Posted on 04/20/2005 9:22:15 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
We never really crossed paths, but I knew you were a decent, reasonable poster
A quality which grows conspicuous with its increasing rarity around here.
Didn't see lies or distortions from the physician toward whom you were responding fervently with agitated emotions.
Instead, I saw reasoned, cogent discussion based on medical experience from the doctor.
First, I clearly articulated that a certain faction would misrepresent what "side" some posters were on. As to GOPcapitalist, I haven't the faintest idea what his position was.
This site in general has degenerated. Notice the most recent posts on this thread. Long arguments presented based on emotion with pleas for hard factual evidence ignored and then these pleas called an attack (good grief) based on stubborn entrenchment.
It's stupid and it's why many of us are scarce these days.
Terri Schiavo failed swallow tests in 1991, 1992, and 1993, a three year period of time in which she was receiving "swallow therapy".
Why would anyone assume, much less state as fact, that Terri could handle oral hydration and nutrition 12 years after (ineffective) swallow therapy was discontinued?
Why would anyone call for the prosecution and punishment of a sitting judge who refused such oral hydration and nourishment as an "experimental therapeutic procedure"?
To say that Terri could have handled enough oral nourishment in 2005 to survive is a lie. I asked the poster three times to support that statement and was met with silence.
Clearly, you do not have experience in medical care. Further, you do not agree with Wolfson's report.
What outcome did you fear from attempts to provide oral hydration to Mrs. Schiavo?
I have been unavailable for more than a week and upon my return I find you back from your banning, and after reading the threads involved, the other guys rather than you should have been tossed. It must be harder to get banned if you live in California. But now you appear to be gone.
While we have not agreed on some matters, I am most impressed with your logic, memory, and knowledge of the Texas Republican Party. I certainly understand your frustration in this matter, though I wish you would stay. If you truly feel threatened move back home, I can ASSURE you that all would be well in Ft Bend, out here we have FReepers and lurkers in law enforcement and on the courts. Besides we ALL pack! ;-)
In any case I shall email you soon.
God Bless
Well I let the first two post of yours go as just silly but here you are just plain wrong. GOPc is as knowledgeable about those things he posts about as anyone on this board.
OH wait, you're one of those from California, never mind, I hate to get banned unless I REALLY told you what I think.
As you have none in the Terri Schiavo case. But others did, and I'm relying on their testimony.
"Further, you do not agree with Wolfson's report."
I agree with the conclusion. To wit:
" The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment."
"What outcome did you fear from attempts to provide oral hydration to Mrs. Schiavo?"
Death by drowning. What did you believe would be accomplished?
If we only accept original, historical claims throughout the ages, you would still believe the earth is flat. I suppose you prefer that medicine is stuck in a time warp from 12 years ago too. Be sure to put that in your living will. Only use resources and data that are at least a dozen years old.
No. But it's obvious you did.
"The GAL recommended additional neurologic and swallow testing page 37."
True. But only if the parties agreed to a Platform of Understanding. Which they could not. Without that, additional testing was pointless.
Maybe you got away with making these kinds of "half-truth" statements with others, but don't pull that crap with me. You're as bad as the rest of the fanatics.
"I suppose you prefer that medicine is stuck in a time warp from 12 years ago too."
Oh, medicine is now able to create a functioning cerebral cortex from liquid slush? I missed that major announcement.
You have no interest in debate. You have an agenda and will not be swayed by the facts. I have no interest in your propaganda.
There you go again with your emotional outbursts and your very own half-truth statements, propaganda, and crap as you prefer to call it. You are the only person making fanatical outcries in this setting. You have an agenda and will not be swayed by the facts.
According to one school of thought. That assertion has not been proved.
Some first class scientists and thinkers have examined the empirical evidence and come to a different conclusion. Nobel prize-winning neurophysiologist Sir John C. Eccles and the eminent philosopher Sir Karl Popper were perhaps the two best known of those men and women who have looked at the evidence and concluded the dualist-interactionist model is a much better fit.
The eminent neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield came to a similar conclusion based on hundreds if not thousands of experiments carried out on conscious epilepsy patients whose exposed brains he electrically stimulated.
Now, you may disagree with Eccles, Popper, and Penfield. But your disagreement does not mean their views are unsubstantiated or irrelevant.
In any event, the dualist-interactionist model does not serve to exonerate Greer, Schiavio, Felos et al, or to justify the forced starvation and dehydration of Terri Schiavo. Many murderers have sought to rationalize their deed by appealing to their own sense that the victim was better off dead. But that's all it is--a cynical and desperate rationalization.
Don't lecture me. You've done nothing to deserve that particular privilege.
Be that as it may, Terri was the one who made the decision -- Judge Greer merely confirmed it.
I will not be ashamed for speaking up for the weak against the high-handedness of someone who is not a just judge.
There is no legal justification for the refusal of non-medical treatment of anyone, even in Florida law which considers feeding tubes and IV hydration as medical treatment.
Anyone who deprives anyone else of natural means of hydration (or breathing, etc.) acts with the intent of killing. Terri never asked to be killed. It is illegal in Florida to kill or assist in suicide. The judge killed Terri. He should be prosecuted under the law.
No one is above the law, least of all those who have been charged to up hold it.
Judge Greer made an arbitrary decision.
The tests do not mean what you believe they mean. I explained that the tests were inconsistent - sometimes she would swallow, sometimes she would not. There was a risk - a chance - of aspiration and infection.
There is no evidence that she could not take enough nourishment to remain alive, only that compared to a feeding tube, it was inefficient to hand-feed her and that the tube carried less risk - less chance - of infection.
However, the question was not whether Terri desired to live, but whether she desired to live "like that," or dependent on artificial means.
Her parents were willing to feed her.
As evidenced by ...?
I've been here almost everyday since 11-98 and I've never even heard of you. So I guess I, for one, won't be missing you.
There's a lot of things lately on FR that I could do without, but that doesn't mean I'm going to chuck the whole site just because everything isn't the way I want it. In life you gotta' take the good with the bad otherwise you end up with nothing at all.
Well, when I said she couldn't swallow I meant that she couldn't swallow voluntarily.
"There is no evidence that she could not take enough nourishment to remain alive"
Yes there was. It's called "failing the swallow tests". Where is your evidence that she could swallow enough nourishment to keep her alive? I've asked you three times four times now and you've produced nothing.
"it was inefficient to hand-feed her"
WHAT??? This is the very first time I've read that a feeding tube was used because it was more "efficient". Back up that statement or withdraw it. That's the stupidest thing I've seen posted yet.
"Her parents were willing to feed her."
Yes they were. What's your point?
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.