Schiavo's 'Dr. Humane Death' Got 1980 Diagnosis Wrong

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/april/0412_schiavo_doctor1.shtml ^

[Diogenesis]

She was not allowed "to die".
She was murdered. You are a murderer-enabler, and not a very good prosecutor, it seems.

[Diogenesis]

Why do you lie so much? She was NOT in a PVS condition for 15 years.

You must help a lot of murderers get free. What state do you do that in?

[Diogenesis]

You lie about the number of judges that "reviewed" the case.
They did no such thing.

Clearly, you are on the side of murderers and will use any BS to help them.
Still waiting for the state where you do this professionally.

[Diogenesis]

"Your analogy suffers several shortcomings, not the least of which is that famine sufferers in third world countries are not PVS patients with only functioning brain stems.

Only a "functioning brain stems(sic)"?

You do not know that about which you preach.
So how many murderers did you let go free to kill again (like George Greer, Florida's serial murderer on the bench?

[Diogenesis]

Ohioan is right. and you are wrong (again).
And, BTW, do tell us again how people who can SWALLOW have only brain stems.

MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S lies and contradictory testimony in easy to read format

[winstonchurchill]

She was NOT in a PVS condition for 15 years.

All five doctors (2 appointed by Petitioner, 2 by Respondents and 1 by the Court) at the trial agreed she was in PVS and had been for (at that time) 10 years. The only disagreement was that the 2 Respondent doctors thought their "experimental therapies" ('hyperbaric' and 'vasodilation') might help.

I just love your railing away at reality.

[winstonchurchill]

do tell us again how people who can SWALLOW have only brain stems.

Obviously, who can swallow and do cognitive things have more than just a brain stem. But people who have only a brain stem (like Terri) can still swallow. See #238 above.

[winstonchurchill]

Only a "functioning brain stems(sic)"? You do not know that about which you preach.

See #238 above.

[winstonchurchill]

You lie about the number of judges that "reviewed" the case. They did no such thing.

19 on the Florida Court of Appeal and Florida Supreme Court, 1 US district judge, 12 US circuit court of appeal judges and 9 US Supreme Court justices. Many of them reviewed many specific issues in addition to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, but every one had to review at least that. For example, the US judges had to determine the likelihood of success on retrial (they found unanimously that the parents had none) which is dependent on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict assuming arguendo their arguments could be established.

[Diogenesis]

You are wrong about so much, it is useless to argue with you
since you systematically ignore what is posted.

You also ignore that the corrupt judges (there by the will of Congress)
ignored Congress.

[Diogenesis]

It does not say that. You are incorrect.

[Diogenesis]

You are wrong. But then you are a doctor and prosecutor, right?

"Even a convicted murderer gets their last meal (and a drink of water) on the same day they die."

Worth repeating.

[Diogenesis]

It does not say that. You are incorrect.

"Even a convicted murderer gets their last meal (and a drink of water) on the same day they die."

Worth repeating.

[jackibutterfly]

Try Post #196. PLEASE?

[Diamond]

w.c. -

Right and wrong are moral terms. The Bible is the only satisfactory basis of morality. It was Biblically right to allow her to die.

bjs1779 I wonder if you could quote the bible where we should kill the handicapped? Quote me where we should starve them to death.

w.c.-
We know by clear and convincing evidence reviewed by over 40 judges in 5 courts in 15 appellate proceedings over 7 years that, if found in this situation, Terri wanted to die. We also know that Christ told us, "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets." Matt 7:12. Finally , we know that, were we in Terri's condition, we would want our wishes enforced. Accordingly, we know that the only truly moral response would be to assist Terri to achieve her wishes.

Even if one accepts the ludicrous proposition that Terri wanted to be starved to death, in the first place, there is no Biblical warrant for the killing of one's self, "assisted" or otherwise. So in terms of Biblical principle neither a court nor individuals have the authority or obligation to fulfill the alleged "wish". In the second place there is no legal basis or any legal authority whatsoever under the 14th Amendment as it was written, for the reasons it was made law, for ANY civil court to deprive a person of life. The right to life is inalienable; i.e., IT IS INCAPABLE OF BEING TRANSFERRED. Yet that is exactly the power Judge Greer arrogated to himself. It should be self-evident to any right-thinking person that a civil court judge acting as a proxy to transfer to himself the power over the life of another person is simply beyond the scope of his authority. The right to life can only be forfeited by a criminal act of the individual. Terri committed no criminal act, and therefore the barbaric execution order of Judge Greer was totally ulra vires.

Any state laws that purport to do otherwise are in my view unconstitutionally null and void, and should not be obeyed. Not that I'm holding my breath or withholding food from myself waiting for you, w.c., or the courts to recognize these truths, mind you.

Cordially,

w.c. -

Right and wrong are moral terms. The Bible is the only satisfactory basis of morality. It was Biblically right to allow her to die.

bjs1779 I wonder if you could quote the bible where we should kill the handicapped? Quote me where we should starve them to death.

w.c.-
We know by clear and convincing evidence reviewed by over 40 judges in 5 courts in 15 appellate proceedings over 7 years that, if found in this situation, Terri wanted to die. We also know that Christ told us, "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets." Matt 7:12. Finally , we know that, were we in Terri's condition, we would want our wishes enforced. Accordingly, we know that the only truly moral response would be to assist Terri to achieve her wishes.

Even if one accepts the ludicrous proposition that Terri wanted to be starved to death, in the first place, there is no Biblical warrant for the killing of one's self, "assisted" or otherwise. So in terms of Biblical principle neither a court nor individuals have the authority or obligation to fulfill the alleged "wish". In the second place there is no legal basis or any legal authority whatsoever under the 14th Amendment as it was written, for the reasons it was made law, for ANY civil court to deprive a person of life. The right to life is inalienable; i.e., IT IS INCAPABLE OF BEING TRANSFERRED. Yet that is exactly the power Judge Greer arrogated to himself. It should be self-evident to any right-thinking person that a civil court judge acting as a proxy to transfer to himself the power over the life of another person is simply beyond the scope of his authority. The right to life can only be forfeited by a criminal act of the individual. Terri committed no criminal act, and therefore the barbaric execution order of Judge Greer was totally ulra vires.

Any state laws that purport to do otherwise are in my view unconstitutionally null and void, and should not be obeyed. Not that I'm holding my breath or withholding food from myself waiting for you, w.c., or the courts to recognize these truths, mind you.

Cordially,

Right and wrong are moral terms. The Bible is the only satisfactory basis of morality. It was Biblically right to allow her to die.

bjs1779 I wonder if you could quote the bible where we should kill the handicapped? Quote me where we should starve them to death.

[Diamond]

p.s.
btw, I'm surprised at your amazingly uncritical acceptance of Michael Shiavo's statements and behavior, knowing what you do about what the Bible says about the depravity of human nature.

Cordially,

[blueriver]

You are wrong the 2 doctors of the Shindlers said she was NOT PVS. And the 2 Dr.s from MS were pro euthanasia. The court Dr was biased as well. So much for a fair diagnosis to base a death sentence on. This court was no different from the court in Alice in Wonderland.

[blueriver]

There is nothing to say the money HAD to go to fighting off the Shindlers. He could have let them have her back and went on with his pathetic life. I understand his reasons for doing the despicable things he did (because he was a creep) but for the life of me I will never understand how complete strangers can look at the things he has done and stick up for him. He is pure evil and you and others are very blind to it.

[blueriver]

The Shindlers resources were minimal. Did you know MS had an entire hoard of lawyers whereas the Shindlers only had one. And as one can clearly see - the lawyers they had were not top notch. And there is no conspiracy theories about where MS got his money from - he raked Terri's funds dry.

[blueriver]

Show me one time in the history of America when a circuit court judge had the authority to sentence an "innocent" person to death. You are the one with a lack of historical perspective. Dying as a matter of routine would have been entirely different from the way Terri died. And so what about the past. What kind of argument is that. Medicine and science has come a long way since then. Your argument suggests that Terri should not have been afforded the advances in science.