An American husband in the early stages of retirement planning....
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 question haven't I answered?
I answered you. You just didn't like the answer.
You answered my question about whether you would honor the wishes of someone who wished to refuse to be kept alive artificially. Your answer was, basically, no you wouldn't.
You didn't answer my simple question, "Are the Schindlers an objective source?"
That's has to be one of the dingiest things I've ever read. They were fighting for the life of their daughter.
So they consequently weren't objective? Yes, I agree.
Good night DJ. I've had enough of the lies disguised as questions and hypothetical situations, so hold the door for me.
The court ruled there was clear and convincing evidence that it was NOT her wish to be kept alive under those circumstances. Since you apparently disagree, then it is incumbent upon you to provide substantive evidence that this is wrong.
It was never proven that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death, nor that she deserved such a fate.
The courts obviously disagreed.
There was a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
What 'evidence'?
The court found clear and convincing evidence that she did not want to live under those circumstances. You claim a 'preponderance of evidence' that she DID want to live. What is your evidence?
Read the transcript, like everybody else. Good night.
So certain people claimed.
Fifty doctors did affidavits
Did they examine her? Did they testify under oath?
Most of them.
Your answer was, basically, no you wouldn't.
Posts 312 and 335 are two of my answers. Terminally ill patients can refuse. Suicidal healthy patients can't ask to be killed.
So they consequently weren't objective? Yes, I agree.
It's a dumb question. What parents would be objective? And were any of the Schiavos? No.
Night!
The same goes for your post #202. Quite a POWERFUL post!
It's not so much ironic as it is dishonest. Such people are actually something other than conservative. And I think that's ok, if that's what they want to believe. There are a great many bands on the political spectrum. But demonizing politicians for not meddling in private affairs is not conservatism.
I've got the door! Night! :)
You're kind, T.
The courts disagreed about the nature of what she said.
That Terri was in PVS is a fact in dispute.
Again, the courts disagreed with you.
and he diagnosed her as semi-concsious.
I read his 'diagnosis'. He didn't actually have any objective evidence for this, but he 'sensed' she was 'semi-conscious'. Not altogether convincing.
If the above were the situation, your position would have merit.
Actually, as you can see on this very thread, there are those who would argue just as vehemently against it, even if the situation you describe were the case.
Your position, which ignored the red flags, inconsistencies and disputed facts in the matter
I don't 'ignore' them, I just do not give them a great deal of credence.
is completely and utterly dishonest and totally lacking in merit and judgement.
Ironic, then, that I am the one accepting the rulings of the courts as legitimate.
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.
Nope. I genuinely believe that the rulings represented her wishes.
Furthermore, it took 7 years before anyone was concerned about the fact that Terri had a feeding tube.
That was, it seems, the length of time it took for MS to be convinced that her condition was unrecoverable.
Okay. According to you, people who are not terminal cannot refuse medical treatment, except when they can. Thanks for clearing that up.
I answered it.
So list them. Or is this just one more unsubstantiated allegation?
It's a dumb question. What parents would be objective? And were any of the Schiavos? No.
See, that wasn't that hard! You could have answered it hours ago.
PNSN, I loved the part about "pull their chains" in your earlier post. LOL.
Why don't you true "Conservatives" go home to your private matters..kill off all your disabled family members and Grannies on hearsay evidence and leave the rest of us to our right to keep our families alive if we so choose?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that a person can feel exceptionally wronged if they think someone will kill them in the future on baseless hearsay?
I resent that you feel the whole pollution should follow your lead and allow the likes of the AMA and the courts to determine that I no longer have the right to live unless I present them with a legal document to state otherwise that can in no way cover all possibilities for future advances in technology and can probably be torn apart like a waffle by any slick lawyer anyway.
Give me a break! You are treading on me and my family by being an advocate for presumption of death.
At least the Federal government when they wrongly legalized abortion did not assume that every woman would want an abortion unless they proved otherwise. Why? Because it is ludicrous thats why..as is your argument that your rights are being put upon when the movement is in your favor toward euthanasia.
I'm fine if you want to kill off your own venerable disabled people..just as I am fine if you want to kill your own unborn children and drowned your puppies...just leave mine alone and let my state set protections in place to protect my rights as well as yours. Is that too much to ask?
pollution = population
What a great article. The author makes all the pertinent points, and cuts through the MSM smokescreen, as to what Terri's case is really about. Everyone should read it. Especially the "kill the disabled" FReepers.
>> (#332) You, on the other hand, have no substantive evidence that this was NOT her wish.
Yes, we do.
There was no substantiated evidence to support hearsay from either side. That's the trouble with alleged private conversations. You can't prove they occurred, nor can you disprove anyone's lies. They are useless as evidence. For a judge to accept such trash from an interested party is "clear and convincing evidence" only of his own incompetence or bias.
But we do have a deposition from Michael's girl friend, Cindy Shook, who said he told her repeatedly that he didn't know Terri's wishes. Not long before Terri's death, Michael once again admitted the same thing -- that he did not know Terri's wishes -- on Larry King Live:
KING: Do you understand how they [the Schindlers] feel?
M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...
This is Michael's own unguarded comment. It has the ring of truth. In fact, we can take it to be true because he'd have to be dumber than rocks to dream up a lie that implicates him in perjury.
Michael's sole moral defense is that Terri "wanted" to die. But as he admitted on LKL, it was his own wish for her to die, not hers. He didn't know what she wanted.
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.