Posted on 01/06/2007 5:52:57 PM PST by wagglebee
Unless and until that day, such speculation is irrelevant.
No evidence has ever been offered to support your notion, which makes comparisons with the OJ case a stretch at best.
That's not what happened in this case.
You may not personally like the course of treatment they followed, but that does not make it invalid. Many people across this nation come to the difficult decision that this is the best thing to do. It is both legal and medically sound.
Do you protest all such instances? You wouldn't get much else done. Or does it only bother you in this case, and if so - why?
There was no course of treatment.
The case was not about courses of treatment.
Judges may not legally practice medicine any more than guardians may practice medicine. They do not decide courses of treatment. They have no qualifications to do so.
There was no treatment involved, ever. In fact, Michael cut off all therapy for Terri in 1993. She never again was given the care that the jury award specified. Her trust fund was stolen by a dishonest judge and conniving lawyers who then used it to kill her.
I trust this does not meet your standards of private family medical decisions.
The case was about whether Terri's guardian could determine the course of her treatment, as advised by her doctors.
That statement is false in all particulars.
Anyone can tell the difference between "treating a patient" and forcibly taking away her food and water in order to make her dead, dead, dead. Indeed, it would be intellectually perverse to confuse the two.
/tongue in cheek :-)
It is based on medical evidence and sworn testimony.
But what is your theory? SOMETHING happened to Terri. If this beautiful young woman was assaulted by the only other person in the apartment and left brain damaged and disabled for life, WE MUST DEMAND JUSTICE! IT'S AN OUTRAGE!
No, you want to get the heck out of Dodge before that day -- before the stink bombs start flying. Which you do by rethinking your support for Michael Schiavo having his wife tortured to death. If you wait until his cover gets blown, you're an accomplice.
Right, Jodi?
Michael is a bum. Always was. I just hate to see good people fooled by him and the lawyers he hired. Your statement above is not what Michael Schiavo said in court testimony. He admitted the just opposite. I will spare you that if you want me to.
According to the medical examiner, the MANNER OF DEATH IS: "UNDERDETEMINED". The case remains "open".
Ah, yes, you're right, I remember that now. I think what he means is that the medical investigation is permanently open. It could consider any new evidence, which would include all of the missing medical documents. Possibly financial records, too.
It surprises people that M.E.s look at medical histories as well as the body of the deceased. Thogmartin did a lot of research and came up with a bunch of missing medical records -- mostly courtesy of attorney Gary Fox. (He's the snake who dreamed up the phony malpractice suit, but let's forgive him, at least for now :-) ) Other documents are known to be missing. Who knows what Michael was able to get sealed by Greer? Anything new that shows up can go into the ongoing legal investigation. (They would be legally protected.)
Safe bet there are several people who worry deeply about documents surfacing or about blackmail or about some blabbermouth in the ranks. They are right to worry.
...The treatment did not originate with the state; the court ruled that the guardian's proposed treatment was legal, reasonably represented the wishes of the patient and he could go through with it....
What you call "treatment" was forcible, agonizingly painful killing by dehydration / starvation. It was an execution, not medicine. It took away all treatment. It took away all medical care. It took every crumb of food and drop water away from a helpless crippled woman. It denied her the bread and wine of holy Communion. It wouldn't let her have ice chips in her mouth to ease the torture (ice chips are standard medical care). It inflicted terrible pain and death upon a blameless disabled patient.
"Treatment" you call it! Torture and death "reasonably represented the wishes of the patient"!
One of the things he discusses is due process. Something the liberals in our midst fail to understand is that words have meaning. I realize "due" is just a tiny little three-letter word, but it still means something. If you remove it, the meaning changes. Process and due process are not the same. Shuffling papers and rubber-stamping your colleague's decisions does not constitute due process, no matter how many times that is done.
From the Fifth Amendment, surely, where it says that no one may be deprived of life without due process.
"Due process" is a ritual utterance of the right-to-die mantra. In this case it tries to excuse murder. The visitors almost literally chant the words, asserting that Terri got more due process than anyone in history, blah blah. But as you say, it was not due process. Amos was full of contempt for the deceitful "process" Terri received, saying forcefully that NO due process was possible to execute an innocent citizen.
I am equally full of contempt for the way George Greer manipulated process. He was flagrantly prejudiced. Since his intentional misconduct resulted in the death of an innocent citizen, I see no reason he isn't liable to charges of murder. There should be no judicial immunity for this.
For review, Michael's petition asked to remove Terri's PEG (feeding) tube. That is not "treatment" and has nothing to do with "determining" a "course" of "treatment." It was not "advised by her doctors" in any way. Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in Florida. Any doctor who did so advise would have committed a crime. So, as noted above, your statement is entirely false.
Again, I am struck by the Orwellian usage of words. If one sticks to plain, clear English, one does not deceive oneself or others. Conversely, in my experience, when people reach for far-fetched euphemisms, they are always peddling some phony bill of goods -- usually evil. They are trying to deceive. They are trying to pass off evil as good. Honesty thrives in clear, simple words and conventional meanings.
Using the word "treatment" when you really mean "to cause the death of the patient" is exactly that kind of shabby deceit. To "treat" means to give medical help or aid; to address a medical problem in hopes of curing it. The doctor "treats" poison ivy or cancer or a broken leg. He "treats a patient," meaning he gives care to the patient. Here are the definitions in an online dictionary -- not that there was any doubt of what we all mean by the word:
"a. To give medical aid to (someone): treated many patients in the emergency room.
"b. To give medical aid to counteract (a disease or condition): treated malaria with quinine."
"Treatment," in short, is always positive, hopeful, good. To twist it into a phrase meaning "to cause death" is either dishonest or sick.
The police expert here, Dr. Reay [chief medical examiner, King County, Seattle, WA], is mainly discussing the restraint technique of hog-tieing. This alone is enough to kill. By my reckoning, Terri was in a similar prone position, but with great weight on her back -- far deadlier. I will quote only three brief passages of Dr. Reay's report:
> "This [hog-tied] physically incapacitating position ... makes it difficult for subjects to breathe and can cause them to die. Because of the risks associated with hog-tied and prone restraint, officers must monitor subjects closely for signs of respiratory distress."
>"Positional Asphyxia ...occurs when the position of the body interferes with the person's ability to breathe. Breathing involves interaction of the chest wall, the diaphragm, and the muscles of the rib cage and abdomen. Interference with proper breathing produces an oxygen deficiency (known as hypoxia) in the blood, which disturbs the body's chemistry and creates the conditions for a fatal rhythm disturbance in the heart."
[Terri suffered a loss of oxygen that resulted in cardiac arrest and severe brain damage.]
>"...a report should contain explicit witness statements about the subject's behavior--especially noting any unusual physical respiratory signs, such as vocalizing, gurgling, gasping, and difficulty breathing"
The witnesses here (Bobby Schindler and EMS) reported that Terri was making gurgling noises (but was beyond vocalizing, gasping or being able to breathe).
Terri was almost certainly sleeping, and she'd never show lactic acidosis from that! She obviously struggled like mad to breathe. That is in fact what regularly happens in positional asphyxia. Note the association of cardiac arrest and metabolic acidosis, exactly as in Terri's case.
Your theory is just as good as Michael's T'wit. He doesn't know how he found her either. It looks like we nailed down the gurgling factor though.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Terri’s Collapse |
||
|
Feb 25, 1990 Police Report |
July 27, 1992 Deposition of Michael Schiavo for |
January 27, 2000 Trial Testimony |
|
WRITER RESPONDED TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS IN REFERENCE TO PARAMEDICS NEEDING ASSISTANCE ON A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
UPON ARRIVAL, WRITER SPOKE WITH FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC J. RADJESKI. HE STATED HE RESPONDED TO THE ADDRESS FOR A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. THEY FOUND A SUBJECT IN QUESTION (THERESA) LYING FACE DOWN AND UNCONSCIOUS HALFWAY IN AND HALFWAY OUT OF A BATHROOM.
Arrived: 06:33 Completed: 08:55 |
Q. Now, what - when you saw her, do you know what time it was? SCHIAVO: I believe it was almost five a.m.. Q. When you saw her, how was she lying; in other words, on her back or – SCHIAVO: On her back. Q. What did you do, then, after you – SCHIAVO: After she fell? Q. After you found her in the hallway. SCHIAVO: I was – I was to her within two seconds. I seen she stopped breathing. I ran to the phone, called 911 within five seconds and panicked. Q. What did you do, then – after that? SCHIAVO: I went over to her. I – I thought maybe – I just started talking to her and hold her. I didn’t know what to do. Q. Did you do any CPR? SCHIAVO: No. Q. Okay – after 911 and after you were holding her, what was – what then happened, was the next thing that happened? SCHIAVO: I laid Terri down, I went over and called my – I remember my brother-in-law lived in the same complex; I called him. |
SCHIAVO: A few hours later, I was getting out of bed for some reason and I heard this thud. So, I ran out into the hall and I found Terri on the floor. I knelt down next to her and I turned her over because she sort of fell on her face. On her stomach and face. I turned her over going, “Terri, Terri. You okay?” She kind of had this gurgling noise. I laid her down and ran over and called 911. I called her brother who lived in the same complex as we did. I ran back to Terri. She was not moving. I held her in my arms until her brother got there.
(NOTE- Robert Schindler, Sr. has stated that Michael phoned him. He advised him to phone 911, hung up and phoned Robert Schindler, Jr.) |
|
|
||
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.