[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
I guess someone with an eating disorder would have such "abnormal hemoglobin". I mean, people do die from potassium deficiency when they have eating disorders.

Only if it causes a heart attack, which it didn't.

I was just pointing out the emergency room report of a stiff neck as a result of trauma, and the subsequent bone-scans that showed damage to the associated vertebrae.

[sideus]

Originally posted by demograph68:
My bullshit alarm just went off.

Must be a false alarm.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Only if it causes a heart attack, which it didn't.

I was just pointing out the emergency room report of a stiff neck as a result of trauma, and the subsequent bone-scans that showed damage to the associated vertebrae.

Was this a response to my questions as well? Because I really want to know how it's ok to say there is medical evidence of strangulation when all the evidence is is a TV interview in which the doctor specifically refuses to say there was foul play involved, and there is not even any mention of strangulation.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Only if it causes a heart attack, which it didn't.

I was just pointing out the emergency room report of a stiff neck as a result of trauma, and the subsequent bone-scans that showed damage to the associated vertebrae.

No.

You are implying her husband abused of her and you are desperatly seeking out any tiny bits of proof to sustain your point.

And it does not work.

[Cody Dawg]

Was this a response to my questions as well? Because I really want to know how it's ok to say there is medical evidence of strangulation when all the evidence is is a TV interview in which the doctor specifically refuses to say there was foul play involved, and there is not even any mention of strangulation.

The reason that the physician did not overtly state what his beliefs were, e.g., that Terri was physically abused or assaulted, is because he did not want to be sued. However, he definitely alluded to the fact that there was more than just a potassium-induced cardiac arrest - especially since there was no evidence of an infartion.

There IS evidence of 911 telephone calls, twice, responding to the Schiavo household on two different occasions.

Apparently Teri was moving out of their home, did you know that? She was in the process of apartment-hunting because of his affair and verbal (and perhaps physical) abuse.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that there was a physical altercation between the two of them.

[asd]

HAMMESFAHR: But the medical record clearly shows that there has never been a heart attack. Potassium causes damage by causing heart attacks, so we know the potassium is not an issue.

Again I wanted to clear up some medical issues and errors.

Potassium disorders (either too low or too high) do NOT cause heart attacks. Heart attacks are caused by blood clots in the coronary arteries (the arteries that supply blood to the heart muscle).

However, potassium disorders can (and often do) cause life-threatening arrhythmias like ventricular tachycardia. Bulimia can cause very low potassium levels.

I don't know who this Dr. is that made that statement, but it is completely false (that potassium causes damage by causing heart attacks).

By the way, I am a cardiologist and a specialist in cardiac arrhythmias.

[Cody Dawg]

That's a good point that you made, then.

Most of us have no clue other than what is regurgitated from news reports. I was actually going to Google to check out the same information.

So, we know now that Terri definitely did not have a heart attack. What would have made her heart "stop" then? Because that is what they are asserting.

Thanks!

[Cody Dawg]

asd: Also, you're the cardiologist. Obviously you've done rotations in medical school and interning (maybe residency) that gives you expertise in others areas of medicine besides cardiology. Did you read the ER report? What do you make of it? The broken bones, rigid presentation of her neck, etc.

Thanks.

[Mithras]

Incidentally, for those who rush to the "Michael Schiavo beat her and caused her injury" camp, are you aware that Terri weighed 220 pounds in high school, and dropped to 110 pounds within a few years? Her bulimia may have been sparked by stress in her marriage, or it may have been sparked by an earnest desire to lose weight; either way, eating disorders make their own course, and have their own twisted logic.

It's a sad, sad case, but made worse by the baseless finger-pointing.

[asd]

That's a good point that you made, then.

Most of us have no clue other than what is regurgitated from news reports. I was actually going to Google to check out the same information.

So, we know now that Terri definitely did not have a heart attack. What would have made her heart "stop" then? Because that is what they are asserting.

Ventricular tachycardia is a condition where the heart beats very rapidly (200 - 300 beats/minute typically). It beats so fast that blood is not effectively pumped to the brain. So we say that her heart "stopped," but in reality it was beating so fast that it was not effective.

Hope that helped.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by asd:
I don't know who this Dr. is that made that statement, but it is completely false (that potassium causes damage by causing heart attacks).

By the way, I am a cardiologist and a specialist in cardiac arrhythmias.

It has already been demonstrated that the doctor in question is a self-promoting charlatan. Among other things, he falsely advertises that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize. He injected himself into the case by soliciting the Shindlers. He doesn't even have hospital privileges. He's a joke, and now he's milking this tragedy. Sadly, this doesn't prevent people like spacefreak and Cody Dawg/iWrite from spreading the same misinformation over and over again.

[saddino]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
There IS evidence of 911 telephone calls, twice, responding to the Schiavo household on two different occasions.

Please provide a LINK. Thanks.

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Apparently Teri was moving out of their home, did you know that? She was in the process of apartment-hunting because of his affair and verbal (and perhaps physical) abuse.

Please provide a LINK. Thanks.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Most of us have no clue other than what is regurgitated from news reports.

No - you don't have a clue, but many other people have a clue because they've taken the trouble to read the legal documentation, including the very detailed independent report of the guardian ad litem appointed by Governor Bush. Why don't you try that instead of spreading rumors. Then you might have a clue. Hope springs eternal, after all.

[InterfaceGuy]

Originally posted by saddino:
Please provide a LINK. Thanks.



Please provide a LINK. Thanks.

You must really despise Google.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents...rhodestest.htm

Jackie Rhodes was Terri's friend. Jackie says that they were going to get an apartment together and had already started looking for furniture.

Terri got her hair done that day and spent more money than he thought they should have. They had a great big fight before he went off to work.

She was so upset about the fight that she called her best friend from work, a girl that she had discussed perhaps both of them getting a divorce and taking an apartment together. She called this girl, Jackie Rhodes, told her about the big fight.

She was sufficiently upset that Jackie Rhodes asked her should I come over, should I come over and spend the night with you so you'll be safe, and Terri said, no, I'll either be asleep or pretend to be asleep when he gets home from work.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101453,00.html

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that there was a physical altercation between the two of them.

The key word here is "imagine".

[saddino]

Nice try Cody. And I think this demonstrates why you are having such a problem here:
1) You accept as fact testimony that the court did not.
2) You then post here, saying "did you know? and restates those insinuations as fact.

Facts, dear. Facts.

You can post all day (and have, for days), that Michael did this, the neck was like this, an affair took place before, etc.

But (thankfully) our nation relies on the judiciary system to determine "facts" when there is a dispute.

You choose to believe what you want to believe. A simpleminded exercise that IMHO also gives rise to conspiracy theorists, those who believe in a coverup at Area 51, those who believe a "New World Order" is in place.

Please post links to factual findings of "two 911 calls prior to the accident" and "Terri's process of apartment-hunting." Otherwise, you may want to preface your future comments with "One person said this, and I believe it."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by InterfaceGuy:
You must really despise Google.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents...rhodestest.htm

Jackie Rhodes was Terri's friend. Jackie says that they were going to get an apartment together and had already started looking for furniture.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101453,00.html

I think he was referring to a link from reliable sources and not based upon more hearsay

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The reason that the physician did not overtly state what his beliefs were, e.g., that Terri was physically abused or assaulted, is because he did not want to be sued. However, he definitely alluded to the fact that there was more than just a potassium-induced cardiac arrest - especially since there was no evidence of an infartion.

There IS evidence of 911 telephone calls, twice, responding to the Schiavo household on two different occasions.

Apparently Teri was moving out of their home, did you know that? She was in the process of apartment-hunting because of his affair and verbal (and perhaps physical) abuse.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that there was a physical altercation between the two of them.

And why do you suppose the courts have chosen to ignore this "evidence"?

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And why do you suppose the courts have chosen to ignore this "evidence"?

Because they -- Greer, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Florida Supreme Court, the Federal court, the Federal Appeals court, the US Supreme Court -- are liberal activists half in love with death.
Why, how would you explain it?

[bstone]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Only if it causes a heart attack, which it didn't.

I was just pointing out the emergency room report of a stiff neck as a result of trauma, and the subsequent bone-scans that showed damage to the associated vertebrae.

K+ deficincies causes MIs all the time. Without K+ present, neurons cannot generate action potentials. This has been well known and well documented to cause heart arrythmias. One of the area which it was majorly studied was in marathon runners back in the 70s and 80s who were drinking lots of water but not replacing their electrolytes. I was involved in a woman who dropped after she crossed the finish line at the Chicago Marathon due to a severe electrolyte lack. She died.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It has already been demonstrated that the doctor in question is a self-promoting charlatan. Among other things, he falsely advertises that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize. He injected himself into the case by soliciting the Shindlers. He doesn't even have hospital privileges. He's a joke, and now he's milking this tragedy. Sadly, this doesn't prevent people like spacefreak and Cody Dawg/iWrite from spreading the same misinformation over and over again.

Neither you nor I have any idea whether or not he was nominated, for the nominations are sealed for 50 years. We do know that he was recommended for a Nobel, even if that doesn't qualify as an "official" nomination. But that's besides the point.

Here's another doctor who reviewed the records"

Baden had now seen a 1991 bone-scan report that cast considerable doubt on a claim in Michael Schiavo's successful medical malpractice suit, that Terri's brain injury was caused by a potassium imbalance that led to a heart attack depriving her brain of oxygen.

Dr. Baden, who has written three books on forensic pathology, told Van Susteren: "It's extremely rare for a 20-year-old to have a cardiac arrest from low potassium who has no other diseases . . . which she doesn't have. . . . The reason that she's in the state she's in is because there was a period of time, maybe five or eight minutes, when not enough oxygen was going to her brain. That can happen because the heart stops for five or eight minutes, but she had a healthy heart from what we can see." (Emphasis added).

Dr. Baden then addressed the 1991 bone-scan report on Terri Schiavo, which was completed on March 5 of that year by Dr. W. Campbell Walker in order to "evaluate for trauma" that may have been caused by a suspected "closed head injury." In the report, Walker wrote:

"This patient has a history of trauma. The presumption is that the other multiple areas of trauma also relate to previous trauma." (Emphasis added).

Here we get to what focused Dr. Baden's attention. On cnsnews.com, Jeff Johnson reported, "Walker listed apparent injuries to the ribs, thoracic vertebrae, both sacroiliac joints, both ankles and both knees."

In his interview with Greta Van Susteren, Dr. Baden noted "that the bone scan describes her having a head injury . . . and head injury can lead to the 'vegetative state' that Mrs. Schiavo is in now."

But, Baden continued, the bone scan "does show evidence that there are other injuries, other bone fractures that are in a healing stage [in 1991]."

Those injuries could have happened, Baden continued, from "some kind of trauma. The trauma could be from an auto accident, the trauma could be from a fall, or the trauma could be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere.

I don't know what happened that night. I'm just pointing out that there are doctors who have reviewed the hospital reports and the bone scans, and they don't seem to think this was caused by a potassium imbalance. And there's really no need to speak so condescendingly just because I am quoting doctors who have opinions that differ from yours.

[spacefreak]

The sad thing about this whole episode is that society has descended to the point where it is forbidding a mother from giving her daughter water.

Those who feel they are superior enough to determine who's life is worth living will try to add spin here and spin there, but that's what it comes down to: a mother is being forbidden from giving her daughter water.

"But she can't swallow", others will say. She doesn't seem to choke on the 2 liters of saliva she swallows every day.

"Don't worry... she's not in any pain. She can't feel pain", I hear all over the place. Then can someone please explain why the woman is on a morphine drip.

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Neither you nor I have any idea whether or not he was nominated, for the nominations are sealed for 50 years. We do know that he was recommended for a Nobel, even if that doesn't qualify as an "official" nomination. But that's besides the point.

Here's another doctor who reviewed the records"
I don't know what happened that night. I'm just pointing out that there are doctors who have reviewed the hospital reports and the bone scans, and they don't seem to think this was caused by a potassium imbalance. And there's really no need to speak so condescendingly just because I am quoting doctors who have opinions that differ from yours.

What I don't get is why this even matters. It doesn't change that she will never recover from her current condition, and she has no consciousness.

[goMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The sad thing about this whole episode is that society has descended to the point where it is forbidding a mother from giving her daughter water.

Those who feel they are superior enough to determine who's life is worth living will try to add spin here and spin there, but that's what it comes down to: a mother is being forbidden from giving her daughter water.

"But she can't swallow", others will say. She doesn't seem to choke on the 2 liters of saliva she swallows every day.

"Don't worry... she's not in any pain. She can't feel pain", I hear all over the place. Then can someone please explain why the woman is on a morphine drip.

Swallowing saliva? Thats a liquid. And the morphine drip (if there is one) is to shut up people like you who think shes in pain.

[saddino]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Here's another doctor who reviewed the records

Ah yes, Dr. Michael Baden, who testified as an expert witness for the defense in the O.J. trial. The same doctor who was tied into knots during cross and admitted he was charging Shapiro et. al. $100,000 plus another $65,000 for his testimony.

Yes, Dr. Michael Baden who likes to visit Greta and give his opinion on matters in the Scott Peterson case.

He's not a publicity hound. Nope. Not him.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Neither you nor I have any idea whether or not he was nominated, for the nominations are sealed for 50 years. We do know that he was recommended for a Nobel, even if that doesn't qualify as an "official" nomination. But that's besides the point.

No, it's not besides the point. Doctors who lie about being nominated for the Nobel Prize aren't credible. No truly honest person, much less a respected physician, would make that claim and you know it. That you would defend something so patently phony is indicative.

I don't know what happened that night. I'm just pointing out that there are doctors who have reviewed the hospital reports and the bone scans, and they don't seem to think this was caused by a potassium imbalance. And there's really no need to speak so condescendingly just because I am quoting doctors who have opinions that differ from yours.

There's a need to speak condescendingly when you persist in repeating rumors and speculations as fact, even after they've been discredited; when you defend a phony Nobel Prize nomination claim; when you talk about Michael Schiavo chopping up Terri Schiavo's body and pissing on it, etc.

[ironknee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
My husband is not having an affair with another woman.

ummm how do u know? how would u know if a group of people would start to bad mouth your husband?

Our household does not have weird pathology where the husband is having an affair and our marriage is on the rocks and I have been brought to the hospital under questionable circumstances.

If I were to pass out, right now, and not gain consciousness again my husband knows what my last wishes are. Furthermore, so does my extended family and we are ALL in agreement.

that's nice but what happens when the government and right wing fundies try to step in and take control..."how do we know that's what cody wanted...her husband is strange...we should side on life--except, of course, the death penaly"

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The sad thing about this whole episode is that society has descended to the point where it is forbidding a mother from giving her daughter water.

Those who feel they are superior enough to determine who's life is worth living will try to add spin here and spin there, but that's what it comes down to: a mother is being forbidden from giving her daughter water.

"But she can't swallow", others will say. She doesn't seem to choke on the 2 liters of saliva she swallows every day.

"Don't worry... she's not in any pain. She can't feel pain", I hear all over the place. Then can someone please explain why the woman is on a morphine drip.

Actually, I think the sad thing about this whole episode is that a segment of society has descended to the point where they are trying to forbid a husband from honoring his wife's wishes (and are willing to assassinate his character to do so) while another segment of society has descended to the point where they are trying to capitalize on the feelings of the first segment for political gain.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Those who feel they are superior enough to determine who's life is worth living will try to add spin here and spin there, but that's what it comes down to: a mother is being forbidden from giving her daughter water.

And you spin quite well doctor!

You brought all those medical testimonies from third parties on behalf of having a different opinion yet, you cannot even acknowledge what all the other doctors (i.e. those who were involved with the patient) have said!

You are so full of it that you are claiming you are exactly against what you have been doing from the beginning, then providing us with the emotional card to give yourself some credit... Congrats!

On top of that, did it not occur to you that if she had been victim of violence from her husband, like, the day she was admitted and fell into a coma, that the doctors who saw her would not have suspected something, like, bruises?

But heck, I suppose someone will find that the husband lived for years as an underground conspirator, mastering the Arts of covert combat and how to crush bones without leaving a trace (if not a smile on the face of the victim ?).

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
The reason that the physician did not overtly state what his beliefs were, e.g., that Terri was physically abused or assaulted, is because he did not want to be sued.

Gee... I wonder why?

However, he definitely alluded to the fact that there was more than just a potassium-induced cardiac arrest - especially since there was no evidence of an infartion.

There IS evidence of 911 telephone calls, twice, responding to the Schiavo household on two different occasions.

Apparently Teri was moving out of their home, did you know that? She was in the process of apartment-hunting because of his affair and verbal (and perhaps physical) abuse.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that there was a physical altercation between the two of them.

In Lala Land, all of it must be true.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
No, it's not besides the point. Doctors who lie about being nominated for the Nobel Prize aren't credible. No truly honest person, much less a respected physician, would make that claim and you know it. That you would defend something so patently phony is indicative.

Where was I defending it? I simply expanded on it, and added that he seemed to have been recommended.

I realize that you really would like his false claim to somehow cancel out his review of a report that flat-out states that there were numerous signs of trauma on Terri's body, but that's no need to misportray my post as defending his false claim of being nominated

There's a need to speak condescendingly when you persist in repeating rumors and speculations as fact, even after they've been discredited; when you defend a phony Nobel Prize nomination claim; when you talk about Michael Schiavo chopping up Terri Schiavo's body and pissing on it, etc.

I'll be the first to admit that the chopping up the body and pissing on it was out of line. There was an associated question involved with that post, however. You conveniently ignored the question then, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you ignored it again.

If something that minor is all it takes to trigger your glaring need to be condescending, then I really can't do anything more than offer your friends and relatives my sympathies. But I'm sure they know your game.

It's easy to spot these types... the Mr-Objective-but-really-a-raging-liberal... the types who appoint themselves as handlers of the disinterested or disengaged, with the aspired hopes of converting them to the handler's way of thinking. They'll keep an email list, sending their hesitant followers links to the latest and greatest anti-Bush/anti-conservative propaganda. I'm sure most users on this board know of a handler or two.

Well. It looks ike you successfully derailed the thread. I tried to avoid falling for your derail attempts a few pages back, but this was just too easy. Good job.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think the sad thing about this whole episode is that a segment of society has descended to the point where they are trying to forbid a husband from honoring his wife's wishes

If these wishes were in writing, or made apparent well before they were (it wasn't until more than 7 years after the accident, and after being engaged to another woman, that Schiavo decided to tell of her wishes), I'm sure even the family would honor those wishes.

... while another segment of society has descended to the point where they are trying to capitalize on the feelings of the first segment for political gain.

It seems as if the only people who constantly bringing up the political angle on this are liberals.

Didn't all of the Democratic Senators sign the bill 2 weeks ago? Is Ralph Nader all of a sudden being controlled by the "religious right". Did the "Christian Right" somehow abduct Joe Lieberman? Did conservatives hijack Jesse Jackson?

Insecure liberal weenies are the ones who are most blabbing about politics here, because everything is political to them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Spacefreak: I agree that people have been embarassingly rude when replying to your page 26-27 posts. But to be fair, those posts weren't your strongest. At this time I'd like to try to extract the content and forget about the personal attacks.

1. You side with medical experts found in the media but consistently ignore the medical experts that were involved with the case before it became a political issue, you know the ones that testified in the original trial. Why is that?

2. If we do agree to take this evidence at face value, the document in question lists 3 other possible causes of the bone trauma before physical abuse, and the tv doctor refuses to say they are consistent with foul play, let alone there being no mention at all in the interview you quoted of "strangulation." Is there more to it or is this the only physical evidence of the alleged domestic abuse? Is that why the domestic abuse case that was briefly mentioned 15 pages ago was dropped for lack of evidence?

3. Talk of politicizing the case is merely an example of a way in which the parents are just as ripe for character assassination and having their motives questioned as the husband is. I believe the intention is to reveal that character assassination is not a convincing method for rebutting a certain party's argument (as you expertly pointed out in your post about kindly dr so-and-so). I know what you're thinking - that the husband is different because attacking his character weakens his testimony about terri's beliefs, and before you open your mouth about that another time please address the numerous assertions that the court decided that question on the testimony of 5 people, and that the husband's testimony was not even needed for that.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
You brought all those medical testimonies from third parties on behalf of having a different opinion yet, you cannot even acknowledge what all the other doctors (i.e. those who were involved with the patient) have said!

Isn't that part of the original finding of fact? Why do I have to repeat it? Absolutely I acknowledge it. I was just pointing out that there are other opinions out there.

On top of that, did it not occur to you that if she had been victim of violence from her husband, like, the day she was admitted and fell into a coma, that the doctors who saw her would not have suspected something, like, bruises?

The only thing we've heard by a doctor who saw the reocrds is that she had a rigid neck when brought in to the emergency room.

As for what else might have been apparent, all I can tell you is this:

To date, Michael Schiavo has not allowed the family to see the results of the May 6 examination, the emergency room records from the day of the incident,_ nor any of the accompanying x-rays.

She did have a bone-scan performed a year later, but Michael kept those results under wraps for over 10 years. Nobody, not even the family, was made aware of the findings until 2002.

I posted the bone scan results a page or two ago. I also found this deposition given by a Dr. William C. Walker in 2003: Some highlights...

Is there any way to tell how old that fracture would be?
Well, as I've alluded to, the bone scan gives some suggestion of that.

More recent rather than less recent?
Correct. _Typically in trauma the rule of thumb is that a traumatic fracture is not active on the bone scan after 12 to 18 months. That's the typical rule of thumb. Now, bodies being very variable, there's a lot of variation there, but that's the typical rule of thumb. So if a fracture shows up active on the bone scan, then one makes the presumption that it is relatively recent; i.e., within 18 months.

And after that, it becomes relatively undetectable on the bone scan?
If it's a simple fracture not related, say, to a malignancy and if it is given the opportunity to heal, then, yes. Typically after 18 months you'll see that it's getting so inactive that you may not pick it out.

The report goes on to say, "The presumption is that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma."
That's what it says.

And, again, that's based on the fact that Dr. Carnahan is a rehab physician, that you were asked to evaluate for trauma?
And the pattern of activity is fairly typical of multiple traumatic injuries of relatively recent origin.

I realize you can't assign a cause to these injuries that you picked up in this report. But typically in your experience, what would be the causes of this pattern of abnormality?
In somebody her age, an auto accident is by far the most typical cause.

Assume that she was not in an auto accident but that she had suffered an anoxic or hypoxic encephalopathy type of injury from a cardiac arrest and had been bedridden for a year at this point. What might account for these abnormalities?
In my knowledge, that type of injury would not account for this pattern of abnormalities.

Do you recall ever having a conversation with Dr. Carnahan about this patient? Is it possible that the abnormalities that you noted on the right femoral diaphysis and metaphysis could have occurred if the patient was standing and suffered a cardiac arrest and fell to the floor?
Probably not. That wouldn't be a typical mechanism of injury that would cause a periosteal bruise. Typically you need a direct blow of some kind. I suppose one could speculate that she fell on a piece of furniture, that that could produce that injury. But just typically falling on the floor would not do that.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If these wishes were in writing, or made apparent well before they were (it wasn't until more than 7 years after the accident, and after being engaged to another woman, that Schiavo decided to tell of her wishes), I'm sure even the family would honor those wishes.

It seems as if the only people who constantly bringing up the political angle on this are liberals.

Didn't all of the Democratic Senators sign the bill 2 weeks ago? Is Ralph Nader all of a sudden being controlled by the "religious right". Did the "Christian Right" somehow abduct Joe Lieberman? Did conservatives hijack Jesse Jackson?

Insecure liberal weenies are the ones who are most blabbing about politics here, because everything is political to them.

Uhmmm... it wasn't the republican party that passed around a memo saying voting for that law would be good politics for them? Or that Tom Delay called what was happening medical terrorism, that's not suppose to be political? It cuts both ways man, for politicians and for regular old people who get caught up in the politics created about the issue.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Uhmmm... it wasn't the republican party that passed around a memo saying voting for that law would be good politics for them?

Yeah, the proper word for that is "forgery".

It's Rathergate all over again, and the same vigilant entities that brought about to the collapse of CBS News could now also cause heads to roll among Democratic Senate leadership staffers and further shame multiple news organizations that would appear to have fallen for another document hoax

The document, which was posted online by ABC News, as well as several Democratic-leaning websites, was unsigned, bore no Senate office letterhead, and was rife with errors, including the incorrect Senate bill number and the misspelling of Schiavo's name. For days, Republicans denied any knowledge of the document, and a number of Republican Senators claimed they had never seen it.

ABC News earlier this week was claiming to a number of online reporters that it never intended to create the impression that this was a Republican-generated document, only that it had been circulated among Republican Senators. The Washington Post claimed that it had confirmed the document's provenance, but could not reveal the source.

... In fact, the New York Times stated that it was Democratic staffers who were distributing the "talking points" document.

"Democrats have tried to pin this document on Santorum's staff, on [Sen. Bill] Frist's staff, on [Sen. Sam] Brownback's staff," says a Senate leadership staffer. "Watching the investigation underway on line has energized us enough up here to want to at least confirm that we weren't the source, and everything we have found would confirm that Republicans didn't generate this memo. This is just amateurish, and perhaps Democratic staffers think we put out work product like this, but it's laughable."

The staffer added that while just about any House or Senate staffer with an email account could readily distribute a document, it was a huge stretch to believe that such a document would end up being widely distributed by or even to Senators in the cloakroom or in the well of the Senate. "This has all the telltale signs of a political dirty trick," says the staffer.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Or that Tom Delay called what was happening medical terrorism, that's not suppose to be political?

He's not allowed to have an opinion on the issue? WTF?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
1. You side with medical experts found in the media but consistently ignore the medical experts that were involved with the case before it became a political issue, you know the ones that testified in the original trial. Why is that?

I'd prefer a date, or at least year, of the "trial" in question, and what the purpose of that hearing/case/trial was, before I attempt to answer this.

In general, I am not ignoring the medical experts who testified. But realize that all who testified did not claim she was in PVS. And I take issue with your "before it became a "political issue" statement, for it is pretty much only liberals who are claiming as much. "Before it was a media event" would be more appropriate. To that, I'd say that I wasn't really aware of what was going on.

2. If we do agree to take this evidence at face value, the document in question lists 3 other possible causes of the bone trauma before physical abuse, and the tv doctor refuses to say they are consistent with foul play, let alone there being no mention at all in the interview you quoted of "strangulation." Is there more to it or is this the only physical evidence of the alleged domestic abuse? Is that why the domestic abuse case that was briefly mentioned 15 pages ago was dropped for lack of evidence?

In that same deposition I quoted above, that doctor is asked about the same "other causes". He stated that they tend to be conservative on that "other causes" part for fear of malpractice suits.

A woman comes into the emergency room unconscious, with a rigid neck, fractured vertebrae, and was deprived of oxygen for many minutes. That's what we've got.

3. Talk of politicizing the case is merely an example of a way in which the parents are just as ripe for character assassination and having their motives questioned as the husband is. I believe the intention is to reveal that character assassination is not a convincing method for rebutting a certain party's argument (as you expertly pointed out in your post about kindly dr so-and-so). I know what you're thinking - that the husband is different because attacking his character weakens his testimony about terri's beliefs, and before you open your mouth about that another time please address the numerous assertions that the court decided that question on the testimony of 5 people, and that the husband's testimony was not even needed for that.

A judge decided that question. Her mother, father, brother, and sister had never heard Terri say anything like that.

On this question... this is where I am most dubious of the husband. Not only are his motives questionable (he's engaged with kids), he also withheld Terri's "wishes" for over 7 years. If I were the judge (which I'm not), I would have been extremely skeptical as to whether or not those were Terri's actual wishes.

Add-in the testimony of people who, during those 7 years, heard Michael ask or say "I don't know what she'd want" or similar, and no way do I award the husband the legal authority to deprive her of water and nutrition.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Isn't that part of the original finding of fact? Why do I have to repeat it? Absolutely I acknowledge it. I was just pointing out that there are other opinions out there.

The only thing we've heard by a doctor who saw the reocrds is that she had a rigid neck when brought in to the emergency room.

As for what else might have been apparent, all I can tell you is this:

She did have a bone-scan performed a year later, but Michael kept those results under wraps for over 10 years. Nobody, not even the family, was made aware of the findings until 2002.

I posted the bone scan results a page or two ago. I also found this deposition given by a Dr. William C. Walker in 2003: Some highlights...

Well good!

When is Michael going in prison? After all, he is the sole guardian of that woman right? The proofs are conclusive aren't they? Is that not enough to trigger the need for a police investigation? And on top of that, I hope all those doctors will go in prison; they seem to have ignored basics of medical practice in reporting suspicious trauma-related injuries to authorities.

And get these judges in prison as well: their incompetence is criminal!

And why is Bush saying is lawyers cannot do anything about this at all? Aren't they aware that this poor woman was victim of the most atrocious scheme to murder her?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Didn't all of the Democratic Senators sign the bill 2 weeks ago?

Of course they did, and they did it to forward their political careers. Democratic politicians are still politicians, and few politicians would want to be seen voting to end someone's life (even if that someone's life is already over for all intents and purposes).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If these wishes were in writing, or made apparent well before they were (it wasn't until more than 7 years after the accident, and after being engaged to another woman, that Schiavo decided to tell of her wishes), I'm sure even the family would honor those wishes.

Which is why we have such things as "power of attorney". Very few people have a living will. I don't. But, my wife knows my wishes and will respect them, regardless of how selfishlessly my parents wish to ignore them (or try to discredit my wife and try to bribe her into to ignoring those wishes). My parents also believe me to still be a good, church going Christian, ignoring that I haven't stepped into a church in over a decade for anything other than a wedding or a funeral.

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
When is Michael going in prison? After all, he is the sole guardian of that woman right? The proofs are conclusive aren't they? Is that not enough to trigger the need for a police investigation? And on top of that, I hope all those doctors will go in prison; they seem to have ignored basics of medical practice in reporting suspicious trauma-related injuries to authorities. And get these judges in prison as well: their incompetence is criminal! And why is Bush saying is lawyers cannot do anything about this at all? Aren't they aware that this poor woman was victim of the most atrocious scheme to murder her?

It's because they're all being mind controlled by Michael! The bastard!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well. It looks ike you successfully derailed the thread. I tried to avoid falling for your derail attempts a few pages back, but this was just too easy. Good job.

Yeah, I've derailed the thread by explaining the law, and reading and reporting what's in the actual record, as opposed to gossiping and speculating based on stuff I've heard on FoxNews, and repeatedly misrepresenting the facts. Alarming.

[InterfaceGuy]

Joan Schiavo, who has testified over the years that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive in her condition, reported Monday evening that a white car drove by her Philadelphia-area home at 4:30 a.m., 5:10 a.m. and 7 a.m., when she was leaving to go to work, said Cpl. Jim Pauley, a police spokesman.

During the last pass, Schiavo told police, the car stopped and the man inside yelled "murderer," then added, "If Terri dies, I'm coming back to shoot you and your family."

Joan Schiavo is married to William Schiavo, one of Michael's brothers.

Pauley said she described a four-door, early 1990s car, and said the driver was white, in his late 30s with brown hair and a "scruffy" appearance.

Police have been assigned to watch the house, Pauley said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/29/sc...ats/index.html

I think its very sad that people are threatening him and his family. Regarldess of what I, or others think about him and the case, it is wrong for anyone to wish bad things on him or his relatives. Its appalling really.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Thanks for keeping a cool head and actually presenting evidence, Spacefreak. It's a welcome relief from some of the noise in the rest of this thread.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
On this question... this is where I am most dubious of the husband.

See, this is the weakest part of your argument. It has been asserted in this thread many times that the Judge could easily have made the same finding without the testimony of the husband at all. I'd like to know how that affects your feelings on the actual issue. Just as a reminder, the actual issue is what to do with the body of terri schiavo, not whether or not we hate the husband for other reasons.

I take issue with your "before it became a "political issue" statement, for it is pretty much only liberals who are claiming as much.

Well that's a loaded question and I'm not touching it, since for the most part politicians of either side are despicable. But if I concede that I meant "media issue" instead of "political issue," that doesn't really change my point. The doctors you're deferring to seem to be exclusively johnny-come-latelies, very likely lured by the spotlight, apparently already discredited in several cases, and as such I have a hard time believing them over the original ones. But the thing is, none of that matters one lick if you remember that all they're talking about is reasons why they think it might be possible that the terri might have at one time been abused by someone.

Remember, my primary question at this point is "what do you have to say to the assertion that the husband's testimony was not necessary in the finding of terri's wishes?" In light of that, it wouldn't matter if he was the devil incarnate, because the big picture is not about him, it's about what terri would have wanted, and apparently his testimony on that topic was redundant.

he also withheld Terri's "wishes" for over 7 years. If I were the judge (which I'm not), I would have been extremely skeptical as to whether or not those were Terri's actual wishes.

Again (since it seems to have a hard time sinking in), it's been said that his testimony was not even needed to make that finding. But I would like to point out (again), that simply not mentioning a loved one's wish not to be kept alive for a certain period and then later doing so, is not suspicious in the least bit. In fact, it would be much more suspicious if he had said something about it right from the start. Obviously, specifics aside, if you have Jane and John Doe, and Jane goes into a coma, you would expect John to hold out hope of recovery for a certain amount of time, during which it would be extremely insensitive and suspicious for him to say "I'm optimistic, but let's discuss the details of how she would want us to pull the plug. You know, for later." Might as well add "I call her stereo." Then only after it became clear to him that she was beyond recovery would he bring up her wishes. I don't see what's so shocking that that period of time was 7 years, especially since the parents still haven't faced that fact after more than twice as long. Further, since people have brought up a malpractice settlement, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the settlement had something to do with the fact sinking in that there was in fact no hope for recovery, or perhaps going through the motions of it before it was settled was keeping his mind off of that painful realization. I just don't see what the big deal is, and I'm hoping you'll tell me exactly what you think it is.

Add-in the testimony of people who, during those 7 years, heard Michael ask or say "I don't know what she'd want" or similar

That would be hearsay, I believe. I don't know the law per se but I'm hoping someone who does will clarify for us, and hopefully tells us the reasoning behind why this would (or not) be hearsay and the 5 people who did testify would not be. I expect it to be along the lines (as zigzag has already said) that testimony about feelings (terri's) is admissible because there's no reason to lie, and testimony about facts (husband's knowledge of feelings) isn't because there is reason to lie (perhaps at the time he was overheard saying that he didn't want to deal with the issue, or didn't want to address his feelings about terri's chances of recovery). BTW, who were those people? I haven't heard of them before...would they have book deals in the pipe too?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

his deposition given by a Dr. William C. Walker in 2003:

...cardiac arrest...

Now she did have a heart attack again? That last doctor you quoted made a big deal about how potassium had nothing to do with it because it only causes heart attacks and she had never had one. Did she have one or not?

[lurkalot]

"I don't know what she'd want" or a similar comment was misrepresented to the courts by the Schindlers in April 2001. The context of the conversation which took place in 1991 revealed that this comment was not about Terri Schiavo's end-of-life wishes but about the uncertainty over Terri Schiavo's preference for home care or hospital/nursing home care which needed to be decided at that time while she was still receiving rehabilitation treatment and there was still some marginal hope of some improvement.
The misrepresentation of the statement was clear once the witness to these comments made sworn statements in a May 8, 2001 deposition but this depo was taken after the parents had already filed affidavits taking the comments out of context on April 26, 2001. Their temporarily successful deception persuaded Judge Quesada into issuing an injunction -which was technically outside his authority and in any case issued on insufficient and misleading information.
As soon as the courts saw the actual statements from the witness and heard how the allegedly newly discovered evidence of Mrs Schiavo's intent had been manipulated by the Schindlers and their representatives that part of the Schindler's appeals was dismissed. See Greer's order from August 7, 2001 and the 2nd DCA opinions from July 11, 2001 and October 17, 2001.

The "newly discovered" witness stated -among other things- during her May 8, 2001 depo:
"I felt like the Schindlers -- they had even told me that they were very desperate and they would do anything to keep her alive and that they just needed that one statement from me -- not the context or anything, just that one statement -- either on tape or if I would speak to Mr. Magri on the phone, and that would save Terri�s life; that I was what would save her life. And I told the reporter that, and -- but that I didn�t actually have any information about that and that my statements had been taken out of context and I felt like they were grasping at straws."

Not much has changed...

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
Now she did have a heart attack again? That last doctor you quoted made a big deal about how potassium had nothing to do with it because it only causes heart attacks and she had never had one. Did she have one or not?

According to the Discharge Summary from Humana Hospital Northside, Terri Schiavo was severely hypokalemic. The lab results show potassium at 2.0.
Most likely because of diuretics. Terri Schiavo drank large quantities of iced tea and coke.

Dr. Hammesfahr is technically correct that she did not have a heart infarct/heart attack/myocardial infarction. But he bungles it in the rest of his comments.
The Discharge Summary indeed shows that she did not have a heart attack but his deception comes -as others have already pointed out- when he fails to elaborate and make the distinction between that and the other heart conditions/failures/malfunctions or whatever you want to label them that were noted in the Discharge Summary and which are consistent with bulimia and particularly drinking large amounts of electrolyte balance disturbing fluids. Dr. Hammesfahr was playing his deceptive and incomplete semantics games although he purports to reflect what he has found in this discharge report he doesn't give the whole picture.

At the top of the discharge summary it clearly says:

Admitting Diagnosis: Cardiopulmonary arrest.
Final diagnoses: Cardiac Arrest, ... etc

More details in the rest of this May 1990 report: PDF Link

[lurkalot]

She did have a bone-scan performed a year later, but Michael kept those results under wraps for over 10 years. Nobody, not even the family, was made aware of the findings until 2002.]

That Is not true. The court ruling from November 22, 2002 shows that the bone scan report had been in the Schindler's possession for years.

The link from the Empire Journal you posted recently also shows that the treating physicians at Mediplex Rehab. in Bradenton ordered the scan and after receiving the report made interpretations and clinical/treatment decisions based on the bone-scan report and based on their knowledge of the patient's medical history and condition. Something Dr. Walker acknowledges, in his November 21, 2003 deposition, they would be in a better position to assess.
Greer received affidavits from these doctors -Carnahan and Alcazaren- in November 2002 when he was asked for more time to investigate other medical evidence including the bone-scan report. Greer correctly concluded that the bone-scan had no relevance for the issue he was asked decide and denied the request to hold of on his ruling concluding the 2002 evidentiary hearings.

[Cody Dawg]

I see that the parents filed another appeal. In my heart I know why they did that, but I think it is to the point where she probably has severe physical problems at this point and they should not continue to try to save her.

Next:

Are we going to starve the Pope also? He needs a feeding tube next.

I mean, a lot of you have been arguing that a feeding tube is artificial life support and that life should not be prolonged in such a way. So, do we starve the Pope? It's a good thing he's not in Florida or Judge Greer might order that he be starved next.