Skip to comments.Reborn (Schiavo supporters may have been right.)
Posted on 09/16/2006 8:44:44 AM PDT by Jawn33
Perhaps the last word should go to Pat Flores, the mother of George Melendez, the 31-year-old coma patient who reassured his parents that he wasn't in pain after taking Ambien, as zolpidem is known in the US. He was starved of oxygen when his car overturned and he landed face down in a garden pond near his home in Houston, Texas, in 1998. "The doctors said he was clinically dead - one said he was a vegetable," says Pat. "After three weeks he suffered multi-organ failure and they said his body would ultimately succumb. They said he would never regain consciousness."
He survived and four years later, while visiting a clinic, Pat gave him a sleeping pill because his constant moaning was keeping her and her husband, Del, awake in their shared hotel room. "After 10 to 15 minutes I noticed there was no sound and I looked over," she recalls. "Instead of finding him asleep, there he was, wide awake, looking at his surroundings. I said, 'George', and he said, 'What?' We sat up for two hours asking him questions and he answered all of them. His improvements have continued and we talk every day. He has a terrific sense of humour and he carries on running jokes from the day before.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Yes, I do. She loved life. And yes I would, I love life. You know that those who come out of comas and VPS have stated that they could hear everything that went on while they were in those conditions?
She heard her families love every day she was alive. I'm sure she was comforted by that every day.
She was 27 when she went into the PVS, 66 when she died.
Still trolling after all these years!
News flash. The statute redefining feeding tubes as life support was passed years after Terri's injury. She was therefore absolutely incapable of giving informed consent to removal of the tube.
Besides, few of us here think that cheesy, lawyer-prompted hearsay from three people named Schiavo was worth a plugged nickel. Their interest was so obvious and their tales so ratty, it makes one wince.
It is a beautiful story of love and devotion you have shared here today. Thank you.
How about this one? Michael's lawsuits and Judge Greer's orders were in direct violation of all four provisions of the local animal cruelty laws. There are no exceptions in the law, which protects ANY animal in ANY place. In fact it specifically orders that sick or infirm animals are to be protected. Imagine, every animal is protected from cruelty except a helpless woman named Terri Schiavo.
Pinellas County Animal Control Ordinance
Sec. 14-32. Cruelty to animals.
(a) Whoever impounds or confines any animal in any place and fails to supply the animal during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water shall be in violation of this article.
(b) Whoever keeps any animal in any enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air shall be in violation of this article.
(c) Whoever abandons to die any animal that is maimed, sick, infirm, or diseased shall be in violation of this article.
(d) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, shall be in violation of this article.
She was not dying, anymore than you or I am dying. Starving her to death was murder, just as it would be murder for my sister to starve her day old child to death.
She needed food and water just as we all do. But judges love to create second class citzens in this country, and treat them less than human.
Hearsay? How so? Third party testimony is hearsay, second party isn't.
I have read the court documents, just as I have read the court documents for Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo.
These cases have nothing to do with this, try reading John F Memorial vs Bludworth (Fla 1984) and Guardianship of Estelle M. Browning (Fla 1990) for a clearer picture.
There were as many hearsay statements that contradicted what Michael was saying, and they had maintained that from the beginning, Michael changed his story when money became available.
This statement tells me that you did NOT read the court documents.
If she had, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The "evidence" of "her wishes" was hearsay.
Again, second party statements are not hearsay. For example, if I tell you something and you repeat it in court it is not hearsay. If I tell you something and you tell someone else, their statement in court would be hearsay.
Terri was older when her injury occurred
Terri made statements to Mike Sister-in-law, which means she was much older.
Wow, and I thought only liberal got unhinged.
What about the fact that there was some testimony contradicting what Terry had supposedly said?
Oh, and you have this "testimony" and took it directly to your local law enforcement so they could reopen this case, right?? I'm not hearing anything.....
As it is intended by Satan, you mean
As a matter of fact they do: "Hours of observed video tape recordings of Theresa offer little objective insight about her awareness and interactive behaviors. There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent". (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)
Terri wasn't brain dead and wasn't comatose
And your medical information comes from where??
I call bull on you.
Geez, where'd you read this crap, the Onion?? Here's what really came up in court: "In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresas treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a do not resuscitate order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility. Michaels decision not to treat was based upon discussions and consultation with Theresas doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned belief that there was no longer any hope for Theresas recovery. It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state. (http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf)
So now Terri's an animal?? Come on, that's a weak strawman and you know it.
Ahh, so the cheesy, lawyer-promted hearsay from people named Schindler are worth more than a plugged nickel?
Both families had their time before the court, and the court felt that there was clear and convincing evidence that this was what Terri wanted.
No, she was treated worse than an animal. An animal can't be deprived of hydration and nutrition: Terri was.
Just because something was legal, doesn't mean it's moral. Or do you approve of the ovens at Auschwitz? I mean, Hitler had courts that said they were legal...
Feel free, but it won't change the court documents, testimony, and court rulings.
No, and nothing will bring Terri back. But you are defending a purposeful killing and you know it.
Michael had already "moved on". He was sleeping with another woman out of wedlock and had children with her. He could have simply turned over care of his wife to her parents and walked away.
He decided that he wouldn't rest until his wife was dead.
He wanted her dead.
Her parents wanted to care for her.
That's the truth.
Your right and I agree. Abortion is legal and I don't agree with it either. So tell me, is it moral to follow someone's "final wishes" (assuming they have a stated/written one), or just to follow your own judgment and to heck with what they want?