Posted on 04/12/2005 7:20:07 AM PDT by kcvl
Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer April 12, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- A neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo to confirm that his wife Terri was in a persistent vegetative state said he was "105 percent sure" of that diagnosis, but Dr. Ronald Cranford expressed similar certainty about a patient he examined in 1980 who later regained both consciousness and the ability to communicate.
Three days before Terri Schiavo's death, Cranford appeared on the MSNBC talk program, "Scarborough Country," to discuss her condition. Cranford was interviewed by reporter Lisa Daniels.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/april/0412_schiavo_doctor1.shtml
Yup.
NO "hospice" or organ donation for MY family.
These "health care professionals" are purposely killing people off. I won't let them make that kind of decision for my family.
Agreed. Just wonder where I have been for so long. I actually thought Hospices were a nice thing. I never realized what was really happening. I never believed in organ donation but I had no idea just how much I didn't believe it until someone sent me to some links when I said a person should be dead if they have no heartbeat. I had no idea what a boon to the organ program my statement meant.
PLEASE look at this video - it shows just how alert Terri was:
http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
It not only shows she's alert, it shows she REMEMBERS! Watch the video!
All you are doing is quoting Judge Greer's 'facts' to me from the subset of court records that he accepted. I KNOW all that cr@p. His reasons and rationale were sick, and I don't need to hear them again from you.
Greer was wrong. A life should not have been snuffed out based on the opinionated 51%-of-the-evidence (after his filtering), judgement of fact by a single man.
Serial Killers get a much better deal with a unanymous jury of 12, and proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
justshutupandtakeit; I tried to discuss this nicely with you, but I'm not interested in your flame baiting.
I see you ONLY wish to argue, as your buddies did all the last two weeks.
"I never believed in organ donation"
Agreed - except for one kidney when the donor survives.
Worth investigating what assets the organ donor industry is worth. I understand a bereaved familiy may not charge money for the actual organs, but the procedures and handling charges might be very profitable to many Medical providers.
Any FReepers have data/statistics/more facts?
thx
sp
Freepmail flying over head - I just saw some droppings on the roof;)
Look out FUE - pigeons flying outta their cages.
uh oh
too late;)
sp
carrier pidgins
I'm sorry, I don't know what 'process' you're talking about. The organs are harvested after death not before. What are you talking about?
Well, it hasn't been from concerns about pain. The theory, in case you missed it, is that with a little transitory help they can be restored to self-sufficiency (it doesn't always work out that way). We are trying to prevent normal healthy people from dying from lack of food. Alzheimers patients are, well, a little different than that. Do you think that Alheimers results from failure of a wheat crop? Are factual distinctions lost on you?
Do you know how Judge Greer arrived at that decision concerning that time frame concerning Diane? Based on what?
This is just the beginning:
http://www.newstarget.com/000974.html
Do you have the links? I think this subject matter needs some attention.
thanks
sp
Some lies are fibs, some are little white lies, some are just plain lies and some are whoppers. You have entered the zone of elephantine lies.
There is no "subset" of court records. Everything has been preserved and reviewed. Over 40 judges on 5 courts in 15 appellate reviews over 7 years have reviewed Judge Greer's handling and none have found any defect in procedure, none have found any insufficiency of evidence supporting every part of his findings (a most typical basis for a retrial). There was no exclusion of any evidence the parents wanted to present.
His judgment was not based on 51% of the evidence (known as the preponderance of the evidence standard) but on the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard -- the highest standard applied in civil matters. Here is what a unanimous Court of Appeal said after reviewing the record of the trial and Judge Greer's handling of it:
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
It appears that the only "sick rationale" around here is yours.
See Post #23. I will look for the other links on this thread or you can do that yourself.
Thanks - I'll go back - must have skipped over it.
apologies.
sp
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.