Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
And a good example of how failure to vet these sources can be fodder for the enemies of FR..and the enemies of America.
Happens all the time. Sometimes the players on are the giving end sometimes on the receiving end. Depends on the issue, but when the heavy hand of government is involved, eventually one side or the other starts in with the slippery-slope-to-nazism smears.
In this case, it was a very emotional issue and I decided early on to let it run it's course.
Interesting stuff on that timeline. Might I suggest that this is the first time you heard it because you were rarely on a thread where anyone might have brought it up?
This pretty well sums up the past two weeks.
_______________________________________________
Agreed; the tension, fear and anger had an almost physical presence.
And it has only begun, in some ways.
bttt
I certainly agree with that. I think there's more to this than what's been discussed. I was on a thread and a poster brought up the fact that a lady who had her life support removed was elderly. So therefore, by implication, it was okay. What the heck does that mean? Is there a line to be drawn? And where is it? Is pulling the plug on a respirator and suffocating someone to death okay? Or only if they're old? Or if they're terminal? This is such a complex issue. I've seen people say a person should have no choice at all in the matter. I'm just not happy with the government making those choices for me. Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting.
And now that you've seen it in action, what are your thoughts about letting it run its course next time?
bttt
Have no idea.
The website has no substantiation of their timeline and events that take place, and they also make glaring omissions.
The facts still remain, that:
1. There was significant uncertainty about Terri's wishes, certainly no "clear and convincing evidence" that she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death.
2. PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers.
3. MS had significant conflict of interest with Terri being allive: money and another family he establiished, so he is hardly an unbiased guardian.
4. Terri did NOT have a lawyers representing her interests. Her interests were only represented by her guardian, who had significant conflicts of interest, thus her rights to due process were denied.
5. Terri's parents offered MS to keep the money, book and movie deals, just let them take care of their daughter, and MS and Judge Greer refused.
6. In view of all of the above Greer ruled to not only withhold "artificial" nutrition or hydration, but food and hydration by any means, even specifically denying the petition to allow Terri to be given food and water by mouth.
IMO, that's far more destructive than not.
In this case, it was a very emotional issue and I decided early on to let it run it's course.
Very emotional indeed. But emotional to the point of taking Reagan's "Eleventh Comandment" and tossing it to the four winds. And that (the continued pariah-making) is still taking place today.
If someone had asked me three months ago if repeatedly labeling other posters as "death cultists" and "Nazis" and "good Germans" was acceptable here, I would have said that I seriously doubt it. Obviously, I was wrong about where the line is drawn - it's not the first time I've been wrong in my life, and it undoubtedly won't be the last, but regardless, it's kind of hard to toe the line if it's not clear where the line is.
Precisely. It does no good to just point fingers at judges while ignoring the fact that David Gibbs wasted two weeks arguing to all levels of the federal judiciary that "Judge Greer was evil" after Congress gave him the opportunity to plead his case de novo. The federal judiciary heard that all before, basicall told Gibbs "You're not presenting any new and substantive evidence".
They heard all that about Judge Greer at one time in the past, and tossed him and his pleadings out of the courtroom.
Within Florida law, there was enough. It is therefore Florida law which must be changed, and that is done through legislation, not from a bench. I do agree that there should be a higher standard of proof.
"2. PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers."
Relevance? There is no credible evidence which suggests it was misdiagnosed HERE.
"3. MS had significant conflict of interest with Terri being allive: money and another family he establiished, so he is hardly an unbiased guardian."
See #1 above. No court found anything justifying ther denial of his guardianship.
"4. Terri did NOT have a lawyers representing her interests. Her interests were only represented by her guardian, who had significant conflicts of interest, thus her rights to due process were denied."
Which guardian? She had several.
"5. Terri's parents offered MS to keep the money, book and movie deals, just let them take care of their daughter, and MS and Judge Greer refused."
Which pretty much demolishes the "He did it for the money" slur. Besides, as the link I provided shows, they were unable to care for her. There is other documentation for that, BTW. Check out abstractappeal.com.
"6. In view of all of the above Greer ruled to not only withhold "artificial" nutrition or hydration, but food and hydration by any means, even specifically denying the petition to allow Terri to be given food and water by mouth."
Because this could have drowned her. She couldn't swallow
2. Can you cite sources that are substantiated?
3. The Schindlers would be considered unbiased?
4. There were two Guardians ad Litem.
5. Again, do you have substantiated proof?
6. I do have a problem with that. The reasoning was that she would choke to death. Now if the feeding tube was removed and she had been fed orally and then choked to death, where would that put us?
The Court of Appeals found he had an apparent conflict of interest. That is grounds for denial of guardianship in Florida and grounds for removal.
But I am curious as to why so many freepers, and especially my libertarian pals here, seem to think contracts that are violated remain contracts. Forget the court, as a matter of course, do you think should wink at broken contracts in general or just the marriage contract?
It was also in Wolfson's report to Jeb Bush.
You do know that Wolfson came out in opposition to Terris Law before he was named guardian, right? Is it too much to ask that an unbiased guardian be appointed? How about a lawyer?
Why no PET scan?
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.