Posted on 03/23/2005 5:35:31 PM PST by gentlestrength
The spiritual advisor of the Schindlers, Bro. O'Donnell, said the Dept. of Children and Families has had a new physician examine Terri and that "he DID go into her room and WAS at her side and DID observe her."
Department of Children and Families, are the department if someone is being physically abused, or the elderly, and "they have the authority" to take her into protective custody.
He continued, "what is being done to her now constitutes" that, and that DCF should "be taking her into protective custody."
Cooper: "Aren't people being taken off feeding tubes all the time?" Brother O'Donnell: "When they're DYING. But she was not dying. She could live another 20, 40 years."
"She's the only person who has been COURT ORDERED to have her tubes removed. Not 'The guardian MAY" but the guardian 'shall' remove her tubes."
CNN checked on the facticity of this last claim, and found that "There is ONLY ONE other case, Nancy Beth Cuzan in which the court ordered the tube MUST be removed."
Dr.Sanjay Gupta says if Terri is in the minimally conscious state, her eyes open spontaneously. She must do one of the following: --follow simple commands (to show she can hear and understand) --give yes or no responses
I have finally accessed the link providing info on laws on euthanasia in Florida. You can follow the links through for specifics.
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=euthanasia&URL=CH0765/Sec309.HTM
Don't feel bad about not knowing everything about Terri's case. It is so huge and involved that ALL the facts on it may never be known.
As you stated in your post, and I agree, it makes no difference (but for the legal aspects) what her condition is. She's a living human being and should not be regarded as a 'useless eater' who deserves only to be eliminated.
If Terri did not want to live, she wouldn't have survived so many attempts to snuff out her life.
Personally, I don't think anything but a miracle would put her in a recovered state. I do think proper treatment and therapy could provide improvement in her condition, if this latest deprivation hasn't harmed her irreparably. Even if that is the case, you don't kill her.
No. I've long since lost my patience. Someone actually said tonight that if Jeb Bush doesn't intervene, it will be the end of the free world.
FR has been taken over by kooks and people too lazy to do their own research. They have it practically built into their DNA that Michael is evil because some internet site told them so. They ignore court testimony from the Schindlers own lips that say differently. Truth used to mean something around here, but not anymore.
At first I thought Freepers looking at opposition research were looking for their own Buckhead moment.
Then I realized that most freepers do not understand that in hundreds of nursing homes and hospitals and rehab clinics around the country, families are having the feeding tubes and other life saving equipment removed. On the floor of the House Sunday night, Congressmen and some guy who was a doctor said it was thousands of times a day.
Of course, freepers who now think that posting actual court testimony is some kind of crime accuse me of making up that statistic. And which part of freeperdom didn't realize that feeding tubes were life support?
I give up on the ignorance and I so appreciate your research and work on this matter. Be well and recuperate quickly!
You're more than welcome. And you're right. It's a shame.
"If one can get the protective services to enter at this time they must have had something to pursue this long ago."
I agree, and perhaps it was a grave error not to persue that.
I would have no issue with her tube being removed if there was evidence that she wanted that, but there is a dispute. I guess I just think it is much better to give her parents a shot at her care if there is doubt.
Take care.
Keep the faith buddy.
That's correct. The fact that Terri responded with great effort to comply with the exam given on Greer's orders prior to 2003 and documented in video and audio recordings indicates she understood what she was told about the reason for the exam. Given the fact that she did indeed respond correctly indicates she did not want the tubes removed at that time. That directive, an act of her own will, overrules anything she previously uttered as hearsay. That is why Greer's expert Bambakidis lied about Terri's response in his testimony to the court and why the tapes proving that Bambakidis's testimony was perjured were ordered sealed by Greer. Terri's cooperation is also the reason Mikey ordered that therapy and care be withheld.
:-)
Thanks for taking the trouble to find the link.
I do think it is important, actually incumbent upon us to discuss and point out those comments that are not correct. I know I have been corrected and I took it graciously but I have seen the other end and frankly there is not cause for hurtful replies. We all can get it wrong but we are evolving and learn from our errors.
Couple of the things I have heard:
That he is going to run to the bank with all the winnings as it pertains to Terris death. I was again told today that he was to get 850.000 where the heck did that figure come from?
That she was a battered spouse. Is there any police reports?
Just give me the facts and please do not tell me about how her husband or her parents feel, what is that Terri wanted?
First, I'm not trying to pick a fight here -- I'm trying to understand your position.
For the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that the diagnosis of PVS is correct. I'll grant that this was thoroughly litigated. I'll grant that there is a huge amount of emotionalism and irrelevant nonsense being tossed around by some who agree with me.
Granting the above, my question is this: Is it right (not just legal, but right) to kill someone soley because they have been diagnosed with PVS? If the answer is yes, then how do we know how to draw the line at PVS, and not, say, at Downs syndrome, severe autists, or other severly disabled people?
Seriously, this is not a flame, or bait; I really just don't understand, and very much want to.
Regarding pursuit of Schiavo complaints:
http://www.theempirejournal.com/56092_FDLE_agent_implicates_mccab.htm
Seriously, if we don't like the way things are done currently, then work the system and get the legislation changed.
And if you want to be kept alive indefinitely regardless of the prognosis or your cognitive abilities, don't ever sign a living will and make sure that your family knows you don't mind being hooked up to a machine for a long time because maybe there's a new cure around the corner. And maybe there is.
On the floor of the House Sunday night Congressmen and at least one doctor said this is done thousands of times a day in America. I had thought hundreds. And they were referring to the fact that people are taken off life support equipment and feeding tubes. And most of that is without benefit of Living Wills and based on a doctor's recommendation and the family's consent.
This is out on Fox News Channel.
Is it anywhere else?
You're welcome! Would have waited until I found it to post the first time.....but I live in Florida and wanted to let you know ASAP that killing expendable people was the not the law here (yet). ;)
Oh sweet heavens.
Who gave you that load of nonsense?
Top to bottom, utterly false.
I've read his testimony. It sure isn't sealed. Besides, there were 3 others who testified in that trial to the same thing. (Gambone said *if* she did certain things it would mean PVS, but he could not tell, and that he wasn't a neurologist and left it to the other 3.)
I wouldnt trust cranford alone, at all.
But remeber that 8 other neurologists have diagnosed her as PVS since she came out of the coma, as have all her therapists. The only 2 who didn't were alternative med docs Maxwell (a radiologist who couldn't define pvs) and Hammesfahr, who we all know is a liar if only about his claim to be a nobel prize nominee. He was a lot more careful under oath about her abilities and hopes than he is shooting off in interviews.
With all my heart, I wished they had followed Wolfson's advice. Please read his report if you haven't.
On my profile page is also a link to a description of the 4 hours of video.
And read the links on my page to the court decisions of that (2002) trial.
My hand is about to fall off...
I honestly do not know why they chose that avenue. A man whom I seldom have anything nice thing to say about him, I think it is Boys (gore lawyer from his election) who said there were better arguments to support their case and wondered why they did not pursue them. I guess hind sight is 20/20.
Thanks again for your enlighten comments on the thread.
Thanks for an informative post. I hadn't heard about the discrepancies in Bombakikis' testimony vs the videotape.
Actually, if you look at my statement, I was talking about two doctors. I did not say you were mixing them up - I only asked you to please clarify your remarks.
You told another poster to look at your profile, but I will be happy to. As for the link you posted, you say in one breath that this forum is not the place for credible research, yet you refer me to another thread!! I checked out some of the links about Dr. Hammesfahr. There is another OPINION from a doctor about his research. Why take one on face value over the other? I have done a search of my own and there are many positive opinions as well.
I have read GAL reports, though I did not hear Pearse tonight. I was making a point that if you refute facts by others, you should back up your assertions, not simply tell people to do the research because obviously many of us have read a great deal about this.
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.