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
That's correct. The tapes prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.
You're welcome!
I would appreciate a source to the conflicting report you mentioned, if you have it handy. If the allegations are true, I'm sure there are many who wish this story hadn't gotten so much attention.
Is the use of moistening swabs the same as "giving something by mouth," medically speaking?
This is your logic.
Let's see, here's NIH on PVS, "Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands." So Terri follows doc Bambakidis's command to follow the balloon, he acknowledge's she does to those present on tape, yet he testifies in Greer's court that she gave no response. What does that mean? Maybe folks should Google BS(spelled out). Terri responds to her father's voice on those tapes and strains to say the word dad.
1.)... He didn't want to do that because he thought it was cruel. He then saw his parents go through it so by 1998(?), he said ok.
Curious, coincidence with a cash award here causes me to doubt it. This also answers #4.
" During the first 3 years of Terri's PVS status, no one argues that she wasn't given the most rigorous therapy.
I do. Perhaps none was available, but the fact is that is was ineffective and those giving it were not capable of doing much. That includes being able to recognize she was not in a PVS and not being able to communicate with her.
"Everything that could be done, was done. He even had electrodes implanted in her brain in an effort to stimulate her brain activity."
The prior state of the art med practice of tying folks to a chair and tossing them off a cliff also failed most of the time. also answers #s, 5 and 6
"#7. The Schindlers testified under oath that they would be willing to see Terri undergo multiple amputations should she get diabetes from loss of circulation. They also said that no matter what she wants, they want to keep her alive."
That is their problem. The law forbids them from taking action against her wishes, but her response during the exam ordered by Greer just prior to 2003 indicates that she did not want the tube removed and was happy that the parents were there.
"8. No honorable man who knows his wife is PVS is going to stand by and watch her get carved up. In my opinion. "
That's correct. Terri is not in a PVS though, and no honorable man would mount the con for cash and then immediately pull the plug on his wife who was not in a PVS.
"#9. Michael became a respiratory therapist in order to better learn to care for Terri."
CBS. "Under oath, the nurses who cared for Terri said his care of her was extraordinary. She never even had a bed sore, nearly unheard of, and that he was very demanding of nursing staff."
Before, or after hepocked the cash?
"Michael is afraid of someone or something."
Agree, syriacus! IMO, Michael is a managed pawn in a much bigger picture and he'd better not flub his lines.
Buckley is great, in so many ways. I read his column, too, today.
I don't agree with him on this and find myself wondering how much he has looked into Terri's case.
Then again some people don't agree with him about legalizing drugs.
From CNN, 1996, William F. Buckley: 'Legalize drugs' -- But don't look for Washington to agree
In Washington, both the Clinton administration and Congress believe drug legalization would send the wrong message."[President Clinton] thinks it's time for an offensive in the war on drugs and not a time for surrender," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.
He said ice chips. They would not make her any more comfortable than moistening swabs, in fact, worse. It would not maintain her - just possibly choke her and might make it last longer.
Not that I could resist trying if i were there.
My mother is 90 and sleeps a lot. Should I kill her because she doesn't stay awake the required number of hours?
Did they make sure that Terri was not sleep-deprived the night before the taping took place?
Where does this power come from?
Greers finding that Terri wants to die in this circumstance, and dehydration is a mercy killing. All roads lead ... . Why repeat myself. Just why we are in this emperor has no clothes regime that we should kill by dehydration rather than lethal injection, because in the former it is just passive, and the latter active, and just why that distinction should matter, I don't know. Ask your priest. I can't help you.
bttt
Why should I try again? I got it right! You are the one who needs to try again! And again, and again...but you will always find that I was correct!
The Guardian Ad Litums were BOTH lawyers. NOT medical doctors!
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1012578/posts
6 medical doctors have stated that Terri is NOT PVS...
But, come on, you don't really care about facts do you? You are really more interested in getting a rise out of someone and trying to bluff your way through an intelligent argument.
I am not interested in playing your games.
I saw and recognize the devestation, but their is clearly a conscious survivor there that does not desire to be abandoned.
" What kind of Phd do you need to look at a CAT scan of a normal brain and TS's brain to determine there is a huge horking hole in the middle of someones noggin?? "
None, but I don't take handwaiving at garbage reproductions of tomographic data to be worth anything. Tell me, exactly what you see in those images and what the function of each of the anatomical items is, and how they relate to the meachanics of consciousness you're appealing to.
"You know why they can't do an MRI? Because MS had some stimulator put in her skull to try and help TS recover.
I already commented on the ridiculous idea that a stimulator would do anything and the folks that would order it done. Besides that, there is little to be gained by an MRI. The resolution sucks.
" If he was in this for the money he would of spared himself the expense and pocketed the money."
It's part of the con.
"Yeah, starvation and dehydration suck, but she can't feel anything because the part of her brain that senses pain is GONE."
I see you know and understand the underlying mechanics of the consciousness of pain. Perhaps you can elaborate?
" get a Living Will written up."
This really isn't about wills. It's about bogus practitioners, con men and their govm't cohorts. You see in FL, folks have been subjected to the same bogus clowns that are getting their way in this case. Folks with living wills down there have been forced to follow them, even after they changed their minds after the fact. Were you aware of that? Were you aware that the old lady that was told by the docs and court, that she couldn't change her mind after her living will directive was issued, was not a Monty Python skit?
Thanks to all of you.
Disagree, but appreciate the intelligent discussion in the midst of a storm of emotionalism.
Thanks for the info. I did check out some of the Nobel Prize links. I'm still unclear about the official nomination process, though. No doubt, making such a misleading claim (if that was the intent) casts doubt on his personal credibility and could (justly or unjustly)impact his professional credence as well. Pretty poor vetting of a witness, at the very least.
I have read the court decisions and I did not agree with the decisions. Throughout, many critical points were omitted. For instance, Florida State Law guarantees a disabled adult the right to counsel. They did address the guardian ad litem issue and, although she had representation (at times by the court itself) for some of the proceedings, she did not have independent councel working on her behalf during some critical periods in the case.
Like I said, I'll check out some of the links on your page. Thanks.
Thanks for the link...very enlightening report fromm the neurologist.
There's a basic flaw with this argument and with the "Would you want to be in Terri's condition for x years?" argument.
You are describing what Terri looks like to a healthy person observing her. You are not describing what things look like to Terri. And it's Terri's wishes, not the observers wishes, we are told we must consider.
There are two ways, at any given moment that Terri can "look at" things.
If Terri can think and feel, then give her to her parents who want to give her therapy.
Michael washed his hands of Terri long ago.
"Return, oh, Lord, how long..."
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.