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 ...
Unless the patient is named Terri Schiavo?
Where exactly do you draw the line? Why do you believe that Terri Schiavo didn't have the right not to be starved and dehydrated to death? You claim that some people have that right, but not Terri. Why?
Pick wrote:
"Even if something is legal, it doesn't make it morally right. To deny a fellow human being food and water is barbaric to me."
And I wrote:
Truly barbaric, pickyourpoison...and stomach-turning. And for a very small minority of conservatives to line so ardently up in agreement regarding this issue with almost every leftist, in pinning their *legal* (LOL) tail on a very rank donkey ass, is soooo...well...Clintonesque.
Just about every (if not every) Conservative of note, thought, intelligence and cognition, respect, and (major) command of/expertise in Constitutional Law, has come down solidly and resolutely, at every turn, that it was WRONG to kill Terri. And that's a fact, Jack.
You can dress up ONE backwater probate judge, his sole *ruling*, and his and HINO's backers in Sunday's best, and apply Tammy Faye amounts of red lipstick...but a pig is a pig is a pig. Always has been, always will be.
That isn't your decision to make; that is a decision that is the right of each person to make for themselves.
You can only refuse treatment if you're dying.
Oh, really? Cancer patients must be forced to undergo chemotherapy? Cardiac patients must be forced to undergo bypass surgery? That is positively Orwellian.
If she was TRULY PVS, how was she suffering?.
She wasn't suffering in any conscious sense, because she was no longer capable of cognition. Nevertheless, her wish to not be artificially kept alive this way should be respected.
It sure is. The right of people to make their own medical decisions and to have their advance directives honored.
By what logic do you hold that only those who are 'terminal' can refuse medical treatment?
The bond between parent and child and siblings must be something you haven't experienced fully. The Schindlers are fantastic people. They were motivated by their love for Terri and their desire to win freedom for her from Hospice and of course, they had reason to hope. Unfortunately, Jeb Bush gave them false hope and then suddenly withdrew it. He can never run successfully for higher office. He wouldn't win Florida and many other red states.
It is good to have a forum to read where I can get a good laugh at the parodies these self righteous cretins display themselves as. Oblivious to the obvious they are, and grand entertainment to behold is their abject ignorance...Whatever these loons are...one thing they are not, is for real. Nor are they Conservative.
They probably think Mises is a sur-name.
Unless they haven't expressed a desire to be starved and dehydrated to death. In which case, we should leave the decision up to the first person who claims that's what they would want. /sarcasm
Suicide is illegal.
Cancer patients must be forced to undergo chemotherapy? Cardiac patients must be forced to undergo bypass surgery?
Excuse me? Aren't those conditions terminal? I said:You can only refuse treatment if you're dying. Terri had NONE of those diseases or any other.
Nevertheless, her wish to not be artificially kept alive this way should be respected
On the word of 3 Schiavos. One of which, apparently had a great deal to gain.
I know nothing of the sort. I DO know that the court found clear and convincing evidence that she would have elected to forego continued use of a feeding tube under her circumstances.
Now please, TRY to answer my question.
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?
It was his decision, not hers.
That's your opinion.
Since you support his right to make that decision for Terri, why don't you support his right to make the decision for you?
Terri had the right to make that determination for herself. I have the right to make that determination for myself. Should someone object to my advance medical directive being followed, I would hope a judge would rule to respect my choice.
TOLL FREE NUMBER FOR THE U.S. CONGRESS:#1-877-762-8762
FREEPERS AND LURKERS, PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND HOUSE MEMBERS IN THE U.S. CONGRESS AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT FEDERALIZING A BAN ON STARVING-DEHYDRATING ANYONE when there is no written directive.
Please call. It's going to happen but to get out of committee, the Congress needs to hear from you.
So now you think it's ok to kill the healthy too?!
Terminal patients come to a point where their bodies do not respond to food and hydration. Their dying bodies cannot deal with it. Ceasing food and hydration at that point is the best way to make the end comfortable.
I'm not going to answer your lies, even if you do frame them in the form of a question. Now, please answer the question, instead of changing the subject to some figment of your sick imagination.
MURDER IS NOT FUNNY but if you think it is, you enjoy yourself.
But that matters not to the people that will buy it regardless of what the ME said because they're minds are already made up. Peoople that buy that book are only looking for more "evidence" that they were "right" all along. No significant number of people that supported Michael will buy that book. They never were Fuhrman's target market anyway.
Michael is an ogre. He has no target market.
Demonstrably false. I have answered your questions.
You just try to browbeat.
No, I'm trying to get a reply to a question from someone who apparently finds the true answer to be inconvenient.
The truth is that the Schindlers were, incontrovertibly, not objective.
The bond between parent and child and siblings must be something you haven't experienced fully. The Schindlers are fantastic people. They were motivated by their love for Terri and their desire to win freedom for her from Hospice and of course, they had reason to hope. Unfortunately, Jeb Bush gave them false hope and then suddenly withdrew it. He can never run successfully for higher office. He wouldn't win Florida and many other red states.
What is your evidence that Terri wished to be kept alive artificially?
Why do you believe that Terri Schiavo didn't have the right not to be starved and dehydrated to death?
Pay close attention, so I don't have to repeat myself again: I believe that Terri DID NOT wish to be kept alive in a PVS state. The court ruled, and was upheld, that there was clear and convincing evidence of this. I have seen no substantiated evidence to the contrary. So I have no reason to disbelieve the judgment of the court regarding her wishes.
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.