To: Moose4
Wow, thats unexpected. Id heard he was in for gallbladder surgery, but it didnt sound like a big thing? Any invasive abdominal surgery is hazardous when the patient is 77. Rarely fatal, but sometimes it happens.
Condolences to his family. I generally opposed what he stood for, but I imagine he was doing what he thought was correct.
128 posted on
02/08/2010 11:51:51 AM PST by
AzSteven
("War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." Jean Dutourd)
To: AzSteven
With a total of four half-inch abdominal incisions, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is as minimally invasive as it gets.
That said, one had to wonder what was up when last week's initial reports of Murtha's "complications" didn't offer any details.
319 posted on
02/08/2010 12:14:24 PM PST by
Tenniel2
(America is at war with Islamic terrorists. BHO is at war with America.)
To: AzSteven
He may have had gall bladder CA. His biliary drainage system could have become scarred which could result in liver failure. But to go this quick, he could have had a perforated GB with a massive sepsis and multi-organ failure.
He certainly was a controversial and tragic public figure. We must nonetheless pray that God is merciful.
486 posted on
02/08/2010 1:00:56 PM PST by
grumpygresh
(Democrats delenda est)
To: AzSteven
Whoever operated on him ought to get a goldarned medal for saving the republic.
508 posted on
02/08/2010 1:10:09 PM PST by
ichabod1
( I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet.)
To: AzSteven
“I generally opposed what he stood for, but I imagine he was doing what he thought was correct.”
You are much too kind. His kind of politics reeks...and his attacks on the military were evil.
550 posted on
02/08/2010 1:30:12 PM PST by
GGpaX4DumpedTea
(I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson