The Black Republican

Exactly. Amen.

It is my understanding that the autopsy spoke about the necrosis of the occiptal lobe. Per the dictionary entry below, Terri was rotting away inside. In addition, there was the finding that her bones were noticably softened. The poor dear was slowly dying piece by piece. Why would anyone want their loved ones to endure such a death?

Main Entry: ne·cro·sis
Pronunciation: n&-'krO-s&s, ne-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ne·cro·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek nekrOsis, from nekroun to make dead, from nekros dead body
: usually localized death of living tissue

Your definition of "necrosis" speaks to a result (localized death), not a process (dying). It is akin to frostbite which may cause death to an extremity but the damage is arrested when the subject is warmed; the toe does not infect the rest of the body. Your understanding seems more like cancer where one cell destroys the next, the damage progresses.

Clearly she was damaged, but there was not repeated testing done to determine if her condition was changing, for good or bad.

Softening of the bones of an invalid is not a surprise, activity and stresses strengthen bones, the reverse allows them to deteriorate. I understand that the event which causes her condition also shortened her life expectancy, Judge Greer obliterated it.

We will count you among those who beieve her life was not worth living; her parents disagree.

Richard,

Do you intend to review EVERY hospice case similiar to Schaivo's, or just the ones politicized by the reactionary wing of Republican Party? If the answer is "yes", I have a list of cases ready to post for your judgement and intervention into private family matters.

Nice try, I do not need to comment on every case in order be credible on this one case.

Do you intend to comment on every one of my posts, or just the one that most closely affects your personal agenda? Touche dude!

I find this case unbelievable. Why was there no de novo review? Why do people applaud her death with such intensity? She was not suffering; unlike, for example, my mom was near the end. It disturbs me. It was a family decision? Were there not differing opinions in "the family"? How was the very removed husband still part of the family (legally the only part of the family with any say apparently--and if this makes legal sense then we must change it!)? This sort of stuff scares me. The courts are completely out of control, and have been for my entire adult life. I do not trust the "husband" at all. I think that he is a liar. From what I have read, a proven liar. I do not understand why the original judge was so complicit in this thing (the latter courts just accepted his findings of fact). My only guess is that judicially it was a huge CYA job, for initially shoddy work. It is at times like this that I wish that I was religious. Still, one can hope that what goes around comes around.