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.
"I see. You believe the unbiased family, but refuse to even consider the testimony of those lying doctors."
I see, you believe the family are liars, that Michael is unbiased, and that 2 of the 5 doctors are liars as well.
You refuse to consider the testimony of her own family,good friends, hospital staff, and doctors who disagreed.You refuse to consider the possibility that her family just may have been right about her, and Judge Greer just may have gotten it wrong.
"Because they'd show nothing and were merely a time-delay tactic."
According to Judge Greer. In that case he should never have bothered appointing a guardian at-litum as he never intended to act on the guardian's recommendations anyways.
" Did ANY of Terri conditions improve over the 15 years? "
Probably not considering she did not receive any of the therapy her unbiased husband fought so hard for.
If there were any notes describing any responsiveness from Terri they found their way to the circular files. Oh THAT'S RIGHT - those ladies are whack jobs....proof?
""He then broke Florida law by appointing himself Terri's guardian""
Your lack of research is not my burden.
It is a matter of public record.
Look it up.
Besides, you get cranky when I post links.
"Baloney."
Nope. Your distinctions don't hold water.
Michael's testimonoy...hearsay.
Michael's brother and sister-in-law...hearsay.
Terri's best friend who testified Terri disapproved of the parents' decision in the Quinlan case...hearsay
Michael's ex-girlfriend's affidavit...hearsay.
Again...no one ever claimed to know what Terri would have wanted in this situation. The statement Michael offered was vague and had nothing to do with brain injury, denial of therapy, dehydration or starvation.
And if the neurologists concluded she was NOT in pain, then what? You're pretty selective as to who you believe.
Did you just use the word IF???
I thought you didn't like words like that.
Terri was never treated like a person who could not feel pain.
Throughout her ordeal she was treated with pain medicine.
When she expressed pain during therapy a bone scan was ordered confirming the cause of her pain.