Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Several bloggers have drawn attention to a strange lead in a Washington Post story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results. The June 16 Post story by David Brown said that "Terri Schiavo died of the effects of a profound and prolonged lack of oxygen to her brain on a day in 1990, but what caused that event isn't known and may never be, the physician who performed her autopsy said…"
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
What about ports for chemo and shunts for water on the brain? What about ostomy bags? Are not they artificial? What about artificial arms and legs? Why stop at Terri?
Did I accidentally veer into Saturday Night Live Jeopardy or something? I call I'm Alex.
Not that I mind all that much. By resorting to them, you only demonstrate that you are unable to successfully argue the merits of your position.
Your opinion is baseless and you have a fear of feeding tubes. That seems to be your theme for the night.
You keep insisting that I should include the part where the judge erroneously rules that you agree with his decision to murder you. So, okay, the judge orders you starved and dehydrated to death, and he claims that you want it that way, in spite of the fact that you don't. Now, answer the question. Do you still support his right to impose his will on you, or do you only support his right to impose his will on others, so long as his will is your will?
I just watched Joe Dirt...again.
I completely agree that all of those things are artificial.
Now, does a patient have the right to refuse any of these medical treatments? Or are we to forcibly install feeding tubes, pacemakers, etc. in those who do not want them?
It is, IMO, the patient's right to choose.
http://www.theempirejournal.com/
Better question. Who had the most to gain?
Terri Schiavo died on March 31, 2005, at 9:05 A.M. A bit over four hours later—no doubt after intense grieving on his part—Michael Schiavo filed a petition with Judge Greer for administration of her estate as sole beneficiary. Before her death, Michael had protested his innocence on Larry King Live and elsewhere, claiming that the settlement money had been all but used up, leaving him only about $25,000. As it turns out, given the behind-the-scenes financial shenanigans with Felos, there was about $1 million in the account, perhaps $2 million depending upon how well the investments did since 1993. Felos received a little over a half-million for his efforts. Not bad wages for a spiritual killer.
As I posted to DJ, the question is, does the patient consent to have these procedures done? Or do you think that forcing chemotherapy (for example) on a cancer patient is the right thing to do?
Unless the patient chooses life, right?
No one in their right mind would volunteer to be dehydrated to death. As far as I know, suicide is still illegal. You can only refuse treatment if you're dying. She was not.
Now you answer, If she was TRULY PVS, how was she suffering?.
Terri was getting speech therapy but they took that kind person off the visitor's list. After that, they took advantage of her inability to communicate. Her civil rights were completely violated. This is a civil rights issue. KILLING THE DISABLED IS UNACCEPTABLE.
If a patient is terminal then it's not suicide. Terri was not terminal.
The judge would not be 'imposing his will'. He would be respecting my will. Do you understand the distinction?
Suppose you are married, and your husband tells you that he would NOT want to be kept alive on a feeding tube for decades if something happened to him and he was in a PVS state. The worst later happens, and your husband is indeed rendered PVS. After years of hoping, you finally accept the fact the he is not ever going to get any better. Do you honor his wish to not be kept alive? Or do you keep him physically alive for as long as medically possible, despite his clear expression of his wishes?
Can't answer my question? Why so evasive? Let's try again: Are the Schindlers objective sources?
Wrong. If the patient wishes to be kept alive artificially, even if PVS, then those wishes should be respected, too.
You're being extremely dishonest. You know that Terri did not refuse food and water. Judge Greer decided that she would not be allowed to have food or water, through any means. It was his decision, not hers. Since you support his right to make that decision for Terri, why don't you support his right to make the decision for you?
Ping. Justice for Terri July Dailies.
You never answer any. You just try to browbeat. Won't work. The Schindlers would have gained their daughters life. Schiavo got money.
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.