A woman who was in a vegetative state for years gave birth. Police want DNA from men who work at the facility

Police investigators have begun to gather DNA from men who work at an Arizona care facility where a woman in a vegetative state gave birth last month.

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said Wednesday the woman and child, who was in medical distress after being delivered December 29, remain in the hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html


Some sick bastards about...

Tommy Monk wrote:
Police investigators have begun to gather DNA from men who work at an Arizona care facility where a woman in a vegetative state gave birth last month.

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said Wednesday the woman and child, who was in medical distress after being delivered December 29, remain in the hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html


Some sick bastards about...

There is at least one sick bastard about, and some shitty caregivers. If you are truly taking care of a woman then you know when she is several months pregnant. Her periods would have stopped about the time her stomach began to swell. Sounds like her family hadn't seen her in awhile either.

Also, I would like to see the probable cause for the search warrant. Being in the area of a crime isn't enough.

Horrendous. It sounds like a huge cover up has gone on here.
Like Maddog said why was it not noted months ago she was pregnant?
The companies CEO resigned suddenly this week. Her family were not told she had had a baby till 5 days after he was born, and then only because the press had exposed the situation.

CEO leaves suddenly,? wonder why !

nicko wrote:CEO leaves suddenly,?     wonder why !

Because the owners ran him off. Anytime something happens in one of these homes, there has to be new management brought in, or everyone will pull their loved ones out of the place. They have probably lost numerous patients already.

Maddog wrote:Also, I would like to see the probable cause for the search warrant. Being in the area of a crime isn't enough.

Without knowledge of the circumstances, there is not yet even a crime.  Lots of babies are born each day and no charges are pressed.  Could be a conjugal visit from her husband, which awakened her momentarily, and she consented.

But assuming a sexual assault took place, it's not a crime merely to be in the area...as you put it so aptly.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Also, I would like to see the probable cause for the search warrant. Being in the area of a crime isn't enough.

Without knowledge of the circumstances, there is not yet even a crime.  Lots of babies are born each day and no charges are pressed.  Could be a conjugal visit from her husband, which awakened her momentarily, and she consented.

But assuming a sexual assault took place, it's not a crime merely to be in the area...as you put it so aptly.

She is single, and has been in a coma since she was in her early teens.

This is rape.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Without knowledge of the circumstances, there is not yet even a crime.  Lots of babies are born each day and no charges are pressed.  Could be a conjugal visit from her husband, which awakened her momentarily, and she consented.

But assuming a sexual assault took place, it's not a crime merely to be in the area...as you put it so aptly.

She is single, and has been in a coma since she was in her early teens.

This is rape.

I don't see where it says she is single; perhaps you will be good enough to point it out.

Nevertheless, there are so many holes in this case already.  Consent is still an issue...or it's not been legally eliminated.  And, as you said, there's no probable cause for a warrant.  Joe Arpaio is no longer sheriff of Maricopa County.

Why people will give permission for a DNA sample is beyond me.  You know it's going to end up in a police data bank somewhere.  Then you will always be under suspicion, because why else is your DNA on a police data bank?

Its rape plain and simple, if she cannot give consent being in a Coma


This is also not the first time this has happened

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/25/nyregion/woman-29-still-in-10-year-coma-is-pregnant-by-a-rapist.html

Thor wrote:Its rape plain and simple, if she cannot give consent being in a Coma

What evidence do they have she did not come out of the coma, momentarily?  Improbable?  I've seen many defenses that seem improbable.  If they want to build a case, one first must prove that a crime took place. They had better straighten out their act.

Didge wrote:This is also not the first time this has happened

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/25/nyregion/woman-29-still-in-10-year-coma-is-pregnant-by-a-rapist.html

I know.  It's part of the epidemic of abuse visited on the elderly and helpless everyday.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:Its rape plain and simple, if she cannot give consent being in a Coma

What evidence do they have she did not come out of the coma, momentarily?  Improbable?  I've seen many defenses that seem improbable.  If they want to build a case, one first must prove that a crime took place.  They had better straighten out their act.

Didge wrote:This is also not the first time this has happened

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/25/nyregion/woman-29-still-in-10-year-coma-is-pregnant-by-a-rapist.html

I know.  It's part of the epidemic of abuse visited on the elderly and helpless everyday.

What evidence do you have that she woke up and the first thing she did was ask a complete stranger to then have sex with her?

Do you not see how utterly absurd that is?

Its rape plain and simple

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What evidence do they have she did not come out of the coma, momentarily?  Improbable?  I've seen many defenses that seem improbable.  If they want to build a case, one first must prove that a crime took place.  They had better straighten out their act.



I know.  It's part of the epidemic of abuse visited on the elderly and helpless everyday.

What evidence do you have that she woke up and the first thing she did was ask a complete stranger to then have sex with her?

Do you not see how utterly absurd that is?

Its rape plain and simple

On top of that. Do you have any evidence she has ever woken from this coma?

Hence the view you are making is beyond absurd. Its ridiculous

I think the point quill is making is that many a criminal has got away with his/her crime on the basis of what ,by any right thinking person, is an absurd defence.........As he said the police dept better up their act...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

She is single, and has been in a coma since she was in her early teens.

This is rape.

I don't see where it says she is single; perhaps you will be good enough to point it out.

Nevertheless, there are so many holes in this case already.  Consent is still an issue...or it's not been legally eliminated.  And, as you said, there's no probable cause for a warrant.  Joe Arpaio is no longer sheriff of Maricopa County.

Why people will give permission for a DNA sample is beyond me.  You know it's going to end up in a police data bank somewhere.  Then you will always be under suspicion, because why else is your DNA on a police data bank?

There are dozens of articles about this case. Read a few.

She is an Apache Indian who almost drowned as a teen and has been in a vegetative state ever since.

Of course she has been raped, and the poor girl , and others in that facility, could have been sexually abused for years for all anyone knows.

Why was her family not told she was pregnant untill days after the baby was born?

How come her family didn't notice she was pregnant?

Why did the so called carers cover this up till the press got hold of the story?

It stinks of a cover up.

Syl wrote:Of course she has been raped, and the poor girl , and others in that facility, could have been sexually abused for years for all anyone knows.

Why was her family not told she was pregnant untill days after the baby was born?

How come her family didn't notice she was pregnant?

Why did the so called carers cover this up till the press got hold of the story?

It stinks of a cover up.

I just read another story, that says she has been there since she was two. Apparently, custody was transferred from one parent to another about 12 years ago, which is when people thought she came there.

I don't know what to think anymore, but there is also a chance this was done by another patient, who is long gone, or by someone let in by the staff.

Her last doctors exam was in April. I'm not even sure this girl is what I would call "alive".

https://www.azfamily.com/news/investigations/hacienda_healthcare/court-records-reveal-more-about-life-of-phoenix-woman-in/article_4064ee58-1483-11e9-8690-13c8389bc60b.html

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Of course she has been raped, and the poor girl , and others in that facility, could have been sexually abused for years for all anyone knows.

Why was her family not told she was pregnant untill days after the baby was born?

How come her family didn't notice she was pregnant?

Why did the so called carers cover this up till the press got hold of the story?

It stinks of a cover up.

I just read another story, that says she has been there since she was two. Apparently, custody was transferred from one parent to another about 12 years ago, which is when people thought she came there.

I don't know what to think anymore, but there is also a chance this was done by another patient, who is long gone, or by someone let in by the staff.

Her last doctors exam was in April. I'm not even sure this girl is what I would call "alive".
 

Her body was alive enough to nourish a baby full term, though I read he is very poorly.
The origional report said she was in a coma then amended it to a vegatative state.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I just read another story, that says she has been there since she was two. Apparently, custody was transferred from one parent to another about 12 years ago, which is when people thought she came there.

I don't know what to think anymore, but there is also a chance this was done by another patient, who is long gone, or by someone let in by the staff.

Her last doctors exam was in April. I'm not even sure this girl is what I would call "alive".
 

Her body was alive enough to nourish a baby full term, though I read he is very poorly.
The origional report said she was in a coma then amended it to a vegatative state.

True, but 27 years being fed by tubes?

Maybe not all 27, but a lot of them.

Thank God I'm not in charge of making these kinds of decisions.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Her body was alive enough to nourish a baby full term, though I read he is very poorly.
The origional report said she was in a coma then amended it to a vegatative state.

True, but 27 years being fed by tubes?

Maybe not all 27, but a lot of them.

Thank God I'm not in charge of making these kinds of decisions.  

From what I have read, it's unusual to last longer than a few years in a vegatative state, but the longer they are in it the less chance of recovery. This poor girl has had no life at all  if she was a child when it happened.
Even if some miracle happened and she woke up she would be badly mentally impaired.


How anyone could rape her is beyond human comprehension.

Didge wrote:What evidence do you have that she woke up and the first thing she did was ask a complete stranger to then have sex with her?

I'm asking a different kind of question: did a crime occur?

Law goes by "elements" that must be proved at trial.  There must be at least one direct, material fact to plug into for each element.  The definition of rape is:

rape
/rāp/
noun

1.  the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:

So the elements of rape, or sexual assault are: (1) forcible; (2) sexual intercourse of another, (3) against his or her will.  The third element is the problem.

Without the woman's testimony as to her lack of consent, there is no direct evidence of rape.  The perp will say she woke up and consented, and who's to contradict him?
That's why in all rape trials they ask the question: Did you resist or say no?  That's the problem with these cases where there is no witness.  Can't show lack of consent.  At least with a conscious victim, it becomes he said/she said, and there's at least some evidence of non-consent.  Here, the victim wasn't even conscious and cannot even speak.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What evidence do you have that she woke up and the first thing she did was ask a complete stranger to then have sex with her?

I'm asking a different kind of question: did a crime occur?

Law goes by "elements" that must be proved at trial.  There must be at least one direct, material fact to plug into for each element.  The definition of rape is:

rape
/rāp/
noun

1.  the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:

So the elements of rape, or sexual assault are: (1) forcible; (2) sexual intercourse of another, (3) against his or her will.  The third element is the problem.

Without the woman's testimony as to her lack of consent, there is no direct evidence of rape.  That's why in all rape trials they ask the question: Did you resist or say no?  That's the problem with these cases where there is no witness.  Can't show lack of consent.  At least with a conscious victim, it becomes he said/she said, and there's at least some evidence of non-consent.  Here, the victim wasn't even conscious and cannot even speak.

Of course there is evidence

She is in a state of being unable to do anything and she got pregnant

Do you think she is the next Virgin mary?

So there is plenty of evidence of rape, without consent, which again you avoid. As how can someone consent, when they do not have the ability to do so?

So you dont need a witness, you just need to find out who took advantage of her situation. As she would never be able to consent to sex

Why else do you think the police are investigating?

Didge wrote:So there is plenty of evidence of rape, without consent, which again you avoid. As how can someone consent, when they do not have the ability to do so?

I already answered this: the perp will say she miraculously woke up and consented. What is there to contradict him?

Again people have been convicted Quill, so you are just talking gibberish again

https://eu.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2019/01/11/comatose-woman-gave-birth-rochester-23-years-before-phoenix-case/2540086002/

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So there is plenty of evidence of rape, without consent, which again you avoid. As how can someone consent, when they do not have the ability to do so?

I already answered this: the perp will say she miraculously woke up and consented.  What is there to contradict him?

How can he prove that?

He would require medical expertise to claim she was possible of waking for a short space, then to claim she wanted sex, which is about as believable as your ridiculous argument.

So show me the medical expertis to back your claim

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What evidence do you have that she woke up and the first thing she did was ask a complete stranger to then have sex with her?

I'm asking a different kind of question: did a crime occur?

Law goes by "elements" that must be proved at trial.  There must be at least one direct, material fact to plug into for each element.  The definition of rape is:

rape
/rāp/
noun

1.  the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:

So the elements of rape, or sexual assault are: (1) forcible; (2) sexual intercourse of another, (3) against his or her will.  The third element is the problem.

Without the woman's testimony as to her lack of consent, there is no direct evidence of rape.  The perp will say she woke up and consented, and who's to contradict him?
That's why in all rape trials they ask the question: Did you resist or say no?  That's the problem with these cases where there is no witness.  Can't show lack of consent.  At least with a conscious victim, it becomes he said/she said, and there's at least some evidence of non-consent.  Here, the victim wasn't even conscious and cannot even speak.

Even awake, she would not be considered in a position to consent.

This is as cut and dry as it can get. You are being obtuse. No jury is ever going to believe that woman that has been unconscious for decades, woke up at precisely the time some dude wanted to have sex with her, consented, and slipped back into a vegetative state.

Didge wrote:So you dont need a witness, you just need to find out who took advantage of her situation. As she would never be able to consent to sex

Why else do you think the police are investigating?

Haha...you live in the criminal justice system of Saudi Arabia.  You don't need a witness?    

The guy, when they catch him, will be the only witness...and he will tell his own story.  You can't convict without any evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you dont need a witness, you just need to find out who took advantage of her situation. As she would never be able to consent to sex

Why else do you think the police are investigating?

Haha...you live in the criminal justice system of Saudi Arabia.  You don't need a witness?    

The guy, when they catch him, will be the only witness...and he will tell his own story.  You can't convict without any evidence.

So what if he is the only witness, he has to prove medically it was possible for her to have woken for such a short space of time

That requires medical experts

Hence you avoided this because you are simple looking a complete dick as per usual

Then tell what jury in the world would believe him?

The answer

Zero

Maddog wrote:Even awake, she would not be considered in a position to consent.

I don't know. Where you there? Did you, or anyone examine her? How do you know "she would never be in a position to consent"?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Even awake, she would not be considered in a position to consent.

I don't know.  Where you there?  Did you, or anyone examine her?  How do you know "she would never be in a position to consent"?

Actually as maddog is stating, you have not a clue regarding medical conditions again

Maddog wrote:This is as cut and dry as it can get. You are being obtuse. No jury is ever going to believe that woman that has been unconscious for decades, woke up at precisely the time some dude wanted to have sex with her, consented, and slipped back into a vegetative state.

I doubt if it will get to a jury, Maddog.  Without a necessary element (3. lack of consent) the case might be dismissed on a nonsuit (in the judge's opinion, there is no evidence which could prove the plaintiff's case.)  

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nonsuit

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know.  Where you there?  Did you, or anyone examine her?  How do you know "she would never be in a position to consent"?

Actually as maddog is stating, you have not a clue regarding medical conditions again

Yes I do.

The woman has been a patient of the care facility since she was 3 years old, court records show.

The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.

She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2019/01/11/what-we-still-need-know-phoenix-hacienda-de-los-angeles-incapacitated-patient-gives-birth/2530871002/

She would never be able to legally give verbal consent. Maybe she learned sign language at the age of 3 (she couldn't talk with a breathing tube down her throat). Let's just say she learned sign language at 3, and remembered it at 29, after decades of being unresponsive. Do you think the first and only thing she would sign, is that she wanted sex with a man that was standing in her room?


Sometimes, it's just better to admit you were wrong and move on. Are you man enough to admit that, or are you going to continue with your fairy tale?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

Actually as maddog is stating, you have not a clue regarding medical conditions again

Yes I do.

The woman has been a patient of the care facility since she was 3 years old, court records show.

The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.

She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2019/01/11/what-we-still-need-know-phoenix-hacienda-de-los-angeles-incapacitated-patient-gives-birth/2530871002/

She would never be able to legally give verbal consent. Maybe she learned sign language at the age of 3 (she couldn't talk with a breathing tube down her throat). Let's just say she learned sign language at 3, and remembered it at 29, after decades of being unresponsive. Do you think the first and only thing she would sign, is that she wanted sex with a man that was standing in her room?


Sometimes, it's just better to admit you were wrong and move on. Are you man enough to admit that, or are you going to continue with your fairy tale?

Oops. Wrong person.

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know.  Where you there?  Did you, or anyone examine her?  How do you know "she would never be in a position to consent"?

Actually as maddog is stating, you have not a clue regarding medical conditions again

You reverse the burden of proof. The prosecution must prove the elements, not the defendant. They have no factual basis for proving that she was incapable of consent, the third element.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:This is as cut and dry as it can get. You are being obtuse. No jury is ever going to believe that woman that has been unconscious for decades, woke up at precisely the time some dude wanted to have sex with her, consented, and slipped back into a vegetative state.

I doubt if it will get to a jury, Maddog.  Without a necessary element (3. lack of consent) the case might be dismissed on a nonsuit (in the judge's opinion, there is no evidence which could prove the plaintiff's case.)  

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nonsuit

Its an open and shut case, if the persons DNA is found, they would be found guilty

Espcially, when a person has been yers in a Vegitive state, clearly with brain damage. Even in the remote chance she woke, she would still be a ina minimally concious state. Thus any judge and jury would rule, she could no clearly consent in such a mental state

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Actually as maddog is stating, you have not a clue regarding medical conditions again

You reverse the burden of proof.  The prosecution must prove the elements, not the defendant.  They have no factual basis for proving that she was incapable of consent, the third element.

Can children give consent?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Actually as maddog is stating, you have not a clue regarding medical conditions again

You reverse the burden of proof.  The prosecution must prove the elements, not the defendant.  They have no factual basis for proving that she was incapable of consent, the third element.

Its very easy to prove based on the fact she has been in this state for years clearly with brain damage and how long it takes for people to recover even when they wake in the extreme remote chance when they have been so long in this state. Like i said, DNA would proven someone had sex with her and that she would not be in a position to consent to sex, even if she did wake. As there is a long slow process of recovery. On top of that you would have to prove why then she feell back shortly after the sex back in to the vegatative state.

So yes it is easy to prove by medical experts she would have never been able to consent.

It just proves again you have not got a clue about medical states and conditions

Maddog wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes I do.

The woman has been a patient of the care facility since she was 3 years old, court records show.

The 112-pound woman is described in court documents as "incapacitated" and "unable to make any decisions or give consent due to her disability." Police said she cannot communicate or move.

She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2019/01/11/what-we-still-need-know-phoenix-hacienda-de-los-angeles-incapacitated-patient-gives-birth/2530871002/

She would never be able to legally give verbal consent. Maybe she learned sign language at the age of 3 (she couldn't talk with a breathing tube down her throat). Let's just say she learned sign language at 3, and remembered it at 29, after decades of being unresponsive. Do you think the first and only thing she would sign, is that she wanted sex with a man that was standing in her room?


Sometimes, it's just better to admit you were wrong and move on. Are you man enough to admit that, or are you going to continue with your fairy tale?

Oops. Wrong person.

That's all right. I'll take up the response.

Maddog wrote:She was described in the most recent medical report filed with the court as having a brain injury, seizures, recurrent pneumonia and both feeding and breathing tubes. The report, filed in May, covered a one-year period from April 2017 to April 2018, documents show.[/i]

What you are doing is to construct an indirect evidence case based upon expert testimony. You are up against a standard of, behond a reasonable doubt. At best, such evidence will create a rebuttable presumption, meaning it can be rebutted by direct evidence of the defendant.

The problem is that the state must prove that she could never revive, no way, no wise, never, no how. As you saw in the Terri Schiavo case, Juries don't like to pull the plug on vegetables.

But, it's the only path for the prosecution. Good luck.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You reverse the burden of proof.  The prosecution must prove the elements, not the defendant.  They have no factual basis for proving that she was incapable of consent, the third element.

Can children give consent?

No. Children are legally without capacity to give consent.

So Quill thinks he can win a case based off no medical expertise and a bloke making a claim that she woke?

One moment



They dont need to prove tha she could not revive. They can prove the possibilities of your claim. Where again even if she did wake, the process is slow, and would not be in a position to give consent.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Can children give consent?

No.  Children are legally without capacity to give consent.

So is a person in a vegetative state unable to give consent

Its why there has been a conviction on this before

The glaring point you miss

Thor wrote:So Quill thinks he can win a case based off no medical expertise and a bloke making a claim that she woke?

One moment



They dont need to prove tha she could not revive. They can prove the possibilities of your claim. Where again even if she did wake, the process is slow, and would not be in a position to give consent.

Would not be in a position? Prove it.

As I told Maddog, these are the kinds of things you would have to prove in order to make out an indirect evidence case.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:So Quill thinks he can win a case based off no medical expertise and a bloke making a claim that she woke?

One moment



They dont need to prove tha she could not revive. They can prove the possibilities of your claim. Where again even if she did wake, the process is slow, and would not be in a position to give consent.

Prove it.

No problem


Traumatic brain injury refers to damage to the brain caused by external force such as a car crash or a fall. About 50% of persons who are in a vegetative state one month after traumatic brain injury eventually recover consciousness. They are likely to have a slow course of recovery and usually have some ongoing cognitive and physical impairments and disabilities. People in a vegetative state due to stroke, loss of oxygen to the brain (anoxia) or some types of severe medical illness may not recover as well as those with traumatic brain injury. Those few persons who remain in a prolonged vegetative state may survive for an extended period of time but they often experience medical complications such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, infections, etc. which may reduce life expectancy.

https://msktc.org/tbi/factsheets/vegetative-and-minimally-conscious-states-after-severe-tbi

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Prove it.

No problem


Traumatic brain injury refers to damage to the brain caused by external force such as a car crash or a fall. About 50% of persons who are in a vegetative state one month after traumatic brain injury eventually recover consciousness. They are likely to have a slow course of recovery and usually have some ongoing cognitive and physical impairments and disabilities. People in a vegetative state due to stroke, loss of oxygen to the brain (anoxia) or some types of severe medical illness may not recover as well as those with traumatic brain injury. Those few persons who remain in a prolonged vegetative state may survive for an extended period of time but they often experience medical complications such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, infections, etc. which may reduce life expectancy.

https://msktc.org/tbi/factsheets/vegetative-and-minimally-conscious-states-after-severe-tbi

Written by an uneducated blowhard, no doubt. You need to qualify your experts, didge. You didn't even lay foundation.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

No problem


Traumatic brain injury refers to damage to the brain caused by external force such as a car crash or a fall. About 50% of persons who are in a vegetative state one month after traumatic brain injury eventually recover consciousness. They are likely to have a slow course of recovery and usually have some ongoing cognitive and physical impairments and disabilities. People in a vegetative state due to stroke, loss of oxygen to the brain (anoxia) or some types of severe medical illness may not recover as well as those with traumatic brain injury. Those few persons who remain in a prolonged vegetative state may survive for an extended period of time but they often experience medical complications such as pneumonia, respiratory failure, infections, etc. which may reduce life expectancy.

https://msktc.org/tbi/factsheets/vegetative-and-minimally-conscious-states-after-severe-tbi

Written by an uneducated blowhard, no doubt.     You need to qualify your experts, didge.  You didn't even lay foundation.

ha ha ha, so again you expose how little you now on such conditions or the fact she nearly drowned, which would mean her brain was starved of oxygen. Meaning she is brain damaged. So its ridiculous your claim to say she recovered to then fall back into this state. If she did wake, the process would be extremely slow and due to her brain damage she would not be in a position to give consent

So stop boring me Quill with what you clearly do not know

To even try to deligitimize the medical site was utterly pathetic

Hence why you would need medical experts as I told you to argue your case

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Written by an uneducated blowhard, no doubt.     You need to qualify your experts, didge.  You didn't even lay foundation.

ha ha ha, so again you expose how little you now on such conditions or the fact she nearly drowned, which would mean her brain was starved of oxygen. Meaning she is brain damaged. So its ridiculous your claim to say she recovered to then fall back into this state. If she did wake, the process would be extremely slow and due to her brain damage she would not be in a position to give consent

So stop boring me Quill with what you clearly do not know

To even try to deligitimize the medical site was utterly pathetic

Hence why you would need medical experts as I told you to argue your case

You're cute when you've lost and finally realize it.

It's not a medical question; it's a legal question, as to the admittance of medical evidence. You failed.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

ha ha ha, so again you expose how little you now on such conditions or the fact she nearly drowned, which would mean her brain was starved of oxygen. Meaning she is brain damaged. So its ridiculous your claim to say she recovered to then fall back into this state. If she did wake, the process would be extremely slow and due to her brain damage she would not be in a position to give consent

So stop boring me Quill with what you clearly do not know

To even try to deligitimize the medical site was utterly pathetic

Hence why you would need medical experts as I told you to argue your case

You're cute when you've lost and finally realize it.

It's not a medical question; it's a legal question, as to the admittance of medical evidence.  You failed.

Did I?

So if its a legal question, then that requires medical understanding.

So the only person you failed was yourself

Any case with such a claim would require medical expertise, which as seen you severely lack

Anything else, or are you going to continue to bore me with your medical ignorance?

I suggest you stick to cases of not paying parking fines. As I think that is all you are capable of handling legally

You know Quill, sometimes you talk sense. You may even be correct with all the legal terminology etc. etc.

However, from reading all the above, the only thing you've achieved is to show exactly why Lawyers get such a bad rep.

Anyone who would help this sicko get off with this is is equally as guilty as the sicko himself.

Eilzel wrote:You know Quill, sometimes you talk sense. You may even be correct with all the legal terminology etc. etc.

However, from reading all the above, the only thing you've achieved is to show exactly why Lawyers get such a bad rep.

Anyone who would help this sicko get off with this is is equally as guilty as the sicko himself.

Well deserved green and my thoughts exactly

I doubt in any case, any lawyer would be able to argue the claim Quill is making based on medical expertise

It simple is groundless Eilzel

Now, am off to bed, all the best

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Can children give consent?

No.  Children are legally without capacity to give consent.

So was she.