Did the Judges Do Their Jobs? (Vanity)

3/25/2005 | Blake Elliott

[carolinacrazy]

A majority of freepers are incredibly upset at activist judges attempting to legislate from the bench. I share these feelings. But in the Schiavo case, did these judges go against any existing laws, or did they do their jobs while being contrained by the actual law? Is it the opinion of many here that activist judges are ok if the outcome is what you want? Maybe we need some new laws established and the judges actually had their hands tied on this one. Please let me know your opinion.

[agrace]

Did you know the parents tried to take care of her initially, only later to have her placed in Hospice?

Actually, that's not true. Terri wasn't in hospice until 2000. The Schindlers & Michael took her back to the nursing home where she had been living after two weeks at home I believe. And I'd be willing to bet that 15 years of helping and observing staff care for Terri has improved their personal abilities to care for her themselves.

Anyway, Michael had her placed in hospice after retention of George Felos - at the time, he was a board member and arranged for her to stay there.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the neglect she has received in hospice, and I don't mean by simply being there. I know nothing of the hospice staff itself; my point is what Michael has personally denied her, as she is not allowed flowers, pictures, TV, is perpetually confined to her room, hasn't been outside in the sun for years, and he often restricts or prohibits visitation of her family as well.

[agrace]

Oh come on, what a copout. YOU made the allegation that the statutes were misapplied and the links contained hearsay. Therefore, it's YOUR burden of proof. Thanks for the smile, I needed it on this dark day.

[agrace]

His 8th Amendment argument is even worse: he argues that starvation is not cruel and unusual punishment because Mrs. Schiavo hasn't been convicted of a crime.

That is OUTRAGEOUS.

I haven't gotten there yet, but what do you think about this - Whittemore claims that she doesn't qualify under ADA because it requires that absent disability, she would have been eligible for the service being denied. Whittemore says that without her disability, she wouldn't need the feeding tube.

But Greer has ruled that she is not allowed oral nutrition and hydration either, something that she most DEFINITELY would need without her disability.

I sure hope Gibbs addressed this in his appeal.

[Dog Gone]

The way I read the Congressional bill, it intended for a brand new trial in Federal court. The Schindler's attorneys are STILL raising constitutional issues that are pathetically weak instead of trying to have a new trial on the facts.

The problem isn't with the Constitution or a violation of the Americans with Disabilites Act. It's with the facts. If there is any wrath to be directed to anyone, start with David Gibbs.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Another poster stated that MS's lawyer had a provision added to Florida state law to specifically include food and water as part of the definition of artifical life support."

Air is as much a necessity as food and water, wonder why they didn't add that to the definition ?
I just cannot get past the fact that according to those who have cared for her and her family-she was capable of eating and drinking.
And has been for years.
They said they had to sneak feed her, lest the husband find out.
But the judge, at some point years ago, ordered the health care workers and the family not to feed her, instead all nutrition was to be provided via tube feedings.
Doesn't that seem bizarre ?
The feeding tube sounds like it was redundant and she as capable of living without it.
Terri did not stop eating and drinking-Schiavo and Judge Greer made her stop.
The fact that Terri was still capable of eating and drinking on her own, should have counted for something.

[hobbes1]

No. How about "Judge" Greer.


Thats where this starts. Gibbs is probably next.

[Cboldt]

If so, Greer is carrying out the explicit will of the legislature by killing Terri.

I think that is an unfair cahracterization. The role of the court is to determine Terri's wishes. They could take into account the state of the law when she collapsed, and whatever other evidence was available. Absent clear and convincing evidence that she would deny life sustaining feeding, the court is ethically bound to rule in favor of life.

As for the press, they can't even communicate the notion that the issue is Terri's wishes. They compose all the polls and frame all the articles as a "who should choose" question, when the law is so clear on the point (the patient decides) that it couldn't be more clear. The media is a tool for manipulation of public opinion. It is emphatically not a tool aimed at illuminating the truth.

[snowsislander]

I haven't gotten there yet, but what do you think about this - Whittemore claims that she doesn't qualify under ADA because it requires that absent disability, she would have been eligible for the service being denied. Whittemore says that without her disability, she wouldn't need the feeding tube.

But Greer has ruled that she is not allowed oral nutrition and hydration either, something that she most DEFINITELY would need without her disability.

I sure hope Gibbs addressed this in his appeal.

I think any appeal of this decision is likely to have a chance -- my guess is that it will be embarrassing for any judge to sign off on a review of this 'decision'. I think a few law students could have slapped this few pages of folderol together in two hours.

[TheDon]

You've stated that killing Terri is carrying out Terri's wishes, yet no written documentation exists to confirm it. I understand that Florida law may allow others to state what they understood her wishes to be. But if the law was not modified to include the denial of food and water, could Terri be starved to death? If so, why did MS's lawyer work to have the law changed to include it? It seems that the legislature did add this provision to the law. Therefore, Greer is simply applying the law, as created by the legislature. This is why I say, Greer is carrying out the explicit will of the legislature by killing Terri.

[Dog Gone]

I don't know if you have any legal training, but there's nothing in the opinion you provided the link to (thanks, by the way) that looks like reversible error to me.

It's just more of the same that was filed on Monday, only a further reach.

I fully expected Gibbs to make a showing that he had new evidence of Terri's condition and demand a new trial. That's what I advised him to do. Either he doesn't have new evidence, or he thinks I'm full of crap. Regardless, he chose this path which I'm convinced will lead to Terri's death.

[henbane]

As for the press, they can't even communicate the notion that the issue is Terri's wishes.

Absolutely correct!

Judge Greer has rested his final and immovable judgement to kill Terri on his ruling that Terri's wishes are being carried out thru the agency of her husband, Michael Schiavo.

Unfortunately, Greer himself has admitted that he committed a devastating error in coming to his conclusion--but he will not use his discovery to save Terri's life.

Since all other judicial rulings have been made on the legal technicalities of the case and no Court has done the novo or new examination of the facts and the testimony required by Congress, Judge Greer's invalid foundation upon which he rests this case has never been challenged.

Judge Greer either overlooked or turned a blind eye to eyewitness testimony that Terri, responding to TV coverage of the Karen Ann Quinlan unplugging , stated explicitly that she, Terri, would never want to be disconnected and hurried off to death.

Reversable error on the face of it.

Judge admits mistake, refuses to reverse findings on Terri Schiavo

As you correctly state, the major argument on which Judge Greer's whole case rests is that plug-pulling fulfills Terri's wishes thru the agency of her husband.

Greer's admission of a wrongful ruling on Terri's wishes goes directly against--in fact, completely undercuts--the rationale for killing Terri.

We are on the brink of witnessing a true case of judicial homicide.

[snowsislander]

I don't know if you have any legal training, but there's nothing in the opinion you provided the link to (thanks, by the way) that looks like reversible error to me.

Zilch. I should always preface my remarks on legal situations with that, but at least my opinions can give lawyers something to laugh at since I am sure that they come across as uninformed.

[Cboldt]

You've stated that killing Terri is carrying out Terri's wishes, yet no written documentation exists to confirm it.

That is not true. There are court decisions that reflect the evidence that Greer admitted into testimony, before the court ruled on what Terri's wishes are. You are corrrect that Terri herself made no writing regarding her wishes, and that is why testimonial evidence had to be taken, with the object of determining her wishes. That factual inquiry (which we can never know for sure) was, IMO, predetermined by the court. That is, as long as a ew people submitted credible evidence that could be spun as Terri wanting to die, that would do.

As an aside, just to show how urgently the deck is pushed against Terri's life, one piece of the evidence was a conversation that Terri had with a friend, where they discussed a mutual friend that had decided to terminate life support for a newborn. Terri noted that in the same circumstance, she would have made the same choice. Now, to me ... that inquiry has zero relevance to the question of what Terri would do for herself. Plus, as you read the testimony, you note a dearth of details about the exact circumstances of the deths that Terri witnessed. Ther is no doubt, none of the deaths she withnessed involved PVS, and all were "life support" related, in the way that normal people take the term "life support."

The legal error in this case is Greer's "finding," a legal term that means conclusion of fact, that Terri wished to die.

[teenyelliott]

FR seems COMPLETELY overwhelmed by the Terri Cult.

There is now a sanity ping list. Want on it?

[TheDon]

The legal error in this case is Greer's "finding," a legal term that means conclusion of fact, that Terri wished to die.

So if it was clear that Terri wanted to be starved to death under these circumstances, then that would be more in line with the intent of the legislature adding "food and water" to the definition of life sustaining measures?

[teenyelliott]

If the patient's wishes aren't known, a court finds the patient's wishes and charges the guardian with the duty.

If a patients wishes are not known, it is the family, not the courts, who decides what they think the person might have wanted. The only reason the courts are involved in this case at all is because Terri's legal guardian (like it or not), made a decision that other family members did not agree with. The courts in this case are being used to settle a family dispute.

[teenyelliott]

The judge didn't take into account the prove of attempt of murder.

That is because there is no proof. Only accusations.

[Cboldt]

So if it was clear that Terri wanted to be starved to death under these circumstances, then that would be more in line with the intent of the legislature adding "food and water" to the definition of life sustaining measures?

I don't think there is that sort of association between the legislatinve action and Terri's actual wishes. I think the legislature made the change on the pretext of humanity or some similary vapid logic, in writing; but the unstated rationale was $$$$.

I further don't think anybody in their right mind would want to be starved to death. None of Kevorkian's patients picked that exit mode.

Limbaugh said something today that opened my eyes. That's where this is headed, and that's why this is a big story in the media. In the name of humanity, there will be a push for active euthanasia. Watch. It is coming.

And it is contrary to my old-fashioned absolute that life is a sacred gift from God, and we are not free to monkey with it. We are called to be good stewards of our, and other bodies.

[Cboldt]

The only reason the courts are involved in this case at all is because Terri's legal guardian (like it or not), made a decision that other family members did not agree with. The courts in this case are being used to settle a family dispute.

Obviously you are correct on the last point. But the guardian does not have the automatic right, under Florida law, to deny life-sustaining basic care for a patient. Oh heck. I'm not gonna discuss with you. Don't take it personal. I'm just tired. I know I'm right, and I'm satisfied with my own research.

[Dan from Michigan]

No