"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.
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.