Posted on 03/16/2005 10:06:33 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
"The question is not whether he has a conflict it's whether he may have a conflict."
It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Since when does a state judge have the authority to order the starvation of a U.S. citizen?
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.
By your definition, adultery is part of marriage. I can't find the authority for that proposition either.
Cordially,
PM: hear·say ... Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness
Here's a little lesson on hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (FRE 801(c)) Generally, hearsay is not admissible. However, there are a number of exceptions where hearsay is admissible.
Here are a few exceptions: dying declarations, excited utterances, res gestae or present sense expression, admissions and declarations against interest, and state of mind and physical condition. There are many others. Then many jurisdictions (including the federal rules) use a 'catch-all' or residual exception for the unavailability of a witness.
Thus, Wolfson could accurately describe the testimony of witnesses recounting Terri's many expressions of her desire not to be kept alive artificially as 'hearsay'. However, even if such recounting of Terri's out-of-court statements were deemed to be offered for the 'truth of the matter asserted', it falls within either (i)the present sense exception, (ii) the state of mind exception, or (iii) in any event the residual (unavailability of the witness) exception.
When as here the critical question for the court is the desire and intention of the unavailable witness (Terri) as to whether or not she wished to be kept 'alive' artificially, the trier of fact would be deprived of critical evidence were it not included. Some would argue that statements of purpose or intention are not hearsay at all since they are not statements of fact but merely intention (i.e. 'Boy, if I were ever in that shape, I certainly would not want to be kept alive by tubes.').
Whether one regards such statements as non-hearsay or hearsay admissible pursuant to an exception, all courts (including the federal courts) would find them admissible. That is why accounts of Terri's statements about not wanting to be kept artificially 'alive' were properly admitted into evidence.
FL$: It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
No, Judge Greer resolved that question (and in the manner you urge) long ago. He found that both the husband and the parents might have a conflict. That's why the withdrawal of the feeding tube was by order of the Court and not by order of the husband.
The husband (because of the possible conflict) then petitioned the Court to act as Terri's surrogate to make the decision granted her under her right to privacy under the Florida constitution. The Court did that, after the lengthy trial and concluded -- by clear and convincing evidence (which is an evidenciary standard, not a descriptive term) -- that Terri did not wish to be kept alive artificially. Thus, in ordering the removal of the feeding tube, the Court is merely honoring Terri's wishes.
What is seemingly lost on so many of the 'physical-life-at-all-costs' types is that many of us, particularly those of us who are Christians and on our way to a much better life, simply don't agree with that premise. Terri, the Court found by overwhelming evidence, was one of those who did not share the physical-life-at-all-costs premise.
What is tragic is some Republican (!) politicians would now override her wishes to cater to those harboring this premise.
Now, Dr. Walker....
Is there a cross-examination?
I've asked this a nmuber of times, but haven't received a reply...
Had Terri's attorney moved for a divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity? The 1997 declaration by MS of an angagement to the other woman, moving in with her, and having two children by her seem to clearly indicated marital infidelity!
Please don't flame me for this question, I'm on your side:^) I'm just asking. Do you happen to know if there is authority by statute or case law for these remedies?
Cordially,
"What is tragic is some Republican (!) politicians would now override her wishes to cater to those harboring this premise."
Dead on. I've been e-mailing my representatives to not do this, and I hope Congress does not pass a law. If they do, I'm sure Michael Schiavo's lawyer will go straight to the U.S. Supreme court on an emergency basis to get it overturned. Will be an interesting couple of days to see how this will all play out.
"Dirty Tricks of Guardianships ‚ The Need for Change."
by Robert W. Melton, Chief Auditor, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pinellas CountyPinellas County Internal Auditor Robert W. Melton recently lectured at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg on: "Dirty Tricks of Guardianships ‚ The Need for Change."
Here are just 10 of the "dirty tricks," as outlined by Pinellas County Internal Auditor Robert W. Melton:
1) Guardian creation of a trust: Remove all oversight by the court as a provision of the trust agreement; guardian becomes trustee; provide that the trustee can do whatever they want at their sole discretion.
Ya know for a while I thought a lot of Terri's case, Felos agenda was something to do with the feeding tube and that may be a small part of it. I read that some hospices will not take you if you have a feeding tube. They are going to turn them into death terminals.
However, it shook my being the other night and it is very clear imo now what the precedent is.
Here you have it straight from the horse's mouth...
"The guardian has no discretion," said Felos. "It is not the guardian's decision to do this. It must be done because it is the order of this court."
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2005/3/17/74856.html
Some people have been pushing for years to get her testing and therapy so she could do precisely that. Some people have been pushing to prevent same.
Which group should be more credible?
""The guardian has no discretion," said Felos.
"It is not the guardian's decision to do this.
It must be done because it is the order of this court."http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2005/3/17/74856.html
I know exactly what "hearsay" is. If you ain't got a piece of paper with a signature and notarization as proof, how do I know you aren't a liar?
Really, who else made that statement besides Michael? And why were parents' statements to the contrary ignored?
Which of them is lying? And how do you know?
I'm afraid, dear cat, that you have been smoking some of that illegal substance again. All doctors who have examined her -- that is ALL, including the parents' doctors -- agree that her brain is gone, dissolved, nonexistent and replaced by spinal fluid. All that is left is her brain stem.
The disagreement -- the only disagreement -- is that the parents' doctors contend -- without an ounce of support in any medical literature anywhere -- that a few of the cells in her brain stem might be able to be trained with enough 'experimental therapy.'
This is not the case of a normal functioning individual who simply can't communicate (ala TV). This is a human with no brain whom some people want to keep force fed and in diapers forever in surface to a physical-life-at-any-cost premise.
She did not want this.
Off the meds again, huh?
PM: Really, who else made that statement besides Michael? And why were parents' statements to the contrary ignored? Which of them is lying? And how do you know?
Because you pose a civil question, I will give you the detail you seek. At the trial, 5 witnesses testified as to statements by Terri: her mother, an unnamed witness (discussed below), Michael, Scott Schiavo (Michael's brother), and Joan Schiavo (Scott's wife and Michael's and Terri's sister-in-law). (Her father did not report any statements from Terri.)
The mother said that Terri said, during news reports of the Karen Anne Quinlan matter, that they should just leave her (Karen Anne Quinlan) alone. She said Terri was 17 to 20 years of age at the time. However, when shown the dates of Karen Anne Quinlan's ordeal by newspapers, she admitted under cross-examination, that Terri would have been only 11 or perhaps 12 years of age.
Then the parents' lawyer produced a witness which the decision does not name. This woman said that Terri told her a bad joke in 1982 (when Terri was 19) about the Karen Anne Quinlan case evidencing her view that Karen should have been left alone. Unfortunately, for this unnamed witness, she said that the joke was in the present tense, when Karen had already been dead for several years. Her testimony was obviously contrived.
Michael gave explicit testimony of several conversations with Terri (which I am sure you would discount).
However, most persuasive to Judge Greer was the testimony of Scott and Joan. The judge noted that neither appeared to try to shade their testimony and included unfavorable points within their testimony. Neither were impeached during cross-examination. Terri's statements to Scott and Joan reflected values of independence, quality of life, not wanting to be a burden and not wanting to be 'hooked to a machine'.
In short, the mother's accounts at the time of the Karen Anne Quinlan situation were discounted because Terri was only 11 years old, whereas her comments to Michael, Scott and Joan were made when she was an adult.
So, one can see why Judge Greer would give greater weight to the testimony of Scott and Joan than to that of the mother.
By the way, one need not assume that the mother was 'lying', the statements of Terri she recounted would be consistent with the immature statements of an 11-year old and could be true. But the important point is that, as an adult, Terri did not want to be kept alive artificially (as she is now). That is why Judge Greer could make that finding by clear and convincing evidence.
You might want to talk to Salamander about this. Doctors reading those CT scans reached the same conclusion.
There's no point in asking my opinion because I'm supposed to be a vegetable and what do vegetables know?
*sigh*
"This woman said that Terri told her a bad joke in 1982 (when Terri was 19) about the Karen Anne Quinlan case evidencing her view that Karen should have been left alone. Unfortunately, for this unnamed witness, she said that the joke was in the present tense, when Karen had already been dead for several years. Her testimony was obviously contrived"
Karen was still quite alive in 1982.
Date of Birth: 03/29/1954
Date of Death: 06/11/1985
Age at Death: 31
Cause of Death:
Pneumonia
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.