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

Skip to comments.

Doctor: Schiavo Autopsy Conclusions Flawed
NewsMax ^ | 6/19/05 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 06/19/2005 6:04:50 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 901-908 next last
To: highball

Florida law is exactly what is wrong in this case.

It has no right to kill citizens. It is being revised to change the death criteria without any knowledge of citizens and without (IMO) any authority. In addition, the lawmaking on end-of-life issues was turned over to an end-of-life panel to recommend AND input as law their findings.

These are unelected people making laws without supervision or knowledge of the citizens. I would think this is not constitutional.

And, the method of making such laws needs to be investigated in each state as I am suspicious of the intent, method and fact of making these laws.


321 posted on 06/20/2005 1:21:37 PM PDT by ClancyJ (McCain: "As far as the criticism is concerned, none of us care about public opinion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: blueriver
Let's see her attack occurred in Feb of 1990

Please enlighten us...what exactly was this "attack" you speak of?

322 posted on 06/20/2005 1:22:17 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

I'm sorry, but I don't see any examples of the Shindlers being treated "horribly through this whole mess." They've had their days in court, their case has been heard.

I'm sorry for their loss, but nobody can seriously suggest that they didn't get a fair shake. The case was highjacked by disinterested parties with an agenda, but they sure seemed to court that in their despiration (Jesse Jackson, the quack doctor with forged Nobel qualifications, etc).


323 posted on 06/20/2005 1:22:58 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Does not seem fair, impartial, or legally viable to me.

It may not seem that way to you but the Second District Court ruled on appeal that:

"The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian.

324 posted on 06/20/2005 1:24:12 PM PDT by unbalanced but fair ("Suppose you're an idiot. Suppose you're a congressman. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

The problem with what you say is that nobody's suggesting that removing feeding tubes is wrong. They're only saying that it's wrong *in this case*.

That makes your viewpoint hard to accept. Not even Jeb or W are going that far.


325 posted on 06/20/2005 1:25:04 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

So, OK, that means she hadn't suffered a blow to her head causing swelling and an increase in intracranial pressure which would cause the midline shift. Her decerebration was caused by anoxia, a loss of oxygen due to her cardiac arrest. She had the symtoms of decerebration. I'm not sure what your point is.


326 posted on 06/20/2005 1:25:42 PM PDT by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: spectre

Now, now, no need to bring facts and/or reason into some of this discussion.

She got her 15 minutes of fame and hasn't been heard from since.


327 posted on 06/20/2005 1:26:02 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

LOL.

I appreciate it as well, earthdweller.


328 posted on 06/20/2005 1:27:13 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck; Diva Betsy Ross
Killing animals is killing animals.

Euthanasia is the murder for convenience of a human who happens to be weak, extremely aged or diabbled .

There is NO comparison.

Was what the Third Reich did with it's euthanasia laws murder? Or to the Jews and Gypsies? In both cases they were "under color of law". The Germans are great on form and process!

Was the Holocaust illegal? Was it murder?

Or was it just "assisting in the death of innocents" -- some non criminal, non felony, non misdemeanor, slightly off-color social offense?

329 posted on 06/20/2005 1:27:18 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: bvw

diabbled == disabled.


330 posted on 06/20/2005 1:27:56 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: .38sw
I'm not sure what your point is.

What did the police report say? There was no indication of an obvious abnormality.

331 posted on 06/20/2005 1:28:44 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Well, then, as we have seen all through this tragedy - the dang law needs to be changed so that a person has a chance before they are killed!!!!!!

I can't imagine any lawmaker coming up with a stupid law that allows a judge to be guardian and judge over the same person and try the case. For one thing - it is a total waste of tax dollars.

Gee - we have a trial date, lawyers appears on both sides, and the judge speaks up for the victim and then goes and sits on the bench to rule on what he just said (after the lawyers earned their salaries with any pertinent questions).

I wonder if one of those pertinent questions might be "why in the heck are we having a trial for you to play both sides?"


332 posted on 06/20/2005 1:32:11 PM PDT by ClancyJ (McCain: "As far as the criticism is concerned, none of us care about public opinion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: blueriver

TS was attacked? Huh. I guess all that family gathered around her bed after she was admitted to the hospital missed it. And I guess it took them years to catch on because they certainly extrolled MS's virtues for many years.

Simply amazing the lengths to which freepers will go to make stuff up vs. believing under oath testimony.


333 posted on 06/20/2005 1:32:43 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Why do you mention only Carla Iyer? Personal grudge?? There were 3 others (Johnson, Law, and Capone) that also made similar affadavitts. Plus 2 nurses that quit the hospice when Terris tube was removed.

This thread is about the autopsy. We're talking doctor statements.

334 posted on 06/20/2005 1:34:13 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
DJ, again thank you. I read it. It is seven pages. Dr. Cheshire's conclusions are 2 to 3 pages, and it is easy to understand. "I urge everyone to read it."

Cheshire diagnoses Terri as minimally conscious not semi-conscious as I stated previously. According to him, she is definitely NOT in PVS.

He examined her on her fifth day of STARVATION/DEHYDRATION. Thus, it isn't unreasonable to believe that had Cheshire examined her before the STARVATION/DEHYDRATION, rather than on it's fifth day, her consciousness would have been even further heightened.

He says she indeed at times, responded to her environment and people around her.

He mentions how when he walked into her room she looked directly at his face.

He also mentions how after physically expressing some discomfort when Hammesfahr presses her with a sharp object and stops after he removes the pressure and the object, Hammesfahr turns to her family and says he is now going to roll Terri over. Upon hearing this, Terri grimaces and and makes ah, ha sounds which tells Dr. Cheshire, that Terri cognitively understood what Dr. Hammesfahr said.

Cheshire says much of Terri's cerebral cortex was in tact. And there are several other interesting findings.

Too bad Cheshire's conclusions received so little attention.

335 posted on 06/20/2005 1:36:03 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off the cuff com findings.ments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Amazing...She left a wake of misery and untruths in her path, and we're not supposed to draw attention to the fact that people believed her LIES?

OK, I won't mention it again...LOL.

336 posted on 06/20/2005 1:36:56 PM PDT by spectre (Spectre's wife (What happens in Aruba..stays in Aruba))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: highball

Not everybody is a non-dying person. Many are in the dying process and the decision is made (which I will not do in the future decisions) to prevent prolonging the death (that is not caused because they initiated it by pulling the tube.)

Or - she was not dying until they pulled tubes giving her food and water and did not offer her food or water by mouth. This by the way turns it into murder - same as if they had locked her in a room without food and water for two weeks.

You cannot call something murder in one place and merely pulling a tube somewhere else. It is the same.


337 posted on 06/20/2005 1:37:40 PM PDT by ClancyJ (McCain: "As far as the criticism is concerned, none of us care about public opinion.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Please enlighten us...what exactly was this "attack" you speak of?

What ever it was that spurred on her loss of oxygen to her brain, from what I can tell it is still an unknown at this point in time what type of attack she had.

338 posted on 06/20/2005 1:37:45 PM PDT by blueriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

Why would it kill you if Terri swallowed her own spit? You protesteth too much.


339 posted on 06/20/2005 1:37:49 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (I miss Terri - IMPEACH JUDGE GREER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Peach
believing under oath testimony.

People lie under oath. My only point is that just because someone is "sworn" under oath, it doesn't mean a person doesn't or won't lie. Unfortunately.

340 posted on 06/20/2005 1:38:01 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 901-908 next last

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.

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