The ACLU joined as co-counsel for the petitioner (Michael Schiavo) once Republican legislators started sticking their noses into the case. How the ACLU might have managed to alter witness testimony is, of course, beyond me.
See following post. We know what her husband and 18 other witnesses told us. The judge, George Greer, is a devout Christian* and a lifelong Republican, so it’s not as though he was predisposed to agree with right-to-death arguments.
*and a Southern Baptist, to boot - he was essentially thrown out of his church (“asked to leave the congregation”) after he issued his final ruling.
Oh, and I suppose you’re not? The thing you need to understand is that even though doctors are fallible, some mistakes are harder to make than others. Just because a borderline case might go either way does not mean that even you would acknowledge that at some point, there’s so much damage that no recovery is possible. Humans don’t have a mutant healing factor, and the destruction of a significant portion of the brain is going to really fuck up your day.
Even assuming for a moment that your view of reality was accurate, couldn’t he have simply been trying to free her soul from being anchored to the living corpse that was her body? Even if her soul was undamaged, her body was irrepairably broken, such that she would never be able to interface with it ever again. Saving her from this fate would be no more evil than cutting someone out of a wrecked car with the jaws of life.
YES! AMEN!
There are a lot of cases like those, where it’s blatent and obvious that the person is DEAD and not of much use, and will never ever recover.
Wanerea, GOOD POINT! While cortexual vision can flutuate a lot, if the profoundest damage happened to her vision, there’s no chance that she would be able to even SEE!
This is a topic for another thread. Please drop this hijack.
Then feel free to stop arguing from ignorance. How about this: you can either read the judge’s order in post #213 (posted by Really Not All That Bright) and comment on that, or you can stop posting in this thread.
I haven’t changed my mind; that is, I still believe that Michael Schiavo was the person who had to make the decision. I also think I would have made the same decision he did, but those are two separate issues.
During their last conversation, one of the last things my father (1) told my mother was “Maite, I am dying, whether you want it or not. You have to let me die.”
1: daily-Mass Catholic and very much a pro-lifer, but he also believed in freedom and in the notions that true discipline is internal and that you can not impose your beliefs on others.
I think I will just stop posting a different opinion on this thread, seems opposing views are not tolerated on this board. I remember the Judge getting kicked out of his church for that order, and rightly so.
I might regret this, but it’s five years on and lekatt’s pulling the same stunt he did then. So, here goes.
lekatt: On what actual evidence do you base your accusations against Mr. Schiavo? Try not to post what you wish to believe is fact as though it is fact. State your evidence consisely, clearly, and with links to a reputable source. And, no, your website is not a reputable source.
If you cannot manage to do that, then you should just admit you’ve a hard-on against the man for the sheer fun of it and just enjoy trashing the man’s character.
Rightly so? How was that right? That congregation was not qualified to make the judgment. They, like you, ignored facts and then condemned someone without actual evidence.
I think what’s right is that the judge voluntarily left that group of hypocrites.
This statement is not accurate. We have the published results of the court documents and the final autopsy that include facts–facts that you choose to ignore. Claiming that everything is “hearsay” is simply an admission on your part that you would prefer to ignore the facts when they do not coincide with your wishes.
You spend a lot of time posting about “love” in this forum, but you seem quite willing to post hateful accusations against other persons whom you do not even know and whom you have only heard about through hearsay. That sort of “love” looks much more like your own hubris than a genuine desire to extend love to your fellow humans.
As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread already you can access the whole public record yourself. All the testimony, all the medical records given to the court and so on. IIRC Terri’s case was before the court on something like 15 different occassions. Hardly what anyone would call getting railroaded.
Additionally Terri’s autopsy is public record. The autopsy which conclusively confirmed Terri’s profound brain damage.
To answer another point you brought up earlier some people do live with half a brain and get on pretty well. There are important distinctions though. IIRC all successful hemispherectomies have been performed on children. Their still evolving brains seem able to adjust and rewire itself sufficiently for a normal life. Around age 18 our brains stop growing and the wiring you have is more-or-less permanent. Losing half your brain at that point will have a substantial negative impact.
Further, Terri had profound damage to both hemispheres. There was no other part of the brain able to take over. Important structures were now absent. A person with a hemispherectomy does not have that issue.
I see I didn’t do the “Mod Hat” thing earlier, but I wanted to confirm that I’m completely serious here: lekatt, don’t post again in this thread unless you read the cite in post #213. It’s not necessary to say “I think I will just stop posting a different opinion on this thread” again. Either read the cite and comment on it or post about something else in another thread. I’d discourage other posters from addressing lekatt’s comments unless he wants to prove he’s serious about this topic.
I read it a long time ago and it just backs up what I have said about the case. Didn’t see anything new. The fact the doctor rules in favor of Michael doesn’t mean much. Michael wants to marry his mistress and keep the money also. Well he probably didn’t have much money left after the law fees. I used to set law briefs when I was young. Just because it’s written down don’t mean it is a fact. No one has the right to starve anyone to death.
OK, I will quit, no opposition opinion ever sees the light of day here anyway.