Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Still Waiting
Dakota Voice ^ | 1/29/2007 | Carrie K. Hutchens

Posted on 02/02/2007 3:49:53 AM PST by 8mmMauser

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,707 next last
To: The Coopster
There's nothing like an unsolved crime to pique people's attention :-)

See the question in #42. Do you have an answer compatible with all of the known medical facts? A provable answer is just what is needed to put this case to rest. There are a few extra clues in #55. Thanks for your help.

101 posted on 02/05/2007 7:22:42 PM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
>> From your previous link about Chris Barnes

I came across his case because the his wife, Koo Cho, had an interview with Mark Ragucci, the recovered "pvs" patient. That poor, dear woman, she has done so much; may God give her strength. And may her husband make some real medical progress. There are so many promising new research leads and therapies, I do hope something will make him better.

102 posted on 02/05/2007 7:30:28 PM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
This one is eye-opening. Dr. Ragucci is a living rebuke to all that bovine scat we heard from Felos, Bushnell and the wife-killer himself.

Mark Ragucci's story: In a Stroke Patient, Doctor Sees Power Of Brain to Recover / 'Neurointensive' Care Gains Adherents, Despite Risk Of Raising False Hopes / 'Too Often, People Give Up'

>>Doctors often make minimal efforts to save the lives of advanced stroke victims, especially those who are days or weeks into a coma. They often see the prospects of survival as low and question the value of saving a life that they expect, in the best case, to be severely constrained by mental and physical damage.

>>Now proponents of neurointensive care are challenging these assumptions. They say many of the studies underlying the earlier consensus are out of date, and they believe newer treatments such as one designed to cool the brain may help stroke patients in comas. "Doctors are telling people there's no hope when, in fact, there is," says Dr. Mayer.

>>Dr. Ragucci, who is now at 35 back to practicing rehabilitation medicine, says he was somewhat conscious even when his doctors perceived no brain activity, and it bothered him to hear nurses and doctors referring to him in the past tense. "Somebody has to realize that you're in there," he says. "Just because you can't move doesn't mean there's not somebody in there."

103 posted on 02/05/2007 7:42:44 PM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
I know of no other term that pops up automatically so often as the subject of living wills as it links to Terri's Legacy. Useful or useless as they may be in their many incarnations for both the patients and for those who would use the words against them, their tie to Terri's Legacy is secure.

..........................

37% of people in the U.S. now have a living will.  Officials say it's never too early to start talking about it.

Snip...


Reporter's Notes by Jake Wasikowski:



Death & Dying: Living Wills

8mm


104 posted on 02/06/2007 2:59:10 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: All
And barring the above on living wills, may we not forget how Pennsylvania is "helping" things along like it or not.

While end-of-life care is not a pressing issue for most Penn State students, a new Pennsylvania law on living wills will affect anyone who is suddenly unable to make life decisions.

According to www.aging.state. pa.us, family and friends have traditionally made end-of-life decisions for those unable to make their own, but on no legal basis.

Under the new law, end-of-life and healthcare decisions will be made in a specific order -- spouse, adult child, parent, adult sibling, adult grandchild or close friend -- for those without a living will.

New law grants spouses priority

8mm

105 posted on 02/06/2007 3:04:22 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: All; T'wit
From Missouri:

Bringing in Cruzan with a little slice of Colby...

..........................

Denise Swenson of the coalition’s local chapter said the death of Terri Schiavo in 2005 in Florida, who, like Cruzan, had her feeding tube removed after a protracted legal battle, has helped put end-of-life preparation back in the public eye.

“The Terri Schiavo issue in Florida really brought the issue to the public attention,” she said. “It’s an excellent example of how bad it can get. No one was named who could make those decisions on her behalf. There was no completed documentation on who she wanted to make that decision.”

Snip...

“It’s not really about the law,” Colby said. “It’s about talking with your doctor and people you care about about some hard and important issues.”

Discussion to focus on end-of-life issues... Advocates say end-of-life planning is vital to avert contentious litigation.

8mm

106 posted on 02/06/2007 3:11:18 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: All; T'wit
T'wit, I find your post on the writing of Amy Green refreshing and a great encouragement. Thank you, Amy Green, if you are lurking, and somehow I think you may have visited the Terri Dailies.

A year has now passed since the starvation/dehydration death of Terri Schiavo, and the debate surrounding her case, though never insignificant, is becoming ever more pertinent in a world increasingly obsessed with "quality of life." Last Wednesday, renowned bioethics writer Wesley J. Smith visited the College to deliver a lecture about the growing trend to consider certain human beings "disposable" based on their perceived "quality of life" and their value to society. In his numerous books and television appearances, Smith has lamented that, in modern bioethics, sentience is no longer sufficient to prove "personhood." Patients must also demonstrate rationality -- a dangerous theory that in 1997 led doctors from the International Forum for Transplant Ethics to propose that patients deemed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) should be considered dead and have their organs harvested. The bottom line, however, is that doctors still know too little about the regenerative capabilities of the human brain to reliably diagnose PVS (which is not, contrary to some assumptions, the same as brain death).

Supporting life

8mm

107 posted on 02/06/2007 3:28:34 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> New law grants spouses priority

Ah, they should call this the "Michael Schiavo Clause."

If the spouse doesn't have a will, then the {cough} surviving spouse gets to inherit 100% of any property, too. Isn't this a fine alternative to divorce? Bump off your spouse instead and keep the money.

The spouse doesn't have much money? Why, sue for some! File a malpractice suit! Don't worry, you don't have to have a real case, the jury will feel sorry for your spouse. Besides, you're only screwing insurance companies. That's not like stealing or anything.

Mikey blazed the whole trail! Every time we dehydrate and starve another innocent spouse, we must praise his name with great praise!

108 posted on 02/06/2007 5:04:26 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> New law grants spouses priority

Jodi was SO stupid.

109 posted on 02/06/2007 5:06:20 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> ...doctors from the International Forum for Transplant Ethics to propose that patients deemed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) should be considered dead and have their organs harvested.

There is no point in harvesting organs from those doctors. They have no heart or soul, and the rest of their organs are poisonous.

110 posted on 02/06/2007 5:10:18 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> ...led doctors from the International Forum for Transplant Ethics to propose that patients deemed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) should be considered dead and have their organs harvested.

Contrast those ghouls to Dr. Ragucci, the recovered PVS patient: "Dr. Ragucci... says he was somewhat conscious even when his doctors perceived no brain activity, and it bothered him to hear nurses and doctors referring to him in the past tense. 'Somebody has to realize that you're in there,' he says. 'Just because you can't move doesn't mean there's not somebody in there.'"

111 posted on 02/06/2007 5:25:37 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

Well stated. I recall a dentist in New Jersey who faked his wife's death as a car accident and then sued Ford Motor Co. For once, the defendant refused to settle and it ended in a costly trial where Ford was eventually able to win, proving that the "accident" was no accident.


112 posted on 02/06/2007 5:32:45 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> Cruzan the first right-to-die case ever heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It wasn't a right-to-die case. It was a right-to-kill case, sought by the parents for their own benefit. Nancy Cruzan never asked to die. On the contrary, as she was dying in agony, Nancy evidently reached out to a law enforcement officer for help. But he was not permitted to save her.

>> Denise Swenson of the coalition’s local chapter said... "No one was named who could make those decisions on her behalf. There was no completed documentation on who she wanted to make that decision.”

Decision?!? What decision? Terri wasn't dying. She didn't ask anyone to kill her. Lady, you're talking about committing murder but you call it a "decision."

113 posted on 02/06/2007 5:39:06 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dante3

The dentist claimed his wife was driving a Ford Schiavo?? Tch.


114 posted on 02/06/2007 5:41:04 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

The young lady writes with a sure and mature hand. She will be a catch for whatever publishing company is lucky enough to employ her.


115 posted on 02/06/2007 5:44:40 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

I did so hope that nice fellow who stopped by could solve our mystery. Sometimes it seems that we are SO close to the solution!


116 posted on 02/06/2007 5:50:12 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser; BykrBayb; bjs1779
Ooooh! What have we here!?

>> Bill Colby, author of “Long Goodbye: The Deaths [? sic] of Nancy Cruzan” and “Unplugged: Reclaiming our Right to Die in America,” ... the attorney who represented Cruzan and her parents in front of the Supreme Court, ... said... “If she [Nancy Cruzan] had talked to her family for five minutes, she’d have spared those people all the public strife they went through.”

This was the crusading lawyer who engineered Nancy Cruzan's death. I think he just obliquely confessed to murder. That case was built on the testimony of several people who supposedly called the Cruzans to say, "You don't know me but I knew Nancy" and told them, in effect, she'd want to die. That was the "clear and convincing" evidence Colby used to kill Cruzan.

But what is Colby saying here? That Nancy could have avoided all this strife if she'd talked to her family for five minutes. Colby is admitting THEY DIDN'T KNOW HER WISHES! There was no evidence she wanted to die. The whole thing was rigged.

No wonder the POS is doing a Lady Macbeth. He has Nancy's blood on his hands.

117 posted on 02/06/2007 7:55:54 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser; BykrBayb; bjs1779
Further to the previous, we can deduce a few other interesting details. For one, George Felos was no pioneer. He followed Colby's blueprint to the letter, including the rigged hearsay.

For another, Colby's offhand comment is actually a break in the case -- an admission that there was no "clear and convincing" evidence in the case (because Nancy had not spent the five minutes telling her family her wishes). Could it be that the fancy lawyer played a little trick on the court in order to kill a helpless woman? I don't think officers of the court are supposed to deceive judges. They aren't supposed to put disabled women to death either.

And if, sixteen years later, we have a break in the Cruzan case, how safe are Scott and Joan Schiavo with those things they "remembered" in meetings with George Felos? Both of them know they helped kill Terri. Will they stay silent? Will Jodi?

If Nancy Cruzan's attorney can let a key secret slip, how safe is Michael Schiavo? How safe are Felos, Bushnell and Greer? They all conspired to kill an innocent woman.

Sooner or later, somebody is going to blab. It may be nothing more than a slip of the tongue. Or maybe someone with an aching conscience will say something that sets off an avalanche of confessions. Who will it be?

Who will it be?

118 posted on 02/06/2007 8:22:05 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser; BykrBayb; bjs1779
A last comment. Here's Colby, one more time:

“If she [Nancy Cruzan] had talked to her family for five minutes, she’d have spared those people all the public strife they went through.”

Did I say he was a POS? Here he is blaming a murder victim for not sparing the murderers such inconvenience and "strife."

Nancy, you bad, bad girl, putting your parents through all the strife of killing you. If you had been a good girl, Nancy, you would have told them in advance to kill you. Then they wouldn't feel so bad. And you know what else? Then I wouldn't have had to find some cheesy hearsay testimony to fool the court into approving your death order. You let us all down, Nancy.

Mr. Cruzan is the only one who understood. He committed suicide.

119 posted on 02/06/2007 8:32:45 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: T'wit
Organ Donation from Cardiac Death Patients

In the future patient’s who had suffered cardiac death would have their bodies prepared for transplantation when they are still alive.

The Australian Health Ethics Committee that is working on organ donation is seeking to extend the transplant preparations to patients who are certain to die after experiencing cardiac death. This is because solid organs like the heart, liver lungs and kidneys begin to deteriorate immediately after the cessation of blood circulation. In the past, transplant preparations have only been carried out on brain-dead patients.

Peter Joseph, chair of the ethics committee said that it is important to extend the preparation procedures to living patients in order to meet the organ donation demands. There are two ways in which a doctor can certify death one being brain death and the other cardiac death. Brain death is when the patient has lost all brain function completely and permanently. (Of course, there are no standards for determining this, and opinions often vary.) In such cases the organs are preserved via a ventilator for the purpose of donation. These preparations have been made legitimate and present no ethical barrier in brain dead patients.

In case of cardiac death the heart stops beating and within a few minutes the organs deteriorate by themselves. Hence it is necessary to make certain treatments to extend the shelf life of the organs. Dr Joseph (Not necessarily Mengele.) said that these preparations would not be done without the permission of the donor or the donor's family. Hence the committee wants legislation made uniform so the practice is made legal in all states and territories.

120 posted on 02/06/2007 11:15:25 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

I have no problem with them choosing a guardian from a list of family members, for people who haven't put their choice of guardian in writing. And I think their order of priority makes sense. They have provisions for replacing an unqualified guardian, though these provisions could have been better written.

Where the real problem comes in is the god-like power granted to guardians, to end the lives of their wards, in the absence of any known wishes of the wards, and sometimes against the expressed wishes of the wards.

You could put it in writing that you would want a feeding tube if you were severely brain damaged, and the guardian appointed by your doctor could say "He didn't specify what he would want if 30% of his brain was atrophed. Remove the feeding tube." And that's the way it would be.

The individual doesn't have to be comatose, PVS, or brain dead. Incompetent will suffice. You can be fully aware, but unable to express yourself, and the family member, friend, or neighbor chosen by the doctor to represent you can order your death.


121 posted on 02/06/2007 11:32:51 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: T'wit
He has clearly admitted that he arranged Nancy's murder with perjured testimony. Who do we contact to get the ball rolling on this?
122 posted on 02/06/2007 11:42:16 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: All
It Can Happen Here

by John R. Woodward
This article is taken from "The Disability Rag and ReSource"
vol 15 no. 1 (Jan/Feb) 1994. Avocado Press: louisville, KY.

American doctors once conducted an experiment that proved you can kill the disabled babies of poor families and get away with it. Their research was funded by the Federal Government. Twenty-four babies with spina bifida lost their lives. The experiment was declared a success. Yes, it can happen here.

Between 1977 and 1982, four doctors and a social worker at the Children's Hospital of Oklahoma, in Oklahoma City, monitored the births of babies with myelomeningocele (the medical term for spina bifida). Parents who were poor were told that it would not be appropriate to treat their baby and given an extremely pessimistic picture of their child's future life. Parents from better-off families were told more about the treatments for spina bifida and given more optimistic - and more accurate - information about their child's potential.

None of the parents knew they were part of an experiment. Parents who were assigned to the "pessimistic outcome" group chose, by a factor of nearly five to one, not to have their babies treated. The experiment was not conducted to prove that babies with spina bifida will die if they are not treated. Doctors already knew that. The goal of the experiment was to prove that the families would accept a "do-not-treat" recommendation from their doctors.

It was no coincidence that the babies who died were the children of poor parents. To select the families for the "pessimistic outcome group," the doctors conducting the study developed a "formula" which they published as part of their write-up in "Pediatrics", the most famous and influential medical journal devoted to the care of children. This is their "formula": Quality of Life = Natural Endowment by the contribution of the Home plus the contribution of Society. In a more mathematical style it reads: QL = NE * (H + S). The doctors measured the "H" - the contribution of the home - primarily in financial terms: family income, family debt, employment and employability of the parents, etc. The parents' "intellectual resources," defined in terms of their educational level, were also included in the calculation of "H," which had the effect of crowding the pessimistic outcome group with parents less likely to challenge the doctors' "facts". Since "Natural Endowment" is multiplied by the other factors, rather than added to them, babies with a greater level of impairment (and hence less "natural endowment") were more likely to be placed in the "pessimistic outcome" group.

The "formula" used non-medical factors to decide which babies ought to receive treatment, which should be a medical decision. The use of a mathematical procedure to create the appearance of an empirical foundation for the decision not to treat is not science. It's "scientism," the dressing up of a moral prejudice in the language and trappings of science, so as to lend a false credibility to a value judgment that would otherwise be more readily exposed as a mere prejudice. In this case, the doctors arbitrarily assumed that poor families offered a quality of life so much lower than that of middle-class and wealthy families that babies born into them were better off dead.

Frieda Smith, who gave birth to Stonewall Jackson Smith in 1979, remembers being confronted by a doctor just days after a difficult birth, before she had time to come to terms with her baby's birth impairment.

"He (the doctor) told me that I would always have to take care of him, that he would be blind, that he would never know me, that he was more like some kind of animal than a human being," she says. "He never really sat down with me and explained what the operation would do for Stoney." Ms. Smith was never told that the failure rate for spina bifida treatments is very low, nor did she understand that the operation would reduce the degree of sensory, mobility and intellectual impairment that her son experienced. "He made it sound like Stoney would live longer, but he wouldn't ever get any better."

Ms. Smith signed a consent form agreeing that Stonewall would be fed and given minimal "supportive care," but no antibiotics or surgery. Later, when she had questions about her baby's treatment, the doctor refused to make himself available to answer them. Ms. Smith also says that she did not know that she could have taken her son to another hospital, where he would have been treated at once.

During the five years of the study, 69 babies with spina bifida were born in the Children's Hospital of Oklahoma (now known as Oklahoma Children's Hospital), a teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Oklahoma. Thirty-three babies were recommended for "supportive care" without treatment; eight of them were eventually treated anyway, either because their parents insisted or because their parents or guardians eventually obtained more accurate information. All of the 24 babies whose parents consented to the "supportive care" regimen died. ( a twenty-fifth baby in the "supportive care" regimen was moved out of state by his parents and lost to the study. Two of the eight babies that were eventually treated also died, possibly because the treatments came too late.) Most of the babies who were deprived of treatment were born to women in the welfare system, who were paying for their care with Medicaid benefits. None of the 36 babies that were given antibiotics and surgery died from the effects of spina bifida. (One did in an accident.)

In addition to being poor, many of the families of the children that were chosen to die were poorly educated. Frieda Smith felt that she was manipulated by a doctor who took advantage of her medical ignorance. Her experiences, and the experiences of other mothers whose babies died, raised serious questions about whether they truly gave "informed consent" when they signed the forms agreeing to the "supportive care" regimen. Indeed, some parents came away from their meeting with the doctor under the false impression that the hospital was not required to treat babies who did not meet the "criteria for treatment" (i.e., the formula).

Ms. Smith and her husband John, who are European-Americans, joined two other parents in a lawsuit against the hospital, the Oklahoma Department of Social Services, administrators in both institutions and the doctors and social workers who conducted the study. Cheparney Camp, a Native American, sued over the death of his daughter Melissa, and Sharon Jackson, who is African-American, sued on behalf of her son Carlton. Carlton, in the words of attorney Jane Brockman, "beat the odds." He survived for months in a children's center, where the nurses and attendants cared for him. Eventually, Ms. Johnson insisted that he be treated. However, the months-long delay caused him to develop more severe impairments than he would have sustained if he had been treated within 48 hours of his birth - which is standard procedure.

Sadly, the lawsuit was unsuccessful. The National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, in conjunction with Oklahoma attorneys, represented the plaintiffs through nearly 10 years of hearings and appeals, before the Supreme Court decided, last January, not to hear the case. The plaintiffs began in the Federal Courts with an 11-count complaint, charging wrongful deaths, malpractice, violations of fundamental Constitutional rights, a failure to inform the families that they were participating in an experiment, discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and other violations of Federal law. Between 1983 and 1990 the courts threw out all the counts. When the Supreme Court refused to reinstate the Section 504 complaint in January, they ended the long legal battle.

"What the Supreme Court could have done by recognizing we had a viable complaint under Section 504 was to send a message to hospitals all across the country, and physicians across the country that you *will* have claims against you if you discriminate against the disabled child in a situation where the treatment is related to that disabling condition," says Jane Brockmann, one of the National Legal Center attorneys who handled the final stages of the case. "We could have scared physicians across the country away from what these physicians did."

Readers of "The Rag" will recall that the European Holocaust of World War II began with the government-ordered murder of persons with physical and mental disabilities, most of whom were killed by their own doctors. This program began two years before World War II and claimed the lives of over 100,000 Germans with disabilities. Ever since the full scope of the Nazi racial crimes was revealed, Americans have insisted to the world that the mass murder of "undesirables" under the authority of State and Science is a crime of which we are not capable.

Indeed, if there is a difference that stands out between the attitudes of the German doctors who murdered their own patients and the "researchers" at the Oklahoma Children's Hospital, it is this: the German doctors acted in secret, knowing that their crimes must not be exposed. They hid their killings behind an elaborate arrangement of phony death certificates and other official paperwork. The Oklahoma doctors, on the other hand, proclaimed what they had one openly, in the most prestigious medical journal of their specialty. They understood the attitude of the American public towards persons with disabilities. Evidently, they understood it better than we disability rights activists do today! They knew that any furor over their crimes would dissipate without harming their careers, and they knew that in the end their colleagues would admire and emulate them.

"We are beginning to see hospitals going to court, trying to establish `rights' for themselves," says Ms. Brockmann. "Hospitals are seeking the right not to treat some patients." Of course, these patients are persons with disabilities who require expensive, intricate and sometimes long-lasting treatment. In extreme cases, hospitals have sued to have a legally competent parent or spouse removed as the guardian of a person with a disability, so that a new guardian can be appointed to discontinue treatment. Ms. Brockman sees a trend in the courts: "It seems that when a patient with severe disabilities sues to request that treatment be withheld, the courts are inclined to grant that request; but when someone sues on behalf of such a patient in order to continue treatment, they will have an uphill battle. Treatment should be the default decision in ambiguous cases. The Constitution expressly protects the right to live. As Congress begins to debate the role of rationing in health care reform, the court will no doubt rule on more "right-not-to-treat" cases.

Today Carlton Johnson, the boy who "beat the odds," is 10. He attends a segregated educational program for children with disabilities, where he is making progress. He does not communicate by speaking, but he is an alert, active and competent child who wheels himself about and plays for hours on an electric organ his family gave him. He recognizes friends and loved ones. He has the capacity for enjoyment and happiness. His life may not be "useful" according to the pseudo-mathematical standards of the of the doctors who once condemned him to death, but he has one great advantage over the men and women who once plotted to deprive him of his life. He will never, ever commit an act of injustice towards another human being as great as the crime they committed against him.

123 posted on 02/06/2007 5:26:17 PM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

This is unspeakable. Dr. Mengele and Margaret Sanger are laughing at us from Hell. They will be howling in glee when we get HillaryHealth.


124 posted on 02/06/2007 7:42:16 PM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
>> ...Her experiences, and the experiences of other mothers whose babies died, raised serious questions about whether they truly gave "informed consent" when they signed the forms agreeing to...

It was "disinformed" consent, engineered by baby killers (!) in the ranks of medical professionals. That's something to keep in mind if you think your "living will" will protect you from medical neglect or mistreatment. Your only protection is in the hands of honest, moral caregivers who can be counted on to do the right thing. These assuredly do not include baby killers or euthanasia advocates, or anyone in medicine who TOLERATES the killers.

125 posted on 02/06/2007 7:55:53 PM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Girl once on life support can write, eat, kin says

The grandmother of Haleigh Poutre testified yesterday in the State House that the 12-year-old girl, who had once been on life support, can write part of her name, eat scrambled eggs, and flex a muscle when told she is strong.

~ snip ~

I wonder if Haleigh has had one or more visits from her family, or if someone at the hospital told them about her progress. Or maybe she had made this much progress before DSS deprived her of contact with her family. In any event, it's good that her grandmother put this information out to the public. It makes it harder for DSS to carry out the plan they announced in January of 2006. Some of you may recall that they announced a plan to wait a year before trying again to starve and dehydrate her to death. The one year deadline was up in January of this year, but with Haleigh still in the spotlight, and news of her progress being public, they haven't had an opportunity to follow through. I continue to pray that they never succeed, and that Haleigh is returned to her loving family soon.

126 posted on 02/07/2007 1:17:31 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Here's a more complete story (2 pages) about Haleigh's grandmother's testimony.
Haleigh's grandmother testifies ~ The Republican
127 posted on 02/07/2007 2:21:41 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Sometimes we hear good news on these threads, sometimes we hear amazing stories. This is an amazing one, something which happened to one of the FReeper family, a prayer thread by dripp. Thank you, cyn, for the ping. For those who may have missed the thread, here it is with the update post.

I am lifting the update post by dripp and encourage all to read the thread. May any with shaken or unsteady faith be galvanized by this wonderful event.

Donna started bleeding from her lungs last Sunday and spent till Wed in the hospital,it was a result from the chemo taking her blood counts to low. On Wed she went into full respitory arrest and agreed to be put on a vent with antibiotics to try and help, but with the option of being taken off if it didn’t work. She was doing great when suddenly Friday night the vent plugged up with a clot and she they lost her completely for 20 minutes.She had signed not to have cpr, but to have only comfort care,yet they worked with her trying to clear the vent and finally got a new tube in but she had been completely with out oxygen for 10 minutes flatlined completely and not pulse. They gave up and went out and were doing the paper work for the time of death when the monitor started going wild and she had a pulse and her heart started again and she started breathing again. She was completely unrespsonsive with her eyes and her hands were posturing so they told me she probably had massive brain damage or more probable brain dead. Then the new tube plugged up on the vent and I had to decide the most horrible thing. They unhooked everything and just administered morphine for comfort. You can just not comprehend the agony and yet I felt worse for my children. They gaurnteed me I did the right thing as the brain damage would be great. She suffered greatly taking every breath for about 3 hours. Then around midnight she became responsive to touch and new who we were, but couldn’t communicate by talking. Around 4 in the morning she became alert and I told her what happened and she wrote a note asking if she was dead. It took a kiss on the cheek to convince her she wasn’t. At 6 in the morning she got her voice back and wanted to talk to the kids. By 6:30 am she was drinking a diet pepsi. She has no brain damage and is breathing on her own with only oxygen. The whole medical staff is flabbergasted, the have her written down as a documented miracle. Even the most hard core were crying with joy. We are giving all credit to Jesus and even the hospital is admitting the cannot deny this. I don’t know what the future holds but we have our precious Donna for now. The dr wants to start radiation as soon as she build up strength. I know this is still touch and go but I cannot express my joy and kids joy for more time. Donna is on cloud 9 praising God to everyone she sees. I know this isn’t well written but I am stressed and going to take a shower and try to relax if possible Please keep all prayers coming…..Shawn

Posts 245 and #259

8mm


128 posted on 02/07/2007 3:00:03 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: All; BykrBayb
Thanks, BB, for the update on Haleigh. BB, you were really quick with this. The article from The Republican had just broken!

BOSTON - The grandmother of Haleigh Poutre began sobbing yesterday as she testified about the child's struggle to recover from a brain injury, and said she believes that a state ban on family visits could be causing more harm.

Sandra L. Sudyka, 53, of Agawam said that Haleigh probably believes her mother and grandmother no longer care about her. Without any public explanation last July, the state Department of Social Services stopped allowing Sudyka and the girl's biological mother from regularly visiting with Haleigh.

Snip...

Sudyka appeared to win the sympathy of the chairman of the House of Representatives' panel when she testified about her final visit with Haleigh on July 18. The girl lifted her left hand to flex muscles, wrote her first name in capital letters, and said "no" and "hello," the grandmother testified.

Snip...

On the other side, Judy Davis, 50, of Boston, who said her 15-year-old daughter is in the custody of the state, testified that it is a "terrifying experience" to meet and talk with social workers.

"Anything they said was the final and ultimate word," she told legislators. "I didn't know what to do - except be afraid of them."

Haleigh's grandmother testifies

8mm

129 posted on 02/07/2007 3:13:57 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

The article from The Republican wasn't up yet when I posted the link to the other one. The Republican seems to have the best coverage.


130 posted on 02/07/2007 3:17:06 AM PST by BykrBayb (Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

He beat and strangled her into unconsciousness which caused brain damage that could have been partially overcome with the right treatment. He then launched himself on a mission to end her life through legal maneuvers paid for at her expense. She did not have a heart attack.

It took him awhile, but he eventually succeeded in murdering her legally.

Does that answer your question?


131 posted on 02/07/2007 3:21:15 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Haleigh's 13th birthday: February 24.

There is still no explanation why these horrible social workers will not allow the child visits from her own mother and grandmother. Love is the best therapy. They won't let a needy child have that love, just as they wouldn't take her away from extremely abusive stepparents despite 20 (!) abuse complaints. These people are as cruel as Michael Schiavo was to Terri.

132 posted on 02/07/2007 3:23:03 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: All
Sargeant Pustule meets the challenge of the UCONN...

A hallmark of liberal youth is their conviction on mush so deep they actually think they can outvote God. After all He has only (three votes per us Christians) His vote against all these intellectual giants. So naturally they are at liberty in their brilliance to judge the Pope.

Pope Benedict XVI denounced euthanasia over the weekend, once again proclaiming life a gift from God and asserting that it could not be terminated under "the guise of human compassion." The pontiff's announcement came after an Italian doctor was cleared of wrongdoing in an euthanasia case, and more or less echoed the statements made by Pope John Paul II during the 2004 Terri Schiavo case. While it is indeed the pope's prerogative to take a stance on such divisive issues, the purportedly infallible Benedict is undoubtedly mistaken on the issue of euthanasia. Without question, euthanazing a pain-wrought patient who is not going to recover is an act of genuine human compassion that should not be prohibited.

Pope Mistaken On Euthanasia

8mm

133 posted on 02/07/2007 3:27:25 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
Why, thank you! Timing is important. Don't leave out the part that he fraudulently sued two doctors for malpractice for not diagnosing the bulimia that Terri never had. In that trial he promised to use the money to take care of her tenderly for the rest of her life. She was his whole life!, he lied. He would honor his marriage vows!, he lied. Then as soon as he won a million+ dollar settlement, he put a "do not resuscitate" order on her and set about to kill her.

If he had succeeded, he would have inherited $one million+.

134 posted on 02/07/2007 3:28:57 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: T'wit; Jezebelle; BykrBayb

And I thought I was the early bird....


135 posted on 02/07/2007 3:31:04 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
If I am reading it correctly, there have not been any further visits. The report on Haleigh's ability to print her name and eat solid food was from grandma's earlier visits. I remember Haleigh loving her mom and grandma from those, and delighting in their visits.

Glad you caught these stories! Thanks.

136 posted on 02/07/2007 3:34:14 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> They gaurnteed me I did the right thing as the brain damage would be great.

Grrr!

137 posted on 02/07/2007 3:41:19 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: All; EternalVigilance
Helen Valois takes a look at Sean Hannity's thought process.

Orwellian euphemism is nothing new in the realm of contemporary American political discourse. Choice, translated by the left, refers to the chopping up of unborn children. Peaceful patriotism permits the trashing of our troops. Just now in a shocking scandal for adjectives everywhere, verbal authorities have booked articulate for bearing concealed racial overtones. We shouldn't, but we do get acclimated to this kind of rank pseudo-intellectualism after a while. What is jarring is to hear linguistic engineering of mind-bending magnitude coming not from the left, but from conservative commentators themselves.

Snip...

Bill Clinton in the waning days of his administration evidently did a bang-up job of transcending perjury (to pick a problem of his more or less at random). Who knew? I see now with the clarity of vision Sean has imparted that the trend in the European nations is towards transcending Islamofascism, not catering to it. It must also be the case that Terri Schindler Schiavo's right to life — sadly, according to just about the only high profile American journalist who truly extended himself in an effort to defend it — wasn't really violated in the end, but only transcended. And so forth.

Introducing Hannityspeak

8mm

138 posted on 02/07/2007 3:44:05 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

This editorial is so childish it makes me laugh. Our little hero in short pants, swishing a cardboard sword, marches to war all the way across the romper room!


139 posted on 02/07/2007 3:47:16 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
>> Helen Valois takes a look at Sean Hannity's thought process.

C'mon, I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet.

140 posted on 02/07/2007 3:48:17 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee
Further to the post on those who judge the Pope, we have this from wagglebee...

The Vatican (LifeNews.com) -- Catholics in Italy celebrated their Day of Life on Sunday and Pope Benedict XVI urged more than 50,000 people gathered for a special speech to protect both life and family from attack. He called on Catholics to oppose both abortion and euthanasia.

The pontiff spoke to about 50,000 people gathered in St. Peter’s Square and he called the family the "cradle of life.”

He said the "family is the natural environment for the birth and education of children and, therefore, for ensuring the future of the entire human family."

Pope Tells Catholics to Oppose Abortion, Euthanasia in Pro-Life Speech

8mm

141 posted on 02/07/2007 3:50:55 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
If we read kiddy editorials, we learn that John Stuart Mill would not agree with the Pope. However, Mr. Mill passed from this vale of tears in 1873. One hopes he has learned which way is up by now.
142 posted on 02/07/2007 5:03:55 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

I am sure the grandma is right in saying the ban on family visits is harmful.


143 posted on 02/07/2007 5:06:41 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

Your statement best fits the facts.


144 posted on 02/07/2007 5:08:13 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser; T'wit
Let me see if I can make anything out of this moron's logic:

While it is indeed the pope's prerogative to take a stance on such divisive issues, the purportedly infallible Benedict is undoubtedly mistaken on the issue of euthanasia National Socialist eugenics. Without question, euthanazing gassing a pain-wrought patient subhuman worthless eater who is not going to recover ever going to benefit the Master Race is an act of genuine human compassion devotion to the Motherland that should not be prohibited.

So, I guess this moron just figures that everyone who doesn't meet his standards needs to be killed.

145 posted on 02/07/2007 5:10:27 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser
Stay warm, Helen! I got a note from my sister reporting that the schools up there were closed. The northwoods is geared for winter life, so school closure is very unusual. This was due to subzero temperatures, not a blizzard. They didn't want the kids standing outside waiting for the school bus.

Boy, it be right nippy up north!

146 posted on 02/07/2007 5:45:02 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

It wasn't just the Pope. God was wrong too, y'know, telling us not to kill folks. What does He know. He probably didn't even go to college.


147 posted on 02/07/2007 5:46:35 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: T'wit

Well, a lot of our visitors should be happy because there is a decent chance that both parties nominees for president next year will be in favor of killing the "inconvenient" whether they be in the womb or in a hospital bed.


148 posted on 02/07/2007 5:53:14 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Followed by a law to kill inconvenient Republicans.


149 posted on 02/07/2007 6:02:58 AM PST by T'wit (Visitors: the good news is, lots of people have agreed with you. The bad news is, they were Nazis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle; Dante3
This is my answer to the riddle, from two posts in an earlier thread. In considerable measure, it is constructed from the strange internal traumas revealed by Terri's bone scan. It also incorporates all the ER test results and reports that I've found (a lot). I'm still calling upon visitors or anyone else to refute any part of it. So far, no takers.

- - - - -

... I don't believe he tried to kill her. I believe he came home steaming mad and meant to punish her. They'd had a ferocious argument that day. He was still fuming and meant to continue the fight.

As best I can reconstruct it, he dragged her out of bed when he got home. She would have been asleep, and could have offered no resistance in any case -- he's twice her size and he had her from behind. He wrestled her down a few feet away in the hallway, outside the bedroom door, and got on her back. His knees pinned her down. He had one knee in the small of her back (which caused a compression fracture at L1 plus fractures at rear of ribs -- both of which are very unusual injuries) and the other knee on her right leg (leaving a bone bruise on right femur; another odd injury). Her head was sideways. His weight was so great she couldn't breathe. Neither could she speak, to beg him to stop. She did struggle -- that was shown by a condition called lactic acidosis in her blood tests = violent exertion in the absence of oxygen. She tried desperately to draw a breath but could not. The struggle could not have lasted long, though. Unconsciousness comes within seconds, death soon after if this position is not relieved. It is called "positional asphyxia" and it shows up mostly in police restraint cases where the police get too heavy holding a criminal down. It kills. Michael stayed atop her too long. Then he panicked and went to pieces. When the medics finally did get there, Terri was in full cardiac arrest and needed seven defibs. Incidentally, the famous acute hypokalemia that showed up in Terri's blood testing is characteristic of trauma, not of bulimia.

- - - - -

One little afterword, if I may. We have visitors who haven't come to grips with the fact that domestic violence is the #1 cause of injury and death in young women. That makes it the first thing to suspect when trying to explain how a healthy young woman, age 26, probably asleep, ended up face down on the hallway floor, in cardiac arrest and near death, right after her husband came home late one Saturday night.

Nobody has ever explained how this happened, and medical testing found no natural causes. The autopsy report ruled out bulimia and that was Michael's only alibi. I ask our visitors for their assistance solving this mystery, but only one has even replied and that poster had no facts at all.

I also put my own reconstruction out for comment and nobody has yet refuted any point on it. The injuries I mention and the abnormal blood tests are all from evidentiary medical records. The fight between Terri and Michael was conceded by both sides of the family and was known to friends, one of whom urged Terri to spend the night with her for safety sake. Terri might be alive and well today, had she accepted. (Btw, Michael lied about the fight to the police when they arrived. He told them that everything was untroubled and rosy between him and Terri.)

It's theory, no more, no less. I'll amend the thing if someone can show me better, and I'll scrap it if someone can disprove it. If you find any holes in it, fire away. But for the moment, it's the only theory out there that fits ALL the known medical facts. That's extremely difficult to do. In fact, nobody offers any other theory at all any more.

So, visitors, refute it if you can. Suggest something better if you can. Whatever did happen that night must color our view of everything else that occurred. If it turns out that Michael himself caused Terri's injuries, one cannot still sympathize with his efforts later to finish her off. After you know Michael injured her in the first place, you cannot go on believing his whopper that he's only killing Terri because she wants to die. Neither can one go on applauding "due process" when you realize it covering up a murder.

- - - - -

150 posted on 02/07/2007 7:45:36 AM PST by T'wit (Liberalism is in every particular the attitude and tactics of insufferable little girls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,701-1,707 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson