Terri Schiavo Autopsy Completed [Michael Ordered By Court to Disclose Burial Site To Family!!]

I do not, have not, and will not ever use the Holy Bible in any debate.

Right. I wouldn't want to be confused with the facts either. Better to attempt to argue the 'morality' of your position without any reference to the only possible source of true morality. Good luck.

> The hair can disclose some heavy metal poisonings such as arsenic and strichnine which I don't think is applicable in Terri's case

I'm aware that the presence of heavy metals can be detected in hair. What confused me was the implied reference that heavy metals can be disclosed by DNA testing. It's been my understanding that it's a different kind of testing for heavy metals.

There's an undercurrent of concern that Terri was given sufficient morphine at the end to finish her off. Since her death was announced about 10 minutes after her siblings last saw her alive, I'm supposing a high level of morphine [IF PRESENT] would be detected with full toxological ME tests.

What do you think of Dershowitz's comment?
Law Professor says Schiavo's Testimony is NOT "hearsay"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370795/posts
"But Florida has said essentially that a statement made to a spouse and repeated in court may be enough. By the way, I want to correct one thing. I don‘t want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement."

There's a default here too. It's called feeding people.

So the default is: we keep force feeding people who want to die. No, that's not right.

You forgot (iii) get rid of the guardian who kept her in a darkened room with no sunshine or fresh air, and give her over to parents who would take her outside in the sunshine and fresh air,...

Oh dear. All the 'fresh air and sunshine' in the world are not going to solve the literal dissolution of poor Terri's brain. Only her brain stem was left.

More important, notice the shifting of your premise. Somehow removing some (supposed) evil-doer is going to add another choice. No, Terri had two and only two options; both of them sad: (i)continued forced feeding and diapering for the indefinite future or (ii) death. I realize that Hollywood's made-for-TV movies promise you a 'happy ending', but there is none here -- just relentless facts. No brain, no cognitive ability. Ever. Ever. Sunshine or not. No cognitive ability ever.

From what I've read, the percentage of people who are not in bad circumstances who say they would wish to die is much, much higher than the percentage of people who actually find themselves in bad circumstances and [still] wish to

I've read that a couple of times and still can't make out what you are trying to say. Are you saying that we tend to say we would want to die when we see others in such circumstances, but when we actually get there, we want to cling to life? If so, I don't agree. I think the opposite. It is almost always the loved ones (who will be left behind) who want to cling to absurd hopes. The person actually at death's door is usually ready to open it.

Surely, this is so with Christians who, as Paul said famously, grieve not for physical life "... like the rest who have no hope." The Christian has an extra advantage: he wishes not merely to be done with the fruitless suffering, but looks forward longingly to his welcoming Lord.

Why, then, do you presume Terri was suffering in any way that could not have been cured with fresh air, sunshine, and attention from loved ones?

Because, my dear, she wasn't suffering from pale skin or loneliness. She was suffering from a dissolved brain. Sad, but true. The right course -- indeed I contend the only moral course -- was followed. I am glad for Terri's sake that she has passed on.

Terri's parents believed that they could communicate with her. Not at a conversational verbal level, but probably at a level comparable to my communication with my cat. I let him know when his presence would make me happy, or when he's being a pest, and he lets me know when I'm making him happy or when he wants me to do something for him.

Very important point. Your cat exists for your benefit. He is an animal. Terri did not exist for her parents' benefit. She was (prior to her cardiac arrest) a functioning human being, made in the image of God. It would have been a travesty to continue force feeding Terri and keep her 'alive' at the functioning level of your cat because her parents wanted it. Only Terri's wishes count -- not her parents.

Now, you swing steppin' away from the box. Swing and a miss... at least try to present yourself in a direct way or just hang your head all the way to the dugout, boyo. The facts of my prior posts to you stand True. Yet, you argue about the Pitcher, the Catcher and the Ump- when a simple minded right fielder catches your fouled ball...

What do you think of Dershowitz's comment? Law Professor says Schiavo's Testimony is NOT "hearsay" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370795/posts "But Florida has said essentially that a statement made to a spouse and repeated in court may be enough. By the way, I want to correct one thing. I don‘t want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement."

Yes, I argued that a couple of weeks ago here but gave up because it is difficult for non-lawyers to grasp (after 10 years of Law and Order). I think there is a very good argument that Terri's statements were not offered for the truth of the matter stated (which is necessary for an out-of-court statement to technically be 'hearsay') but rather merely for her act of saying them. Be that as it may, they were clearly admissible under either theory.

I'm aware that the presence of heavy metals can be detected in hair. What confused me was the implied reference that heavy metals can be disclosed by DNA testing. It's been my understanding that it's a different kind of testing for heavy metals.

No DNA can't show arsenic or strichnine in the hair. That can be found in the hair via different testing techniques. However, what I meant to say and failed to say clearly from the start is that I believe the judge and Schiavo are displaying some level of paranoia and as such, an eagerness to cover all of their tracks. Today the hair can't show much via DNA testing but technology improves constantly and who is to say what DNA or other hair testing technology might show in a year or 5 or 10 years. This is what I think they may be concerned about and why the judge ruled no locks of hair be given to the Schindlers.

There's an undercurrent of concern that Terri was given sufficient morphine at the end to finish her off. Since her death was announced about 10 minutes after her siblings last saw her alive, I'm supposing a high level of morphine [IF PRESENT] would be detected with full toxological ME tests.

I don't see why they'd finally (after 13 long days) finally exhibit what might be considered a trifling of mercy by "finishing her off" a bit faster. By day 13 I believe death was imminent and that Terri did die of dehydration. If morphine was administered, it could be detected via toxicology testing of various organs and probably the blood at autopsy but I won't count on the Pinellas ME to be on the up and up since so few in that particular government seem to have behaved that way from the start.

The only way an overdose of morphine could possibly be determined in the future that I can think of is if the ME saved parts of the organs, tissues, or blood and they were analyzed later by an independent ME. I'm fairly certain from Judge Greer's past actions that precautions have been taken to see that doesn't happen either.

It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement."

Ah, so now the State of Florida is saying that what a spouse says an incapacitated other spouse said is infallible? Just by virtue of uttering the statement it becomes the truth and a fact of law?

I don't see why they'd finally (after 13 long days) finally exhibit what might be considered a trifling of mercy by "finishing her off" a bit faster. By day 13 I believe death was imminent and that Terri did die of dehydration. If morphine was administered, it could be detected via toxicology testing of various organs and probably the blood at autopsy but I won't count on the Pinellas ME to be on the up and up since so few in that particular government seem to have behaved that way from the start.

Even if morphine was detected, I doubt that in and of itself could result in any action being taken. It is common and accepted to give terminal patients significant doses of morphine, even though it hastens death, with the intention that it will make what time does remain more pleasant. I would expect it could be pretty well argued that Terri was already terminal by the time she died.

I know you didn't ask me this question, but I'll weigh in anyway-- it is complete and utter bu!!$h!t!!!!!!

I wish I could remember the name of the Freeper who was making this argument before. I could barely respond, I was so incredulous!

xs: Here we go again!

allegedly!!!!!!!! That's hearsay!!!!!!!

There's a default here too. It's called feeding people. So the default is: we keep force feeding people who want to die. No, that's not right.

It is certainly common enough in mental hospitals, and I haven't heard too many arguments against it.

Oh dear. All the 'fresh air and sunshine' in the world are not going to solve the literal dissolution of poor Terri's brain. Only her brain stem was left.

How do you know that?

More important, notice the shifting of your premise. Somehow removing some (supposed) evil-doer is going to add another choice. No, Terri had two and only two options; both of them sad: (i)continued forced feeding and diapering for the indefinite future or (ii) death. I realize that Hollywood's made-for-TV movies promise you a 'happy ending', but there is none here -- just relentless facts. No brain, no cognitive ability. Ever. Ever. Sunshine or not. No cognitive ability ever.

How do you know that Terri wouldn't recover if she was actually allowed more therapy? Until therapy was stopped, her prognosis had been favorable.

Are you saying that we tend to say we would want to die when we see others in such circumstances, but when we actually get there, we want to cling to life? If so, I don't agree. I think the opposite. It is almost always the loved ones (who will be left behind) who want to cling to absurd hopes. The person actually at death's door is usually ready to open it.

There is a big difference between people who have a terminal condition and those who have a non-terminal but disabling condition. If Terri was terminal 15 years ago, she wouldn't have been alive last month. Someone with terminal cancer may decide that a month of being up and about is better than nine months of being bedridden. A decision to stop chemo doesn't mean a person wants to die, but rather that they want to live as well as they can before they do.

Why, then, do you presume Terri was suffering in any way that could not have been cured with fresh air, sunshine, and attention from loved ones?

Because, my dear, she wasn't suffering from pale skin or loneliness. She was suffering from a dissolved brain. Sad, but true. The right course -- indeed I contend the only moral course -- was followed. I am glad for Terri's sake that she has passed on.

How did you become such an expert on neurology?

Terri's parents believed that they could communicate with her. Not at a conversational verbal level, but probably at a level comparable to my communication with my cat. I let him know when his presence would make me happy, or when he's being a pest, and he lets me know when I'm making him happy or when he wants me to do something for him.

Very important point. Your cat exists for your benefit. He is an animal. Terri did not exist for her parents' benefit. She was (prior to her cardiac arrest) a functioning human being, made in the image of God. It would have been a travesty to continue force feeding Terri and keep her 'alive' at the functioning level of your cat because her parents wanted it. Only Terri's wishes count -- not her parents.

If Terri had been trying to express her will to live three weeks ago, such expression should have overruled any statement made fifteen years ago, should it not? A number of people, many of whom would have little financial interest in Terri's survival, have indicated that she attempts to communicate. Unfortunately, Michael has forbidden any efforts at allowing Terri's efforts to communicate to be rendered into tangible form. Why do you suppose he would have done such a thing?

I see no reason to disbelieve the perceptions of many people that Terri was relaxed when her parents were around, and became agitated when she was left in the presence of Michael. Since Terri's attitude toward her parents would suggest her approval of them, that would tend to imply an approval of what they were doing.

Had Michael allowed such a thing, it would have been possible to test Terri's apparent limitted communication abilities in such a way as to produce clear tangible results. Unfortunately, Michael forbid all such efforts. To my mind, the most logical reason for his behavior is that he was afraid Terri might want to live and might be able to communicate that fact.

BTW, people who don't want to live don't survive almost two weeks without water.

"...It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement."

I guess the question would be whether the trial court was required to find by clear and convincing evidence that Terri had made the statement, or whehter it was required to find by clear and convincing evidence that Terri's wishes were as stated. For purposes of establishing the former, the relative's statements would not be hearsay but for purposes of establishing the latter they would be.

If the requirement is merely to show that the person made the statement, without having to show that it represented an accurate and uncontradicted description of their wishes, all sorts of absurdities arise. For example, a person who verbally expressed a desire not to be fed and then the next day recanted it could truthfully be said to have expressed a desire not to be fed. Indeed, nothing they could ever do would alter the fact that, at one time, they had said they didn't want to be fed. In such case, however, I would think such a statement should not be taken to accurately reflect the person's current wishes.

supercat, Your post to me is perhaps misplaced. I truly have no idea of those posted comments- that you have attributed to me. Please clarify...

Ping to 312