Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 8mmMauser
>> In deciding the fate of Terri Schiavo, some physicians stated that Terri's condition was irreversible and would result in her death.

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.

1,398 posted on 04/16/2007 5:17:12 AM PDT by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1391 | View Replies ]


To: T'wit
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.

But, but, but, the mainstream media reported and assured us that it was not painful. Michael Schiavo and his attorney, Geroge Felos, said it is a "painless" and "beatiful"

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth Bouvia (1), a mentally competent 28-ear-old quadriplegic, with cerebral palsy, capable of speech and able to move her fingers on one hand, simply wanted to die. While she was capable of eating, she had a feeding tube inserted to supplement her nutritional intake. The court ruled in her favor stating that by refusing food and water Elizabeth had "merely resigned herself to accept an earlier death..."

The California court of appeals ordered the physicians to remove the tube (2) and argued that she had the right to enlist the assistance of others in ending her life (Sprung, 1990, p. 2213).

The feeding tubes were removed,(3) but she did not die, and she remains alive as of 2002.

Ms Bouvia indicated then that she still wanted to die, but, after receiving pain control for secondary diagnoses, the process of starvation proved too physically painful to carry out. (4)

1,402 posted on 04/16/2007 9:26:40 AM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1398 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson