Posted on 04/20/2005 9:22:15 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Gee, let's see. Could it be a reaction to your post, "Forbidding oral hydration for comfort care was murder - a deliberate action intended to cause death by that direct action."?
You call a sitting judge a murderer, and you have the balls to ask ME why I'm so emotional? Stick to the facts of the case, assuming you know what they are, stay away from the conspiracy websites, and I'll welcome a civil debate with you.
You want to run with the black helicopter crowd, fine. But then you get what you deserve in the way of discourse.
I guess not. :(
I thought we could discuss a disagreement, but evidently not. I'm sorry if it bothers you exnavychick.
However, just as I'm qualified to write a "Do not resuscitate, comfort care only" order on a chart, I'm qualified to discern between euthanasia and allowing to die.
The deliberate action of forbidding oral hydration after forbidding tube feedings is an act to intentionally cause, rather than allow, the death of the one deprived. Whereas, if oral hydration had been allowed, but not tolerated or the amounts tolerated are not sufficient, then the patient dies of his or her disease. I have never heard of such a thing. My goodness, what difference could it have made, other than the sort of comfort for Terri and those around her that was afforded by her morphine drip?
Greer should be called to answer for it, by the appropriate authorities.
Hey, no skin off my teeth. I just hate to see it, is all. Ah well.
Have a good one, folks.
I did not say you did. You always seem to comport yourself in an amiable fashion.
Perhaps you found that your views had been lied about. If so, I am sorry that that happened. The truth of that matter is that good people fell on both sides of the issue. Not all lied. Some on both sides did.
I am speaking not only about myself but many many posters who were vilified by a pretty good-size group.
No amount of emotion excuses the behavior I witnessed for the past month. Sorry.
It's not name calling alone (though that certainly happened). It was distortions of truth, disregard for facts, trafficking in rank rumor and slander, ganging up on posters.
That type of tone has become more prominent on the forum and it is quite unpleasant and it detracts from the over-all credibility of FR.
Judge Greer did NOT forbid oral hydration.
A motion was presented to him to allow an experimental procedure regarding oral hydration. That motion was denied because of that.
Now, how is this Judge Greer's fault? He didn't write the motion -- he simply ruled on it.
You know that Terri was unable to swallow. Yet you insist that those involved at least "go through the motions" so you can sleep better telling yourself "they tried".
All well and good to ask for this, just as those who asked that flowers be placed in her room. But when it's not done, to then call the judge a murderer, well, that's over the top.
Your posts always make me smile.
:)
You had to expect This sort of thing to happen once the Evil Dums caught on to the power of the internet. They are so yesterday and live to bring America back to the 30's that it never occured to thme that technology had passed them by. You are a pioneer in the FR experience. I am asking you to reconsider your position and stay here as an active member. You helped make FR Great.
As always, I have the utmost unqualified respect for your opinions and not having spent the time on the civil war threads in recent years will have to give the instances you cite full credence.
That being said, anyone leaving has my best wishes, even some that I crossed swords with, and the Opus author does not fall into the later category. Heck, I even wrote an Opus thread for Storm Orphan myself. I guess that knowing man's basic flaws and imperfectability as well as I do and wholly accepting them, I always keep a kind thought for the good that does survive unless I find none at all.
Well said.
The Order says explicitly that the hearing on March 7th concerned an "Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinued..."
Greer drew a conclusion. He could have concluded that the title of the Petition was the meaning of the petition. He did not.
As I said, I've worked with hospice in my practice. There is a difference between allowing the patient to die without further medical interference and between hastening and causing the death of the patient.
It is often a fine line.
It was not in this case.
Greer caused the death: first by discontinuing artificial means of feeding the patient who was in no distress, second, by ordering Terri to be taken to the hospital for the medical procedure to remove the tube, and most directly by forbidding hydration and nutrition by "Natural Means."
I have never heard of the second intervention - I would simply stop using the tube if it became distressful for the patient, possibly remove it at the bedside if the tract or surrounding tissue became infected or macerated - and would never contemplate or allow the third.
I know that Terri did not choke on her own saliva or nasal/sinus secretions. She did not require suctioning. She did not have repeated episodes of aspiration pneumonia secondary to her salivary and sinus secretions. I know that she could swallow small amounts of thin liquids.
Someone ordered and gave Terri morphine -- !! by IV !! And Greer allowed this medical intervention, which was superfluous if Terri was in a vegetative state.
You have been misled:
This was euthanasia - the intentional killing of a patient by another agent, rather than by the patient's disease.
It was unethical, as are all acts of euthanasia.
Unethical deliberate killing is "murder."
Greer murdered Terri Schiavo.
And I believe that he should be prosecuted for that crime. I hope that there is a brave DA who will charge him.
Ah, so now you're a judge, also? Maybe he should have totally ignored what was written and ruled on what was said? Or, even better, ruled on what was implied by what was said?
Give me a break. If the judge had refused nutrition because of the title of the Petition, you'd be screaming that a judge should never go by the title but by the actual wording of the document.
You are a piece of work.
"I know that Terri did not choke on her own saliva or nasal/sinus secretions. She did not require suctioning. She did not have repeated episodes of aspiration pneumonia secondary to her salivary and sinus secretions. I know that she could swallow small amounts of thin liquids."
Did not, did not, did not. I don't care what she "did not". What did she do? According to you, "she could swallow small amounts of thin liquids". Yeah. Involuntarily. So?
Are you suggesting that Terri was capable of voluntarily swallowing? Are you suggesting that Terri was capable of voluntarily swallowing enough nutrition to keep her alive? Isn't that the issue?
"This was euthanasia - the intentional killing of a patient by another agent, rather than by the patient's disease."
Baloney! Terri had the constitutional right to refuse treatment. She expressed this wish to at least three people. An impartial and disinterested judge heard the testimony and had "clear and convincing" evidence as to her wishes.
Look elsewhere for your euthanasia case to proselytize. It ain't here, no matter how much you want to be.
If you can correct the science and the ethics, do so.
The swallowing test reports which I have read online showed inconsistancy. Sometimes she swallowed, sometimes the fluid "pooled," and sometimes it ran out of her mouth. Not a concern in the last weeks of life.
Neither is it relevant that swallowing is "involuntary."
In no way could oral hydration be called "treatment."
What is your take on the medical intervention to remove the tube and the insertion of an IV for a morphine drip?
In my experience, people who are truly at the end of life find the oral secretions uncomfortable, causing nausea and choking. We treat with a scopolamine patch.
The pertinent ethical (and, I believe, legal) point is whether the death was due to natural causes and secondary to the disease process or whether it was due to actions that were intended to and which led to her immediate death.
Theresa Schiavo did not die of her disease. Her disease was chronic and stable for over 10 years.
She died because of deliberate acts to deny nutrition by a feeding tube that was not causing her distress and, simultaneously (and in contravention of what I understand Florida law to be) Greer forbade "Natural Means."
That last act, at least, is clear-cut euthanasia, which is illegal in all States except Oregon. The reason it is illegal is because it is murder. Greer murdered Theresa Schiavo and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
<saving>
And our country isn't the only one where this has happened; the jurisprudence of Europe is littered with examples; Roman law was rotten with it, and the Carthaginians likewise cut their own throats by tampering with their supreme court, in a case of constitutional failure cited by Polybius.
But I don't know what to make of this case, except that it has a lot of good people at one another's throats. If, as Ex Navy Chick suggested above, we can't all get along, maybe some of us can agree to disagree, without any penalty to sexual performance, self-image, or social stature.
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.