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

Skip to comments.

How the Schiavo Federal Court Case Might Have Been Won(Long article worth the read)
FindLaw's Writ ^ | Saturday, Mar. 26, 2005 | By MICHAEL C. DORF

Posted on 03/28/2005 11:20:36 AM PST by fight_truth_decay

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-202 next last
To: My2Cents

I respect you a lot but you had better look twice at Randall Terry and Larry Klayman who didn't do the Schindlers any favors.

It is not the family -- it was their inept, incompetent legal advice, turning down the offer of help by attorneys that practice in federal court.

Randall Terry is bad news and leaves a bad taste in a lot of the mouths of the pro-life community. Anyone on here that still supports Klayman obviously doesn't understand anything legal because when he shows up, it is all about grandstanding. As for Alan Keyes -- another grandstander who hates the Bush Family.

How anyone cannot see how bad the pleading was to the Federal Court is beyond me. First year law student would have done a better job. Schindlers do not understand the law but Terry and Klayman both do and someone better be asking WHY? Why wouldn't you cite every case law you could find including pro-abortion if it saved Terri's life? I wouldn't care which case law if it were my daughter and neither should anyone else -- Terri's life was at stake and these incompetents put their own agenda over her life IMHO. Then IMO to cover up, they started the blame Jeb and blame the President mantra which people have been going along with blindly.

Where was everyone when the Feds snatched Elian? I, for one, was totally appalled and don't want to see that again and I don't care what the case including this one.


141 posted on 03/28/2005 3:00:44 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

This evades the truth of the matter, which is Terri must die becaause those who oppose her death have challenged the doctrine of judicial supremacy.

Therefore, the judges will find some reason why she must die. Period. To vindicate their dictatorship.

Even the murderer greer admitted on the second go-around that the fact that Terri was speaking would be excluded from consideration because they had not introduced it as evidence three days before.

Kinda like when the Supreme Court said a few years back that actual innocence was insufficient reason to reverse a death penalty.

Dontcha know? The JUDGES make the law. If you don't believe that, just ask 'em. They'll give you an official ruling.

And God forbid that anyone should violate one of those!!!


142 posted on 03/28/2005 3:02:10 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

I have hit abuse so many times, I lost count in all of this.


143 posted on 03/28/2005 3:02:27 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Cranford travels throughout the country testifying in cases involving PVS and brain impairment. He is widely recognized by courts as an expert in these issues, and in some circles is considered “the” expert on PVS.

And here lies our problem.

Apparently Dr. Cranfield makes a career out of advocating death in these situations. He also had some influence in developing the criteria for diagnosis of PVS. Which, itself has come into question.


IMO this guy is selling snakeoil to push an ideology. Not going to evoke Eugenics, but I wouldn't be surprised. Margret Sanger Award nominee in my opinion.


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/JohansenSchiavo.shtml
and from

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7048/13

Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit

Keith Andrews, director of medical services,a Lesley Murphy, senior clinical psychologist,a Ros Munday, senior occupational therapist,a Clare Littlewood, senior occupational therapist a

a Royal Hospital for Neurodisability, London SW15 3SW

Abstract

Objective: To identify the number of patients who were misdiagnosed as being in the vegetative state and their characteristics.

Design: Retrospective study of the clinical records of the medical, occupational therapy, and clinical psychology departments.

Setting: 20 bed unit specialising in the rehabilitation of patients with profound brain damage, including the vegetative state.

Subjects: 40 patients admitted between 1992 and 1995 with a referral diagnosis of vegetative state.

Outcome measures: Patients who showed an ability to communicate consistently using eye pointing or a touch sensitive single switch buzzer.

Results: Of the 40 patients referred as being in the vegetative state, 17 (43%) were considered as having been misdiagnosed; seven of these had been presumed to be vegetative for longer than one year, including three for over four years. Most of the misdiagnosed patients were blind or severely visually impaired. All patients remained severely physically disabled, but nearly all were able to communicate their preference in quality of life issues--some to a high level.

Conclusions: The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment. Accurate diagnosis is possible but requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of people with complex disabilities. Recognition of awareness is essential if an optimal quality of life is to be achieved and to avoid inappropriate approaches to the courts for a declaration for withdrawal of tube feeding.

144 posted on 03/28/2005 3:03:01 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

....pre-election Gallup polling which indicated that 25 percent of Bush supporters are single issue pro-life voters.

Gallup also noted that they found similar results in both the 2000 and 1984 presidential elections.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/5/72302.shtml


145 posted on 03/28/2005 3:06:48 PM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

Me either, however there are third parties who will pull enough votes from the hard core and we will end up with another clinton in office.


146 posted on 03/28/2005 3:08:30 PM PST by CajunConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I expect the people I vote for to stand up for their own principles, not mine. You said they did it for me and people like me. I guess you're saying they threw us a bone, and their convictions really weren't in it. What you're telling me is that as long as we vote Republican, you're willing to tolerate us unwashed religious nuts, but as soon as we expect our elected leaders whom we worked for, sent money to, and have fought to support, to take a stand when it counts, we're lucky to get the time of day.

And I don't begrudge what Congress, the Pres., and Gov. Bush have done. What I begrudge is the unmasked animosity my fellow conservatives really have for me and people like me. Rather than emphasize with our frustration, you stab us in the back. I'm sorry we've been such a nusance that you and the rest have had to put up with for some 25 years.

While I and others like me think other issues on the President's agenda are worth fighting for, and we will continue to support him and his objectives, don't think we won't forget how shabbily we were treated by our "brethren" (I'm not talking about officeholders here) when our #1 issue came centerstage. If you have to hold your nose to keep us in the party, we'll stay, but we'll hold our nose as well.

147 posted on 03/28/2005 3:12:21 PM PST by My2Cents (America is divided along issues of morality, between the haves and the have-nots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota, has repeatedly dismissed calls for MRI testing, and his opinion has prevailed.

When Minnesota policeman Sgt. David Mack was shot in the line of duty in 1979, Dr. Ronald Cranford diagnosed his patient as being in a "persistent vegetative state," never to regain "cognitive, sapient functioning." Dr. Cranford was ready to end his patient's life, but 20 months after the shooting, Sgt. Mack regained consciousness and nearly all of his mental ability....

---Dr. Ronald Cranford, a professor of neurology at the University of Minnesota who examined Schiavo in 2002, added: "The chances of her waking up or benefiting from treatment are zero."If you are in a room with Schiavo, her eyes do not track you, Cranford said....

Nancy Cruzan did not even require a feeding tube: She could be spoon-fed. But Cranford advocated denying even that, saying that even spoon-feeding constituted “medical treatment” that could be licitly withdrawn....


http://swdesertrat.blogspot.com/2005/03/michael-schiavos-star-witness-dr.html

Perfect "expert" witness for the attornies for Michael Schrivo


148 posted on 03/28/2005 3:16:31 PM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay

Just Freakin' Nice.


149 posted on 03/28/2005 3:19:50 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; My2Cents

NOT to mention the fact other wings of the GOP are royally ticked off about this for various reasons...

Before these folks betray President Bush, they'd damn well better look at Tom Daschle and others who picked fights with the President. The track record clearly shows that picking fights with George Walker Bush is NOT good for one's future prospects.


150 posted on 03/28/2005 3:20:33 PM PST by hchutch ("But, Rally, they're SMOKE GRENADES.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/779/23033.html


151 posted on 03/28/2005 3:22:37 PM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents; hchutch
I expect the people I vote for to stand up for their own principles, not mine. You said they did it for me and people like me. I guess you're saying they threw us a bone, and their convictions really weren't in it.

Now you're deliberately acting as if you're stupid.

I'm saying that there are always competing factions demanding satisfaction from politicians. This fight pitted the pro-life community against the small-government conservatives. The pro-life community "won" this round, but they also managed to burn up a great deal of political capital that was to be used for other critical tasks. Now it looks like we've lost the opportunity to use the nuclear option. Thanks, buddy.

You derailed one of your own goals (it's also one of mine)--and you derailed another major goal of the entire GOP, all in one week, to get your way--and then your side of the aisle squandered the victory.

What you're telling me is that as long as we vote Republican, you're willing to tolerate us unwashed religious nuts, but as soon as we expect our elected leaders whom we worked for, sent money to, and have fought to support, to take a stand when it counts, we're lucky to get the time of day.

Do you support making English the official language of the United States?

If so, then kindly do us all a favor and learn how to read it.

I am saying that your side got a LOT of patronage. Your side then proceeded to waste that patronage. Your side will be expected to deliver a lot of victories in return for that wasted patronage.

What your side did with the patronage you received is of no account. We conservatives believe in letting people deal with the consequences of their decisions.

152 posted on 03/28/2005 3:23:19 PM PST by Poohbah (If it's called "collateral damage," how come I can't use it to secure a loan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: hchutch

As Hugh Hewitt said last Friday, the great divide in the country isn't "conservative vs. liberal," that's too simplistic an analysis...It's "secular vs. religious." I've seen this on FreeRepublic this past week, and it distresses me. People who were united behind Bush last year, and now many of these conservatives are turning on the religious pro-life conservatives, some telling us the GOP would be better off without us.


153 posted on 03/28/2005 3:24:06 PM PST by My2Cents (America is divided along issues of morality, between the haves and the have-nots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Thanks a lot. Y'all took out a huge loan of goodwill.

Man Poohbah, step back from the cyniscim a bit. This fight existed with or without Schiavo, and it exists without us the constituence. This is a power struggle between egotistical men in suits vs. egotistical men in robes.

However, I wouldn't characterize the Bush's moves as pandering. Nor would I consider myself part of the Evangelical Right to Life group, but this whole episode has me out for (political) blood.

154 posted on 03/28/2005 3:25:23 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
People who were united behind Bush last year, and now many of these conservatives are turning on the religious pro-life conservatives, some telling us the GOP would be better off without us.

I am a religious conservative.

I am also a person interested in practical results. And if the religious right doesn't generate practical results (or those results are adverse to the cause of conservatism), then the GOP is much better off without the religious right.

Also, kindly note that the people turning on Bush are the folks whining about Bush not engaging in impeachable offenses to satisfy their whims.

155 posted on 03/28/2005 3:27:41 PM PST by Poohbah (If it's called "collateral damage," how come I can't use it to secure a loan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

I refuse to take the blame for "burning political capital." If the Republicans in Congress can't get the President's agenda items through, it't not because they spent a chit on a pro-life issue; it's because they're feckless weenies.


156 posted on 03/28/2005 3:27:49 PM PST by My2Cents (America is divided along issues of morality, between the haves and the have-nots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Man Poohbah, step back from the cyniscim a bit.

Give me one good reason why I should. I've learned far too much about a bunch of FReepers.

157 posted on 03/28/2005 3:29:06 PM PST by Poohbah (If it's called "collateral damage," how come I can't use it to secure a loan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I refuse to take the blame for "burning political capital."

And there you have it: you help make the mess, then refuse to take responisbility for it.

You've eloquently made the point: by your own analysis, the GOP is better off not doing business with you.

158 posted on 03/28/2005 3:32:38 PM PST by Poohbah (If it's called "collateral damage," how come I can't use it to secure a loan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

The whole concept of Political Capital as a expendible resources is a bad analogy, and does not reflect reality in politics.

Bush himself has said in effect that Political Capital is created when it is expended.


159 posted on 03/28/2005 3:34:39 PM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

It is good for us to think ahead and plan for our last days, whenever they might be. Most importantly, it is good to discuss our wishes with family.



Although "living wills" are becoming very popular, we should remember that they did not originate within Christian circles. Euthanasia and "right to die" organizations exist, in part, to encourage elderly and infirm people to get out of the way to make room for the more productive and useful members of society. Before euthanasia would ever be accepted by society, "right to die" advocates knew the climate of society would have to change. In 1967, a Chicago attorney by the name of Luis Kutner introduced a new document designed to bring about that change. The document was called a "living will."



Signing a "living will" may mean signing away unspecified treatment in an unknown situation in the future. It is far better to make our wishes known to a trusted friend or family member or to appoint a durable power of attorney who will speak for us when we cannot speak for ourselves.


But... my family knows me well. Won't they know what I would like done when my death is imminent?


In a survey of nursing home residents, 80% said they would want life support if necessary. However, only 30% of their families thought their loved ones would want life support. Families need to talk! Families must communicate! This will also help eliminate anger and disharmony between family members.


http://www.lutheransforlife.org/Life%20Issue%20Info/End-of-Life/ventilators_-_feeding_tubes.htm


160 posted on 03/28/2005 3:34:45 PM PST by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-202 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