|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 26, 2005 0:21:52 GMT -5
You are an A #1 ass-hole, aren't you Bobby? "Hateful and divisive crap." Please show me the offending passages. Dorkwad. You've done WHAT? How's the ride up there on that high horse, cowboy? Seems to me I objected to two things: calling this "starving to death" and calling the husband a "murderer". Everything else is OF COURSE my opinion. I wouldn't pretend otherwise. This is simply not true. Do you really believe this? You poor, poor man. Don't patronize me, you condescending bumpkis.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2005 0:27:38 GMT -5
I will retract this statement since it is untrue. However, no new medical opinions against the prevailing opinion has been offerred since 2002. And the judge who has presided over this case has also refused to hear any new testimony: Greer, the judge whose decision on the Schindler's emergency motion is expected Saturday, ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube last Friday. He also rejected a request to hear new testimony from a doctor who disagrees with the prevailing diagnosis that Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state." Greer also barred state authorities from taking Schiavo into their custody. Is this Cheshire? Because there were reasons for that. If the Courts have not been thorough in the medical diagnosis, then I agree with you: They MUST be. I just find it hard to believe they have not. And what would be Greer's motivations?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2005 0:32:57 GMT -5
Don't patronize me, you condescending bumpkis. Whatever. What I never got was why, in the middle of this discussion, I had this thrown at me: dumbazz ignorant dumbazz Ruffdipweed dumbazz shallow, selfish Ruffdweeb stupid, shallow azz Seemed a tad uncalled for, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 26, 2005 0:46:37 GMT -5
Whatever. What I never got was why, in the middle of this discussion, I had this thrown at me: dumbazz ignorant dumbazz Ruffdipweed dumbazz shallow, selfish Ruffdweeb stupid, shallow azz Seemed a tad uncalled for, Bob. If you go back through and read this entire thread, you will see that you, in fact, lobbed the first volley...in your typical, condescending, passive-aggressive (oh...i'm not REALLY putting you down...but actually I AM...) typical modus operandi.... Up until that point in the thread, points WERE being made in a rational method. Until you conveniently decided that anything I said wasn't going to be part of a "rational" discussion. EDIT: Forgot to mention the repeated attacks on Tom DeLay.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 26, 2005 0:50:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2005 0:54:41 GMT -5
If you go back through and read this entire thread, you will see that you, in fact, lobbed the first volley...in your typical, condescending, passive-aggressive (oh...i'm not REALLY putting you down...but actually I AM...) typical modus operandi.... Hard for me to defend this accusation. Sounds like you aren't really a fan of moi. (I suppose that's more of my tcp-a?) Well, you are not BiK, so we'll toss that one out. And I guess I don't see how I insulted you. I said the same thing to Gorf: I think "starving her to death" misrepresents what is going on and does nothing except stir the flames in the already roaring fire. And, for the record, when did I say "anything" you said wasn't going to be part of a rational discussion. I wouldn't be discussing it with you if I didn't think it was a rational discussion. Like I said, I object to "starving her to death." (Didn't know Tom DeLay was a hero of yours.)
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 26, 2005 1:08:20 GMT -5
Hard for me to defend this accusation. Sounds like you aren't really a fan of moi. (I suppose that's more of my tcp-a?) Well, you are not BiK, so we'll toss that one out. And I guess I don't see how I insulted you. I said the same thing to Gorf: I think "starving her to death" misrepresents what is going on and does nothing except stir the flames in the already roaring fire. And, for the record, when did I say "anything" you said wasn't going to be part of a rational discussion. I wouldn't be discussing it with you if I didn't think it was a rational discussion. Like I said, I object to "starving her to death." (Didn't know Tom DeLay was a hero of yours.) Don't know why you continually seek to drag me into your political grandstanding. You obviously don't like Tom DeLay, I couldn't even remember who he was and had to Google him. My opinions deal strictly with the fact that Terry Schiavo's life should be saved, simple as that. The title of this thread, and all the garbage political rhetoric you continue to spew, just shows how some folks continue to want to make this political. You are the one that wants to use this to further your political agenda, not me. You call her brain dead. Does this look brain dead to you? web.tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/hows_that_cold.rm
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 26, 2005 1:22:15 GMT -5
Every diagnosis made on Terry Schiavo has been made by a doctor appointed by her husband. She has not received any meaningful treatment since 1991. Prior to the 2002 trial 2 doctors for the Shindler's side of the case had ample opportunity to completely examine, diagnose and do whatever they wanted with Terry Schiavo priory to the trial. If they indeed didn't make a diagnosis, then perhaps the Shindlers ought to have selected better doctors? There were five doctors involved in that trial. Two were hired by the Shindlers, two by Michael Shiavo, and one was appointed by the court. There may well have been other instances, but after finding one I didn't need to search any further. A purely propaganda site. Chronology of events Terri Schiavo, 25, was found unconscious and gasping for air at home by husband on the early morning of February 25, 1990. She had suffered a full cardiac arrest. Defibrillation was performed seven times during initial resuscitative efforts with eventual restoration of a normal cardiac rhythm. The initial serum potassium level was 2.0, undoubtedly the cause of her cardiac arrest. Terri had a history of erratic eating habits, including probable bulimia, with a major weight loss several years before this event. In high school it has been reported that Terri went from over 200 pounds down to 110. In November 1992 Michael Schiavo won a malpractice suit against Terri’s physicians for failing to diagnose her health problems leading up to the cardiac arrest resulting directly from her eating disorder. (12-13) Terri was in a coma for approximately one month, and then evolved into a vegetative state. Four board-certified neurologists in Florida consulting on her care (James H. Barnhill, Garcia J. Desousa, Thomas H. Harrison, and Jeffrey M. Karp) had repeatedly made a diagnosis of PVS over the years. The initial CT scan on the day of admission, February 25, 1990, was normal but further CT scans documented a progression of widespread cerebral hemisphere atrophy, eventually resulting in CT scans of 1996 and 2002 showing extreme atrophy (CT scans-1996, 2002: “diffuse encephalomalacia and infarction consistent with anoxia, hydrocephalus ex vacuo, neural stimulator present); prior to these most recent two CT scans, CT scans had been performed on February 25, 1990, February 27, 1990, and March 30, 1990, with an MRI scan on July 24, 1990. The two most recent EEG’s have demonstrated no electrical activity-on July 8, 2002: “no evidence of cerebral activity;” and October 4, 2002-“does not have any definite brain activity. However, most of the tracing is obscured by artifact from muscle and eye movement.” The clinical exams over the years were entirely consistent with diagnosis of permanent vegetative state secondary to hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. From the initial hospitalization in February, 1990, until the present time, there have been no significant changes in Terri’s neurological findings, and nothing in the medical records to suggest any disagreement whatsoever among Terri’s attending and consulting physicians about the underlying diagnosis and prognosis for recovery. A deep brain stimulator was placed in Terri’s brain on December 12, 1990 at request of the husband who flew with his wife to San Francisco for the procedure. This highly experimental form of medical treatment did not result in any clinical improvement in Terri’s condition. (14) Terry Shiavo has no cerebral cortex, has completely deteriorated and has been replaced by spinal fluid. A cerebral cortex cannot regenerate. A cerebral cortex must be present in order for their to be cognitive abilities. All of her actions, recorded or otherwise, are conistant with brain stem reflexive activity. Even the snippet of film that showed her following the balloon and smiling prior to the 2002 trial could not be repeated after multiple attempts immediately following the recorded event. She would have to show repeatable and consistant signs of such actions in order for there to be any (even remote) evidence of her not being in a persistant vegetative state. This has never been shown to be the case even after many attempts.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 26, 2005 1:36:39 GMT -5
Amazingly they don't show in the video the countless other times that she doesn't react when her mother is near her. Or, the countless times that she reacts in a similar manner to that in the video to no stimulus in particular. Or, the countless times that she has no reaction at all. There has been no evidence of any consistant and repeatable reactions from her since her original diagnosis of being in a persistent vegetative state in 1991. As with the similar short video of her supposedly following a balloon. Immediate further attempts to have to repeat the action failed. In order for there to be evidence that she is not in a persistant vegetative state there must be signs of consistant and repeatable actions to stimuli.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 26, 2005 1:52:00 GMT -5
Same kind of thinking that in previous human history led societies to cast out people suffering from mental retardation, leprosy, and other ailments.
Whether or not one believes that a person in a "persistive, vegitative, state" should be denied food/hydration and allowed to STARVE TO DEATH, it cannot be ruled out that the POTENTIAL for Terry Schiavo's recovery may exist, if not in the present, then possibly in the future - a year, ten years, never - we don't know right now. But unless someone can absolutely rule out the possibility of recovery for all of eternity, she should be given the opportunity for life and possible recovery.
Like I said in the very beginning, little compassion left in American society (and its judicial system) today. We have no more use for this person, so let's cast her out and be done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 26, 2005 2:18:51 GMT -5
Same kind of thinking that in previous human history led societies to cast out people suffering from mental retardation, leprosy, and other ailments. Whether or not one believes that a person in a "persistive, vegitative, state" should be denied food/hydration and allowed to STARVE TO DEATH, it cannot be ruled out that the POTENTIAL for Terry Schiavo's recovery may exist, if not in the present, then possibly in the future - a year, ten years, never - we don't know right now. But unless someone can absolutely rule out the possibility of recovery for all of eternity, she should be given the opportunity for life and possible recovery. Like I said in the very beginning, little compassion left in American society (and its judicial system) today. We have no more use for this person, so let's cast her out and be done with it. SoBB, it certainly CAN be ruled out. She has no cerebral cortex and without a cerebral cortex (which cannot regenerate) she cannot regain cognitive processes. Multiple CAT scans have shown that to be the case since she was diagnosed as being in a persistant vegetative state in 1991.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 26, 2005 2:30:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Mar 26, 2005 2:38:47 GMT -5
[quote author=Gorflink=board=news&thread=1111177363&start=55#3 date=1111821531]
SoBB, it certainly CAN be ruled out.
She has no cerebral cortex and without a cerebral cortex (which cannot regenerate) she cannot regain cognitive processes.
Multiple CAT scans have shown that to be the case since she was diagnosed as being in a persistant vegetative state in 1991.[/quote]
Did you NOT read my entire post? I said the words POTENTIAL and FUTURE in there. Forty years ago, we thought cancer was incurable, that is changing everyday. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that there may come a day that brain regeneration and recovery from this state will occur.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Mar 26, 2005 9:25:23 GMT -5
Gorf,
Right wing freaks like Bik & SOB dont' care about facts. They get caught up in the emotions & distortions of their Right to life friends.
Where as you posted supporting information from Medical journals or transcripts from court documents, they post stuff from their far far right websites that have NO credibility. These sites are full of easily refuted lies & misinformation. SOB believes this women should be kept alive like a common house plant.
The latest appeal is really crazy. They are now saying that Terri said she did not want to die when they were removing the feeding tube. Now that is crazy!!!. Hmmm one would have thought they would have brought up such a claim immediantly. The Right to lifers will one with this & believe it with all their hearts & will spread it from one to another like it is fact. Expect it to be posted as fact on these websites these guys like to go to to get their misinformation.
Removing this poor womens feed tube is one issue, the gov, congress & the President getting involved is another & they completely stepped over the line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2005 10:15:39 GMT -5
Did you NOT read my entire post? I said the words POTENTIAL and FUTURE in there. Forty years ago, we thought cancer was incurable, that is changing everyday. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that there may come a day that brain regeneration and recovery from this state will occur. So now you DO support prolonged life support for all "incurably" terminal patients? As for the politics, as HtP points out, there are two separate arguments going on here: 1) whether she should be allowed to finally die or not and 2) whether Tom DeLay and the Hypocrites should be interfering. I never associated you with Tom DeLay, so stop pretending that I did. I only mentioned him in the message you wrote because you brought him up. (And it's surely not my fault you didn't know who he was.) Finally, better to be grandstanders (which I was not, by the way) than abusive (as you were and always are). Just go away, Bob. Do us all that favor.
|
|