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 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 751-762 next last
To: SilentServiceCPOWife

Yes, her name was Cindy Shook. She has since gotten married to someone else, but she and Michael were planning to live together back in 91/92, but Michael's attorney didn't think it looked too good to go before a jury begging for $ to take care of his disabled wife while he was shacking up with Cindy, so they never did live together.

Too bad Terri's cats got euthanised for it. Michael didn't want them to not get along with Cindy's dog(s). He didn't try to find them a home, he just had them killed because he didn't know what else to do with them. I bet Terri would be thrilled to learn about that. Wonder if he ever told her? Terri loved animals!

But that's getting a little off topic. Michael has apparently been having affairs even before Terri collapsed. Little bit like Bill Clinton in that regard. Of course I will admit these are rumored affairs, but from pretty credible sources. Until they are substantiated I guess it would only be fair to Michael to call the other relationships he's been in alleged affairs.


601 posted on 03/16/2005 7:35:47 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 587 | View Replies]

To: ORECON
All of us, including Terri, have a God-given right to not have our life taken without due process of law. I find it interesting that the most heinous murderer in the nation would be afforded far more due process before his death sentence was implemented than that due process which Terri has received. Furthermore, her treatment has been, is, and intends to be abusive. Denying her contact with relatives and clergy, denying her medical treatment, denying her basic personal hygiene, denying her therapy, denying her an attorney...the list goes on and on, including a desire to dehydrate her to death. If anyone treated their pet in this manner he'd be arrested, fined, and jailed for animal cruelty. And, God-given rights are not subject to the whim of majority opinion.

Personally, I'd rather see food and water withheld from you until you die a miserable death than Terri be subjected to such a sentence. After all, she's not hurting anyone, but the world would be improved by the extirpation of your venomous and ignorant absence of compassion.

602 posted on 03/16/2005 7:39:59 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Re-elect Rossi in 2005!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington

I have to second that wholeheartidly and with all candor...


603 posted on 03/16/2005 7:42:46 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 602 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida
...she and Michael were planning to live together back in 91/92...

He didn't waste any time, did he?

604 posted on 03/16/2005 7:44:10 PM PST by SilentServiceCPOWife ("It's a good life...if you don't weaken." - - my grandmother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
... What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) "alive."

Incorrect. The 'court' has declared that no one is allow to give her a spoon either. Her family is forbidden to even feed her jello. why? is that 'extraordinary means'?

605 posted on 03/16/2005 7:46:07 PM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: eccentric; Happy2BMe; EternalVigilance

The 'court' has declared that no one is allow to give her a spoon either. Her family is forbidden to even feed her jello.

>>>

Dear God...


606 posted on 03/16/2005 7:55:21 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 605 | View Replies]

To: All; nicmarlo; jwalsh07
Here it is, manually typed up from the PDF for the WORLD to see:
ORDER

The CAUSE came on to be heard on November 15, 2002 upon the Emergency Motion to Hold Ruling in Abeyance

Pending Development of Additional Medical Evidence filed herein by Respondents, Robert and Mary Schindler.

Before the court were Patricia Fields Anderson, Esquire, and Lawrence D. Crow, Esquire, attorneys for Respondents; and George J. Felos, Esquire, attorney for Petitioner. The unverified Motion had been received by the court via fax on November 11, 2002 and the court scheduled this hearing in order for evidence to be presented to determine if there was a sufficient basis to hold a full evidentiary hearing.

The Respondents presented three affidavits in support of their motion, those affidavits being from themselves and from Eleanor Dreschsel. Petitioner presented affidavits of James Carnahan, M.D. and Eugene Alcazaren, M.D. The court then heard argument of counsel in support of and in opposition to the Emergency Motion. The court has considered the affidavits, the argument of counsel and the Emergency Motion and accordingly rules as follows.

The thrust of the Emergency Motion centers around a 1991 bone scan report by W. Campbell Walker, M.D. The report indicates that the bone scan was performed at Mediplex Rehab in Bradenton, Florida on Terry [sic] Schiavo in March of 1991. The report indicates some fractures which Dr. Campbell felt were caused by trauma, the major one being on the right femur. Dr. Walker concluded, "the patient has a history of trauma". The affidavits in support of the Emergency Motion relating to this bone scan report simply established that affiants did not have actual knowledge of that report, although counsel in argument conceded that the report was available, and was in the possession of Respondents' several attorneys over time. There has been no suggestion that the bone scan report was secreted or the information withheld intentionally from anyone. The affidavits as they relate to room temperature do not remotely suggest an issue for the court to pursue. In opposition to the Emergency Motion, Petitioner submits affidavits from two physicians at Mediple Rehab who dispute the conclusions of Dr. Campbell. One of these affiants had actually ordered the subject bone scan.

The court concludes that while it might be interesting to pursue the issue of trauma as it may have occurred almost twelve years ago, that has nothing to do with Theresa Marie Schiavo in 2002 and the Mandate of the Second District Court of Appeal in this cause rendered October 17, 2001. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND AJDUDGED [sic] that the Emergency Motion to Hold Ruling in Abeyance Pending Development of Additional Medical Evidence be and the same is hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this 22 day of November 2002.

George W. Greer
Circuit Judge

Copies furnished via fax to avoid delay to
George J. Felos, Esquire
Patricia Fields Anderson, Esquire
Lawrence D. Crow, Esquire
Gyneth S. Stanley, Esquire
Pamela A. M. Campbell, Esquire

Emphasis/chromation mine.
607 posted on 03/16/2005 7:57:13 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

bump


608 posted on 03/16/2005 7:58:56 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 607 | View Replies]

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

Ending chemotherapy and going to a hospice is a completely different situation. A person who is dying of cancer can have their life prolonged sometimes with additional chemotherapy but at a cost- often in suffering and (lack of) quality of life. In a hospice, the patient can be made comfortable, given morphine or other strong pain killing drugs as they die of their cancer. The difference here is that instead of being defensive, the judge and m. Schiavo are being offensive. They aim to literally kill Terri- not allow her to die naturally. I am a perfectly healthy 50 year old woman but if I were not allowed food or water, I would die, too.

609 posted on 03/16/2005 7:59:57 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: SilentServiceCPOWife

Then you apparently share my view of what a marriage is. Most Freepers agree with us about that, but I'm sure you've run into at least a couple who are utterly confused.


610 posted on 03/16/2005 8:01:03 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 582 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
I believe the general rule of the husband acting for the wife when she cannot, is a good one absent sufficient evidence to overturn it.

Could it be that 'sufficient evidence' doesn't exist because the 'less than honorable' judge dismissed the sheriff's report and then it was lost in an office where Michael's mistress's mother works?

611 posted on 03/16/2005 8:04:18 PM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
You can go directly here to email your Senators and/or Representatives about Terri Schiavo:

U. S. Senate

U. S. House of Representatives

612 posted on 03/16/2005 8:07:52 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

If I were in Michael Shiavo's situation and I thought that I could not honor my vows to my husband, I would divorce him. I would not disrespect him by carrying on with other men, whether he was aware of it or not. It's really a non-issue for me anyway because when I said "forsaking all others as long as you both shall live", I meant it.


613 posted on 03/16/2005 8:09:15 PM PST by SilentServiceCPOWife ("It's a good life...if you don't weaken." - - my grandmother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; All

YES ON HR 1151

U.S. House of Representatives (See Salvation's link).

TERRI DOES NOT HAVE MUCH LONGER.


614 posted on 03/16/2005 8:12:49 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom; jwalsh07

Thanks for posting the whole text, Lexinom. Ain't that judge just grand?


615 posted on 03/16/2005 8:19:22 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution

It's nice to know that apes are backing you. Thanks.


616 posted on 03/16/2005 8:20:23 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Re-elect Rossi in 2005!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; winstonchurchill
I'm not adept at legalspeak, but I fail to see how he can fail to see a connection between Terri's past treatment and her present condition. This is an example of WHY I don't trust this judge or this court.
617 posted on 03/16/2005 8:21:40 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

Exactly correct.


618 posted on 03/16/2005 8:23:36 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington

Well, I'm off my friends.

Vaya con Dios...


619 posted on 03/16/2005 8:27:19 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 616 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Quite honestly, an elected representative that needs to hear FROM ME PERSONALLY to KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO HERE, THEN, DAMNIT ALL TO HELL - THEY AREN'T WORTH THE CALL! THEY AREN'T WORTH EVEN A WARM BUCKET OF SPIT!

O & O!

620 posted on 03/16/2005 8:29:41 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 612 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Do it for Terri though. It's not her fault politicians are power-hungry windvectors.

YES on HR 1151

621 posted on 03/16/2005 8:42:38 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

OK- Lexinom was a good freeper and typed up the court ruling so here is the ruling from Judge Greer from March 7, 2005. It denies the Schindlers their appeal to feed Terri naturally should her feeding tube be removed. In other words, she is to be starved to death by judicial order.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURST FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROBATE DIVISION
File No. 90-2908-GD-003

IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO,
Incapacitated.

MICHAEL SCHIAVO,
Petitioner,
Vs.

ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY SCHINDLER,
Respondents.


ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on March 7, 2005 on Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinured. The Court heard the argument of Daniel C. Gibbs, III, Esq., for the Respondents, and of George J. Felos, Esq., foe the Petitioner.
Having also reviewed portions of declarations or affidavits of several doctors, which were submitted to the Court by Respondents, it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of Respondents' Fla. R. Civ. P Rule 1.540(b)(5) motion of medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure. The Court reasons that if the 1.540(b)(5) motion is granted, there is no need for this motion. If the 1/540(b)(5) motion is denied, the Court should not do indirectly what it has not done directly. It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this 8 day of March, 2005.

Signed George W. Greer
Circuit Judge

Copies to all lawyers


622 posted on 03/16/2005 8:48:53 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; Windsong; SoFloFreeper
She won't pass away peacefully and/or quickly. She will die of starvation and dehydration. Not a quick death at all. Nor, painless.

Last night on Nightline, Michael Schiavo looked at the camera and said Terri won't be starved. It will be painless. Slowly her electrolytes will diminish and "she'll drift off to a nice little sleep and pass on to be wtih God.

This week my daughter was given several articles on euthanasia, pro and con, for a writing assignment. An article from the Ithaca Journal March 3, 2000 involves a woman NY Atty Gen Eliot Spitzer tried to keep alive against the wishes of the family and the ruling of a court. A compromise allowed the hospital to provide hydration and nutriition, but the patient was unable to tolerate the sugar nutrition mixed in with the water. Here's the description of her death, as there was no other way to provide her with nutrition:

"Without nutrition to provide protein to make cells, [her] body began consuming the protein in her body... Her body is basically starting to devour itself...Doctors have been using skin patches to administer pain medication, but [her] skin is deteriorating and that is becoming difficult."

623 posted on 03/16/2005 8:54:18 PM PST by ntnychik (Proud member of the Bush-eoisie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
Thank you for your thoughtful post #590. You treat two separate topics: (i) your arguments that 1 John 5:16 is really talking about suicide and (ii) your arguments that evidence of husband's alleged unfitness to make decisions for Terry was either (a) improperly excluded or (b) improperly weighed (i.e. devalued) by the judge. Let me treat them in order.

__________

1 John 5:16

I think it is hard to make sense of the entire passage if one posits that 'death' there refers to physical death. I assume you would agree that if John intended that meaning, that meaning would have had to have been intended throughout the passage, i.e. he didn't mean something different by 'death' in 5:16 from his use of the same word in the rest of the passage.

I simply can't make sense of the passage with that presupposition. Can you give me a paraphrase of the passage that would fit within the larger message of John's epistle? Can you suggest any expositor or commentator who has ever suggested that 'death' in the passage referred to physical death?

I certainly agree that murder is serious, I also agree that we can properly reason from those things which are mentioned to those which are not (but you have not made such an argument here) and I do not support or indulge so-called 'higher criticism' (the real WC (apparently) to the contrary notwithstanding). None of these things however argue that 'you shall not murder' really means 'you shall not commit suicide'.

_________________

The Evidence of Husband's Unsuitability for Decision-Making on Behalf of Terry

Here you make two different arguments which can be conjunctive or disjunctive.

Wrongfully Suppressing Evidence

You suggest that husband (i)'... is able to prevent [evidence of unsuitability] from ever coming to light', (ii) 'He has jumped through all the legal hoops' and (iii) he 'has not exhibited the open and honest attitude of one with a clean conscience.'

As to (i), I think every adversary I have ever had has wanted to suppress unfavorable evidence (to him). It is my job as the adversary to see that doesn't happen. Where have husband's adversaries been? Have they been complicit in your view? How did this malevolent guy pull this off?

As to (ii) everyone has to 'jump through the legal hoops' but what does that mean? How, in doing that, did he manage to suppress evidence unfavorable to him?

As to (iii), assuming arguendo that he did the things you mention, how did he keep the court (and opposing counsel) from noticing? Bottom line: Every party to a lawsuit would love to suppress unfavorable evidence, but it is almost impossible to do. The best one can hope for is to 'explain it away'. But frankly that is precisely what judges (and juries) hear everyday and, in my experience, are pretty good at seeing through the fog.

At the very end of your comment, you come back to this and express your unhappiness with a system in which "[You]don't like ... the vetting criteria for evidence that accepts and eliminates based on a criteria besides merit and provability - [and which therefore] shows them to be more advocate than judge." I presume you mean the rules of evidence and there is something about the 1991 nuclear imaging report which you find troubling. You imply but don't say directly that it was excluded from evidence. Is this your objection? What was the basis of exclusion?

Let me just say that a career as a lawyer has convinced me that more injustice occurs from a lack of application of the rules of evidence than from their application. In short, I think they are pretty good at divining the trustworthiness of evidence. I know that's general, but I don't know your specific objection related to the 1991 report.

Improper Weighing

The balance of your argument is that you are more impressed with the probative value of certain evidence than the judge was and you conclude therefore that he improperly weighed it.

You say that the judge valued Bambakidis' testimony more highly than that of Gambone. I'm not sure what he did with Cranford and Greer. But a trier of fact (a judge or jury) always has to weigh one expert's testimony against others. All experts are, to some degree (some more than others) 'hired guns'. But again that is what most judges do pretty well and they count on respective opposing counsel to show the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Moreover, as with any witness, the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor while testifying is very important. That is why appellate courts are not supposed to reweigh the testimony of witnesses -- expert or lay. Even when I read the transcript of the testimony, the test has to be: is there some testimony in the transcript which if believed would support the trier of fact's determination? If so, I must yield to the trier of fact who heard and saw the witness. So, I'm not overly impressed that you could pull out testimony which could have supported the opposite conclusion. That is almost always true - particularly with experts.

I need something more before I could conclude that the process wasn't fair.

624 posted on 03/16/2005 9:01:07 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: luv2ski; Lexinom
Just to make it a bit clearer:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this 8 day of March, 2005.

Signed George W. Greer


625 posted on 03/16/2005 9:02:29 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly
...you will find that this man who has been appointed by the FL legislature to audit the guardianship accounts in Pinellas Co. and has been denied access to do so by Greer, says there have been tons of people like Terri that Greer has assigned a guardian to and once their money is gone (as quickly as the guardians can make it vanish by selling property at below market values, etc.), some of whom have had large sums, Greer then makes the person gone just like he is doing to Terri.

Last night on Nightline, Chris Bury asked George Felos, Michael's attorney, about the money. Felos blithely said it had gone for "medical care, governorship expenses, costs and fees,"

Greer's governorship expenses? Felos' own costs and fees?

626 posted on 03/16/2005 9:05:08 PM PST by ntnychik (Proud member of the Bush-eoisie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

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

Both lead ineluctably to physical death. Both involve the withdrawal of human intervention to prolong physical life. When that withdrawal occurs, death is inevitable.

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

She passed away and the suffering ended. Hospice care is solely palliative, i.e. pain reduction; it abandons all efforts to cure or extend life.

627 posted on 03/16/2005 9:05:31 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: eccentric
WC: ... What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) "alive."

E: Incorrect. The 'court' has declared that no one is allow to give her a spoon either. Her family is forbidden to even feed her jello. why? is that 'extraordinary means'?

Please read my sentence again: "What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) 'alive.'" The question is who is the decision-maker.

Can you not see that, if the right of the husband is sustained and he decides that ending nutritional maintenance is appropriate, allowing others to countermand the effect of the instruction would undermine the first two decisions? The 'no spoon' and 'no jello' decisions flow from the first determinations, i.e. the husband's right to make the decision and the nature of the decision he makes.

628 posted on 03/16/2005 9:12:18 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: eccentric
Could it be that 'sufficient evidence' doesn't exist because the 'less than honorable' judge dismissed the sheriff's report and then it was lost in an office where Michael's mistress's mother works?

Is the sheriff's report the 1991 nuclear imaging report or something different?

What is the evidence behind the charge that the judge was "less than honorable"?

629 posted on 03/16/2005 9:15:56 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
WC: ... What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) "alive." E: Incorrect. The 'court' has declared that no one is allow to give her a spoon either. Her family is forbidden to even feed her jello. why? is that 'extraordinary means'? Please read my sentence again: "What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) 'alive.'" The question is who is the decision-maker. Can you not see that, if the right of the husband is sustained and he decides that ending nutritional maintenance is appropriate, allowing others to countermand the effect of the instruction would undermine the first two decisions? The 'no spoon' and 'no jello' decisions flow from the first determinations, i.e. the husband's right to make the decision and the nature of the decision he makes.

Our society does not give husbands the right to kill their wives. The husband CANNOT decide that it is OK to starve her to death according to our values and laws. We do not accord one individual the right to kill another person.

630 posted on 03/16/2005 9:19:15 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

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

What do you mean? The Triumvirate's is feverishly trying to murder Terri not because she's PVS, but because THEY KNOW DA?N WELL SHE ISN'T.

631 posted on 03/16/2005 9:26:22 PM PST by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
I fail to see how he can fail to see a connection between Terri's past treatment and her present condition. This is an example of WHY I don't trust this judge or this court.

In your #590 you cited a couple of instances of 'past treatment' which you felt were important. "* [failure to] order regular dental care (her teeth are presently rotting due to a lack thereof). * [failure to] have therapies aimed at improving her quality of life, such as restoring her ability to speak and swallow. * [failure to] 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?)"

Standing alone, there is no evidence that any of these explain Terry's present inability to feed herself. Isn't the whole problem here a dispute as to whether all the 'therapies' in the world could restore her ability to speak and swallow?

Look, I realize it is hard to say that someone should be allowed to die when their own condition prevents them from living. But physical life is not the ultimate value. If Terry knows Christ, she will live forever -- and she won't need a feeding tube.

Where would this stop? Suppose all she needed to survive (beyond the feeding tube] was a 'little' heart/lung machine? Suppose the machine cost $1 million? Suppose $1.95?

Suppose there were 1 chance in 100 she could survive for 10 years in that condition, would you want to overrule the (hypothetically honest and caring) husband? How about 1 chance in a million?

You can't write such a law and you really don't want to. Let her go home.

632 posted on 03/16/2005 9:31:20 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: penowa

Most interesting post 87. Explains a whole lot. The question is, will something be done about it?


633 posted on 03/16/2005 9:35:20 PM PST by Pajamajan (Pray for Terri. Pray for Terri, Pray for Terri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: luv2ski
Our society does not give husbands the right to kill their wives. The husband CANNOT decide that it is OK to starve her to death according to our values and laws. We do not accord one individual the right to kill another person.

Yes, that is true, but our society does give husbands the right to decide when to withdraw continuing medical care when their wives cannot decide (and vice-versa). That is what is happening here. The problem is that Terry can't eat by herself.

BTW, I have long had a durable power of attorney demanding precisely this outcome were I ever to be left in Terry's pitiable state.

634 posted on 03/16/2005 9:40:16 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Judge Greer is a devout Christian and a devoted Republican.

I haven't read through the whole thread to understand how you know this. Just attending a church does not necessarily make someone a "devout Christian."

The former "devout" pastor at my father's church is engaging in this scam: Insinuate yourself into the lives of the elderly by providing very welcome assistance getting groceries, driving, doing errands, etc. Then get the elderly person to legally adopt you. Of course you get the person to leave her "devoted son" the estate. This was discovered when he and his wife appeared as surviving son and daughter in a number of obituaries, including that of my grandmother's best friend. He unsuccessfully tried this with my widowed aunt. He's now involuntarily retired (for other reasons), but still scamming away.

635 posted on 03/16/2005 9:40:19 PM PST by ntnychik (Proud member of the Bush-eoisie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; FL_engineer; nicmarlo

ORECON:
This account has been banned or suspended.




just thought you'd like to know :-)


636 posted on 03/16/2005 9:45:27 PM PST by Deo volente (God willing, Terri Schiavo will live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente; BykrBayb; FL_engineer

gee.....that's just a real shame!


637 posted on 03/16/2005 9:48:06 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

Yeah, I'm sure gonna miss him...NOT!!!


638 posted on 03/16/2005 9:51:17 PM PST by Deo volente (God willing, Terri Schiavo will live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
J

 


639 posted on 03/16/2005 9:52:41 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 636 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

lol....one less aggravating troll.


640 posted on 03/16/2005 9:56:21 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Windsong

I'm sure you and Hitler would have been in complete agreement. You must be guite a genius in your own mind.


641 posted on 03/16/2005 10:09:04 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (This just in from CBS: "There is no bias at CBS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Our society does not give husbands the right to kill their wives. The husband CANNOT decide that it is OK to starve her to death according to our values and laws. We do not accord one individual the right to kill another person. Yes, that is true, but our society does give husbands the right to decide when to withdraw continuing medical care when their wives cannot decide (and vice-versa). That is what is happening here. The problem is that Terry can't eat by herself.

I don't see how simply eating is deemed to be "continuing medical care". Don't you see that they are taking action to KILL her- this is not a "allowed to die" situation. They want to deprive her of food artificially they won't even let her parents feed her. This case has nothing to do with allowing a suffering loved one to "go home". I think what you did was right and just but the case of your wife was utterly different. I don't understand why you can't make the distinction.

642 posted on 03/16/2005 10:09:37 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik
Judge Greer is a devout Christian and a devoted Republican. I haven't read through the whole thread to understand how you know this. Just attending a church does not necessarily make someone a "devout Christian." The former "devout" pastor at my father's church is engaging in this scam: Insinuate yourself into the lives of the elderly by providing very welcome assistance getting groceries, driving, doing errands, etc. Then get the elderly person to legally adopt you. Of course you get the person to leave her "devoted son" the estate. This was discovered when he and his wife appeared as surviving son and daughter in a number of obituaries, including that of my grandmother's best friend. He unsuccessfully tried this with my widowed aunt. He's now involuntarily retired (for other reasons), but still scamming away.

Yeah, and BTK was the president of HIS church, too....

643 posted on 03/16/2005 10:11:53 PM PST by luv2ski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: luv2ski
George Wythe wrote:
"Judge Greer is devout Christian"

luv2ski replied:
"Yeah, and BTK was the president of HIS church, too..."

Excellent comeback .(LOL)

644 posted on 03/16/2005 10:24:18 PM PST by Pajamajan (Pray for Terri. Pray for Terri, Pray for Terri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Long Cut
The thread is about Terri Schiavo, not Bo Gritz.

Unfortunately, one poster was able to hijack the thread.

645 posted on 03/16/2005 10:27:13 PM PST by jmc813 (PLAYBOY ISN'T PORN;YES,PLAYBOY ID PORN ... ONLY PHOTOGRAPHED PORN IS PORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Standing alone, there is no evidence that [cited incidences of past (mis)treatment] explain Terry's present inability to feed herself. Isn't the whole problem here a dispute as to whether all the 'therapies' in the world could restore her ability to speak and swallow?

It's an argument by paradigm, not syllogism: the incidences are examples that, taken together, establish a pattern of neglect, which pattern supports the proposition that Michael's primary motives are something other than Terri's best interests. Consistent with a paradigm argument, the more examples, the stronger the case - and others have documented these meticulously.

Here's another rock on the pile: Terri could conceivably make a court appearance herself. However, her wheelchair is broken. Michael has not had it fixed. I'm not sure, but he may have even explicitly ordered it not be fixed.

Where would this stop? Suppose all she needed to survive (beyond the feeding tube] was a 'little' heart/lung machine? Suppose the machine cost $1 million? Suppose $1.95

Where does it stop, indeed? That argument - a reductio ad absurdum - can slice the other way. Where do we draw the line of personhood, with the rights and privileges enjoyed under the law? It has always been my contention that replacing a logical criteria - life is a dynamic continuum that begins at conception and ends with a natural death - with a scalar one, such as a) development, b) brain activity, c) intelligence, or d) volume of liquid one can swallow, has proven dangerous in a broader historical context. Before you respond to that, ask yourself what makes you you? Is it the cells and nerves that comprise the man known as WC on FreeRepublic? Our cells completely turn over every 10 years. There is a dynamic principle, even a divine spark, elusive, that defines us as human beings and defies all scientific inquiry. We are, and each of us is special, not measurable in our entirety by any scale but transcendent, characters in the magnificent theater of Creation.

Regarding your hypotheticals and, specifically, terminal patients: I agreed with your earlier argument about terminal cancer victims. Oat-cell lung cancer, which killed my father-in-law at age 57, kills 94% of its victims overall, and almost 100% with extensive-stage disease. Only two clinical stages exist for this devastating carcinoma. He elected to forgo chemo. That was his choice and I don't hold it against him. I may have even made the same choice, given the prognosis for this particular disease and the drastic side effects of powerful drugs like etoposide, vincristine, and cisplatin. You know even better than I the pain and tears brought by cancer, watching the one you love deeply slowly succumb, weakening day by day, week by week, vicariously dying with them each day.

Terri's case is quite different: no chemo, no ventilator. All she needs is a feeding tube. With the proper therapy, there's no reason to assume she could never be rehabilitated. The testimony of doctors favorable to her cause seems to have gotten short-shrifted - improperly weighted. Judge Greer gave a doctor with over a decade visiting Terri triannually less weight than one who visited her for 30 minutes. This is consistent with Judge Greer's pattern throughout this case (see the transcription at 607 of a Nov. 2002 ruling against evidence that could have proven harmful to Michael). What is unclear to me, though perhaps irrelevant, is whether the seed of this pattern lies in favor toward Michael or favor toward euthanasia for the disabled and the precedent it will establish; it's irrelevant because they are synonymous, but I suspect the latter.

Others are seeing this.

BTW as an interesting fact: did you know that Judge Greer is legally blind? There is a picture posted somewhere on FR of him "examining" several documents pertaining to this case. He is not wearing any glasses (presence of contacts unknown).

646 posted on 03/16/2005 10:31:20 PM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
I tried, and I was being as honest as possible.

You never did answer the guy asking you if you were sympathetic to the Schindlers' cause or not.

647 posted on 03/16/2005 10:31:47 PM PST by jmc813 (PLAYBOY ISN'T PORN;YES,PLAYBOY ID PORN ... ONLY PHOTOGRAPHED PORN IS PORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Hospice care is solely palliative, i.e. pain reduction; it abandons all efforts to cure or extend life.

IMHO, your wife's situation was much different from Terri's. You make another excellent point referring to what happens in hospice care, and it is one of many reasons why Terri is improperly housed at a hospice. With that feeding tube, she is not terminal (as her five years there would also indicate). She does not receive antibiotic treatment for infections in hospice, as it is only palliative care given there. She did not receive regular dental cleanings and exams, because hospice only provides palliative care. Terri is not dying, and she should not be in hospice! Terri being housed in hospice for five years is only one of MANY irregularities in this case.

648 posted on 03/16/2005 10:42:17 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 627 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Love the blue, but what is it?

(I have a Mac, maybe that's why I can't see it??)


649 posted on 03/16/2005 10:55:23 PM PST by Deo volente (God willing, Terri Schiavo will live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

It has a smiley face in it!


650 posted on 03/16/2005 11:09:19 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 649 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 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