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.
Oh my, no. I am agahst.
My posting history for your reading pleasure <-- Mashit
Judge Greer breaks law to ensure death
Felos no stranger to medicare fraud - not about Greer but well worth the read.
The appellate and supremes had to decide whether Greer rendered a fair and legal decision when he ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo. But first, they had to conclude that Greer had NO conflict of interest as he rendered his decision. The appellate court missed an extreme conflict of interest since Greer accepted campaign contributions from at least five of Schiavo's lawyers (Ref: thread 'Terri Schiavo, Requiescat in Pacem' by John Armor)......
" So refusing food and water to Terri is not killing her? ... Am I missing something? "
I am must be missing it,also.There are two issues here-removing the feeding tube and the prohibition of anything by mouth.
The NPO provision, as apparently ordered by the judge, made the feeding tube necessary.
As it would for any of us-if a judge ordered that none of us could eat, then we would require assistance for nourishment.
If the feeding tube is removed, but, the patient can swallow and eat, if assisted-then the whole situation changes.
Terri becomes just another of the tens of thousands of severely disabled patients who live at home, cared for by family or home health aides or in a nursing or rehab facility.
As a physician I've seen ventilators removed and feeding tubes removed on medically brain dead patients. This was only done after a long process involving family, clergy,consults with different specialists,specialized testing, hospital lawyers and counselors, family lawyers,etc.
I have never seen a process as one sided as this one.
There was never any doubt about the patient's condition and future, although it sometime took some family members awhile to come to the inevitable conclusion.
But, these were patients who could not breathe on their own, could not eat on their own, showed zero signs of any kind of awareness, did not open their eyes and follow objects and most certainly-did not laugh and smile.
To be quite frank-there was very little difference between these patients and a cadaver-except for the machines breathing life and sustenance into them.
They were moribund and even with the ventilators and IVs and feeding tubes, with injuries as severe as they suffered, we all knew that at some point, in the very near future, a massive infection would overwhelm their bodies and their organs would gradually start shutting down .
Death would be inevitable.
If the hospital had a power failure, they would die.
If there was a power failure at Terri's hospice-she would not die.
As painful as it can be to be at the bedside, when artificial life support is withdrawn,knowing that there is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever about the patient's future, made the decision more tolerable.
And the donation of the patient's organs also gave life to others.
I have never seen a patient in a supposedly PVS as alert as Terri- I saw the video where Terri laughed, quite heartily, when her father was recounting a happy family memory.That gave me chills-because quite honestly, I believed the media and assumed that Terri was in a PVS.
I have never, ever ,ever seen a case, nor would I be party to one, where a patient was able to eat and was purposefully starved.
With apparently, the blessings of the court.
Did you go to the links? They're not exactly editorials. Dennisw at that first link listed some very specific statute violations. As did The Empire Journal. And it is a fact that the very hospice in which Terri has been illegally housed for five years is being federally investigated for guess what, that very thing, accepting medicare funds and using them for patients who are not terminally ill. The US Dept of Health and Human Services is seeking to recoup almost 15 million dollars in misused medicare funding for almost 300 ineligable patients.
Not all the opinions are kooky. Many are grounded in seriously disturbing facts. Something stinks in Pinellas County.
And you are claiming that all the other judges did the same?
all the other judges rubber stamped what Greer did.
But .. Dr. Frist is correct - the SENATE BILL did not specify that - but PUBLIC LAW 109-3 DID!!!
If so, quote me the language that says it. The amicus brief appears to argue simply that it is 'implicit' in the bill, not that the bill actually orders the feeding tube reinserted.
no it is one huge disgrace.
Did you read the link to post 162 by dennisw, the first link I provided? It details numerous violations of FL law by Greer.
The above does not refer to respiration though, does it? This addition defines eating and drinking as a spontaneous vital function.
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.
Ouch. So all the FL lawmakers who are trying to save Terri gave MS the ability to have her killed in the first place? Actually, they didn't try to save her, did they. If so, Greer is carrying out the explicit will of the legislature by killing Terri. Why have we not heard this in the press?
Stop arguing about the "bill" - I'm talking about a Public Law - not a BILL.
Hello!!!!! Do you have a brain! Good grief.
And if you want the language of the "bill" go to some congressional site and look it up for yourself. I'm not your flunky. Do your own homework if you're going to argue that the bill "doesn't say" - and ignoring the Public Law which DOES SAY.
And .. while you're looking up the "bill" - please read Public Law 109-3 - which says that the feeding tube must be replaced and a de novo review of this case MUST BE DONE.
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.