Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
The judge had "clear and convincing" evidence as to her wishes. You have a problem with our legal system? You'd be happier with a poll?

A poll of twelve impartial people, as is used in other cases when the state orders someone's death? Sounds like how the legal system is supposed to work, actually.

Given that the law at the time of Terri's statements didn't allow removal of food and water under any circumstances where they would provide necessary and sufficient sustenance, one would have to attribute remarkable clairvoyance to Terri to believe she'd expressed a desire to be dehydrated in the event that it should become legal.

It would be much more likely that if Terri did make the alleged statements, she was referring to what would have been considered "life support" at the time she made them, e.g. heart-lung machines, ventilators, etc.

Of course, there's also a very real possibility that Michael and his relatives (they were not Terri's relatives except via her marriage to Michael) just made the whole thing up. Too bad a jury didn't get to see them.

133 posted on 12/08/2005 8:10:16 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
"Sounds like how the legal system is supposed to work, actually."

Seems to me the good citizens of Florida prefer the decision to be made by a judge. Feel free, however, to tell them they're wrong -- that IS what you do, isn't it?

"one would have to attribute remarkable clairvoyance to Terri to believe she'd expressed a desire to be dehydrated in the event that it should become legal."

One would, wouldn't one? Of course, no one is claiming that.

According to testimony, Terri simply said that she wouldn't want "to live like that". My Living Will essentially says the same thing, and does not spell out how I wish to die. Does yours?

"It would be much more likely that if Terri did make the alleged statements, she was referring to what would have been considered "life support" at the time she made them, e.g. heart-lung machines, ventilators, etc."

No, not likely. Never read the testimony, huh? Here, I'll save you the time.

"The court does find that Terri Schiavo did make statements which are creditable and reliable with regard to her intention given the situation at hand. Initially, there is no question that Terri Schiavo does not pose a burden financially to anyone and this would appear to be a safe assumption for the foreseeable future. However, the court notes that the term "burden" is not restricted solely to dollars and cents since one can also be a burden to others emotionally and physically."

"Statements which Terri Schiavo made which do support the relief sought by her surrogate (Petitioner/Guardian) include statements to him prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that. Additionally, statements made to Michael Schiavo which were prompted by something on television regarding people on life support that she would not want [a] life like that also reflect her intention in this particular situation."

" Also the statements she made in the presence of Scott Schiavo at the funeral luncheon for his grandmother that "if I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine" and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent."

"The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo's oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she would want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court."

"Of course, there's also a very real possibility that Michael and his relatives (they were not Terri's relatives except via her marriage to Michael) just made the whole thing up."

Of course. Now, there's no evidence whatsoever of this conspiracy, but it's possible the three of them would perjure themselves in a court of law due to the millions of dollars at stake.

Wait a minute. There wasn't millions of dollars at stake. Michael already had his $300K and the remaining $700K was earmarked for a trust fund in Terri's name.

I'm confused. Why would these people lie for Michael? Because he was a lovable guy with a wonderful personality?

146 posted on 12/09/2005 6:25:43 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson