Posted on 03/27/2005 6:34:39 AM PST by YOUGOTIT
I've no idea what you are talking about, I was talking about Terri Schiavo.
You didn't comment on why Michael gave her medication for her periods so I don't suppose you'll comment on why she's being given morphine since supposedly she can't feel pain. You might want to check out her bone scan that Greer has tried repressing so it doesn't get presented to higher courts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1371794/posts
You Said:
"No law has been 'made by judges'. Nor should it be. The law allows people to make their own decisions on this matter and defends their right to do it. The next of kin is consulted if a person is not conscious to make their own decision."
I said law is being made every day by judges. Which is unconstitutional.
"Terri's family has a lawyer representing their side."
My bad. Thats what I meant - Terri's family has a lawyer representing (what they think are) her interests, because she can't.
One judge, and only one judge, decided (contrary to the evidence) that Terri wants to die. There has never been a de novo hearing. The law that was just signed by President Bush required a de novo hearing, and still she hasn't had one. So please quit repeating the lie that she has had several de novo hearings. She hasn't had a single one.
I agree with Ralph Nader. [Fox & Friends approx 8:30 AM March 28, 2005] She shouldn't be starved because of some casual comments she made.
"She shouldn't be starved because of some casual comments she made."
Obviously it would be better if she'd made a legal document in writing, but that is the only evidence available, which was testified to by more than one person.
And pretty paltry evidence, it seems.
1. Did anyone warn Terri, at the time, that her words would be used to actually starve her? Shouldn't someone have given her a "Miranda style warning?"
2. How do we know Terri wasn't depressed at the time? Depressed people may say they don't want to be a burden on others...but we don't insist they be killed to remove the burden. State of mind can make a difference in the responsibility someone has about what they say.
3. There may be evidence that she said, "no tubes," but there is no clear and convincing evidence that was what she would want for her final decision, BECAUSE she did not understand that this was her final word
Intent. Intent. Intent
4. If she even made that comment, perhaps she was just saying it to bring comfort to a listener in earshout, who she knew had recently "unplugged" someone. People say things they don't believe in order to make someone feel good.
Intent. Intent. Intent
If I want to get away from a persistent salesperson, and I say, "I'll come back and buy that refrigerator, so give me your business card," I don't have to buy the refrigerator.
Even if I go back I don't have to buy that refrigerator. I haven't put anything in writing. Even if I put something in writing, I might have 48 hours in which to indulge my "buyer's remorse."
5.It's doubtful that Terri realized what she was doing at the time would be legally binding It's doubtful that she realized she was making a declaration of intent that she wanted to be starved.
6. Did Terri ever say she wanted Michael to be her health care agent? The judge ruled that her comment to Michael did not count. So that means Michael's right to kill her is based on comments made by others.
As I said, Terri's comments are all the evidence we have. Of course, by marrying someone, she implicitly gave that person the rights of next of kin, removing them from her parents.
That is all normal.
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.