Why do you support the decision to withdraw Terri's feeding tube?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I personally think that the courts simply should have given Terri to her parents to take care of her given that almost all the "facts" were in dispute.

Actually, none of the facts were in dispute. New "facts" were invented to obscure the truth. You fell for them hook, line, and sinker.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Why do you support the decision to withdraw Terri's feeding tube?

Originally posted by mart7x5
Future is uncertain and she might recover.

No one has ever recovered from not having a brain.

No one has ever recovered from being ashes, which is what she is now.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


She did clearly express it, to at least three different people. That's why every single court found for Schiavo and not one ever found for the Schindler's. She just didn't have it in writing. The only time she exressed a different opinion was when she was twelve years old, as is indicated in the court record.

I'm sorry you have such a problem with the facts in this case.

Yes to her husband, his sister and husband. But NEVER TO HER MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, AND SISTER. Is't this somewhat troubling?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Joseph
Yes to her husband, his sister and husband. But NEVER TO HER MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, AND SISTER. Is't this somewhat troubling?

only to conspiracy theorists.

most people don't talk about it. The only reason she probably expressed her wishes at that time was they were probably watching some movie or something on tv dealing with this issue (when the brother and his wife was over) and discussed it then.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Joseph
Yes to her husband, his sister and husband. But NEVER TO HER MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, AND SISTER. Is't this somewhat troubling?

I've told my wife, but not my mother or father. She's the one who counts.

[Ned]

The problem with your analysis, Che, is that you have to tell me why so many people who seem to have no stake in the outcome would flatly contradict Schiavo. The brother and sister-in-law testified without being on any witness less and with no opportunity to investigate and depose them. (That by itself was a travesty.) Her best friend from college testified that Terri wanted to live under Quinlan circumstances. The judge simply "moved" the testimony to when she was 12. While he stated his reasons for doing so, what he did, in combination with allowing the brother and sister-in-law to testify without allowing te defense a fair opportunity to investigate, decided the case. Taken as a whole, the judge's actions were highly prejudicial to Terri, for certain. He should have been reversed. Most people who actual looked at this case, including most of Congress, felt that Terri was denied due process.