Posted on 02/02/2007 3:49:53 AM PST by 8mmMauser
I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for Michael Schiavo to make a correction on his blog about what "actually" took place in Colorado when he went there (to the debate) to supposedly ask Congresswoman Musgrave one question and she and her staff supposedly tried to have him removed. He called it, "My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link" (Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PST). I'll say (from what I read) that it was his "unreal night".
As I said before in "Standing up and Admitting a Mistake: Not Schiavo's Style?", if four uniformed officers were around my seat, I would have some idea of what was going on. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in "duh mode" to only be told later of what took place right there around me, as Michael suggests he was. If Michael's account is realistic -- his response and reaction is not. Nor is his response appropriate now that he has "learned" what he was "allegedly told" is not what took place. One would think if he can't get the words out that he was mistaken, he could at least have removed the inaccurate entry from his blog.
He has done neither.
I'm also still waiting to read about, "Also, maybe tomorrow I'll post about my election-eve rally with Bill Clinton in Florida." (A real election impact by Michael Schiavo, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:40:34 AM PST). Indeed, I would love to read that story by Michael, since I read it was not possible. Not if he was implying it was the Bill Clinton that is the former President of the United States. Will be interesting to see what he says about that if he ever does.
If Michael couldn't get it straight what happened at the Musgrave debate or even if he spent election-eve with former President Bill Clinton -- do you suppose he might have gotten Terri Schiavo's wishes mixed-up as well? (He does claim to have a bad memory from what I read.) Makes one wonder. At least makes me wonder. Whatever...
I'm still waiting for the corrections if not the explanations!
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
He talks like a party-lining butt monkey. Yes, the church teaches thus-and-so, but.....
The "decision" -- that's the camel's nose in the tent. First it's OK for the PATIENT to refuse EXTRAORDINARY care. Then it's OK to refuse all care -- water and food. Then it's OK for a guardian or proxy to make the "decision" supposedly as the patient would wish. Then it's OK for the proxy to make the "decision" that the patient would be better off dead. Then it's OK for doctors, guardians, proxies or a passing taxi driver to kill the patient.
From the beginning, the "decision" has been a license to murder. That's all it's about.
We may infer that it is extremely important to the Left to develop a legal basis for killing people. At first, you wonder why they bother. But it comes back to that universal rule. It is inborn to the human creature. We all have to justify our actions by the same moral law, our Creator's law. Murder is against human law and God's commandments. In order to feign innocence, the leftist activists have to do an end run around the Moral Law. They do it with a swarm of deceitful legal rules and statutes that let them claim it is "legal" while they commit the murder. (For one example, the redefining of feeding tubes in 1999 to be withdrawable medical care was solely for the purpose of killing patients. It was, of course, used to murder Terri.)
This is why our visitors cite only law, and a tendentious, crabbed version of the law at that. They go no further than the relentlessly biased Greer Court legal rulings, which fit their agenda to perfection. They always, always, always flee questions of right and wrong. They condemn themselves thus as dishonest in mind, heart and soul. By their conniving and deceit, they disgrace human law even as they violate God's law.
“Perhaps the most important gift that Emilio and his family offer to the rest of us is an opportunity to reflect on our own beliefs and concerns for how we — and our loved ones — live the last days of our natural lives and prepare to return to the loving God who created us.”
I don’t think living one’s last days kicked out on the street is quite
what the Lord had in mind.
I was wondering what happens when a Nor'easter dumps on the down-easters.
Don't forget an Ark. Some assembly required. The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.
I know of a number of persons on the left who also were horrified by what was done to Terri. Can you imagine the uproar if subhumans such as the Carr brothers (BTW, their death sentences were reversed by a judge) were killed like Terri?
Utopia Zero, a true story, is a personal tribute to all who ever suffered political persecution. Gerhard Hartmann recalls from memory the hardships and inhumane indignities experienced during eight painful years of living in forced labor camps behind the Iron Curtain.
Darn right, and they spoke up with courage at the time. Quite an impressive list on the left -- Hentoff, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Senator Tom Harkin (but he also had a hand in sabotaging the Congressional bill to give Terri access to federal courts), Elizabeth Edwards (bless her heart), and others, I forget. Alan Derschowitz and Gloria Allred, probably the top two attorneys on that side of the aisle, both ventured far enough to say that killing Terri was wrong if she could feel pain -- which, of course, she could; that was in her med records for 15 years.
Kinda gives you pause. Terri was supported by a coalition of top names of left and right, all of the disability groups, the Pope, the President and both houses of Congress. How in the heck did the other side muster the forces to kill her? Who WAS the other side?
The demons are loose somewhere.
Many more people would have supported her if the media had reported the truth.
..........................
What do the Schiavo and Duke lacrosse cases have in common?
A rush to judgment! And once that judgment was made, it seems that some parties felt "that was their story and they were sticking to" no matter what evidence was provided that the original accusation and/or appearance might be defective and in error. To those sticking to it, it was as though the original suggestions were written in stone and all else was flimsy argument to be discarded without consideration. Why be bothered with what might be the truth?
In the Duke lacrosse case, the fact that the alleged victim was a female and African-American that fell victim to the white, rich, frat boys and that DNA would allegedly prove it, was played to the hilt.
In the Schiavo case, the suggestion that Terri Schiavo was brain dead and on life-support, giving the impression that she was merely being kept alive by machines, was played to the hilt.
A taxi driver came forward with an alibi for one of the accused in the Duke lacrosse case, but his word was dismissed in the eyes of those pushing to convict these young men? He must have had an agenda or been bought off or mistaken, I guess. He couldn't be right. However, other evidence verified the accused and the taxi driver had been/and were telling the "absolute" truth from the very beginning of the investigation. Why was the truth so readily ignored?
In the Schiavo documents, there are statements that Terri Schiavo was responsive and had chance to improve through therapy. There are documents that indicate that she did speak and that Michael even reported that she did. Yet, all this was dismissed and any suggestion of it came to be labeled the fantasy of the zealots, or like suggestions and like labeling of any that tried to bring it to the attention of the courts and public?
Like the taxi driver, any who could cast doubt were not taken seriously? ...........................................
What Do the Schiavo & Duke Lacrosse Cases Have in Common?
8mm
The bishop would have had him killed at the beginning.
.............................
Physicians have stated that Emilio's condition is irreversible and will result in his death. There is great concern that continued extraordinary treatment will only result in greater pain for Emilio, without curing or improving his condition. Based on this information and a review of the case by ethicists, moving to a "comfort care" plan for Emilio would be morally acceptable. Emilio would still receive food, water, pain medication and other "ordinary" treatment. Some compare Emilio's situation to Terri Schiavo's. They are very different; in the Schiavo case, ordinary means — food and water — were withdrawn, which caused her death. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/04/15/15aymond_edit.html
In deciding the fate of Terri Schiavo, some physicians stated that Terri's condition was irreversible and would result in her death. There were concerns that continuing providing her food and water through a feeding tube would result in extending her life for many years, without improving her condition.
of Austin, Texas, is chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People. He says in his article that "I cannot imagine the pain that Catarina Gonzales is experiencing as she faces terrible questions no mother wants to face...."
I agree, there is no way that Aymond can know the pain that Catarina Gonzales is experiencing thinking about someone robbing her of precious moments with the child that enter the world through her womb.
Instead of excusing those who would rob this mother and child of their natural right that come with 'Motherhood,' it would seem to me , that the religious part of our American society would join Catarina in her effort to make sure that her son gets every opportunity at living a healthy-normal life.
~Snip~
As a mother who knows the pain of losing a child(ren), I can assure you that when God gets ready to call one home, whether or not the child is receiving food through a tube, or oxygen by way of a machine, won't make any difference.
"They are very different; in the Schiavo case, ordinary means — food and water — were withdrawn, which caused her death." -Bishop Gregory Aymond
Different methods of killing don't make the deliberate taking of a human life any less of an evil.
Baby Emilio Life Support _-v- Miracles
8mm
We have the same problem in Iraq we had with Terri Schiavo -- we can't pull out the feeding tube.
More than four years ago, after shock and awe felled the country to civil unconsciousness, our national security physicians inserted a feeding tube into Iraq to restore its health. This treatment was supposed to nourish Iraq while it recovered from its ills, but it has not given the result we wanted. Like Schiavo, our patient has not awakened, Iraqi civil society is in a persistent vegetative state and our own society is fighting about whether to withdraw the feeding tube.
When Schiavo fell unconscious, a feeding tube was imperative to sustain her life until she could regain consciousness. When Iraqi society fell unconscious, a feeding tube was imperative to sustain its life until it could regain civil consciousness. True, the original goal was surgical extirpation of weapons of mass destruction, after which the healthy patient would make a quick recovery without needing a feeding tube, but this was flawed medicine from the start. Mp>
Feeding tube isn't sustaining Iraq
8mm
Politicians Quotes on Abortion
8mm
They DID, that one time a poll described her condition correctly. It was something close to 85% against killing her. We should go republish that, for the benefit of all the visiting Democrats who try to peddle the Michael Schiavo-DNC-Angry Left line.
But as you note, the news media and polls were always lying -- calling her brain dead and on life support. It's bad enough that they are politically partisan and slant their coverage so much it can't even be called "news." They are also lazy slobs and copy each others' lies instead of using their heads or doing a lick's worth of investigation on their own.
The rare exceptions like Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice had no trouble finding the truth. He should have gotten a Pulitzer.
There is much we are limited from doing on this platform, but keeping the light shining allows others to see what would otherwise be obscure shadows. The right people may just emerge and carry forward those steps of which you refer. It was true enough with Haleigh Poutre, as Wendy Murphy stepped forward as did Michelle Malkin and others, shining the light so brightly it could not be ignored.
The same spotlight rescued Scott Thomas from a nearly certain execution and he is on his way to recovery.
A system which could operate with impunity in the shadows in the past now must be wary of the spotlight. We may never know of the cases whereby patients were spared the execution because the perps feared exposure to the spotlight.
In the case of Emilio, as with Andrea Clark and Mrs. Vo, Attorney Jerri Ward emerged once more as an advocate and foe of the Texas Futile Care law. Here is her picture with Emilio's mom in a recent article...
The rhythms of hospital life have been anything but normal since the plight of a 17-month-old boy on life support captivated people across the country and cast a white-hot spotlight on Children's Hospital of Austin.
The hospital has been so inundated with phone calls — more than 100 a day — that it set up a hot line March 20 to take messages about doctors' plans to disconnect Emilio Gonzales from his respirator against his family's wishes. The story has been covered by media outlets across the country as well as in England and Canada.
Hospital officials also have posted an armed guard in the pediatric intensive care unit to deal with unauthorized visitors, including out-of-towners who say they want to visit or pray with Emilio, said Dr. David Anglin,- the chief doctor treating the child. And ICU staff members, known for their high morale, receive group therapy twice a week to cope with the stress, Anglin said.
8mm
We have the opposite problem. No evidence makes the suspect look innocent! Everything points to violence. Her bone scan says, "this patient has suffered trauma." The only suspect has been fighting with his wife, he comes home late that night, she's asleep, and all of a sudden, she's face down on the floor with a bone bruise on her thigh, a broken back, damaged posterior ribs, and a neck injury. She is unconscious and has been in cardiac arrest long enough to cause severe brain damage. No natural cause for it, no heart attack. Just the timing is enough to convict him -- how did she have this 1 in 100,000,000 "collapse" right after he came home?
I ask all the visitors for ANY exculpatory explanation. There are only two reactions. They just tiptoe away without replying or they call me names.
They have to know the truth in their heart. But they cannot admit it. The truth undermines their whole ideological crusade. It undermines their religion. They can't face it. It's too much of an emotional shock.
Irreversible, yes, some did. Terminal, no. The original malpractice jury based her award on the expectation of a normal life span -- 50 more years! (That alone rules out PVS.) She was allowed to live 12 of those years before her murder. The coroner said her heart was strong. He gave her 10 more years. She certainly did not belong in a hospice for the terminally ill.
Just for the armchair lawyers out there, neither the severity or irreversibility of her injuries were relevant to a decision to kill her. It has to be based solely on HER informed consent not to continue medical treatment.
In Terri's case, informed consent was impossible because the law was changed after her injury. An ordinary feeding tube was redefined by statute to be extraordinary and life-prolonging care that a patient could refuse. Terri did not refuse medical care, and even if she had, she could not have known that it would be a horrible death by dehydration and starvation.
Does anyone have any sort of "in" with either Dr. Michael Baden, the pathologist, and/or Dr. William Hammesfahr? I would like to discuss our theory of positional asphyxia with the experts. If it doesn't make medical sense, let's find out at the top. But if it does...... well, we need a Dominick Dunne to write a book about an hitherto unsolved crime.
Btw, getting any snow? None here. Nothing but Noah-level rain. We have all sorts of little creatures lining up at the back door two by two.
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.