Posted on 06/19/2005 6:35:16 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
How long has forced starvation been "an established, legal medical procedure"?
LOL, you're whacky. "Convenience of the nurses"? You just make it up as you go. You have no credibility with me. Try somebody else who is easily browbeaten by and susceptible to straw dogs.
I don't know, I'm not a doctor. But removing a feeding tube is legal under Florida law specifically because it is established and approved.
You cannot seriously dispute that fact, can you? Has Florida made a move to make it illegal in all cases? Why not? Perhaps because it is a established medical procedure?
I thank the Lord I don't live in Florida - and won't be going anywhere near the place anytime soon!
The forcible starving of anyone is murder. If it was done to a convicted felon, the civil libertarians would go into fits of apoplexy.
That was in quotes for a reason. And testified to at trial, by nurses. But keep it up. With your every post you are showing how little you actually know about this case.
The fact of the matter is that the etiology of her arrest is unknown. The claims that she was bulemic is based on no evidence but an abnormal K level after epinephrine and 1200 cc's of fluid during the emergent care phase by the techs at the scene. Little noted is that lots of her electrolytes and enzymes were out of whack as one would expect them to be in a cardiac arrest patient treated repeatedly with epi and fluid.
IOW's like I've said before. Nobody knows why she arrested and nobody knows what her state of consciousness was, Peach not withstanding.
"It's also not an absolute that she was or wasn't the victim of foul play but to assert it without evidence is wrong, just as asserting she was bulemic and that her arrest was due to systemic low K level is wrong."
What the cononer wrote about was based on a preponderance of evidence. Just as he wrote Bulemia wasn't likely so to does he write about the foul play aspects...not likely.
I would further note that the coroner left the case/door open pending any additional information that comes to light. Hardly someone who speaks in absolutes.
So, because there is no absolute proof that she wasn't bulemic, it is OK to assert that she was? Nice logic, You and Peach deserve each other.
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.