Posted on 03/23/2005 5:49:34 AM PST by xzins
It is evident that attending nurses have affidavits affirming that Terri Schiavo was able only a few short years ago to ingest food and water orally.
This is also evidenced by the "guardian's" insistence on police overlooking her room to prevent her parents from doing just that....a secret drink, an ice chip, etc.
The judge's order is that the tube not be reinserted.
There is no moral order able to be given that she not have the CHANCE to eat and drink in a manner normal for babies and others who might find themselves in a dependent status.
Everyone in "right to die" land is saying "Let her go NATURALLY."
OK....if that is accepted, then it is only fair, judicious, humane, and NATURAL to have a good faith attempt by totally uninvolved, neutral caregivers to give her food and water orally.
Change strategy -- demand the natural feeding of Terri Schiavo if there is no hope of a feeding tube being inserted! Demand Federal intervention to require this reasonable and NATURAL act!
Let's put the lie to supposedly humane cries for a "Natural" death for Terri Schiavo.
Finally, to give her water would be the side that is affirmed by Jesus Christ Himself: "Mr 9:41 - And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of My name, since you belong to the Messiah-- I assure you: He will never lose his reward. "
I agree...as I said, I do not like government making these decisions for us.
But I found the 20% statistic on living wills appalling, especially in view of this controversy. I would have thought there would have been a rush of people to put their wishes in writing.
Had Mrs. Schiavo put her wishes in writing and distributed copies to everyone and anyone, perhaps this controversy might not have happened.
Making an order removing any ability of anyone to attempt to feed her water or food by natural means is murder. Pure and simple.
Because the judge has ordered that no one can introduce water or food by natural means, there would be no "legal grounds" for a charge of murder, but that does not mean that it is not morally a murder. But just as a partial birth abortion is murder, this is murder. She is not being allowed to die naturally. She is being executed.
I only keep responding because I respect you and because I believe that your reason and Biblical understanding will eventually triumph.
The most that can be said is that there is an intent to withdraw extraordinary means of maintenance of Terri in the Judge's order with full knowledge that will result in her death. No question about it.
A lot of overwrought laymen toss around terms like 'murder' here, but you know that is not the case. If you think it is an unlawful killing, convince a Grand Jury to indict and start another round. You know that is not the case.
We have now had the state circuit court look at this multiple times, the state court of appeal (four times, I think), the state supreme court (three times I think), the federal district court, and the federal circuit court of appeals. As I just say to xzins, "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."
As a lawyer, you know it was.
See #124
I do not think this was a fair proceeding.
I think evidence was excluded and included that make it very unfair.
So much so that I think the executive branch of government should intervene.
If, in fact, Terri Schiavo was fully capable of being fed water and food by mouth, would you support an order prohibiting anyone from feeding her?
See #124
Come on, Counselor. Show me the order. There are all scanned and available at www.abstractappeal.com. Read them and show me the order. Otherwise, stop impugning a good judge (and ostensibly a Christian brother) doing a very, very tough job.
You're coming closer to just saying you don't like the law. That's fair and proper argument and we can (and perhaps should) debate that as Christians, but this vilification of Judge Greer ought to stop.
By the way, after avoiding this for months on FR (because I knew my views would not be popular), I was drawn into this a couple of days ago by someone trying to make a Biblical argument against suicide. I think it would be interesting and profitable to have an informed discussion here among thoughtful Christians (such as yourself) on the Biblical teaching on life-ending decisions.
...for file.
OK, I have been down this road 10-15 times in the past 4 days. Show me a specific proffer of evidence at the trial that was rejected and let's discuss the ruling, and the decision of the FL court of appeal and/or the FL supreme court as to why they sustained it. Same challenge for evidence which was admitted over objection.
Many have wanted to make the same charge you have in general terms, but no one wants to deal in specifics.
Why am I so confident on this? Because, as Marlowe knows, this is what appellate lawyers and appellate courts do very, very well. This how parties get most retrials. Moreover, since every judge who touched this case knew he would have many judges after him looking over his shoulder, they were caaarrreeeffffuuulll in the extreme.
Bad evidentiary decisions in the trial court. Didn't happen, my friend.
So, you don't want the Clinton branch to intervene, you don't want the Army (or the Air Force either). You want a new and different law. That's OK. Let's debate it, but abandon this 'evidentiary issue' business. It only sounds good until you deal in specifics.
Wait til you see the figures next year. I am moving to a new jurisdiction and my first priority is a new durable power complying with the law of that jurisdiction. Moreover, I spent some time last night drafting new language for my durable power on feeding tubes, hydration, etc to make sure no one could ever do to me what they have done to Terri for the last 15 years. I am actually adding a disinheritance clause to my (property) will (which are common for will contests) disinheriting anyone who initiates litigation to challenge my durable power.
I'm ready for Heaven and don't want someone trying to tie chains to my ankles.
Sorry Winston, but that is what the order says to me. Michael Schiavo is not denying the Schindler's allegations that they are not allowed to attempt to introduce water by mouth. They are being denied the right to put water into their daughter's mouth. You may not believe that, but that is what is happening. That is the effect of that order whether Greer intended it or not.
If, in fact, that is what the order required, would you still maintain your position that what is being done to Terri Shiavo is just fine with you?
Personally I am as repulsed by this as by any partial birth abortion.
To paraphrase my favorite President, "there you go again."
If there were such an order of the Court, I would agree with you. There is no such order. Show me the order!
It is a bit unfair to ask a non-lawyer to provide lawyerly documents. I have no idea where to find such things.
I've listened to nurses talk about feeding Terri jello and other things. I've listened to the parents speak of broken bones. I've listened to folks speak of the police being called in for a "heart attack." I've listened to doctors talk of MRI's and PET's not being used. I've heard others speak of her ability to speak. Others who say she laughs, tracks things with her eyes, smiles.
You tell me how to find out if all those things (and more...those just came to me off the top of my head), and you will be revealing such methods for the first time in my life.
Explain why Pres. Bush and Congress both think this case should receive another full review?? Explain why these judges refuse to do what the Congressional act clearly calls for???
Bravo, Winston!
I'm pondering having a completely new living will done. Right now, I have an old "all or nothing" living will -- our state only recently permitted the type that give you a number of life support options; you can pick and choose what you want. I think that's much better.
Michael (the guardian) may be giving such an order (I don't have any evidence of that, but it may be). BUT neither Judge Greer nor any other court EVER ordered that.
I did show you the order. And then in #124 I showed that the judge said his further order would deal with the request they made to feed and hydrate orally.
WHAT was his decision?
Where is it? Give me a link and I'll read it.
Go to www.abstractappeal.com. Done by a young appellate lawyer in Florida who seems scrupulously fair to both sides. He gives a thumbnail description of each motion and hearing and then links the order. You can read them all there.
I've listened to nurses talk about feeding Terri jello and other things. I've listened to the parents speak of broken bones. I've listened to folks speak of the police being called in for a "heart attack." I've listened to doctors talk of MRI's and PET's not being used. I've heard others speak of her ability to speak. Others who say she laughs, tracks things with her eyes, smiles.
Obviously, these are usually moving target arguments (somewhat akin to the old proof-text lists of our Calvinist friends on those threads) and whenever you focus on one item, their on to the next. Many of these were raised and dealt with at the trial, so start with the February 11, 2000 decision. And , then, go on from there to your heart's content.
BTW, I would make your second document the 13 page decision of the federal district judge yesterday. It won't be as detailed on factual arguments, but it will give you a good idea as to why the federal system is not going to help the parents' arguments.
Because of the proliferation of motions from the parents, I am not entirely sure, but I think it is the order on March 9, 2005, so I would click on that one and see if that is what you want. [I am not supergood with FR links, so I would just go to www.abstractappeal.com and look at whatever you want.]
"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that respondent’s emergency expedited motion for permission to provide Theresa Schiavo with food and water by natural means is DENIED."
How else can it be read?
You want it straight? Because, sadly, they are pandering to what they think (wrongfully) their Christian political base wants. Actually, I think a substantial majority of evangelical Christians would favor ending their own lives if they were ever in the condition of Terri (or even close to it) and without 15 years of forced feeding and diapers.
If there is an outrage here, it is that 15 years (!) of wrongful imprisonment of Terri against her stated wishes. We must remember we should not grieve over and cling to mere physical life like, to use Paul's great phrase, "... the rest who have no hope." 1 Th 4:13b
Don't tie chains to my ankles. I'm going home.
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.