OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 12:46:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Schiavo - Autopsy shows the correct decision was made  (Read 4676 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« on: June 15, 2005, 11:54:16 AM »

. ... This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Schiavo autopsy finds no sign of trauma

LARGO, Florida (AP) -- Terri Schiavo did not suffer any trauma prior to her 1990 collapse and her brain was about half of normal size when she died, according to results released Wednesday of an autopsy conducted on the severely brain-damaged woman.

Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin concluded that there was no evidence of strangulation or other trauma leading to her collapse.

He also said she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack and there was no evidence that she was given harmful drugs or other substances prior to her death.

Autopsy results on the 41-year-old brain damaged woman were made public Wednesday, more than two months after Schiavo's death ended an internationally watched right-to-die battle that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country.

She died from dehydration, he said.

He said she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth as her parents' requested.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

Thogmartin said that Schiavo's brain was about half of its expected size when she died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed.

"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain. ... This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:59:30 AM by TomS » Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,462


« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2005, 12:25:20 PM »

She died from dehydration, he said.

He said she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth as her parents' requested.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

Thogmartin said that Schiavo's brain was about half of its expected size when she died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed.

"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain. ... This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."



The only thing here that is of the slightest surprise is the reduced brain size, and then only slight.

The "Removal of the feeding tube..." statement is one of the most "duh!!" statements ever made - THAT'S WHY IT WAS THERE!  SHE COULDN'T CHEW OR SWALLOW!

I find the statements about not suffereing "trauma" and that the decision to be "correct" to be completely subjective - undeterminable for the first and based on whosever worldview for the second.

This is all besides the point.  From the Church's pov, it was still murder and the wrong deicision, which is the bottom line in our case.   
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2005, 12:27:53 PM »

Still doesn't make it right. She was alive. It is not mandatory ethically to keep a respiratory since this is an extraordinary measure, but in her case, she could breathe on her own; food cannot be removed though, as this is not extraordinary but normative. Denying food is abuse.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 12:28:55 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2005, 12:38:54 PM »

The "Removal of the feeding tube..." statement is one of the most "duh!!" statements ever made - THAT'S WHY IT WAS THERE!ÂÂ  SHE COULDN'T CHEW OR SWALLOW!

This was something that her parents said that she could do.
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2005, 12:42:09 PM »

Quote
I find the statements about not suffereing "trauma" and that the decision to be "correct" to be completely subjective - undeterminable for the first and based on whosever worldview for the second.

Most incidents of trauma, especially the ones that she was alleged to have suffered, would leave fairly obvious traces, even years after the fact.
Logged
vbranch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2005, 06:54:52 PM »

This situation, as well as similar ones, continues to trouble me.  The Lord God has established the boundaries of life, beyond which there is no earthly existence.

While science can, indeed, measure, analyze, and evaluate the physical capacity of human life in extraordinary ways (and, will continue to do even more so in the future); who but Almighty God alone knows the extent of the human soul?

It seems more and more is given over to science in these matters and less and less to God.
Logged

No longer participates on this forum.
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2005, 07:04:03 PM »

Quote
It is not mandatory ethically to keep a respiratory since this is an extraordinary measure, but in her case, she could breathe on her own; food cannot be removed though, as this is not extraordinary but normative.

You're beginning to sound like a Catholic.  Tongue

Nevertheless, I would argue that sometimes a feeding tube is an extraordinary measure.

My only opinion on it is this: life has to end.

This case was in a very grey area, we don't want to put ourselves into dogmatic positions that would only get us stuck. If she could think, what kind of life would that be? Imagine darkness all the time and being conscious in that darkness, would you really want 15 years of that? (PS. I say "darkness" b/c I heard on CTV that she was blind).
Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2005, 09:19:46 PM »

Well, he husband must have had oxygen cut off from his brain, because when he went to court to sue her Dr.'s he argued that she wanted to live and as a result he was awarded 1.5 million I believe. After he got the money and a new woman in his life he suddenly remembered that she said she didn't want to live. He didn't spend a dime on rehabilitation that he was awarded to care for her, rather he spent it all on attorneys to end his wife's life.

Either Mr. Schiavo was lying in court at the start, or he was lying in court at the end. Either she did want to live or she didn't. He has played both sides.

Yes, life must end, I see it end all the time in my Emergency Room.

Robert
ICXC~NIKA
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2005, 09:36:29 PM »

From my readings this case is only possible due to technological advances.  50 years ago the poor woman would not have lived so long at all.  The ethics of technology use are something to be seriously considered, I think.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Kizzy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229



« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2005, 09:40:01 PM »

As a scientist I can only say that with each thing we know, there is so much more that we don't. We think we know how the brain works and how the body works, but our knowledge is still imperfect or incomplete.  Her quality of life and whether she could be 'cured' was never an issue for me- since life is to be valued regardless of what we think it's supposed to be like ... The big issue was that the court system let down someone who couldn't fend for herself.  Hubby was the fox watching the chicken coupe.  The only real important info revealed in that autopsy was that she didn't have a heart attack, wasn't bullimic, etc.  i.e. a huge mystery about why she collapsed.   ÃƒÆ’‚ This many years later I'm hard pressed to think they would find any trace of a chemical in her body that could have triggered the collapse. All in all, the situation was fishy from beginning through the other side of the end.  Hubby's lawyer was even on the board of the hospice she was at... I mean we had conflicts of interest everywhere.  What is really scary is how little the courts can do to protect and investigate strange goings on for  someone in that situation, which could be any of us. ÂÂ

Poor Terri suffered in life for all of the helpless on earth.  May she find peace now that she is free.

In XC, Kizzy
Logged

In XC, Kizzy
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2005, 09:40:44 PM »

Given that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to have an autopsy of her, I find the husband's to be suspicious. I still believe that he phyically and verbally abused her.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2005, 09:43:18 PM »

Quote
Well, he husband must have had oxygen cut off from his brain, because when he went to court to sue her Dr.'s he argued that she wanted to live and as a result he was awarded 1.5 million I believe.

Have you a cite for this statement?

The malpractice suit was settled, with $700,000 going to Mrs. Schiavo and $300,000 going to Mr. Schiavo. Mrs. Schiavo's money was placed in a trust fund, not "awarded" to Mr. Schiavo.

Quote
He didn't spend a dime on rehabilitation that he was awarded to care for her, rather he spent it all on attorneys to end his wife's life.

This is patently false, and I defy you to show otherwise.
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2005, 09:45:33 PM »

Quote
Given that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to have an autopsy of her, I find the husband's to be suspicious. I still believe that he phyically and verbally abused her.

It was done by the State medical examiner, I would have no reason to doubt it.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2005, 09:47:49 PM »

State medical examiner? Sometimes the government will say anything to cover its tracks. Just think of the Warren Report.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2005, 09:48:47 PM »

Quote
Given that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to have an autopsy of her, I find the husband's to be suspicious. I still believe that he phyically and verbally abused her.

The autopsy wasn't done by Mr. Schiavo's "side", but rather by the county medical examiner's office, i.e. a neutral third party.

There does not exist a shred of evidence to indicate that Mr. Schiavo ever abused his wife, and to publically accuse him of such is reprehensible.

Quote
State medical examiner? Sometimes the government will say anything to cover its tracks.

If you will recall, it was the government of Florida that was trying to *prevent* the removal of the feeding tube.
Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2005, 03:49:08 AM »

Quote
This is patently false, and I defy you to show otherwise.

Michael's behavior toward Terri has been utterly despicable for the last decade. After she collapsed in 1990, he sued for medical malpractice on her behalf. During the trial, he presented himself to the jury as a dedicated and loving husband--even though he had been romancing other women since shortly after the time of Terri's collapse and brain injury. He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide 
her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.

As bad as Michael has been, in many ways, the performance of Judge George W. Greer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, the jurist who oversees Terri's case, has been even worse. Over the years Greer has repeatedly allowed Michael to shirk his legal mandate as guardian to file annual prospective "guardianship plans," specifying his proposal for providing for Terri's medical and social needs for the coming year.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/027bcfsv.asp
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2005, 09:42:45 AM »

State medical examiner? Sometimes the government will say anything to cover its tracks. Just think of the Warren Report.

Okay, I thought of it. Please enlighten us to the serious EVIDENCE that shows the Warren report is a coverup.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 09:52:56 AM by TomS » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2005, 09:52:08 AM »

Ho ho. No, a link to a newspaper article does not show that he spent Mrs. Schiavo's malpractice settlement money solely on attorneys, and not "a dime" on rehabilitation, especially when the newspaper article doesn't even make that claim. Try again?

And once again, remember that Mr. Schiavo was not the custodian of Mrs. Schiavo's settlement money, but that it was in a trust fund managed by a third party. Also remember that Mr. Schiavo on multiple occasions offered to relinquish any claim he would have had on the money, if only Mrs. Schiavo's parents would agree to stop fighting for Mrs. Schiavo to be kept alive with artificial means.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 09:53:00 AM by Beayf » Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2005, 11:39:36 AM »

Well, did he use that money to help her? No. But he did convince a malpractice jury that he would care for her the rest of her life. Why didn't he pull the plug then? Because you cain't get money from a woman who wanted to die anyways. Why didn't he spend that money ro rehabilitate her? That is why he got it isn't it?

Quote
He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide 
her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Again, he must have forgotten that it was her wish not to be kept alive.

Did Mr. Schiavo spend her money on legal fees to try and end her life and not on rehabilitation? Yes.

Quote
The $700,000 or so earmarked for Mrs. Schiavo's medical care for the rest of her life has dwindled to about $350,000, court records show. Most was spent in the past two years on the intense legal fight that made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and is still not over.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/060301/TampaBay/Fund_for_Schiavo_s_me.shtml

Medical Malpractice Trial — Testimony of Michael Schiavo

November 1992 — In a highly emotional trial, Michael Schiavo implored the jury to award money for his wife’s future medical and neurological care. Actual excerpts from the malpractice trial transcript reveal Michael Schiavo’s sworn testimony as he responded to his attorney's question. (It is important to note that Terri’s alleged wishes stating, "she wouldn’t want to live this way," are never mentioned by her husband at the 1992 malpractice trial).

Q: Why did you want to learn to be a nurse?
Michael Schiavo: Because I enjoy it and I want to learn more how to take care of Terri.

Q: You're a young man. Your life is ahead of you. When you look up the road, what do you see for yourself?   
Michael Schiavo: See myself hopefully finishing school and taking care of my wife.

Q: Where do you want to take care of your wife?
Michael Schiavo: I want to bring her home.

Q: If you had the resources available to you, if you had the equipment and the people, would you do that?
Michael Schiavo: Yes, I would, in a heartbeat.

Q: How do you feel about being married to Terri now?
Michael Schiavo: I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my wedding vows.

Q: You believe in your wedding vows, what do you mean by that?
Michael Schiavo: I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that.

Summer 1993 — Michael Schiavo dramatically demonstrates his interpretation of what his trial testimony "taking care of," really means. Less than a year after the medical malpractice jury award, Schiavo makes his first of two attempts to end his wife’s life.  Bear in mind, Michael Schiavo is the inheritor of Terri's medical fund.

Michael Schiavo, under oath, in a November 1993 deposition, admits that he knew Terri would die when he instructed Terri’s caretakers not to medicate Terri with antibiotics for a potentially fatal infection. He also instructs Terri’s caretakers "not to resuscitate" should Terri require any life saving action.

As mentioned, in November1993, Michael Schiavo’s guardianship was challenged for his actions when he instructed Terri’s caretakers not to medicate Terri with antibiotics for a potentially fatal infection. This legal charge culminated with a February 1994 Judge Pennock hearing in which Michael Schiavo was exonerated and his guardianship remained intact. The court permitted Michael Schiavo to withdraw money from Terri’s medical fund to reimburse his legal expenses.

May 1998, Michael Schiavo hires attorney George Felos to petition the court to have Terri’s feeding terminated. Subsequently, the court has permitted Michael Schiavo to withdraw money from Terri’s medical fund to reimburse his legal expenses in his efforts to have Terri die.

Note: In the ensuing (9) years since the 1992 jury malpractice award, Michael Schiavo has used Terri’s medical fund money in his pursuit of Terri’s death and to defend his guardianship role. The bulk of the money has gone for legal fees. Although Terri’s medical fund is sealed; there are court transactions available for public inspection.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/bulletins/euda.htm

Terri Schiavo's estranged husband Michael has spent virtually all of the money meant for Terri's medical care and rehabilitative treatment. As a result, Florida taxpayers are picking up the tab to house her in a southwest Florida hospice.

When Terri collapsed in 1990, Michael claimed that doctors failed to diagnose beforehand the causes that led to it. A court agreed and, in 1993, awarded Michael and Terri $1 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit.

At the time, Michael promised to use the money to provide rehabilitative and medical care for Terri.

Shortly afterwards, Michael decided to ask doctors to remove Terri's feeding tube -- a decision that led to the lengthy legal battle with Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler.

Since then, Michael has spent virtually all of the money on legal bills in his quest to starve Terri to death.

Michael Schiavo's attorneys told the Associated Press they haven't been paid in more than tow years because the money from the award has nearly run out. They say just $40-50,000 remains and it has been placed in a trust fund to pay for final legal fees associated with the ongoing litigation.

Terri lives at Woodside Hospice, and is only allowed to be there because it is a nonprofit entity and part of a state network of homes for disabled patients. She is permitted to stay there at no cost because she is considered indigent, Michael's attorney Deborah Bushnell told AP.

Normally, patients pay as much as $80,000 annually to live at Woodside.

Meanwhile, what little medical care has been afforded to Terri has been paid for by the state's Medicaid program, which helps poor residents.

The lack of medical care has caused Terri health issues and she recently had to have four teeth extracted because of poor care.

Bushnell told AP she has been paid just over $80,000 by representing Michael since 1993. Michael's lead attorney, euthanasia advocate George Felos, has brought home nearly $360,000.

Bushnell indicated that more than half of the medical malpractice award has been spent on Michael's legal bills.

http://66.195.16.55/bio791.html

Is it true that Terri's money has paid for attorneys to make her dead, instead of therapists to make her better? The answer is, unquestionably, yes. According to court records, George Felos, the dutiful "right to die" attorney who sat at Schiavo's side on King's show, has been paid over $350,000 from Terri's trust fund. Another of Schiavo's attorneys, Debra Bushnell, has received about $90,000. These two lawyers alone have received more than half of Terri's entire trust.
 
According to court records, when Schiavo began his quest to pull Terri's feeding tube in 1998, she had more than $700,000 in the bank. This was primarily because Schiavo generally refused to authorize payments for any nursing home services on Terri's behalf beyond the basics of room and board. Thus, only about $50,000 was paid on her behalf in the five years following the jury verdict. Since 1998, about $650,000 (not taking into account any earnings from the fund) has gone out--not for therapy, but primarily for lawyers.

http://www.rense.com/general43/wasn.htm


Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2005, 12:44:09 PM »

Linking to articles that provide *no* sources for where they are drawing their information does not constitute a cite for your claim that Mr. Schiavo did not spend "a dime" on rehabilitation. The second source is particularly bad at this, seemingly pulling numbers out of thin air and not providing references for *anything* they're saying.

The malpractice settlement was completed in May 1992. The do-not-resuscitate order was not entered until March of 1994. Between those two dates Mr. Schiavo did indeed try to provide care and therapy for his wife; it was only when it became clear that there was no way she could recover that the DNR order was entered. (See here for where I'm drawing this information.)

Notably, from the link I have provided, there is the following:

Quote
By all accounts, Mr. Schiavo has been was [sic] very motivated in pursuing the best medical care for his wife [...] It is undisputed that he was very aggressive with nursing home personnel to make certain that she received the finest of care. In 1994, Mr. Schiavo attempted to refuse medical treatment for an infection being experienced by his wife. His unrefuted testimony was that his decision was based upon medical advice.

[...]

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Schiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support. Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner is very involved.
(emphases mine)

Now, do you have any primary and/or official sources to debunk this finding of the court?
 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 12:45:05 PM by Beayf » Logged
PhosZoe
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 346

One foot in the cradle


« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2005, 01:07:43 PM »

Ok, so her husband didn't beat her according to the autopsy. It doesn't excuse the fact that her "husband" and her family acted like wild dingos tearing apart what little shred of dignity she had left.


As for the term "abuse" she abused her body so severly from binging and purging that it caused her to have a heart attack and eventually fall into a coma. What a price to pay to be thin and beautiful. 
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2005, 02:20:42 PM »

Yeah but those girls on the OC are HOT.ÂÂ  It's SO worth it.

I like my women to look like they just came out of a concentrated camp.ÂÂ  The starvation look is HIP, baby.ÂÂ  That way you can wear those clothes that show your bum and your midruff and you don't have to have ANY muscle tone.ÂÂ  It's sexy.ÂÂ  The curvy, healthy, can bear children look is WAY out.

I think her life was DEFINITELY worth it.  Fashion is way more important than health, especially when it affects wearing trendy clothes and what other people say about you.

(I would like to point out that I have never actually seen the OC, so I am saying this from a drudgereport article that says the women on that show are really skinny.ÂÂ  If they aren't, my fault.)
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 02:24:13 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2005, 02:25:10 PM »

If you will recall, it was the government of Florida that was trying to *prevent* the removal of the feeding tube.

It was the government of Florida, who in my opinon, failed to adequately investigate Michael Schiavo's history of abuse.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2005, 02:26:13 PM »

Okay, I thought of it. Please enlighten us to the serious EVIDENCE that shows the Warren report is a coverup. Roll Eyes

This may sound silly but I'd recomend that you start with Oliver Stone's JFK.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2005, 02:27:20 PM »

As for the term "abuse" she abused her body so severly from binging and purging that it caused her to have a heart attack and eventually fall into a coma. What a price to pay to be thin and beautiful.

Actually, does not the autopsy show that it wasn't related to bulemia?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #25 on: June 16, 2005, 02:30:24 PM »

This may sound silly but I'd recomend that you start with Oliver Stone's JFK.

Are you freakin' SERIOUS!!!!!?HuhHuh?? Even Oliver Stone admits that 90% of that movie was "Fictionory"

Here's a term that you need to investigate during your summer vacation from High School: "Critical Thinking"

Get back to me when you understand what it means and how to apply it.
Logged
SeanMc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2005, 02:35:03 PM »

The autopsy found no signs of an eating disorder OR abuse from a person (of course, one would assume that in 15 years, a body would be able to heal those kinds of wounds).

I have to say, I believed the pro-life side when they viciously demonized Mr. Schiavo. Now, I don't know who's right or wrong, but next time, I'm not going to believe everything the pro-life camp says as I have seen it distort facts and make up things just like the pro-abortion camp does.
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2005, 02:59:44 PM »

.. but next time, I'm not going to believe everything the pro-life camp says as I have seen it distort facts and make up things just like the pro-abortion camp does.

My rule is that extremists are masters at manipulating facts to fit their half-truths and/or outright lies. So I never believe anything I see, read, or hear until it is backed up by other multiple sources without an agenda to promote.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:00:24 PM by TomS » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2005, 03:14:51 PM »

Are you freakin' SERIOUS!!!!!?HuhHuh??

Yes, I am serious. Though not all of it may be accurate, it will at least get you looking deeper into the story.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:17:28 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2005, 03:24:54 PM »

Yes, I am serious. Though not all of it may be accurate, it will at least get you looking deeper into the story.

And by looking deeper into the "STORY" (you used the correct term here), what have you found that would make you decide that the Warren Commissions findings were simply a coverup? I mean, besides more fictional accounts of history.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #30 on: June 16, 2005, 03:27:41 PM »

Hey, cool topic!  My dad helped in the cover up of JFK.

What do you want to know about it?
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2005, 03:29:43 PM »

Quote
Between those two dates Mr. Schiavo did indeed try to provide care and therapy for his wife;

Really? Can you show me who he used to give her therapy? Why didn't he ever state who he used? Why didn't they come forward to say that he had indeed tried and it failed? Can you quote me primary sources? Can you show me PDF copies of receipts?

Are those news papers printing lies? Why doesn't Mr. Schiavo sue them for slander, I mean after all, he can prove that he did attempt to give her therapy didn't he? or is he just a Martyr and victim of the pro-life lobby?

I mean the claim is made that he never did, why didn't he produce the people that he used?

Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #32 on: June 16, 2005, 03:33:29 PM »

Hey, cool topic!ÂÂ  My dad helped in the cover up of JFK.

What do you want to know about it?

Shhhh! "They" can still have you dealt with!
Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2005, 03:36:46 PM »

I mean the claim is made that he never did, why didn't he produce the people that he used?

Why do you feel that he should have to convince YOU? Who are YOU in his life? Why should he care if you believe him or not? Do you have any influence in his life? It seems apparent from the outcome of the hearings that the judges were convinced. And the LAW is all that matters in this case.

Or is it time to throw out the "it was all a conspiracy to murder her" charge?

« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:37:43 PM by TomS » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2005, 03:59:00 PM »

Quote
Really? Can you show me who he used to give her therapy? Why didn't he ever state who he used? Why didn't they come forward to say that he had indeed tried and it failed?

The courts repeatedly found that he had aggressively pursued therapy for Mrs. Schiavo during the first four years of her vegetative states. Unfortunately, the only legal documents that appear to be online relating to this case are from the appellate courts, therefore I do not have access to the specifics of what therapies were tried; these can likely be found in the documents relating to the 1994 dispute between Mr. Schiavo and Mrs. Schiavo's parents.

The appellate courts have consistently held that Mr. Schiavo had tried therapy as an established fact; therefore, if you assert that he did not try therapy, it is up to you to prove your case. I'm not going to do your legwork for you. You made the assertion; you provide evidence for it.

Quote
Are those news papers printing lies? Why doesn't Mr. Schiavo sue them for slander, I mean after all, he can prove that he did attempt to give her therapy didn't he?

I don't know why he hasn't sued them (for libel, not slander; you might wish to brush up on your legal terminology). Based on the appellate record alone, he would appear to have a slam-dunk case.
Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2005, 04:22:04 PM »

Quote
Why do you feel that he should have to convince YOU? Who are YOU in his life? Why should he care if you believe him or not? Do you have any influence in his life? It seems apparent from the outcome of the hearings that the judges were convinced. And the LAW is all that matters in this case.

Or is it time to throw out the "it was all a conspiracy to murder her" charge?

Who am I? Nobody. But when a man kills his wife by starving her to death it kind of makes me feel a little uneasy.

I think we are missing the bigger picture here. The man lied. He either lied to the malpractice jury that she would want to live, or he lied after the check cleared the bank that she would  want to die.

I am not his God, I will not judge him in the end.

But I think it is really telling that he plays husband of the year and then changes his tune once he gets the money.

I work in a Emergency Room, I see death almost daily. I have been there when we had to tell the family to just let their loved one die. I am 5'10 250lbs and they bring in a 91 year old woman who is as thin as a rail and the grand kids want a full code placed upon her. That means a giant gorilla like myself gets to snap her ribs as I am doing chest compressions on her and then she gets a tube shoved down her throat.  If my snapping her ribs does not start her heart, the 100 jls that she will be shocked with might, but then it might not, and in that case then the gorilla starts beating on her chest again. So, I am no stranger to the whole question of euthanasia. I believe in passive euthanasia, just let nature takes its corse. Withholding hydration and starving someone to death is not passive euthanasia.

Quote
And the LAW is all that matters in this case.

Do you believe that abortion should be legal? After all, the LAW  and the judges say its okay. Yes, even judges have agendas.

Robert
Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #36 on: June 16, 2005, 04:25:32 PM »

Quote
I don't know why he hasn't sued them (for libel, not slander; you might wish to brush up on your legal terminology). Based on the appellate record alone, he would appear to have a slam-dunk case.

Well thank you legal eagle, maybe I should watch more Court TV.

I doubt he would take them to court, then the truth of the matter would be brought to light. They can produce documents.

Robert
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #37 on: June 16, 2005, 04:30:44 PM »

Quote
I think we are missing the bigger picture here. The man lied. He either lied to the malpractice jury that she would want to live, or he lied after the check cleared the bank that she would  want to die.

Perhaps he believed she would have wanted to live if there were no chance of recovery, but not to live if there were not. There need be no contradiction.

Quote
I doubt he would take them to court, then the truth of the matter would be brought to light. They can produce documents.

Then why, for the love of God, didn't they produce these documents during the legal fight over Mrs. Schiavo's fate? This has been hashed out over and over in court, and is a matter of public record. If you have some grand new information showing that the court record is false, let's hear it.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #38 on: June 16, 2005, 04:34:57 PM »

Actually, I was helping MBZ as a part of an international Jewish conspiracy to destroy those documents.  That's why you can't find them.

Sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier in the thread.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #39 on: June 16, 2005, 05:10:36 PM »

Quote
Perhaps he believed she would have wanted to live if there were no chance of recovery, but not to live if there were not. There need be no contradiction.

No no, he stated that she made it clear that she did not want to live like that. There is clearly a contradiction. Why was he going to become a nurse if she made it clear which he has stated over and over again that she did not want to live?

Why did wait till 1998 to pull her feeding tube if she made it clear that she did not want to live like that? Why didn't he just let her go from the start?

Why didn't he just divorce her and let her folks care for her? He clearly wasn't that devoted of a husband. Was he thinking of her when he was cheating on her and committing adultery? Or is it okay to commit adultery when you spouse is in a persistent vegetative state? Lets be honest, when you shack up with a lover for 10 years a father two children thru your adultery, do you really believe he had Terri's best interest in mind? America has never quite witnessed a husband like Michael Schiavo - a man who was prepared to take on the might of the United States government to ensure that his wife ends up six feet under. And who could fault him? After all, a promise is a promise unless, of course, it's a promise of fidelity in marriage.

Robert

« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 05:25:32 PM by OrthodoxRobert » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #40 on: June 16, 2005, 05:26:43 PM »

Quote
Why did wait till 1998 to pull her feeding tube if she made it clear that she did not want to live like that? Why didn't he just let her go from the start?

He initiated the do-not-resuscitate order in 1994.

Quote
Why didn't he just divorce her and let her folks care for her?

Because they were trying to keep her alive with extraordinary and artificial means, which Mrs. Schiavo had said, before her collapse, that she did not want done.

Quote
Was he thinking of her when he was cheating on her and committing adultery? Or is it okay to commit adultery when you spouse is in a persistent vegetative state?

He was encouraged to date and have other relationships by Mrs. Schiavo's parents beginning shortly after Mrs. Schiavo's collapse; it was only after the two came to legal blows in 1994 that they started making a stink about it.

All of this is easily readable in the documents produced by the appellate court; I'm surprised you have not read them, as you are so passionate about this case.

Quote
[...] do you really believe he had Terri's best interest in mind?

Yes, I do.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 05:28:05 PM by Beayf » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2005, 05:56:40 PM »

This may sound silly but I'd recomend that you start with Oliver Stone's JFK.

Oliver Stone?!?  Even IMDB has a list of anachronisms and some errors as well as filming goofs on that movie.  Why would someone is an entertainer, who wants to sell movie tickets and be sensational be counted a historical authority?

Cizinec, your Dad was part of the cover-up err investigation?  cool!

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #42 on: June 16, 2005, 07:22:19 PM »

Quote
He initiated the do-not-resuscitate order in 1994.

Why did he not do it in 1990? After all, its what she wanted is it not? Do not resuscitate is not the same as starving and dehydrating a person to death. If a patient's heart has stopped, and they have said in advance that they do not want CPR, then that is not murder. That is letting nature takes it course.

Quote
Because they were trying to keep her alive with extraordinary and artificial means, which Mrs. Schiavo had said, before her collapse, that she did not want done.

It seems that Mr. Schiavo conveniently forgot that Mrs. Schiavo did not want to be kept alive by extraordinary and artificial means until after he was awarded the money. Did he remember it before or after he went into the nursing program? What amazes me is you have no problem with this at all. This guy either had this amazing brain fart, or he was lying.

Make no mistake, a DNR is not the same as death by starvation and dehydration.

Robert
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #43 on: June 16, 2005, 07:52:42 PM »

Quote
Why did he not do it in 1990? After all, its what she wanted is it not? Do not resuscitate is not the same as starving and dehydrating a person to death.

Uh, because in 1990, it was far from clear that Mrs. Schiavo was irreversibly brain-damaged.

Quote
Make no mistake, a DNR is not the same as death by starvation and dehydration.

Mrs. Schiavo was gone. She was never going to recover. Her cerebral cortex was gone! Removing the feeding tube was no different than removing a ventilator from a brain-dead person.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #44 on: June 16, 2005, 08:01:55 PM »

Well, I have it in my will so that they can remove the food tube, but NOT the beer.

Your have to draw the line somewhere.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2005, 08:52:39 AM »

washingtonpost.com

Where's The Apology?
Bending the Facts on Schiavo

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Post
Friday, June 17, 2005; A31

We are entitled to our moral, ethical and philosophical commitments. We are not entitled to our own facts.

So why is this basic rule of argument often ignored by politicians whose certainty about their righteousness convinces them that they can say absolutely anything to further their causes?

The autopsy in the Terri Schiavo case provides a rare moment of political accountability. We should not "move on," as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggested. No, we cannot move on until those politicians who felt entitled to make up facts and toss around unwarranted conclusions about Schiavo's condition take responsibility for what they said -- and apologize.

Nothing in the autopsy report prevents those who opposed removing Schiavo's feeding tube from continuing to insist they were right. It's legitimate and honorable to argue on philosophical grounds that every medical decision in a tragic circumstance such as Schiavo's should be made on the side of keeping the sick person alive.

But those who supported an extraordinary use of federal power to force their own conclusion against the judgment of state courts knew that philosophical arguments would not be enough. Most Americans were uneasy about compelling Schiavo's husband, Michael, to keep his wife alive if -- as the state courts had concluded and as the autopsy confirmed on Wednesday -- she had suffered irreversible brain damage and was incapable of recovering.

So the big-government conservatives had to invent a story. They had to insist that they knew, just knew , more about Terri Schiavo's condition than the doctors on the scene. They had to question Michael Schiavo's motives and imply that he wanted to, well, get rid of her.

"As I understand it," Frist said on the Senate floor, "Terri's husband will not divorce Terri and will not allow her parents to take care of her. Terri's husband, who I have not met, does have a girlfriend he lives with and they have children of their own." No accusation here, just a brisk walk through innuendo city.

Dr. Frist, as he likes to be known, didn't just make his case as a pro-lifer. He invoked his expertise as a member of the medical profession. "I close this evening speaking more as a physician than as a U.S. senator," Frist said during the March 17 debate on the bill forcing a federal review of the case.

Proffering references to medical textbooks and journals, Frist led his colleagues through to his conclusion. He argued that "a decision had been made to starve to death a woman based on a clinical exam that took place over a very short period of time by a neurologist who was called in to make the diagnosis rather than over a longer period of time." Dr. Frist, in other words, was offering a second opinion.

In an appearance yesterday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Frist insisted: "I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not."

Well, that depends on the meaning of "diagnosis." In the midst of his impressively detailed medical review, Frist declared flatly: "Terri's brother told me Terri laughs, smiles, and tries to speak. That doesn't sound like a woman in a persistent vegetative state."

So, Frist wanted to be seen as having the medical expertise to support his conclusion when doing so was convenient -- and now wants us to think he did nothing of the sort.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay didn't pretend to be a doctor, just expert enough to know what was wrong with the news reports.

"Mrs. Schiavo's condition, I believe, has been at times misrepresented by the media," DeLay said on March 20. "Terri Schiavo is not brain-dead; she talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort. Terri Schiavo is not on life-support."

You wonder: Will DeLay now say to the media that he's sorry? Will he acknowledge that, in the Schiavo case, he honestly didn't know what he was talking about?

Right-to-life politicians have done terrible damage to a serious cause. They claimed to know what they did not, and could not, know. They were willing to imply, without proof, terrible things about a husband who was getting in their way. Instead of making the hard and morally challenging case for keeping Terri Schiavo on life support, they spun an emotional narrative that they thought would play well on cable TV and talk radio.

No, we should not move on. We should remember that some politicians will say whatever is necessary to advance their immediate purposes. Apologies, anyone?

postchat@aol.com



© 2005 The Washington Post Company
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 08:54:03 AM by TomS » Logged
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2005, 12:16:07 PM »

THE WITCH HUNT CONTINUES!!! HOW PATHETIC IS THIS? STUPID REPUBLICANS!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gov. Bush wants investigation into Schiavo 911 call

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush asked a prosecutor Friday to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, calling into question how long it took her husband to call 911 after he found her.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Bush said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m., and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

"Between 40 and 70 minutes elapsed before the call was made, and I am aware of no explanation for the delay," Bush wrote. "In light of this new information, I urge you to take a fresh look at this case without any preconceptions as to the outcome."

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Friday from The Associated Press. In comments in The Miami Herald, he said Terri Schiavo would not have survived if her husband had not immediately called 911.

"It's absolutely preposterous," Felos said. "If he had waited 70 minutes she would have been dead."

Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected at her husband's request, despite unsuccessful efforts by her parents, Bush and others to keep her alive.

An autopsy released Wednesday concluded that she had been in a persistent vegetative state and revealed no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused before she collapsed.

It left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo's heart stopped, cutting oxygen off from her brain. The autopsy showed she suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain had shrunk to half the normal size for her age.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 
 

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.16 seconds with 74 queries.