Posted on 10/28/2003 6:42:49 PM PST by Dog Gone
The scene in front of the Hospice House Woodside last week was something out of a Fellini film. On the orders of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, troopers rushed into the hospice and whisked away a helpless Terri Schiavo, taking her to a hospital where she again would be fed through a tube, against the wishes of her husband. The ambulance passed through wildly cheering crowds as the word spread that their side now had possession of the "body politic."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
GRRRRR.
But not against the wishes of Terri.
I wonder if Jonathan has seen a Fellni film....
Leftists only care about this when it doesn't fit their overall plan.
" Left in a "persistent vegetative state" after her heart stopped in 1990, Schiavo has become...
She is not now and never was in a PVS. So much for journalistic integrity.
Unfortunately, nobody really knows Terri's wishes.
I was quite surprised to find the article a rather balanced discussion of settling individual cases by Nielsen ratings rather than by courts. Regardless of what anybody thinks about this case, surely we can all agree that settling cases in this way is dangerous.
Maybe I don't fully understand the definition, but I think PVS describes her condition accurately, from what I've read.
I'm ambivalent in this situation.
We don't know what Terri would have wanted, despite what her husband has said. The factual determination of the trial court must control, at least for now.
Her husband claims to want her dead because he loves her. I sincerely doubt whether that is the motivation today. In fact, the evidence is completely to the contrary.
The basic legal principles terminate the parents' rights when the daughter gets married. That's how it should be. Nobody should be subjected to having mothers-in-law having equal legal rights as husbands.
I'm very interested in seeing how this is finally resolved.
7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern!
The original article is worth a read.
Nobody from the court bothered to ask. Mikey boy won't let anyone near her that could increase her capacity to communicate and fill her life with more joy than the essentially solitary confinment he's placed her in. Her parents team has a clue, they attempted to obtain her wishes, but they need better docs. With all the crap Mikey boy's been putting her through, I see that she is happy in those media clips. If she didn't want to continue, she never would have put up with the doc's testing. Notice that she did in the balloon clip for Dr. Peter Bambakidis. Bambakidis then ignored her and proceded to lie in court, saying that she was unresponsive and was in a PVS.
" I was quite surprised to find the article a rather balanced discussion of settling individual cases by Nielsen ratings rather than by courts. Regardless of what anybody thinks about this case, surely we can all agree that settling cases in this way is dangerous."
There's nothing dangerous about saving this woman's life. She is alive, aware, conscious, responsive and has been targeted for death by her husband. Each and every doc that claims she's in a PVS is full of it. It's not simple malpractice, it's a lie. Terri is the victim of a conspiracy to degrade her capacities in order to kill her. As far as I see, the Red Star Trib is just pushing for their own interests.
The court may not appoint a guardian that MAY have a conflict of interest. MS clearly MAY have a conflict of interest. Next in ine for guardianship in Florida law is adult children of which there are none. After that the parents.
The court also ignored Florida law because there is no clear and convincing evidence of Terri Schiavos desires.
What is one to do when courts ignore laws or make them up as they go along?
If her husband provided some pretty lame evidence, i.e., oral testimony of her statements, how can that be refuted? I don't think that any was offered.
There's a definition and analysis here.
"The basic legal principles terminate the parents' rights when the daughter gets married. That's how it should be. Nobody should be subjected to having mothers-in-law having equal legal rights as husbands."
That's true to a point. The govm'ts role is to protect rights. When the husband is violating his wife's rights, then the govm'ts place is to step in and protect her from the beast. Terri retains her rights, they are not her husband's and his will does not count here, only hers. The rights that were fully hers when she reached the age of 18 have been exercised by her husband, but the exercise doesn't appear to be anything Terri would choose. The court made their decision to terminate Terri after hearing the bogus claims of the docs and the husband. The parents didn't provide the court with effective opposition to the bogus med testimony and provide the court with proof of Terri's ability to communicate. Of course there's always the possibility the court would call Terri nuts and ignore whatever she says, like they did another lady down there when she "changed her mind" and asked for food and water directly.
"Indeed, based on these casual statements, Judge George Greer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Clearwater, Florida ruled that Michael had established "by clear and convincing evidence"--the highest evidentiary standard in civil law--that Terri would rather dehydrate to death over a period of 10-14 days than live on food and water supplied by a feeding tube."
From The Consequences of Casual Conversations by Wesley J. Smith, The Weekly Standard, Oct. 28, 2003
Clear and compelling evidence is the necessary legal standard for establishing someone's wish to die. You or I probably wouldn't think hearsay qualifies, but apparently Judge Greer does.
If her husband provided some pretty lame evidence, i.e., oral testimony of her statements, how can that be refuted? I don't think that any was offered.
If the judge declares something to be "clear and compelling evidence", even when it contradicts 99.44% of the available evidence, he cannot be refuted if he claims to have examined the 99.44% of evidence that contradicts his point of view and found it not as compelling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.