Posted on 06/19/2005 6:04:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
No, but it DOES MEAN that he has some form of perceptive sense that lets him know where the keyboard is. So, perhaps Terri was blind but had a sense of what was there, if this is so, she was not in a persistent vegetative state. You can't have it both ways.
Actually, the autopsy is quite clear. It states cortical blindness, which is very specific. This is not the same kind of eye problems she had prior to the arrest. Her occipital lobes of her brain were severely damaged by the lack of oxygen. This meant that even though her eyes worked normally, her brain was not receiving the information. No glasses, no contacts, no eye surgery, etc. would have improved or corrected that.
There's a link on my post #589 if you want more information on this type of blindness.
Ok, Peach, what if you want your child to live even after the doctors have written the child off as not meeting the criteria that the law has provided to retain care?
Try looking at this from the point of view that the "society refiners" do not want the weak, deformed, costly, or disabled to retain the "right to life". Then, you as a mother are told - "no, we will not continue care for that child because the "law" says it falls into the category of "dead" - so, we intend to starve it to death.
Now, you as the mother - do not have the ability to make them give care and have to watch your own child being starved to death. What would you do?
Would you just sit back and say "sorry Bryan, the law thinks you are not worthy of life - but all will be fine, you'll see."
No, you would be ready to kill someone. And, then, I would bet that you would say - "Who the >>>> do they think they are?" I will not allow the "law-writers" to determine when my child has to die.
You, too, then would not be analyzing the medical findings showing how they prove that Bryan no longer enjoys the constitutional rights of American citizenship - but is now considered garbage to be taken out.
And, if you cannot understand this point of view - there is absolutely no use posting any further.
One last time and then, since you've proven that you can't accurate relay my posts, I won't bother replying to you in the future.
You said: Cardiac arrest was not in your statement. You're trying to push the "bulimia" lie.
Then you accurately quoted my statement as follows:
but the jury awarded MS and Terri millions of dollars in the lawsuit against the doctors who hadn't diagnosed her low potassium levels and then they reduced the $$ because of Terri's responsibility in causing her cardiac arrest.
So I DID mention cardiac arrest. Despite your saying I didn't. And I 'm telling you what the jury did and what the doctors and nurses who treated Terri said. But you don't want to believe it.
Now I don't expect you to play nicely in my absence, but you'll be playing without me.
Strawman alert. Karen Quinlan's mother had to fight the courts for years to have her daughter removed from life support, despite the fact that doctors said there was no chance.
Find me one single case where an unmarried child was "murdered" by doctors when the parents didn't want it to happen.
You're post was about bulimia and Terris collapse being self inflicted. I still advise you to actually READ the autopsy instead of repeating sound bytes.
I have never - ever said I want to do away with "Living Wills" - in fact, I have an appointment today with a lawyer to see about doing one for me.
But after reading on the thread that they are a death trap, I am going to be very careful of the wording.
It is very apparent that none of you understand why so many conservatives agree with our point of view and see the dangers in the direction this killing turns the country.
But, just because you do not understand - or you agree with the euthanasists and WANT to be able to clear the country of the costly weak, deformed, disabled - does not mean we are wrong.
A ploy of the euthanasists is of course to paint their actions as "self-determination" and that some are "already dead - merely shells".
They would also mock the ones seeing the steps taken as wrong as being merely religious right wing radicals wanting to place their views on you - the stupid - public.
Well - we have a voice too. And, if you look at the threads there are many, many posters that were not posting before jumping in with support for our views. More and more articles are mentioning constitutional rights, and why Terri's death was wrong.
I believe that is why there is so much rage here - you do not want our message to have any credibility so you try and tear it down with legal/medical mumbo/jumbo knowing full well that the public does not have access to or the interest in checking all that detail. And, you could hope to turn a thread of the rightness or wrongness of the laws and actions against Terri into merely a technical legal thread that no one would bother to read as it is extremely boring.
Now of course there will be a gnashing(sp?) of teeth over my adding these points to the sterling thread of facts - but too bad.
Moreso then.
There has been a recent case in Texas. The child was in extremely bad shape and the Texas law allows a hospital to withdraw care. They must help the family find another care provider (hospital that will take the patient and off the denied care of the other facility) within 10 days.
But, the child did die against the mother's wishes. And there have been a few other cases popping up across the country.
So, you see, the Texas law can now easily be abused by the "society-refiners" as the time frame to find alternate care facility could just be changed to 5 days rather than 10. That would get rid of a lot more cases and the public would never notice that little change in law.
It starts out with merely the worst cases being denied care - but as society accepts the rightness of this, it progresses to ever more definitive "criteria for life" and less and less assistance in finding alternate care givers.
Just call me a nut for thinking this. I am proud to be considered a nut over this.
Pro-life movement - you are not pro life. It is apparent that you are pro-death.
Just who is promoting living here and who is promoting the dying?
OTL.
You know, we'd been having a fairly reasonable conversation on another thread previous to this. But you can go to hell.
There are no irrefutable facts that bought about the death of Terri. The "fact" that this was her "wish" is not a FACT - it is a belief - one would have to believe Michael and his brother and his brother wife for this "fact". The "fact" that she was PVS is also not irrefutable, to believe this "FACT" one has to believe the testimony of 3 doctors who were all pro euthanasia. Let's see what other "FACTS" led to her being killed? None. Whether you like it or not everything that is a so called FACT is in essence a belief that what someone said is TRUE.
How do you know Sauerlyer was lying? Where is the proof?
Gee Peach is that language appropriate? - yet notice I am not reporting you or trying to get you banned.
Guess you probably think I was baiting you and trying to get you mad enough to give me reason to get you banned.
No, I'm just trying to MAKE YOU SEE WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING AGAINST.
And pro-life? How come one is pro-life about abortion but pro-death about a living human with tubes?
Sanctity of life means that man respects that life is a God-given unalienable right not a government given right or a government given right to take it away. It means that man is not the judge of who gets to live in this country - God is because only a God will treat all without the motives of greed, corruption, selfishness, ignorance, revenge, elitism, and resentment.
And that we do not have the right to interrupt the life-span given to each unless they are already in the process of dying in which case, out of concern for them, we do not extend the dying.
The Schindlers weren't the ones who paid that claim. The good doctor's malpractice insurance paid it. Now why would they want it overturned? It was obviously a good investment for the entire insurance industry. The award money was spent setting a precedent that will allow the extermination of some very expensive patients who are sucking up billions of dollars from insurance companies. Anything that tarnishes Michael's position, cuts into the advances made toward exterminating expensive patients. Demanding that little bit of money back (which they'd never get anyway) would be penny wise and pound foolish.
And you think your comments were appropriate? You aren't who I thought you were and I'd like to not discuss this with you any more.
Obviously I can't stop you from posting to me, but your comments were disgraceful.
Anyone who actively promotes forced euthanasia (under some euphemism) probably means it.
After setting up your series of strawmen out you come with this nonsense? I said nothing of the sort.
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.