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

Skip to comments.

SCHIAVO CASE: APPEAL COURT SAYS NO TO HER PARENTS
WSVN ^

Posted on 03/16/2005 10:06:33 AM PST by SoFloFreeper

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A state appeals court has refused to block the expected removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on Friday.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: schiavo; terrischiavo; terrisfight
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 751-762 next last
To: winstonchurchill

Scriptural?? Adultery? Illegitimate children?

Refusing medical treatment, denying visits to family and friends, disallowing trips outside and music and pictures?
Killing her cats? Stealing her wedding ring?

That is NOT scriptural. The husband is supposed to love his wife MORE than himself.


551 posted on 03/16/2005 5:55:01 PM PST by Politicalmom (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779
" Oh I see, you are concerned about us and Terri. Excuse my while I cough..."

Hey, look, take it any way you want, okay? I was just pointing out to some here that Gritz' involvement in ANYTHING means bad juju.

Some people might not know of his activities OR his folloowers' proclivities. My "motives" don't change the FACT that he's bad news.

But hey, go ahead...you guys seem to have it ALL sewn up.

552 posted on 03/16/2005 5:56:11 PM PST by Long Cut ("Looks like meat's back on the menu, Boys!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779

...and I *certainly* have NO COMMENT here either...


553 posted on 03/16/2005 5:56:32 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Roger that, retracting masts and scope, going emergency deep."

Settin' 10-10 and 4100 shaft, FIVE set in the tube, brakes off, numbers marked myself.

554 posted on 03/16/2005 5:58:13 PM PST by Long Cut ("Looks like meat's back on the menu, Boys!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Again, you miss the point.

Not really I don't think. It was legal to kill the Jews in Germany, too. You people just want to start with Terri, IMO. Must be the thrill I guess : )

555 posted on 03/16/2005 5:58:29 PM PST by bjs1779 (" It is unlikely that Terri currently needs the feeding tube." Examination by Dr. Hammesfahr 9/12/02)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: All; SoFloFreeper; Saundra Duffy

HEAR THAT FOLKS? So we better call and e-mail AND GET OUR FRIENDS TO CALL AND E-MAIL our congresspersons and ask them to vote for HR 1151 and call our senators and ask them to vote for S. 539.

If these bills are passed it will help Terri and ALL OF US to not have to die a painful death of starvation, unless we put it in writing. Which reminds me, it would be nuts to put in writing such a horrible death.

Floridians should do the same and also ask their politicians to support 701.


556 posted on 03/16/2005 6:03:51 PM PST by Sun (Visit www.theEmpireJournal.com * Pray for Terri. Pray to end abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Hey, look, take it any way you want, okay? I was just pointing out to some here that Gritz' involvement in ANYTHING means bad juju.

I believe Bo wants her alive. How do you want her?

557 posted on 03/16/2005 6:04:34 PM PST by bjs1779 (" It is unlikely that Terri currently needs the feeding tube." Examination by Dr. Hammesfahr 9/12/02)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

...would you have handed Elian over as well?


558 posted on 03/16/2005 6:07:54 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

If it works out just right, Terri could STARVE TO DEATH almost 5 years to the EASTER that ELIAN was DONE UP BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT...


559 posted on 03/16/2005 6:12:36 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: All

Just once I would like one of these assh*le Godless moron judges say, "Before I make any decision regarding an innocent person's life, I need to go and witness for myself her (Terri Schiavo) condition."

Once they see her in the flesh, there is no way the feeding tube would be pulled.


560 posted on 03/16/2005 6:16:43 PM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

One kook intermedling is going to change minds on this matter? Sure, whatever.


561 posted on 03/16/2005 6:17:19 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: moonman

...which is why the DEATH CULT doesn't want people watching videos of baby-butchery.

The truth murders...


562 posted on 03/16/2005 6:17:54 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
I know that courts have exhaustively looked directly at that issue and have (apparently) decided that the evidence is not strong enough to overturn the presumption that the husband will act in the best interests of his wife. I accept that.

The other aspect of this, the courts... No sardonic tone is intended here, but bave the courts ever done anything to shake our confidence in their adherence to the Constitution? Have their collective actions over the last few decades aroused any suspicions about an underlying agenda? To be blunt, have the American courts, taken as an aggregate, shown themselves trustworthy as weighed on the Constitutional scale?

These questions provide a substrate for much of the second-guessing of the court decisions in this particular case.

563 posted on 03/16/2005 6:23:59 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
I accept that.

You let her starve to death?

564 posted on 03/16/2005 6:27:01 PM PST by carenot (Proud member of The Flying Skillet Brigade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Long before Mrs. Schiavo suffered her heart attack in February 1990, the Supreme Court of Florida had already determined that the express right of privacy in article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution gave both competent and incompetent persons the right to forego life-prolonging procedures

Terri Schiavo never had a heart attack. He K levels were normal. Her coronary arteries likewise. And the state has no power to order food and water removed from any patient absent their informed consent. Period.

565 posted on 03/16/2005 6:27:03 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Thank you for your post on the asserted Biblical basis of applying "You shall not murder" (Ex 20:13) to suicide.

Remember your original statement: he prohib against murder includes self. That can be established from Scripture as well.

You cite three Biblical proofs: (i) 1 John 5:16; (ii) Ex 20:13; and (iii) a purported exemplary summary of persons mentioned in Scripture who committed suicide to show that "You will not find a single believer who did this."

First, Ex 20:13 cannot further explain Ex 20:13. So your second citation adds no weight to your argument.

Second, 1 John 5:16 has nothing whatever to do with physical death. John is in the midst of a discussion of the assurance which believers have of eternal life. Let's look at the passage (with your quote italicized).

I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence that we have before him: that whenever we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask, then we know that we have the requests that we have asked from him. If anyone sees his fellow Christian committing a sin not resulting in death, he should ask, and God will grant life to the person who commits a sin not resulting in death. There is a sin resulting in death. I do not say that he should ask about that. All unrighteousness is sin, but there is sin not resulting in death.

The passage makes clear that John is speaking of spiritual death and gradations of sin. He is not speaking of the physical death of man -- from any cause.

Finally, as to your argument from example. I have not done that survey (which perhaps you have), but even assuming your assertion to be true arguendo, it does not carry the argument.

We find, for example, no examples of believers driving cars, using telephones, playing backgammon or countless other things. This cannot be an argument against such activities. Such arguments from silence are notoriously weak.

Now, on the burden of proof, you are simply wrong. If someone dies at your home, do you have the burden of proving it was not murder? I know of no legal system anywhere which would so argue. No, you are the party arguing that suicide is murder as used in Ex 20:13. It is your burden to show it with Scriptural proof -- and you have not done so.

You have not shown Biblically (nor, I submit, can you)that "You shall not murder" (as stated in Ex 20:13) proscribes suicide.

______________

Finally, as to my wife's illness, thank you for your thoughts. However, my argument was not that cancer was such a terrible illness as to justify decisions to allow cessation of efforts to prolong life. Rather, my argument was that my example demonstrated the wisdom of the law allowing the husband, absent sufficient proof of ill-will to displace him, to exercise decision-making power on behalf of the wife. It is a good rule.

Here, the courts have done their job. They have scrupulously (so far as I can tell and no one here argues to the contrary) reviewed the evidence against the husband and have found that it does not overcome the presumption that he can properly discharge his function of making those decisions. While I realize that many here disagree and would readily displace him, I believe that we are Biblically enjoined to submit ourselves to the ultimate decisions of civil authority. This is one such decision.

566 posted on 03/16/2005 6:30:59 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: All; jwalsh07
It's sickly ironic that, if true as circumstantial evidence seems to suggest, the very reason Terri cannot stand up and speak for herself are rooted in the actions of the very creep trying to kill her now: because of a previously attempted murder.
567 posted on 03/16/2005 6:32:44 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Thanks for the link.
568 posted on 03/16/2005 6:34:41 PM PST by don-o (Stop Freeploading. Do the right thing and become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

PERIOD!


569 posted on 03/16/2005 6:34:57 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill

You would deny nutrition to Terri and murder her.

I do not care for you. As nicely as I can convey it.


570 posted on 03/16/2005 6:36:10 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: luv2ski
Judge Greer has ruled that she is to be starved- no food or water is allowed.

No, I believe you are incorrect. Judge Greer did not substitute his judgment for that of the husband. Rather, he decided that the husband could properly make that decision. If tonight, the husband had (what I suspect you would think was) a "Damascus Road experience" and decided to continue food and water, Judge Greer's order would not interfere.

Your real objection here is to the decision-maker not the decision. You (and others here) don't think the husband should be the one to make the decision (because you don't like him, suspect him of ulterior motives, etc). Those, however, are precisely the matters Judge Greer has ruled upon. He has now ruled that the hospitals, etc must follow the instructions of the husband which he (Judge Greer) and the appellate judges have approved.

My argument is simply that the husband's instructions, once the evidence against him has been reviewed and found wanting, should be respected.

571 posted on 03/16/2005 6:39:39 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill

Good grief, you're not well!!!!

It begs many other questions!!!!


572 posted on 03/16/2005 6:42:02 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
My point is merely that those who claim to believe that Ex 20:13 proscribes suicide are regurgitating unsupported RCC dogma, not the Scriptures. That is not a Biblical argument, it is an argument from unsupported RCC dogma.

You are suggesting suicide is okay -according to what scripture?

573 posted on 03/16/2005 6:48:28 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
The other aspect of this, the courts... No sardonic tone is intended here, but bave the courts ever done anything to shake our confidence in their adherence to the Constitution? Have their collective actions over the last few decades aroused any suspicions about an underlying agenda? To be blunt, have the American courts, taken as an aggregate, shown themselves trustworthy as weighed on the Constitutional scale? These questions provide a substrate for much of the second-guessing of the court decisions in this particular case.

Oh, yes, they definitely have disrepute to our system of law. But, as Justice Scalia pointed out the other day, they have departed the path when they substitute their policy judgments for the application of the law. BUT, here they are doing exacting what our courts are quite good at -- applying a well-established rule of law to the facts at hand and weighing conflicting claims of fact in deciding on the facts. This is not some 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' constitutional law case; this is what thousands and thousands of courts do everyday in this land: weigh conflicting claims of credibility, decide the existence of facts and apply well-established rules of law to those facts. While the result here affects someone's physical life, the process used to get there is quite common and quite reliable.

For the same reason that I (as a former prosecutor) would gladly pull the switch on the poison pill machine for all those on death row, I have confidence in this decision as well. This is the kind of decision-making in which our system works quite well.

574 posted on 03/16/2005 6:48:54 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Hi. I've been wondering about something for quite awhile. Do you know when Michael started his relationship with his mistress?


575 posted on 03/16/2005 6:49:58 PM PST by SilentServiceCPOWife ("It's a good life...if you don't weaken." - - my grandmother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: carenot

Not the same case you were thinking of but...

A year ago last January, 83-year-old Marjorie Nighbert suffered a stroke. She was left with severe physical disability, including difficulty swallowing, not uncommon in stroke victims. A feeding tube was inserted so that she could receive nourishment.

In 1992 Marjorie had designated that her brother be given power of attorney for health care for her. He directed that the tube feeding be discontinued. The tube was removed.

Marjorie, of course, became hungry. She repeatedly asked those caring for her in the nursing home for food. But the order was clear, and legal. Marjorie was to be starved to death. She would have died unnoticed behind closed doors had it not been for the conscience of one staff member who saw Marjorie touch a nurse’s arm and ask for food. He told a priest, who contacted the local chapter of Right to Life, who reported Marjorie’s situation to Florida’s Health and Rehabilitation Services. The case went to court. Ultimately the judge ruled that Marjorie not be fed on the basis of her not being competent to ask for food. The employee who reported the incident was fired. Marjorie died on April 6, 1995.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/target.htm


576 posted on 03/16/2005 6:50:58 PM PST by iowamomforfreedom (Help stop government-sponsored murder! Save Terri http://www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Your real objection here is to the decision-maker not the decision.

Actually, that is not true either. I object to anyone- a judge, a spouse, or anyone else decreeing that another human being is to be starved to death. Even our death penalty cases involve quick and painless death. I am going to go find the source of the statement I made before that Judge Greer has forbidden Terri to be fed by mouth or by feeding tube. We do not permit this to be done to animals in our society! My biggest problem with the entire case is that Terri has been sentenced to starve to death because she has become inconvenient. That is not only grossly wrong, it has huge implications for our society and it's values.

577 posted on 03/16/2005 6:55:18 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill

Do you have a problem with the legislature passing a law that the husband's instructions for public policy reasons sufficient to them give the circumstances should not be followed? Do you have a problem with the Florida supreme court striking such laws down, because they don't like new laws in this case interfering with hubby just doing it, because in their shoes, they would certainly prefer just doing it?


578 posted on 03/16/2005 6:55:37 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPOWife; Ohioan from Florida
Hi. I've been wondering about something for quite awhile. Do you know when Michael started his relationship with his mistress?

No, I don't, but maybe OfF can help. I know he had at least one girlfried previously. His current squeeze was pregnant with their 2nd kid while Terri was being starved in Oct 2003.

579 posted on 03/16/2005 6:56:53 PM PST by BykrBayb (5 minutes of prayer for Terri, every day at 11 am EDT, until she's safe. http://www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
It's sickly ironic that, if true as circumstantial evidence seems to suggest, the very reason Terri cannot stand up and speak for herself are rooted in the actions of the very creep trying to kill her now: because of a previously attempted murder.

It is interesting that no court was willing to draw your conclusion or even your inference with a much lower standard of proof. To convict the husband of "attempted murder" would obviously require (as Robert Blake found out today) proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, here if the judge were inclined to draw your inference, he would only need proof by a preponderance and, arguably, only a reasonable suspicion which taken together with other facts and circumstances, might dislodge the husband as decision-maker. Yet, there is no evidence that I know of that he (or any appellate court) did that.

Again, judges use inferences every day to resolve conflicting claims of fact and are usually quite good at it. Yet no one in the judicial system has ever drawn the inference you do. Do you see why I have my suspicions on the inference?

580 posted on 03/16/2005 6:57:47 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: iowamomforfreedom

Just Damn.


581 posted on 03/16/2005 7:05:04 PM PST by carenot (Proud member of The Flying Skillet Brigade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I'd just like to know how long he waited before he started openly cheating on her. It's interesting to me that he claims the right to make medical decsions for her, but he doesn't feel any need to honor the vows that he made to her.


582 posted on 03/16/2005 7:06:04 PM PST by SilentServiceCPOWife ("It's a good life...if you don't weaken." - - my grandmother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; SilentServiceCPOWife

Michael started dating Jodi in 1995, at least that's the earliest date that I've seen. We know for sure that they became engaged in the summer of 1997 when the obituary for Michael's mother mentions Jodi as Michael's fiancee. Their first child was born in Sept. 2001, and the second was born right around the end of October, 2003. The first was a little girl, and I do not know the sex of the second.


583 posted on 03/16/2005 7:09:13 PM PST by Ohioan from Florida (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution

Sheila Jackson Lee is opposing the bill on c-span right now and she tied her opposition to a "possible down the road opportunity to take away A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE"

In other words, they are making this an abortion issue!!!!


584 posted on 03/16/2005 7:09:23 PM PST by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Chief Justice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Do you have a problem with the legislature passing a law that the husband's instructions for public policy reasons sufficient to them give the circumstances should not be followed?

This is a really good question and is in fact the reason I have spent so much time tonight responding to these posts.

Let me say it clearly, YES, I do have a problem with that. Because of my personal experience.

As I mentioned above, 18 months and 7 days ago, my wife passed away from cancer. At the end, I made the decision to end chemotherapy and pursue hospice care only. Thankfully, my wife's physicians fully concurred.

Would I have had a problem if some loonies in "... the legislature pass[ed] a law that the husband's instructions for public policy reasons sufficient to them give the circumstances should not be followed ...." You bet your bippy.

While that was the worst decision I have ever had to make, there simply was no one in the world better positioned to make that decision than me. No judge, no panel, no doctor, and surely -- surely -- no legislature.

I hate to think what I might have done if someone had tried to interfere and make my wife continue to suffer. I might not be a free man today.

My wife's illness and ultimate death was most assuredly not "public policy" -- it was a private decision of hers and, when she could no longer make it, of mine for her.

585 posted on 03/16/2005 7:11:17 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Judge Greer has ruled that she is to be starved- no food or water is allowed. No, I believe you are incorrect. Judge Greer did not substitute his judgment for that of the husband. Rather, he decided that the husband could properly make that decision.

In a ruling on March 7, 2005, Judge Greer denied the Schindlers appeal to be able to feed Terri by mouth in the event that the tube was removed. Judge Greer ruled that feeding her by mouth would be "experimental" and denied the request. I would post the court ruling here but it is a PDF and is a scanned version that is not able to be copied.

586 posted on 03/16/2005 7:15:44 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida

Thank you for the information. And he had a girlfriend prior to Jodi? I can't believe that she is referred to as his fiancee while his wife is still alive.


587 posted on 03/16/2005 7:17:13 PM PST by SilentServiceCPOWife ("It's a good life...if you don't weaken." - - my grandmother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

DEATH CULTISTS! IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BTTT!!!!!! MURDERERS!!!!!!


588 posted on 03/16/2005 7:19:32 PM PST by ApesForEvolution (I just took a Muhammad and wiped my Jihadist with Mein Koran...come and get me nutbags.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPOWife
31. Cindy Shook, former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo [before Jodi]

April 2001, Transcript of Cindy (Brasher) Shook’s Radio Interview w/Carrie Kirkland

589 posted on 03/16/2005 7:21:16 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
The supplemental verses are supplemental, secondary. Exodus 20:13 stands on its own merit and is quite clear. John's use of death, even in a metaphorical sense, is sufficient support for the argument (I believe he is referring also to physical death; the context does not abrogate that position.)

So serious is the crime of murder, in fact, that God prescribes the death penalty to those who do it (Gen. 9:6). The reason given: Man is made in the image of God. By this biblical reasoning - which you have appropriately brought forth in an earlier post - Michael Schiavo should face the death penalty for murdering an innocent human being. The judges, at odds with God's law, are likewise complicit in murder. Of course this will not happen, but their actions will be adjudicated and avenged by the final Judge, absent atonement through Christ.

If you subject the bible to higher criticism, as did your namesake Winston Churchill (brilliant politician, awful theologian ["The Inside of the Cup". New York. Gossett and Dunlap Publishers. May 1912.]), you lose all basis aside from your own subjective feelings for deciding which Scripture is accurate/inspired and which is not. We can then twist things about such that bad is good and good is bad ala Isa. 5:20:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

In the process, we lose the firm foundation and are to be found floating into the oblivion of relativity with the existentialists, atheists, and other poor, hopeless souls.

As to the silence of Scripture on certain explicit activities like drug use, we can draw conclusions from parallel things which are mentioned, such as drunkness, and the body (of a Christian) being the temple of the Holy Ghost. We can also draw conclusions about things such as smoking - certainly not a sin, but foolish for the health.

absent sufficient proof of ill-will to displace him

It seems the proof is there, but his powers are such that he is able to prevent it from ever coming to light. He has jumped through all the legal hoops. Michael Schiavo has not exhibited the open and honest attitude of one with a clean conscience. On the contrary, he is very secretive and "protective" of Terri, as if afraid of some discovery. If he truly loved Terri, he would

* want her family to have complete freedom to visit her.
* order regular dental care (her teeth are presently rotting due to a lack thereof).
* have therapies aimed at improving her quality of life, such as restoring her ability to speak and swallow.
* have the broken bones in her body properly mended (I'm not a doctor and don't know if this is possible. BTW how did she get the broken bones to begin with?)

. They have scrupulously (so far as I can tell and no one here argues to the contrary) reviewed the evidence against the husband and have found that it does not overcome the presumption that he can properly discharge his function of making those decisions.

As someone pointer out earlier, Greer discounted Dr. Gambone's testimony. He accepted Dr. Bambakidis'. Gambone was Terri's doctor for 15 years. Bambakidis spent less than an hour with Terri.

Dr. Melvin Greer [HMMM, ANY RELATION?]
During a 2002 medical evidentiary hearing, Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he certified Terri as terminally ill so that she could be placed in Hospice Woodside. When questioned under oath why, he said it was because Michael told him to do so.
journals.aol.com/justice1949/JUSTICEFORTERRISCHIAVO/entries/333

and here are 4 articles at TEJ mentioning Dr. Gambone...
source

In response to your #580, the actions of the courts in this case - not because I don't like the result but rather the vetting criteria for evidence that accepts and eliminates based on a criteria besides merit and provability - shows them to be more advocate than judge. The foregoing demonstrates this. Their actions nullify the weight of your argument drawing on a continued appeal thereto - they have ignored key evidence in this case. Are you prepared to back up a charge that this is all fabricated?

590 posted on 03/16/2005 7:22:05 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPOWife
24. Trudy Capone, R.N.
2001 affidavit regarding relationship with Michael Schiavo
591 posted on 03/16/2005 7:22:22 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Those are good reasons under your facts for such a law not to be passed pertaining to your facts, which are far different in any event from the case at hand. They are not good reasons for barring the legislature to reflect the public will. Sometimes, what we favor as policy is disfavored by others, and it is up the public square to determine, not the courts.
592 posted on 03/16/2005 7:22:37 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPOWife
22. Carla Iyer, R.N.
2003 affidavit regarding Michael’s abusive behavior while Terri was in a nursing home

23. Heidi Law, Certified Nursing Assistant
2003 affidavit regarding Michael’s abusive behavior while Terri was in a nursing home

593 posted on 03/16/2005 7:23:54 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: iowamomforfreedom

OMG.


594 posted on 03/16/2005 7:24:12 PM PST by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill

By the way, was your wife sentient, or did she have a living Will? If so, that moots everything.


595 posted on 03/16/2005 7:24:31 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom; jwalsh07
26. Judge George Greer, 6th Circuit Court
2002 ruling denying investigation into bone scan image taken of Terri in 1991
596 posted on 03/16/2005 7:27:17 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: ORECON

The one that came from the Wizard of Oz?


597 posted on 03/16/2005 7:27:40 PM PST by Wampus SC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ORECON

Other way around.


598 posted on 03/16/2005 7:29:54 PM PST by Wampus SC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I understand that.

The original proposition was to send Gov. Bush a copy of the chart that is so often posted. There is no way to ascertain stress patterns, inflections etc. without sound. Would you not agree that an audio tape, in addition to the chart, would be more effective than just the chart itself?

599 posted on 03/16/2005 7:32:12 PM PST by verity (The Liberal Media and the ACLU are America's Enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
As I mentioned above, 18 months and 7 days ago, my wife passed away from cancer. At the end, I made the decision to end chemotherapy and pursue hospice care only. Thankfully, my wife's physicians fully concurred.

Would I have had a problem if some loonies in "... the legislature pass[ed] a law that the husband's instructions for public policy reasons sufficient to them give the circumstances should not be followed ...." You bet your bippy.

While that was the worst decision I have ever had to make, there simply was no one in the world better positioned to make that decision than me. No judge, no panel, no doctor, and surely -- surely -- no legislature.

I hate to think what I might have done if someone had tried to interfere and make my wife continue to suffer. I might not be a free man today.

I don't see how ending chemotherapy compares to starvation?

You stated that you "made the decision to end chemotherapy and pursue hospice care only" -how did this end your wife's suffering?

600 posted on 03/16/2005 7:33:48 PM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 751-762 next last

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.

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