|
'his opinion was based on seeing her eyes reflexively follow the light"
Pens do not emit light, family member are not light sources.
"I'm not sure how you can even say it was a professional opinion?"
Because he is an MD. And i don't see any evidence of him "using" her for political gain. He's a politician who stood up for something he believed - as a person, a physician, and incidentally a politician. How has he gained politically form this? There was no concrete evidence of what Terri's wishes were other than Michael Shiavo. Any particular reason other than your politics you chose to take his word as gospel.
I don't know what medical devices could be used to determine ones eyesight or lack thereof on someone in Terri's condition while still alive, but something seems a bit odd that this info required an autopsy. "Well this is what we think, let's kill her and find out if were right." Point being, their shouldn't be any groundbreaking findings at autopsy, and those who advocated for her death - should have had all the proof they needed prior to removing her tube. This seems to me to be the issue. Both sides acted on a "leap of faith" in some respect. This is where "erring on the side of life" comes from. It's not a political talking point. The implications would have gone no further than this case. It seems to me its the lefts fear of this simple phrase, that motivates their position in this case. Remind me again whose politically motived here. Michael Shiavo and her physicians should not be in a position where they are breathing a sigh of relief at her autopsy findings. But
|