Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FairOpinion
1. Terri did NOT refuse "extraordinary life-saving medical treatment".

The courts determined that it was her desire not to be sustained in a PVS indefinitely by ANY means.

I don't if they were wrong and neither do you.

51 posted on 04/09/2005 5:39:12 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Jorge

"The courts determined that it was her desire not to be sustained in a PVS indefinitely by ANY means."

Let us set the record straight on this one right now. First of all, the court ordered a guardian ad litum who said Terri should not have the feeding/hydration tube removed, so the guardian ad litum was removed. Then the court looked into whether she was in a PVS state and the courts first heard 4 doctors and 2 said she was NOT in a PVS state, and 2 said she was, so the court hired, a 5th doctor, who worked with the judge, who also said Terri was in a PVS state. The court determined that she was in a PVS state.

The court also heard testimony from 4 withnesses regarding her wishes. Three of the witnesses (all named Schiavo) said they had heard her say that she didn't want to live like "that" (whatever "that" means), and a 4th witness that Terri actually got mad at for making a joke about Karen Ann Quinlan and the rest of that story which indicated that Terri disagreed with having a respirator removed, much less a feeding tube.


172 posted on 04/09/2005 9:34:59 PM PDT by mjaneangels@aolcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson