Posted on 03/17/2005 9:58:21 PM PST by JeffMBattle
Per front page of Drudge
**Exclusive Fri Mar 18 2005 00:50:07 ET** The Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has requested Terri Schiavo to testify before his congressional committee, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. In so doing it triggers legal or statutory protections for the witness, among those protections is that nothing can be done to cause harm or death to this individual.
I understand that you have strong evidence. And I ask this respectfully, is her husband credible? After all, it's the value of his word that her fate is hinging on. Would you trust him with a million dollars in cold, hard cash? If not, you can't trust him with someone's fate.
What about the Schindlers' claims that Terri is conscious and responds to stimulation?
When the Second District first reviewed the trial court's decision that Terri would chose not to live under her present circumstances, the appellate court expressed no reservations when it explained that Terri was and "will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others…" In October, 2002, as a result of Terri's parents' claims that treatment options offered promise to restore some of Terri's cognitive functioning, the Second District ordered the trial court to hold a trial on that issue. The trial court did so, and in the course of that trial the parties litigated whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state.
The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."
Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.
Were the Schindlers' doctors given an opportunity to examine Terri?
Yes. As the Second District explained:
Through the assistance of Mrs. Schiavo's treating physician, Dr. Victor Gambone, the physicians obtained current medical information about Theresa Schiavo including high-quality brain scans. Each physician reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo. Lengthy videotapes of some of the medical examinations were created and introduced into evidence. Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding.
What about the video clips that show Terri reacting to her mother?
The court opinions indicate that similar videos were viewed in their entirety by the trial court, which found that Terri's actions were no more than reflexive and could not be reproduced with any consistency. The Second District affirmed that decision.
I'm with....YOU.
All claiming to be conservatives! LOL.
BTW, yes, it is ME over at CTV. :-)
McHole:
If that is true then it is a different matter... I would think that her doctors would speak up...
That being said, I am on the record here as saying that because there was not written consent, that Terri should be released to her parents providing they take her and care for her in their home, paid for themselves. I hope that if I was like that, my husband would do exactly what Mr. Schiavo is doing. Did you see my post above about the actual facts in this case?
You have a son or daughter that get's into an accident. They end up being severely handicapped. The only means to help them survive is a feeding tube.
Here's the more detail for you
They are able to regognize your face, smile at your voice and blink thier eyes. They can swallow, you know this because they aren't drooling. They show signs of wanting to live, ie, not lethargic, depressed, always sleeping...
Do you:
1. Remove the tube because you don't want the responsibilty of caring anymore.
2. You are ignorant to what a severely handicapped person it to a vegetable. 3. You do not know that a comatose person on a ventalator is different than a conscious person with a feeding tube.
You are facinated with death, I pity you and your family members.
You have a son or daughter that get's into an accident. They end up being severely handicapped. The only means to help them survive is a feeding tube.
Here's the more detail for you
They are able to regognize your face, smile at your voice and blink thier eyes. They can swallow, you know this because they aren't drooling. They show signs of wanting to live, ie, not lethargic, depressed, always sleeping...
Do you:
1. Remove the tube because you don't want the responsibilty of caring anymore.
2. You are ignorant to what a severely handicapped person it to a vegetable. 3. You do not know that a comatose person on a ventalator is different than a conscious person with a feeding tube.
You are facinated with death, I pity you and your family members.
"Says you and what medical team?"
Where, exactly, did I make any claim on this thread that needs to be backed up by a medical team?
Hildy: Pardon me for jumping in on this but I feel compelled to speak up.
Like me, Terri is a Catholic and her spiritual leader, Pope John Paul II has said that her feeding tube should remain in place.
That's the position of pro-life supporters who along with the Holy Father believe that one must 'always err on the side of life.'
In the Old Testament we are asked by God 'to choose life or death' and told to 'CHOOSE LIFE'
Tests, video tapes, etc........everything else is meaningless.
This is where your argument fails. Dr. after Dr. after Dr. has stated Ms. Schiavo is in a PVS. Not severely handicapped. There is a huge difference. Please read my post above that states the FACTS about this.
If that is the case, then he would have done this in the beginning!
Best to let this one go Zaves.
Others who have dared to offer rebuttals have been suspended, only reason given being that they responded to her.
Everyone has thier price, don't they?
He seems to think that on the one hand, being vegitative [allegedly]] is a form of suffering. On the other hand, starvation of someone 'vegitative' would not cause suffering.
I like Boortz. His show is usually very entertaining, and sometimes a downright "hoot"! I usually listen to him two or three times a week. However, he has a serious flaw in that he tends to mouth-off authoritatively about subjects on which his research and factual knowledge is sorely lacking. (To be fair, on subjects about which he is passionate and "engaged", e.g. the Fair Tax, or eminent domain abuse, he does his homework and is an eloquent and persuasive spokesman.)
On this issue, however, he is wrong. First, he has blindly accepted the MSM's, Michael Schiavo's et al. labeling of Terri's medical condition as a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) without determining that there exists sufficient medical grounds for questioning that diagnosis, and therefore further medical evaluation (objective, impartial evaluation not subject to the control of either Michael Schiavo/Judge Greer or Terri's family) is warranted.
Secondly, the fact that Michael Schiavo has vehemently rejected all attempts to obtain an objective evaluation of Terri, and that Judge Greer has summarily blocked all such attempts, when coupled with the obvious conflicts of interest of them both which have been raised, should be a red flag, or actually a screaming klaxon horn of warning that "something" is dreadfully wrong here and that we need to find out what certain of these key players are trying to hide.
We have the medical technology and expertise to accurately and truthfully determine Terri's condition. The obvious fact of the tremendous effort that is being expended to prevent the necessary and common-sense efforts to do this shows clearly that this is more about power agendas than it is about the life of Terri Schiavo (with the added proviso that for Michael Schiavo it may also be about saving his own hide from an attempted murder prosecution).
The doctors will finally get a chance to speak up because of the latest developments.
What is the difference?
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.