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 remember reading once that the concentration camp guards who balked at killing Jewish children were told that it was a humane thing to do, since having to live while being Jewish is a horrible fate, far worse than death.
that is nonsense..... her mouth is merely bypassed.....
I don't know about that. I knew, personally, someone who was nominated but the prize went to someone else. Ten years after the fact, there was still a lot of bitterness over not getting the prize. At least in science, when someone gets a Nobel prize, other people familiar with the research (doing similar research themselves) know pretty much who else was considered.
I'm not a lawyer, nor would I ever consider becoming one. I really do not care about bad precedent, or how it is built upon to make more bad precedent. All I see here is a gaggle of corrupt, power-hungry judges and lawyers who are so concerned with arguing points of law that they have completely lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to protect our rights and dispense proper justice. To my straightforward thinking mind untainted by any study of law, it looks like the fact that Terri has no advance directive or other OBJECTIVE evidence of her wishes, she is considered to be no more than a piece of her husband's property, to dispose of as he wishes. All that talk of Terri's "wishes" and "right to refuse treatment" is merely sugar coating for an unethical ruling by an uncaring judge.
We can argue day and night on the specifics of this particular case, I personally happen to think it is murder.
IMHO though, your side will rue the day you took up this battle because this case and ones similar will set some very far reaching precedents to allow culling the deadweight in a system of socialized medicine (which is inevitable because more than 50% of us want a government mommy in some way or another). Allowing people outside of family and\or with great financial incentive to make life or death decisions like this is lunacy...
Mark my words, if she dies via this process we are entering a scary new level of human disposal.
If you are poisoned with botulin toxin, you will become unable to breathe, eat, or move. Your heart still beats, and your ability to think is unaffected. The treatment consists of hooking you up to a respirator and giving you a feeding tube. In a few months, you will regain the ability to breathe, eat, and move, and eventually be able to resume a normal life. I'm just pointing out that you can't make a blanket statement about mechanical life support--I think, in cases like botulin poisoning, most people will choose to have the machines, since they know they can hope for a complete recovery. Where mechanical life support is not justified, I think, is in a case where a person is terminal and incurable.
Just remember, no matter how bad it gets here you just can't get lost in Ireland like you can in Nevada, Idaho, Montana, etc...
One day they'll be waiting, beaming inside for that visit, and they'll overhear a couple of orderlies talk about how they consume to many vital resources, what with taxes being so high and yet never able to keep up with spiraling costs. Later, as an orderly comes up with a vial and a shunt, and that person realizes that the previous visit was the last one they'll have ever had to see, or hear, or merely feel a loved one. And they'll scream out inside, NOOOOooooo, just one more visit. And they'll wonder where all the people are that should have been there to keep this travesty from happening. And they'll remember, "They were defeated by the likes of me in another case like this, and it became accepted, and they went on to fight other battles"...
Think that scenario is facetious? You could have put Christopher Reeves in that position at any time in the initial weeks following his accident, and he GOT to see his kids grow up and fight on too...
Sandman Greer
We should make sure that sticks!
I am not making a blanket statement. I was simply trying to put out there that I did not believe EVERYONE should be on ventilators. I was simply pointing out to someone who disagrees with me that I wasn't extreme in my views wanting to keep everyone on ventilators even when they are dead. I didn't see a need to write down every single instance that I believe or don't believe someone should be removed from life support.
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.