Posted on 03/27/2006 6:46:17 PM PST by XR7
See post 210.
I don't find this credible since apparently there's no support for this in the medical record, and she didn't come forward with this until years later.
Well, I guess we may have to agree to disagree. I think that Dr. Cranford is the kind of doctor who stops looking for the positive when he doesn't want to find it. Precisely because he says the things he does, I cannot view him as an honest medical opinion.
What other information? I don't know, I'm not a doctor, but I think that Dr. Cheshire would have been willing to explore several different avenues. This was a matter of life vs. death. Cranford takes that responsibility way too casually for my tastes. I hope he is never on duty if I or anyone I care about is hospitalized.
I could offer more nurses testomony, both video and affidavit. The point is with you is that everybody is a liar execpt for Michael Schiavo, right?
The point is with you is that everybody is a liar execpt for Michael Schiavo, right?
You obviously haven't read some of my posts, or else you prefer namecalling to discussion. I believe the documented record: The GAL report, the autopsy report. From the autopsy: "The neuropathologic findings, oropharyngeal anatomic findings, and medical records clearly indicate Mrs. Schiavo would not have been able to consume sustenance safely and/or in sufficient quantity by mouth." Which says that the nurses that came forward years later with claims that they surprisingly never documented in their notes, were victims of poor memory at best, and lying at worst.
Well, I guess we may have to agree to disagree.
Yes, and thank you for a civil and interesting discussion.
Yes, indeed. A video of Carla is worth a thousand spinning tops. ;)
We can argue about this all day, but the documented record is that the 'manner of death' is 'unknown' and Mikey is a suspect whether you like it or not.
Carla and many doctors disagree with Michael Schiavo. Why are they not believed by those who almost seem to worship Michael. It's almost cult like the way he's stood up for, inspite of all the facts that say otherwise. Even his own words of Terri's improvement early on, are now not believed.
Sometimes I wonder if some support Michael only because Randall Terry was involved with helping the Schindlers. Strange reason, if true.
I'm glad that you have been able to find some other things on your own. I haven't had the time to continue looking further.
For me, I guess the sticking point is that Michael told the malpractice jury that he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life, which was estimated to be another 20 years. He never mentioned anything about this supposed desire of Terri's to be free of tubes and such. He professed to believe in his marriage vows, for better or worse. That would be honorable for a man to do so. However, it would be exceedingly deceitful to put on a show for a jury in such a way. It would constitute fraud, IMHO.
That Michael would refuse to take Terri to Shands to get the treatment that was recommended, particularly after convincing the jury of his devotion to Terri, indicates to me that he was not really interested in pursuing the recommended rehab for her condition. Nothing had changed, except that a trust fund was now established. Within 8 months of the trial, Michael issued a DNR order to be placed on Terri's chart. He refused to have Terri treated with antibiotics for a UTI. Did Michael have a personality change? What happened to the guy who said he wanted to take care of Terri for the rest of her life?
The same to you.
I am still trying to comprehend this one! Can you help?
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:TCkuQMWM7jsJ:serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web3/Chivers.html+blindsight&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
Do you believe it even remotely likely that a man who has openly pledged to marry another woman upon the death of his wife would not harbor a desire to have his wife dead? Do you believe it even remotely likely that such a person would not want to prevent, if possible, any improvement in his wife's condition?
You may regard it as "conjecture" that Michael Schiavo had craven motives for wanting his wife dead, but I don't see how any reasonable person who is aware of the timeline and certain undisputed facts thereon could believe that he did not.
I'll admit that Judge Greer's motives are less clear. The fact of his partiality, however, is not. Suggesting that there was malfeasance in Terri's guardianship that Greer didn't exposed is conjecture, but it's the simplest explanation for Greer's persistent behavior. It's also somewhat self-fulfilling: if there was ever any malfeasance (even if he only let Michael do something illegal because he was too lazy to inspect the records), Greer would likely have had to allow more malfeasance to prevent the first batch from coming to light.
They retain a sort of "interested party" status which courts entertain (such as filing Victim Impact Statements, etc.). But the rebutttable presumption mountain is very high.
The statutes provide a procedure by which interested parties (the parents certainly qualify) may challenge a person's guardianship status based upon that person's no longer being elligible to be guardian. The parents filed such a challenge as provided by statute in 2002.
Can such a statute be held to have any meaning if a judge doesn't have to rule for or against a challenge, but can simply sit on it indefinitely? Do you believe judges should have the authority to keep people in positions of guardianship when they are no longer elligible?
Very interesting article.
Thanks.
But what does it mean in the context of our conversation?
Many people feel that if what Michael did was wrong, something they've done in the past must be wrong as well. Never mind that what Michael did was far worse than anything 99.9% of such people could have done, or that even people who did do something wrong will never escape guilt by pretending it was okay.
As for why others regard him as a murderer, it's because by their interpretation of his actions that's exactly what he is.
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.