You seemed to think the point about whether she was conscious was very important, or you wouldn't have resorted to extreme measures to refute it.
No, actually I've said just the opposite. I've said that she is not competent, but that really doesn't have to with her state of consciousnes. The question is, "Would Terri Schiavo want to be kept alive in this state, if she could make the decision?" If she were compentent, she could make the decision herself to remove the tube, but she isn't.
The only thing that said about the PVS is that what evidence has been permitted is symptomatic of a PVS and that her movements and vocalizations would occur in a PVS.
Sort of like how you pretended the spousal abuse allegation wasn't relevant to the case, then spent a great deal of time trying to refute it.
I refute it because it is a goundless attack and because it hits at the Schindler's motives. In 1990, when Mr. Schiavo was first appointed guardian, they had no objection (and technically the could have).
If they thought he was "abusing" his wife, why didn't the object at that time. They did object three years later, claiming abuse, which was found to be
groundless. Now, in those three years, from 1990 to 1993, what changed? Mrs. Schiavo was still getting therapy and would until 1994. Their was no DNR order at the time.
One thing that changed was that Mr. Schiavo, who received a settlement in the malpractice suits, declinded to give some of the money to the Schindlers.
This deals with the Schindler's motives in the early 1990's and their claims today. There is a
pattern of dishonesty with the Schindlers. The claims they made in 1993 is similar to the claims that they made in the last weeks.
You have defended their dishonesty as being an act of "desperation" now, but in 1993, when they made similar claims. There was no "desperation" in that time, no suggestion that the feeding tube removed, and no DNR order.
The question is, who throughout this 15 year process has been consistent answers. It is
not the Schindlers.
I answered the question of whether she was conscious because a poster asked the question. I felt it deserved an answer, and I gave an accurate one.
The question isn't what state of conscious, or lack thereof, Mrs. Schiavo is in; that a red herring. All sides agree that is not sufficient for her to make a decision at this point, that she in
incompetent to make this decision.
The question is, being in this state, did she, while competent, express any to have a feeding tube in her during this type of dimished capacity. The evidence is that she
did not wish this tube to be kept in, in this situation. After 15 years, there has been no evidence that she ever expressed an opinion stating that she would want it in.
This isn't a question one side claiming she said one thing and one side said something contradictory. It is a case where once says one thing and the other side makes
no claim that she ever said anything else.
