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 ...
In other words, you agree that they are not objective sources?
What I find ironic is that people who call themselves "Conservative" saw no problem with politicians meddling in this case. I will just say this as simply as I possibly can: There is nothing illegal or immoral about pulling the plug on someone if they are terminally ill or have no chance of recovery. Unless you think that every doctor or family member who has had to make such a decision should be charged with murder.
The greatest love is unconditional.
No. You don't. You just ask questions and answer few.
I'm trying to get a reply to a question from someone who apparently finds the true answer to be inconvenient.
I answered you. You just didn't like the answer.
The truth is that the Schindlers were, incontrovertibly, not objective.
That's has to be one of the dingiest things I've ever read. They were fighting for the life of their daughter. Schiavo was fighting for her money that he said didn't exist. You DID read that post, right? I even gave you a link.
Since when does an innocent person have to prove they want to live and deserve to live. It was never proven that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death, nor that she deserved such a fate. There was a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. You lying about it, Judge Greer lying about it, and any other liar lying about it, doesn't change the facts.
That's truly inspired purple puffery. It has the rhythm and reason of Warren G. Harding bloviating: "Progress is not proclamation nor palaver. It is not pretense nor play on prejudice. It is not the perturbation of a people passion-wrought, nor a promise proposed."
Fifty doctors did affidavits and filed them w/Judge Greer that Terri could be rehabilitated and they volunteered to treat her for free. Judge Greer IGNORED those fifty doctors because he said "The law of the case is that she will die."
It was a history making first death warrant for a disabled American by an evil judge. Terri was MURDERED. The conservative ideal is to not murder fellow Americans.
Irrelevant. Refusing medical treatment doesn't constitute 'suicide'.
Excuse me? Aren't those conditions terminal?
Define 'terminal'. A few weeks? A few months? A few years? Someone could reject a heart bypass, and still live for years.
On the word of 3 Schiavos.
You've already made it clear that you wouldn't respect her wishes even if she made them explicitly clear to you. So the question of who she told is likewise irrelevant.
I wrote my post in total incredulousness of the circuitous house-of-cards debate points that a very small minority of conservatives buy and employ as principle.
You are always so insightful and reasoned in your posts. Thank you for them. I'm glad that your sagacity and standards are seen round the world. :-) Take care.
LOL!
Great Post!
that's it - you can't dress up evil. Although, the highly emotional can't see evil - their emotions get in the way. It's not evil - it's the law!! Like it's the law now that they can take your property. Corrupt judges make corrupt rulings to favor corrupt people.
And all the dribble that they want to die like Terri - let them!! The doctors can pull their plugs, pull their ears, pull their toes - and pull their chain - who cares. The difference is - it is THEIR wish, THEIR choice. Terri was not allowed to make that choice or given her rights by having an impartial guardian or have the right to a divorce which was her right since her husband betrayed her in more ways than adultery/fornication.
You are right - a pig is a pig is a pig. And murder is murder - granted by a legally blind judge.
You'll note that I said "advance directives". I did not specify "written". As you know, Florida does not require a written advance directive.
Your post may mislead lurkers into thinking that she wanted to die
I'm not 'misleading' them at all. It is my belief that she DID NOT want to live under those circumstances. I have no reason to disbelieve the ruling of the court, upheld on appeal, that there was clear and convincing evidence that this was her wish.
You, on the other hand, have no substantive evidence that this was NOT her wish.
Courts are NEVER wrong?
Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.
That Terri was in PVS is a fact in dispute. Some doctors said she was, others said she wasn't. The last doctor to diagnose her on the fifth day of starvation/dehydration, was from the DCF, the least biased of all the doctors who saw Terri, and he diagnosed her as semi-concsious.
People on your side of the debate, have always argued your position as if Terri, after considerable thought and careful consideration, placed her wishes in writing; there were no questions as to how she came to be in her condition, (as if it happened in a car accident);all doctors were in agreement about her physical state; and her faithful husband who was not residing with another woman with whom he had two children, and having not won a malpractice law suit for over a million dollars, realized after a couple of years, that she was in the very situation she wouldn't want to live in, and lovingly and valiantly fought to obtain her wishes.
If the above were the situation, your position would have merit. However, the above was not the case. Your position, which ignored the red flags, inconsistencies and disputed facts in the matter, is completely and utterly dishonest and totally lacking in merit and judgement. Your concern about the issue is wholly and completely about your own desrie not to live in a PVS state. It was never for a tiny moment about Terri.
Furthermore, it took 7 years before anyone was concerned about the fact that Terri had a feeding tube. AND as I have repeated so often in this forum, at the time, Terri supposedly made her statements, feeding tubes were NOT an issue. Thus, it is highly unlikely she had an opinion about them let alone voiced one.
So now you think it's ok to kill the healthy too?!
Healthy people get medical treatment, too. Healthy people can likewise choose to reject treatment. This has nothing to do either with their being 'terminal', or with the refusal of treatment necessarily resulting in death.
I have a benign heart condition known as "intermittant atrial fibrillation". It is a mild case. After extensive testing, I was prescribed medicine that was supposed to reduce the frequency of episodes of arrhythmia. I found that the medication was ineffective for me, and I didn't like the side effects. So I took myself off the medication, and instead concentrated on identifying what my triggers are, and avoiding them. In other words, I refused continuing medical treatment of my condition. By your standard, I would be required to continue treatment regardless of my wishes on the matter.
Yes it does since what we're discussing is food and water. Or did you forget in your about the bush debate?
Define 'terminal'.
In the act of dying of a disease.
From Webster:
Main Entry: 1ter·mi·nal
Pronunciation: 't&rm-n&l, 't&r-m&-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin terminalis, from terminus
1 a : of or relating to an end, extremity, boundary, or terminus
b : growing at the end of a branch or stem
2 a : of, relating to, or occurring in a term or each term
b : leading ultimately to death : FATAL
c : approaching or close to death : being in the final stages of a fatal disease
d : extremely or hopelessly severe
You've already made it clear that you wouldn't respect her wishes even if she made them explicitly clear to you. So the question of who she told is likewise irrelevant.
I said that dehydrating to death a non-terminal patient is wrong. And no one that isn't terminal would ask to be killed in such a manner. I told you explicitly.
The question of whom she told is not irrelevant since the ONLY people who claim she said such were all Schiavos. And no one else. If that was REALLY her wish, others would have known it.
That is completely illogical. A question is not a 'lie'.
instead of changing the subject to some figment of your sick imagination.
It is called a 'hypothetical'. Are you unfamiliar with the concept?
This is very simple. Would you honor the known wishes of a loved one to not be kept alive artificially? Yes or no?
DJ MacWoW was able to answer me. Why can't you?
Now, please answer the question
I did answer your question. You may not have liked my answer, but I answered it. To reiterate:
YOU: Since you support his right to make that decision for Terri, why don't you support his right to make the decision for you?
ME: 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.
Now please answer MY question before you make any more demands of me.
TAdams, I hope the whole WORLD sees your post. Twice.
No. You wouldn't. That's some mulberry bush. Run around it alone. I'm for bed.
Please answer my question before you make demands of me. You have not answered the question. You have merely denied the truth and refused to answer the question.
Bump that up.
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.