Governor to close Schiavo inquiry [State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.]

St Petersburg Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | DAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCHDAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCH

[annalex]

You now agree you did lie

Please. The lie is the newspaper's. All Summer did was shorten it so it fit. He did not add or subtract from the subtitle.

I take back my 73, by the way, it seems to cast blame on Summer, which was not my intention.

[TAdams8591]

The Schindlers are NEVER going to get Justice For Terri in the State of Florida. Too many Florida authorities made too many mistakes in her case and they don't want to be exposed.

I was hoping Fuhrman's book might help in that regard. It looks as though it won't, at least NOT at the state level.

I don't know what it is about Terri' case. It's as though we have gone back in time and are not permitted to change the future. No matter what anyone attempts it ends up the same way.

Regardless. There are some issues that are too important to let go. This is one of them.

[TAdams8591]

It is very much like the story of King Solomon, the baby and the two mothers. Too bad Judge Greer and all the Judges who touched this case lacked King Solomon's wisdom.

You are correct. Some people did view it through parental goggles. Attorney David Boise (Sp?) saw it that way.

[Gondring]

"Right to Care" is an odd one, as it presumes the right of one person over another. How can I have a **right** to "care for" (i.e., keep alive) a person who doesn't want it. That's saying that my right to care for someone overrides their own self-determination... and is so unAmerican!

[Gondring]

Well, summer, I can't speak for RS, but I was in the WPPFF...you don't know me. ;-)

[Xenalyte]

I called it bastardy and illegitimacy, and was roundly flamed therefor.

[k2blader]

No flames whatsoever from this corner--just appreciation.

[Mad Mammoth]

We'll put you down for the "Kill Terri With A Smile" Crowd.

[Mad Mammoth]

That's why my post #1 concerned changing the law. No man is above the law. But sometimes, perhaps, we need a new law.

We got a new law, one at the federal level, a new law that the judicial tyrants in this country thumbed their damn noses at. By your logic, we should all have "obeyed the law" and been good liddle colonists in 1776, and bowed the knee to the Crown.

HEY, we could be just like Canada!

IOW, "BZZZZZT", wrong answer.

Does it not seem a bit odd to you that people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are hailed today because they did NOT blindly follow the "law" when that law was unjust? They did not meekly "know their place" and sit quietly until the unjust law was done away with, and fair laws were enacted, but Jeb Bush bows the knee to his judicial master in Pinellas County, and everyone wants to hail him as some kind of hero?

Oh yes, the "Law" trumps all, regardless of the end result. Ask those law abiding Germans about their experience with that from 1932 to 1945...

[T'wit]

Ladies and gentlemen: The Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

There was no investigation. They said so. They didn't learn anything new. They said so. There were no findings. Yet here we have all the liberals running around drawing grandiose conclusions from... from thin air. There were no findings to draw conclusions from.

Hilarious!

[T'wit]

>> [State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.]

The St. Petersburg Times had better send its writers to Remedial English and Remedial Logic.

Needless to say, the headline is untrue. What McCabe actually claims is that there is nothing to be learned after all these years. Therefore, no investigation could possibly find Michael Schiavo guilty or not guilty. You can't conclude something from nothing.

[Graymatter]

Well said, Mad Mammoth.

[ContraryMary]

In light of all this, we wish a new law could be created to enable the parents of an adult married child to file for divorce when that adult child spouse can not file for divorce.

You gotta be kidding! Don't get along with your in-laws? Don't get sick!

[ContraryMary]

What if a written legal directive of a spouse appoints parents as the legal guardian -- and not the spouse? That would have to be honored. So, the parents' right may or may NOT end, depending on the wishes of that adult child spouse.

True. However, there was no legal directive in the Schiavo case, was there?

[ContraryMary]

the Schindlers admitted that they would have disregarded Mrs. Schiavo's wishes even if they were known in writing.

I've never heard that before. Has anyone else heard that before now?

The Schindler's testified to that in the first trial, although in later years they conceded they probably would not have done so.

[Earthdweller]

"The Schindlers made those atatements, because that's what they believe. Lies, or "no comment" are not allowed."

They may very well have believed that or if they were under a huge amount of stress or not too bright they could have made statements that were not relevant to the question being asked but more about what they really or knew, which could have been that she would have wanted to live.

I don't believe in disregarding another's wishes. That said, there may be people who would disregard a person's wish to live as well. Which makes the acceptance of hearsay as evidence ridiculous.

We need to get back to the presumption of life and let those who want to die write it down. Have forms available at your local BMV just as the organ donor registration is.

[summer]

re your post #164 - "Right to Care" is an odd one, as it presumes the right of one person over another. How can I have a **right** to "care for" (i.e., keep alive) a person who doesn't want it. That's saying that my right to care for someone overrides their own self-determination... and is so unAmerican!

I think you're making several very "odd" assertions here.

First of, "a person who doesn't want it" does not apply in this case with Terri since there were no written directives from Terri. She may well have wanted it. How do you know what she wanted at this point in time? You don't and no one else knew either.

Second, your post implies the two parties I am talking about -- parent and child -- are utter strangers, and therefor the entire claim to a right of care is ""odd." But your omission of the actual relationship is what is odd. A parent-child relationship is recognized by the court, and has spawned activists to band together to fight for parental rights in many situations, including education.

Third, as for your "Un-American" claim, here is what Supreme Court Judge Sandra Day O'Connor had to say about parental righs:



The above is from a web site called parentsrights.org

So, you see, "parental rights" is already well-known legal concept. It is not "odd" nor "un-American" nor between strangers, as you imply.

And, yes, I know Terri was married, and the courts recognized her husband as her legal guardian throughout this matter.

However, again, with no written directive from Terri, and with Terri's own parents willing to care for her, it seems to other parents that Terri's parents had a fundamental legal right that was overlooked here. And, without a written directive from Terri, the parents' right to care for Terri was superior to a spouse's right to pull the plug.

[summer]

Re your post #173 - Don't get along with your in-laws? Don't get sick!

You are the first one to mention "in-laws" -- no else mentioned them on the thread.

The parents mentioned on this thread are Terri's parents -- and not any "in-law" of Terri.

[summer]

I don't believe in disregarding another's wishes.

Same here.

[summer]

Re your post #160 - Thank you for posting that cartoon. It really captured what I was trying to say throughout the thread! :)