Posted on 03/20/2005 12:29:52 PM PST by kcvl
And brought to you by the GOP!!!!
Personally I think he got ripped off by the realtor.
-- If they are decisions to starve people to death without their consent, then that's a problem. It's at least something that needs to be discussed in the open, instead of hush-hushed.
And yes, Terri's family made an issue of their daughter's/sister's impending starvation. It sounds as if you resent them for doing so? Glad my president doesn't.
Second bit of misinfo from this site--dehydration and starvation are not painful ways to die.
######
What is the longest you have ever gone without water? What caused you to take the next sip?
Obviously you have not been following this case; the rehab fund is supervised by the court. All the money goes to Terri.
OMG, are you kidding? It's done all the time, Every day.
Not to get into an argument about what constitutes sound law, the answer to your question is "no." The function of the SCOTUS is nominally to determine if the law comports with the consitution. Sometimes the facts play into that determination (e.g., the age of a captial offender). Again, I noted that I did not have the question posed to SCOTUS in this case, but I'm confident in asserting that it didn't ring of "Is Michael telling the truth or not?"
That may be true provided the person is given enough morphine.
Someone who is PVS is not typically described as healthy.
Was that suppose to answer my question?
I see your only response is "Everybody's lying (or helping Michael lie) to every legitimate question.
I am the wife. :-)
Less legal fees to stop those trying to stop the stopping of the rehab (which rehab apparently was stopped) and liberate her from this mortal coil.
Okay.....open mouth - insert foot!
In all sincerity, you've been on these Terri threads way too long. You need to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that you aren't capable of a rational response that doesn't include boilerplate.
google "Hugh Finn" his feeding tube was removed...his daughter Keeley posts on FR sometimes
That is what some have said, but she does not need to be suctioned, which means that she DOES swallow. The fact is, there has never been an attempt to see whether or not she can swallow soft foods. Just another part of the deception.
The Florida court ruled he was telling the truth and that he had the right to remove the tube.
Which part of that is a lie?
What's your best offer?
Well, if he or the jury had realized what was coming, I suppose he would have asked for more.
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.