Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[dilloduck]

So you think it's ok for judges to ignore any evidence they deem fit to ignore? Even after congress orders another trial in a completely constitutional fashion, as is the case here?

Could someone on the death squad go on record here? Jeesh.

I think thats a NO, RW.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think thats a NO, RW.

What a couple of vertical slits.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you think it's ok for judges to ignore any evidence they deem fit to ignore? Even after congress orders another trial in a completely constitutional fashion, as is the case here?

Could someone on the death squad go on record here? Jeesh.

So you see fit to ding my rep on this comment but not proffer a response publicly.

You are such a coward. A retarded coward.

 

[ReillyT]

On the Washington Post website, there is a good question and answer with Jay Wolfson, a physician and lawyer, who is a professor of medicine at the University of South Florida. He served as the court appointed, special guardian ad litem for Theresa Marie Schiavo, subsequent to the special law passed by the Florida Legislature in October of 2003. He delivered the report to Governor Bush about Terri's condition. It is quite good and offers insight about her medical condition and the causes of her initial collapse.

Among the things he states:
1. Terri was given an MRI to determine the condition of her brain matter.
2. There is no credible evidence to support the contentions that Terri can eat or drink anything on her own, including thickened liquids.
3. Terri was 250 pounds at the age of 18 and 120 pounds at the time of her collapse. This was the result of dieting. She would drink 15-20 glasses of ice tea per day, and this resulted in a "profound" electrolyte imbalance causing cardiac arrest.
4. He spent time with her, talked to her, cajoled her and played music for her, but was unable to find any consistent response. He did find reflex action.
5. If Terri "were given food, she would likely aspirate and either choke or develop an infection that would kill her. She does not eat or drink and she cannot."

This may help clear up some misinformation that is prevalent in this case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2005Mar22.html

 

[ReillyT]

So you see fit to ding my rep on this comment but not proffer a response publicly.

You are such a coward. A retarded coward.

As I have told you repeatedly, if you want an answer to this question, please see posts 340, 347 and 353, which discuss the matter fully. I will not waste time retyping everything because you either cannot read or scroll.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

On the Washington Post website, there is a good question and answer with Jay Wolfson, a physician and lawyer, who is a professor of medicine at the University of South Florida. He served as the court appointed, special guardian ad litem for Theresa Marie Schiavo, subsequent to the special law passed by the Florida Legislature in October of 2003. He delivered the report to Governor Bush about Terri's condition. It is quite good and offers insight about her medical condition and the causes of her initial collapse.

Among the things he states:
1. Terri was given an MRI to determine the condition of her brain matter.
2. There is no credible evidence to support the contentions that Terri can eat or drink anything on her own, including thickened liquids.
3. Terri was 250 pounds at the age of 18 and 120 pounds at the time of her collapse. This was the result of dieting. She would drink 15-20 glasses of ice tea per day, and this resulted in a "profound" electrolyte imbalance causing cardiac arrest.
4. He spent time with her, talked to her, cajoled her and played music for her, but was unable to find any consistent response. He did find reflex action.
5. If Terri "were given food, she would likely aspirate and either choke or develop an infection that would kill her. She does not eat or drink and she cannot."

This may help clear up some misinformation that is prevalent in this case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2005Mar22.html

Other people have conflicting testimony. I know you're blind to them. A new honest trial would have been helpful in clearing this all up.

 

[ReillyT]

Other people have conflicting testimony. I know you're blind to them. A new honest trial would have been helpful in clearing this all up.

Those people were addressed in the question to which Dr. Wolfson replied there was no credible evidence from any person that Terri was given jello or other thickened liquids by anyone. Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[dilloduck]

Those people were addressed in the question to which Dr. Wolfson replied there was no credible evidence from any person that Terri was given jello or other thickened liquids by anyone. Saying it doesn't make it so.

So isn't that what an appeal or revue is for ? and i would like an answer to RWs question too. A rep war is a silly thing for you to do!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Those people were addressed in the question to which Dr. Wolfson replied there was no credible evidence from any person that Terri was given jello or other thickened liquids by anyone. Saying it doesn't make it so.

One guy saying they're liars doesn't make it so, Even if the accuser is a doctor. Why not let the people give their testimony in a new HONEST trial? Let the jury decide what's credible.

 

[ReillyT]

So isn't that what an appeal or revue is for ? and i would like an answer to RWs question too. A rep war is a silly thing for you to do!

There have been numerous reviews and appeals in this case.

I award points for good posts and detract them for asinine ones. RWA asked the same question three times and refuses to look back on the thread to where the question had already been discussed and answered. I thought he was being asinine and clogging the thread with issues that had fully been discussed, without referring to that discussion to elaborate upon it or comment upon what has already been stated. If you want to detract all my points, go ahead, I really don't mind.

 

[ReillyT]

One guy saying they're liars doesn't make it so, Even if the accuser is a doctor. Why not let the people give their testimony in a new HONEST trial? Let the jury decide what's credible.

He was a doctor appointed pursuant to Terri's law to review all of the evidence in the case and also to examine Terri again to make his own determination. This isn't one guy. Numerous physicians have come to the same conclusion - that what this nurse was alleging happened could not have happened. It wasn't medically possible, and any attempt to replicate it would like result in Terri's death from aspiration or infection.

 

[dilloduck]

He was a doctor appointed pursuant to Terri's law to review all of the evidence in the case and also to examine Terri again to make his own determination. This isn't one guy. Numerous physicians have come to the same conclusion - that what this nurse was alleging happened could not have happened. It wasn't medically possible, and any attempt to replicate it would like result in Terri's death from aspiration or infection.

Isn't the goal to kill her anyway?

 

[ReillyT]

Isn't the goal to kill her anyway?

Apparently, that is her goal.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

He was a doctor appointed pursuant to Terri's law to review all of the evidence in the case and also to examine Terri again to make his own determination. This isn't one guy. Numerous physicians have come to the same conclusion - that what this nurse was alleging happened could not have happened. It wasn't medically possible, and any attempt to replicate it would like result in Terri's death from aspiration or infection.

Would've been interesting to let a jury of peers weigh the evidence. Do you consider yourself part of the elect elite or just any doctor or judge who agrees with you and your death agenda.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Apparently, that is her goal.

Based on hearsay. Court determinations do not, in fact, dictate reality.

 

[ReillyT]

Would've been interesting to let a jury of peers weigh the evidence. Do you consider yourself part of the elect elite or just any doctor or judge who agrees with you and your death agenda.

The laws of the State of Florida did not require a jury in this instance. In many cases, including criminal trials, judges act as the finders of fact. That is the law and if you don't like it, get it changed.

 

[dilloduck]

Apparently, that is her goal.

Then now even the DRs wont do things that might fulfill her wishes???? how bizarre

 

[ReillyT]

Based on hearsay. Court determinations do not, in fact, dictate reality.

No, court determinations, whether by judge or jury, do not always correspond to reality. Humans are fallible and we do the best we can. Hearsay is not always prohibited, and in probate proceedings where the subject is either dead or incapable of making their wishes known directly, it is often the best evidence that we have available.

For the record, the evidence that Terri would want to continue in this state is as much hearsay as the testimony of her husband and others who have said she would not want to continue in this state. A court has to make a decision, and this court made it based on all of the available evidence with a higher than just "probable" standard of proof. I for one think that the standard should be even higher yet, but the Florida legislature has thus far declined to make it so.

 

[ReillyT]

Then now even the DRs wont do things that might fulfill her wishes???? how bizarre

They are following the legal process. Nothing bizarre about it.

 

[no1tovote4]

No, court determinations, whether by judge or jury, do not always correspond to reality. Humans are fallible and we do the best we can. Hearsay is not always prohibited, and in probate proceedings where the subject is either dead or incapable of making their wishes known directly, it is often the best evidence that we have available.

For the record, the evidence that Terri would want to continue in this state is as much hearsay as the testimony of her husband and others who have said she would not want to continue in this state. A court has to make a decision, and this court made it based on all of the available evidence with a higher than just "probable" standard of proof. I for one think that the standard should be even higher yet, but the Florida legislature has thus far declined to make it so.

For the record, we recognize that the evidence that Terri would want to continue in this state is as much earsay as that of her husband. However, when it is unclear as to the wishes as it is in this case the law should require the judge to err on the side of life.