Posted on 04/02/2005 6:21:27 AM PST by rhema
Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?
Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?
If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?
How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?
Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?
Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.
Most folks thought it was a good policy.
It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
"I'm not willing to say the pro-death enthusiasm was motivated primarily by ignorance of the facts"
I agree. It's been my observation that it wasn't a liberal/conservative thing either(not completely). I was surprised by some of my acquaintences who are very liberal and called this barberic, murder etc...I couldn't believe Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader and I came down on the same side of an issue. Surely one of us had to be wrong
While what you say is technically correct, you left out the part where Greer recently admitted his finding that Terri was 11 at the time she made the statement was incorrect. Did you omit that on purpose?
This ham fisted approach has characterized the conduct of this entire process and, even in the absence of substantial dispute of the facts at issue, has not been good for anyone associated with it.
It might be an advantage. News about the Pope will no doubt include coverage of his strong support for life. Also the Vatican spoke out very strongly against the removal of Terri's feeding tube. So by focusing on the Pope the media actually gives attention ( even if it is somewhat indirect) to people like Terri.
in accordance to = in accordance with
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375888/posts <-- Link
Those of us who think such acts are abominable deserve mercy.
" and it is known that if it is removed the person will die almost immediately."
That wasn't the case when Karen Quinlan was removed from life support. She lived for many years after removal, proving the doctors either didn't know squat or were gauging whoever was paying the bill.
Are you referring to the "Quinlan was dead" comment he made? I'm perfectly willing to address that, though it made no difference in the conclusion reached.
If it wasn't that, then I do not know what you're talking about.
I'm under the impression that the tube was inserted at the onset. It would have had to be because she was on a resperator aftr they got her heart going again. I don't know if it was ever removed and put back in later, but if it was, there is a record somewhere.
I know that they don't insert tubes for convienience at care facilities. NEVER. That is a lie. Who ever came up with that one hasn't a clue what they are taking about.
Feeding tubes are only inserted when a person can no longer take food oraly due to medical problems.
Feeding tubes are more of a hassle than spoon feeding someone, there is protocol to follow, sterilization proceedures, not to mention special "food" preperation. Most care facilities operate using health care aids, not a team of nurses who would have to do the feeding tube proceedure.
Most places only have one nurse per ward, some only one nurse for several wards.
What is the news on the autopsy? I haven't heard any yet.
I knew it! I knew it! I predicted it!
This is why I agreed that Michael should not authorize an autopsy. Tin foil conspiracists like you would never believe the results anyways.
And if he does not have her cremated, you'll be calling for the exhumation of her body in five years because new pathology techniques "will answer the question of what really happened to Terri".
You'll never ever be satisfied.
Yes, exactly that. While Mrs. Schindler testified at the hearing about the timing of Terri's utterance regarding Quinlan, Schiavo's attorneys noted that Terri's was 11 at the date of Quinlan being taken off life support (ventilator). Mrs. Schiavo didn't have the presence of mind to refute the cross-examination.
I think it is deliberate misleading to present only the original finding, without discussing its context further and pointing out that there is evidence (and even Greer's concession) that Terri may have been 18 when she made the utterance. Of course, if you didn't know the evolution of the testimony, then my "deliberate misleading" criticism doesn't hold. But you noted that you were aware of it, and willing to address it.
As for the point that the difference didn't change the ultimte finidng of the court (that Terri would choose to withold food and water from herself if she could make the choice for herself), that is obviously true becuase the court did not reverse its order.
LMAO! I saw that comming too.
At first, it was "Micheal won't allow an autopsy, because he has something to hide".
Now it doesn't matter, because there is a conspiracy in the ME's office now as well.
It never ends.
Really? I only know a few. The only one I regularly go to is LGF, which is good, but there are just too many Palestinian vs. Jews posts, which I only can take so much of (being neither jewish nor palestinian).
Thank you Jonathon Law. I still weep on occasion for the suffering this woman endured.
Woah, you just made a giant, uncharitable leap.
I don't see any allegations of conspiracy in that post. Are you here to have a discussion or collect "evidence" to substantiate what you already believe?
I took drt1's post to simply mean that the approach taken by the medical examiner (the arrogant, "I'll have no one dictate to ME what I ought to do, I know everything", closed rather than open ie ham fisted) is typical of a lot of what has happened in this case, and that's unfortunate.
The process hasn't been open and honest at any point. And that's foolish on the part of all involved. Not necessarily conspiratorial. Just blindingly arrogant.
You are being uncharitable, because drt1 made it clear he has no preference for a particular conclusion, just wanted a fair, open and consistent process.
When it was time to feed her, caretakers would have attached a syringe to the end of her tube, and pulled out the plunger to see how much fluid came out of her stomach. If there wasn't too much in there already, they'd fill up the syringe with a commercial liquid diet product like Ensure. (A single meal consists of 2 or 3 cans, or you can use regular food that's been liquefied in a blender.) It's also possible that Schiavo received continuous feeding using a 24-hour pumping mechanism, which is used for patients at higher risk for regurgitation and aspiration pneumonia.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2115227/ <-- Link
Doesn't sound like too much of a hassle. My wife is undertaking a special procedure at this very minute, heating some soup and spreading egg salad on some bread.
I haven't found information regarding "tube in" tube out" chronology, most of the search engine hits are current events.
That is highly suggestive of a conspiracy. Why wouldn't he do his job properly? Who is influencing him? CONSPIRACY!
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.