A) State's rights - I don't want the Feds involved.
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.
C) The court is what decides who is a valid doctor and what is a valid diagnosis. 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. Neither my personal view or yours Agamemnon matters.
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.
Bogolyubski wrote: The problem as I see it, Destro, is that the judge has steadfastly refused to allow independent doctors and medical experts to evaluate the situation. I find that an incorrect statement. AaronInCarolina, who supports the same position as you do Bogolyubski said that the Court did hear testimony from both sides plus a neutral court appointed medical team.
frgoff wrote: You forgot to add "May his name be praised" after judge. Make sure you kneel and kiss the ring as well and offer your proper oblations to this infallible individual.
The judge ruled according to Florida law. Also this is a republic not a mobacracy. The interpretation of law is for the state courts not you or I or anyone else. Florida law gives the husband teh right to make a decision like this if the patient is daignosed as being in a vegetative state. The Judge ruled that A) the husband does indded have that right and B) she is indeed in a Veg. state. The Judge did not ask that her feeding tube be pulled only thatthe husbands wishes be met and he is asking the tube be removed.
No sir, it is not. Your position and your opinion that proceeds from it are clearly uninformed.
As it pertains to the meaning of vegitative state, and all that the term clinically implies, you have demonstrated no amount of personal clinical diagnostic accomplishment on your own part that qualifies you to make the judgment that you have carelessly made in this area. Futhermore, it is not up to any of us to do your research for you.
Do your research, make your case, and stop posting the equivalent of "I'm not a doctor in real life, I just play one on FR" kinda stuff.
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.
Holy CRAP!!! You have got to be kidding with this. The man has bought a house with the malpractice settlement that was supposed to be for lifelong treatment of Terri. On top of that, he's living with another woman, and he's had two children with her. There is no institution of marriage at this point. There are affadavits on file from nurses with him quoted as saying "is the bitch dead yet"?? He has not upheld ANY of his marriage vows to her. At what point is it valid to say, you have a conflict of interest so NO, you don't get to decide any longer. As someone who has made a poor choice in marriage in my life, let me tell you how incredibly grateful I am that he wasn't able to make any life saving decisions on my behalf. And if he had, my parents and my brothers would do exactly what the Schindlers are doing. Further if it was my daughter and I suspected that her husband had hurt her physically and put her in this position, I would do everything possible to not allow him the say. Including some kind of rescue.
You obviously speak in ignorance of someone in a brain injured status.
And finally, re-read what that idiot judge has declared. Not only that the tube is to be pulled, but that no food may be given by her mouth, which has been posted a gazillion times on this site, IF michael had spent money on therapy for his wife, instead of hiring attorney's to kill her, she could very well be able to eat on her own at this point. It was posted earlier that the attorney said she took communion so swallowing is an ability she has.
So the feds aren't allowed to protect civil rights? The blacks who used to be kept in Florida segregated schools - till the feds intervened - - might disagree with you.
>> B) she is indeed in a Veg. state.
But this judge has blocked all reasonable revisititation of his finding, and is sustained at appeal level only because that level does not reverse lower court findings of "fact."
This patient has not even had a PET Scan or fMRI or a recent EEG, because he has blocked those requests, in spite of conflicting medical opinions and continuing controversy. So instead of resolving controversy, he is managing it by fiat at the expense of knowledge which neither you nor I have. But of course, I know, you have an Position Based on Conservitism. Kiss my ass.
> A) State's rights - I don't want the Feds involved.
Life and liberty interests are constitutional rights and not limited to only the state level. In fact, state constitutions generally mirror the U.S. Constitution, so involvement at the Federal level is not unreasonable.
> 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.
In 99+% of cases, I (and probably most others) could agree with you. But here we have a husband who, without going the court route for a divorce (and refuses to do so), unjoined himself from the "sacred institution of marriage" he entered into with his lawful wife, and some 10 years ago forsook his marital vow for an extramarital common law arrangement.
> ... the Court did hear testimony from both sides plus a neutral court appointed medical team.
On this point you are completely ignorant of the facts and ought to come up to speed about the supposedly "neutral court appointed medical team." -- which was actually a fifth not entirely unbiased doctor.
> The judge ruled according to Florida law. ... The interpretation of law is for the state courts not you or I or anyone else.
Four times Greer was requested to recuse himself as judge for Terri's case. Florida law is clear and requires that a judge recuse himself when a request is filed. Greer ruled that he won't. There are too many other instances to reference where Greer violated Florida's constitution and statutory laws. You're really quite uninformed about the enormity of Greer's trampling of Terri's due process rights and right to life (as opposed to the slyly termed but grotesque "right to die" process).
> Florida law gives the husband teh right to make a decision like this if the patient is daignosed as being in a vegetative state.
Florida law provides for exceptions to this general rule when there is an obvious conflict of interest. Greer declined to take note of HINO's multiple conflicts, contradictory statements about Terri's welfare and questionable treatment of her.
> The Judge did not ask that her feeding tube be pulled only thatthe husbands wishes be met and he is asking the tube be removed.
Your inclusion of "only thatthe husbands wishes be met" is the core issue and problem of this tragedy -- the husband's wishes. Like it or not, this acknowledges that it's not actually Terri's wishes that are being "honored", but HINO's. As far as the judge not "asking" for removal of the feeding tube, Greer went beyond that in ordering that no one can feed her orally. That makes Greer's ruling an order of execution.