Since it knows so much, maybe the paper can explain why she's never had a PET scan or an MRI. Or why she never received any rehab? Or why we should kill someone based on hearsay?
Or why evidence pointing to her husband's involvement in causing her condition is not worth addressing? Or why 10 years of adultery shouldn't have an impact on his guardianship?
If Terri had gone on a mass killing spree before she had that heart attack, this wouldn't even be an issue!
Terri is ALIVE.
You know what?! Just Euthanise her. Just stick a needle in her arm! BECAUSE STARVATION IS CRUEL!
Is it because of Hearsay?
Judges deciding her life is worthless?
Husband has a right to kill her?
Unbelievable that these heathens don't have at least the most miniscule compassion for life.
She can't have an MRI because in the early days of her condition, her husband really did take measures to have her treated and had something implanted in her brain to help stimulate it. It's fair to say that she's never had a PET scan. But these are moot. The first point is, why is the written contract to stop feeding assumed? Would food and treatment have been withheld if she had a heart attack?
The other side is his claim that as husband, his position should rule -James Taranto in yesterday's Best of the Web Today wrote:
"But it is equally unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive."
Michael claims that the money is gone. The money issue to consider is that most of it has not been spent for sustaining Terri's life, which were the terms of the payment, but to exterminate her. If it's found that she was not represented properly, he could be ordered to repay the monies.
I think he's a true narcissist-- he has to eliminate all that is not perfect in his view. This is why it's so amazing to watch him wig out on the press as he whines that he is not getting his way (of course, stated as though he cared at all about Terri).
Maybe those tests are not going to tell anyone more than hat they already know. My mother has had several strokes. They have seen these via CT scan everytime. Never has it been suggested they could get a better picture of what's going on in her brain if they did an MRI. Never.
"Since it knows so much, maybe the paper can explain why she's never had a PET scan or an MRI. Or why she never received any rehab? Or why we should kill someone based on hearsay?"
This case assaults the intelligence of any thinking, informed person..By the way..I have a question..I think I heard someone say on "Fox and Friends" that this latest judge has never been to law school?? I know some appointed judges are not lawyers. I am curious about this. Is it true?
you have not seen some of the facts in this case not only has she had all of the test you mention her husband had doctors perform an operation to insert electic stimulators in her brain - 10 years ago- to restart the brain function. I have no dog in this fight and take no sides, but like the paper I know something about in-laws and I'm not sure that they are always right.
You know, if you're going to post on such a contentious subject, at least have ONE of your facts straight.
Is this the Manchester Union in New Hampshier? Aren't they supposed to be conservative?