Replies

Seems those who claim they want Terri left to die because the state should not force a “medical treatment” upon her, which amounts to nothing more than feeding her, have a problem understanding that the Pinellas County Commission in Florida specifically, and intentionally, approved adding fluoride to the public water supply as a medical treatment, allegedly beneficial for teeth, and thereby violated the people‘s “fundamental right to refuse unwanted medical treatment” which Felos, Terri’s lawyer, makes reference to in his brief, and does so relying upon the “privacy“ mentioned in Article 1, Section 23 of Florida‘s Constitution.

In the Feles brief, he declares, in caps:

“THE LEGISLATURE’S UNPRECEDENTED INVAISION OF TERRI SCHIAVO’S RIGHT TO CONTROL HER HEALTH CARE TREATMENT VIOLATES HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS..“

And then , under A. he states:

“Mrs. Schiavo Has A Fundamental Privacy Right to Refuse Unwanted Medical Treatment…”

See the Felos brief

I am just bringing this to your attention to show how a specific group, here in Florida, who repeatedly claimed they simply wanted to protect Terri’s right to refuse medical treatment, now say this same protection does not apply to those who wish to refuse having a poison added to their drinking water without their consent and approval.

Sincerely,

JWK

ACRS

Very good catch. This idea needs to be developed more thoroughly. What other medical treatments are being forced on us by the government?

Children are frequently stolen by CPS/DSS when parents reject medical intervention or vaccines.
People are forced to hook up to public water or public sewer systems.
Protein is added to flour and bread.
Iodine is added to salt.
Vitamins are added to cereals.
Cigarettes are severely restricted.

The Fluoride situation has already stood the test of the judicial system. Could this case law help Terri? Could Terri's case law help those who oppose government intrusion?