Any questions...?
Posted on 03/27/2006 6:46:17 PM PST by XR7
Agreed.
Even if the diagnosis of PVS was correct it is not official policy that people in PVS are to be euthanized.
I would want to be , but in the abscence of a living will there would be no proof of my wishes.
MS unfortunately had no credibilty.
He won a frivolous malpractice suit and then pocketed the money and shacked up with another women.
The MSM treated it like an abortion case in that they vilified one side and promoted the other . They ignored disability advocates that supported Terri.
So explain to us, why didn't MS allow doctors to examine Terri, until after he had her killed by dehydration? What was he afraid of?
If you are sure you are right, one would think you would allow second, third, fourth opinions, wouldn't you?
Nova, first I am not a big Michael fan. I like to play devils advocate on alot of subjects this included. I just felt that the Shiendlers got caught up in the situation by such groups like Operation Rescue and other media outlets like Sean Hannity. I kind of thought that it was strange that the Shiendlers lived with Micheal for several years before it turned into a big media circus. Now if I had doubts that my son-in-law could have done harm to my daughter to put her in condition, I sure as Hell would not be living with him. And there were several stories true or false about the Shiendlers that were never asked of them.
Yes, yes. Believe that. Be comfy. Go comfy to your grave in your old age. Dr. Comfortable, MD. An easy and comfortable life you should have. Should have. Yes indeed.
Would you rather believe an edited tape designed to manipulate your emotions? I read the autopsy reports, and no way could she track a balloon. If you believe your loved ones should continue on in a persistent vegetative state, I am all for you being able to make that decision.
And as for your wish for my comfort, I lost my husband of 10 years to a brain tumor. He made it clear he wouldn't want to live in a persistent vegetative state. Fortunately for me, I never had to make such a decision on his behalf, but I have utmost empathy for the people who do have to make decisions like that. It is never easy.
George Felos runs all over this country giving seminars on "Dying with Dignity".....yet I'm guessing you don't see Michael getting caught up with any interest group, eh?
So explain to us, why didn't MS allow doctors to examine Terri, until after he had her killed by dehydration? What was he afraid of?
If you are sure you are right, one would think you would allow second, third, fourth opinions, wouldn't you?
I'm sure I'm right that she couldn't track a balloon with her eyes when her visual cortex was gone. Also, my memory from reading the Guardian Ad Litem's report was that she was examined by at least 5 doctors.
So be comfortable. It IS easy. Why worry? No bother. Let them go, it IS what they wanted!
Isn't it?
Didnt MS pull the pug on both is and his current wifes parents?
Any questions...?
I thought I wasn't worth responding to. Did Michael promote this group? I also believe in living and getting old with dignity. Being kept alive in a vegatative state for several years is not my idea of dignity. Believe me I would not want to be in any of their shoes.
I do actually have several questions about the behavior of the Shiendlers; but it was the behavior of Michael that, through the coverage I tolerated, I found quite offensive.
I'll give you this: with the info that I'm truly confident that I "know" - it's possible that Michael is a decent guy that tried to to the right thing.
Nova, I am a traveling sales rep, so I have alot of time to listen to the radio. Since I am older I don't listen to as much music as I use to, so it is mostly news talk radio that is on my dial. I just got a Sirius radio system and now have more access to some liberal programs that believe it or not don't care to much for. And yes I do listen to Howard Stern some of the time.
I am not sure I would want to go on living in Terri's state, and I would trust my husband implicitly to make that decision for me. However there is something very chilling about this man and his demeanor. He seems to radiate selfishness and evil. Maybe it's unfair to judge a person in this manner, but right or wrong I think his sociopathic-seeming personality is a big part of the family's, and later the public's, hesitation to entrust him with the decision.
His story about the family and the money simply doesn't ring true either.
Many here can see how obviously sick Schiavo is. The whole case was permeated with Michael Schiavo enablers (Felos etc) who liked his style
As the old saying goes;"There's two sides to every story." It is sad that it all came to a head over money. Hell I don't know who is telling the truth. I do remember though that Sean Hannity offered Michael a million dollars to give up custody, and Michael refused. So that might give Michael some brownie points in that argument.
It showed that the cognitive areas of the brain were considerably less damaged than the areas responsible for interfacing with the outside world. Since there was apparent motor function, it would probably have been possible (were it not for Michael's prohibitions) to teach Terri to communicate (whether via blinks or some other method); then SHE could have been asked if she wanted to keep being fed.
The localized brain damage observed in the autopsy is interesting for another reason: it suggests very strongly that Terri's heart stopped because she suffered brain damage, rather than vice versa. The only thing I can think of that would have caused such a thing, outside of physical disruption (e.g. a sleeper hold) would have been a blood clot. While I am all too aware that blood clots can be fatal (late wife), it would seem rather strange that a healthy woman would have such a blood clot sufficient to cause cardiac arrest, but then have the blood clot disappear without a trace and never have any other serious blood clots for many more years.
Terri Schiavo suffered severe, irreversible brain damage that left that organ discolored and scarred, shriveled to half its normal size, and damaged in nearly all its regions, including the one responsible for vision, according to an autopsy report.
Some people claim that. Others disagree. There are protocols for distinguishing between real perception and "wishful seeing", but Michael didn't want Terri to be seen by anyone he could not dismiss as a "wishful seer".
Sample protocol: different people enter the room and attempt to converse with the test subject. A friend of the test subject is allowed to see the subject and hear any of the subject's vocalizations, but cannot see or hear the other people who enter; that friend has to identify when the subject is responding to a friend or loved one, and when the subject is not.
The protocol could be varied for different test subjects, but the basic principle is very simple: the test subject is given a sensory stimulus which is not given to the subject's friend. The subject must then communicate with the friend somehow. The protocol is fair because the evaluation of the subject's responses is done by someone who wants the test to succeed, but only if the subject can communicate will that person have the information necessary to show that.
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.