Gelisgesti wrote:Tico,
I argued only medical points and issues. I don't understand your point in asking for law degrees ..... that would be Debs place don't you think? I would be out of place to argue the legal aspects as I am ignorant of the law.
What's your point?
You asked Debra why a judge would interfere with normal intake of food and drink. You're suggesting that is a medical point or issue and not a legal issue?
After she answered your question, your reply was to dismiss her response as "
ridiculous" and "
tripe" and to essentially proclaim that your medical certification as a repiratory therapy technician makes you the by-all and end-all on the subject -- at a minimum that your opinion is entitled to greater deference than Debra's. You have now asked her on what experience is she basing her medical opinion. You can disclaim all you want that you did not intend to imply you were an expert on the subject, but that certainly appears to be the intent of you asking those questions.
In light of your questions -- and Lola's obvious pressing desire to see them answered -- I think it to be a very valid question to ask upon what experience are those in this thread basing their legal opinions, and what are their legal credentials? With all the lay people offering their legal opinions on this subject, have you seen Debra or I flaunt our law degrees, legal education and experience, or demand to know the legal training of those offering their opinions, with the obvious intent to denigrate them in the process? The answer is "no." Debra in particular has done a yeoman's job of trying to educate on the law in this area.
I'll make you a deal though: I'll accept what you have so say about the medical issues as gospel, if you do the same about what I have to say about the legal issues. Agreed?