Posted on 04/01/2005 8:05:46 PM PST by FairOpinion
Feeding tubes were invented in the 19th century.
Spoons are prehistoric.
You're talking nonsense.
Michael Schiavo?
Weren't we talking about the testimony of people other than Michael Schiavo?
But even at the maximum that does not give you the right to project that deprivation onto a person who did not ask to be treated so extremely.
and even sadder - the testimony of her friends and family were not allowed.
Terri Schiavo was sustained alive not by God's will, but by man's inventions.
Had it been God's will that she live, she'd be alive today.
I found this of interest.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/26/news_pf/Tampabay/She_s_the_other_woman.shtml
She was constantly seeing doctors and going to therapy. She had to wear a neck brace, had trouble carrying groceries, couldn't walk, sit or bend without pain. She couldn't go out on the boat, didn't feel well enough to spend time with friends.
Talking about Michael's finance'. She had better watch out since she may not have the "quality of life required" and see another side of Michael.
Rotten nonsense: You could say the same about an abandoned and exposed baby.
MS said he didn't know on Larry King (obviously a slip-up, because he also said said that is what she wanted during the same interview).
Nurses and ex-girlfriends have also filed affadavits saying that MS said he didn't know what Terri would have wanted (statements he made prior to his magic 1997 recollection).
So, the judge gets to pick and choose which hearsay to throw out and which hearsay to believe as gospel truth.
What's "miserable" about being a "vegetable"?
If you are able to take in enough water and oral nutrition to survive for years, that would belie the "vegetable" label.
You said witnesses, the way you said it, it sounded like you were implying multiple witnesses to the same statement. Three different people testified to three different instances, and for none of those instances were there more than one witness -- that was because they three of them couldn't keep their story straight about the same incident, so they figured this was more convincing.
The judge is supposed to try to find out the truth, not accept the words of witnesses who all have a conflict of interest. How come that those who knew Terri for many years testified to the opposite?
At the very least, there was a great deal of uncertainty.
And in that situation, why is the judge deciding to execute an innocent person?
People have a right to give up their Constitutional rights.
You can give up your Fourth Amendment rights and allow the police to search your house without a warrant.
You can give up your right to counsel.
Etc, etc...
you nailed it .
fl is the land of medicare scams.
welcome to fl .
Justice for Terri
Justice for Terri
That's our vow
Never again
No way, no how
Justice for Terri
Will be found
Judicial tyrants
Rightly bound
Justice for Terri
And for us all
No matter our station
Big or small
EV
I'm proud to announce the formation of 'the Justice for Terri Committee' today in Pinellas Park, Florida.
The JFTC is dedicated to a full investigation of Terri's case, exposure of, and appropriate prosecution of, all who were responsible for the events that resulted in her brutal torture and death, the impeachment of George Greer, and bringing about appropriate legal and judicial reform in Florida and nationally to insure that no American citizen must face the horrors Terri was forced to endure ever again.
Many more details will be forthcoming in the next few days for those who share our goals and want to help.
EV
can't help but suspicion so - lots of money and connections here -
As soon as I heard MS had agreed to autopsy, that thought flashed
"Thirty years ago, Terri Schiavo would have died. "
Not necessarily at all -- her parents could have kept spoonfeeding her. Nurses testified that she swallowed liquids and jello and showed enjoyment.
Well, well, well, so maybe that drop in approval of the Bush Brothers wasn't just the cost of gasoline. Maybe there's hope for America.
How absurd.
This conflict of interest applies to Michael's brother because he's Michael's brother?
And it applies to Michael's sister-in-law becaise she's Michael's sister-in-law?
How moronic.
Thirty years ago? Probobly. But, this isn't thirty years ago. This is now. Should we disallow medical procedures born out of progress now because it wasn't available thirty years ago?
We are playing God in extending life beyond a point where traditionally life would have ceased.
There are many disabled Americans who presently receive their nutrtion via feeding tubes. Were it not for these feeding tubes, traditionally, their lives would cease. Do you advocate removing their feeding tubes? If that's not "playing God" I don't know what is.
I can't begin to count the number of times I have yelled at the radio for saying that the case was about removing life support from a brain-dead woman. As if a brain-dead person could be maintained in a state resembling life for more than a few weeks before the body deteriorates beyond the ability of any technology to keep it going.
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.