Modern Medical Quackery & The Culture of Death

[Rouser2]

The Execution of Terri Schiavo

"During the time of the Holocaust the Nazi SS sadistically punished rebellious prisoners by simply putting them in a cell without food or water. The hapless victim would be driven insane with hunger and thirst and would die a horrific, excruciating death. This would serve as an example to the other victims of the utter hopelessness of their condition. The man-made laws of Nazi Germany enabled the legal murder of millions. Likewise, the distorted logic of the American legal system has allowed a patient to be condemned to death in the cruelest fashion imaginable."

Excerpted from "The Terri Schiavo Tragedy"

by Mitchell S. Felder, M.D.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/felder1.html


Comment: Urged on by the Doctors of Modern Medicine (some of them), just like the Chief Priests at the Trial of Jesus. Whatever happened to the Principle based on the Hypocratic Oath: "Primum non nocere (First, Do No Harm)"????

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Any updates on who killed JFK?

Moron.

[gmanontario]

Is it ok to invoke Godwin's law on a quote?

[Rat]

Originally posted by gmanontario
Is it ok to invoke Godwin's law on a quote? I believe that it would be, but that would surely set a record for the quickest such invocation (i.e. on the opening post) in history.

Cheers,
Rat.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by gmanontario
Is it ok to invoke Godwin's law on a quote?

Hmmm....good point. I think we should throw it open for discussion.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Hey, I've got excellent news! I just got hired for a job in Sullivan IL! I'm out of this lame ol' town of Portand, OR. I've been spending the last 8 months of my life struggling here. Nothing worse than being reduced to deliving pizzas when you have a Master's Degree. Portland is flooded with artists, so many of the theatre companies get away with staffing themselfs with "volunteer positions." I didn't spend close to $40k, and six years of my life to be a volunteer!

Anyway, I'm leaving for Sullivan IL in mid May. I'll be working there over the summer as their audio technician!

:) :) :)
Any skeptic groups in IL??

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Comment: Urged on by the Doctors of Modern Medicine (some of them), just like the Chief Priests at the Trial of Jesus. Whatever happened to the Principle based on the Hypocratic Oath: "Primum non nocere (First, Do No Harm)"????

How do you know that they were doing "no harm" by forceably and unnaturally keeping her alive? Do you know that she wanted to exist in that condition? What if, as testimony showed, that she did not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state? Does that matter to you? Or, is your perception of what is right or wrong paramount?

-TT

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"Primum non nocere (First, Do No Harm)"????

I simply don't understand how that means what people say it means.

For starters, there's simply no way that "nocere" can be an active imperative. It could be a passive infinitive, but that totally changes the meaning to "don't be hurt". I suppose it could be third person plural indicative perfect, syncopated, but then this isn't supposed to be poetry.

It looks to me much more like a present active infinitive, meaning "to hurt", which would mean that the entire phrase translates "first not to do harm", which is fine as a mission statement, but it still isn't a command.

Unless there's some subtle point of Latin grammar I'm missing here.

So sorry about the derail.

Anyhow, I certainly object to the invocation of Nazis. Aside from warping the emotions of those involved in the discussion of the topic, which may or may not be a major ethical question, it suggests that there is some systemized killing of Americans in sadistic ways going on, which is simply not the case.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Hey, I've got excellent news! I just got hired for a job in Sullivan IL! I'm out of this lame ol' town of Portand, OR. I've been spending the last 8 months of my life struggling here. Nothing worse than being reduced to deliving pizzas when you have a Master's Degree. Portland is flooded with artists, so many of the theatre companies get away with staffing themselfs with "volunteer positions." I didn't spend close to $40k, and six years of my life to be a volunteer!

Anyway, I'm leaving for Sullivan IL in mid May. I'll be working there over the summer as their audio technician!

:) :) :)
Any skeptic groups in IL??

Man, we should have gotten together when I was in Portland. I left at the end of Feb.

Where is Sullivan? By Chicago?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>How do you know that they were doing "no harm" by forceably and unnaturally keeping her alive?

Allowing a person to eat and drink, whether by mouth or by tube is hardly "unnatural" except in the minds of those who think disabled people are better off dead. On the contrary, armed police officers preventing the parents to give nutrition to a daughter being starved to death -- that is not just "unnatural," but criminal.

>>Do you know that she wanted to exist in that condition?

Do you know that she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death???

>> What if, as testimony showed, that she did not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state?

There was testimony on both sides -- from the family and friends who loved her, they say one thing, and from the Schiavo family -- the estranged husband's family, another testimony. Michael Schiavo's girl friends claim he told them he made the whole thing up -- that he and Terri never even discussed it.

>>Or, is your perception of what is right or wrong paramount?

Somehow, the idea of a partially disabled person being starved and dehydrated to death under color of law is not a "perception" but a reality of the most heinous crime imaginable. What is paramount is challenging an ideasphere which only sees such a clear cut moral outrage as somebody's mere "perception".

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon [/i]

>>Anyhow, I certainly object to the invocation of Nazis. Aside from warping the emotions of those involved in the discussion of the topic, which may or may not be a major ethical question, it suggests that there is some systemized killing of Americans in sadistic ways going on, which is simply not the case.

No? Then you don't really care to know about the millions of the aborted unborn, nor the Doctors of Death crusaders who plan to pull the tubes on milliions of the elderly and disabled. Dr. Robert Cranford, head neorolgist/cheeleader of the Death To Terri Schiavo gang wants to do just that. But one under-color-of-law execution is one too many. Pardon me if your emotions are "warping".

[Mercutio]

Just curious, Rouser... I had a student with anorexia, who could have eloquently expressed her desire not to be fed. Would you have forced a tube down her throat, against her will?

I don't know my own position on that one, so it really is just a curious question.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
What is paramount is challenging an ideasphere which only sees such a clear cut moral outrage as somebody's mere "perception". [/B]

What is paramount is you actually understanding the nature of a series of "rhetorical" questions, which apparently you don't.

-TT

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Man, we should have gotten together when I was in Portland. I left at the end of Feb.

Where is Sullivan? By Chicago?

I think it is about 4 hours south of Chicago.

Did you leave Portland for the same reason I am?

[SezMe]

Rouser, same question as posed in the last thread you started: How many threads are you going to start espousing the same old garbage, ignoring all feedback and making an utter @ss out of yourself before you get a life and move on?

[athon]

Rouser, you love to skirt the issue, don't you? Let's make assumptions, then rewrite the rules and insinuate a moral judgement on that fantasy...

Is starving a cell line, or leaving forzen human ova out on a bench to defrost and stave...are they immoral and inhumane? If you think so, then I leave you to your opinion and thank the gods that you are not in charge.

Terry Schiavo had cerebral liquification that, in spite of the limitations of CT scans, was said to be clearly visible. Yes, CT scans can be unreliable due to limited detail, but in this case it was like taking a fuzzy photograph of a house and seeing no house there. Typically MRI and PET scans would be implemented there was ambiguity , however there was none. Not until Mrs. Schiavo's parents misinterpreted signs of consciousness. A number of specialists who had no investment in the case either way had denied the need for them. Hence the husband never authorised them.

Should PET scans have been done? Perhaps, as I am happy to admit I never saw the original CT scans and won't comment as to whether they were plain or not. But I see no reason not to trust the authority of the doctors in this case.

So rather than assuming that Terry Schiavo was a self-aware human fifteen years after her brain died, let's look at the real facts first.

Athon

[Deetee]

Just interested Rouser -
why did you title your thread "Modern Medical Quackery " when you are (as you indicate yourself) discussing the issue of "the distorted logic of the American legal system"?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Just curious, Rouser... I had a student with anorexia, who could have eloquently expressed her desire not to be fed. Would you have forced a tube down her throat, against her will?

I don't know my own position on that one, so it really is just a curious question.

It's an off-point question. The starvation of Terri Schiavo was not a question of an assisted suicide, but a forced execution.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]


>>...Is starving a cell line, or leaving forzen human ova out on a bench to defrost and stave...are they immoral and inhumane?

Another off-point diversion. Terri Schiavo was neither a cell line, nor a human ova, but a living, breathing, reacting human being.

>>Terry Schiavo had cerebral liquification that, in spite of the limitations of CT scans, was said to be clearly visible.

Was said??

>>Yes, CT scans can be unreliable due to limited detail, but in this case it was like taking a fuzzy photograph of a house and seeing no house there. Typically MRI and PET scans would be implemented there was ambiguity , however there was none.

Yeah, well there's a radiologist on the Court TV board who is offering $100,000 to anyone who ID Terri's Schiavo's alleged CAT scan wtih a whole bunch of others which are definitely not PVS.

>> Not until Mrs. Schiavo's parents misinterpreted signs of consciousness. A number of specialists who had no investment in the case either way had denied the need for them. Hence the husband never authorised them.
Should PET scans have been done? Perhaps, as I am happy to admit I never saw the original CT scans and won't comment as to whether they were plain or not. But I see no reason not to trust the authority of the doctors in this case.

You mean only the Doctors of Death appointed by Michael Schiavo and the Court, Presumably you do not refer to the doctors of Life appointed by the Schindler family. When it comes to court proceedings, you can get any so-called Doctor to testify any way you want. And everone in the Legal community know this very well. Medical experts at a legal hearing are paid whores for a particular point of view. There is no such a thing as an "objective" medical expert.

>>So rather than assuming that Terry Schiavo was a self-aware human fifteen years after her brain died, let's look at the real facts first.


That her brain died 15 years ago is a conclusion unsupported by the facts. I don't need a Doctor of Death to assert that person is a living vegetable since those who loved Terri and cared for her know that vegetables do not laugh, nor cry, nor react, nor speak.

From the sworn affidavite of Nurse Carla Iyer:

"Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times. Terri would try to say the word "pain" when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like "pay." She didn't say the "n" sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying "pay" and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper
and scooted in bed on her bottom.

When I came into her room and said "Hi, Terri", she would always recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way toward me, saying "Haaaiiiii" sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a "hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humrous stories about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle, sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body, upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart.

Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would
always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act,
and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that."

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Deetee
Just interested Rouser -
why did you title your thread "Modern Medical Quackery " when you are (as you indicate yourself) discussing the issue of "the distorted logic of the American legal system"?

Because without the assistance of Modern Medical Quacks, the legal system could not have proceded to use thier tortured logic to torture and then execute an innocent human being.

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Another off-point diversion. Terri Schiavo was neither a cell line, nor a human ova, but a living, breathing, reacting human being.

Not off point at all. This is a question of defining the line between being a body-shaped collection of respiring cells and being a self-aware, conscious being. I'm saying the weight of evidence as far as we, the public, have available - based on evaluating what we are told - suggests that she was the former.

Was said??

Can you not see the irony here? Unless you have some privileged position here that we are not aware of, we are both in identical positions of having access to the same information. I can accuse you of the same thing. It is an evaluation of that information we are entitled to perform, and nothing more.

We are reduced to arguing the validity of each party. Since yours is an emotional choice, as expressed by the deplorably connotative choice of words you use to describe each party, then it is even less of an evaluation based on weight of credibility. For you, it is simply an emotional decision. And as we know, no reason will ever compete with an emotional choice.

Yeah, well there's a radiologist on the Court TV board who is offering $100,000 to anyone who ID Terri's Schiavo's alleged CAT scan wtih a whole bunch of others which are definitely not PVS.

Can I have a link to this? Matter of curiosity more than mistrust.

You mean only the Doctors of Death appointed by Michael Schiavo and the Court, Presumably you do not refer to the doctors of Life appointed by the Schindler family. When it comes to court proceedings, you can get any so-called Doctor to testify any way you want. And everone in the Legal community know this very well. Medical experts at a legal hearing are paid whores for a particular point of view. There is no such a thing as an "objective" medical expert.

Hell, my irony meter just broke. In the same breath you label the parties in a truly horrendous manner and then claim you can bias a side by selecting the expertise. I agree, and am willing to admit that it could have happened to either side.

I can't say that Terry Schiavo would never have recovered, and for that the real lesson is that we need better laws covering evaluation of medical practices surrounding the euthanasia issue. Unfortunately right-to-life advocates cloud the waters too much to improve definitions. From the evidence I have seen, there is a very high chance that Terry Schiavo would never have recovered.


From the sworn affidavite of Nurse Carla Iyer:

You know, I have grave reservations about any truth to this. There's a number of reasons why, which I don't have time to address now.

Athon

[AWPrime]

R2
Not off point at all. This is a question of defining the line between being a body-shaped collection of respiring cells and being a self-aware, conscious being. I'm saying the weight of evidence as far as we, the public, have available - based on evaluating what we are told - suggests that she was the former.

Well the CAT scan, the random responces and the doctors say otherwise.

Guess, who we believe.



ps. Are you ever going to enter a hospital after this paranoia?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It's an off-point question. The starvation of Terri Schiavo was not a question of an assisted suicide, but a forced execution.

Out of curiosity what would you suggest happen if Teri's husband had no money to pay for the life support? Would you expect the state to pay for that?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I think it is about 4 hours south of Chicago.

Did you leave Portland for the same reason I am?

4 hours south would be in Southern Illinois. I never heard of it. Is it a small town? How does one end up there?

I left because the contract I was working on came to an end.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Because without the assistance of Modern Medical Quacks, the legal system could not have proceded to use thier tortured logic to torture and then execute an innocent human being.

Would you call the doctors who were making the case for Terry Schiavo to be kept alive "modern medical quacks", or do you just try and throw dirt at those whose opinions you don't agree with?

What is a modern medical quack, anyway - care to give a comprehensive definition?

[CurtC]

Rouser, are you aware that patients are allowed to die in this manner (withdrawal of food and water) many times every single day in the US?

[athon]

Originally posted by CurtC
Rouser, are you aware that patients are allowed to die in this manner (withdrawal of food and water) many times every single day in the US?

Rouser would not only be aware of it, he would also feel this is a further travesty of modern medicine.

Yep, the same modern medicine whose opinion he believes on the misdiagnosis theory of TS. Easy to pick and choose when one has no clue to begin with.

Athon

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by athon
Rouser would not only be aware of it, he would also feel this is a further travesty of modern medicine.


Is Rouser going to advocate ignoring living wills? Sure sound like he is going that way.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rat
I believe that it would be, but that would surely set a record for the quickest such invocation (i.e. on the opening post) in history.Nah, that one's already been achieved (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39063), by a certain troll called Xanta, who was calling herself Olaf at the time in question.

Rolfe.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Rouser2
It's an off-point question. The starvation of Terri Schiavo was not a question of an assisted suicide, but a forced execution. Um, no, it is not off-point. Your assertion that it was a forced execution is balanced by claims on the other side that it was her wish, as conveyed to her husband, that she be allowed to die. My question to you simply took away the ambiguity and asked about your willingness to intervene even if her intentions were quite clear. Admittedly, it is a different question; I was mostly exploring whether you were committed to preserving life in all circumstances, or whether this situation requires your assumption that she was unwilling to die.






(If I were more cynical, it would also explore the possibility that you are taking advantage of her inability to express herself, in order to put your own words in her mouth to further your argument. But I am not that cynical. Nope. Not me.)

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
4 hours south would be in Southern Illinois. I never heard of it. Is it a small town? How does one end up there?

I left because the contract I was working on came to an end.

Sullivan is a very small town. I'm happy about that. I'm most comfortable in smaller towns.

As to how I ended up there, well... after 8 months of struggling in Portland, I decided that perhaps this whole idea of "it's not how good you are, but who you know that matters" might have something to it. This idea, by the way, is something that frustrates me to no end. Anyway, I did a search of a guy's name who I worked with at a childrens theatre in the past. He was the technical director at this theatre. I emailed him, just to say hello. Two hours after I emailed, he was calling me on the phone offering me a job.

So tell me, what kind of work do you do?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Sullivan is a very small town. I'm happy about that. I'm most comfortable in smaller towns.

I live just a few miles away from Sullivan. Despite being in the middle of Amish country (with hitching posts at the stores), it's pretty progressive for a small Illinois town. Are you going to work at the Little Theater on the Square? That's a great place.

Jeremy

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2 That her brain died 15 years ago is a conclusion unsupported by the facts. I don't need a Doctor of Death to assert that person is a living vegetable since those who loved Terri and cared for her know that vegetables do not laugh, nor cry, nor react, nor speak.

And this is supported by who? People who have a vested political interest? Her parents, who were likely either deluded by false hope or, more cynically, used as pawns by said interests?

Look, I want to preserve life as much as anyone, and would much rather err on the side of keeping a person alive if there was a reasonable doubt about their wishes or a reasonable possibility the person might recover. I'm not sure that was the case here, however.


From the sworn affidavite of Nurse Carla Iyer:

"Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times.


Then why not once in the presence of numerous doctors who evaluated her condition? Look, I've seen the videos that purport to show Terri Schiavo in a cognitive state, but any rational view of those tapes only illustrate the wishful thinking her parents employed in believing that Terri was communicating with her.

Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act, and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that."

This clearly was not the opinion of other nurses who treated Terri nor most of the doctors involved. Again, like the parents, if you want to believe someone is still communicating and cognizant, you will look for any possible sign of that. It doesn't mean that it's objectively there. That's why scientific evaluation, not emotional appeal, is the right approach in cases like these. There's no way to make rational decisions otherwise.

[LostAngeles]

If Nurse Iyer told the truth and Terri could speak, then why didn't she once the tube was taken out and she was suffering from starvation?

Anyone? Anyone? Rouser?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

riginally posted by Rouser2
Another off-point diversion. Terri Schiavo was neither a cell line, nor a human ova, but a living, breathing, reacting human being.

>>Not off point at all. This is a question of defining the line between being a body-shaped collection of respiring cells and being a self-aware, conscious being. I'm saying the weight of evidence as far as we, the public, have available - based on evaluating what we are told - suggests that she was the former.


Oh, I would quite agree -- the "weight of evidence" that you and the rest of the Great Unwashed (and unread) have. And that is perhaps the most incidious aspect of this entire atrocity -- the evidence you have as carried by the mainstream media, measured against the evidence that is actually available, weighed in the balance against the actual truth, and found wanting.


>>Can you not see the irony here? Unless you have some privileged position here that we are not aware of, we are both in identical positions of having access to the same information.

eah, well there's a radiologist on the Court TV board who is offering $100,000 to anyone who ID Terri's Schiavo's alleged CAT scan wtih a whole bunch of others which are definitely not PVS.

>>Can I have a link to this? Matter of curiosity more than mistrust.

courtv.com. Then Message boards, then, Terry Schiavo, then, oh, you can find it soon enough.

>>I can't say that Terry Schiavo would never have recovered, and for that the real lesson is that we need better laws covering evaluation of medical practices surrounding the euthanasia issue. Unfortunately right-to-life advocates cloud the waters too much to improve definitions. From the evidence I have seen, there is a very high chance that Terry Schiavo would never have recovered.

Never recovered? There are thousands not much better off, born that way and main-streamed into the government schools who will "never recover." Should they all be executed as well???

quote:From the sworn affidavite of Nurse Carla Iyer:

>>You know, I have grave reservations about any truth to this. There's a number of reasons why, which I don't have time to address now.

And truth to what? The words of Carly Iyer? Or the accuracy of her observations? No, if true, it might be just a trifle discomforting.




_______________

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Well the CAT scan, the random responces and the doctors say otherwise.

Guess, who we believe.


"The doctors say otherwise??? Only the doctors of death. Other doctors question the verdict. As to the CAT scan, which one? Several of Terri's CAT scans were evaluated as appearing "Normal".

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Darat
Out of curiosity what would you suggest happen if Teri's husband had no money to pay for the life support? Would you expect the state to pay for that?

I would "expect" the government to pay for it, but no, I do not think the govenment should pay for it, as a response to your "curiosity." The Schindler's have millions from their foundation, and could have cared for Terri indefinitely.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Deetee [/i]

>>Would you call the doctors who were making the case for Terry Schiavo to be kept alive "modern medical quacks", or do you just try and throw dirt at those whose opinions you don't agree with?

Insofar as their views of life and death of an aware, but partially disabled human being, they are not quacks, other possible issues aside.

>>What is a modern medical quack, anyway - care to give a comprehensive definition?

A Modern Medical Quack is a fully credentialed medical doctor who practices and espouses established mainstream medical nostrums that either don't work, or that harm (or in this case) kill thier patients.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by CurtC
Rouser, are you aware that patients are allowed to die in this manner (withdrawal of food and water) many times every single day in the US?

No, I am not. Not aware of that at all. Not in patients who are not terminal. And not death via dehydration and starvations with 3 police officers there to prevent parents or loved ones intruding on the execution. Not aware of that at all.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I would "expect" the government to pay for it, but no, I do not think the govenment should pay for it, as a response to your "curiosity." The Schindler's have millions from their foundation, and could have cared for Terri indefinitely.

Millions in their foundation? They could've cared for her indefinitely?

If that's true (and I don't know whether it is or isn't) wouldn't that be a financial motive on the Schindler's part to keep Terri alive? It's certainly more plausible than Michael Schiavo wanting to keep her alive for the pittance that's left in the malpractice settlement.

Just saying.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>What is a modern medical quack, anyway - care to give a comprehensive definition?

A Modern Medical Quack is a fully credentialed medical doctor who practices and espouses established mainstream medical nostrums that either don't work, or that harm (or in this case) kill thier patients.

One's person's quack is another person's medical professional, huh?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Um, no, it is not off-point. Your assertion that it was a forced execution is balanced by claims on the other side that it was her wish, as conveyed to her husband, that she be allowed to die. My question to you simply took away the ambiguity and asked about your willingness to intervene even if her intentions were quite clear. Admittedly, it is a different question; I was mostly exploring whether you were committed to preserving life in all circumstances, or whether this situation requires your assumption that she was unwilling to die.

(If I were more cynical, it would also explore the possibility that you are taking advantage of her inability to express herself, in order to put your own words in her mouth to further your argument. But I am not that cynical. Nope. Not me.)

It's an entirely separate moral question which only serves to cloud the issue at hand. And there is no documented evidence that this was Terir's wish -- a wish that the first Court Guardian appointed by the Court believed was dubious, and therefore should not be adhered to. No problem. The court simply fired that Guardian, and appointed another Court Guardian more willing to carry out the pre-ordained scipt.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
No, I am not. Not aware of that at all. Not in patients who are not terminal. And not death via dehydration and starvations with 3 police officers there to prevent parents or loved ones intruding on the exeuction. Not aware of that at all.

Clearly, you've never heard of Nancy Cruzan, the watershed case a decade ago that allowed guardians of PVS patients to withhold food and water if it was determined that was the desire of the patient. In that case, it was Cruzan's family that chose to withhold the feeding tube.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And there is no documented evidence that this was Terir's wish -- a wish that the first Court Guardian appointed by the Court believed was dubious, and therefore should not be adhered to. No problem. The court simply fired that Guardian, and appointed another Court Guardian more willing to carry out the pre-ordained scipt.

Ahh, yes, truth because you say so.

Please show evidence for why the Guardian was "fired", when, why, etc. Please show that the second one was more pliant. Please show that all of us did, as you claimed outright, cheer when the poor woman died. Please explain what your crack about gargling razor blades meant.

Mene
Mene
Tekel
Upharsin

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]


>>This clearly was not the opinion of other nurses who treated Terri

Oh, but it is indeed the opinion of at least one, perhaps two other nurses not afraid of losing their jobs as did nurse Iyler.

>> Again, like the parents, if you want to believe someone is still communicating and cognizant, you will look for any possible sign of that. It doesn't mean that it's objectively there. That's why scientific evaluation, not emotional appeal, is the right approach in cases like these. There's no way to make rational decisions otherwise.

Scientific, meaning clinical evaluation is the least reliable in cases of alleged PVS. The whole syndrome is very new, and continually being re-defined. In short, Modern Medicine doesn't have a clue, and when doctors make a firm diagnosis, they simply don't know what they are talking about.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
If Nurse Iyer told the truth and Terri could speak, then why didn't she once the tube was taken out and she was suffering from starvation?

Anyone? Anyone? Rouser?

According to her father, she did. If Terri had jumped out of bed, and declared everyone of those vampire doctors to be out of their minds, and demand she be fed and hydrated immediately, we wouldn't know about it. And the officers there under orders of the Court, would have to restrain her, so as to not disturb the Dignity of her Court Ordered Death.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
Millions in their foundation? They could've cared for her indefinitely?

If that's true (and I don't know whether it is or isn't) wouldn't that be a financial motive on the Schindler's part to keep Terri alive? It's certainly more plausible than Michael Schiavo wanting to keep her alive for the pittance that's left in the malpractice settlement.

Just saying.

And if Terri ever did get the therapy that Michael's malpractice settlement was supposed to pay for (but was not used for that purpose), perhaps Terri would be able to answer the question as to what really happened to her on the fateful day 15 years ago in the presence of her husband. Now there is a possible motivation to make Terri silent forever.

Just saying.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Scientific, meaning clinical evaluation is the least reliable in cases of alleged PVS. The whole syndrome is very new, and continually being re-defined. In short, Modern Medicine doesn't have a clue, and when doctors make a firm diagnosis, they simply don't know what they are talking about.

What method of evaluating whether to override the decision of a spouse in such a case do you suggest?

Should it always be overridden until there are no doctors anywhere that disagree?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Rouser2
According to her father, she did. If Terri had jumped out of bed, and declared everyone of those vampire doctors to be out of their minds, and demand she be fed and hydrated immediately, we wouldn't know about it. And the officers there under orders of the Court, would have to restrain her, so as to not disturb the Dignity of her Court Ordered Death.

Then how do you know she did, even "if Terri had jumped out of bed, and delcared eveyone of those vampire doctors to be out of their minds, and demand she be fed and hydrated immediately, we wouldn't know about it?"

No, really. Try again.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
Clearly, you've never heard of Nancy Cruzan, the watershed case a decade ago that allowed guardians of PVS patients to withhold food and water if it was determined that was the desire of the patient. In that case, it was Cruzan's family that chose to withhold the feeding tube.

That makes two. The "thousands' have yet to materialize. In Cruzan's case, there was no family dispute regarding her "wishes." You see there are two criteria the Court used to execute Terri, Terri's alleged wishes, and her actual mental state. Both were falsely represented.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by gnome [/i]


>>What method of evaluating whether to override the decision of a spouse in such a case do you suggest?

First, the application of the Principles of Equitable Law by the Court, to question whether an estranged husband, living with another woman and siring 2 chlldren could really have the best interests of his "wife" at heart and serve her best interests as Guardian.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Rouser2


No? Then you don't really care to know about the millions of the aborted unborn, nor the Doctors of Death crusaders who plan to pull the tubes on milliions of the elderly and disabled. Dr. Robert Cranford, head neorolgist/cheeleader of the Death To Terri Schiavo gang wants to do just that. But one under-color-of-law execution is one too many. Pardon me if your emotions are "warping".

I suppose then I ought to be absolutely ashamed at all of the sperm that lost viability in my epididymis when I took a hot shower this morning. Those were all potential human lives, pointlessly and brutally slaughtered in a torrent of hot water. You could almost feel a disturbance, like a million voices crying out. There really ought to be a law against that.

[anonimouse]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And if Terri ever did get the therapy that Michael's malpractice settlement was supposed to pay for (but was not used for that purpose), perhaps Terri would be able to answer the question as to what really happened to her on the fateful day 15 years ago in the presence of her husband. Now there is a possible motivation to make Terri silent forever.

Just saying.

Yeah, you're basically accusing Michael Schiavo of killing his wife, when there's zero evidence to that point.

On the other hand, the Schindlers' desire to keep the foundation going for Terri's sake has some validity, seeing as the Schindlers allegedly wanted a chunk of the money given to Michael Schiavo. For what, we don't really know, do we?

In other words, we can play this game forever, which is why we have courts to mediate such disputes. And pithy cathphrases with capitalization for emphasis won't change the fact that court after court ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo, and did not find the Schindlers' case compelling.

[LostAngeles]

You know what? I take back what I said about Wellfed being a bigger p***y than my shy, skittish cat who fears outside and other people. I also take back what I said about 1inChrist failing reality.

Those both properly apply to Rouser2. He's a question-evading p***y and he fails at reality. Not just life, reality itself.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
So tell me, what kind of work do you do?

Software development.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And if Terri ever did get the therapy that Michael's malpractice settlement was supposed to pay for (but was not used for that purpose), perhaps Terri would be able to answer the question as to what really happened to her on the fateful day 15 years ago in the presence of her husband. Now there is a possible motivation to make Terri silent forever.

Just saying.

I suspect she was about to reveal who killed Kennedy. And those gubmint doctors had to have her silenced.

:dl:

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh? Let me get this straight. Terri didn't have any eating disorder? AND she didn't have a heart attack? And she didn't have a head full of spinal fluid?

Rouser is delusional. Yeah, okay, we all know that already, but just had to restate the obvious.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I think it is about 4 hours south of Chicago.

Did you leave Portland for the same reason I am?

Oh Bravo Walter!

Good luck there!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]

>>In other words, we can play this game forever, which is why we have courts to mediate such disputes. And pithy cathphrases with capitalization for emphasis won't change the fact that court after court ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo, and did not find the Schindlers' case compelling.

Correction. Court after court never examined the "Schindler's case". Court after court upheld Judge Greer's rulings. None reviewed the mistaken facts Greer claims to have relied upon.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons [/i]


>>Oh? Let me get this straight. Terri didn't have any eating disorder?

At the time of her, ah, incident? That is in dispute.

>> AND she didn't have a heart attack?

No, she had no heart attack.

>> And she didn't have a head full of spinal fluid?

No head of spinal fluid.

Well, you've certainly got your brainwash down pat.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Rouser2
First, the application of the Principles of Equitable Law by the Court, to question whether an estranged husband, living with another woman and siring 2 chlldren could really have the best interests of his "wife" at heart and serve her best interests as Guardian.

Ahh, and so it should be decided by a court. Don't you think this was brought up in some of the numerous courts that heard this case?

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Oh, I would quite agree -- the "weight of evidence" that you and the rest of the Great Unwashed (and unread) have. And that is perhaps the most incidious aspect of this entire atrocity -- the evidence you have as carried by the mainstream media, measured against the evidence that is actually available, weighed in the balance against the actual truth, and found wanting.

This is always where you lose, Rouser. You might have some hope of winning a debate if you actually used more brain than heart.

In honesty, there is a great deal more supposed information offered on the pro-life side (pro-life is a term I detest, insinuating that anything else is 'anti-life'). This information, not surprisingly, is mostly arm-chair medical experts on their blogs. Good information on the actual trial, the details of the nature of the scans, blood tests and other medical records is scant.

So again, we are both relying on other people's opinions to form our own. The fact that there was a percent chance of TS recovering is possible, based on a chance that CT scans might not be enough to form a diagnosis. However, having myself now asked a neurologist friend on her opinion (needed to get a different perspective), 15 years in such a state with the addition of a positive CT scan for cerebral degeneration reduces those 'claimed' chances of misdiagnosis down from about 32% to closer to 0%. Those studies mostly explore misdiagnosis within the first five years of initial loss of cerebral function.

So...I did my homework.

Yeah, well there's a radiologist on the Court TV board who is offering $100,000 to anyone who ID Terri's Schiavo's alleged CAT scan wtih a whole bunch of others which are definitely not PVS.

I did some looking up of that, since you gave no real link. There's nothing on the court tv at the moment that I could find, and all other searches simply pointed at each other. Now, I'm willing to beleive this might be a real situation, if you could provide a name and a link. None of the blogs referred to do that! (you'd think with such a massive challenge it would be bigger news)

Otherwise this blog-pointing is simply getting me dizzy.

Never recovered? There are thousands not much better off, born that way and main-streamed into the government schools who will "never recover." Should they all be executed as well???

WTF?? I can't see where this has any relevance to anything.

Are you just babbling now for the sake of something to say?

And truth to what? The words of Carly Iyer? Or the accuracy of her observations? No, if true, it might be just a trifle discomforting.

'If true' indeed. Others have already explained better than I could why this quote offers nothing substantial to the argument.

Rouser, unlike maybe some of the others here, I do see some room for improvement in our legal system when it comes to understanding medical practices. This case does highlight some shadows that need enlightening. But the reason why these things don't get fixed is because of the misinformed ranting of emtotional fanatics like you who are more interested in ad-hom attacks than really seeing where things can be fixed.

Athon

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>This information, not surprisingly, is mostly arm-chair medical experts on their blogs.

Arm chair medical experts? You mean people like Dr.Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic?, Dr. David Stevens, Radiologist, Thomas Boyle? Radiologist Dr.William Maxfield, Nurse Carla Iyer? Nurse Heidi Law??

Oh, you don't mean THOSE arm-chair medical experts???Then who the hell do you mean??? Or do you simply rant unfounded assertions???

>>Good information on the actual trial, the details of the nature of the scans, blood tests and other medical records is scant.


Is scant for you. You haven't looked. No., You have not done a lick of homework.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>However, having myself now asked a neurologist friend on her opinion (needed to get a different perspective), 15 years in such a state with the addition of a positive CT scan for cerebral degeneration reduces those 'claimed' chances of misdiagnosis down from about 32% to closer to 0%.

... I did some looking up of that, since you gave no real link. There's nothing on the court tv at the moment that I could find, and all other searches simply pointed at each other. Now, I'm willing to beleive this might be a real situation, if you could provide a name and a link. None of the blogs referred to do that! (you'd think with such a massive challenge it would be bigger news)


So sorry. If you had bothered to read the very first post, the link is provided. The Radiologist making the challenge is Thomas P. Boyle, M.D. author of CodeBlueBlog.
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/2005/03/codeblueblog_is.html

According to Dr. Boyle neurologists don't know didley squat about interpreting CAT scans; Radiologists do. And, according to Dr.Boyle (re: Terri Schiavo's CAT scan:)

"1) It is NOT as bad as the neurologists and bioethicists play it up to be; and,

2) There are many elderly patients with various levels of mental functioning who have severe atrophy that is difficult to distinguish from Terri Schiavo's atrophy"

"Terri Schiavo's CT could be the brain of an eighty or ninety year old person who is not in a vegetative state. THOSE are the CT scans we should be showing next to Schiavo's, because in THAT case you would see similar atrophy and a brain much closer to Schiavo's."

"To prove my point I am offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans."

Now why don't you show this to your neurologist friend and ask her if she would like to take the challenge?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
And she didn't have a head full of spinal fluid?

I think we can all agree that Rouser2 has a head full of spinal fluid! I mean, it's obvious, isn't it?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

Re: Nurse Carla Iyer's Affidavite:

>>
'If true' indeed. Others have already explained better than I could why this quote offers nothing substantial to the argument.

Yeah, right. Since you haven't attempted any explanation at all. But neither have the fictitious "others" you refer to. Fact is, Carla Iyer and other doctors and nurses observations show a living, aware, human being. And that is discomforting to those who champion her execution.

>>Rouser, unlike maybe some of the others here, I do see some room for improvement in our legal system when it comes to understanding medical practices. This case does highlight some shadows that need enlightening. But the reason why these things don't get fixed is because of the misinformed ranting of emtotional fanatics like you who are more interested in ad-hom attacks than really seeing where things can be fixed.

I'm interested in the accurate presentation of facts, of which you have provided zero. Nuff said.

[CurtC]

Rouser, it would be much easier to figure out what part of the post is your addition, and what part you're quoting, if you enclosed the quoted parts in [quote] tags. Put that one at the beginning of a quoted section, and put one with /quote at the end (I didn't put it in brackets here because it would have quoted the words in-between instead of printing the tags).

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Rouser2

I'm interested in the accurate presentation of facts, of which you have provided zero. Nuff said.

And you have provided relatively to him a -1.
;)

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I'm interested in the accurate presentation of facts, of which you have provided zero. Nuff said.

You're interested in selecting what you want to hear and sticking your fingers in your ears for the rest.

Why ignore the facts as presented by the husband's side? Why do you choose one side over the other? I see credit in boths sides, agree that it is a difficult situation, however feel that the CT scans, 15 years of nil response and the bizarre nature of TS to only offer such perfectly clear signs of cognition to select people seems to bias my opinions towards the fact she no longer existed.

That and your incessant ad-hom attacks, high emotional committment and constant venom in a situation already emotional enough shows me you have no wish to really look at the issue clearly; you are happy to just sit back and paint the picture in black and white.

That's why you are a fool!

Rouser, I worked for the medical profession for a number of years. Doctors, like any group of people, are diverse in attitude and opinions. However no doctor I ever knew was a cold, callous murdering bastard like the sorts you are making out. I'm sure they exist, ala Shipman, but to insinunate such a dastardly conspiracy reaching out over so many people smacks of paranoia.

Athon

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>You're interested in selecting what you want to hear and sticking your fingers in your ears for the rest.

For example???

>>Why ignore the facts as presented by the husband's side?

The "facts" as presented by the Doctors of Death are what these posts are addressing, namely, that they are simply not true.

>> Why do you choose one side over the other? I see credit in boths sides, agree that it is a difficult situation,

You see "credit"???? I see either Life or Death.


>>... however feel that the CT scans,

What CT scans? you've only seen one, and blindly accepted the interp of one neurologist known as Dr. Death, and have cited no radiologist who concur.

>>...15 years of nil response

Are you that un-read? Terri's responses have been anything but 'nil".

>> and the bizarre nature of TS to only offer such perfectly clear signs of cognition to select people seems to bias my opinions towards the fact she no longer existed.

Select people like the doctors and nurses who cared for her and the family who loves her.

>>That and your incessant ad-hom attacks,

Name one.

>>high emotional committment and constant venom in a situation already emotional enough shows me you have no wish to really look at the issue clearly; you are happy to just sit back and paint the picture in black and white.


Yeah, well that's pretty much how Life as versus Death is.

>>That's why you are a fool!

Uh, uh. I do believe that is an ad hominem attack. How appropriate.

>>Rouser, I worked for the medical profession for a number of years. Doctors, like any group of people, are diverse in attitude and opinions. However no doctor I ever knew was a cold, callous murdering bastard like the sorts you are making out.

Why don't you ask Dr. Cranford why he calls himself Dr. Death???

>> I'm sure they exist, ala Shipman, but to insinunate such a dastardly conspiracy reaching out over so many people smacks of paranoia.

Oh, it's a confined conspiracy. It only takes a few in a position of power. Judge Greer -- judge, jury, executioner. The High Priests of Medicine, 3 appointed by the Court and Michael Schivao, two by the Schindlers. The predictable result, 3-2 in favor of Death. And Guardian Ad Litum, recomending Death, after replacing the first Guardian who recommended life. Paranoia? Yeah, well I think the Schindler family has a right to feel some paranoia. You know, sometimes, there really are people out there who are trying to kill you.

Athon [/B][/QUOTE]

[AWPrime]

Not even smart enough to properly quote.......