Posted on 12/07/2005 5:02:27 PM PST by eartotheground
Terri Schiavo's husband starts a PAC devoted to defeating the Bible-thumping politicians who used his comatose wife as a football.
By Michael Scherer
Dec. 7, 2005 | At the height of the battle, Michael Schiavo appeared to be a reluctant cultural warrior. His wife, Terri, lay comatose, in her 15th year of vegetative slumber, connected to a feeding tube, but well beyond resuscitation. Around her hospice, a political hurricane swirled.
In Terri's name, President George Bush interrupted his vacation, Sen. Bill Frist played doctor from the Senate floor, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush launched a flimsy criminal investigation, and Rep. Tom DeLay issued ominous political threats to the judiciary. The religious right had turned Terri into a symbolic beachhead in the battle for a "culture of life," and the Republican Party had answered the call.
But Michael Schiavo, who legally controlled his wife's fate, never showed any predilection for the limelight. In fact, he wished that everyone would just leave his family alone. "People are removed from their feeding tubes every day across this country," Schiavo told CNN's Larry King, in a rare interview last March. "The government chose this one to pander for their religious right, pander for their votes."
But now, as the one-year anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death approaches, Michael Schiavo is changing his approach and preparing to enter the political fray. Terri's fate has already been decided. Now her husband wants to claim her legacy. "For 15 years, I have been watching the politicians working their ways into my case. I felt I needed to do something when this was all said and done," Schiavo told Salon on Tuesday. "I didn't ask for this fight, but now I am ready."
This week Schiavo will roll out a new political action committee, called Terri PAC, with the hope of raising money to defeat the politicians who tried to intervene in the legal battle between Schiavo and Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. "Whatever I can do, I am going to do," says Schiavo, who works as a nurse in the Pinellas County Jail in Clearwater, Fla. Starting in January, he plans to change his work hours to three 12-hour shifts a week, allowing him more time to work on politics.
At the same time, Schiavo is putting the finishing touches on a book, "Terri: The Truth," which is scheduled for release in March. His former in-laws, the Schindlers, have also announced plans to publish a book with their side of the story in March. The Schindlers have been working to establish their own legacy for their daughter. This summer, the couple gave their support to a new seminarian scholarship in Terri's name at the Ave Maria University. "We feel that Terri was chosen by God to combat evil," Bob Schindler told a Catholic news service. "What a fine way to pay tribute to her life."
Terri PAC will not be the first time Schiavo has inserted himself into politics since his wife's death. During this year's Virginia governor's race, Schiavo volunteered his support for the victorious Democrat, Tim Kaine, after his Republican opponent, Jerry Kilgore, said he did "not agree to the forced starvation of any individual." Though Kaine did not trumpet the endorsement, the amount of press coverage it received was encouraging, says Derek Newton, a political consultant at the November Group, in Coral Gables, Fla., who is working with Schiavo. "From the PAC's perspective, Kaine's win was very important," Newton said.
One Florida Democrat, Rep. Robert Wexler, who represents parts of Palm Beach, says that Michael Schiavo could have an impact going into the 2006 midterm election. "Terri Schiavo and Michael Schiavo were some of the most prominent victims of the Republicans' abuse of power," said Wexler. "Michael Schiavo's effort is not only appropriate and timely, but it is also extremely important."
In addition to funneling money to certain political campaigns, the PAC will name those politicians who supported government intervention in his wife's case, as well as those who opposed intervention. Schiavo also hopes to use the Web site to educate people about the importance of living wills. Newton said that Schiavo has no plans to run for political office himself; the two have not yet discussed whether Schiavo will collect a salary from the PAC for his efforts.
In the interview, Schiavo mentioned Rep. DeLay, R-Texas, Sen. Frist, R-Tenn., and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., as primary targets of the effort. He also said he wanted to be involved in the upcoming Florida governor's race. "We are going to focus on holding these people accountable," Schiavo said.
Regarding the circumstances surrounding Terri's initial collapse I highly recommend Mark Fuhrman's book... Silent Witness.
Yes, words as opposed to "noises" that are "interpreted" by the staff (ie., "payyyyyy" = "pain")
"You have to dismiss quite a few people as lunatic idiots "
Lunatic idiots?...you certainly do keep raising the bar now don't you?
The words lunatic and idiots are yours, not mine. Those people, and you, see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe, to support your claims. You cling to that .001% of a chance that somebody, anybody, might be wrong, saying, "We can never be 100% certain" -- as though certainty is a requirement.
Your statements are loaded with "could ofs" and "might ofs". Worse, they contain irrelevant and ugly gossip and innuendo as though they actually matter (Judge Greer's vision, for example).
You cite link after link, as though the sheer weight would influence me or others. Even when you posted an extract from those links, it was incomplete and totally out of context.
"Again...why would anyone give naproxen to a person who cannot feel pain? Terri was given this pain reliever "as needed"....how did they know how much she "needed"? Why did she "need" it at all?"
Whoa! Terri was given this pain reliever?? I thought the doctor's order was, "Monitor symptoms of pain/discomfort. If noted, medicate with Naproxen rectal suppository 375 mg. Q8 prn."
Was Terri ever given Naproxen (Aleve)? By who and what were these "symptoms"?
Terri had no cerebral cortex. Terri could not feel pain. Terri was not conscious (even when she was "awake").
Stop it with your insinuations. I'll ask again. Are you saying that YOU believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words (not guttural noises)? That YOU believe she could voluntarily swallow?
"Yes, words as opposed to "noises" that are "interpreted" by the staff (ie., "payyyyyy" = "pain")"
Anytime anyone makes noises to anyone they are "interpreted"
Not just "payyy" - but also mommy, help me.
"Lunatic idiots?...you certainly do keep raising the bar now don't you?"
When you equate nurse's observations with ufo sighting I assume you must consider them lunatic idiots...yes
"Those people, and you, see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe, to support your claims. "
According to you. I simply think people who signed affidavits under possible penalty of perjury could be telling the truth.
It appears to me that you see what you want and believe what you want. Pot calling the kettle black.
"You cling to that .001% of a chance that somebody, anybody, might be wrong, saying, "We can never be 100% certain" -- as though certainty is a requirement."
So now you're a statistician?
Yes - certainty should absolutely be a requirement in matters of life and death.
"Your statements are loaded with "could ofs" and "might ofs". Worse, they contain irrelevant and ugly gossip and innuendo as though they actually matter (Judge Greer's vision, for example)."
You don't like "could" or "might"...but you see...those are terms used by neurologists, therapists, and other experts on brain damage. If you read the links you will see that. If you are uncomfortable with uncertainty then don't read articles written by experts - because uncertainty is exactly what they describe.
As for your accusations of innuendo and gossip concerning Greer...his vision is a matter of public record that was reported in the mainstream news.
"You cite link after link, as though the sheer weight would influence me or others"
You asked for them and you got them. Now you are upset?
So sorry - I'll refrain from offering you what you ask for again.
"Even when you posted an extract from those links, it was incomplete and totally out of context."
It was not "completely and totally our of context" at all.
You offered another section for clarification and I responded to that....an examiner cannot "interpet" recorded behaviors when the records are thrown away in the trash.
That was the point.
"Whoa! Terri was given this pain reliever??"
Terri was given pain reliever for menstruation (according to staff affidavits and even an affidavit from one of Michael's ex-girlfriends)
She also received a bone scan after she expressed discomfort during a rehab session - and the bone scan confirmed she had injuries.
"Terri had no cerebral cortex. Terri could not feel pain. Terri was not conscious (even when she was "awake")."
Terri's brain was atrophied. You cannot possibly know if she felt pain. You cannot possibly know if was conscious or not.
I guess you've given up the battle for the "conservative cause" as it says on your Freeper homepage
One doesn't have to be in lockstep with you in order to forward the conservative cause, thank goodness. To my knowledge, the conservative cause is not populated by a bunch of petty dictators with the attitude of my way or the highway. Merry Christmas.
"Let me guess, you are a libertarian."
You guessed wrong. Try again. How about capable of having my own opinions and they aren't the same as yours.
Brain may not be brittle; just the heart
Terri said, "Mommy, help me"? This is getting to be a little much, even from you.
"According to you. I simply think people who signed affidavits under possible penalty of perjury could be telling the truth."
Could? For the third time, are you saying that YOU believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words (not guttural noises)? That YOU believe she could voluntarily swallow?
Why can't you answer these simple questions?
"Yes - certainty should absolutely be a requirement in matters of life and death."
Well, there goes our whole judicial system. Too late for Tookie, however -- he'd be a free man by your standards. As would everyone on death row, and in prison, and in jail.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? No more. You must be 100% certain.
I've never read such garbage.
"...his vision is a matter of public record that was reported in the mainstream news."
And what, pray tell, is the relevance?
"Terri was given pain reliever for menstruation"
Why? Did she request it?
"according to staff affidavits and even an affidavit from one of Michael's ex-girlfriends"
I missed the link to those staff affidavits and the link to the affidavit from the girlfriend. Please re-post it.
"You cannot possibly know if she felt pain. You cannot possibly know if was conscious or not."
Are you saying that YOU believe Terri felt pain? That YOU believe she was conscious?
"Could? For the third time, are you saying that YOU believe Terri could talk meaningful and appropriate words (not guttural noises)? That YOU believe she could voluntarily swallow?"
Why does it matter to you what I think?
It doesn't matter what I think - or what you think.
What matters is what is true and what is not true.
What is true is that there is a CHANCE she could speak - because staff and family members claim they heard her speak.
A court appointed guardian felt she might have benefitted from a swallowing test - and this request was ignored.
Voluntary swallowing could have come after receiving therapy - something which Terri was denied.
So the truth is that we'll never know important answers to important questions - questions that should have been looked at very carefully prior to starving and dehydrating someone.
It doesn't matter if noises were "gutteral" (although the affidavits claim they were not) - if they were intentional then she should have been considered responsive.
People with brain injury often make gutteral noises and these noises can be intentional.
"Yes - certainty should absolutely be a requirement in matters of life and death."
Well, there goes our whole judicial system. Too late for Tookie, however -- he'd be a free man by your standards. As would everyone on death row, and in prison, and in jail.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? No more. You must be 100% certain.
I've never read such garbage."
The cases of death-row criminals get reviewed over and over.
When new evidence or new witnesses come forward the cases get reviewed again from the beginning.
It happens all the time. It did not happen in Terri's case.
If this is "garbage" then so be it."
"And what, pray tell, is the relevance? "
Did you or did you not accuse me of innuendo and gossip?
This was reported in the mainstream news- clearly you missed it.
It would have been nice if a person with sight had bothered to pay Terri a visit - to view videotape - to be able to review countless documents without having to have them read to him (can one man really retain all these documents in his memory?)
That's the relevance.
"Why? Did she request it? "
The staff members believed she did...yes.
Again...why would anyone give pain reliever to a person who supposedly cannot feel anything?
When Terri was dying of dehydration the staff administered two morphine suppositories.
"I missed the link to those staff affidavits and the link to the affidavit from the girlfriend. Please re-post it."
You want a link? Are you kidding?
The affidavits have been reposted from an earlier Freeper thread.
The ex-girlfriend is Trudy Capone, I am sure you are capable of finding her with google.
"Are you saying that YOU believe Terri felt pain? That YOU believe she was conscious?"
It doesn't matter what I think.
No one ever proved that Terri could not feel pain - that she was not conscious.
No one ever proved she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death if she becamed brain-injured.
No one even bothered giving her up-to-date neuroimaging.
I think this case shows why written directives should be absolutely required -and hearsay evidence be disallowed.
Starving and dehydrating patients who have not been proven to be unaware is cruel.
As far as I can tell all you've brought to the table here is alot of attitude -for which you receive high marks, but I do not see where you have proven Terri was unaware or that her vague statement (conveniently remembered after the malpractice suit) had anything to do with food and water.
Rhetorical question. She knew she wouldn't be cross-examined.
Heidi Law has an active imagination. Again, I believe she believes what she heard and saw. Like the UFO people.
What's the significance of the Carolyn Johnson deposition? There's nothing of significance in it.
Well, you pointed me to a link that made the statement, " However, interpretations made by observers may well be biased and the assessor should make her or his own interpretation."
You've posted three depositions which list observations made by three different people. I'm simply asking for your interpretation of these observations.
Terri appeared to be able to talk and voluntarily swallow, according to one deposition. I'm asking you for the fourth time, do you interpret the observation that way -- could Terri talk and voluntarily swallow?
Why are you so reluctant to answer this? Either you believe the deposition or you don't. If you believe the deposition, then you believe Terri could talk and voluntarily swallow.
If you don't believe the deposition, then a) why did you post it and b) we agree after all.
"A court appointed guardian felt she might have benefitted from a swallowing test - and this request was ignored. Voluntary swallowing could have come after receiving therapy - something which Terri was denied."
Might have? Could have? Oh, please.
Maybe it's might NOT have and could NOT have. We can play that game forever. You got nothing.
"If this is "garbage" then so be it."
Then so be it. You're asking for 100% certainty, a standard we do not use on anyone, anywhere, any time in our judicial system. But you want that standard for Terri and, not getting it, cry fowl. That's bull$hit.
"Did you or did you not accuse me of innuendo and gossip?"
You bet I did. Wear it with pride.
"This was reported in the mainstream news- clearly you missed it."
The fact was reported, and I did indeed read it. I have yet to see the relevance.
"It would have been nice if a person with sight had bothered to pay Terri a visit - to view videotape - to be able to review countless documents without having to have them read to him (can one man really retain all these documents in his memory?)"
Oh, wouldn't you have had a field day with that one!! A judge having the audacity to play doctor and come to some medical conclusion on his own. You are something else.
As to his supposed problem with reading and comprehension, do you have any proof that this WAS a problem? Or are you just guessing?
"Again...why would anyone give pain reliever to a person who supposedly cannot feel anything?"
Because THEY thought she was in "payyyyy". I'm asking if you believe Terri was in pain. That you believe she felt pain.
No one ever proved that Terri could not feel pain - that she was not conscious."
That was the conclusion reached by the neurologists, and that constitutes proof in the legal system, not your standard of 100% certainty.
"No one ever proved she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death if she becamed brain-injured."
The conclusion reached by an impartial judge was that Terri did not want to live that way. Starving and dehydration are the natural result of removing a surgically implanted feeding tube.
"I think this case shows why written directives should be absolutely required -and hearsay evidence be disallowed."
First, it wasn't "hearsay" evidence. That's something different. Second, take it up with the citizens of Florida who want verbal wishes to receive the same weight as written ones.
"Starving and dehydrating patients who have not been proven to be unaware is cruel."
Are you saying that you believe Terri was aware and could feel pain? Or are you just making a generalized statement?
"As far as I can tell all you've brought to the table here is alot of attitude"
And facts. Don't forget those. As far as I can tell all you've brought to the table here is alot of speculation. What if, might of, could of ... blah, blah, blah. Boring.
You have no idea if these ladies are whack jobs or not.
It is not true no one else observed these things...they confirm each other - and they confirm Terri's family's observations. You don't know if no one else saw these things.
At one time Michael also described Terri as responsive -back when it was useful for her to be responsive (during the malpractice trial)
"I'm simply asking for your interpretation of these observations."
They confirm each other. They describe an atmosphere of intimidation - destruction of observation notes.
It is difficult for anyone to interpret anything when critical material is thrown away.
If what these ladies describe is true - not only has a terrrible mistake been made - but crimes have been committed by those who would slter/destroy medical records.
"Terri appeared to be able to talk and voluntarily swallow, according to one deposition. I'm asking you for the fourth time, do you interpret the observation that way -- could Terri talk and voluntarily swallow?"
If Terri appeared to be able to talk and voluntarily swallow as described by staff, family, and even her own husband (prior to winning the malpractice suit) then yes...I would tend to believe she was capable of these things.
If she was not capable of these things - at the very least Terri should have received up to date neuro-imaging and a swallowing test.
There are some basic things that could have been done to help clear up controversy.
If Michael was truly seeking the truth of his wife's condition he would not have objected to up to date MRI, PET scan, and updated brain wave test that measures more than the previous EEG. He would not have objected to a swallowing test.
Why would anyone object to tests that could clarify someone's condition?
"Why are you so reluctant to answer this? Either you believe the deposition or you don't. If you believe the deposition, then you believe Terri could talk and voluntarily swallow"
Unlike you I am not willing to simply write off people I disagree with as "whack jobs".
Unlike you - I don't pretend to know what I don't know.
Whether or not I believe Terri could or could not talk has no bearing on the truth of whether Terri actually could or could not talk.
My position on the matter is this....since it looks like there are witnesses (who would know better than I) who observed this behavior with Terri - then Terri should have received updated diagnostic tests.
Terri did not received updated diagnostic tests -so no one will ever really know what she was capable of.
"Might have? Could have? Oh, please.
Maybe it's might NOT have and could NOT have. We can play that game forever. You got nothing."
Here we go again with the attitude.
Yes...MIGHT have. This comes from the court appointed guardian.
Why would the court appoint a guardian, just to ignore that same guardian's recommedations?
You clearly don't like words like "might" "may" and so on....
You seem to think this is all cut and dry - black and white.
It isn't.
Many questions remained about her condition. The guardian attempted to clear up some questions with a test.
Why is it so hard to see a simple test could have answered an important question?
"Then so be it. You're asking for 100% certainty, a standard we do not use on anyone, anywhere, any time in our judicial system. But you want that standard for Terri and, not getting it, cry fowl. That's bull$hit."
How many men on death row do you think are innocent?
I would guess not many.
I would guess that those who actually make it to the death chamber have exhausted the process of review and re-review.
When new witnesses and new evidence surface in their cases - their cases get looked at again from the very beginning.
This is the standard Terri should have received...but did not.
Swearing on your part doesn't change that.
"You bet I did. Wear it with pride"
I'll bet you are...despite the fact your accusation was false.
Judge Greer IS legally blind.
"Oh, wouldn't you have had a field day with that one!! A judge having the audacity to play doctor and come to some medical conclusion on his own. You are something else."
Judges are supposed to review as much evidence as possible in their attempts to arrive at the correct decision.
This judge did have audacity. He fired his own guardian that he appointed when he didn't like the guardian's recommendations. He then broke Florida law by appointing himself Terri's guardian (judges cannot appoint themselves guardian-at-litum in cases they preside over).
After this, he STILL did not visit Terri. Of course...he couldn't see her even if he did.
"As to his supposed problem with reading and comprehension, do you have any proof that this WAS a problem? Or are you just guessing?"
Look it up...you will see he has to have documents read to him. He admitted to mistakes.
I am not guessing - I've simply done more reading than you have.
"Because THEY thought she was in "payyyyy". I'm asking if you believe Terri was in pain. That you believe she felt pain."
I believe that when a patient is given pain reliever it is because they think the patient is in pain.
I think that when a rehabilition specialist orders a bone scan because he believes he has detected pain in his patient - it is because she is in pain.
I believe that when a bone scan confirms the presence of serious painful injuries...it confirms the patient's expression of pain.
I believe that when a patient is given morphine...it is because the staff thinks she is pain.
She was not treated likes someone who could not feel anything.
"That was the conclusion reached by the neurologists, and that constitutes proof in the legal system, not your standard of 100% certainty."
We went over this already. Three out of five neurologists reached this conclusion. Critical diagnostic tools were denied.
If this is the standard for our legal system - then the standard needs to be changed.
"First, it wasn't "hearsay" evidence. That's something different. Second, take it up with the citizens of Florida who want verbal wishes to receive the same weight as written ones."
Yes..it indeed does qualify as "hearsay".
Anytime someone testifies to what they heard someone else say, it falls under the legal definition of "hearsay".
Second....hopefully the rest of the nation will refrain from looking to Florida as a trendsetter here.
Allowing hearsay as evidence offers many opportunities for abuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation.
Written directives should be the only evidence allowed.
"Are you saying that you believe Terri was aware and could feel pain? Or are you just making a generalized statement?"
Throughout Terri's entire ordeal she received pain medicine. If the staff truly thought this was a person who could not feel pain - why give it to her?
Yes...because THEY obviously thought she was in pain, it is reasonable to conclude she was capable of feeling pain.
"And facts. Don't forget those. As far as I can tell all you've brought to the table here is alot of speculation. What if, might of, could of ... blah, blah, blah. Boring"
Very funny coming from the guy who gets upset when links are supplied for him to read - and then refuses to read them.
I find your bluster boring as well.
Merry Christmas.
I see. You believe the unbiased family, but refuse to even consider the testimony of those lying doctors.
"Why would anyone object to tests that could clarify someone's condition?"
Because they'd show nothing and were merely a time-delay tactic. If Terri couldn't pass the swallow tests in 1990, 1991, and 1992, why would you expect a test in 2005 to show a different result? Did ANY of Terri conditions improve over the 15 years?
"He then broke Florida law by appointing himself Terri's guardian"
Proof?
"Look it up...you will see he has to have documents read to him."
I'll ask again. Did that affect the case?
"He admitted to mistakes."
Mistakes? Plural? I know he admitted to one, and that had NOTHING to do with his vision. What are the other mistakes?
"Anytime someone testifies to what they heard someone else say, it falls under the legal definition of "hearsay"."
Baloney. The testimony regarding Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
"Jack told me he knew who the killer was" is not hearsay. "Jack told me the killer was Bill" is hearsay in Bill's murder trial.
"Yes...because THEY obviously thought she was in pain, it is reasonable to conclude she was capable of feeling pain."
And if the neurologists concluded she was NOT in pain, then what? You're pretty selective as to who you believe.
"I see. You believe the unbiased family, but refuse to even consider the testimony of those lying doctors."
I see, you believe the family are liars, that Michael is unbiased, and that 2 of the 5 doctors are liars as well.
You refuse to consider the testimony of her own family,good friends, hospital staff, and doctors who disagreed.You refuse to consider the possibility that her family just may have been right about her, and Judge Greer just may have gotten it wrong.
"Because they'd show nothing and were merely a time-delay tactic."
According to Judge Greer. In that case he should never have bothered appointing a guardian at-litum as he never intended to act on the guardian's recommendations anyways.
" Did ANY of Terri conditions improve over the 15 years? "
Probably not considering she did not receive any of the therapy her unbiased husband fought so hard for.
If there were any notes describing any responsiveness from Terri they found their way to the circular files. Oh THAT'S RIGHT - those ladies are whack jobs....proof?
""He then broke Florida law by appointing himself Terri's guardian""
Your lack of research is not my burden.
It is a matter of public record.
Look it up.
Besides, you get cranky when I post links.
"Baloney."
Nope. Your distinctions don't hold water.
Michael's testimonoy...hearsay.
Michael's brother and sister-in-law...hearsay.
Terri's best friend who testified Terri disapproved of the parents' decision in the Quinlan case...hearsay
Michael's ex-girlfriend's affidavit...hearsay.
Again...no one ever claimed to know what Terri would have wanted in this situation. The statement Michael offered was vague and had nothing to do with brain injury, denial of therapy, dehydration or starvation.
And if the neurologists concluded she was NOT in pain, then what? You're pretty selective as to who you believe.
Did you just use the word IF???
I thought you didn't like words like that.
Terri was never treated like a person who could not feel pain.
Throughout her ordeal she was treated with pain medicine.
When she expressed pain during therapy a bone scan was ordered confirming the cause of her pain.
Did you just use the word IF???"
Sorry, your style is contagious. SINCE the neurologists concluded she was not in pain, now what? You're pretty selective as to who you believe.
"I see, you believe the family are liars, that Michael is unbiased, and that 2 of the 5 doctors are liars as well."
I believe the family was biased, and saw what they wanted to see. I ask you, did Terri's eyes really follow the balloon (as shown on the video), or did her mother move the balloon to match Terri's eye movements? Since Terri was as blind as a bat, what her mother did was a lie, now wasn't it? And her mother lied on the stand, and later retracted her statement, didn't she? So yeah, her family were liars.
Michael was biased how? He took Terri's case to the courts and asked the judge to make a decision. It was out of Michael's hands.
As to your two "doctors", one carefully couched his opinion and the other embarrassed himself by a) providing no documentation and b) stating that he's waiting for his UN Man-of-the-Year award, or somesuch. Another psycho whackjob. You like these people, huh?
Oh, not that you, personally, believe them. Heaven forbid I should suggest THAT! You're merely presenting their side for consideration. Lord, save us.
"You refuse to consider the testimony of her own family,good friends, hospital staff, and doctors who disagreed."
Not at all. I did consider the testimony. I found it not credible, that's all.
"... and Judge Greer just may have gotten it wrong."
Where were all of Terri's "family, good friends, hospital staff, and doctors who disagreed" during the 2000 hearing to decide Terri's fate? Where were they, Scotswife"? Why didn't they take the stand and tell what they knew under oath? Where was their support WHEN IT COUNTED?
No, afterwords, here they are in public, making statements, signing depositions, swearing to affidavits, getting in front of cameras, doing interviews, yada, yada.
What a bunch of bull. But I'm supposed to believe them? I'm supposed to give credence to their utterances? No ... way.
"Probably not considering she did not receive any of the therapy her unbiased husband fought so hard for."
No "probably" about it. She couldn't swallow in 1990, 1991, and 1992. She couldn't in 2005. Stop it with your suppositions when you have nothing to back it up. You're wasting my time.
"those ladies are whack jobs....proof?"
Michael injected Terri with insulin in an attempt to murder her? Nuff said.
"Besides, you get cranky when I post links."
1,000 lnks, yeah. One link, no. Of course, you don't have that link becausae it doesn't exist. And we both know that.
"Michael's testimonoy...hearsay."
WTF? I just gave you the legal definition of hearsay, which Michael's testimony (and others) was not, and you sit there like petulant child and re-type your exact same statement? That's supposed to convince me? Don't you want to, maybe, also put it in bold caps? For emphasis?
"When she expressed pain during therapy a bone scan was ordered confirming the cause of her pain."
And I dance in a circle in my backyard every morning to keep the elephants away. It works. No elephants around here.
The word "coincidence" ever occur to you? Given all this "testimony" as to people witnessing Terri in pain, the fact that a so-called "expression of pain" coincided once with a positive bone scan is not indicative of anything.
Not that you, personally, believe that yourself.
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.