Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
Drinking too much Koolaid...
The Congress did not do what it did because people were phonong to say KILL HER NOW!
Greer has unlawfully refused to allow a motionship for guardianhip, filed in 2002, to be brought forward. It is logically impossible to rule on the merits of such a motion without at minimum hearing a deposition by the current guardian. Unfortunately, Greer has protected Michael Schiavo from ever being subjected to examination by someone who wants to fight Terri's execution. Greer's conduct cannot be rationally explained as anything other than prejudiced at best, if not overtly corrupt.
Yes, I think so.
This case is the end of a long process, which began around the time I entered medical school in 1972.
I have been posting on this case on & off, but I'm just pissing off a lot of good and distraught FReepers.
The short version is that this is the right battle but the wrong case.
Other than that, I'm going to keep my mouth shut until after the funeral.
I've had my fill of that cretin. And you too, by the way.
That's 100% correct - this "bioethicist" has not made a patient who he didn't believe would be better off dead. He makes a living preaching "right to die". That Greer intentionally brought this angel of death in to opine "medically" on Terri's condition was in essence sealing her fate.
Excellent work digging up who this poor excuse for a physician really is!!!!
Holy cow, I didn't say you did. Are there quotes around it? No, there aren't.
It's a summation of what I think your argument is. I'm asking if it's a correct interpretation of your position or not.
He committed adultery, therefor, he has forfeited his right legally, and morally to consider himself her husband.
If Michael Schiavo had merely committed an isolated act of adultery, that would not necessarily forfeit all his rights as hisband. But what Michael has in fact done goes far beyond that: he has openly stated his allegiance to a woman other than his wife. In so doing, he renounced the vows that are the basis of his marriage. By what right, then, can he still claim authority as "husband"?
You don't think jurors would find it odd that Michael never said anything about his wife's "wishes" until after he was engaged to another woman? And that his brother/sister-in-law never said anything about those wishes until Michael's testimony on the subject was challenged as self-serving and flimsy?
You don't think jurors would find it curious that Michael has spent so much of Terri's trust fund on efforts to have her killed, and so little on care or rehab?
Personally, I believe that if Terri's case were tried before a jury, it would be necessary to put up one of those glass walls that would normally protect a jury from the defendant, to protect Michael from the jurors who would otherwise rip him limb from limb.
Once you are in Terri Schiavo's state, most Americans are happy to see you die-no-they are anxious for you to die.
It's a long story as to how we've arrived at this pass in history, and this isn't the time to discuss it.
My opinion is that the old way was better, but the old way is dead and buried.
No, it is not.
The Congress passed what they could get the Dems to agree to.
That's true.
Kate Adamson might set them straight.
The "authorities", both God and the Government declared them married, and only they have the power to undo it. By what "authority" can you declare his marriage nullified based on your belief that it should be.
Find it for me in scripture or the law. That's all I'm asking.
Please elaborate then.
It would clearly be in Terri's interest to be divorced. Florida law allows guardians to file for divorce on behalf of an incompetant ward. That Michael refuses, as guardian, to take an act which would clearly be in her best interest implies (as do many other factors) that he is no longer eligible to serve as Terri's guardian and should be removed from that role. An honest judge would do that. Once an honest judge removed Michael as guardian, an honest guardian would file for divorce and, given Michael's actions, be granted one quite quickly.
So if the laws were followed, Terri would be divorced.
BUMP
Ok, freepers. Here is my question. Why doesn't Shiavo sign over his guardianship, et al, to her parents, and tell them, alright. If, if is against Terri's wishes to be kept alive, then it's on your heads if you do the opposite of what she wanted.
Methinks, Shiavo has a reason he dont want things to change in the legal dept. Like, he can order no autopsy.
Because a new guardian's required examination of Terri and her records would show massive criminality on the part of Schiavo, Felos, Greer, and perhaps others.
Doctors for Michael Schiavo have said that an MRI and PET are not necessary for Terri because PVS is primarily a “clinical” diagnosis, that is, one arrived at on the basis of examination of the patient, rather than by relying on tests. And the neurologists I have spoken to agree on the clinical nature of the diagnosis, while insisting that advanced tests nonetheless are a necessary part of it. But the star medical witness for Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota, has repeatedly dismissed calls for MRI testing, and his opinion has prevailed.
In the cases of Paul Brophy, Nancy Jobes, Nancy Cruzan, and Christine Busalucci, Cranford was the doctor behind the efforts to end their lives. Each of these people was brain-damaged but not dying; nonetheless, he advocated death for all, by dehydration and starvation. Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn.
So, did Dr. Cranford, or any of the doctors testifying for Michael Schiavo, spend months evaluating Terri? No. To be fair, none of the doctors appearing for the Schindlers spent months with Terri either. But it is hardly coincidental that the doctors who spent the most time with Terri came to the conclusion that she is not PVS. The doctors brought in by the Schindlers spent approximately 14 hours examining Terri over more than two weeks; their conclusion was that Terri is not PVS, and that she may benefit from therapy.
Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.
Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.
When Dr. Bell learned of the cursory nature of these exams, he said: “You can’t do this. To make a diagnosis of PVS based on one examination is fallacious.” In Cranford’s examination, described by one witness as “brutal,” he discounted evidence under his own eyes of Terri’s responsiveness. At one point, Dr. Cranford struck Terri very hard on the forehead between her eyes. Terri recoiled and moaned, seemingly in pain. In his court testimony, Cranford dismissed the reaction and moan as a “reflex.”
Thus the reasoning for the court rulings as they were. The testimony in that hearing was biased and selective, when it should have taken into account all of the evidence, especially the amount of time these "experts" actually spent with her.
Just because a judge says it's so, doesn't necessarily mean it is right. Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
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.