapacitated individual. Indeed, these people likely will be preselected from the pool of those who believe these kinds of experiments are acceptable. Else the rule would be meaningless.
At the heart of this rule is the basic question who decides whether a person with "diminished autonomy" may be included in human experimental research? Dr. Dianne Irving, a former biochemist at National Institute for Health and a Ph.D. medical ethicist at DeSales School of Theology says there is an inherent conflict between advancing the interests of the patient and those of science, especially "if the doctor who is doing the research is also giving the permission" to use experimental technology on the patient. And that is what may happen here.
In the past, researchers needed the consent of a legal guardian. But under the new rules, researchers may waive this requirement is it is not feasible to contact them, or the window for decision-making is short. Any researcher who does so is supposed to obtain the consent of a family member. But again, the researcher can waive this if not feasible. And if a family member refuses, the researcher is not prohibited from proceeding if he finds another family member who consents. Although the final rule requires researchers to detail their efforts to contact guardians or family members if they proceed without contacting them, this is an after-the-fact justification by the researcher that is difficult to verify.
FDA specifically refused to establish any independent "ombudsman" to verify - before the patient's rights are waived - whether efforts to contact guardians or family members were adequate, or whether the patient is adequately protected. This leaves the decision to the researcher, and that may also be a conflict.
The vast majority of researchers are decent, honorable people dedicated to serving society. But the Nuremberg code of universal medical ethics exists to prevent those few self-serving researchers from taking advantage of patients unable to protect themselves. It also protects them from honorable researchers who may become blinded to the concerns of the patient in their eagerness to explore potentially life-saving therapies. The simple fact remains that we as Americans have a right to receive standard care in emergency situations. And we have the right to determine for ourselves what life saving procedures are preferable. Regrettably, the FDA regulations may compromise these rights.
Christopher Smith is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he chairs the International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
http://www.adti.net/html_files/reg/dd/ddsmith.htm ___________________________________________________________
Again, next step:
Berlin, 1 Sept. 1939
Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death after a discerning diagnosis.
A. Hitler
According to a post of MarMema a few weeks ago, the UK was about to pass a law that DOCTORS could euthanize mental patients at will.
___________________________________________________________
"Felos is here" Creepy!!
Maria Tetto who emerged from a coma after an accident six years ago, shares a laugh with her father, Frank.