The Schiavo issue

[Scrooge McSam]

Thanks for that, Prudence.

I was already familiar with Dr. Hammesfahr, so I wasn't going to spend much time knocking down that paper tiger.

The Carla Iyer info, though, is disturbing. I'm having trouble finding whether this information even made it into court.

If it didn't, why not? If it did, was it rejected?

Anyone?

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

The Carla Iyer info, though, is disturbing. I'm having trouble finding whether this information even made it into court.

If it didn't, why not? If it did, was it rejected?

Anyone?

I think her sworn statements speak for themselves.


7. Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and
misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert
and oriented.


Alert and oriented....Aflac!!!

[Nephythys]

In reference to the link- I was not even referring to the Dr's report (in fact I did not read the article myself- so I am not about to even debate it)- I was specifically focused on Rachel's commentary and on the nurses affidavit- so this paper tiger was a construct of your own imagination, not my intentional set-up. It was not the purpose of my link- so quibble all you like about the Dr.

The nurses information however seems highly explosive- so the question of why more is not being made of it is very pertinent.

(It's shy-vo)


In the interest ot providing another side to the story-Nurses Affidavit dismissed as "incredible"

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

This issue, more than anything else, demonstrates just how powerful a stranglehold the far, far religious right has on Mr. Bush's nuts. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there would be no President Dubya if it weren't for the fundamentalists who bought his bs early on.


Link (It's funny that Bush was against big government until he took possession of the hammer.)

As far as big government, couldn't agree with you more. I am increasingly disturbed by such antics as the medicare prescription drug program. I have said before and say again that he spends too much money. (Now, before anyone starts in on Iraq and the expenditures there, as I consider national defense to be the main purpose of the federal government and did consider it to be worthwhile - a different debate, certainly - I do not include that in my disgust over over spending.)

Is it that Bush is beholden to the religious right or that Bush believes it? It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac, but I think he is not so much beholden to them as he is a "believer" himself. So I doubt it is any sort of political payoff - I think he's doing what he thinks is right. And it is well within his purview to sign the bill, which was well within the purview of congress to pass (see my reference to the constitution in an earlier post).

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Is it that Bush is beholden to the religious right or that Bush believes it? It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac, but I think he is not so much beholden to them as he is a "believer" himself. So I doubt it is any sort of political payoff - I think he's doing what he thinks is right. And it is well within his purview to sign the bill, which was well within the purview of congress to pass (see my reference to the constitution in an earlier post).

I'm not exactly comfortable questioning a person's faith, and, believe it or not, that includes Bush. All I can go by is a person's actions. Bush's actions (And I've been watching him a long time. A lot longer than most Bush supporters in fact -- since back when he owned the Texas Rangers) do not lead me to believe he would cross the street to save someone's life, let alone cut short a vacation and fly back to Washington to do it. My opinion, of course. YMMV.

[Claire]

It doesn't help that the most vocal people who believe Carla Iyer's stories also believe that "Scientology Controlled Downtown Clearwater" is responsible for wanting Terri to die.

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

I'm sorry, but a lot of the "groups" supporting the Schindlers all sound like whack jobs, which is NOT helping Terri's parents' case. If they were less zealous sounding, perhaps they'd have some credibility. I really don't think that letting Terri die is a conspiracy cooked up by any one group of people.....does anyone here?

I read Carla Iyer's statements and I can't keep but rolling my eyes at her descriptions of Terri talking or responding. I haven't read any other accounts that are even close to hers. And the good Dr. Hammesfahr is full of bull ("God leaves no one behind" is his institute's mission statement). The judge counted all the stimulus commands versus her responses and it looked to me that any kind of responses that she had were involuntary.....and that's been the opinion of dozens of medical experts.

Below is from a 2002 ruling:

Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terri Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court's count, he gave 105 commands to Terri Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional six commands. Again, by the court's count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics/schiavo/...order11-02.txt

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It is well known that Bush was a drunken partier long ago and had a "conversion experience". I realize that neither of these are acceptable to you Sac

For the record, neither of these things would preclude me from voting for, or supporting, a presidential candidate. But that candidate's faith should not be worn on his sleeve as if it were a badge of honor. Not if he wanted my vote.

[Nephythys]

yeah- a guy who hides what he believes in is SO much more trustworthy.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

yeah- a guy who hides what he believes in is SO much more trustworthy.

Vishnu Almighty! I didn't say, or imply, that a candidate needs to hide his faith.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

yeah- a guy who hides what he believes in is SO much more trustworthy.

Not to speak for SacTown, but what I got out of that is the POTUS should not be running this country according to his religon and not be attempting to create laws because of his religion.

Have whatever religion you want. Practice it. Be proud to be it. But don't force it down the rest of our throats. Don't make laws that discriminate and use "the bible said so" to justify it. Don't make laws that take away others rights because "the bible said so".