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
It has always been a pleasure for me to post this video of Terri for people of such eloquent speech.
Wonderfully, and succinctly, put.
all that typing for nothing. wow! I feel soooooooo sad for you.
Court ordered starvation (including nothing by mouth otherwise, period--not even ice chips or a swabbing on the lips,) of an innocent, defenseless fellow human being--footed, premised on, and justified in a decision at which was arrived through a basis of HEARSAY--which was not mentioned with regard to what Terri's wishes expressly were, until SEVEN years after the fact and monies banked; completely absent *anything,* ANYTHING in writing from the innocent person (the human being ordered to be starved to death,) via the removal of a feeding tube (not a *artificial* *breathing* *machine*,) upon which MANY disabled people rely for daily sustenance, (just as we all rely on daily sustenance to live,) when a human being's body is NOT already shutting down in natural preparation for death, when court orders/summons (dictated to the sole reviewing judge of the case, who not ONCE visited Terri,) who ordered death to that very human through starvation) are expressly ignored and evaded by overriding authorities, when the only de novo review was subsequently rebuked (and Congress was, at BASE, requesting that Terri Schiavo be given the same consideration given anyone convicted of Capital Punishment,) and the wholly MORAL position being one to always err on the side of LIFE (easy one--ask President Bush,)...
...the position taken be those who feel that the court-ordered decision to (VERY slowly and PAINFULLY) starve a human being to death was right and moral and justified, OR within rights of any sort...are, themselves, figuratively STARVED.
"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Here what he said in his decision,
[Diane] called by Respondents testified to similar conversations [to those testified to by the mother as having occurred in 1973 or 1974) with Terri Schiavo but stated that they occurred during the summer of 1982.... The court ... notes that this witness had quite specific memory during trial but much less memory a few weeks earlier on deposition. At trial she mentioned seeing the television movie on Karen Ann Quinlin and had no hesitantly (sic) in testifying that this was a 'replay' of that movie and she watched such replay at college in Pennsylvania. She also knew precisely what song appeared on a TV program on a Friday evening when Petitioner was away at McDonald's training school. While the court certainly does not conclude the the (sic) bad joke and comment did not occur, the court is drawn to the conclusion that this discussion most likely occurred in the same time frame as the similar comments to Mrs. Schindler. This could well have occurred during this time frame since this witness and Terri Schiavo, together with their families, spent portions of summer vacations together which would have included the mid-1970's. [at page 5]...
There are some comments or statement (sic) made by Terri Schiavo which the court does not feel are germane to this decision. The court does not feel that statements made by her at the age of 11 or 12 years truly reflect upon her intention regarding the situation at hand. Additionally, the court does not feel that her statements directed toward others and situations involving others would have the same weight as comments or statements regarding herself if personally placed in those same situations. Into the former category the court places statements regarding Karen Ann Quinlin and the infant child of Joan Schiavo. The court finds that those statements are more reflective of what Teri Schiavo would do in a similar situation for someone else.[at page 9]
In essence, it appears that Judge Greer believed that the friend had heard the same statement as the mother. He says he "does not conclude the ... comment did not occur" but does appear to believe that the friend "enhanced" her testimony after her deposition three weeks before trial and moved the comment from childhood into adulthood. Moreover, he gives all comments 'about others' less weight than those which Terri made about herself. That appears to have been his reasoning.
hey winnie, instead of trying to pick a "facts" fight with me, why don't you try to answer bjs1779 in post 153.
I could use a good laugh today, and imaging you trying to justify Greer's anal 'factoid' on that one should be hilarious.
[DANG IT winnie, you type fast, no wait you CUT AND PASTE very quickly from court records.
That is all GREERS crazy explanation, exactly what we expected, and not very creative of you]
-It was wrong to kill her. No other "facts" matter.-JimRobinson
-It was wrong to kill her. No other "facts" matter.-JimRobinson
-It was wrong to kill her. No other "facts" matter.-JimRobinson
Yes, NN. And in Terri's case, was patently disputable, to boot.
With your reckless disregard for facts, I have no idea whether he said what you quoted above or not. But if he did, he is wrong. Facts do matter. She wanted to die. She got her wish. That is what matters.
Stay as long as you can. I don't know how long it takes individual organs to die after death occurs, but if you can stick around an hour or so, it should be enough.
Nope, wrong answer. There was a reason why the court said it felt that the "feel" of Diane's testimony was wrong.
Florida is a lawless state executing the innocent by extreme torture.
Worth repeating over and over.
Yeah, because the idiot Greer made a factual error in concluding that the testimony was irrelevant because Quinlan died when TS was an 11 year old. In any capital case anywhere in this land that would be grounds for reversal. But only for murdereres, not for the innocent.
>>>for facts, I have no idea
Yep, you court groupies sure like to throw around that word 'facts'.
you never quote that word though.
Have fun playing nicely with others.
And here is your link:
http://www.google.com
A man who has compassion and love for a wife, a man intent upon honoring a wish she had to die (after, of course, he recieved a big bunch of money for her therapy costs THEN STOPPED ALL THERAPY WITHING months of getting the money), a man who genuinely honors his wifes wishes, WOULD NEVER CAUSE HER TO SUFFER WHILE HE WAS GOING THRU THE PROCESS OF GETTING HER LEGALLY KILLED! Ever. Such a man would have his wife in therapy so that her muscles would not bunch up painfully and atrophy like Terri's did, would have the blinds OPEN to let sunlight in instead of ordering them shut at all times, WOULD allow TV and gifts and OUTINGS into the SUNSHINE like she had while he was going for the jury award money the first three years. A man with a code of honor would not LEAVE his wifes name off the obituary of his own mom's death in the paper but include his finace's name as a survivor instead. A man who is honorable would NEVER EVER cause his wife's family the pain he did....forbidding them from seeing terri when he felt he needed to punish them, not allowing them to move Terri's arms or offer any physical comfort, etc.
Oh yeah...this monster GOT HIS WISH.
Not so sure Terri got hers.
Bump.
sorry, I can be nicer than that, really.
It was wrong to kill her. [JimRob on Terri Schiavo]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1377502/posts
They did not "kill" her. They MURDERED her. N'est pas?
They MURDERED her Very very slowly with extreme pain and suffering and dehydration and starvation
in the Florida and Nazi way.
Hope that helps.
Winstonchurchill wrote:
"With your reckless disregard for facts, I have no idea whether he said what you quoted above or not. But if he did, he is wrong. Facts do matter. She wanted to die. She got her wish. That is what matters."
You also said that death by starvation is "very painless."
You could not be more wrong. What are all those crying, starving children and adults of third worlds crying about then?
I ping you to my post #164.
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.