Terry Schiavo's so called husband

[David]

Sid one of the nurses that actually made some of the sworn statements that are under gag order was on CNN yesterday morning. I would call her public appearance proof of more then hearsay that the documents exist.

Doc.2/47 her "husband" has ordered she not be fed in that manner, it has nothing to do with her ability to ingest nutrition in that manner.

[Arrow]

I followed up on Steve's post this morning on the process of nomination. Posted here for those that want to follow the links.

http://nobelprize.org/peace/nomination/nominators.html

[PHO127]

Have seen no evidence of a gag order pertaining to your claim of evidence in trial. If everyone told the truth under oath there would be no perjury law now would there.

Just a FYI, I don't feel that the legal manuverings of the two familys in this case are of any of my concern, I know how I feel on the subject. One side feels one way one side feels the other. The case has gone to court and the courts are making rulings. I do feel that just because you disagree with the courts decisions is not grounds to trash the husband. In this post the husband has been called a murderer, A jackass, a wife abuser, after the money and been compared to not having the balls of Scott Peterson to just kill his wife.

About the only thing I see that he has done that could be called into question is his private life and how he has handled that. But that has nothing to do with the courts rulings, There is not one single court ruling that says we are going to kill your wife because you have a girlfriend/ common law wife and two bastard children. Sparrow probably has the only high ground here with her moral holier than thou position on this point.

Thank folks for reinforcing my thoughts on why I don't post or read on the political forum. You have confirmed my thoughts that the only thing worse than political and religous zealots are more political and religous zealots.

[Gimpy]

Did you not even read my post that dealt specifically with these so-called "affidavits"??

As Sid has stated, there was only ONE RN (and she wasn't the one) and two CNA (Nurses assistant) that gave depositions (affidavits) and ALL were thrown out by the Judge in this case has having abosultely NO CREDIBILTY or MERIT!

They were lieing, vindictive bitches attempting to "use" the parents of Terry and her lawyers to get revenge on Michael for his long term reporting their ineptness and unprofessional care of his wife to the staff at the medical center!

Many other "staff" members have come forward and reported that the charges of these so-called "care-givers"/former employees (yeah riight!) are BOGUS and UN-substantiated!

From Greer's decision:


"The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least .

Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler.

Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis.

Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges" .

End quote.

As for the "feeding" or allowing Terry to "drink" on her own. This has been completely discounted by many, many doctors and medical professionals as clearly dangerous and would more than likely cause Terry to either choke on her food or water, and allow fluid(s) to enter her lungs and cause pnuemonia similar to what killed former President Ronald Reagan.

This information is readily available in the more than thousands and thousands of pages of testimony given in this case by countless numbers of qualified and reputable physicians.

You are being manipulated by false charges and innuendo from the radical, right-wing "so-called" Christians who are behind this well funded fiasco!

PS-Sparrow .........I'm glad you found the link(s) you mentioned concerning that "quack" of a "so-called" Doctor ( William Hammesfahr). You failed to mention however that there is NOTHING at this site that renders my reporting of the standards for "nominating" a person for a "Nobel Prize" either invalid OR inaccurate! I could find NOTHING that substantiated his "claim" that he was in fact a "Nobel Prize Nominee".......could YOU???

The man is a not ONLY a "quack"...........he is a "charlatan" and outright nut-case as well!

P-PPS............Sid,............."DITTO "!

[Arrow]

Sid...

There is not one of us on this forum that has not made a decision in regard to the actions of other people. We either agree with them or we do not. Did you just not pass judgement on me?Not one of us, yourself included, can go through a day without expressing our likes or dislikes for a particular action. Go back and read your own stuff just on this thead alone. And all the name calling that has gone on.

I don't know you Sid but from what I've read of your postings you are a pretty confident guy.

And I'm confident in my own experience and actions when it comes to hangin' in there for the long haul with a sick man. I was mad and upset when I put up this thread because of all the memories I carry of watchin my loved ones die slow deaths.I just can't imagine surrendering my heart to another human when my soul mate was in desperate trouble. That's just me. Maybe I expect to much of others. Now I've said more than enough here and I do thank you Sid because you taught mea lesson or reminded me of an old one.I won't be forgettin it any time soon.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[PHO127]

Thanks, Bye the way my comment on the sucicide bomber was meant to draw you into a trap but you didn't bite. No intention was made to pass judgement on you about your moral values but to bring out that you were passing judgement based on your values, I don't have a problem with how you feel on the subject.

Any name calling was not personal but simply to point out that (IMHO) several of you were directing unfounded accusations at the husband when , again IMHO, he was only doing what he felt was right and in a manner completely legal and allowed by law. If any of you have a bitch it should be with the legal system. I think the remark about Scott Peterson was uncalled for, rude and crass and not worthy of a man that holds a DSC, it was a chicken shit remark.

David-

In a hospital or nurseing home pt. care is done per Dr.'s order NOT the dictates of any family member.The husband has no legal standing to make such an order.It is the Dr. and the facility that are held legally liable if it determined that the pt.'s care has been substandard.

[Arrow]

Steve...

I heard you the first time and went looking on my own. You were right Fox dropped the ball on this one but I'm not going to blame them for my mistake in not doing the research on this man. I know better. No I would not want him in charge of my medical care. He did not give good evidence in the court room. The document also speaks to his and the other doctorscredentials. Thanks for the heads up and an apology to all fornot doing my own research on the doctor.

Trial Court Order

[Keith_Hixson]

As a pastor I have been through similar scenario's with parishners over the years. This is not an easy situation with easy answers. Modern Medicine has created new problems in just how we are to end or extend life. 50+ years ago the options were so limited in cases as this. Just how long and by what means do we use extend life when one is severally brain damaged? When all hope is gone is my advice. However, "all hope" is interpreted differently by different folks. I will not judge either the husband or the parents in this emotionally sparked case. Establishing a national ethic in such a case will be very difficult. Unless you have been in the shoes of either the parents or the husband I don't believe we should judge either's motives.

As a member of the religious right I am pro-life and understand some of the political concerns. But, by the same token there is a time to allow nature to take its natural course. I for one have had tremendous mixed emotions over this situation. This is not and I repeat this is not a black and white situation with easy answers. Lets be kind and considerate to one another as we discuss this very delicate issue.

Keith

[David]

It is sad statement upon human affairs when so many people have made a political/religious issue of this when it is a moral issue. But then most people can not separate themselves from what they believe controls their lives when they accept no personal responsibility for it themselves so at the same time it is not surprising. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you do not. No government or church can make that decision for you. If you say "I believe in the sanctity of life when it meets with criteria I have set forth" you do not truly believe in the sanctity of life. You can not have it both ways, there is no grey area here.

Again this case is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Many have asked why it is even being brought up when so many others in similar situations have been ignored. These are just opening salvos. Both sides are preparing to do open battle soon on moral and ethical grounds unprecedented before in human history. Man has always assumed themselves gods, soon we will have the power to actually make ourselves believe it and woe unto them that actually do.