Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105446)	3/22/2005 5:45:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793743

he then created the very scenario for the argument he was to use in court to have her life terminated I'm sorry but I don't think that works. Had he not inserted the feeding tube in the first place, she would have died on her own a long time ago and he wouldn't have had to come up with an argument to satisfy the court. It doesn't make any sense to me to say he inserted the feeding tube to give him an argument for removing it. at the very least this woman should have the benefit of the latest testing techniques (for example no MRI or pet scan) so that a consensus view can be established wrt her current condition. Her current condition is what her current condition is. Whether or not there is a consensus does not alter her condition. I suppose you could say that it would be kind to give her parents another chance to come to terms with her condition. But if her parents don't believe the old tests, why should we think that they will believe the new tests? Or do you think she's grown a new cerebrum since her last cat scan? It's easy to see what her current condition is. If you saw a person with no legs, you would know instantly that he can't walk. If you saw a person with no eyes, you'd know instantly that he couldn't see. Here we have a person with no cerebrum. Her lack of same is readily visible on her cat scan to even a lay person. Without one, she has no thoughts or will any more than someone without eyes has sight. I don't know if it would be of any comfort to her blood relatives to do more tests or not. But it certainly wouldn't change her condition or the outcome. I suppose there will some resolution of her condition. It's called an autopsy. I trust that will be definitive. I realize from your arguments that you are distrustful of Michael. I can understand that. He has a certain smarmy quality about him. We can't know what's going on with him, only speculate. But whatever's going on, Terri, herself, is clearly beyond caring.