Are You Surprised By The Medical Examiners Findings?? - Page 3

swampfox · #31 Jun 16, '05, 7:01 am

Quote:

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?

Christ and his Church. Christopher Reeves couldn't and millions of other persons can't function on their own (including babies and the unborn). Does that mean we should kill them? It's fascinating how you twist and distort personal responsibility into a license to kill the disabled and most defenseless among us. Absolutely Orwellian.

swampfox · #32 Jun 16, '05, 7:07 am

Quote:

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?

Christ and his Church. Christopher Reeves couldn't and millions of other persons can't function on their own (including babies and the unborn). Does that mean we should kill them? It's fascinating how you twist and distort personal responsibility into a license to kill the disabled and most defenseless among us. Absolutely Orwellian.

Servant1 · #33 Jun 16, '05, 7:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustinsDad

Not in general, no. I mean the people in their camp - the pro-euthanasia crowd. This means the doctors, medical examiners, judges, attorney's, etc who - facts be damned - promote the culture of death.

I haven't followed this story for a while, but there was enough conflict of interest along with so-called-experts in the medical field who had ties to organized pro-euthanasia movement, that anything coming out of this county is suspect.

Sorry for the confusion - didn't mean to denigrate the entire ME profession.

DustinsDad

Well, DD, you make some good points here, I think.

I will jump on your bandwagon without reservation in deploring ANY approach from either the "facts be damned" methodology or the "I'm angry and feel passionately called on to condemn someone" methodology. And we have seen plenty of this on both "sides" of this case todate, and it shows little evidence of abating any time soon.

I'm not sure that it is possible to reach a rational conclusion at this point in time. Far too many conclusions have been reached - very passionately - based on media snippets, allegations, accusations, shouting, emotional outbursts, "I read on the internet that 'they' said on the internet" kinds of things. As you said - facts be damned."

Facts are out there. Some facts have been revealed. Others have not been r evealed, I suspect. I work in the medical field and have for over 25 years. WAY too many people (Senator/Doctor Bill Frist included) have made long-distance diagnoses or suggested diagnoses, leaning on one side or the other, without having examined the patient. You can't make a diagnosis or valid medical opinion based on snippets of video, a few transmitted and re-transmitted CT images, etc without having ALL the medical record and without examining the patient. There's just been SO much inflammatory stuff done and said, I'm afriad it's going to be a long time before any truly valid judgements can be made.

It's important to discuss the issues. And to ultimately make some judgements. But all the polemic and vituperation and hate and passion-based (rather than evidence based) charges and counter-charges that are being so freely thrown about aren't going to help anything other than to make the throwers feel better emotionally. And maybe that's what's needed. Maybe we all need time to vent our spleens.

Then we can get down to the serious homework.

God bless and help us on that journey!

swampfox · #34 Jun 16, '05, 7:20 am

Quote:

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?

Christ and his Church. Christopher Reeves couldn't and millions of other persons can't function on their own (including babies and the unborn). Does that mean we should kill them? It's fascinating how you twist and distort personal responsibility into a license to kill the disabled and most defenseless among us. Absolutely Orwellian.

Thekla · #35 Jun 16, '05, 7:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampfox

Christ and his Church. Christopher Reeves couldn't and millions of other persons can't function on their own (including babies and the unborn). Does that mean we should kill them? It's fascinating how you twist and distort personal responsibility into a license to kill the disabled and most defenseless among us. Absolutely Orwellian.

I said "function at all" not "function on their own." And YOU want to talk of twisting?

swampfox · #36 Jun 16, '05, 7:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thekla

I said "function at all" not "function on their own." And YOU want to talk of twisting?

Can a new born baby function at all? Interesting how you reduce the human person to function--That's a utilitarian view of humanity that is reminiscent of those proferred by totalitarian ideologies.

Please ponder this before you defend the indefensible.

http://www.redstate.org/
By: trevino · Section: Social Issues

The results of Terri Schiavo's autopsy are in, and it appears that the poor woman was in even a more frightful state than was assumed: she was blind, her brain was shrunk to half size by weight, and she could not have ingested sustenance without the infamous tube. What, then, does this change in hindsight on the pro-life case for keeping her alive?
Precisely nothing.

Those claiming vindication for their advocacy of Schiavo's killing by virtue of this autopsy must ipso facto accept one of several monstrous premises: either that humanity is not something intrinsic, but dependent upon function; or that humanity's intrinsic nature is irrelevant as it is not worth preserving per se; or that humanity is worth preserving per se, but not so worth preserving as to grant its existence the benefit of the doubt in doubtful cases. This is, in turn, a utilitarian evil, a nihilistic evil, and an apathetic evil. Ronald Reagan, in explaining why those who doubted the humanity of the fetus should be against abortion, asked whether, if one did not know what was in a paper bag, if one would nonetheless kick it. We know: there are those who would kick it, and kick it hard. They won this fight, a woman is dead -- a woman, not a "vegetable," nor a "shell," nor a "body," nor any other euphemistic noun meant to distract from the essence of what was done to whom -- and the proponents of that death are claiming the vindication of their victory. Because, you see, she wasn't much of a woman. Not much of a person. Not much of a soul. The pitiable irony is that in asserting this, the continued existence whose justification they most undercut is their own.

Thekla · #37 Jun 16, '05, 7:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyofthevalley

She couldn't function at all.

That sounds like half the people in nursing homes,across the country should they meet the same fate as Terri Schiavo?After all their existance is such a burden to society.

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.

Lilyofthevalley · #38 Jun 16, '05, 7:35 am

Thekla people in the advanced stages of alzheimer's dont think or dream should they meet the same fate as Terri Schiavo?

swampfox · #39 Jun 16, '05, 7:39 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyofthevalley

Thekla people in the advanced stages of alzheimer's dont think or dream should they meet the same fate as Terri Schiavo?

Unless we change our course, you will see these unfortunate people dehumanized and euthanized more and more and so-called "compassionate" people (who are really motivated by pity, i.e., fake compassion) will justify it as a social necessity and "rational" allocation of scarce medical resources and societal funds.

Thekla · #40 Jun 16, '05, 7:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampfox

Can a new born baby function at all? Interesting how you reduce the human person to function--That's a utilitarian view of humanity that is reminiscent of those proferred by totalitarian ideologies.

Absolutely, a newborn is functioning a great deal. He begins to interact with his world by following lights and sounds; he learns to differentiate between voices. A newborn baby knows when he is hungry and begins to cry and he learns that when he cries, there is a response. He feels discomfort when he's wet or cold and he learns that when he cries, he is made dry and warm. He kicks and pushes at things that are uncomfortable to him and nestles to things that give comfort.

And all the while, all the stimulus that he is exposed to, is being processed by his brain. He has memories and even dreams; it's likely that he finds comfort in thoughts of the womb.

I could go on, but it's not correct for you to misstate my position.

Thekla · #41 Jun 16, '05, 7:53 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilyofthevalley

Thekla people in the advanced stages of alzheimer's dont think or dream should they meet the same fate as Terri Schiavo?

Are you asking me if people in the advanced stages of alzheimer's who will not take food must be given a feeding tube? Is that what you are asking?

swampfox · #42 Jun 16, '05, 8:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thekla

Absolutely, a newborn is functioning a great deal. He begins to interact with his world by following lights and sounds; he learns to differentiate between voices. A newborn baby knows when he is hungry and begins to cry and he learns that when he cries, there is a response. He feels discomfort when he's wet or cold and he learns that when he cries, he is made dry and warm. He kicks and pushes at things that are uncomfortable to him and nestles to things that give comfort.

And all the while, all the stimulus that he is exposed to, is being processed by his brain. He has memories and even dreams; it's likely that he finds comfort in thoughts of the womb.

I could go on, but it's not correct for you to misstate my position.

Are you, a supporter of the killing of an innocent and defenseless young woman, the victim of unfairness? The newborn or alzheimer victim, for that matter, cannot feed himself nor survive without outside intervention. Terri nestled to her parents as well and was agitated by the presence of michael, if the nurses and Father Pavone and Brother O'Donnell are to be believed. You choose to put your faith in the deatheaters.

Lilyofthevalley · #43 Jun 16, '05, 8:08 am

Are you asking me if people in the advanced stages of alzheimer's who will not take food must be given a feeding tube? Is that what you are asking?

You mean unable to take food? Will not is a choice, unable is not. Why not? Or should they not be given nutrition and hydration which is a basic need.

wabrams · #44 Jun 16, '05, 8:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampfox

Suffocation does not require blunt trauma. The salient facts are that a heart attack didn't cause Terri's initial injury and that she did not have bulimia as claimed by michael shiavo. God willing, there will be more to come--

An autopsy, done on someone who just died, will not be able to determine if someone tried to suffocate them 15 years prior. If she died at the time of the alledged suffocation, then an autopsy was done now, the outcome MIGHT be different. But the body has a long time to heal in a 15 year span.

swampfox · #45 Jun 16, '05, 8:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by wabrams

An autopsy, done on someone who just died, will not be able to determine if someone tried to suffocate them 15 years prior. If she died at the time of the alledged suffocation, then an autopsy was done now, the outcome MIGHT be different. But the body has a long time to heal in a 15 year span.

Interestingly, if the coroner's findings that Terri didn't have bulimia is correct, then michael's case against the insurer and his monetary recovery were based on a lie.