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 ...
After claiming there WAS no estate. And she'd been dead only 4 hours. In a hurry for nothing? I don't think so. Common sense says otherwise.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is now "muddying the waters"?
There is NOTHING that clears Schiavo of any wrong doing, accidental or otherwise.
He hasn't been charged with anything. There is ZERO evidence that he had any involvement with TS's collapse.
No, it didn't.
There was one person that night with Terri who had the means, motive and opportunity to cause her harm.
Too bad there isn't any evidence of a crime, eh?
TS suffered cardiac arrest. It happens, even to young people sometimes, for no apparent reason.
Does Fla law also state that it's legal to deny oral food and hydration?
No, you haven't seen it. You've seen an edited tape that was specifically made to give you that impression.
If you let me edit hours down into minutes, I can show you a videotape that "proves" the sky over my house is always orange.
The family won't let anybody see the six hours of video taped, only the six minutes they were able to edit out of it. I wonder why that is?
I understand them not wanting to accept the facts. I feel for them. But the facts are as they are, and no edited videotape can change them. If she was responsive, then they must release the full six hours of footage to prove it.
Yes, Florida law stated that what Michael and the doctors did was proper. That's why every single court all the way up to and including the Supreme Court found for him.
Well then get yourself out of the peanut factory before you catch some flees.
The cause of fighting euthanasia/assisted suicide is just as important as abortion.
From the actual court records and rulings, not from some tabloid rumormill like Empire Journal.
She wasn't blind when she was videotaped, nor was she blind when the family priest was allowed, ALLOWED, to pray with Terri. She wasn't blind when a new lawyer visited her before she was killed. She recognized a new face, liked that face, and proceeded to flirt with him. It's all here, look it up.
It seems that Terri was not the only one who is blind. Could you be any more uncritically credulous?
Not according to Judge Greer. He ordered nothing orally.
And you can't forcibly install a feeding tube or keep it in against someone's will. That is a fundamental violation of our constitutional rights.
Really? There was story on FR a few weeks ago where a judge oredered an inmate to be fed.
Such as?
Silly malakhi.
You should know that "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to people DJ MacWoW likes....
Wrong. The Schindlers were looking for activist judges to overturn a ruling which was completely consistent with Florida law and legal precedent.
He was never questioned either. That doesn't make him innocent.
There is ZERO evidence that he had any involvement with TS's collapse.
There is ZERO evidence that he did nothing to cause her collapse.
In the police report, it was listed that Schiavo had a number of drugs in the kitchen, prescribed by a psychiatrist. Interesting. The "innocent" man was having mental "issues".
That is a choice for the patient to make themselves, though.
I'm afraid you're right.
No. I read that law. It's only legal to remove a feeding tube from a terminal patient. Nowhere in the law does it state that you can legally deny oral sustenance.
So how long have you been reading AF sites?
Don't get too cute. All that's needed for any type of investigation is suspicion. Otherwise, police detectives would never be allowed to investigate any suspicious event.
How long have you been running them?
Prior to the lawsuit, Michael was the devoted spouse who was going to school to become a nurse so that he could care for his wife in her condition. The point in bringing the suit was to provide sufficient funds to care for Terri for the rest of her life.
It was only after the lawsuit did Michael and other members of HIS FAMILY recall that Terri would not have wanted to live this way. Oddly enough, she had been "living this way" for several years before they had this collective recollection.
Now, if Michael had made the statement a few months, or even a year after Terri came into her incapacitated state and testing and therapy had made no impact, I think more people would have found it credible. Based on his own notes, Michael indicated that Terri was making progress; this was submitted as part of the journal used in the lawsuit.
If he made those wishes known before the lawsuit and had worked out something with the family to care for Terri, events would not have unfolded as they did. Granted, Michael may have received a portion of the settlement either way (he was granted a sum of $300K, if I recall correctly), but the bulk of the settlement would have gone where it was intended, to Terri's care - not to the legal battle to remove her tube.
Some folks would look at the sequence of events and call that peculiar. Some folks would find it implausible that the collective memory of Terri's supposed "expressed wishes" would only surface after the lawsuit was finalized, not during the long months of struggling preceeding the lawsuit, and this belief would only be shared by Michael and members of his immediate family.
That, I propose, is the cornerstone of distrust that many have for Michael. Others who have followed this case more closely than myself may have other reasons for distrust that are built on this cornerstone, but IMHO, this is the basis for it.
If Terri's family also believed she would not have wanted to live that way, then her tube would have been quietly removed and her name would not be part of the American dialogue, no matter her condition.
I personally have no disagreement with anyone refusing medical care, or refusing life-sustaining treatment if it means a life of such diminished capacity that the person considers ultimately unacceptable; that is the individual's right. I do, however, have a disagreement with this case, as I have trouble finding Michael's statements credible on this particular, but essentially critical, point.
This is not about whether anyone on FR would want to live like this; it is about whether Terri would have wanted to live like this. No one had a right to make that determination for her; the court was charged with gleaning what HER determination would be, if SHE could voice it.
Perhaps I am being cynical, but my opinion is this: Michael had a financial motivation to keep Terri alive through the lawsuit, as financial judgments tend to be higher if the victim in the case is living. Upon receiving the award by the court, Michael now the financial motivation to hasten her death, as her spouse, he would receive the remainder of the trust fund upon her demise; hence, the "recollection."
I also find it disconcerting that funds set aside to be used for Terri's therapeutic care were diverted to pay for attorneys to hasten her death.
Just my 2 Cents.
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.