Right to Life

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 23 Mar 2005 17:21

well, as lots of people know...im a stalwart christian, and i believe the plug should be pulled on shiavo. my father is a baptist minister, i just discussed the case with him, he agrees. i dont like 'christians' who make reasonable christians look bad...i promise guys...not all christians are crackheads.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 23 Mar 2005 22:18

FlexThis wrote:Thirdly, you have a handful of Dr.s saying she is brain damaged and in a persistant vegetative state.
Yet in any video of Terry, you can clearly see her move around and respond to stimulii. There are a host (more than a handful) saying she is not in a persistant vegetative state and that she can be rehabilitated to lead a better life. One of those hosts of Doctors is a Noble Prize winning physician.

Whoaaaaaaa slow down there. Your definition of persistent vegetative state is an incredible oversimplification. You pretty much just said:

1. Somebody in PVS cannot respond to stimuli.
2. Terry Schiavo responds to stimuli

therefore

3. Terry Schiavo is not in PVS.

This is flawed because the definition in 1. is incredibly oversimplified, and therefore 2. means nothing. So, the conclusion in 3 is also not legit.

Your talk of `handfuls` and `hosts` of doctors also gives the impression that there are more doctors who think she isn`t in PVS, then there are doctors who are in PVS. While that information is hard to verify, it`s also not a very useful statistic. A better question would be, amongst the community of reputable doctors who specialize in neurology and neurosurgery, what is the general consensus? Maybe every dentist in America think Schiavo isn`t in PVS, but their opinion is about as good as mine.

Bill Frist (republican congressman) is a doctor, and he claimed that by watching videos of Schiavo, he thought she was misdiagnosed, and she isn`t in PVS. I found that to be an incredible claim, considering he has no experience whatsoever in the field of neurology, and that he was able to reach that conclusion by watching a video, whereas diagnosis for PVS usually requires extensive testing, including measuring the patients EEG and doing CAT scans.

The doctor that Jeb Bush cited as a `renowned neurologist` (even though most published and respected doctors in the field of neurology have never heard of him) also doesn`t seem very qualified. Dr. Cheshire. Check it out (free registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/natio ... octor.html

This doctor, excuse me: `renowned neurologist`, also came to the conclusion that Schiavo isn`t in PVS... without running any tests on her. But then, are you surprised? None of the articles he`s published in medical journals are on the topic of PVS.

For those of you who can`t check out the NYTimes article, here`s an excerpt.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

He said there was no doubt that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. "Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Her EEG is flat - flat. There's no electrical activity coming from her brain."

Straight up Damon: Fox News may want you to believe the medical community is split on the question of whether or not Schiavo is in PVS, but it is not. If 990 scientists say global warming is occurring, but one Republican scientist says he`s not 100% sure, you can rest assure Bush and Fox News will point out that the scientific community is split on the issue, and that global warming isn`t an accepted fact.

You can argue about the morality of euthanasia, but please don`t insult my intelligence by claiming there is scientific ambiguity as to her state. That argument cannot be made intelligently.

Final question: what is the name of this Nobel (hey, he could also be a noble guy for all I know.) Prize-winning physician who says Schiavo isn`t in PVS? What field did he win the Nobel Prize in?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 08:05

including measuring the patients EEG and doing CAT scans.

A CAT scan was never done. That was one of my points Ken. All has not been done. Cransford is a jack-ass, who only examined her for 45 minutes before making his conclusion. He ran NO TESTS.

The husband is hiding something. Look deeper.

The Nobel Prize guy's name is: DR. BILL HAMMESFAHR

Exert from Hannity & Colms:

HANNITY: You were nominated for a Nobel Prize (search) in medicine?

HAMMESFAHR: Yes.

HANNITY: In 1999? For your work...

HAMMESFAHR: ... in patients like Terri. For brain injury and stroke patients. We discovered how you get these people better, and we did it for 10 years with Medicare. We got evaluated by the state of Florida and we first discovered a technique that works in people like Terri.

So I'm not insulting your intelligents, you are far superior to me my friend.

I'm just asking you to look deeper into the matter before siding with the husband.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 24 Mar 2005 09:51

If congress spent as much time investigating the intel leading up to the war in Iraq, the enron scandal, the whole energy task force fiasco, or the use of torture as it has spent on investigating this single case and steroids use in baseball our government might be worth the paper it's charted upon.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 10:19

A simple quote:

"Let's see if I have the facts right. Terri Schiavo collapses at home, the paramedics immediately suspect foul play and call the police, but they do not investigate. The hospital screws up and causes her severe brain damage. Through therapy she is making steady progress. She is awarded over one million dollars in damages. As soon as the money becomes available, her husband ends all therapy and suddenly remembers after seven years that Terri once said she didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means. He finds a couple of other people who corroborate his story. The judge allows this clearly 'hearsay' evidence into a trial at which Terri does not have representation and decides she should be starved to death..." — Bob (Fallbrook, CA)

What have I been saying???

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 24 Mar 2005 11:23

On the subject of Dr. Bill Hammesfar...

The Nobel committee does not release the names of the people they nominated (but did not win) until 50 years after the fact. You can check on http://www.nobelprize.org/ and see that you can only find nominees in Medicine up through 1949. Apparently, Dr. Bill was nominated by his congressman.

Additionally,

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/FinalOrders/03-17-03/DOH-03-0182.pdf -- Page 10 wrote: On December 11, 2001, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine (Department), issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, William Hammesfahr, M.D., (Hammesfahr), alleging that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in his treatment of M.T.; that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(d), Florida Statute, by engaging in false advertising regarding his treatment of strokes; and that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exploiting M.T. for financial gain.

He was found "guilty" of the above as you can read in the first 7 pages of that PDF.

Something to think about...

[You can look at the following for more info: http://www.newshounds.us/2005/03/24/col ... expert.php]

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 11:41

All options have been exhausted, so in a few days it won't really matter now will it?

It's a sad day for America.

BTW - Hammesfar was one of 33 fighting the case. And Cransford said himself that out of 8 Dr.s who intially examined her, all agreed with him but Hammesfar.

I don't know the guy, but we all should be striving for a positive solution to life's problems. Noone knows if God exists, noone has ever returned to tell the tale. So Bah hum bug on the "she's in a better place crowd". You don't know that for sure. Noone does.

But we do know this: Starvation is not a humane way to go. And sometimes life hands you a raw deal. I didn't get that raise I needed to sustain a better way of life, so should I be killed for having a lower than expected quality of life???

And what makes any one persons quality of life better than anothers?

Sorry - Just pissed off that the best we can do is watch her starve to death, rather than take her out more humanely.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 24 Mar 2005 11:48

Flex wrote:Sorry - Just pissed off that the best we can do is watch her starve to death, rather than take her out more humanely.

i know...its odd. so many people support the removal of the tube (obviously its already out, so i guess i mean so many people are against the re-insertion), but starvation seems inhumane to me; i suspect not a whole lot of people would be in support of a more humane way of ending her life, such as injection or SOMETHING. i dunno. for some reason letting her starve seems ok, but not helping her die in a less unpleasant way seems extreme.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 24 Mar 2005 16:23

FlexThis wrote:
The Nobel Prize guy's name is: DR. BILL HAMMESFAHR

Exert from Hannity & Colms:

HANNITY: You were nominated for a Nobel Prize (search) in medicine?

HAMMESFAHR: Yes.

HANNITY: In 1999? For your work...

HAMMESFAHR: ... in patients like Terri. For brain injury and stroke patients. We discovered how you get these people better, and we did it for 10 years with Medicare. We got evaluated by the state of Florida and we first discovered a technique that works in people like Terri.

So I'm not insulting your intelligents, you are far superior to me my friend.

.

Are you sure you`re not insulting my intelligence? Cause in your first post, you said he won a Nobel prize. Now, you claim he`s just been nominated. Actually, in the very same episode of Hannity that you cite, Hannity claimed 8 times that this doctor was nominated for a Nobel prize. Unfortunately, those lists are public, and you can see for yourself that HE WAS NEVER NOMINATED FOR A NOBEL.

A little poking around on google teaches you a lot of things about this guy. Like the time he was censured :

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/FinalOrd ... 3-0182.pdf

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 16:26

Little late Ken.

But that doesn't put the feeding tube back now does it?

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 24 Mar 2005 16:30

Accidentally posted my last post before I finished. Anyway, the pdf file shows how the Florida Board of Medecine disciplined him. So yeah, while Hannity claimed he was a Nobel Prize nominee, he in fact wasn`t, and by the looks of it wasn`t a very good doctor either.

Damon: you encourage me to look a little deeper, but you aren`t even willing to google the name of the `nobel prize winning doctor` you claim validates your argument? Come on man, that IS insulting. Insulting to me, and most of all insulting to yourself.

This reminds me of the time you posted that 9/11-Koran connection. Tell me to look a little deeper? How about checking facts which are readily available to the public (like the text of the Koran itself, or lists of Nobel prize winners, etc) before just parroting everything on Fox news?

Don`t be a hypocrite.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 16:36

I can be whatever I want to be. Still doesn't dispute the fact that you are ok with a human starving to death.

Murderer.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 16:39

Did you notice that the guy has another family, yet still makes decision for his so called wife?

Or the fact that she is moving around at all!!!!!!

It is breaking my heart that we sterilize a fucking needle for a convicted murderer/rapist before lethal injection for the sake of humanity.

Yet starve a person to death - in the same name????

Justify that for me Ken.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 24 Mar 2005 16:40

I'm okay with murdering her, I think starvation is a little over the top on the cruel and unusual punishment scale.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 16:42

I'm okay with murdering her, I think starvation is a little over the top on the cruel and unusual punishment scale.

Bastard

That's fucking sad - Murder is NEVER an option. And if you find starvation such a good way to die with dignity.

TRY IT!!!

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 24 Mar 2005 16:47

Flex, have you ever had to explain to one of your kids why one of their dogs had to be put down?

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 16:48

A human is not a dog.

Please don't go there.

And if they would put her down, I'd be ok with that.

But starving someone to death is INHUMANE and the whole fucking legal system should be put on trial for murder.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Mar 2005 16:52

See,

One of the main problems with this and other cases is that we have no put down method for humans. It has been outlawed and labeled illegal in all forms. (Talking about adults people not babies)

So the humane thing to do is feed her ass some food and water until legislation can pass a constitutional law to have people put down.

That would be the humane thing to do. Not starve a person because euthanasia is illegal.

And it just pisses me off to no end.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 24 Mar 2005 17:04

If you want to fight for the right for humane euthanasia, I'm all for it, but it's the christian influence on NA which has kept that door shut.

I was there when my dad turned away life support. I understood that it was the right thing to do even as a child.

What the fuck are you fighting for?

There's no fucking doubt is my mind that you're pro-war, but you can't let someone who's so deteriorated that she can't fucking feed herself die a peaceful death? She has to be left on display for her fucking parents / whoever the hell is fighting to keep her alive?

Do you actually believe that she'll benefit from another 30 years of this? Even IF she had some sort of conciousness (she doesn't), do you think that any human being would want to live like that? Fucking ultimate torture.

Murderer!? Fuck off. You make the greatest insult possible to score points in a debate.

Apologies. I hate posting on this forum, but your childishness struck a personal nerve this time. No hard feelings, just please, think it through.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 24 Mar 2005 17:04

Newf wrote:If you want to fight for the right for humane euthanasia, I'm all for it, but it's the christian influence on NA which has kept that door shut - the same influence that's fighting to keep her alive now.

I was there when my dad turned away life support. I understood that it was the right thing to do even as a child.

What the fuck are you fighting for?

There's no fucking doubt is my mind that you're pro-war, but you can't let someone who's so deteriorated that she can't fucking feed herself die a peaceful death? She has to be left on display for her fucking parents / whoever the hell is fighting to keep her alive?

Do you actually believe that she'll benefit from another 30 years of this? Even IF she had some sort of conciousness (she doesn't), do you think that any human being would want to live like that? Fucking ultimate torture.

Murderer!? Fuck off. You make the greatest insult possible to score points in a debate.

Apologies. I hate posting on this forum, but your childishness struck a personal nerve this time. No hard feelings, just please, think it through.

modified

Right to Life

Re: Right to Life