I am a Christian who believes Terri should be allowed to die... Am I the only one?

61 posted on 02/23/2005 5:52:30 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

To: LauraleeBraswell

There is a difference between an innocent brain damaged woman who can't feed herself being Euthanized by removal of a feeding tube AND a Child Molester murderer having a trial, being found guilty and getting Lethal Injection, If you can't see that then you have no conscience.

No. I do see the difference. 100% - However, the question was "who are we to judge who lives or dies" - And the reality to that question is....we already do judge all the time.

62 posted on 02/23/2005 5:52:42 PM PST by SevenMinusOne

To: InHisService

Yes.

Starving someone to death is cruel.

63 posted on 02/23/2005 5:52:50 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Apparently, this is the only job for which I am suited. I am beset by the ironies of my life)

64 posted on 02/23/2005 5:53:25 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

To: Lurking Libertarian

Slight modification. Husband and his family say yes a few years after husband gets the settlement money. No mention of it at the malpractice trial where he swore he would care for TS for the rest of her natural life.

65 posted on 02/23/2005 5:54:23 PM PST by jwalsh07

To: LauraleeBraswell

If that is not a danger, please explain why not.

66 posted on 02/23/2005 5:54:31 PM PST by firebrand

67 posted on 02/23/2005 5:55:00 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

68 posted on 02/23/2005 5:55:28 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

To: InHisService

I don't understand why Terry's husband doesn't just divorce her.Then her parents can take over her care and he can marry his girlfriend. Whoever was subbing for Glenn Beck a few days ago said that this is what the parents want but the husband refuses.

69 posted on 02/23/2005 5:55:58 PM PST by Blumtoon

Aren't you also saying though that someone had to put that feeding tube in place (to begin with) and if it were not for man....she would have died by now.

No. She was able to swallow food, the tube was put in for convenience.

It is very possible that she can still swallow food. However her husband has refused to let anyone try to feed her that way.

70 posted on 02/23/2005 5:56:02 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Apparently, this is the only job for which I am suited. I am beset by the ironies of my life)

No, you clearly DO NOT see a difference. The Difference is between Guilty and Innocent. What kind of a FAKE conservative ARE YOU!

AND IF YOU WANT TO KNOW, YES I AM ANGRY

71 posted on 02/23/2005 5:56:23 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

72 posted on 02/23/2005 5:56:42 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

You got what you deserved, your thought process is flawed. Answer the implication. Why is it OK to starve one person who needs help feeding while not another? And where does the state get the power to subject any citizen to cruel and unusual punishment?

First off you have one sour attitude. It must be sorry to live with that frame of mind - Secondly, your answer to my original question was ridiculous (as I stated before). It goes right along with those pro-abortionists who insist there can be no restrictions put on abortion because of rapes and incest that occur! - (it is simply childish type reasoning that comes to those type conclusions).

Lastly, there is a great difference when in one case (a child) has never had the ability to confirm what he or she would want done...if they couldn't feed themselves, etc - Where in the other case (of an adult) a prior position on just this type of circumstance could have very well been made and talked about.

There is a huge difference and if you can't see that or come to that type of conclusion on your own ...it is you that is flawed.

But your first lines of your response above back to me...already confirm that.

73 posted on 02/23/2005 5:56:55 PM PST by SevenMinusOne

To: InHisService

From this link:Ron Panzer's Notes: Interview With Dr. Hammesfahr Scroll down

You can also listen here: Ron Panzer's AUDIO interview with Dr. Hammesfahr who performed tests on Terri for 10 hours.

Dr. Hammesfahr revealed that not only has Terri NEVER had a heart attack as widely reported in the major media, she also NEVER even had a cardiac arrest (her heart never stopped)! [she had arhythmias of the heart but not a "stopped heart."] He explained that Terri's injuries were multiple and showed injury TO her. He stated that Terri had marked injury to her neck which still exists today, and that he has only seen a similar injury, with spinal cord involvement as well as brain injury, in one case where a patient had been strangled. He stated that Terri had an L-1 injury to her spine, which he stated is common among persons being thrown against a table, for example. Dr. Hammesfahr confirmed that Terri could talk and was improving in the very first year when she was getting some rehabilitation (BEFORE Michael got the money), and that the medical records confirm, that after Michael got the money, rehabilitation was completely stopped!

Dr. Hammesfahr revealed that in the early years, Terri had had a very small device surgically implanted into her brain to provide therapeutic very low dosages of electrical stimulation to the brain, which could help Terri, and which DID help Terri when it was first started. However, after Michael got the money, Michael did not allow further attempts to help Terri in this way. In addition, Dr. Hammesfahr explained that the device (or any device) implanted, would normally be carefully monitored so that no infection would occur and no harm come to the patient. However, in Terri's case that was not done and has not been done.

Dr. Hammesfahr revealed that Terri has at least 75% functional brain tissue and that the stories circulating in the media about a head full of fluid "only" are totally false. He has had patients with less brain function doing much more than Terri is doing, and Dr. Hammesfahr believes that Terri is being kept to a lower level of function by her being denied opportunities to do anything, have any rehabilitation, and that she her improvement is being sabotaged by her being kept in isolation, with very few visitors or other input. Dr. Hammesfahr revealed that Larry King had suggested to Michael Schiavo that he let Mr. King's news crew go in to film Terri, to settle once and for all what Terri's condition is, and that Michael REFUSED!

Dr. Hammesfahr confirmed that Terri has been sedated at various periods of time and that the sedation of Terri would make Terri less responsive, especially during an examination by physicians who would try to see what her condition was. He explained that physician assessments of Terri made when she was sedated would necessarily NOT be accurate, that they would UNDER-estimate her level of cognition and abilities. Dr. Hammesfahr also revealed that Terri suffers from some hydrocephalus, or fluid buildup in the brain. This is a serious condition that must be treated to avoid further damage to the brain. Dr. Hammesfahr confirmed that Michael has NOT allowed Terri to be treated for her hydrocephalus. [This is in violation of Florida guardian laws]

Dr. Hammesfahr, whose field is neurology, explained that an EEG (electro-encephalograph reading) test which did not show much brain activity was BOGUS! because it was done after Terri had been transported to a facility for the testing and Terri had been restless at the time, moving around quite a bit. Muscular movement during an EEG produces readings on the EEG which must be filtered out. Dr. Hammesfahr explained that by "filtering out" the EEG activity Terri had due to the muscular movements, those filtering that brain activity out had also filtered out Terri's brain activity. In other words, the EEG done was worthless because it was not properly done and several doctors have agreed with that.

Dr. Hammesfahr pointed out that Terri was also tested with balloons to see if she would follow the balloon with her eyes and head when instructed to do so. Dr. Hammesfahr pointed out that Terri did follow the balloons when instructed, and that she did so, even though turning her head far enough to the side caused her pain. He pointed out that reflex actions are usually to avoid pain, but in Terri's case she turned her head into painful positions in order to follow the instructions of the physician testing her. Dr. Hammesfahr confirmed that several experts in neurology agree that Terri could improve, can improve and that everything that should be done for her is NOT being done. In fact, Dr. Hammesfahr confirmed that the isolation and deliberate removal of all stimulation from Terri is harming Terri, depriving her of the input and stimulation which would help her reach a higher cognitive level and ability. He stated that Terri should be getting much exposure to sights, sounds and other forms of rehabilitation.

Dr. Hammesfahr explained that Dr. Ronald Cranford (who testified for Michael Schiavo and George Felos' side - the right to die agenda) ... that Dr. Cranford was NOT a neurologist and was not an expert in the field. Also, that Dr. Cranford spent less than ONE hour with Terri totally! Yet the court relied on Dr. Cranford's testimony, rather than several other neurologists, including Dr. Hammesfahr. [The court was not gathering information in order to rule based on fact, it was simply following an agenda.]

Dr. Hammesfahr explained that as a physician and a person, he is outraged at the mistreatment Terri is receiving and that the denial of rehabilitation for Terri violates the standards of medical practice!

74 posted on 02/23/2005 5:57:16 PM PST by DJ MacWoW ("Are you cops? FBI" bad guy, "I'm currently unemployed" Tony Almeida of 24)

To: InHisService

Being starved to death so that your husband, who beat you into a coma, can inherit enough of your money to support the mistress by whom he's fathered two children is your idea of dying with dignity?

What would it take to humiliate you?

75 posted on 02/23/2005 5:57:45 PM PST by Mr. Lucky

To: LauraleeBraswell

Was your first response meant for me? I'm opposed to her murder and I thought that is what I was expressing.

I think I posted to you orginally by mistake and not to the owner of the rant . . .?

76 posted on 02/23/2005 5:58:55 PM PST by Bear_Slayer

To: DevSix; InHisService

And after that see POST 74. Terri was BEATEN into a coma.

77 posted on 02/23/2005 6:00:18 PM PST by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second.)

To: LauraleeBraswell

I don't think you know what the phrase means. You yourself said this case will open up the floodgates. I was responding to the original poster, who said rip the tubes out.

78 posted on 02/23/2005 6:00:44 PM PST by firebrand

To: InHisService

Once we start killing people when they are sick where does it stop? Should we have killed Ronald Reagan? He didn't function properly in his later years, did he? We are not the judges who take human life in our hands. We, as a society and a culture, are the protectors of human life. As long as there is a breath of life we must protect and prolong that person's desire to live.

Maybe, Terri Schiavo wants to live. People who are dying want to live. Whoever executes Terri Schiavo will have to answer to a higher power.

79 posted on 02/23/2005 6:00:51 PM PST by joem15 (Truth is a formidable Force)

To: LauraleeBraswell

No, you clearly DO NOT see a difference. The Difference is between Guilty and Innocent. What kind of a FAKE conservative ARE YOU!

Calm down - First off, I'm sure I am a conservative that did more to get GWB elected in both 2000 and 2004 than you ever did -

Secondly, you have a perverse logic when you can't understand that one can surly see a difference in putting to death a convicted murder as to that of a women in a coma - Yet at the same time still admit that we do (as a society) make decisions on who lives and who dies -

Which was the question asked above (go back and read it). - "who are we to decide who lives and who dies" was the question. - And again the reality of the answer is "we do all the time" (humans). - You don't have to like that reality, but it is reality no matter how angry you get -

80 posted on 02/23/2005 6:01:13 PM PST by SevenMinusOne

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794