Posted on 03/25/2005 7:41:58 AM PST by 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.
Right.
I understand that you, based upon what you have read and heard, believe the Court should have ruled that Terri's wishes were to be kept alive.
The Court found evidence to that effect to be less credible than the countervailing evidence. Given the strange behavior of the witnesses who presented evidence to support your view - the changing of positions, the wild allegations, the attacks on the court, the appearance of evidence that could be determinative of these issues after the matter has been heard multiple times - lends credence to the idea that this evidence is less than credible.
Of course. Are you for killing Terri? Are you PRO-ABORTION? Just asking honest questions to understand where you are coming from.
Maybe we need some new laws established and the judges actually had their hands tied on this one.
Hmm No they didn't have their hands tied and no they did not do their jobs and no we don't need even MORE laws. The judges are an evil bunch and embarassment. They bring disgrace to our country. All the erring on the side of death for a disabled and aware beautiful woman was flat out wrong. America the land that murders the mentally impaired. I'm disgusted.
The law relied on is intent on granting the patient's wishes, okay? Nobody is ordering Terri to do something that she didn't want. Keep sight of that. It is an essential legal principle that is lost on 99% of the people who hear and write about this case.
Chapter 765, Florida Statutes 2004 <-- Link
See in particular, sections 765.401 The proxy. and 765.404 Persistent vegetative state. See also the definitions, in particular,
(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.
I'm 100% against this decision on several grounds, BTW. Just pointing out the legal machinations in case you are inclined to educate yourself.
I'm so inclined. It doesn't answer my precise question, but it looks like you've provided a link to where I can try and search for an answer. Thanks!
No, I didn't accuse you of posting rumor and innuendo in the sense that you are taking it. Your reaction is unnecesarily defensive. It's part of our "talking past each other." In any event, what I meant by my comment was that you asserted OTHERS had posted rumor and innuendo, not that you had. I thought the specific instance of allegation of abuse was an example of OTHERS using rumor and innuendo.
Capice?
765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.--
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
So much for following the law!
...
The individual committee members and the facility associated with an ethics committee shall not be held liable in any civil action related to the performance of any duties required in this subsection.
Here is the section that makes the hospice workers not liable for the killing of Terri.
http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
"Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations."
"Proceedings concluded that there was no basis for the removal of Michael as Guardian Further, it was determined that he had been very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the administrator as "a nursing home administrator's nightmare". It is notable that through more than thirteen years after Theresa's collapse, she has never had a bedsore."
Your heart is in the right place, but I have little faith in legislative or judicial ethics being any help. If Terri had a Living Will based on the model in the Florida Statutes, she would have been starvd to death years ago, without the muss and fuss of a court order. So, if you sterr people to preparation of written directives, you might be steering them to a GREATER likelihood of being starved to death.
My personal solution is to appoint a person I trust to be by proxy. That person won't put up with the pipsqueak bullies in the medical and legal professions, and will actually act ethically -- MY sense of ethics, not that crap that passes for ethics by the medical and legal professions when it comes to end of life decisions.
Hey, It's okay by me if you post sections to the thread, but could you not do so in the form of a reply to me? I've read most of the thing, and try to keep my "ping box" reserved for stuff that I am inclined to reply to.
This email from Rich Galen was posted last night - concerning this very Public Law - and what CONGRESS said the law contained.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370289/posts
Any idea what "spontaneous vital function" "artificially provided sustenance and hydration" "supplants"? I wonder if this bit of law will be changed due to Terri's killing, or probably better, the law regarding the decision to go ahead with the killing.
That's a great after-the-fact position taken by these gentlemen, but they couldn't pass a bill that said this, so they passed one that didn't, and Dr. Frist specifically stated on the Senate floor during debate on the bill that it DID NOT require the reinsertion of the feeding tube. No one disagreed. Read the 11th Circuit opinion - it quotes the floor debate on this issue.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, but essential means this: If I deny you the right to publish in my paper, that is not a violation of the 1st amendment, becuase I am not the government, and there is no law prohibiting your free speech. Read 1st Amendment, "Congress shal make no law ... ". Well, I didn't make a law when I said "no" to your request to use my paper.
In Terri's case, her inability to take last rites is not due to a law or court order. It may be a decision by her guardian (it wasn't, AFAIK, he nominally complied and she had last rites).
I feel just awful right now. Dear God, I thank you again for the gift of life, and for undeserved gift of salvation that you provided to all who would find Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Amen.
Thanks for the link.
No problem. So what is your take? Are you for killing Terri?
Respiration, technically. I think. The process whereby the body converts fuel for running biological processes.
Funny you point out changing the law. Just remove the words "including artificially provided sustenance and hydration" from 10, and express further that life-prolonging procedure does NOT mean including artificially provided sustenance and hydration.
The law was changed to INCLUDE artificially provided sustenance and hydration within the definition of Life-prolonging procedure, with lobbying by Felos, after Terri collapsed.
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.