Neurologist, Mayo Clinic Lab Director: Terri Is No Vegetable - Page 5

MMMMMM · #41 03-24-2005, 04:38 PM

I'd say in most cases--whether criminal, or something like this--the standard of proof should be higher. Instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" how about "beyond any reasonable doubt". And in cases where someone's life hangs in the balance--whether capital cases or Terri Schiavo's case--the standard should be higher yet still.

In this case her guardian has conflicts of interest and has used the system in such a way as to try to get Terri killed. Not to mention that he has been accused by a former nurse of Terri, of surreptitiously giving Terri insulin injections to tremendously lower her blood sugar way below normal. He may also have been an abusive husband.

Hey, maybe he didn't do any of those things. But before placing her life in his hands the court should be sure he didn't. And his conflict of interest scenario doesn't engender confidence that he will necessarily be looking out for Terri's best interests.

MMMMMM · #42 03-24-2005, 04:41 PM

As I posted elsewhere, both CNN and NYT have been rocked by serious scandals of journalistic malfeasance ,whereas WND has not.

Maybe you ought to leave your tinted glasses at the door and just read for the facts involved.

Matty · #43 03-24-2005, 04:46 PM

Now I see why you were offended by the title of my thread. You are yourself a wackjob.

And you should be very happy with what CNN is doing regarding Schiavo: http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

MMMMMM · #44 03-24-2005, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think euthanasia is legal in the U.S. Depriving her of food/water via removing her IV is the closest thing to it that is legal. That's my take and best guess, Sam.

And yes I would be opposed to it.

Also, if she can feel pain she clearly isn't brain-dead.

MMMMMM · #45 03-24-2005, 04:51 PM

I believe in reading any and all sources and trying to cull the facts, Grey.

If that's your definition of a 'wackjob' then I am proud to be one.

wacki · #46 03-24-2005, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think euthanasia is legal in the U.S. Depriving her of food/water via removing her IV is the closest thing to it that is legal. That's my take and best guess, Sam.

And yes I would be opposed to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how you can so easily support war and the death that comes with it, yet be so intensely opposed to euthanasia.

elwoodblues · #47 03-24-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that he has been accused by a former nurse of Terri, of surreptitiously giving Terri insulin injections to tremendously lower her blood sugar way below normal. He may also have been an abusive husband.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep bringing this up...you know that the court read the nurse's affidavit about this alleged incident and found it totally incredible. It was so incredible that the Schindlers, who presumably have more reason to distrust Michael, didn't call her as a witness in any of the proceedings.

[ QUOTE ]
In this case her guardian has conflicts of interest and has used the system in such a way as to try to get Terri killed

[/ QUOTE ]

EVERY spouse who is appointed guardian has a financial interest.

EVERY guardian who holds the position that the ward would have preferred death is using the system to try to get the ward killed.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, maybe he didn't do any of those things. But before placing her life in his hands the court should be sure he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, the court considered all of these things and found otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
And his conflict of interest scenario doesn't engender confidence that he will necessarily be looking out for Terri's best interests

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an example where a spouse doesn't have a conflict of interest (i.e. a monetary interest.) Are there any situations where you would believe a guardian?

sam h · #48 03-24-2005, 05:11 PM

Of course you are right. It doesn't make much sense though. I personally definitely support euthanasia, but seeing that it is illegal it seems like starving her to death intentionally should be illegal too. For example, a parent poisoning their child is not treated differently under the law than if they locked them in a closet and let them starve to death.

NotInchoateHand1 · #49 03-24-2005, 07:58 PM

Wacki, sometimes I like you.
Not in that way, but in that you are consistent.

Jersey Nick · #50 03-24-2005, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wat a stupid comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Proven by whom? There's nothing that irritates me more than a bunch of tools who believe that Fox news is fair & balanced.
Go here for some media insight: http://stateofthemedia.com/2005/
In defense of Ruper Murdoch:
I was shocked to see Fox News come down on the side of Terri and her husband yesterday afternoon. I didn't think they had the guts to report the story that way.
For additional Terri insight:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html