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 ...
Of course there is ZERO evidence that this particular allegation is true.
Just as there is no proof that he did not cause the collapse.
Fuhrman's book has plummeted from #31 on Amazon last week to #222 today. Even worse at Barnes & Noble, where it's at #1288.
#98 on the USAToday top 150 Books list, for sales during the week that ended July 3.
It was in the medical examiner's autopsy report.
I can tell by your posts on this subject, that you apparently haven't bothered to keep up with all the information...which has been diligently posted here since 2003!
I'm sure you've read many more WND, NewsMax and Empire Journal articles on the subject than I have. I'm guessing, though, that I've read more of the original documents than most on these threads. I put more credence in the official documents than I do in the irresponsible rumormongering propagated by the type of sites I listed above.
After reading your nitpicky posts to myself and others
You posted something which was factually in error -- and which was also widely reported when the autopsy report came out. I called you on it, and am accused of being 'annoying' and 'nitpicky'. Sorry, but 'facts' DO matter. You claim to have read "damn near everything" on the subject, but can't even get a basic fact right.
Think of what you're saying, man.
"Just as there is no proof that he did not cause the collapse"?
That's absurd. Worse than that, it's doublespeak nonsense.
Maybe, just maybe, there are some patients who don't want to be kept alive artificially, and who would resent the intrusion of others and the usurpation of their right to refuse medical treatment.
New laws are being set in Florida right now to move toward this new presumption of death.
Proof of this claim?
Let's be clear on one thing: the autopsy report did not in any way conclude what caused the collapse.
I've read it a few times, and the one thing it did do was thoroughly trash MS's medmal theory that the jury bought.
They dont know what happened to Ms. Holloway either, but it is clear there is foul play.
But I don't want the right to kill my spouse. I want enforcement of my right to live. Is that really too much to ask?
Bob Schindler wanted Michael to use the malpractice $$ for treatment for Terri as Michael PROMISED.
........................
Quotes from Bob Schindler (Terri's dad)
“Long before and during the malpractice trial, you made a number of commitments to Mary and myself. One of your commitments was that award money was to be used to enhance Terri’s medical and neurological care.”
BOB SCHINDLER: And after the money came in, it was maybe two months after that, and I confronted him and asked him when are you going to begin Terri's rehabilitation? And he told me to mind my own business. Now, he had, you know, promised that before. So it was a complete change. And that was the onset of the problem.
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/contradictions.htm
Michael CLAIMED that the Schindlers wanted the $$ for themselves. Once again, Michael lied.
lawdy!
Are those that bought that book,
going to ask for their money
back? lol
Wrong as usual. People have the right to refuse medical treatment, and to have their advance medical directives followed. In Florida, the law allows for a judge to decide the matter in the event that someone challenges that this was really the patient's wish. The purpose of the hearing was to decide competing claims as to what her wishes were, and to, then, implement her wishes. The court ruled that there was clear and convincing evidence that she did not want to live like this. Had the court ruled otherwise, and found that the evidence was that she wished to live, I would have had no problem with that outcome. In either case, it is not a matter of the court imposing its own wishes, but rather of the court determining what the wishes of the patient really were.
If you have specific legal instructions, you're in no danger.
Those of us that want the option to have our feeding tubes removed have that as well, since we too can issue clear specific legal instructions.
Times have changed since 1990. I would not have expected those instructions then. I do expect them now.
When it is the wish of the patient to decline further medical treatment.
There. I fixed that for you.
Close, but no cigar.
There is no qualitative difference between the state forcing a person to [keep in a] feeding tube [against their wishes], and the state forcing schoolchildren to take Ritalin. Either both are acceptable, or neither are acceptable.
Your 'big picture' is a complete fabrication, without any grounding in facts or reality.
You thought the US map looked funny between Red and Blue States in the election....just wait until we divide up into Pink (same sex) States, Yellow(abortion) States, and Black(euthanasia) States.
Well hey..a person can just go live were they choose, eh?
Then all the Pink States can non-proliferated themselves from existence, the Yellow ones can do the same, and the Black ones can hold the honor of being labeled the US population "incinerators" for killing off all the disabled, mentally ill, old and infirmed.
Wouldn't America have a nice looking map then?
And it took extraordinary measures even to resuscitate her in the first place. Several jolts from the defibrillator over a period of around 30 minutes, and powerful drugs to try to restore regular sinus rhythm. After so long without oxygen, her brain was irreversibly damaged, despite the fact that medical science was able to keep her body alive for 15 years.
If you are going to accuse someone of a crime, it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence to support the allegation. You cannot prove a negative. For that matter, there is no proof that you did not cause her collapse. See how ridiculous this becomes?
Truly, our ability to sustain life has exceeded our wisdom in knowing when not to.
Just because we *can* do a thing it does not follow that we *must* do such a thing.
I'm not disputing the fact that the court made a ruling contrary to the evidence. As a matter of fact, that's one of the major points I've been making. I will concede that Judge Greer ruled, contrary to the evidence, that Terri Schiavo chose to die. That doesn't change the fact that the evidence indicated she wanted to live. If you're trying to prove that Judge Greer told the truth, you need to supply something other than his lies as evidence. Of course, you won't supply a copy of the court transcript, because that would prove he lied about the evidence in his summary. Oh, what's a wild turkey to do in a situation like this? Better check the AF handbook, and get back to me.
It falls on you to prove that she wouldn't want her feeding tube removed if you're going to involve the state in her treatment.
The burden of proof falls on whomever is trying to counter the wishes of the patient's guardian.
So where's your proof?
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.