Posted on 03/27/2005 3:48:07 PM PST by Jim Noble
It's been pointed out on another thread that the judge in Florida has ordered nothing by mouth for Terri Schiavo.
First: Is this true?
Second: If so, what is the authority for such an order? Removal of a feeding tube, I can understand, under certain circumstances. This may even be legal in Florida.
But nothing by mouth? This is an order to kill her.
Where does this power come from? Could he order her shot? Could he order a lethal injection?
If not, is it possible that his order is facially illegal?
We are running a very important scientific test here, to either confirm or else discredit that old axiom: "It takes one to know one."
We do it all the time.
There in Florida, the question is whether a judge can order someone to be killed pursuant to the statutes regarding removal of medical care. The answer to that is yes. It's not left up to a vote of people standing outside the hospice or even to the legislature. As the law reads, it's let up to the courts if the facts are found to be sufficient to do so, which they were in this case.
It's entirely possible to disagree about the facts. I think it's totally unfair that no new tests were conducted, although there is no legal requirement that it be done.
I can't speak to the factual findings in this case. I haven't read the trial court testimony. Many items seem troubling today.
But I don't have any qualms about how the law was applied to the factual findings. I'm a redneck Republican and I would have ruled the same way every federal court did last week based on the filings. They were a joke, and I'm a little surprised the federal courts were as kind as they were in their opinions. They could have slammed the Schindler's attorneys but refrained from doing so.
Florida state law clearly provides for removing feeding and hydration tubes from a person in a PVS where there is clear and convincing evidence that the patient would prefer that. That's not even an issue.
You can question the findings of fact by Judge Greer, but you also have to recognize that Congress gave the Schindler's a free pass to federal court last week to challenge those findings of fact, and they chose not to do it.
So, now it's over except for the blame game.
I am of the opinion, that neither the judge nor the court actually do have this "power" and that it is clearly judicial tyranny and an abuse of power.
I agree as well. Be assured that both your efforts are appreciated.
"I'm interested in the sources of Greer's authority to do what he has done."
Same here. Another Freeper said that Florida law states that a feeding tube is considered an extreme measure to keep someone alive, so that might explain him not allowing the tube. BUT - to deny food and water orally can't possibly have a legal basis!
It does. It's in the statute.
I'm not sure you are correct.
If the Florida statute allows a judge to order, "kill this patient", why insist on starvation? There are much faster and more merciful ways to do it.
You see, I totally understand the removal of the feeding tube (in theory). I've done it, I've seen it done.
I don't know that it's appropriate IN THIS CASE, but it is appropriate sometimes. In fact, despite what you and others seem to think, I had to stop posting on the medical threads because I was constantly being called a death-worshipping Nazi doctor.
What I do not understand is an order that Mrs. Schiavo may not be offered water or food. Unlike the people in Texas who you are (wisely) offing all the time, she hasn't done anything wrong.
If a Texas judge ordered that you be killed, presumably that order would not be carried out because that judge has no power to order such a thing, even if he has sentenced guilty persons to be executed in the past. It's not that he's a judge that gives him the power to order that you be killed, it's that he's a judge enforcing the law.
We do not have laws in this country that allow third parties to say to doctors and hospitals, "kill this person". If that's really the law in Florida, I would be very surprised.
They have the judiciary sown up, however. They have their propaganda mouthpiece in Hollywood. They control the press. They have duped the majority of the public - including a small but vocal not to mention sardonic minority here on FR - into believing that
A) Terri is a vegetable (despite what their own eyes and ears tell thenB) Michael's motives are as pure as the wind driven snow, and any suggestion that he may have had something to do with her original condition is summarily dismissed as out-of-hand with no further investigation, facts be damned.
I could list many other facts, incl. the affidavits from the three nurses (with no obvious motive for lying), Michael's behavior in the span from 1990-present, Greer's and Felos' dubious connections to Woodside, the criteria Greer used to weigh which doctors' testimony (those with less favorable prognosis such as PVS carried more weight).
These are scary times, and denial will not change the facts. Either Michael/Felos/Greer are lying or the rest of the world is lying.
How else can that reasonably be read?
It's Christians Gone Wild I tell ya!!
No judge has the right nor the power to deprive someone such as Terri of their right to live.
And yet he did it anyway. The judge therefore should be charged with the crimes that he has comitted. But also who should be charged is the actual person who removed the tube from Terri.
Our rights are not granted by the government, and so they cannot be taken away by the government, regardless of what "laws" or so-called "court orders" some ego-tripping judge decides to make.
The solution all along would have been to simply tell Judge Greer to go to Hell - let him enforce his own decisions.
Judge Greer has no right to order Terri killed.
What they are authorizing is the removal of tubes.
Look, when a respirator is removed in accordance with patient or family wishes, usually the person dies.
But sometimes, they breathe on their own.
A court could certainly order a respirator to be removed under certain circumstances.
Could the same court order me to hold a pillow over the patient's face after removing the endotracheal tube?
I don't think so.
Yes but site me any law under any way it can be construed that legitimizes the prohibition of food or hydration by mouth
You are wrong Sir.
No judge can order people to be killed.
A CRIMINAL can be found guilty by a jury of his peers and given the death penalty, but the way you stated it is wrong.
Terri is not a criminal.
actually, the person who personally removed the tube is the actual murderer.
Sinkspur, come back-the question was serious.
>>So, if you mean that she swallowed all the time up to the point she fell into a coma, <<
She was never in a coma.
You have nerve asking for sources with that comment.
That an individual is being starved to death.
Terri can then be rescued.
I think one of the problems is that no one has reported a crime being committed.
Is it a worse death than suffocation or some other form of active euthanasia? I think so.
But it's legal.
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.