Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: FarRockaway

I've read the report.
the global cortical degeneration is clearly stated as being quite old, as is the degeneration of the occipital lobes.
It seems you did not read the report with any care for details.
You also apparently know little about science or medical forensics. Whereas experimental data must be gathered at least three times for a legitimate sample, and the experimental process must be repeated independently at least once to provide any degree of corroboration, this does not mean that more than one mediocal examiner must examine a corpse to determine cause of death - anymore than more than one observer is required to discover that a baseball has shattered a window: A fact is a fact, irrespective of how many observers are involved in its discovery.
Moreover, IF you had read the report, you would be aware that far more than three samples were taken of Mrs. Shiavo's brain... dozens in fact were taken. All samples, when compared to benchmark data from a number of other such corpses in the neuromedical database, confirm the analysis: Global cortical degeneration as a result of hypoxia.

The requirements of Law, Medical Forensics, and Science are well satisfied.

Yet, so it seems, you are not.

This leads me to ponder the likelihood that your appeals to science are a cloak for another, utterly implacable, source of discontent.

So, in all respect, what is your beef, really?


15 posted on 06/26/2005 1:42:48 PM PDT by King Prout (I'd say I missed ya, but that'd be untrue... I NEVER MISS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: King Prout

No law is legit that warrants cold-blooded murder. And this was murder.


20 posted on 06/26/2005 1:49:42 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: King Prout
You state that the brain damage is old. You state that many samples were taken. You state these with confidence. But the only testimony that we have that these things are true is the report from Dr. Thogmartin. I consider him to be a single credible witness without the ability to confirm him. What you say may be utterly true. But so what? These facts are being forwarded as justification killing a woman. Hence, one unconfirmable testimony is not sufficient. Is a person sentenced to death based on 1 witness? Is a scientific phenomena confirmed that way? Yes, a fact is a fact irrespective of how many discover it. But a fact is not admissible persuasive testimony without at least 2 observers of the same.

Secondly, even assuming these things are true you have avoided the core of my post: namely that the moral argument hasn't changed at all to discover great brain damage. We knew she was irreversibly brain damaged before. We get a credible report from a trained observer that this was so.
So what? Murder her then? Tell our consciences it was OK to have murdered her?
22 posted on 06/26/2005 2:17:11 PM PDT by FarRockaway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: King Prout

It's too bad they wouldn't allow Terri's parents to send in an observer. That would have helped.

As it is, no minds were changed. I am sorry to see all the kill-Terri-first crowd jumping on this thread like magots in a rotting body.

Why don't you all go dance on Terri's grave and spit on the Schindler's some more. Like they haven't suffered enough already.


42 posted on 06/28/2005 5:46:45 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (I miss Terri - IMPEACH JUDGE GREER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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