well, you opinion is just as good as anybody's mike. i
actually have my doubts as to mr. schiavo, but, i am
far from being informed even though i do try to stay
on top of things.

--- Mike Collis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I still think Mr. Schiavo's part in this is
> questionable, to say the least.
> But what do I know.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> ken barber
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Terri Schiavo redux from Inclusion
> Daily Express
>
>   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
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/