By Carrie K. Hutchens
I was reading ABC News', "Pulling the Plug: Ethicists Debate Ramirez Case", by Dan Childs, ABC News Medical Unit (June 28, 2007) and found it interesting how the defense is still up. No case is ever like Terri Schiavo's. There is always an alleged difference, with similarities downplayed or outright denied. Might that be because people are starting to realize that an innocent woman was wrongly starved and dehydrated to death, like Jesse Ramirez almost was? (Full Article)
Featured Article
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Claim: Jesse Ramirez Case Unlike Terri Schiavo's
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hutchens continues the Schindler disinformation and misinformation campaign in yet another article.
If you want to argue the intrinsic value of ALL human life- regardless of ability or disability- it would better serve the Christian community to do so with honesty and integrity.
The pro life christian community will readily admit that Terri Schiavo was disabled- touching on an HONEST fact.
What the pro life christian community will not do is honestly and truthfully admit the reality and the facts- maybe in an effort to support the parents, maybe because some fear they cannot make an effective argument without smoke and mirrors or slightly loose standards pertaining to brutal honesty and cold hard fact.
It is possible to argue the intrinsic value of all human life without embracing dishonest people and dishonest arguments.
The GAL reports contain the least biased reports about Terri Schiavo and whether she was "concious" or minimally concious or capable of any purposeful interaction or was in reality PVS.
The GAL report to Gov Bush makes it crystal clear.
Terri Schiavo was NOT aware, made NO purposeful movements or vocalizations and did NOT react to her parents.
Is the intrinsic value of her life diminished in the least by these facts?
If she was beyond help and had no hope of recovery or even slight improvement over time- would those facts diminish the intrinsic value of her human life?
Apparently the ship has sailed and there is no turning back. The way pro life has approached and continues to approach arguing the Terri Schiavo case is set in stone now. The path was chosen and people like Hutchens apparently cannot be expected to "jump ship" or dare to be different.
Anonymous 8:59 - Terri Schiavo's life would still have value, regardless of any of the "facts" you've mentioned. However, you must not have seen the videos of Terri's responsiveness before they killed her.
I have seen those videos several times. In them, she smiles, laughs, tries to talk, follows a balloon as it's moved around repeatedly, expresses discomfort at a medical procedure, and obviously recognizes her mother.
The idea that any or all of these behaviors are unconscious reactions goes far beyond the boundary of the ludicrous.
While her brain was obviously impaired, given the compelling evidence of these videos, I cannot conclude anything other than this: the state allowed a husband with other priorities to get rid of a disabled wife who was an inconvenience to him. In other words, the government participated in the murder of a disabled woman.
Watch the videos for yourself: http://www.blogsforterri.com/video.php
The world has viewed the tiny moments of video that the Schindlers carefully selected and edited out from the many hours of available video.
Those of us who have lived and worked in the group homes and in the long term care facilities understand how family members assign meaning to random changes in facial expression and random vocalizations.
Being able to edit a few of these out from many hours of video tape proves nothing. Putting carefully selected labels on those tiny moments proves nothing.
The truth is not in the tiny moments that have been carefully selected and edited out from the many hours. The truth is not in the carefully worded labels that the Schindlers put on those tiny slivers of video.
The truth is in the many HOURS of video tape that the Schindlers have withheld and refuse to release and that they will NEVER release for you or I to see.
Watch this video and this video, then tell me she was a brain-dead vegetable, fit only to kill by
starvation. I've lived long enough to know some people can lie even in the face
of stark truth, but even if you try, you'll still know the truth. Terri was brain damaged, to be sure, but she was not a lifeless hunk of meat, as
she was treated like.
No matter what all that other video may show, none of it can change the truth of what these videos show.
Well before any litigation began, she was diagnosed by at least 5 separate neurologists as being in a PVS with no hope of recovery.
As I posted before, the only neurologist who said otherwise only examined her for a very brief period, and only for the purpose of trial.
That particular neurologist did not get involved until he found himself under investigation by the state medical board for financially exploitation of his own patient (later found guilty)
That particular neurologist also operates as an alternative practitioner (so no medical oversight), and charges thousands of dollars upfront for treatments with no known clinical value.
It should not surprise anyone that there are doctors out there willing to exploit a family's grief for their own personal gain.
I don't think we should be endorsing them, however, when there is no independent evidence to support their claims.
Ultimately, I don't care what any doctor says when my eyes plainly tell me differently.
It's true that there are doctors out there that will exploit people's grief...and there are also doctors with agendas.
Watch those videos in the links in the comments above. Are you going to believe somebody in a white coat who doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, and may have an agenda...or are you going to believe your own eyes and the visual and auditory evidence that Terri Schiavo had consciousness?
"Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Ron Cranford has Died
Ronald Cranford, the neurologist and bioethicist who made something of a career testifying on behalf of dehydrating the cognitively disabled, has died. He had kidney cancer, and I assume that this was the cause of his death.
I disagreed vehemently with Dr. Cranford. I saw him testify in the Robert Wendland case and his cool recounting of the process of dehydration chilled me to my bones, as did his ready admission that he had removed sustenance from people who were clearly conscious. I actually think that testimony was the primary reason the court refused to allow Wendland's tube sustenance to be stopped. And his examination of Terri Schiavo seemed conducted in such a hurried way that she would be unlikely to respond."
The above is quoted from Wesley J. Smith's blog site and the link is included below.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/05/ron-cranford-has-died.html
hey anonymous---put a name to your comments and stop hiding. Bet you wouldn't be so mouthy if you had to identify yourself.
Post a Comment