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
whatever makes your ideology work
But hers was a hydration and starving death. True she was terminal anyway but your point that freezing to death would be a better way to go is not something that is within the power of doctors to effectuate for patients whether they are terminal patients or patients being kept otherwise alive by tubes.
Excuse me???? Where is Terri's notarized, witnessed and signed advance directive? Without that, and without asking Terri directly, there is no "right to refuse treatment" in question here! Even if we could take Michael at his word--that Terri, one time, said she wouldn't want to live "like that"--there is so much wrong with giving weight to that kind of "evidence" that I don't even know where to begin. What does "like that" mean? How can anyone possibly verify that such a conversation even took place? Ever follow the controversy about "repressed memory syndrome"--apparently, people can have quite detailed memories of events that never happened. To condemn an innocent woman to death based on this kind of "evidence" is absolutely barbaric. IMO, an honest judge would have thrown this case out from the get-go.
Hahahaha. But doctors can effectuate starvation! Tell you what, I really do appreciate your opening my eyes, and probably those of a few others, into the ethical abyss of the so-called "health care" community. Those buzzards need to be run out of business, I plan to die at home or on a hiking excursion. Keep the money out of their pockets.
"Read the Wolfson report."
I did. Doesn't change what I said at all. Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Prior restraint = illegal order
Tell me how many doctors there were who examined Terri and whose conclusions were included in the report?
NOW I see why you want Terri dead. NEWSFLASH...Terri is not your aunt.
I don't need any help. I'm self sufficient. And I don't need to ask my priest, the Pope has already said that preventing a human being from ingesting food and water constitutes murder. I agree with him.
I'm right there with you....this could be Hillary's new healthcare plan...and by the way...Hillary been extraordinarily quiet these days....
Trinity_Tx is right though. This is a "patient controls their own body" case. The court found (wrongly, IMO), that Terri would starve herself to death if she was given a choice.
Those who recoil at what is going on with Terri are bothered on several, separable points. On the legal point of using evidence other than an advance written directive, the law permits taking evidence from people who know the patient. The problem with the combination of an advance directive and the course of action/inaction taken here (killing by starvation), is that many people who compose advance directives don't foresee the possibility that their own words will be misconstrued as authorization to be starved to death. To be accurate, some do desire to be starved to death, but it's not what people normally expect will happen. The normal thought is "I'm dying from trauma, accident, cancer or disease, and am going to die in a few hours or days anyway, so in that case, just take me off the machine and let my body go." But people don't assume or think, normally, until this case opened their eyes, that doctors would use the denial of food and water to cause death of a person that isn't hooked up to anything else.
Anyway, there are both legal issues (what consititutes sufficient evidence, and how to correct a rogue trial court); and ethical issues (is it ethical to starve an otherwise healthy body to death). Again, it is legal for a person to starve themself to death. You can do that starting today if you want. It is legal. But nobody else is permitted to do that for you.
I read the doc's affidavit and it is chilling. Hang in there, little sister. Help is on the way.
So the Mayo doc should not be believed because he's a Christian?! The powers of darkness are hell-bent on killing Terri. GREATER IS HE THAT IS IN US THAN HE THAT IS IN THE WORLD!
I simply replied to someone who said that the doctor who examined Terri only spent 90 minutes with her and implied that is wasn't enough time to be taken seriously. My reply was that Dr. Cranford, the doctor the MEDIA is portraying as the 'expert' only spent 45 minutes with her. Has nothing to do with the report. Also, how many doctors disagree? SEVERAL!!! Including someone who spent hours with Terri. There are doctors lined up on both sides. I know that, but we should err on the side of life not death.
I apologize if I misunderstood the thrust of your commentary.
Agree with your comments, as I have read much of the same info.
My perspective in post 29 was related to Terri's unresponsiveness when evaluated by the latest physician.
This whole mess is a horror story.
Continued prayers for Terri, Terri's family and our leaders who can save Terri.
baa
Chirp chirp chirp... go the crickets...
I'm waiting for a pro-deather to step up to the plate on this one. Come on guys, say you'd do it. It would be the humane thing to do. You wouldn't starve a goldfish to death but you will a human, on the chance you might be wrong and you believe you've constructed yourself a moral "out" (Well, uh, gee, I guess nature took it's course)...
LOL. She commented on my preference, to be left out in the elements instead of being starved to death. I predict the answer will be that lethal injection or bullet to the head is answered by ...
"but your point that freezing to death would be a better way to go is not something that is within the power of doctors to effectuate for patients whether they are terminal patients or patients being kept otherwise alive by tubes."
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.