Skip to comments.Schiavo Moves Closer to Death (Schindlers Attorney: She Has 'Passed the Point of No Return')
Posted on 03/27/2005 2:35:40 PM PST by gopwinsin04
click here to read article
Gee, you don't think the scumbag murderers would lie to us, do you?
It is a little comfort for those of us that know she can feel, but this will ease her suffering. I am glad the are giving her the morphine.
It is responsive - I can't say that they would have prevailed on the merits with a full de novo review.
But I know that their chances of prevailing on the merits would have been better if they pushed and got the de novo review, rather than treating their trip to Federal Court as an appeal of the State Court.
Yep. Murderers and cowardly enablers. I am sick to my stomach.
"I have unkind words.
We have been betrayed.
This is murder."
I agree completely.
Try asking the enablers, "If this isn't murder, then what is it?", and their tortured, stammering, excuse-laden responses will make you even sicker.
I wonder if the morphine is being administered to hasten her death, as she and Michael are under Congressional subpoena to appear before Congress tomorrow, Monday, March 28,2005. If she dies prior to this she cannot be brought to Washington. Michael would probably get a pass as he will be needed to fire up the oven for cremation.
The severe restraints that finally permitted communion to be served to the poor woman are evidence that someone has ordered that she not be allowed even to try to eat and drink naturally.
To deprive a person of a food tube is one thing; to deprive them of even the possibility of a natural death is murder.
Well .. you have your faith in the right place.
GOD is able to do exceeding, abundantly above anything we could ask or think, infinitely beyond our highest hopes and dreams.
Do I understand you to now concede that removal of the feeding tube is not 'murder' under the heated definitions of the 'physical life at all costs' crowd?
Terri is not a CPR practice dummy who can be kicked hither and yon for the satisfaction of someone else's (strange) views of the 'importance' of her most truncated 'life'. She did not want this. That is, to coin a phrase, clear and convincing. Now, she has endured 15 years(!) of forced feeding and diapers against her will, the last 8 of which are directly attributable to others using our justice system to prolong her life against her will. Enough is enough. She gets to go Home now. Find another poster child for the political 'cause' of endless physical life.
Only in the sense that sometimes the taking of a feeding tube is appropriate.
In this case, it is not appropriate because there's reason to discredit the impartiality of the spouse and there's reason to discredit the accuracy of the report that Terri Schiavo would have wanted such a thing.
A: if that were proven to be true this case would [not?] have made the radar. however it is hearsay against hearsay.
You make a typical layman's mistake about the reliability of 'hearsay.' It is often used under countless exceptions to the 'hearsay rule.' 'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (FRE 801(c)) Generally, hearsay is not admissible. However, there are a number of exceptions where hearsay is admissible. Here are a few exceptions: dying declarations, excited utterances, res gestae or present sense expression, admissions and declarations against interest, and state of mind and physical condition. There are many others. Then many jurisdictions (including the federal rules) use a 'catch-all' or residual exception for the unavailability of a witness. Thus, the testimony of several witnesses recounting Terri's many expressions of her desire not to be kept alive artificially could be described as 'hearsay'. However, even if such recounting of Terri's out-of-court statements were deemed to be offered for the 'truth of the matter asserted', they would fall within either (i)the present sense exception, (ii) the state of mind exception, or (iii) in any event the residual (unavailability of the witness) exception.
This case 'made the radar,' because some politicians sought to stir a portion of their base for crass and cynical reasons. Sadly, those politicians were, in this instance, of my party.
XZ: Only in the sense that sometimes the taking of a feeding tube is appropriate.
Either we are making progress or your new-found 'friends' will now turn and eat you alive.
Pray tell, when are those "sometimes [that]the taking [out] of a feeding tube is appropriate"? When the victim -- er, possessor of the tube has previously expressed his wishes not to be so maintained?
Or when the moon is full and the planets are aligned? When?
Calm yourself and take your meds.
Could be interpreted either way. No problem to me.
They need the morphine to make it 'euphoric'
Yes, the legal engineering of the ghoul death crowd was excellent.
However, it would take a grim jury indeed to sentence a suspected murderer to death with the same kind of "evidence".
They lied to you.
Schiavo, Felos, Greer, a score of judges, and the fans of her execution have triumphed for a season.
Did you post to the wrong person or did you forget the (/six-year-old) at the end of your post?
You see, that's why so many of us who are Christian and conservative and have living wills are fighting you so hard on this. We don't want you to try to overturn our wishes, as you have tried to overturn hers, and sentence us to nutritional slurry and diapers when we want to be released in death.
Much of the nonsense here has been supposedly aimed at the fact-finding process as to Terri's wishes. But you now admit, what I have long suspected, that you won't be satisfied until our nursing homes are filled to overflowing with breathing cadavers being pumped with slurry and having their diapers changed, notwithstanding their carefully worded living wills to the contrary, because their views don't match yours.
I'm not familiar with Randall Terry.
And I can't bear to watch TV with all the anti Terri sentiment and lies they tell.
But I would like to know what Randall Terry said, if you know.
Sorry for your loss.
That's what they said to me when my mother died.
She was 82. The last 2 years she had congestive heart failure and was homebound. I took care of her, but she was just hoping she would go, and die in her sleep.
At the end, when I had to bring her to the hospital, I signed a DNR at her request and the doctor's suggestion. She was there for 4 days.
Well, the DNR paperwork didn't get to the floor/nurse's station, so when she had a massive heart attack 4 days later, they resuscitated her, against her wishes.
It happened at 4AM, but the doctor didn't call me until 8AM. My brother, who is a doctor, but lives out of state, told me to go right to the hospital and have them remove the tube.
It took about 5 hours, because a pulmonary doctor had to be called in.
Anyway, I asked the doctor if my mother was going to be in pain or gasping for breath when they pulled the tube and he said "no, we'll give her morphine."
I don't suppose we can do that, but I am going to start calling it something else.
73 Why would any want to insinuate that Terri is the same as Jesus - just not so at all.
Not that she is Jesus, but that Jesus has been with her every moment and she is with him now...and it's a comforting and inspiring picture.
Great picture of Terri and Jesus.
Because Satan's most intense activity occurs at the most sacred times.
I have waited to reply because this needed to really sink in.
Thanks and accept my sympathies as well
I don't know anyone who always rejects the removal of a feeding tube. They object in this case because of the facts surrounding the case, particularly the discrepancy between the husband's report of the wife's desires before the lawsuit and his report of the wife's desires after the lawsuit.
The family says she would not voice a desire to be terminated in such a manner.
Prior to the lawsuit the husband presented her case as one in which he claimed damages just so he could continue her care. His argument, if effect, was that she wanted to continue living in that manner.
After the lawsuit, he suspiciously remembered that she wanted to die in such a situation, but in some unguarded moments he has slipped and indicated he doesn't know what she would have wanted.
For me, it's a simple thing. Give a full hearing that includes a review of all old and all new evidence. Give the girl a chance to recover.
Finally, don't pretend it's a natural death when you forcibly prevent natural feeding.
Yes, we've been lied to. I think most of us understood that. The underlying motive is what I can't quite fathom. Why does the left want so desperately for her to die? The only answer that presents itself plainly is that the blue staters want symbolic revenge for the election.
BTW, Terri's health isn't the only thing that has passed the point of no return. This public lynching is THE low point in 21st Century American morality.
Spend some time reading liberal rags or listening to the liberal spokesman who loves men, barney franks etcetera and it will become obvious to you. The liberals consider this a 'privacy' issue --ANYTHING is okay because it is private --murder, euthanasia, suicide, sodomy, abortion etcetera etcetera... How dare the government keep Terri alive when this is a delicate and private family matter within the sanctity of marriage blah blah /sarcasm off
For me, it's a simple thing. Give a full hearing that includes a review of all old and all new evidence.
So, tell me, under your theory of jurisprudence how many full 'do-overs' does the loser in a lawsuit get? One, two, ten, as many as he wants? When would anything be decided?
Just the review of the procedure for fairness and applicable law took 5 years and 5 appellate and reviewing courts. Imagine what a couple of factual retrials would have consumed.
Let's be honest. The opponents of Terri's right to die would keep insisting on more trials and more appeals until they finally got the result (further imprisonment of Terri in that awful body) that they wanted. Then, of course, they would be satisfied that 'justice' was done.
WC: Much of the nonsense here has been supposedly aimed at the fact-finding process as to Terri's wishes. But you now admit, what I have long suspected, that you won't be satisfied until our nursing homes are filled to overflowing with breathing cadavers being pumped with slurry and having their diapers changed, notwithstanding their carefully worded living wills to the contrary, because their views don't match yours.
A: where did i admit any of this you jerk? what i said is that MS's disreputable behavior made many people who normally would not have been interested in the case pay attention.
No, what you admitted was that 'many Terri supporters' wouldn't be satisfied even if Terri had expressed her wishes in writing. It isn't about the accuracy of the determination of her wishes; it's about the fact that 'many Terri supporters' don't agree with her wishes and don't want to let her get free of the slurry and the diapers no matter what she wants.
My analysis is that we're still awaiting the first hearing of all the new evidence. In a capital case, any new evidence should generate a full review.
You don't get a 2nd chance to get it right after you kill the party involved.
If you have to ask, it won't matter, what I say. Good luck.
You say I don't "get it" - when I ask you to tell me what I "don't get" - you CAN'T TELL ME .. ROTFLOL!!
Oh my goodness!!