well, beth, there have been several doctors that i
have seen on tv that say they spent hours with her and
disagree with the droctor that the court is relying
on. one who has been nominated for a nobel prize for
his work said he spent 10 hours with her and says she
is not in a vegistaive state. i also saw the courts
doctor say she was and in the next few sentences say
he spent 45 minutes with her.
  i do not presume to know who is right, but, that
every doctor that has examined her agrees is simply
not true. i have seen the interviews of the actual
doctors.
   are the doctors opinions illegal, maybe, but, that
is part of the whole question. legal killing? invasion
of privacy? privacy to legally kill? lots of questions
on both sides. if i could definitivly answer all these
questions, wouldn't i be in demand?
   aside from the question at hand, there are other
questions that needs answered. constitutional
questions. is judge green in contempt of congress for
iqnoring the senate suppena? was congress in its title
3 rights to pass that law? if so, why did the lower
courts ignore the clear directions for a new look at
the case with a new start? if not what rights does
congress have under title 3 of the constitution? title
3 for you guys that do not know is the title that
allows for congressional part of the checks and
balances as it relates to the courts. it is  there for
a reason. was congress within that reason?
   the supreme court has a big chance here to spell
out what it thinks are the answers to all these
questions. i do not know that it will or will not do
so.



--- Elizabeth Thiers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The case has been sent to 19 courts.  No foul play,
> new allegations are last
> ditch efforts to thrwart the will of the husband and
> courts.  No doctor who
> has seen Mrs. Shiavo in person has concluded
> anything but, persistant
> vegetative state.  All other doctors conclusions are
> not only illegal and a
> breach of privacy let alone unethical but, are not
> conculsive since they
> have not examined her fully.  The case isn't that
> she is on a feeding tube
> it's that she's in a persistant vegetative state
> with no hope for recovery
> of cognitive functioning and has been so for several
> years.  She is living
> on Medicaid to finance her care at the hospice,
> ironic isn't it at this time
> when  the government is cutting Medicaid.
> Trust me, I fight for the right of children to live
> and work with many
> children who look very similar to Mrs. Shiavo, it's
> a different case than
> that.
>
> Beth t the OT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Kathy
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Terri Schiavo redux from Inclusion
> Daily Express
>
> As to regards a feed tube, that's a matter of
> individual opinion, and if a
> person has expressed the wish not to be on one, that
> should be honored.
>
> Foul play by whom?  I have heard that many
> investigations have been done and
> no evidence has been found that the husband has
> meant harm.  In fact, he
> strikes me as a person who is stubbornly stuck to
> the principle that he
> wants to honor his wife's wish that she not be kept
> alive if she were in a
> vegetative state.  If his motive were truely money,
> he could have accepted
> one of several offers of huge sums of money and
> simply walked away.  True,
> he and his wife got a million dollars in a
> malpractice suit settlement but
> most of that has gone to take care of Terri and to
> lawyer fees.  Yes, he's
> living with another woman, but I think it shows a
> certain level of
> committment to his wife that he has not divorced her
> to let her parents take
> over and keep her alive against her wishes.  If he'd
> thrown up his hands and
> said, "Let them take over, I don't care any more,"
> he could have divorced
> her and no one would really have blamed him.  He's
> still a young man and has
> his own life.
> There is no real evidence that he abused her, so
> again, no real evidence of
> foul play in that regard.  If anything, if there has
> been foul play, I'd say
> it would be the doctors if they  misdiagnosed
> Terri's condition, and the
> lawyers because sure as hell no one else is making
> any money out of this.
>
> Therefore since there has been no evidence of foul
> play on the part of
> Michael Shiavo, the government has no business
> stepping in and intervening
>  in an end-of-life decision that properly belongs to
> the husband.   I
>  sympathise with her parents - it's horrible losing
> your child - but he is
> her husband, he is her legal guardian, and he has
> the sole right to make
> decisions for her since she has no means of
> expressing her wishes.  Even the
> State of Florida, when it tried to take guardianship
> away from the husband
> couldn't succeed as the courts found no evidence
> that he is an unfit
> guardian.
>
> I'd bet if Terri were the child and Michael her
> parent, none of this would
> have been in question.
>
> Kat
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com