The Order says explicitly that the hearing on March 7th concerned an "Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinued..."
Greer drew a conclusion. He could have concluded that the title of the Petition was the meaning of the petition. He did not.
As I said, I've worked with hospice in my practice. There is a difference between allowing the patient to die without further medical interference and between hastening and causing the death of the patient.
It is often a fine line.
It was not in this case.
Greer caused the death: first by discontinuing artificial means of feeding the patient who was in no distress, second, by ordering Terri to be taken to the hospital for the medical procedure to remove the tube, and most directly by forbidding hydration and nutrition by "Natural Means."
I have never heard of the second intervention - I would simply stop using the tube if it became distressful for the patient, possibly remove it at the bedside if the tract or surrounding tissue became infected or macerated - and would never contemplate or allow the third.
I know that Terri did not choke on her own saliva or nasal/sinus secretions. She did not require suctioning. She did not have repeated episodes of aspiration pneumonia secondary to her salivary and sinus secretions. I know that she could swallow small amounts of thin liquids.
Someone ordered and gave Terri morphine -- !! by IV !! And Greer allowed this medical intervention, which was superfluous if Terri was in a vegetative state.
You have been misled:
This was euthanasia - the intentional killing of a patient by another agent, rather than by the patient's disease.
It was unethical, as are all acts of euthanasia.
Unethical deliberate killing is "murder."
Greer murdered Terri Schiavo.
And I believe that he should be prosecuted for that crime. I hope that there is a brave DA who will charge him.
Ah, so now you're a judge, also? Maybe he should have totally ignored what was written and ruled on what was said? Or, even better, ruled on what was implied by what was said?
Give me a break. If the judge had refused nutrition because of the title of the Petition, you'd be screaming that a judge should never go by the title but by the actual wording of the document.
You are a piece of work.
"I know that Terri did not choke on her own saliva or nasal/sinus secretions. She did not require suctioning. She did not have repeated episodes of aspiration pneumonia secondary to her salivary and sinus secretions. I know that she could swallow small amounts of thin liquids."
Did not, did not, did not. I don't care what she "did not". What did she do? According to you, "she could swallow small amounts of thin liquids". Yeah. Involuntarily. So?
Are you suggesting that Terri was capable of voluntarily swallowing? Are you suggesting that Terri was capable of voluntarily swallowing enough nutrition to keep her alive? Isn't that the issue?
"This was euthanasia - the intentional killing of a patient by another agent, rather than by the patient's disease."
Baloney! Terri had the constitutional right to refuse treatment. She expressed this wish to at least three people. An impartial and disinterested judge heard the testimony and had "clear and convincing" evidence as to her wishes.
Look elsewhere for your euthanasia case to proselytize. It ain't here, no matter how much you want to be.