Protection for the Disabled - For Terri

FR_Addict ^ | March 31, 2005 | FR_Addict

[inquest]

Both of you are proceeding from the assumption that the patient in question wants to live, and is therefore is slated for "murder". That was a perfectly valid assumption in the case of Terri Schiavo, which is why I didn't raise constitutional objections then. But I'm not about to give the federal government power to decide on its own whether or not that's the case. Sorry, but that's just one more step down a road that's not going to bode well for the country.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Both of you are proceeding from the assumption that the patient in question wants to live, and is therefore is slated for "murder".

I am not. I do not know, let alone "assume", whether she wanted to live. She may or may not have. There was insufficient basis for concluding either. (Which uncertainty alone was reason enough that she should not have been killed.)

Further, whether someone wants to live, I hate to break it to you, has very little bearing on whether for you to kill him is wrong. If you shoot a depressed, suicidal teenager in the head, the fact that he "wanted to die" doesn't make it ok.

That was a perfectly valid assumption in the case of Terri Schiavo,

I disagree.

It is absurd to order someone's death on having made an "assumption" that they want to die, however "valid" one might think that assumption is. That reasoning was the crux of the idiocy of this case.

which is why I didn't raise constitutional objections then

You probably should have. It can hardly be constitutional for a state agent to "assume" that a person wants to die and then order her death on that basis. If people think this is constitutional, that's a problem.

But I'm not about to give the federal government power to decide on its own whether or not that's the case.

That's stupid. The federal government, through the 5th and 14th amendments, most certainly does have the power to deny the states the authority to kill their own citizens. Whether you're "about to give" them that power or not.

I have to wonder, who the heck convinced so many people around here that Letting People Kill People was somehow at the heart of federalism, strict constructionism, and conservatism? *boggle*

Sorry, but that's just one more step down a road that's not going to bode well for the country.

Preventing states from killing innocent people is "one more step down a road that's not going to bode well for the country". Allowing states to kill innocent people, apparently, is the better road, one that bodes well for the country. Understood.

It's idiocy, but understood.

[burwellstark]

Charles Krauthammer said this last week in his column entitiled 'The Law is Failing Terri', which is posted on townhall.com: "There is no good outcome in this case. Except perhaps if FLorida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones... It will help prevent us having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy."

There are many doors that have been cracked open in this ordeal that would have been better left closed. The question is now, do we have what it takes to close them before they are torn off their hinges?

[FR_addict]

Would you ping Terri's supporters?
The Schindlers have been informed of this petition.

Perhaps more of Terri's supporters would be interested in supporting a stronger bill for the disabled if they knew about it.

Another freeper is planning to contact some attorneys that came out in support of Terri to tell us if we need anything else in the House bill to prevent activist judges from ignoring this law.

[inquest]

Read my reply over again. You have the exact wrong understanding of what my assumption was in the case of Terri Schiavo.

[FR_addict]

Well Done!

The only thing I would disagree with is "the insufficient basis for concluding eiher". I have read the affidavits and the rulings when Michael S. first decided that Terri wanted to die, seven years after the collapse, after he denied her basic rehabilitation for years, after he got the jury award, and after he met Felos and it is obvious that Judge Greer only considered Michael's hearsay evidence rather than the facts surrounding the case. He dismisses the sworn affidavit of Terri's friend, Diane Meyer. He said he believed that the incident took place, but that it had to be earlier when Terri was a child, not 1982, because Karen Ann Quinlen was already dead, when Terri spoke of her in the present tense. Judge Greer said Karen Ann Quinlen died in 1976, when in fact she died in 1986. It was only a few months ago this reversible error was caught. It was put back in front of Judge Greer and he again denied the motion to reconsider Diane Meyers' testimony. Even though this was the basis of his original ruling that Michael's hearsay testimony was the only one given when Terri was an adult, he denied the request to reconsider. These facts are all in the court documents for anyone interested in looking at the facts of this case. Another thing that is outrageous is that the law of Florida says there has to be a living will and Judge Greer allowed hearsay evidence instead.

[Walkin Man]

I don't want to see this tragedy used to expand the power of government even further.

I agree.

I don't want the Feds hovering over my deathbed making sure I suffer as much as possible before I die either!

[Ohioan from Florida]

Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!

[FR_addict]

Ok, Don't sign.

I signed because I don't want a lowly Circuit Court Judge that ignores the laws in Florida to dehydrate and starve me to death and refuse to allow me any type of rehabilitation.

According to the nurses and the medical notes early on Terri was taking food by mouth. The feeding tube was placed in her for the convenience of the nursing staff. Judge Greer refused swallow tests for Terri before he condemned her to death. She could be taught to eat by mouth again. She swallowed her own saliva and did not have a suction tube for saliva removal.

[jwalsh07]

If a law demands that they do something, they're going to pass judgement on its constitutionality.

And therin lies the problem with the federal judiciary, they are de facto a law unto themselves.

[eeevil conservative]

Ya'll HAVE TO READ THIS!! IT IS HORRIFYING!!!

I found this story this morning....

On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.

I was in Mexico City conducting a pilgrimage and unable to be at her side so there were many questions upon my return. The doctors could not tell me the cause of her death so I began to search for the answers and was fortunate to obtain the hospital chart. It then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!

Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying “I don’t want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained”; “I want to see Greta walk.” Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild. Even though over-sedation is one of the most common problems with the elderly she was immediately diagnosed as having a stroke. When she became comatose a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.

The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states “no seizure activity” and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?

Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a “no code” status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The “no code” was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the “no code” a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads “Death by natural causes.”

My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.

http://straightupwsherri.blogspot.com/

[Walkin Man]

According to the nurses and the medical notes early on Terri was taking food by mouth.

Don't you think its kinda funny that these people had 15 years to prove these hearsay statements in court and they couldn't do it?

[general_re]

But I'm not about to give the federal government power to decide on its own whether or not that's the case. Sorry, but that's just one more step down a road that's not going to bode well for the country.

Agreed.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Read my reply over again. You have the exact wrong understanding of what my assumption was in the case of Terri Schiavo.

Ok.

Nevertheless, I had various and sundry disagreements with several of the related statements you made along the way, as seen in my previous post to you.

[FR_addict]

"Don't you think its kinda funny that these people had 15 years to prove these hearsay statements in court and they couldn't do it?"

Not after meeting them. They were way too docile. So are most of their supporters.

There are allegations of wrongdoings in Pinellas County in other guardianship cases. Unlike other Floridian counties, they keep the guardian financial papers sealed in this county. Judge Greer is on record for keeping the records sealed.

Please read up on this case. There are a lot of things wrong in this County. If you want to get your inheritance ahead of time, make sure to put your relative in a hospice in Pinellas County, then go attorney and Judge shopping.

You do know that Felos was the chairman of the board at the hospice, when Michael S. first put Terri in there. Judge Greer did not make Michael S. file annual guardianship papers as required by Floridian law. He picked and chose what laws to enforce and if the law didn't specifically apply to the case, he just "reinterpreted the law" as in this case, Terri had no "living will." Dr. Cranford is part of the Death Doctors that make their living going around the country testifying to kill people. He has written very controversial articles.

The so called neutral Doctor that was appointed by the courts had connections to Felos through a society his brother and Felos are very active members of. Judge Greer will not answer how this Doctor was picked in the first place to be the supposedly neutral doctor in the case.

Michael S. works for the county as the nurse for the county jail. He was appointed to this position through a good friend of Greer's, the ex-sheriff Rice, who is now in the Floridian legislature.

I could go on and on about the conflict of interest and outright corruption in this case. I want to see the case investigated, from Judge Greer on up, but I'm afraid that it is going to get covered up.

[FR_addict]

Bump for Terri!

[windchime]

Please consider signing in Terri's honor.

Protection for the Disabled

http://www.petitiononline.com/TerriLaw/petition.html

[inquest]

Your "various and sundry disagreements" mostly stemmed from other misunderstandings of my position, or from strawmen of your creation. In any case, none of it betrayed any serious attempt at rational discussion.

I'll only say here that if something's illegal under the 14th amendment, there's no need for Congress to make it illegal. If it's not illegal under the 14th, then Congress has no authority under that amendment to make it illegal.

[inquest]

[If a law demands that they do something, they're going to pass judgement on its constitutionality.]

And therin lies the problem with the federal judiciary, they are de facto a law unto themselves.

I don't consider it a problem that they pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws, but rather that their pronouncements on constitutionality are treated as unassailable fact.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Your "various and sundry disagreements" mostly stemmed from other misunderstandings of my position, or from strawmen of your creation.

Well, as long as you're specific about where I erred and show why it is so that I erred about your position.

In any case, none of it betrayed any serious attempt at rational discussion.

As opposed to, for example, the post I'm currently responding to.

I'll only say here that if something's illegal under the 14th amendment, there's no need for Congress to make it illegal. If it's not illegal under the 14th, then Congress has no authority under that amendment to make it illegal.

What are you talking about? Specifically? What did Congress "make illegal", or try to? Or are specifics, bearing on an actual point of some sort, too much to ask from someone who purports to crave rational discussion.