Neurologist, Mayo Clinic Lab Director: Terri Is No Vegetable - Page 4

MMMMMM · #31 03-24-2005, 02:16 PM

Yeah I read it. Still the fact that two expert witnesses dissented should have thrown enough doubt into the mix as to give Terri the benefit of the doubt too.

MMMMMM · #32 03-24-2005, 02:19 PM

I am not aware of the tests of which you speak, Sam. I recall reading (somewhere; I've done a lot of reading the last few days because like you, I had not followed the case closely before this) that she was never diagnosed as brain-dead. Also, someone who is brain-dead would have had to be kept alive by heart machine and respirator, and that was clearly not the case with Terri.

jaxmike · #33 03-24-2005, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
wat a stupid comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. CNN has proven repeatedly to not be fair or honest in their reporting.

jaxmike · #34 03-24-2005, 03:01 PM

sorry, CNN news, and moreso, CBS news, have proven to be more gossip and propoganda machines than news networks.

MtSmalls · #35 03-24-2005, 03:13 PM

Her brain is no longer functioning at anything more than a base level. She has automatic function (breathing, heart beating, waste removal) but no higher functions, no cognative ability and her EEG since the accident have showed NO brain activity.

If she had had the foresight to execute a living will, would this case have lasted this long? I seriously doubt it. Had she executed such a document, she would have been dead 10 years ago, legally and without fuss. In the abscence of a living will, her guardian, in this case her husband, has the right to make medical decisions for her. As every court in FL has decided again and again and again.

Its painful to lose a loved one, doubly painful to lose a child. But let her go already.

Trainwreck · #36 03-24-2005, 03:13 PM

Even a better argument for not wanting to live....
Who the hell would want to be trapped like that?

OK, so we end her suffering with MEDS, fine jack her up on morphine... been there, good stuff, can't even feel the nose on your face.

>TW<

slickpoppa · #37 03-24-2005, 03:17 PM

MMMMMM, would you support the proposition that no one should be removed from life support absent a living will? I am asking because you seem to be holding courts to such a high standard of proof before removing life support that probably no one could ever be removed from life support without a living will because there will always be some doubt.

Personally I feel that the standard for removing life support absent a living will should be the same standard that we apply to criminal cases: beyond a reasonable doubt.

Matty · #38 03-24-2005, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

[/ QUOTE ]Pathetic. I think this case is a great way to get an idea how much of America will actually trust ridiculous sources, and adopt delusional beliefs from them. I'm really relieved to see it's nowhere near 50%.

Oddly, I'm related to Joseph Farah.

sam h · #39 03-24-2005, 03:41 PM

I didn't want to clutter the forum up with another Schiavo thread so I figured I would just ask this here.

My question is why, if the decision to remove her feeding tube is irrevocable, as seems to be the case at this point after the SC's ruling, they wouldn't just give her a lethal injection and get it over with without her having to die of thirst/starvation? Would anybody on either side be opposed to this?

tolbiny · #40 03-24-2005, 03:52 PM

"My question is why, if the decision to remove her feeding tube is irrevocable, as seems to be the case at this point after the SC's ruling, they wouldn't just give her a lethal injection and get it over with without her having to die of thirst/starvation? Would anybody on either side be opposed to this?"

In a legal sense i believe that would be euthanasia, which is not allowed. In the Dr Kavorkian cases he never actaully gave the lethal dose, and was not even present in the room when it happened. He Presented a situation where the patient could choose between the two.