we don't know for a fact that she had an eating disorder; at least I
don't. But assuming that she did, it's a very interesting question and
a troubling one considering that the appeals court thinks she doesn't
need her own lawyer given that there has been all this litigation. I
submit that one or the other of the parties in this dispute, and
possibly both of them, are representing themselves and not Terri.

Dana


On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:14:11 -0500, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1)   As I understand the case, the main point of contention from the parents
> is that there is a chance that Terri does have some intelligence and could
> get better if she was given some therapy.  So this leads me to the question:
> 
> If the parents were somehow convinced there is absolutely no possible way
> for Terri to have any intelligence at all, now or in the future, would they
> still want Terri to live in that condition?
> 
> 2) My wife had a thought that about the eating disorder that Terri
> supposedly had which (probably) caused the present condition.  My wife made
> the comment that an eating disorder is a control issue (care to weigh in,
> Larry?), and now the woman has no control at all.  So my two theories are:
> 
>        a. Terri developed the eating disorder before she was married due to
> the control that her parents placed on her, and now that same control is
> being exerted to keep her alive, or
> 
>        b. Terri developed the disorder while married and now that same
> control is being exerted to force her to die.
> 
> What do you think? Are these crazy, conspirational thoughts?
> 
> - Matt Small
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 6:53 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Schiavo
> 
> negative. But it's not my criterion, it's yours. Except that you don't
> mind citing a lawyer's medical opinion when it "fits you view of the
> case," again your term not mine.
> 
> The people who wrote those journal articles are at least physicians,
> no?  Definitely highly trained?
> 
> Personally I think that you can approach this case on a number of
> levels -- legal, medical, ethical, emotional, and maybe some more that
> don't come to mind right now. A lot of the headbutting going on, imho,
> is a result of people not defining their frame of reference. Gruss for
> example is stuck on law. You *were* doing science; right now I am not
> sure. Sam I think is talking ethics.
> 
> Dana
> 
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:30:01 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Dana wrote:
> > > but is he a trained neurologist, Larry?
> > >
> >
> > Are you?
> >
> >
> 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support 
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151435
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to