Ex-ACLU official to plead in porn case

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree it was all political theatre - which is essentially what a lot of "right to life" issues are. But again considering that this happens in Texas on a fairly regular basis (unless between then and now they repealed/modified that particular law) - its an issue that hasn't really been addressed by the courts in any consistent way.

My grandfather (on my mother's side) starved himself to death a few years after a debilitating stroke. As he was rotting away from bedsores, and having pieces of himself amputated (from the toes up), I can't imagine that's a terribly nice way to go either. Much easier if the person involved is capable of making their wishes explicitly known - but even then the law in many cases prevents a person from being "put down".

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa, the Terry Schiavo case was actually a dowry-murder using the court to do the crime.

It is quite notable that Michael started the fight for having his wife euthanised IMMEDIATELY AFTER her insurance paid out lump-sum.

Oh I agree...I seriously could talk about this for days because I know many ins and outs of the case.

Michael testified during the lawsuit that he had taken the certification to become a nurse so he could take care of Terri for the rest of her life. And interestingly enough, he was suing for a figure based on her care for the rest of her life, and iirc, his lawyer estimated Terri's life into her 50s.

After he got the money, he stopped all treatment of Terri...no more dental care, no gyno exams, no tests, nothing. Money was used to get the laywer to fight for her right to die...and then his lawyer committed medicare fraud because they placed Terri in hospiceeven when she was never termed 'terminal'. Oh, coincidentally enough, the lawyer was on the Board of Directors at the hospice.

Law states that hospice is for people who are terminal and will die within 6 mos. They need a dr's siggy on the admit forms saying as such. None were ever gotten for Terri, because needing a feeding tube and having brain damage is not a terminal illness. So they stuck her in some layover to death ensuring that she got no care to actually improve...only 'maintain status quo'...all the while having the tax payers pick up the tab even though you were awarded money for her care.

Drs from all over the world offered their services for FREE. Michael refused. Why would you refuse? Why not say 'hey, let's find out how bad the damage is so we can decide what to do?' Nope, once the money came, that was that. But the courts should have ordered those tests before sentencing her to a death, sadly enough, that the world's worst people would never get because it'd be 'too horrifically inhumane'

PS everything I've said can be backed up, but it's been a while, so I don't have i the court transcripts at the ready.

Edited May 25, 2007 by LisaD

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Oh I agree...I seriously could talk about this for days because I know many ins and outs of the case.

Michael testified during the lawsuit that he had taken the certification to become a nurse so he could take care of Terri for the rest of her life. And interestingly enough, he was suing for a figure based on her care for the rest of her life, and iirc, his lawyer estimated Terri's life into her 50s.

After he got the money, he stopped all treatment of Terri...no more dental care, no gyno exams, no tests, nothing. Money was used to get the laywer to fight for her right to die...and then his lawyer committed medicare fraud because they placed Terri in hospiceeven when she was never termed 'terminal'. Oh, coincidentally enough, the lawyer was on the Board of Directors at the hospice.

Law states that hospice is for people who are terminal and will die within 6 mos. They need a dr's siggy on the admit forms saying as such. None were ever gotten for Terri, because needing a feeding tube and having brain damage is not a terminal illness. So they stuck her in some layover to death ensuring that she got no care to actually improve...only 'maintain status quo'...all the while having the tax payers pick up the tab even though you were awarded money for her care.

Drs from all over the world offered their services for FREE. Michael refused. Why would you refuse? Why not say 'hey, let's find out how bad the damage is so we can decide what to do?' Nope, once the money came, that was that. But the courts should have ordered those tests before sentencing her to a death, sadly enough, that the world's worst people would never get because it'd be 'too horrifically inhumane'

PS everything I've said can be backed up, but it's been a while, so I don't have i the court transcripts at the ready.

The fact that MS used the court system to do the murder rather than disguising the crime (as accident or suicide) to avoid the law makes his approach even more despicable than the already-egregious "standard" dowry-murder.

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, my main problem is that aside from the government protectin this woman, the ACLU actually took the whole 'right to die' stance, which really was not what this case was about at all.

The ACLU cherry picks for their own benefit.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Well, my main problem is that aside from the government protectin this woman, the ACLU actually took the whole 'right to die' stance, which really was not what this case was about at all.

The ACLU cherry picks for their own benefit.

there's no money for them to make for "reasonable attorney fees" in the ts case.....

[Fandango 1,439]

I agree it was all political theatre - which is essentially what a lot of "right to life" issues are. But again considering that this happens in Texas on a fairly regular basis (unless between then and now they repealed/modified that particular law) - its an issue that hasn't really been addressed by the courts in any consistent way.

My grandfather (on my mother's side) starved himself to death a few years after a debilitating stroke. As he was rotting away from bedsores, and having pieces of himself amputated (from the toes up), I can't imagine that's a terribly nice way to go either. Much easier if the person involved is capable of making their wishes explicitly known - but even then the law in many cases prevents a person from being "put down".

Erekose, I missed this with posting a reply, but I just want to say that I'm sorry about your grandfather.

________________________

Yes, Charles, I agree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How is it ironic?

The guy committed the crime, not the institution he worked for.

you do remember the aclu defended nambla.........

Yes - but as I recall they defended their right to "free speech", which isn't really the same as endorsing a criminally deviant lifestyle.

I'm wondering if we can make a distinction between the individual and the entity/organisation they work for. Its not like the ACLU has covered up for this guy to keep him in his job - which is exactly what the The Catholic Church did; and they ended embroiled in a massive lawsuit resulting in large damages payments - because the organisation made itself the accessory to crimes committed by certain of its members. That would seem to be a fairly important distinction...

Excellent point.

[Fandango 1,439]

How is it ironic?

The guy committed the crime, not the institution he worked for.

you do remember the aclu defended nambla.........

Yes - but as I recall they defended their right to "free speech", which isn't really the same as endorsing a criminally deviant lifestyle.

I'm wondering if we can make a distinction between the individual and the entity/organisation they work for. Its not like the ACLU has covered up for this guy to keep him in his job - which is exactly what the The Catholic Church did; and they ended embroiled in a massive lawsuit resulting in large damages payments - because the organisation made itself the accessory to crimes committed by certain of its members. That would seem to be a fairly important distinction...

Excellent point.

No one's condoned the Catholic Church's actions so as good a point it is, it's moot.

Edited May 25, 2007 by LisaD

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A brain damaged but aware woman with no food, no water slowly being executed for over 2 weeks.

The courts actually disagreed on that particular point, Lisa. Now you may not like what the courts ruled or the evidence they found convincing or sufficient. The fact of the matter is, hwoever, that TS was - in due process - found to be in a vegetative state with no cognitive function. That means that your assertion that she was aware is based more on your belief than on any evidence that was presented to the courts during the proceedings.

[Fandango 1,439]

A brain damaged but aware woman with no food, no water slowly being executed for over 2 weeks.

The courts actually disagreed on that particular point, Lisa. Now you may not like what the courts ruled or the evidence they found convincing or sufficient. The fact of the matter is, hwoever, that TS was - in due process - found to be in a vegetative state with no cognitive function. That means that your assertion that she was aware is based more on your belief than on any evidence that was presented to the courts during the proceedings.

There is video of her tacking a balloon with her eyes. She used to squeal and smile when her mom walked in the room. She cried when she got her period every month, so that alone tells me she was somewhat aware.

And the fact that MS had her sedated while they starved her to death actually proves she felt something.

But again, the point is that none of us know because before executing this woman, the tests that would have given a definitive answer on her 'awareness' were never done, and were fought to her death by her husband. Wouldn't it have been prudent to just go take the tests before killing her? I mean if she was the cabbage that he said she was, what would the harm be to have it medically confirmed? don't you think the judge himself should have been at least somewhat interested in the results before he ordered her to be put down worse than a rabid dog, and with less dignity and mercy than we showed even Saddam?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A brain damaged but aware woman with no food, no water slowly being executed for over 2 weeks.

The courts actually disagreed on that particular point, Lisa. Now you may not like what the courts ruled or the evidence they found convincing or sufficient. The fact of the matter is, hwoever, that TS was - in due process - found to be in a vegetative state with no cognitive function. That means that your assertion that she was aware is based more on your belief than on any evidence that was presented to the courts during the proceedings.

There is video of her tacking a balloon with her eyes. She used to squeal and smile when her mom walked in the room. She cried when she got her period every month, so that alone tells me she was somewhat aware.

And the fact that MS had her sedated while they starved her to death actually proves she felt something.

But again, the point is that none of us know because before executing this woman, the tests that would have given a definitive answer on her 'awareness' were never done, and were fought to her death by her husband. Wouldn't it have been prudent to just go take the tests before killing her?

There were tons of tests done and experts (not politicians) testified to the fact that she was in a vegetative state without cognitive functions. Her brain scans revealed no noticeable brain activity. Five experts evaluated TS' condition. Two that were selected by her husband, two that her parents selected and one that the court appointed. Three came to the conclusion that TS was in a PVS while two (the two her parents hired) determined that she was minimally cognitive. Based on these expert evaluations, the court made the determination that she was PVS. That's what is called due process. To sit there and declare that she was just killed without due process is not particularly reflective of the reality of the case.

[Fandango 1,439]

She wasn't killed, she was executed. Of course that's my opin, as everyone will have his/her own. And whether or not she was in a PVS is up for opinion...surely we have autopsy reports after the fact, bu the main point that I'm trying to make here is that she was put to death without unanimity....if she were on trial and the drs were her jury, they would have been a hung jury, and we would have had to start all over again. All the Drs did not agree, and you will find that upon researching more, should you want to...that there were many motions and pleas to have the tests performed, all to no avail. No, I'm no doctor, so can I personally say whether or not she was or wasn't? No I can't. But what I see were signs of life...and I think we should have been beyond a shadow of a doubt sure before we starved her. But we weren't. THAT is the crux of things here.

Ironically, had we starved a death row inmate, the ACLU would have gotten involved. Or they'd have gotten involved if a mentally handicapped criminal were sentenced to the death penalty.

Her family felt she wasn't in a PVS...that's pretty natural, I'd say. But there were never given the definitive proof otherwise...like 'hey, here's the results so yes, she indeed is gone' Can you imagine being in her parents' shoes? Holding out hope because her PVS was never a unanimous diagnosis? Doctors saying 'well, we need this test to really see the true situation'...yet having her 'loving husband' refuse to allow it? Oh, cos it was 'experimental' and God forbid it hurt her...but then again, he's saying she's already worm food anyways, so how's that work? And her parents sat there and watched armed police officers standing guard over their daughter to prevent them from even wetting her lips so they could stop them from bleeding and cracking from dehydration? Hearing her moan in pain from hunger and thirst...and having doctors sedate what they say is dead, yet she's being given morphine. Could you imagine going through that while feeling in your heart that she's might not be in a PVS? Somehow, 'the autopsy will prove it' is not really sufficient while you're sat there watching her slowly die, is it?

Ironically, her main neurologist is very vocal towards starving alzheimer's patients and the mentally challenged too. And I think that's a REAL shame & a v slippery slope that completely transcends 'right to die' issues. All that had to be done was to prove it with an MRI or PT scan. But they were never done. So I ask you, how in the world is that due process? Shouldn't we be CERTAIN before killing someone? We should have been sure. Honestly, it baffles me how anyone could disagree with that!

I have way more links that I could pm/email you if you're interested, but they are on my computer in England as I was over there at the time. I'll have to get them from D. But I quickly grabbed something off the net. Now this is nowhere near the sum total of the sources, mind you...but gets across the jist.

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact. One such neurologist is Dr. Peter Morin. He is a researcher specializing in degenerative brain diseases, and has both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Boston University.

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

Dr. Morin explained that he would feel obligated to obtain the information in these tests before making a diagnosis with life and death consequences. I told him that CT (Computer-Aided Tomography) scans had been done, and were partly the basis for the finding of PVS. The doctor retorted, “Spare no expense, eh?” I asked him to explain the comment; he said that a CT scan is a much less expensive test than an MRI, but it “only gives you a tenth of the information an MRI does.” He added, “A CT scan is useful only in pretty severe cases, such as trauma, and also during the few days after an anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain injury. It’s useful in an emergency-room setting. But if the question is ischemic injury [brain damage caused by lack of blood/oxygen to part of the brain] you want an MRI and PET. For subsequent evaluation of brain injury, the CT is pretty useless unless there has been a massive stroke.”

Other neurologists have concurred with Dr. Morin’s opinion. Dr. Thomas Zabiega, who trained at the University of Chicago, said, “Any neurologist who is objective would say ‘Yes’” to the question, “Should Terri be given an MRI?”

But in spite of the lack of advanced testing, such as an MRI, attorney George Felos has claimed that Terri’s cerebral cortex has “liquefied,” and doctors for Michael Schiavo have claimed, on the basis of the CT scans, that parts of Terri’s cerebral cortex “have been replaced by fluid.” The problem with such contentions is that the available evidence can’t support them. Dr. Zabiega explained that “a CT scan can’t resolve the kind of detail needed” to make such a pronouncement: “A CT scan is like a blurry photograph.” Dr. William Bell, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Medical School, agrees: “A CT scan doesn’t give much detail. In order to see it on a CT, you have to have massive damage.” Is it possible that Terri has that sort of “massive” brain damage? According to Dr. Bell, that isn’t likely. Sometimes, he said, even patients who are PVS have a “normal or near normal” MRI.

So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/joha...00503160848.asp

I'm not against letting someone go if there's no hope of anything. But that's not what this is about

[deemabrouk 0]

I hate hearing about these child porn cases... I hope this guy gets it in the butt in jail.....

Bad press for Trent Reznor.. my skin would crawl if I knew my music was the background to a child rape porn

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From what I read the legal wrangling over Terry Schiavo dated back to 1998 (with an initial PVS diagnosis being made in 1991) - and the case was ruled on by several courts during the period from 1998 to 2005 regarding both the "right to die" and the PVS diagnosis.

There's a history of it here.

There's really no reason to expect that a court (in actual fact, several courts and several judges) would change its position on points of law determined over a period of years simply because of public outcry.

[Fandango 1,439]

I hate hearing about these child porn cases... I hope this guy gets it in the butt in jail.....

Bad press for Trent Reznor.. my skin would crawl if I knew my music was the background to a child rape porn

Actually, that's ON topic, hah.

Erekose, you missed my point, but that's ok. I won't repeat myself again.