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.

[doc30]

please do.

[teenyelliott]

all the other judges rubber stamped what Greer did.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that Greer was the last judge in the state to hear the case before it went Federal. I was under the impression that Greer was the top of the state judicial food chain. If he isn't, then the case upon review would have gone above his head at the state level. And if that is true, it means that Greer was "rubber stamping" all previous decisions.

And if some big conspiracy was afoot, why would all the judges do the same thing? There have been something like twenty judges in this case.

[TheDon]

I think the legislature made the change on the pretext of humanity or some similary vapid logic, in writing; but the unstated rationale was $$$$.

They may not have said it directly, but adding food and water to the definition of life sustaining measures has an obvious meaning. The removal of which causes death by starvation, or lack of water. Perhaps they simply did not consider the implications in the particular circumstances Terri is in?

If you, as you mentioned, MS's lawyer was involved in adding this provision to the law, was it at a time that the lawyer had Terri in mind, or was he pushing for it for other reasons, i.e. $$$ for some of his other clients, or his own investments?

[stocksthatgoup]

Judicial Tyranny

[stocksthatgoup]

US Judicial Rulings

[teenyelliott]

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

Now this is just silly. An attorney cannot change a law. The law uses the term artificial life support, as defined by the AMA. The AMA does include artificial hydration and nutrition as life support.

[teenyelliott]

What is that supposed to mean, and to whom is it directed?

[teenyelliott]

It baffles me why manner in which Terri's been warehoused in hospice isn't considered neglect.

Not sure exactly what you are saying here, but hospices exist because there are many, many patients who cannot be cared for by their families, but are not considered to need hospital care. People who can get better go to hospitals. People who will not get better go to hospices.

Additionally, Terri has never had a bedsore in all the years she has been bed ridden. That would indicate incredibly good care, as well as significant family involvement.

[TheDon]

An attorney cannot change a law.

Obviously. I was hoping you would read between the lines. Of course I meant he advocated for the passage of this addition to the law. Another poster made the claim that MS's lawyer advocated for passage of this law, not me. I'm not sure if he did it specifically for Terri's benefit, as the guy is some type of euthanasia advocate.

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function.

Read it and weep. Straight from Florida law.

[teenyelliott]

arranged for her to stay there

The hospice is providing free daily care for Terri. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

[blueriver]

I don't know why all the other judges did what they did. Only they can answer for that. And I am sure they never will. Their was no honor in what they did that is for sure.

[TheDon]

In a case similar to Terri Schiavo's, a 1983 car accident left Nancy Cruzan unconscious. She could breathe but needed a feeding tube. The Supreme Court, in its first right-to-die case, ruled in 1990 that Cruzan had a right to refuse treatment but said her parents did not present sufficient evidence of her wishes. Friends said that she would not want to be kept alive; a Missouri court allowed her tube to be removed. She died 12 days later.

"Nancy Cruzan was also found to be in a persistent vegetative state," says Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney in Miami now in private practice. "But the family was in agreement. So you've got that extraordinary dynamic (in Schiavo's case) of a bitter family disagreement."

It looks like starvation is an accepted method of killing the mentally disabled. Who knew?

[agrace]

I didn't say it was a bad thing, just pointed out why she went to that particular hospice. Since you read that part of the post, I assume you also read the next paragraph, which states I mean no reference of neglect to be directed at the hospice itself.

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.

[teenyelliott]

Oh heck. I'm not gonna discuss with you. Don't take it personal. I'm just tired.

Certainly no offense taken. I completely understand, and I respect your opinion. Thank you for being civil. :)

[teenyelliott]

Consider yourself "saved". ;)

[teenyelliott]

Okay. Sorry if I was too hasty. I have been frantically typing for days now, and my mind is going mushy.

[agrace]

Me too. :)