Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Several bloggers have drawn attention to a strange lead in a Washington Post story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results. The June 16 Post story by David Brown said that "Terri Schiavo died of the effects of a profound and prolonged lack of oxygen to her brain on a day in 1990, but what caused that event isn't known and may never be, the physician who performed her autopsy said…"
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Even Larry's high-test designer braces couldn't rescue HINO from himself.
Phew. I thought that the next thing I'd see was the proverbial privates propping. LOL.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)
Nitey-nite, Earthdweller, and thanks so much for all your great posts and pics. Pictures truly do tell a thousand words....
ROTFLMAO! I see we have new turkeys to pluck. I'm rather surprised, since they're usually sane people.
I had never heard of CP until recently, and have never been there...wherever it is, or whatever it's all about other than I think it's FReepers making fun of Free Republic. But what was really weird is that one of the small faction leaders on this board claimed to have never heard of the "Wild Turkeys." It was bizarre and so patently BS, and the person was called on it but wouldn't respond. I don't understand these kind of actions.
Why are you and others so desperate to "prove" that Terri was brain dead? Do you know what "brain dead" looks like? She was brain damaged, not brain dead. Yes, her eyesight was impaired. The ME judged her to be blind, after she was starved and dehydrated for 13 days. Her eyeballs probably looked like shriveled peas.
Brain dead=flatline response. If your brain is dead, you don't breathe on your own, you don't try and cooperate with visitors asking you to follow an object, and you most certainly cannot attempt to communicate. If you are brain dead, your heart doesn't beat on its' own. Look it up, call your physician and ask him/her, if you don't believe me.
I long for the day that people who refuse to "get it", stay off these threads. There is a wealth of information about Terri, her condition, and her marriage, but there are those folks who would rather sit here and flame away.
Looks like some of them have. It hit a raw nerve on a few who stumbled off the logic path and engaged anyone in range with word games, tossing out all the old and worn slogans they could remember. They collide with a solid phalanx of facts and truth and offer an opportunity to air and remind of that reality.
But since it was so transparent and amateur, it was a good opportunity for any newcomers and lurkers to draw reasonable conclusions.
Unwittingly, the detractors brought loads of exposure to the gist of the article by their own bumping and set themselves up as the patsies.
From the article....The unborn, human embryos, and disabled people like Terri Schiavo. These are the expendable ones, according to the prevailing media view. I always thought that liberals were supposed to be compassionate. The liberal media are strangely cold and calculating on the matter of who lives and dies. If you don't meet their test of humanity, you're dead. It's frightening. Who's next on the list?
8mm
Again, total areo fritto! must be embaressing!
Orwellian Newspeak.
What constitutes a "refusal" in that case? Seven-year-old second-hand hearsay? No. Must be obvious, must be by the person, the person must be sane and conscious and the request must be made at the current time.
Contracts -- advance medical directives -- where they allow the withdrawal of basic sustenance, food and water. Or where they allow injections or active therapies that cause or speed death -- those are death contracts. Assisted suicide. Illegal, immoral, a denial of basic civl rights under the US Constitution.
There are NO amount of medical tests, experts or diagnostic tools that can say for CERTAIN what an individual can or cannot think or feel; only that person and God knows for sure.
It is obvious that you have a very shallow view of the precious nature of human life.
And at the bottom of it all, no matter what her condition was, IT WASN'T THE CHEATING HUSBAND'S DECISION TO MAKE! HE HAD NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT HE KNEW WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE WANTED IN THIS SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE.
I still cannot believe that an alleged "passing comment" by someone many years ago could be used as "concrete proof" of what they would want in any particular medical circumstance. It goes beyond common sense.
I'm sorry friend, but it *was* her husband's decision to make. Legally and morally. That's what we do in this country.
Ah, but you say he wasn't "really" her husband any more. That overlooks the fact that Terri's family encouraged Michael to get involved, to move on with his life. It was only after there was money involved that they started to fight with him over her treatment. Notice that the allegations of "abuse" only started after that time. Otherwise, they could have sued for custody of Terri at the beginning of the whole sad affair.
I'm in no way cavalier about this. I think it was tragic, but I have determined that if I am ever in her position, my family must disconnect the tube and finish what has already begun.
Please provide a Constitutional argument that would refute what I have stated. Not 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' but an actual statement from the Framers that would support your belief system that the national government had the right to engage in the internal affairs of the respective states. Apparently all you and the other two can post is one sentence statements based on nothing more than feeling. And some of them, well most of them, aren't even coherent.
What we do in this country is take a vow when we marry, and are you claiming to be ignorant of the "in sickness and in health" part? Okay, so you say the family encouraged him to move on. If that's true, then why didn't he do it the official way? He got him another woman apparently, as you allege, from encouragement from Terri's family. Why on earth didn't he just get a divorce and let go of the situation. Why is it that he wanted to have it both ways?
Look, no amount of your moronic statements is going to sway me one bit. I know right from wrong, something you apparently know very little about.
Have a good day.
But since you have basically admitted you are neither, I will assume you are a troll.
Bye!
Insults are not necessary, sir. They do you and your position no credit.
It is the job of a husband to decide his wife's treatment when she cannot. The fact that you find his choice distasteful does not change that.
Removal of a feeding tube is a standard, legitimate medical practice under these circumstances. If you don't like that, try and change the law. But that's a different subject.
Right. Michael is a liar, and we can't believe anything he says, unless he happens to say something which supports what you believe, in which case it must be accurate.
I'm still looking for a complete transcript of that particular interview. So far, I've found one where MS says that Bob Schindler was angry because he didn't get a cut of the money. And if MS said it, that must be true, right? Or doesn't that fit the template of what you already believe?
About that Larry King Live Transcript
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155804.htm
Several groups supporting Terri Schiavo's family are highlighting an except from a Larry King Live interview from 18 March (emphasis retained):
On Larry King Live Friday night Michael made a Freudian slip. When asked if he knew how the Schindlers feel he answered:Looking at the transcript, first there is this:
"Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..."
KING: If she's not in pain and the parents want her to be alive and you're no longer involved, so what? Why not keep her alive?Later there is an exchange dealing with Schiavo's parents:
M. SCHIAVO: Because this is what Terri wanted. This is her wish.
KING: Do you understand how they [her parents] feel?Let's pause a moment. How many of the people who are gleefully pointing to this malapropism have ever been on a nationally syndicated talk show? How many have never misplaced a pronoun? How many times has the President utterly something equally opposite to his intended message?
M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...
KING: You're not -- it didn't cost you anything. This is not something where you're looking to save money?
I wasn't there. Larry King was. He's a journalist, trained to pounce. And he didn't pounce.
Perhaps he "heard" what Michael may have meant to say ... that "they" (her parents, the subject of this question) didn't know what Terri wanted.
Or maybe Michael's been lying to the court, his lawyer, the media, friends, etc for eight years.
More from the transcript, before the "pounce" moment:
KING: Hold it Michael -- on hearsay, George, thought, the only word that she said that is Michael's, right, George?So now we either have a conspiracy involving her brother-in-law and best friend ... or an anguished husband who mis-spoke.
FELOS: No. That's not correct. Because she made those statements to her best friend, Joan and also to her brother-in-law. There were three witnesses and numerous statements to those witnesses over different periods of time. I don't want to be kept alive artificially. No tubes for me. I want to go when my time comes. If I ever had to be dependent upon anyone, I wouldn't want to live that way.
I mean, Terri made her wishes clear. And that's what the court found
Whenever anyone -- public official or lay person -- says something that seems out of character, it is our duty to look at the context and compare that statement with the larger record.
Whether you believe Michael has been lying or had his tongue tangle on Larry King Live probably says more about you -- and your feelings on the issue of the "right to die" -- than it does about Michael Schiavo.
If you choose to join those who detract from the conservative values expressed by people outraged by this travesty, you should learn a couple of things.
First, you must learn that many of us have a repository of knowledge, hard fact, and experience in working this issue. We are also decent people who have values about life issues, coming from diverse faiths, but know right and wrong when we witness it up close. If you choose to be opposite of these values, so be it, but you better do more homework or choose a forum more attuned to your beliefs. Otherwise you just do not come off as a credible adversary of the truth.
You quote Thomas Jefferson and I do believe this link to his quote will shape your perspective.
Thomas Jefferson quote
If you wish to keep bumping this thread and getting more readership, that is great, but the new readers will quickly see your assaults on our sensibilities are suboptimum.
The dehydration had nothing to do with her blindness. There was nothing physically wrong with her eyes. The blindness was due to the deterioration of the portion of the brain which handles sight. Cortical blindness.
If you can't get even these basic facts right, don't be surprised that others might not take other things you say very seriously.
8mm
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.