Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.

wrote:

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


References re the Terri Schiavo Case

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html -- Best summary IMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo...=531907&page=1

http://www.topix.net/news/terri-schiavo

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Persistent Vegetative State --- not specific to TS

http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/pvsilm.htm

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/cros.../donal/pvs.htm

Jim,
Thanks that is exactly what I was looking for.

Hopefully everyone will now realize the importance of a Living Will. If you
don't have a Living Will, you leave yourself open for this mess.


"Jim," wrote in message
...
wrote:

Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


References re the Terri Schiavo Case

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html -- Best summary IMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4358877.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo...=531907&page=1

http://www.topix.net/news/terri-schiavo

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7231440/

Persistent Vegetative State --- not specific to TS

http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/pvsilm.htm

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921394859.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/cros.../donal/pvs.htm

wrote in message
oups.com...
Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


Why? What is the rush? If there is a question about Michael Schiavo
possibly abusing her (scans previously noted broken bones) what is the hurry
in letting her die? Why did Michael Schiavo note her wishes not to be kept
alive some 10 years after her hospitalization and only after he received his
share of the punitive damage award from a jury trial?

Something is rotten in Denmark, especially since the court has blocked any
possibility of an autopsy.

JimH,
You would have to believe all the medical doctors and courts are involved in
this cover-up. If you read the judges decision, it appears to be based upon
medical information and the wishes of Terri.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf



"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Gould,
I have been trying to find medical information concerning Terri S. All
I
can find is info about why she should not be removed from feeding
tubes,
which seems to be based upon emotion, not medical facts.


Do you have any links?


*********

I doubt that you will find many medical records on line while she is
still (sort of) "living".

The medical case has been presented at least 20 times now, in various
state and federal courts, and judges who have been presented with the
medical evidence and implored by advocates for Terri S to find some
reason to keep her dead body breathing have all, without exception,
agreed that medical evidence supporting the possibility of recovery is
not available.

You sort of have to side with the doctors on the medical issues, and
the judges on the legal issues in cases such as this.


Why? What is the rush? If there is a question about Michael Schiavo
possibly abusing her (scans previously noted broken bones) what is the
hurry in letting her die? Why did Michael Schiavo note her wishes not to
be kept alive some 10 years after her hospitalization and only after he
received his share of the punitive damage award from a jury trial?

Something is rotten in Denmark, especially since the court has blocked any
possibility of an autopsy.

No rush at all. This case is already YEARS too long. No matter what day it
finally gets over - I'tll be spun as a "rush".

-W

"JimH" wrote in message news:ds6dnZAp1JkOk97fRVn-

Why? What is the rush?

Perhaps no one expected it to get to this point. After all she was living
with a feeding tube without problem for years. And news of possible
physical abuse by her husband Michael, thus causing her condition, was only
recently discovered.

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial settlement
from the original court case.

One has to wonder why her husband will not allow an autopsy. What harm is
there in that.

Broken bones and an uncaring, money grabbing husband.....the smoking gun
being Terri. How best to get rid of the evidence than to let her die and
deny an autopsy.

It is too late to save her. I only hope she is without pain.

Michael won. I hope he can live with his *victory*.


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
No rush at all. This case is already YEARS too long. No matter what day
it
finally gets over - I'tll be spun as a "rush".

-W

"JimH" wrote in message news:ds6dnZAp1JkOk97fRVn-

Why? What is the rush?

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order* one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same question
still apply?

In Florida the living will can be written or verbal (from what I've seen). She
made a verbal living will. This is apparently what many judges have believed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."