Posted on 03/23/2005 5:49:34 AM PST by xzins
I really don't have any reliable information as to what the parents are being allowed to do by the guardian (the husband).
My role here has been to stop the wrongful vilification of Judge Greer and the legal system which handled the matter to its credit (My colleague at the bar, P-Marlowe, to the contrary notwithstanding.) The political arm of government, by contrast, is an embarrassment as usual. My point in this thread has merely been that Judge Greer never ordered the cessation of efforts to feed and hydrate her naturally.
At some point folks, we have to get the government out of this micromanagement of her care (as fatandlazy has eloquently argued here). The guardian had to go to the judiciary to get permission to withdraw the artificial life support. He got it. I have no reason to believe the government has any other role in this.
Law enforcement should keep the peace. [Keep the crazies -- the woman yesterday -- away.] That's it. Leave it to the husband and the medical staff.
I am proud. I keep posting this on a lot of the Terri threads. Just posted it on the Florida Bishops thread.
bump
I remain unconvinced that the judge has not denied natural food and water.
The quote and link I provided and the all encompassing order certainly seem on the surface to state that.
Then the judge says that respondent's request is "part and parcel of respondent's Fla. R. Civ. P Rule 1.540(b)(5) motion." He says their request is covered if he approves of 1.540 (b)(5).
Well....did he approve it or didn't he?
If he didn't, then he denied "natural food & water" per his own explanation.
Then you haven't looked. The family has been all over the news. They are being STRIP SEARCHED lest they bring in a morsel of food or a drop of water.
BTW, if someone walked into the room today and put a bullet through Terri Schiavo's brain, what crime would be committed?
ping to 125
Fox News says some protesters have been arrested, and that apparently, later today, a group will try to get water to Mrs. Schiavo.
Well, as the Hertz ad says, "Not quite." Terri had her heart attack in February 1990 but the husband didn't file his petition to remove the feeding tube until May 1998, over 8 years later. The issue of Terri's wishes didn't come to the fore until then.
It is true that the husband didn't testify to his recollections until the trial in 1999-2000. Judge Greer said this in his decision in February 2000 about this supposed 'issue':
It has been suggested that Michael Schiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years to file the Petition which is under consideration. That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued.
There is no evidence (apart from the now-fevered minds of his opponents) that he 'suddenly came up with this hearsay conversation'.
I really have to get back to work, but I have posted many, many posts on this topic over the last several days, demonstrating from the record that the Court placed the greatest emphasis on separate conversations Terri had with Scott Schiavo, her brother-in-law, and Joan Schiavo, her sister-in-law. While Michael also testified, the court singled out the conversations with Scott and Joan. Those statements by Terri were spine-tinglingly prescient.
This is News and Activism. It is also relevant to Religion.
Please re-post it under a more visible category.
The fact remains that there is no written instruction and everything is hearsay.
Why does no one from Terri's own family recall this desire on her part?
It should all be reheard. There are too many discrepancies.
I am with you on this one.
And the evidence of that is what? Their testimony before a TV camera? Come on. This is a media circus they have created for their purposes. You may think their purposes worthy (I do not), but you cannot deny they have created the media circus.
BTW, if someone walked into the room today and put a bullet through Terri Schiavo's brain, what crime would be committed?
Depending on the degree of premeditation, state of mind, etc, murder or manslaughter, Counselor. Don't you agree?
What Greer did is the moral equivalent of putting a bullet through Schiavo's head. She is not being allowed to die "naturally". She is being systematically murdered.
There is an INTENT TO KILL manifest in the order from Judge Greer and the attitude of those who would prevent any attempt to use nautural means to hydrate or nourish the victim. This is nothing less than premeditated murder.
This should be a lesson to all of us -- we should put our wishes in writing. I think I heard a statistic that says something like only 20% have any sort of written directives.
And we have to be sure that everyone close to us and our family physician, if we have one, has a copy of those directives.
If they hadn't created this "circus" their daughter would have been murdered years ago.
That is well said, is the point of this editorial, and is the truth.
The court system is murdering this woman.
Regardless of her prognosis I can't see how a Judge can withold food and water from any American. It's cruel and unusual punishment. Even death row inmates receive the basics.
I'm running out of time. Whether or not the testimony meets the definition of hearsay is not the issue. The testimony was valid and its acceptance by the court was appropriate.
Here is part of a brief explanation of hearsay (using the federal rules) which I posted a couple of days ago on another of these threads in the context of discussing Dr. Wolfson's characterization of Terri's statements of intention and desire as '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.
The statements were most likely hearsay, but properly admissible nonetheless.
Why does no one from Terri's own family recall this desire on her part?
Who knows? Maybe they were thoroughgoing RCC and she was afraid to discuss her views with them. Maybe the circumstance never came up. Maybe she did discuss it with them and they, out of support for her parents, won't cooperate. Who knows? As a lawyer, you take your witnesses where you find them. They have to know something of value and be willing to testify to it.
It should all be reheard. There are too many discrepancies.
No, there's no 'mulligan theory of justice.' Every loser would want such a rule. We have established rules to determine when that should happen and when it shouldn't. How many courts have to look at this before you will admit, "Yes, this was a fair proceding. I don't like the result. I don't like the law. Maybe, I don't even think people should have the right to end their own lives, but I have to admit it was a fair proceding." That's all I seek.
This is not a lesson but is a government grab for power over life and death....a terrible precedent.
You're a good man, a good Christian and a lawyer. You know better than that.
I realize emotions are a little raw for those who conscientiously don't believe in ending life in any circumstance, but if you really thought it was 'murder', you would, as a lawyer, present your case to the relevant DA and ask him to file a complaint or take it to the Grand Jury. You won't because you don't.
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.