Still Waiting

Dakota Voice ^ | 1/29/2007 | Carrie K. Hutchens

[8mmMauser]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for Michael Schiavo to make a correction on his blog about what "actually" took place in Colorado when he went there (to the debate) to supposedly ask Congresswoman Musgrave one question and she and her staff supposedly tried to have him removed. He called it, "My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link" (Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PST). I'll say (from what I read) that it was his "unreal night".

As I said before in "Standing up and Admitting a Mistake: Not Schiavo's Style?",  if four uniformed officers were around my seat, I would have some idea of what was going on. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in "duh mode" to only be told later of what took place right there around me, as Michael suggests he was. If Michael's account is realistic -- his response and reaction is not. Nor is his response appropriate now that he has "learned" what he was "allegedly told" is not what took place. One would think if he can't get the words out that he was mistaken, he could at least have removed the inaccurate entry from his blog.

He has done neither.

I'm also still waiting to read about, "Also, maybe tomorrow I'll post about my election-eve rally with Bill Clinton in Florida." (A real election impact by Michael Schiavo, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:40:34 AM PST).  Indeed, I would love to read that story by Michael, since I read it was not possible. Not if he was implying it was the Bill Clinton that is the former President of the United States. Will be interesting to see what he says about that if he ever does.

If Michael couldn't get it straight what happened at the Musgrave debate or even if he spent election-eve with former President Bill Clinton -- do you suppose he might have gotten Terri Schiavo's wishes mixed-up as well? (He does claim to have a bad memory from what I read.) Makes one wonder. At least makes me wonder. Whatever...

I'm still waiting for the corrections if not the explanations!

 

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

[T'wit]

There's nothing like an unsolved crime to pique people's attention :-)

See the question in #42. Do you have an answer compatible with all of the known medical facts? A provable answer is just what is needed to put this case to rest. There are a few extra clues in #55. Thanks for your help.

[T'wit]

>> From your previous link about Chris Barnes

I came across his case because the his wife, Koo Cho, had an interview with Mark Ragucci, the recovered "pvs" patient. That poor, dear woman, she has done so much; may God give her strength. And may her husband make some real medical progress. There are so many promising new research leads and therapies, I do hope something will make him better.

[T'wit]

This one is eye-opening. Dr. Ragucci is a living rebuke to all that bovine scat we heard from Felos, Bushnell and the wife-killer himself.

Mark Ragucci's story: In a Stroke Patient, Doctor Sees Power Of Brain to Recover / 'Neurointensive' Care Gains Adherents, Despite Risk Of Raising False Hopes / 'Too Often, People Give Up'

>>Doctors often make minimal efforts to save the lives of advanced stroke victims, especially those who are days or weeks into a coma. They often see the prospects of survival as low and question the value of saving a life that they expect, in the best case, to be severely constrained by mental and physical damage.

>>Now proponents of neurointensive care are challenging these assumptions. They say many of the studies underlying the earlier consensus are out of date, and they believe newer treatments such as one designed to cool the brain may help stroke patients in comas. "Doctors are telling people there's no hope when, in fact, there is," says Dr. Mayer.

>>Dr. Ragucci, who is now at 35 back to practicing rehabilitation medicine, says he was somewhat conscious even when his doctors perceived no brain activity, and it bothered him to hear nurses and doctors referring to him in the past tense. "Somebody has to realize that you're in there," he says. "Just because you can't move doesn't mean there's not somebody in there."

[8mmMauser]

I know of no other term that pops up automatically so often as the subject of living wills as it links to Terri's Legacy. Useful or useless as they may be in their many incarnations for both the patients and for those who would use the words against them, their tie to Terri's Legacy is secure.

..........................

37% of people in the U.S. now have a living will.  Officials say it's never too early to start talking about it.

Snip...

Reporter's Notes by Jake Wasikowski:

• Lawyers say most living will are written when an estate will is documented.
• But if you can't get anything written down, you should at least have that conversation with family members so they understand your wishes.
• Before the Terri Schiavo case 20% of Americans had living wills so there's been a 17% increase in the past few years.

Death & Dying: Living Wills

8mm

[8mmMauser]

And barring the above on living wills, may we not forget how Pennsylvania is "helping" things along like it or not.

While end-of-life care is not a pressing issue for most Penn State students, a new Pennsylvania law on living wills will affect anyone who is suddenly unable to make life decisions.

According to www.aging.state. pa.us, family and friends have traditionally made end-of-life decisions for those unable to make their own, but on no legal basis.

Under the new law, end-of-life and healthcare decisions will be made in a specific order -- spouse, adult child, parent, adult sibling, adult grandchild or close friend -- for those without a living will.

New law grants spouses priority

8mm

[8mmMauser]

From Missouri:

Bringing in Cruzan with a little slice of Colby...

..........................

Denise Swenson of the coalition’s local chapter said the death of Terri Schiavo in 2005 in Florida, who, like Cruzan, had her feeding tube removed after a protracted legal battle, has helped put end-of-life preparation back in the public eye.

“The Terri Schiavo issue in Florida really brought the issue to the public attention,” she said. “It’s an excellent example of how bad it can get. No one was named who could make those decisions on her behalf. There was no completed documentation on who she wanted to make that decision.”

Snip...

“It’s not really about the law,” Colby said. “It’s about talking with your doctor and people you care about about some hard and important issues.”

Discussion to focus on end-of-life issues... Advocates say end-of-life planning is vital to avert contentious litigation.

8mm

[8mmMauser]

T'wit, I find your post on the writing of Amy Green refreshing and a great encouragement. Thank you, Amy Green, if you are lurking, and somehow I think you may have visited the Terri Dailies.

A year has now passed since the starvation/dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, and the debate surrounding her case, though never insignificant, is becoming ever more pertinent in a world increasingly obsessed with "quality of life." Last Wednesday, renowned bioethics writer Wesley J. Smith visited the College to deliver a lecture about the growing trend to consider certain human beings "disposable" based on their perceived "quality of life" and their value to society. In his numerous books and television appearances, Smith has lamented that, in modern bioethics, sentience is no longer sufficient to prove "personhood." Patients must also demonstrate rationality -- a dangerous theory that in 1997 led doctors from the International Forum for Transplant Ethics to propose that patients deemed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) should be considered dead and have their organs harvested. The bottom line, however, is that doctors still know too little about the regenerative capabilities of the human brain to reliably diagnose PVS (which is not, contrary to some assumptions, the same as brain death).

Supporting life

8mm

[T'wit]

>> New law grants spouses priority

Ah, they should call this the "Michael Schiavo Clause."

If the spouse doesn't have a will, then the {cough} surviving spouse gets to inherit 100% of any property, too. Isn't this a fine alternative to divorce? Bump off your spouse instead and keep the money.

The spouse doesn't have much money? Why, sue for some! File a malpractice suit! Don't worry, you don't have to have a real case, the jury will feel sorry for your spouse. Besides, you're only screwing insurance companies. That's not like stealing or anything.

Mikey blazed the whole trail! Every time we dehydrate and starve another innocent spouse, we must praise his name with great praise!

[T'wit]

>> New law grants spouses priority

Jodi was SO stupid.

[T'wit]

>> ...doctors from the International Forum for Transplant Ethics to propose that patients deemed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) should be considered dead and have their organs harvested.

There is no point in harvesting organs from those doctors. They have no heart or soul, and the rest of their organs are poisonous.

[T'wit]

>> ...led doctors from the International Forum for Transplant Ethics to propose that patients deemed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) should be considered dead and have their organs harvested.

Contrast those ghouls to Dr. Ragucci, the recovered PVS patient: "Dr. Ragucci... says he was somewhat conscious even when his doctors perceived no brain activity, and it bothered him to hear nurses and doctors referring to him in the past tense. 'Somebody has to realize that you're in there,' he says. 'Just because you can't move doesn't mean there's not somebody in there.'"

[Dante3]

Well stated. I recall a dentist in New Jersey who faked his wife's death as a car accident and then sued Ford Motor Co. For once, the defendant refused to settle and it ended in a costly trial where Ford was eventually able to win, proving that the "accident" was no accident.

[T'wit]

>> Cruzan the first right-to-die case ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It wasn't a right-to-die case. It was a right-to-kill case, sought by the parents for their own benefit. Nancy Cruzan never asked to die. On the contrary, as she was dying in agony, Nancy evidently reached out to a law enforcement officer for help. But he was not permitted to save her.

>> Denise Swenson of the coalition’s local chapter said... "No one was named who could make those decisions on her behalf. There was no completed documentation on who she wanted to make that decision.”

Decision?!? What decision? Terri wasn't dying. She didn't ask anyone to kill her. Lady, you're talking about committing murder but you call it a "decision."

[T'wit]

The dentist claimed his wife was driving a Ford Schiavo?? Tch.

[T'wit]

The young lady writes with a sure and mature hand. She will be a catch for whatever publishing company is lucky enough to employ her.

[T'wit]

I did so hope that nice fellow who stopped by could solve our mystery. Sometimes it seems that we are SO close to the solution!

[T'wit]

Ooooh! What have we here!?

>> Bill Colby, author of “Long Goodbye: The Deaths [? sic] of Nancy Cruzan” and “Unplugged: Reclaiming our Right to Die in America,” ... the attorney who represented Cruzan and her parents in front of the Supreme Court, ... said... “If she [Nancy Cruzan] had talked to her family for five minutes, she’d have spared those people all the public strife they went through.”

This was the crusading lawyer who engineered Nancy Cruzan's death. I think he just obliquely confessed to murder. That case was built on the testimony of several people who supposedly called the Cruzans to say, "You don't know me but I knew Nancy" and told them, in effect, she'd want to die. That was the "clear and convincing" evidence Colby used to kill Cruzan.

But what is Colby saying here? That Nancy could have avoided all this strife if she'd talked to her family for five minutes. Colby is admitting THEY DIDN'T KNOW HER WISHES! There was no evidence she wanted to die. The whole thing was rigged.

No wonder the POS is doing a Lady Macbeth. He has Nancy's blood on his hands.

[T'wit]

Further to the previous, we can deduce a few other interesting details. For one, George Felos was no pioneer. He followed Colby's blueprint to the letter, including the rigged hearsay.

For another, Colby's offhand comment is actually a break in the case -- an admission that there was no "clear and convincing" evidence in the case (because Nancy had not spent the five minutes telling her family her wishes). Could it be that the fancy lawyer played a little trick on the court in order to kill a helpless woman? I don't think officers of the court are supposed to deceive judges. They aren't supposed to put disabled women to death either.

And if, sixteen years later, we have a break in the Cruzan case, how safe are Scott and Joan Schiavo with those things they "remembered" in meetings with George Felos? Both of them know they helped kill Terri. Will they stay silent? Will Jodi?

If Nancy Cruzan's attorney can let a key secret slip, how safe is Michael Schiavo? How safe are Felos, Bushnell and Greer? They all conspired to kill an innocent woman.

Sooner or later, somebody is going to blab. It may be nothing more than a slip of the tongue. Or maybe someone with an aching conscience will say something that sets off an avalanche of confessions. Who will it be?

Who will it be?

[T'wit]

A last comment. Here's Colby, one more time:

“If she [Nancy Cruzan] had talked to her family for five minutes, she’d have spared those people all the public strife they went through.”

Did I say he was a POS? Here he is blaming a murder victim for not sparing the murderers such inconvenience and "strife."

Nancy, you bad, bad girl, putting your parents through all the strife of killing you. If you had been a good girl, Nancy, you would have told them in advance to kill you. Then they wouldn't feel so bad. And you know what else? Then I wouldn't have had to find some cheesy hearsay testimony to fool the court into approving your death order. You let us all down, Nancy.

Mr. Cruzan is the only one who understood. He committed suicide.

[BykrBayb]

Organ Donation from Cardiac Death Patients

In the future patient’s who had suffered cardiac death would have their bodies prepared for transplantation when they are still alive.

The Australian Health Ethics Committee that is working on organ donation is seeking to extend the transplant preparations to patients who are certain to die after experiencing cardiac death. This is because solid organs like the heart, liver lungs and kidneys begin to deteriorate immediately after the cessation of blood circulation. In the past, transplant preparations have only been carried out on brain-dead patients.

Peter Joseph, chair of the ethics committee said that it is important to extend the preparation procedures to living patients in order to meet the organ donation demands. There are two ways in which a doctor can certify death one being brain death and the other cardiac death. Brain death is when the patient has lost all brain function completely and permanently. (Of course, there are no standards for determining this, and opinions often vary.) In such cases the organs are preserved via a ventilator for the purpose of donation. These preparations have been made legitimate and present no ethical barrier in brain dead patients.

In case of cardiac death the heart stops beating and within a few minutes the organs deteriorate by themselves. Hence it is necessary to make certain treatments to extend the shelf life of the organs. Dr Joseph (Not necessarily Mengele.) said that these preparations would not be done without the permission of the donor or the donor's family. Hence the committee wants legislation made uniform so the practice is made legal in all states and territories.