Posted on 12/07/2005 5:02:27 PM PST by eartotheground
Pure scum.
You can read the actual report here.
On occassion, I've asked her just that question.
I wonder how many of the people who viscerally hate Michael are also clammoring for Tookie to get the chair?
Matthew 7:1-3
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Lucky you!
Seems to me the good citizens of Florida prefer the decision to be made by a judge. Feel free, however, to tell them they're wrong -- that IS what you do, isn't it?
"one would have to attribute remarkable clairvoyance to Terri to believe she'd expressed a desire to be dehydrated in the event that it should become legal."
One would, wouldn't one? Of course, no one is claiming that.
According to testimony, Terri simply said that she wouldn't want "to live like that". My Living Will essentially says the same thing, and does not spell out how I wish to die. Does yours?
"It would be much more likely that if Terri did make the alleged statements, she was referring to what would have been considered "life support" at the time she made them, e.g. heart-lung machines, ventilators, etc."
No, not likely. Never read the testimony, huh? Here, I'll save you the time.
"The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand. Initially, there is no question that Terri Schiavo does not pose a burden financially to anyone and this would appear to be a safe assumption for the foreseeable future. However, the court notes that the term "burden" is not restricted solely to dollars and cents since one can also be a burden to others emotionally and physically."
"Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want [a] life like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation."
" Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine" and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent."
"The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court."
"Of course, there's also a very real possibility that Michael and his relatives (they were not Terri's relatives except via her marriage to Michael) just made the whole thing up."
Of course. Now, there's no evidence whatsoever of this conspiracy, but it's possible the three of them would perjure themselves in a court of law due to the millions of dollars at stake.
Wait a minute. There wasn't millions of dollars at stake. Michael already had his $300K and the remaining $700K was earmarked for a trust fund in Terri's name.
I'm confused. Why would these people lie for Michael? Because he was a lovable guy with a wonderful personality?
Sheesh! You just can't stop poking your nose into the business of other people, can you?
Yes I was once a moderate. So I know the beast, which gives me very high credibility. I generally don't tell a lady to STFU .. but I could be made to do so.
"Your link has about 4,000 links. As I don't have the time to read them all, DO YOU HAVE A POINT?"
Hmmm...the first point I can think of in reading your response is there is much more to this case than people quipping back and forth without doing a great deal of research.
I saw you asking for facts from people and I gave a link that gives many facts.
You can read the links - or not - it's up to you.
There are many issues that converge here....what is the vegative state? Is it an exact science? Is it easy to misdiagnose?
This site is not very reassuring that the world's top experts can agree on terms (notice the section dealing with the "minimally conscious" state)
http://www.comarecovery.org/artman/publish/ReportOnTheVegetativeState.shtml
Another issue? The first trial concerning Michael's charge of malpractice.
Do you realize that in order to win that trial he had to make the exact OPPOSITE arguments concerning Terri's condition than he made later when he fought for her death?
The link I gave you should allow you to compare the arguments made at both trials.
Another issue....federal hospice law. Clearly violated in this case. As Michael argued in the malpractice trial - Terri was not terminal - that's why he said he needed money for her care and for her therapy (enough for a normal life span)
http://www.hospicepatients.org/law.html
And these are just a few troubling issues - among many- about this case.
But if you don't care to look through the info - then don't.
"I generally don't tell a lady to STFU .. but I could be made to do so."
That's what I like about too many Terri supporters. You are so crude and vulgar in your alleged Christianity.
Yes. And if we were arguing constitutional issues, my response linking to the Federalist Papers would be helpful to you?
"There are many issues that converge here ..."
But of course. I asked you to pick one. You didn't.
"what is the vegative state? Is it an exact science?"
Are you still arguing that Terri wasn't in a PVS, even after the autopsy? Or are you simply musing?
"Do you realize that in order to win that trial he had to make the exact OPPOSITE arguments concerning Terri's condition than he made later when he fought for her death?"
Michael's arguments changed because Terri's condition changed. The lawsuit was settled in 1993. Five years later, Michael requested the court to make a determination as to what Terri would want.
"Another issue....federal hospice law. Clearly violated in this case."
Clearly violated? I think not.
No, Terri was not terminal. Yes, under those conditions she would not qualify. BUT, as soon as Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed, she qualified as a terminal patient (with, what, three weeks to live?).
It was only at that point that she was transferred to the hospice.
This is how we debate at FR. You state your fanatical right-to-life propaganda, I correct you with the facts.
"But of course. I asked you to pick one. You didn't"
Not my intention to get in a futile debate. That is why I simply posted resources for anyone who wishes to do more reading...you clearly don't.
Your choice.
"Are you still arguing that Terri wasn't in a PVS, even after the autopsy? Or are you simply musing?"
You clearly didn't read that link either...oh well.
BTW if you had read the link you would know that pvs cannot be diagnosed through autopsy.
"Michael's arguments changed because Terri's condition changed."
No - her condition did not change...but her treatment did.
After he won that lawsuit he withdrew therapy.
"Clearly violated? I think not."
Yes. I think so.
"BUT, as soon as Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed, she qualified as a terminal patient (with, what, three weeks to live?)."
She qualified as a "terminal" patient because a judge ordered her to starve?
So the "terminal" disease is starvation?
Not even Michael or his lawyers argued that point.
"Starvation" and "dehydration" are not terminal illnesses.
"It was only at that point that she was transferred to the hospice."
At what point are you talking about? Do you realize how many years Terri was there? (on the medicare tab)
The intent of the regulations is to provide care for those most in need - the regulations state terminal illness with an estimated 6 months or less to live.
Terri's lengthy stay clearly does not reflect this, and if Hospices now become a place where pvs patients will be housed for the purpose of starving/dehydrating them, then those beds will not be available for patients with true terminal illness.
But if you examine Felos's ties to this particular Hospice, and examine how their board works - it becomes clear why Terri was allowed to stay there (and stay there...and stay there...)
"This is how we debate at FR. You state your fanatical right-to-life propaganda, I correct you with the facts."
I don't debate with people who use rudeness and arrogance against me when they don't have a clue who I am or the research I've done.
As it happens I have had a very painful personal experience that inspired me to research brain injury and end-of-life issues. I see this makes me a fanatic.
Adios.
The mystery surrounding Terri's condition will continue. The autopsy probably did not have the ability to detect the true answer which much circumstantial evidence points to attempted murder. Because the cause of Terri's condition has eluded conclusive evidence means that the effort to find the truth will continue. I would consider Terri's case similar to what they call a "Cold Case." For that reason, the search for answers will go on.
Oh, I'll do more reading. Make an argument, support it with a link, and I'll be sure to read it. I like fiction.
"BTW if you had read the link ..."
The link to that 10-year-old report? I got tired of reading phrases like "Agreement could not be reached" and "There is still some uncertainty" and "There is a lack of long-term follow up studies of vegetative patients beyond 2-3 years."
"... you would know that pvs cannot be diagnosed through autopsy."
I never claimed that it could. I said it was confirmed by autopsy, and questioned why you would still have your doubts. I'll ask you again, are you still arguing that Terri wasn't in a PVS, even after the autopsy?
"After he won that lawsuit he withdrew therapy."
Well, I don't argue that fact. What's your point? Are you saying because he won the lawsuit he withdrew therapy?
Oh, please say that.
"She qualified as a "terminal" patient because a judge ordered her to starve?"
A crude way of putting it (as I would expect from you) but, in a nutshell, yes.
"Starvation" and "dehydration" are not terminal illnesses."
No they're not. But Terri was ill and the court-ordered removal of her surgically implanted feeding tube made her terminally ill.
"At what point are you talking about?"
Terri was admitted to the hospice only after Judge Greer ordered the feeding tube removed.
"Do you realize how many years Terri was there? (on the medicare tab)"
First, it was Medicaid, not Medicare. Second, who's fault was it that she was there for years? (Hint: Look in a mirror). Third, Medicaid and Social Security paid only for some basic care costs, mostly drugs. Terri's hospice care of up to $5,000 per month was covered free of charge through a fund for indigent patients by Hospice of the Florida Suncoast.
"and if Hospices now become a place where pvs patients will be housed for the purpose of starving/dehydrating them"
I see. So where do these undesirables go?
If I choose not to treat my terminal cancer, I can go to a hospice. But if I'm in a PVS and have previouly chosen not to be artificially fed through a surgically implanted feeding tube the rest of my life, I'm thrown into the street?
So much for your "so-called" compassion.
"But if you examine Felos's ties to this particular Hospice, and examine how their board works"
Ah, here come the conspiracy theories. I wondered how long it would take you.
"it becomes clear why Terri was allowed to stay there (and stay there...and stay there...)"
For free ... for free ... for free.
"I don't debate with people who use rudeness and arrogance against me when they don't have a clue who I am or the research I've done."
Rude? What's rude was your first post to me on this thread. No explanation. No argument. No information. Just a link to the land of a thousand links.
That's rude. That's arrogant. And that's condescending. You're lucky I was in a good mood when I responded.
And your research is no different than all the other propaganda I've read. If you had researched the hospice beyond the run-of-the-mill gossipy conspiracy theories, for example, you would have known her care was provided for free.
Hasta la vista.
Of course. And on and on. I never believed those who said they wanted the autopsy to "finally find the truth of what happened to Terri". I knew they would never be satisfied.
And you know that if Terri hadn't been cremated, there'd be cries for exhuming her body for "one more autopsy to find the truth of what happened to Terri".
Please show me a copy of of her living will and I will back off. Oh wait, it was on the word of her dear trustworthy husband and his friends.
And don't you dare judge me.
Yep. Perfectly acceptable in the State of Florida, assuming the judge had "clear and convincing" evidence as to her wishes, which he did.
But I guess the citizens of the State of Florida shouldn't be allowed to write laws like that.
" I guess ripping babies out of the womb is okay to for these folks"
"And don't you dare judge me."
You are a piece of work.
You are a piece of work as well. Your standard and wearisome come-back. You seem cynical and arrogant in your presentation. You make valid points and good arguments, but your approach tough for me to respond to without anger. I normally enjoy a good debate, but your style makes it difficult for me to continue. Best of luck.
That this would translate into cynicism and arrogance from me should surprise no one.
If you're going to DISTORT Terri's situation and compare it to abortion, if you're going to INSINUATE that people lied in court under oath, then you damn well deserve any response from me you get.
On the other hand, if you can argue the facts and put aside the rhetoric, you'll find me much more receptive and reasonable.
He just never gives up. That may catch up with him eventually.
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.