As someone who's been around the block a few times and someone with a law degree, I can find no rational or legal basis for what's gone on here.
I feel that if one has clearly expressed a view in matters such as these, their wishes should be honored. But when those wishes are disputed, how can you not err on the side of caution?
The evidence is sparse at best and what evidence as exists to support pulling the tube consists exclusively of the disputed testimony of a questionable witness with suspect motivations.
The legal standard is "clear and convincing evidence" in a case like this. A Florida law professor wrote an article that was posted here yesterday. I didn't read it but she made the same point - that in no way, is the evidence 'clear and convincing'.
What this is is yet another case of judicial ego. A judge who ruled and now is motivated by a demand for obedience. If I'm not mistaken, and I stand to be corrected, I believe that Greer has already refused to hear the DCF motion. He has spoken and WILL be obeyed, No matter the cost.
Given that I cannot fathom how this matter got to this point, I am not that hopeful that the system can salvage this. Not here in Florida. Terri needs to be in another jusrisdiction.
// But when those wishes are disputed, how can you not err on the side of caution? // -- indeed.
I was going to make that suggestion.
The family needs to sneak her out of state and force the judge to order an extradition.
He wouldn't dare - no Federal judge would allow it to stand.
I am not certain of the appropriate terminology, but are the complaints cited based on administrative violations or criminal violations?
How do the courts work in FL? In SC we have circuits and the judges rotate the different counties in whatever state circuit they are assigned to. The judge that heard your motion might not hear your second motion or be your trial judge. This case sounds more like federal court where judges are assigned to specific cases. I don't understand why this lunatic can't recuse himself and let some fresh air into the case. Especially in a situation where his he has to rule on his own judgments. Judges rarely reverse themselves.
I heard that there's a hearing with the DCF scheduled for next week, Wednesday, I think.
Then I have a question. In 1990 when Terri collapsed, feeding tubes were a normal feeding process for patients who needed it. For the sake of arguement, lets say Terri made an offhand comment that she wouldn't want heroic efforts made. At that time, a feeding tube wasn't heroic.
In 1999, Florida passes Bill 2228 that lists feeding tubes as heroic efforts on par with ventilators. It was made retroactive to include Terri providing that she's really PVS.
My question is, wouldn't the law preclude Terri anyway since at the time of her collapse, no one classed feeding tubes as the same kind of extraordinary means as ventilators so neither would she?