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.
How about that advocates for the state such as yourself, an attorney at law, understand Florida Law and the holdings of the courts before they advocate for same. Is that too much to ask?
There is no court in the land that would execute a serial murderer on hearsay, yet you and the Florida courts advocate for the removal of her nourishment based on hearsay. It is disgusting and simply affirms in the mind of many the jokes about lawyers and oceans.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools."
By the way, what's the harm in allowing Fla. Children's and Family Services to do a full and fair investigation into what happened to Terri -- before starving her to death?
Yes, you are correct. I did misunderstand the court's determination, in part because I accepted the notion common here that the court did not find a potential for conflict of interest. The court did so find and therefore determined that the husband could not make the necessary decisions for Terri. Then in response to the petition of the husband, the court agreed to act as surrogate for Terri under Florida law.
The court then held the lengthy trial culminating in the court's determination of Terri's wishes in 2000.
So you are correct, the court has made the determination, by clear and convincing evidence. BTW, it looks like the tube will be pulled in about an hour and a half.
Investigation into what? The fact-finding is done. We will never know more of Terri's condition than we do now. Her brain is gone -- G-O-N-E, replaced by spinal fluid. All doctors -- husband's, parents' and the court's all agree on that. Absent a direct miracle of God creating a new brain for her, nothing can change.
Now, the parents' doctors, while conceding that her brain is gone, contend that there may be enough cells left in her brain stem to generate some trainable skills. But the courts have uniformly found that such testimony is incredible and totally lacking in scientific support.
All sides agree (including the parents) that the court must determine what Terri's wishes would be. Statements made by Terri to others are not hearsay. They are offered for the fact that she made them. You misapprehend the hearsay rule.
By the way, courts don't 'advocate', lawyers advocate. Courts decide.
I am not a believer in 'natural law' (an RCC concept) but no one here has expressly argued that. If someone did, I suppose that would send me back to Aquinas.
"Moral obligation" is even squishier. It must derive from something. It certainly can arise from Scripture. If one were to posit 'natural law', it could arise from that. But it is, in any event, derivative.
Yes, but the Founders and those who came before expressly based their philosophy of law and government on Scripture, and the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It is impossible to separate law from morality and the making of value judgments. Who or what is the source of morality?
What is the purpose of law in the first place? What is its source? Is it not the purpose of law, among other things, to limit evil and punish evildoers? If a law or an edict by a judge or panel of judges were to do the exact opposite, rewarding evildoers and punishing the innocent, would their decision, in your view, still constitute law?
So long as we focus on the dispute as to which private party is the proper one to exercise decision-making power for Terry, there is nothing novel and the courts are well-positioned to resolve such disputes.
My point, precisely, is that is what Judge Greer has done and what the appellate courts have reviewed. He heard the evidence and did not remove the husband and the appellate courts reviewed his decision and affirmed it.
I would agree that in general, it is better that such decisions be made by private parties rather than by the government, with one caveat, namely; private parties constrained by morality. John Adams said that "we have no government armed, capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion". If you have decisions made by private parties devoid of any sense of morality, then you get such evils as abortion on demand, for any reason or for no reason at all, rationalized on the very same ground that it is the question of who is makes the decision, the government or the individual, that is dispositive. (Ironically, it is the government, by the courts, that endorses and enforces by sheer force and power "private decision".) The courts may be well-positioned to resolve such disputes, as you say, but I am not persuaded that they do so if they too are devoid of moral sense.
...the nature of the arguments here convince me that most who object to the husband's retaining his role do so because of the result of the course of action which he proposes.
How could it be otherwise? We are making what we believe are reasonable value judgments about Michael Shiavo's intent (to kill his wife) based on his conduct, and the inevitable result if the courts and he get their way (her death). Conversely, an argument on the result of the course of action which Michael Shiavo proposes (and the Florida courts order) based on a value judgment and a consequent result opposite ours is a value judgment and consequent result all the same, as much evidenced by affirmation of the reasonableness of the outcome of Terri Shiavo's death by dehydration and starvation as it is by to opposition to it.
Actually, decisions to withhold surgical procedures which would prolong life are made every day in hospitals across this land and not always in the face of traditional terminal diseases -- even though the lack of the procedure makes some type of death-inducing complication hugely more likely or even inevitable. These decisions often involve infants with terrible debilitating handicaps of extreme mental retardation, etc. All of those decisions are far better made by private parties, after weighing medical advice, than by the nanny state guided by PETA-type absolutism.
Let me give you an example that strikes close to my heart:
In 1982, a Bloomington, Indiana child with Down's Syndrome was born with a connection between his food-pipe and windpipe, a condition know as trachea-esophageal fistula. This prevented the child from being fed since food could not reach the stomach.
A routine operation could have been performed by several surgeons in a 50-mile radius. Because the child had Down's Syndrome, the parents refused to grant permission to operate and had decided to starve the child to death. When word of the situation became public, a dozen families came forward and offered to adopt the baby.
The parents refused. Though it would have cost them no money, time or effort to allow someone else to raise their child, the parents, their doctors and the Supreme Court of Indiana said they had the right to starve the child to death.
The child died seven days after birth, before the U.S. Supreme Court could hear an appeal to the Indiana decision.
In addition to the horrible injustice, another troubling aspect of this case was the the reaction by pediatricians and pediatric surgeons. More than two-thirds stated that they would go along with the parents' wishes to deny life-saving surgery to a child with Down's Syndrome. Almost 75% said that if they had a child with Down's Syndrome, they would let the baby starve to death.
This case, along with that of Baby Jane Doe in New York motivated Congress to pass legislation in 1984 prohibiting the withholding of "medically indicated" treatment from any disabled newborn.
Now, my wife and I were confronted with the exact same medical situation 18 years ago with our third child, Maximilan, who had Down Syndrome. We did the exact opposite of what these people in Indiana did. That's why I said that this example strikes close to my heart. Let me return the the philosophy of law for a moment and pose the question again to you this way:
"Which is lawful,
to do good or to do evil,
to save life or to kill?"
Cordially,
You're right. We need a new word.
How about "schiavish"?
Likewise - shiavistic, schiavic, schiavism, schiavate, schiavol, schivose, terri-schiavo-ese...
There could be more variations. But this issue is here for the long haul.
The time has arrived.
No, you misunderstood because you decided to advocate for the state without bothering to ascertain the facts. In other words, you lobbied for the death by starvation of Terri Schiavo from ignorance and fear, ignorance of the facts and your own mortal fears of severe disability.
The court did so find and therefore determined that the husband could not make the necessary decisions for Terri.
The remedy in Florida law for a guardian who may have a conflict is removal of the guardian and appointment of the next of kin able to handle that duty, the Schindlers.
Then in response to the petition of the husband, the court agreed to act as surrogate for Terri under Florida law.
You would make a fine Florida judge. A conflicted guardian can not petition for anything he must be removed as guardian.
The court then held the lengthy trial culminating in the court's determination of Terri's wishes in 2000.
So you are correct, the court has made the determination, by clear and convincing evidence.
Now you're dissembling.
The Florida Court of Appeals claimed the power to sentence to death by starvation an innocent human being. Where do they derive that power Mr Lawyer?
BTW, it looks like the tube will be pulled in about an hour and a half.
Point being?
This is simply a lie. The state has NO power to order an American citizen starved to death. Show me in the US Constitution or Florida Constitution where that power resides. You can't do it because it doesn't exist It is thoroughly UNCONSTITUIONAL.
Statements made by Terri to others are not hearsay. They are offered for the fact that she made them. You misapprehend the hearsay rule.
OK, you got me. I withdraw "hearsay" and substitute BS.
By the way, courts don't 'advocate', lawyers advocate. Courts decide.
LOL, I meant exactly what I said, Greer and the Superior Courts are advocating for her death, just like you are.
BTW, I understand your reticence to answer any question I pose because you don't have any answers. Like Greer, you prejudged the case of Terri Schiavo and you are now stuck on the side supporting the power of a state to dehydrate human beings to death.
I just reviewed the last several of your posts and I don't see any questions, just baseless rhetoric which doesn't require or deserve rebuttal.
There are none so blind as though who will not see.
A stone cold lie which anybody who reads this thread can see. You spent days on this thread misrepresenting the facts and you admitted so above. That you continue to refuse to answer the questions I pose is more evidence of the weakness of your position. You don't get to plead the 5th on FR Mr Attorney.
Oh come on, little guy. Give me the number of your post(s) containing your questions and I will answer them.
Oh come on, little guy. Give me the number of your post(s) containing your questions and I will answer them.
Sorry for the duplicate post, the first didn't pop up right away.
Internet hero talk?
Give me the number of your post(s) containing your questions and I will answer them.
LOL, you're a clown.
JW: LOL, you're a clown.
You are all show and no go.
And you are a poor excuse for an attorney. In fact, I just read the Wolfosn report again. He refers to the testimony of MS and his buds as, you guessed it, hearsay.
By the way:
hear·say
Pronunciation Key (hîrs) n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hearsay
A) State's rights - I don't want the Feds involved. Suddenly so called conservatives want the Feds involved in this Terri case.
B) Marriage institution. The husband is joined with the wife - if a court rules this a valid arrangement for this purpose, the husband not the parents have the right to decide. We conservatives need to remember what the sacred institution of marriage means in this regard. Suddenly so called conservatives are not so hot on the institution of marriage.
C) The court is what decides who is a valid doctor and what is a valid diagnosis based on Florida law. In this case the court ruled (and did so not in a vacuum) that the poor victim is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. So called conservatives want the legislature to act as a judiciary.
Lastly, my own personal view of when someone should be considered dead is based on my beleif that death happens when the soul departs the physical body. I consider a vegetative state to be one such condition. Her soul departed long ago leaving a body on automatic.
I view the Terri case and in fact all cases of vegitative status as if a car that was damaged, driving in circles without a driver - it keeps going in circles as fuel is added. Sometimes the car horn beeps giving the illusion of a driver is behind the wheel.
Allow me, if I may.
The point being that the title of this thread is attracting the LET HER DIE side of the Freepers to it like flies on honey.
They seem to be reveling in (1) Terri being allowed to die in peace (which she won't, she will die in pain if no sedatives are given)
(2)The concept that If Terri is starved and dehydrated, until dead, then THEY WON. THEY ARE RIGHT.
Many of them only seem to care about THEY ARE RIGHT, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG.
Some of them need to wipe the drool off their mouth.
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.