Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
I personally do not find them suspect, but I can understand why you might view it that way, particularly since you are not repeating all of the same unsubstantiated rumors floated about MS. There is certainly room for different views on the matter, provided that disagreement is done in a reasoned and dispassionate manner.
I also have a serious problem with this recollection being shared only by members of Michael's family (his sister and brother-in-law, I believe).
In the years before her collapse, her sister-in-law was Terri's best friend. It is reasonable that she would confide her wishes to them. Terri may also have had valid reasons for not mentioning her wishes to her parents, particularly if she knew how opposed they would be to such a choice.
Why the long wait?
As KDD posted above, the exigencies of the malpractice lawsuit may have kept it from being brought up earlier. Likewise, I could understand if it took MS several years to accept the fact that Terri's condition was unrecoverable.
Almost everything that came afterwards, including debates about her cognitive abilities (or lack thereof), her care (or lack thereof), the processes of the court, etc., Michael's fitness as a spouse, were so much legal warfare.
Well put.
No, I simply report the findings of the court, and the rulings upon appeal.
Calm down.
Any impartial reading of this thread would reveal which side is hysterical.
If you want to be taken seriously, yes it does. And I do not take you seriously. I also will not respond to you again.
There's more evidence for bullemia than there is for Schiavo physically harming her.
There's no evidence for bulimia. There are many indicators that Schiavo hasn't told the complete truth about that night.
You are welcome to keep guessing.
Aside from being tabloid journalism at its worst, engaging in breathless hyperbole and unsubstantiated rumormongering, and breathlessly reporting every latest wild accusation as gospel truth, nothing. I can understand why y'all like it so much.
The court rulings are a joke and we all know it.
No, we don't all know it. Most people agree with the court rulings. You should get out more.
Fine with me. I can't respect anyone who's intellectually inconsistent. You demand "proof" when it suits your purposes, and accept slander and innuendo when it goes against someone you don't like.
Good-bye.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432747/posts?page=352#352
No, that's not what he said. What he said was that, after 15 years, there was no way to determine whether or not that was the cause.
No, I laugh at frivolous assertions of alleged legal violations.
I give you considerable credit for hanging in so long on this thread and make it clear I do not categorize you with the real and amateurish disruptors who made halting attempts to sidle up to you.
I respect your knowledge of the Constitution and your concerns about mucking about any more with what is the remnant of our intended government.
Where we may part ways is on separation of powers. Please bear with me, because I do not have the facility or knowledge you profess. As I understand it, the Supreme Court and its structure are established to interpret the Constitution, period. If something new is to change, it comes from the Congress, i.e. we-the-people. Hence an amendment. If the rule of law were within those guidelines, I would be happy. That would leave the people of the country with the final say and the judges as interpreters, not our rulers.
Well, that didn't happen here. A petty Judge trumped a Governor. Right or wrong, he claimed the final word. That puts the Governer with his we-the-people a notch below. Hence, the balance is gone. The Judge rules the roost. I am not just saying something hypothetical. It happened in front of our horrified eyes!
The Court system carried his faulty analysis higher and did no further investigation, simply ratified his decision. It went up the ladder to the Supremes and they took his side as well, we-the-people be damned. Congress be damned, Executive be damned. The Supremes rule. No just interpreting the law for them, no, they invent the law.
It should not have been necessary and could have been the bad thing that galls you, that the Executive and Congress interfered. Whether correct or not, that was an ineffective attempt to restore some semblence of balance already usurped by the Judiciary. We-the-people blinked, and the Supremes stood fast as if our rulers.
That is what is out of whack and oozed out of Pinellas Park and Clearwater. King Greer.
That Judge is the one who mucked about with what is left of our Republic and his cronies backed him without blinking. I am no repository for the volumes of facts on this case but inquiring minds, especially inquisitive ones such as yours would find a mountain of evidence establishing that is what happened. Some of us here could weigh down a truck with the documents and hard facts. The only way you would not is if you predetermined the outcome to be comfortable to yourself.
Many of us were on the scene as witnesses, and saw the atrocity up close and saw what was happening with this judge. Ask and you shall find.
If you can explain to me that a tinpot judge is entitled to such power as I described, I will be glad to hear.
8mm
Now that is the best idea I've heard today.
That place smells to high heaven down there.
The M.E. said he is still open to new evidence on that matter. Is that not correct?
Oh, now we have LEGAL violations. I am not surprised you slipped on that. : )
Pinellas County Animal Control Ordinance
Sec. 14-32. Cruelty to animals.
(a) Whoever impounds or confines any animal in any place and fails to supply the animal during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water shall be in violation of this article.
(b) Whoever keeps any animal in any enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air shall be in violation of this article.
(c) Whoever abandons to die any animal that is maimed, sick, infirm, or diseased shall be in violation of this article.
(d) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, shall be in violation of this article.
No Grand Jury, no investigation, Clinton is innocent, so is O.J. and Michael Jackson. Move on, stop everything, It is all over.....they wish.
The legacy of Terri grows.
Now how did I do that? I will try again.
8mm
Something new
Dear Friend of Life,
Pro-life people seem to be fighting a million fires. From euthanasia to embryonic destruction, to the morning after pill, to partial birth abortion and a host of others it seems that attacks on life are coming from all directions.
And when it comes to the long, long wait for some kind of victory, like a partial birth abortion ban signed by the President, it instantly gets shot down by some federal court. In fact, every unborn baby today is just as abortable now as on the day of Roe v. Wade.
Did we go wrong somewhere? I think so. Would not abortion seem much more unthinkable if all of us were fighting in solidarity for a Human Life Amendment (HLA), from the beginning?
With an HLA all fires are put out in one fell swoop. An HLA is what needs to be achieved anyway so why are we fighting all the different fires, instead of going for an HLA that would put them all out at once?
Even if an HLA was still years off, fighting for it would still make abortion look all the more horrific, and because of it at least some of these many fires would get put out. And if abortion were banned in total we could feel quite safe that euthanasia would not even come into question. It's win, win by pursuing a Human Life Amendment. Why aren't we pursuing it? We need to change our strategy.
Finally, the media gives cover for all the anti-life fires and are the Culture of Death's marketing branch. The letter to ABC below, shows how it sells euthanasia through its heartless presentations.
Be sure to turn them off.
God bless you,
Ron Galloy, Director
Life: God's Sacred Gift.
To learn more about the media's anti-life deceptions just visit www.SacredGift.org
Life: God's Sacred Gift
279 East 236th Street
Bronx, NY 10470
Telephone 718-653-5739
July 6, 2005
Charles Gibson, Anchor
ABC World News Tonight
47 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023
Re: Terri Schiavo Autopsy Report and Respect for Life
Dear Messrs. Gibson and Johnson,
I write regarding your recent segment about Terri Schiavo's autopsy and to address the moral errors in it.
Mr. Johnson, in the segment you mentioned that a doctor's determinations should be respected and that Congress shouldn't interfere with their decisions. Apparently, you must believe that doctors are above scrutiny and above the law. The many malpractice lawsuits show that doctors make mistakes. Your arrogance, agenda, or both, must be clouding reasoned thought. Jefferson said, "The care of human life is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Regarding the court, thirteen physicians petitioned the court to re-evaluate Terri. The court was aware too that many physicians and therapists were willing to step forward to treat Terri. This you knew or should have known, but never reported.
You mentioned too, that she died from dehydration instead of starvation, "so her death wasn't as painful as some might think." Reasonable people know that dying a death from either starvation or no water would be nothing but torture. Try going just three days without food and water yourself. Your assessment shows callousness beyond comprehension.
You also mentioned that Terri Schiavo had no vision but you didn't go as far as to say she had no awareness. Nobel prize nominee physician Dr. William Hammesfahr examined Terri prior to her death and said there was a good chance he could improve her condition markedly. Dr. Hammesfahr, also had a chance to review the pathologist's analysis of Terri's brain tissue and as a clinician gave this:
In accord with pathologist Nelson, he stated that the areas of her brain that deal with awareness and cognition were "relatively preserved." Thus, the evident responses which she was able to express to her family were real.
The pathologist's comments that she could not see, were not borne out by reality, as videotapes showed her seeing and tracking a balloon which were documented by Dr. Cranfoed at his request of Terri, prior to her murder.
The report stated she could not swallow. This also, was not reality since Terri swallowed her own saliva at 1.5 liters per day. Though she could swallow, she wasn't permitted nutrition by mouth.
Dr. Hammesfahr's conclusion was that an aware woman was killed. I am sure that you too knew this. None of this was presented yet are central to a disabled woman's murder. One can only say, that like her husband, "doctor" and "lawyer," that you sided with her killing and like them, were willing to sell it to the public through ABC's enormous influence.
Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, the media is supposed to be a public trust instead of the left-wing's advertising branch. Since the duty of Government is to protect human life, the media and court's abuse of Terri and her family is precisely why government needs to step in.
Thankfully, people are leaving the leftist media to obtain honest information from the internet and elsewhere. Hopefully your market share will shrink to zero as soon as possible and the abusers of human life will quickly lose having their way. We all need to be defending life in all its stages, media included. You need to restore yourselves to an authentic public trust.
Sincerely in our Lord of life,
Ronald J. Galloy, Director
Enclosure: Dr. William Hammesfahr analysis / ph. 727-461-4464.
CC: David Westin, President
Kerry Marash, Vice President / Editorial Quality
Jonathan Banner, Executive Producer
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.