Reply With Quote
LMAO!Who is Arthur Caplan?
What part of "director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania" did you not understand?
Who is Arthur Caplan?"Mr. Bush called Dr. Cheshire a "renowned neurologist," but he is not widely known in the neurology or bioethics fields. Asked about him, Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, replied, "Who?""
Like I said. I trust the NY Times sense of fairness about as much as the Guardian's.
They never said he wasn't qualified to make a diagnosis. He is a neurologist. I'm not sure what his family and mission work have to do with that.
LMAO!Who is Arthur Caplan?
What part of "director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania" did you not understand?
What facts in the Times article are you disputing?
And? Dr. Cheshire is a Director and Bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic.
Both are prestigious ins utions. I wonder if Cheshire has ever heard of your bozo.
Nothing. It just doesn't say anything about Dr. Cheshire's qualifications to make a professional diagnosis in Mrs. Schiavo's case.
It says volumes. You choose not to see.
I understand.
So then because the only issue at stake is her intent, the part of this case that revolves around her current medical state is irrelevent, yes?
It's so obvious this guy was hand-picked "invited by the state" to present his opinion. The folks who chose him took his history more into account than you choose to do.
So, again, where does it say he's not qualified or that he's compromising his professional integrity for partisan politics?
I agree, it's implied...but, again, that's the NYTimes.
Answer my question please.
Nope. I believe it's relevant as well.
Keep your tube in, I have to pee sometimes.
You don't have the slightest inkling he might be biased and therefore subject to being used by politicians?So, again, where does it say he's not qualified or that he's compromising his professional integrity for partisan politics?
I suppose it's possible but, it's not like they had John Edwards come in and channel her or anything. I think his professional opinion bears review; particularly one in affidavit form.
At least your funny.
If the central issue is her intent, and that intent has nothing to do with her current medical condition, how would her current condition be relevent?
I feel precisely the same about his potential biases and the motives of those who "invited" him to be a part of this show.I think his professional opinion bears review.
Because it hasn't been definitively established as a "persistent vegetative state."
At least your funny.
If the central issue is her intent, and that intent has nothing to do with her current medical condition, how would her current condition be relevent?
But, if you're intentionally leading this conversation somewhere, I'd suggest you get to the point because you're not the only person I'm talking to and I've already forgotten what you led into this interrogation with.
I believe this case has two elements:
1) What is Terri Schiavo's true medical condition.
2) What are Terri Schiavo's wishes with respect to her true medical condition.
Therefore, even if it were established (flimsily, I add) that she wanted to be allowed to die if she ever were in a "persistent vegetative state," that condition hasn't been definitively established.
So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are sympathetic to his position?
It's absolutely possible. Did the government invite him to give his opinion?So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are sympathetic to his position?
Well, he's not a doctor...but, yeah, his opinion is on the record as are the opinions of the doctors he's employed. And, right now, it's his opinion that is prevailing.
Doesn't seem that he needs an "invitation" from anyone.
The fact that physcians are having so much trouble coming to a consensus on whether or not she has a state of minimal conciousness or whether hse is in a PVS is the tell tale sign that there is not a world of difference between the 2 as you would love for everyone to believe.
However, beyond that, the only medical observation of note is whether Terri is on life support. And that is undebateable fact. She is.
Which brings us to the point in the case which actually matters. Would Terri Schiavo want to be kept alive - and for your arguements sake i'll include both condidtions - in either a minimaly concious state or a PVS. Well, the courts have ruled consistently on that.
You maintaint that you don't believe the husband, yet you fail to acknowledge that he wasn't the only one testifying along those lines.
Also, in order for your case to hold water, there has to be a practical conspiracy going on, or in the very least a monumental level of oversight. Now, I'll be the first to point out that our judicial system is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from perfect and makes many mistakes. However, if all death peantly cases - you and your side are very fond of making the comparisons - got this type of media coverage and general awareness there would be a much smaller chance of error.
So in the end, what it all boils down to is that you dont' believe the husband.
Thats fine, but recognize that you are passing judgement on a man you don't know based on cir stancial and second hand hearsay while casting doubt upon a judgement based on first hand accounts and first hand perceptions.
Ironic, don'tcha think?
A subpoena is not an invitation.
So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are best suited to his wife's condition?So, it's not possible that Michael Schiavo might have some motive to select doctors that are sympathetic to his position?
We keep hearing she can feel no pain....then why give her morphine.....isn't this also a form of therapy?
I believe at some point without morphine her muscles will start to cramp violently due to the electrolyte imbalance... (isn't that how she got into this condition in the first place?)
Anyway, if that cramping isn't controlled, as an example, her jaw would contract so tightly her teeth would break. She might even break her own bones. Even if she's not feeling the pain because she checked out years ago, that would just add to the family's emotional trauma to witness that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
