Skip to comments.NEWS ALERT! Brain-Injured Wife Goes Without Food or Water for Seven Weeks
Posted on 09/17/2010 4:15:52 PM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
This IS NOT compassion, it is slow and drawn out MURDER.
There is no way you can survive 49 days without water, I refuse to believe this.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Something is missing here. There is no way a human can survive seven weeks without fluids in one form or another.
Agreed, it would be better and more humane to simply slip this poor woman some fast acting poison. Seven weeks is a long time without food and normally a person will die of thirst in 3 to 4 days.
Actually it sounds more like out and out BS.
Concur...but it makes for a good headline.
her husband is a low life, first.
second, someone is slipping her something, somehow, which is good
third, someone needs to get her out of there unless she signed an advance directive condemning herself
The actual execution of even the most brutal criminal usually takes a few minutes at most. What crime has this woman committed to deserve dying like this?
“There is no way you can survive 49 days without water, I refuse to believe this.”
Nowhere in the actual Atlanta-Constitution article does it say she has been without water. It says her feeding tube was removed; it does not say she is being deprived of water.
“Seven weeks is a long time without food and normally a person will die of thirst in 3 to 4 days.”
Terri lasted 2-3 weeks.
This husband is nothing like the bottom-of-the-barrel scum in Terri Schivo episode.
I agree, she is getting nutrition and hydration from someone. Hopefully her husband won’t go psycho like Schiavo and have armed guards posted at the door.
thanks for posting the link to the other article...I followed a second link there back to the earlier article....it explained HER wishes not to “languish in a vegetative state”. However, I would think it much more humane to just remove her from a ventilator than to starve her to death. aghhh.
Ohhhh this is the culture of death at work... my heart breaks for this young woman and her family
As a pro-life advocate this has always brought tears of compassion for the victim to my eyes. Last year about this time I was hospitalized with pneumonia & while in the ER they would not allow me any water. I had been running a high fever and I felt more thirsty than I ever had before. The DR wouldn’t let me have any liquids so my husband put water on a paper towel a couple of times so I could get some relief. The thirst was excruciating. I lay there praying and Terri Schaivo was constantly in my thoughts. How could anyone think that depriving a human being of hydration is acceptable? All those experts “it’s euphoric, such a peaceful way to go..”...liars, all of them.
thank you for the link.
what truly need to get done is making it illegal to withhold IV fluid adminitration on anyone with a heart beat-
will they then claim that water is now a miracle drug ?
My aunt had 2 surgeries (uninsured too),for brain tumours and when they recurred we were told they were inoperable—the thought of denying her anything never entered our mind.
The same for any family member right up to the instant of physical death.
who’s responsible for this practice ?
and why is it acceptable to those in health care/hospice ?
“needs our prayers!”
” Last year about this time I was hospitalized with pneumonia & while in the ER they would not allow me any water. I had been running a high fever and I felt more thirsty than I ever had before. The DR wouldnt let me have any liquids so my husband put water on a paper towel a couple of times so I could get some relief. The thirst was excruciating. I lay there praying and Terri Schaivo was constantly in my thoughts. How could anyone think that depriving a human being of hydration is acceptable? All those experts its euphoric, such a peaceful way to go.....liars, all of them.”
Thank you for sharing your story, and I hope you’ll inform as many people as you can.
Thanks for the ping!
I think only fluids ~ perhaps via IV?
Go check out Bride to Angel on FB and gag at the 4K
well wishers who post their empty platitudes about
how loving he is to “keep his promise”!
Straight out of the MS playbook!
the problem with *that* though is that is *exactly*
where the death mongers want to take us.
I tend to agree that someone is subverting the murder
Do you have any idea how long you were without PO water,
that means water intake by mouth. (I assume you had an
IV at some point) I’ve had reports from people who came
out of sepsis that they were at times aware, including
aware of being hungry. (They were in no danger of dehydration)
She couldn’t possibly survive 7 weeks without water.
I’ve heard that 40 is the maximum anyone can go without food and once you get to a certain stage of starvation, no amount of food or calories can save you.
I was in and out. I know they hooked an IV up at some point but the overwhelming need to drink water was excruciating. I went into the ER about 1am and I know I drank water around 9 or 10 am. I can not imagine being deprived of all hydration.
Thread by julieee.
Practitioner Pleads Guilty to Manslaughter, Killed Woman in Failed Abortion
Hyannis, MA -- Massachusetts-based abortion practitioner Rapin Osathanondh pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter on Monday in relation to his killing 22-year-old Laura Smith in a failed abortion. The plea in court from Osathanondh came on the third anniversary of Smith's death.
(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...
Thread by me.
It is very clear that the Obama Administration knows its approach to health care is unpopular. Thus, the short term Medicare head, Donald Berwickwho Obama gave a recess appointment to so he wouldnt have to testify in a Senate Committee about his rationing viewspretended that we can expand coverage, while not raising prices and not cutting care in a speech yesterday. What a joke. From the Associated Press story:
The nations health system cant be transformed by rationing medical care, President Barack Obamas new Medicare chief said Monday in his first major speech. Dr. Donald Berwicks appointment earlier this summer without Senate confirmation was contentious because some Republicans accused him of being willing to deny care to save on costs. Since then, the administration has kept Berwick out of the limelight, turning the otherwise well-known medical innovation guru into something of a mystery man in Washington.
Berwick broke his silence Monday, telling an audience of health insurance industry representatives that pushing back against unsustainable costs cannot and should not involve withholding from us, or our neighbors, any care that helps or harming a hair on any patients head. Berwick also said he doesnt think federal bureaucrats have all the answers when it comes to remaking the system. A massive, topdown, national project is not the way to do this, he told a conference hosted by Americas Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying group.
Some Republicans accused. No, he said it himself. As the story points out:
Republicans have seized on previous comments from Berwick, such as this one from an interview last year: The decision is not whether or not we will ration care the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly. They say that raises questions about what Berwick really thinks of rationing. Berwicks supporters counter that rationing already takes place, through actions of insurance companies, and all he wants is to bring the medical decision-making process into the open.
Thats not the same thing at all as not harming any hair on a patients head, and in fact, endorses explicit rationing. Besides, Berwick is also on record as applauding NICE and the NHSs top-down, rationed care approach, as I pointed out at this SHS post, in which he extolled the NHS for planning supply, (e.g. rationing) and redistributing wealth, and also stated:
I am a romantic about the NHS; I love it, and the NHS is not just a national treasure, it is a global treasure.
Its melting down! People are denied important medical services. Hospitals are filthy. People are left waiting in ambulances before going into the ER. Cancer patients and others are denied efficacious treatment based on QALY quality of life bean counter analyses. (Just do a search on this site under SHS Meltdown to see scores of stories I have carried here.)
Berwick can pretend to change his spots. But we know what he really believes. And next year, when his temporary appointment ends, he will most likely be out of a job.
Thread by BykrBayb.
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation Change's Name! For Immediate Release
Contact: Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, 727-490-7603, firstname.lastname@example.org
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Sept. 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation has changed its name to the "Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network".
"This new name better reflects the purpose of our organization -- to continue to develop and update our network to help families protect their loved ones from a very aggressive anti-life agenda taking control of our nation," said Director of Development, Suzanne Vitadamo.
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation was originally founded in the year 2000 by the parents and siblings of Terri Schiavo.
(Excerpt) Read more at terrisfight.org ...
Thread by me.
CALGARY, Alberta, September 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of doctors have called on the medical community to cease harvesting organs from patients whose hearts have stopped pulsating, saying that doctors are misleading families to believe that the patient has died when in fact their loved one is still alive.
The story was featured Wednesday on the cover of Canada's National Post.
A longstanding tenet of ethical organ donation [is] that the nonliving donor must be irreversibly dead at the time of donation, explain the eight paediatric intensive care specialists, writing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine.
The doctors say that the publics underlying assumption when they agree to donate organs is that they are giving permission to have their organs removed after they are dead.
But the authors observe that death has been redefined in the last few decades to meet the demand for more organs. They say organs were originally taken from cadaveric donors who died in the conventional way, irreversibly losing all electrical and mechanical activity from the heart (circulation) and all brain function, despite medical efforts to save them.
But this method of organ procurement created a problem for organ transplantation. If the patient died in the conventional way then, at the time of irreversibility, so did most organs.
The notion of brain death was created in 1981 in order to harvest more organs, they say. Then in 1991 the Pittsburgh Protocol was developed to allow doctors to harvest the organs of adults after a persons heart has stopped for a certain period.
The Protocol involves removing the person from life support for 30 to 60 minutes. If the patients heart continues to beat after that time, they are returned to the ICU, but if it stops for a prescribed period (around 2 minutes, though ranging from 75 seconds to 10 minutes depending on the jurisdiction), the organs are harvested.
No efforts are made to assess the patients brain function at the time of organ removal, the authors explain. The claim is that circulation has irreversibly stopped after 2 mins of observation.
But this ignores the many reports of the Lazarus phenomenon, where a patients heart starts again 5 to 10 minutes after CPR is performed. Such instances suggest that the heart function and circulation may not be irreversibly stopped in DCD [Donation after Cardiac Death] patients at the time of organ procurement.
The authors also point out that doctors desire to prolong lives through organ transplants can foster physician and institutional bias for the cardiac death criteria.
While opposing the notion of "cardiac death", the authors accept organ harvesting following "brain death". Opponents of "brain death" point out that organs can only be harvested when the organ's functioning continues, meaning that the donor is still showing signs of life. They say that if the person is truly dead, the unpaired vital organs cannot be transplanted. In particular, "brain death" has allowed heart transplants, but the heart is only useful if it is still beating in the donor.
Akin to the "Lazarus phenomenon" noted by the authors, there have been numerous instances of patients recovering following a declaration of "brain death".
The National Post interviewed Dr. Ari Joffe, the sole Canadian author of the controversial document, from Stollery Childrens Hospital in Calgary. I think that were being less than entirely honest about when the patient is truly dead, he said. Were not trying to deny the parent the choice to donate The point were making is what if theyre almost dead and were not sure if theyre dead, and its not at the point of irreversibility yet?
Thread by me.
It seems indisputable to me that the medical elites and many in bioethics wish to wipe people with Down syndrome off the face of the earth using the killing tool of eugenic abortionor if that doesnt work, infanticide or medical neglect. This has led to a counter movement to value our brothers and sisters with Down into the human community. For example, as I reported here, the late Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Sam Brownback passed a law through Congress, signed by President Bush, requiring that genetic counseling for mothers whose fetuses have tested positive for Down, dwarfism, and other genetic anomolies, not be directed to any particular outcome. The senators believed the law was necessary because studies showed that women were often pushed toward the abortion option.
Another method of push back is for women to refuse testing altogether. Their thinking is that they are going to love their baby come what maygee, unconditional love, what a concept!and they worry about being tested because of the pressure they will come under to abort.
One such mother has written a story in the NYT about her decision not to receive such testing, even though she already gave birth to one child with Down and the chances are greatly increased that she will do so again. From Why Prenatal Testing Harms as Much as it Helps, by Amy Julia Becker:
For this pregnancy, I have had two ultrasounds, and I have agreed to a fetal echocardiogram. But I declined the blood tests that screen for chromosomal abnormalities. I declined the amniocentesis. I didnt return my insurance companys calls when they wanted to assign a nurse to guide me through this pregnancy. Im not opposed to having information about our baby ahead of time. I want to know everything we could know in order to care for this child well. If there is a physical problem, if I need to deliver with specialists on hand, if our baby is at high risk of complications, I want to know about it, and the tests we have chosen should provide that information. And although I declined, Im not opposed to prenatal testing. There are benefits to knowledge. According to Dr. Brian Skotko of Harvard Medical School, studies have demonstrated the helpfulness of prenatal diagnosis. Women who know ahead of time that their babies have Down syndrome are able to celebrate their arrival into the world, and often these women feel better prepared for the challenges they might face as a parent.
Thats what happened with Sarah Palin. She says knowing ahead of time helped her prepare to welcome Trig with open arms (which, as I have written, is one reason why I think she generates so much hate from certain quarters). But pre natal testing, which could be so beneficial, clearly has a darker sidethe targeting of those deemed deficient:
On the other hand, the way these tests are administered, the way information is provided to women and the way our culture talks about and conceives of individuals with chromosomal abnormalities contribute to my concern that prenatal testing more often serves to devalue all human life and to offer parents and doctors an illusion of control. When a friend of mine, who has a daughter with Down syndrome, declined amniocentesis for her next pregnancy, her doctor shrugged and said, Well, if it happens again, dont blame me. Another friend, upon receiving the results of her amniocentesis, was asked, When would you like to schedule the procedure to terminate? Peter and I have participated in a program through the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in which medical students meet families with a child with a disability. These doctors in training have told me that before they met Penny, they thought Down syndrome was the worst possible thing that could happen to a child. A medical-school professor at the University of North Carolina offered validation to their report when he said to his class, In my opinion, the moral thing for older women to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome 21, and abort the fetus if it does.
That last bit reminded me of a speech I once gave at a medical school about the urgency of seeing all human beings as possessing equal moral worth in the medical system. Afterwards, a soon to be doctor said to me, I do genetic counseling. What should I do when a fetus has tested positive for Down? his implication being that there only is one right decision. I suggested that perhaps he should bring in families of people with Down to help explain to the woman or couple what life is really like for families with such children. He looked at me as if I were from Mars.
Even as maternal age increases, the incidence of children born with Down syndrome is decreasing. Studies show that 85 percent to 90 percent of women with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies. We declined prenatal testing not because we assume this baby in my womb has the typical 46 chromosomes. We declined prenatal testing because we would welcome another child with Down syndrome.
We hear so often, as in AIDS, about how prejudicial attitudes of medical professionals hurt patients. That problem is clearly true with regard to Down and other genetic conditions that can be diagnosed prenatally. Because women know that they would be expected to abort, they are instead of opting out of beneficial testing. Thats not their fault. Its that of the medical professionaland of a culture that too often rejects human exceptionalism. We all have a lot of work to do cleaning up our prejudicial act.
Thanks for the ping!
I like the name change.
“Physicians are finally starting to acknowledge that the organ transplant industry is not nearly as altruistic as it claims.”
A step in the right direction.
I and everyone I know refused testing while pregnant. No sense in it if you’re not going to abort, was my thinking.
WHERE ARE THE GEORGIA FREEPERS? They should call it murder if they can't do anything else about this. Is Georgia a democrat state? Anyway, they have some weird cults in Georgia too.
I won't vote for Rick Scott. HCA hospitals froth at the mouth imo over organ donors. Won't let Medicaid patients in unless they are supposedly brain dead. They'll take Medicaid patients for organ donatiosn but not to save them. This happened here in Death Central, Pinellas County. Medicaid patients: hospitals want your organs but don't want to treat you! (Pinellas County perspective).
If she had unsuccessful brain surgery, why starve her to death ahead of time? It’s like killing her so she won’t die of her illness. That makes no sense at all. This case is about murder v. natural death. This is inducing death as opposed to making her comfortable. This is torturing her when she needs comfort. Georgia sucks like Florida.
Defining coma is even fuzzier than it was when Terri was murdered. Remember the PVS nonsense even though there were videos of Terri awake and alert?
“Medicaid patients: hospitals want your organs but don’t want to treat you!”
A good way to get your organs is if they don’t treat you, but I’m guessing that’s your point.
I would never sign an organ donor card, but I told my husband that I would trust his judgment, if anything ever happened.
Thread by julieee.
Washington, DC -- Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin became the latest potential presidential candidate and Republican with a national profile to call for a "truce" on social issues. He joins Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour, who called for Republicans to back down on pro-life issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...
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.