Are You Surprised By The Medical Examiners Findings??

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Ani Ibi

Right on. We are discussing certain documents. You have to have read those documents before you can even interpret them. it is plain that Thekla has not read those documents. It is plain because she does not refer to them either as whole documents, or to their general spirit, or to passages inside them.

This is an anti-Catholic scam, even worse because the perpetrator claims to be Catholic. It isn't going anywhere. There is no discussion, just a tautology of one person's opinion in the absence of any knowledge of Church teaching in the matter at all. We are expected to 'respect' the difference in opinion. Respect comes from reasoned opinion and referenced opinion, not from arbitrary opinion.

Excellent points, frame of reference, and sanity check.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Thekla

I think you've gotten a little mixed up here. Go back and read when the "literalist" comment first appeared.

LisaN said you need a basis for your arguments besides just an opinion. You responded by suggesting that such a basis would make you a literalist. I call it using good sense and reason and not thinking you know it all.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fix

In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that "by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain"; such an act is always "a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person

You WROTE the encyclical???

[DustinsDad]

Originally Posted by Thekla

She couldn't function at all and people are going to have to deal with medical advances rather than pretend they aren't artificial in nature.

Yes she could, that's why it took her two weeks to dehydrate to death after food and water where forcibly withheld from her.

Food and water aren't "artificial medical advances" - you couldn't survive without them either. This woman's crime was not being able to feed herself. A crime for which she suffered death.

Originally Posted by Thekla

I don't think I was taught wrong. I think that there are those in the Church who don't like the idea of personal responsibility and instead prefer control.

Wrapping the words "personal responsibility" around the forced dehydration and starvation of a disabled young woman is bizzare.


Her killing is a clear example of euthanasia, period. A step further downward into a darker and darker culture of death. Euthanasia is condemned by the Church Christ established and the Church you claim to belong to.



Further, your thoughts (conscience) aren't the be-all end-all when it comes to truth. There are those who have distorted consciences, and even dead consciences. If you can justify the direct and intentional killing of a disabled woman by dehydration and starvation with your conscience, your consciense needs and overhaul.

(CCC 1783) Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

(cf CCC 1790) ...Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

(CCC 1791) This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

(CCC 1792) Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

Originally Posted by Thekla

Who's to say when the conscience is uninformed, misinformed, or distorted? You?

God, the Church founded by God, and a society governed by the truths revealed by God. That last one is slipping away - bit by bit. May already be gone.


DustinsDad

[DustinsDad]

Originally Posted by Thekla

I don't believe that what is being dispensed through an artificial feeding tube is food.

The logic of the culture of death. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by Thekla

There was a lot of science put into developing both the apparatus and the mixture used in artificial feeding tubes.

The "apparatus" was developed in the 18th century. The means of food delivery is gravity. The "science" behind the food has been advances in diet and nutrition - finding the perfect blend of food (nutrients).

Originally Posted by Thekla

I will grant that it is nourishment, but it's not like chopping up food and sending it through the feeding tube.

First of all, look up the definition for nourishment. Second, I will contend, that the food fed through the tube is indeed food. They blend it ("chop it up" to use your lingo) at the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by Thekla

We just won't agree that a person has to be forced to take that nourishment using artificial means.

Your position is that the disabled be forced not to take that nourishment using any means. Hence the denial of any therapy to help Terri eat or drink on her own, and the denial of even ice chips placed on her lips during the two weeks she was dehydrated and starved to death. Armed guards prevented such acts of charity at gunpoint.

DustinsDad

[Lisa4Catholics]

Excellent reply DUSTINSDAD

[MaggieOH]

Unless you have been reading the exact wording in the autopsy report and not relying upon the MSM for comment it is very hard to judge whether or not the findings of this report are good or bad.

First, I do not believe that Jon Thogmartin justifies the dehydration of Terri Schiavo in his report. If you read the first few pages of his report when he gives a very graphic description of her condition when she was brought to him, there is an underlying anger against those who did this to her. It is there in the report.

Second, many are upset about the finding of blindness. I disagree with all who are upset over this finding. It is a finding that vindicates Dr. Hammesfahr's report because he stated that there was a possibility that she was partially blind. I have not had time to see whether the autopsy says totally blind or just cortical blindness (a result of the head and brain injury that she sustained). Terri was blind or at least had a very severe astigmatism as a result of her injury. Therefore the finding is not surprising. If you add to that the distress her brain underwent as she was dehydrated to death then it is not surprising that there was a final insult upon what was left of her sight.

Third, the open finding is good news and we should see it as the opportunity that is desired to ensure that Michael Schiavo faces his day in court.

I do not know what was discussed between Thogmartin and Bush. What is obvious is that he was annoyed over the destruction of certain records. Michael Schiavo had access to all of the records and had them sealed so that Terri's family could not get access to them. Her medical records prior to her collapse were destroyed by the Florida equivalent of the Dept of Health. Somebody in that department was responsible for making the archival decision that the records were no longer required.

There are some errors in the report but those errors are based upon the false information given by Schiavo's malpractice lawyer Mark Fox (the one who claimed that the collapse happened the previous evening and that she had thrown up after her evening meal - sure at 4.30 in the morning? I doubt it).

It is Thogmartin who has stated that he wants further credible evidence to be produced. I am certain that he thinks that there is foul play. That is why there is an open finding.

Cool down and wait for the developments.

[MaggieOH]

Originally Posted by wabrams

Unless it was caused by blunt trauma, your not going to find out 15 years after the fact through an autopsy.

If you read the whole of the report you will find that Dr. Thogmartin does not altogether rule out attempted strangulation. What he has noted is that the more obvious signs of attempted strangulation are not present. Her hidoid bone was not fractured. It was intact. However, that only points to one form of attempted strangulation. In domestic violence cases there is a rate of at least 62 per cent of attempted strangulation cases that do not get prosecuted because of the lack of evidence. The reason that there is lack of evidence is that the police and the doctors needed to be trained to look for certain signs at the time of the assault.

If the method used to choke Terri was like that of the policeman's hold then there would be no obvious signs of the attempted strangulation. I am quite positive about this because of an Australian case where a young man is in the same state as Terri after he was apprehended by the police at the request of his family. The boy was schizophrenic. Now he is minimally conscious.

[MaggieOH]

Originally Posted by norbert

She had cardiac arrest due to potassium imbalance, not a heart attack.

only a goober would fail to read the autopsy report conclusions and persist with that particular lie.

The coroner ruled out that explanation. The report explains that the potassium levels were affected by the collapse and the treatments afterwards. Her potassium balance was restored within hours.

The ME has in fact stated that the claims of the malpractice lawsuit were a lie. If you bother to read the report it is all there in black and white.

There was no collapse due to potassium imbalance. There was no effects of bulimia because she did not have bulimia. That means there was no potassium imbalance and no heart attack and no collapse as a result.

[MichaelTDoyle]

Originally Posted by DustinsDad

Armed guards prevented such acts of charity at gunpoint.

DustinsDad

This is how evil spreads in the culture of death. These young men may have joined up with the intention of serving their country. Now, they find out these orders. Surely the right action would be to refuse such orders, but I have sympathy for young men in a deeply socialized authoritarian condition.

Someday that conditioning will wear away and they will have the memory of the most awful evil on their consciences--serving as barriers to charity for a women slowly being murdered by dehydration.

For the very reason that the culture of death requires such reprehensible duties from its servants, we must oppose its cancerous spread in our society.

[MaggieOH]

Originally Posted by Thekla

It doesn't sound like that at all. Nursing homes are filled with people who cannot function on their own. Terri Schiavo had no thinking part of the brain; she had no ability to interact with the world and no memories or dreams. She could not function at all.

Wrong response. Howver goobers never do their homework but rely upon the nonsense to be found in the MSM.

FYI, the portion of Terri's brain that was severely damaged was not the portion that contains the mechanism for thinking etc. The portion of her brain that was damaged controls motor function. She was cognizant. She understood what was happening. She knew that her husband was a faithless adulterous cad who was living with other women. She knew that he claimed that she was dying.

Terri did not want to die and she valiantly fought every effort to kill her. She did not express any wish to be dehydrated to death. That wish came from the twisted and sick mind of M.S.

Stop representing the condition of Terri during her period of disability.

[MaggieOH]

Originally Posted by Thekla

She couldn't function at all and people are going to have to deal with medical advances rather than pretend they aren't artificial in nature.

I don't think I was taught wrong. I think that there are those in the Church who don't like the idea of personal responsibility and instead prefer control. Who's to say when the conscience is uninformed, misinformed, or distorted? You?

wrong again. Terri was functioning because she was breathing on her own and her heart was strong and beating. She could laugh at the jokes of the nurses too. Even one of the former nurses at Woodside proves that she was functioning to the point of being cognizant.

Removing tube feeding from a woman who is brain injured is murder. It is not a mercy and it does not represent anything to do with something that is artificial like that of a respirator.

She could do everything except for speaking and her motor function remained poor. Of course she was denied therapy and when one does not get moving after trauma and injury the muscles do atrophy very fast. If Terri had been allowed the therapy she deserved then she would have improved to some extent over time.

Take a good look at those who are suddenly coming out of the MCS. They have eventually responded to therapy and are now making progress.

What MS did was totally unconscionable and he should be charged with abuse and neglect of his wife,

Goobers who never bother to look beyond what they want to believe tend to make me sick.