Posted on 04/15/2005 1:05:20 PM PDT by phenn
That's one. There are 45 others.
Do you know how many hours the Hammesfahr examination video was and have you seen it?
I want to say at least two hours if not longer. I've seen most. It's pretty interesting. Rather revealing.
With equally impressive diagnoses, I'm sure.
bttt
Ping. massage therapist ex-wife volunteers to interpret the autopsy results.
Was Dr. Hammesfahr's examination report accurate regarding that she was alert and responsive throughout?
The truth is begging to be set free in this case.
Yes, they allllllllll must be quacks because they didn't support the PVS diagnosis (which is misdiagnosed 43% of the time according to the British Medical Journal). Yes, anyone who says any different that PVS must surely be a quack.
Not like that Cranford guy, hey? God knows he gets it right "105%" of the time.
LOL!! The entire statement by Hennessey is HILARIOUS!! Too bad the press will just ignore this. So sad. I will NEVER FORGET!!!
Then, read how the law changed in 1999 with regards to feeding tubes.
phen, do you know the difference between an unconstitutional statute and a valid statute?
The no-feeding-tube-can-be-removed statute changed in 1999 had been declared unconstitutional since 1989.
In the Browning case tried in 1989, both a circuit court and the district appellate court had decided that such statute was unconstitutional. In 1990, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the decision by the appellate court.
Since the Florida Constitution trumps any unconstitutional statute, the Florida courts have rejected the argument that withdrawing a feeding tube was illegal when Terri collapsed in 1990. The inalienable right to refuse medical treatment is guaranteed in the Florida Constitution, and no unconstitutional statute can change that.
As far as I can tell, he examined her on two occasions. That is because in one, she is wearing some kind of frock and is in her bed. The other time, she's wearing a red t-shirt and is in a chair.
She's certainly alert throughout. She doesn't pay attention to him at first. At one stage, though, he gets up to grab something on the other side of the room and she watches every move he makes.
He got her arm, severely contracted, to relax. She starts grinning at him. He puts a swab with a nasty scent on it in her mouth and around her nose and she reacts like she's going to belt him. He talks to her and she responds with verbal replies. Not language per se, but different sounds.
Oddly enough, I almost feel she was more on game with Cranford. Then again, he did bark at her quite a bit.
Do you think a statutory definition of PVS is constitutional? We're talking about one that doesn't defer to a diagnosis of a doctor or a certification of two physicians. Just a statutory definition.
That constitutional?
Terri had nothing to do with Browning, BTW. Browning had not one but two advanced directives instructing the removal of ANY life-prolonging measures - including feedings. Terri did not.
The law that states medical treatment removal must be directed by the patient is certainly not unconstitutional any way you slice it.
Withdrawing a feeding tube under these circumstances was not just illegal when Terri collapsed, it was illegal when the original petition was filed. There is your problem. Think about that.
PS: We are clearly talking about different statutes.
The particular circumstances were different, but the issue was germane. As a matter of fact, Browning is profusely cited in the Schiavo decisions.
Was the statute banning the removal of feeding tubes constitutional? No, said Browning.
The law that states medical treatment removal must be directed by the patient is certainly not unconstitutional any way you slice it.
That's what happened in both Browning and Schiavo. Neither of them lost their right to refuse medical treatment just because they could not verbalize their wishes. Previous oral or written expressions are sufficient.
Read Browning dicta if you have any doubts.
Furthermore, being PVS was not a requirement to have the right to refuse feeding tubes. Mrs. Browning was not PVS, she just could not verbalize.
Again, you are likely missing the point I'm trying to make. I know all about Browning. She had a written, advanced directive. Terri did not.
Additionally, Terri was not terminally ill. It was only after the 1999 statute changes that a non-terminally ill person could have a feeding tube removed without a written, advanced directive and that was only in cases of PVS.
Further to that, under Florida's evidence code, Michael Schiavo's testimony of Terri's alleged oral declaration was NEVER admissible. Yet, that was what the court found as clear and convincing evidence of her death wish.
Browning served to set the case law that a person could refuse unwanted intervention, but it did NOT serve to set the case that someone else could refuse intervention for the patient. That has never been set - well.... until now that is.
That's all that was needed to determine that Terri WAS NOT PVS!!!!!!
Not true. Already adressed in Browning. Mrs. Browning, a non-PVS patient and a non-terminally-ill person had the right to refuse feeding tubes. No written directive was required, an oral statement was sufficient said the court.
Further to that, under Florida's evidence code, Michael Schiavo's testimony of Terri's alleged oral declaration was NEVER admissible.
False again. No wonder you can't understand why the Schindlers kept losing their court battles.
But she did stay in a Holiday Inn Express Last Night
rotflmao
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.