"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.
Did you just use the word IF???"
Sorry, your style is contagious. SINCE the neurologists concluded she was not in pain, now what? You're pretty selective as to who you believe.
"I see, you believe the family are liars, that Michael is unbiased, and that 2 of the 5 doctors are liars as well."
I believe the family was biased, and saw what they wanted to see. I ask you, did Terri's eyes really follow the balloon (as shown on the video), or did her mother move the balloon to match Terri's eye movements? Since Terri was as blind as a bat, what her mother did was a lie, now wasn't it? And her mother lied on the stand, and later retracted her statement, didn't she? So yeah, her family were liars.
Michael was biased how? He took Terri's case to the courts and asked the judge to make a decision. It was out of Michael's hands.
As to your two "doctors", one carefully couched his opinion and the other embarrassed himself by a) providing no documentation and b) stating that he's waiting for his UN Man-of-the-Year award, or somesuch. Another psycho whackjob. You like these people, huh?
Oh, not that you, personally, believe them. Heaven forbid I should suggest THAT! You're merely presenting their side for consideration. Lord, save us.
"You refuse to consider the testimony of her own family,good friends, hospital staff, and doctors who disagreed."
Not at all. I did consider the testimony. I found it not credible, that's all.
"... and Judge Greer just may have gotten it wrong."
Where were all of Terri's "family, good friends, hospital staff, and doctors who disagreed" during the 2000 hearing to decide Terri's fate? Where were they, Scotswife"? Why didn't they take the stand and tell what they knew under oath? Where was their support WHEN IT COUNTED?
No, afterwords, here they are in public, making statements, signing depositions, swearing to affidavits, getting in front of cameras, doing interviews, yada, yada.
What a bunch of bull. But I'm supposed to believe them? I'm supposed to give credence to their utterances? No ... way.
"Probably not considering she did not receive any of the therapy her unbiased husband fought so hard for."
No "probably" about it. She couldn't swallow in 1990, 1991, and 1992. She couldn't in 2005. Stop it with your suppositions when you have nothing to back it up. You're wasting my time.
"those ladies are whack jobs....proof?"
Michael injected Terri with insulin in an attempt to murder her? Nuff said.
"Besides, you get cranky when I post links."
1,000 lnks, yeah. One link, no. Of course, you don't have that link becausae it doesn't exist. And we both know that.
"Michael's testimonoy...hearsay."
WTF? I just gave you the legal definition of hearsay, which Michael's testimony (and others) was not, and you sit there like petulant child and re-type your exact same statement? That's supposed to convince me? Don't you want to, maybe, also put it in bold caps? For emphasis?
"When she expressed pain during therapy a bone scan was ordered confirming the cause of her pain."
And I dance in a circle in my backyard every morning to keep the elephants away. It works. No elephants around here.
The word "coincidence" ever occur to you? Given all this "testimony" as to people witnessing Terri in pain, the fact that a so-called "expression of pain" coincided once with a positive bone scan is not indicative of anything.
Not that you, personally, believe that yourself.