You have no idea if these ladies are whack jobs or not.
It is not true no one else observed these things...they confirm each other - and they confirm Terri's family's observations. You don't know if no one else saw these things.
At one time Michael also described Terri as responsive -back when it was useful for her to be responsive (during the malpractice trial)
"I'm simply asking for your interpretation of these observations."
They confirm each other. They describe an atmosphere of intimidation - destruction of observation notes.
It is difficult for anyone to interpret anything when critical material is thrown away.
If what these ladies describe is true - not only has a terrrible mistake been made - but crimes have been committed by those who would slter/destroy medical records.
"Terri appeared to be able to talk and voluntarily swallow, according to one deposition. I'm asking you for the fourth time, do you interpret the observation that way -- could Terri talk and voluntarily swallow?"
If Terri appeared to be able to talk and voluntarily swallow as described by staff, family, and even her own husband (prior to winning the malpractice suit) then yes...I would tend to believe she was capable of these things.
If she was not capable of these things - at the very least Terri should have received up to date neuro-imaging and a swallowing test.
There are some basic things that could have been done to help clear up controversy.
If Michael was truly seeking the truth of his wife's condition he would not have objected to up to date MRI, PET scan, and updated brain wave test that measures more than the previous EEG. He would not have objected to a swallowing test.
Why would anyone object to tests that could clarify someone's condition?
"Why are you so reluctant to answer this? Either you believe the deposition or you don't. If you believe the deposition, then you believe Terri could talk and voluntarily swallow"
Unlike you I am not willing to simply write off people I disagree with as "whack jobs".
Unlike you - I don't pretend to know what I don't know.
Whether or not I believe Terri could or could not talk has no bearing on the truth of whether Terri actually could or could not talk.
My position on the matter is this....since it looks like there are witnesses (who would know better than I) who observed this behavior with Terri - then Terri should have received updated diagnostic tests.
Terri did not received updated diagnostic tests -so no one will ever really know what she was capable of.
"Might have? Could have? Oh, please.
Maybe it's might NOT have and could NOT have. We can play that game forever. You got nothing."
Here we go again with the attitude.
Yes...MIGHT have. This comes from the court appointed guardian.
Why would the court appoint a guardian, just to ignore that same guardian's recommedations?
You clearly don't like words like "might" "may" and so on....
You seem to think this is all cut and dry - black and white.
It isn't.
Many questions remained about her condition. The guardian attempted to clear up some questions with a test.
Why is it so hard to see a simple test could have answered an important question?
"Then so be it. You're asking for 100% certainty, a standard we do not use on anyone, anywhere, any time in our judicial system. But you want that standard for Terri and, not getting it, cry fowl. That's bull$hit."
How many men on death row do you think are innocent?
I would guess not many.
I would guess that those who actually make it to the death chamber have exhausted the process of review and re-review.
When new witnesses and new evidence surface in their cases - their cases get looked at again from the very beginning.
This is the standard Terri should have received...but did not.
Swearing on your part doesn't change that.
"You bet I did. Wear it with pride"
I'll bet you are...despite the fact your accusation was false.
Judge Greer IS legally blind.
"Oh, wouldn't you have had a field day with that one!! A judge having the audacity to play doctor and come to some medical conclusion on his own. You are something else."
Judges are supposed to review as much evidence as possible in their attempts to arrive at the correct decision.
This judge did have audacity. He fired his own guardian that he appointed when he didn't like the guardian's recommendations. He then broke Florida law by appointing himself Terri's guardian (judges cannot appoint themselves guardian-at-litum in cases they preside over).
After this, he STILL did not visit Terri. Of course...he couldn't see her even if he did.
"As to his supposed problem with reading and comprehension, do you have any proof that this WAS a problem? Or are you just guessing?"
Look it up...you will see he has to have documents read to him. He admitted to mistakes.
I am not guessing - I've simply done more reading than you have.
"Because THEY thought she was in "payyyyy". I'm asking if you believe Terri was in pain. That you believe she felt pain."
I believe that when a patient is given pain reliever it is because they think the patient is in pain.
I think that when a rehabilition specialist orders a bone scan because he believes he has detected pain in his patient - it is because she is in pain.
I believe that when a bone scan confirms the presence of serious painful injuries...it confirms the patient's expression of pain.
I believe that when a patient is given morphine...it is because the staff thinks she is pain.
She was not treated likes someone who could not feel anything.
"That was the conclusion reached by the neurologists, and that constitutes proof in the legal system, not your standard of 100% certainty."
We went over this already. Three out of five neurologists reached this conclusion. Critical diagnostic tools were denied.
If this is the standard for our legal system - then the standard needs to be changed.
"First, it wasn't "hearsay" evidence. That's something different. Second, take it up with the citizens of Florida who want verbal wishes to receive the same weight as written ones."
Yes..it indeed does qualify as "hearsay".
Anytime someone testifies to what they heard someone else say, it falls under the legal definition of "hearsay".
Second....hopefully the rest of the nation will refrain from looking to Florida as a trendsetter here.
Allowing hearsay as evidence offers many opportunities for abuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation.
Written directives should be the only evidence allowed.
"Are you saying that you believe Terri was aware and could feel pain? Or are you just making a generalized statement?"
Throughout Terri's entire ordeal she received pain medicine. If the staff truly thought this was a person who could not feel pain - why give it to her?
Yes...because THEY obviously thought she was in pain, it is reasonable to conclude she was capable of feeling pain.
"And facts. Don't forget those. As far as I can tell all you've brought to the table here is alot of speculation. What if, might of, could of ... blah, blah, blah. Boring"
Very funny coming from the guy who gets upset when links are supplied for him to read - and then refuses to read them.
I find your bluster boring as well.
Merry Christmas.
I see. You believe the unbiased family, but refuse to even consider the testimony of those lying doctors.
"Why would anyone object to tests that could clarify someone's condition?"
Because they'd show nothing and were merely a time-delay tactic. If Terri couldn't pass the swallow tests in 1990, 1991, and 1992, why would you expect a test in 2005 to show a different result? Did ANY of Terri conditions improve over the 15 years?
"He then broke Florida law by appointing himself Terri's guardian"
Proof?
"Look it up...you will see he has to have documents read to him."
I'll ask again. Did that affect the case?
"He admitted to mistakes."
Mistakes? Plural? I know he admitted to one, and that had NOTHING to do with his vision. What are the other mistakes?
"Anytime someone testifies to what they heard someone else say, it falls under the legal definition of "hearsay"."
Baloney. The testimony regarding Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
"Jack told me he knew who the killer was" is not hearsay. "Jack told me the killer was Bill" is hearsay in Bill's murder trial.
"Yes...because THEY obviously thought she was in pain, it is reasonable to conclude she was capable of feeling pain."
And if the neurologists concluded she was NOT in pain, then what? You're pretty selective as to who you believe.