Posted on 09/21/2003 12:13:53 PM PDT by pc93
Terri's Call to Action Part 1 is over 5000 posts. If you don't want to get caught up to speed at Part 1:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971896/posts?q=1&&page=5167#5167
Simply visit Terri's official web site at:
http://www.terrisfight.org
There are contact numbers at her web site for her core media team, legislators, media and for press updates.
See flash movies of Terri interacting with her mother, responding to a physician and see for yourself that she's not in PVS "persistant vegetative state").
In addition to access a text file with a lot of information see:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/FedCourtDktCaseNo8_03-cv-1860-T-26TGW.txt
If you want to join Terri's fight, it's important for us to CONTACT BUREAUCRATS, THE MEDIA and also your friends and family. It's up to you how you choose to Help Terri.
Pinellas Pasco Judge Greer set October 15, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. for her feeding tube to be removed. There's something wrong with Florida's exit protocols and the way the courts handle new information re: criminality (misrepresentation, attempted murder, etc.) affecting a case. There was no living will, only the assertion of a very suspect, so-called husband, his brother, etc. that Terri would not want to live on life support. Terri is not on life support, she is not comatose or PVS and she is not living "artificially". She does get sustenance from a feeding tube but only because she has been denied rehabilitation by her so-called husband after he won a malpratice lawsuit three years after her collapse (cause unknown but probably due to strangulation or physical abuse, or both) which is why Terri needs an army of supporters to spread her story from coast to coast. Terri has retained rights that are being sidestepped because she is disabled and has been denied rehabilitation! The technologies of rehabilitation have greatly improved exponentially yet Judge Greer has not let Terri have a chance to learn to eat or to be able to learn to speak/communicate again. Also new information bearing on the case which shows criminality on husband's side has not been considered by the 2nd District Court of Appeals who handed down Mandate for termination of Terri's feeding based upon testimony of criminal husband and brother as above stated. Who is next?
Let's make a difference! Thank you for your efforts.
Sorry. But this ticks me off NO end! And no one has gone PUBLIC..it's just been on the internet.
I suppose that also applies, then, to all of the courts above who have also ruled to allow people to be killed?
If I post the court rulings on cases like this since 1988, will those courts also be composed of people who are not very intelligent or uncaring, in your opinion?
I think it is a bit more complex than your summary.
Beginning as far back as the 1960's, the right to kill movement made the moves to advance, in the court system, their agenda of euthanasia.
Terri's case is one more plum to add to their pudding if they win.
Do you remember the post on the other thread where a euthanasia case was brought to court by a doctor and two patients? And the patients and doctor had not even known each other prior to the court case? Because they were recruited by the right-to-kill movement in order to challenge the court system.
These are very deliberate and well-planned events, all purposely set up to advance legislation in their favor and bring euthanasia to this country.
"It was the latest attempt to sway public opinion in Missouri's most recent right-to-die case: On February 4, the state supplied videotape to St. Louis television stations which it said showed that Christine Busalacchi, severely brain-damaged almost four years ago, is no longer in a persistent vegetative state. Missouri is trying to keep the 20-year-old woman's father, Pete Busalacchi, from moving his daughter to another state."
"All four St. Louis television stations covering the hearing asked for and received copies of the tape. All four aired about 60 seconds of it, each linking the tape to testimony asserting that Busalacchi could respond to comments from hospital staff members and that she could move her legs."
Christine Busalacchi, who never tired of using the call button to call her nurses, spoke some simple words quite appropriately, and ate solid food quite well, was on the cover of Time magazine during the time her father was attempting to have her killed.
Christine was eventually killed by dehydration, as the courts paid no attention to Time magazine, the full-page ads in the newspaper her nurses took out begging for help to save her life, or the four televisions stations airing video of Christine, which purportedly (originally) also showed her waving to them as they left.
I believe Christine was killed, at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, in 1991. Over ten years ago. We are very, very late in entering this battle.
Actually I have to disagree with you. A survey of the internet legal sites shows that most attorneys posting on this find Greer and associates to be quite grounded in their decisions.
A survey of the historical, landmark cases shows this to be the case as well, don't you agree?
They are not ruling in favor of the estranged husband as much as they are following the line of previous court decisions, (all posted above with explanations about how each led to the next step)and the rights set and decided upon - to privacy, to surrogate judgement, etc.
If you are going to nail Greer to a post you must go back and nail every court which has ruled that surrogate family members can make a choice on behalf of an incapacitated relative. Please correct me if I am wrong.
My opinion is always free. :-)
Who is the judge? What matters deeply to the judge?
Essentially, the Court held that a patient no longer able to communicate may now exercise this 'right' through a family member or duly authorized guardian. 1976 - Supreme Court of New Jersey
The ruling revolved upon on what he would have said if he could have spoken in his own behalf. The Court extended the decision by stating that persons who have never been able to make judgments for themselves have the 'right to die.' Later decisions in the Massachusetts court held that families and physicians could make such judgments without even going to court.1977 - Supreme Court of Massachusetts
The court found that Brother Fox's refusal of treatment (expressed while he was still conscious) was legally binding, and ordered the hospital to disconnect the respirator and let him die.1981 - New York Court of Appeals
the appeals court reversed the ruling on the grounds that withholding life support and food was a passive omission, not an aggressive action designed to murder.1983 - California Court of Appeals
The Court held that food and water is in the same category as artificial respirators and other medical treatment and may be withdrawn as "extraordinary measures."1985 - New Jersey Supreme Court
The Florida Court of Appeals decided that "a penumbral right to privacy" allowed the patient or a third party acting for her to refuse artificially administered food and water, even with a State law in place prohibiting such withdrawal.1986 - Florida Court of Appeals
The court found that Brophy, were he conscious, would want the feeding tube and life support systems disconnected. The court also found that Brophy could not be kept alive without his consent.
The ruling held that a patient need not be in a coma or near death to decline treatment. The 'right to privacy' may decide whether or not his or her 'quality of life' is sufficient to go on living.
This case vastly expanded the pool of patients whose food and water could be withdrawn, . In other words, third parties who could "best understand the patient's personal values and beliefs" could substitute their judgment for the patient's. The Court also ruled that, from this point onward, no Court hearing was necessary for health care facilities to gain permission to stop the feeding of a patient or patients.1987 - New Jersey Supreme Court
She and her family had expressed a wish that extraordinary measures not be implemented to extend her life. District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled that the state-run General Hospital must remove her feeding tube.
. The North Dakota Court ruled that even food placed in a person's mouth is "artificial and intrusive," and a family could order such feeding stopped without Court intervention, and without confirmation from the patient.
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.