Review: New Blank Keyboard for Geeks Only
Posted on 08/10/2005 10:38:54 AM PDT by marshmallow
Review: New Blank Keyboard for Geeks Only
Wow, that would render me completely incoherent. I simply could not communicate. I never type without looking at the keys.
OOPS!! You are so right. Since we detoured so far I forgot which thread we were on!! Don't let them pull my feeding tube please.
A DNR is NOT an order to deny ordinary medical care, such as antibiotics in case of infection. Such denial of treatment is against the law. This law is in place to protect patients.
If the patient himself refuses treatment, it has to be Informed Consent -- a signed document saying that he is aware of the consequences and knows that it is against the physician's medical advice.
By all means, research the question and do what you and your mother agree is best. If your (that is, anyone's) guardianship is valid and the decision is appropriate, then your DNR order would be valid.
There are cases where a DNR would be questionable or invalid, but that was not my argument. It's a whole different question. There's no reason to go into it.
Michael is a great hound for easy money, and has no scruples on how he gets it. He has never been able to hold a good job. But don't overlook his hatred for Terri and her family as a motive for denying her rehabilitation, treatment and every little comfort for the last thirteen years of her life.
When he put "I kept my promise" on her memorial, the venom in his words was almost palpable. He never kept his vows to "love, honor and cherish" Terri. The only promise he ever kept to her was to kill her -- and he dated it February 25, 1990. Think about that.
A low life scumbag who sat by his wife's bed for years, became a nurse to help her, moved his life to California for an experimental therapy. Then the time came to accept she would never get better. That's not being a scumbag, that's being a realist. You have no idea what this man has been through. I don't think most young men would have done 10% of that. There are those who believe there are things worse than death, you don't. FINE. That does not make him a scumbag. Money? He made $300,000. He would have made that no matter what happened to her. The money has nothing to do with it.
In that case, this will be a very interesting case to watch, in my opinion. I think there must be another part to the story we don't know about. We'll see.
Easy money? You've gotta be kidding. He's never been able to hold a good job? Prove it. I've never read anything of the sort. There was no rehabilitation to be had. She was gone. There are those who believe that it is more compassionate to let people die in peace than be poked and prodded and subject to a life of humiliation, and that's assuming she even understood what was happening. All reports say she didn't. She couldn't see and her brain was non-existant. I understand what you and your side think and I understand why. And I'm not saying that in a mean-spirited way. I understand where you are coming from. Why won't you at least try to understand my side of the street and the reasons we believe what we believe? Do you really think I'm a death mongerer? Honestly?
Despite all the speculation and your wrong conclusions, we still don't know precisely what medical malpractice that michael is aiming for.
Btw, despite many proving you wrong about this being a libel suit, I have yet to see you keep your word and issue an apology.
If I was in the penthouse suite in Hell I'd be ready to get kicked out at a moment's notice.
The sheriff's dept gave Schiavo a job, probably at the behest of Scientologists or other factions very active in the St. Pete's political scene.
So? He got a job as a nurse...he's a nurse, right?
Just have a little respectful cooling off period after her murder, pick up an award or two to bolster his slimy character and then go for the"big bucks".
If he gets the same judge it's going to make me wonder, but not much,if he was part of a prearranged deal also.
I beg your pardon? We weren't talking about any "case." I was talking about the nature and limits of DNR orders.
If you are referring to the possible malpractice case, I can't imagine that failure to comply with a DNR would be malpractice. There might conceivably be a lawsuit in it for failure to follow the legal guardian's instructions, but not for malpractice.
But why would a DNR order have anything to do with anything? There was no resuscitation -- no disobeying of a DNR order.
He didn't have a lot of experience at the time, and he and the sheriff are good buddies (which is one reason the sheriff's dept was particularly notable for their presence at the "hospice.")
BTW, who employs you to come and infest these threads?
Michael is busy assembling another dream team of crooked, evil shysters.
What you have read is evidently not enough. You say, "Prove it." It is not my job to bring you up to speed. It is your job. You do the research. You do the reading. Until you do your homework, you have no factual basis for your opinion.
Meanwhile, think about $250,000 from the first malpractice suit. The doctor angrily denied the charges and was exonerated by a Florida agency. But Michael did not return the money. There's a very easy quarter of a million bucks. Has anyone handed you $250,000 for nothing?
In the second malpractice suit, he got $350,000 (I think it was) for "loss of consortium." That means he wasn't getting love at home. But he didn't lose any time getting love from Cindy, Trudy and Jodi. He didn't lose any "consortium" at all. There's another third of a million bucks, easy and free. Did you ever get handed $350,000 for nothing?
That's $600,000 in easy money for a guy who let his wife be the breadwinner with her insurance agency job while he couldn't make it working at McDonald's.
Terri WAS NOT dying. Everybody knew it. The autopsy report confirmed it. She was not dying. She was not terminal. She was put to death, not "in peace" but in a most cruel and barbaric manner. Do not talk of "compassion."
And do not, if you please, try to give me reasons why it is just fine to kill her. She had as much right to live as everyone else. God did not put any escape clauses in "Thou shalt not kill." She was His creation, and no one had His permission to destroy her.
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.