Posted on 10/25/2003 6:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
In a court of law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did commit a crime.
In the court of public opinion, it is frequently the case that individuals who are accused of a crime are judged guilty regardless of the facts. Some call that bias; others label it as nothing more than ignorant.
In the case of a severely disabled woman whose starvation death was ordered by a Florida judge, the court of law has not determined her guilt or innocence, because she committed no crime. The court has preferred to arrogantly deem it compassionate to put her out of her alleged misery by sanctioning an act of murder.
Murder is defined as the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought. Such a definition applies in this case. However, no human court is going to find this particular judge guilty of a crime, and no human court is going to query this woman’s husband regarding why he thinks she should die. That has already been taken care of through an arduous five-year court battle that may yet end with this woman’s tragic death — a death resulting from court-approved removal of food and water.
As one attorney recently wrote, if a judge or a state governor were to order the execution of a serial killer on death row by means of withholding food and water, a variety of courts would intervene at once to block that order, which would amount to constitutionally-prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is not terminally ill, and was not near death until the starvation process began, it has been ruled that her life is not worthy to be lived. Thus others were willing to impose on her a slow, agonizing death by starvation. That is murder according to the natural law; but according to the Florida judicial system, it is an exercise in compassion. So much for human justice!
The Terri Schiavo case is currently receiving widespread media coverage. The callous disregard for her human dignity is being exposed in many venues – but only at the eleventh hour. Over the past five years, however, as this case has been unfolding, nary a word could be found describing the barbaric nature of what some were proposing should be done to her.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of this woman’s plight is rarely noted. Terri Schiavo is a Catholic who, one would hope, would have been staunchly defended in every conceivable way by the Catholic hierarchy in her state. After all, she is vulnerable, she is totally dependent on others to speak for her, and she is a human being with the gift of human dignity that God bestows on each of us.
The sad reality is, however, that Florida’s Catholic bishops have been virtually silent. These bishops joined together in a public statement begging Gov. Jeb Bush to spare the life of convicted killer Paul Hill, a man who murdered two people. The prosecution in the Hill case did its job. Yet the bishops publicly pleaded that his life be spared. But two days after defending Hill’s life, these same bishops said the Church could not make a decision regarding whether Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. These bishops urged that more time be given prior to Terri’s imposed death by starvation so that “greater certainty as to her true condition” could be reached.
How much more certainty does one need that a living, breathing human being will die if he or she is denied access to food and water? The burden of proof in Terri’s case must ultimately be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to cautiously stand aside and allow the courts to wield their power, even if the result will be the death of an innocent human being who never had the opportunity to defend herself. What crime did Terri Schiavo commit, I would ask the bishops that drove them into equivocating about whether or not she had a right to life?
Americans who care about this young woman have mounted campaigns to pressure Gov. Bush into doing all he can to save Terri’s life. Others have stepped to the forefront and applauded Florida state lawmakers who, after nearly six full days had passed in which Terri was denied nutrition, approved legislation to stop the starvation from continuing. Still others have offered legal opinions providing the governor with ammunition and exposing the reality of the situation: Terri Schiavo was being executed, pure and simple.
Yet nowhere in this flurry of last minute, desperate activity, do we find the Florida Catholic Conference. There has been a number prayer vigils held outside the hospice where Terri resides. To our knowledge, not one bishop has attended. There have been numerous public demonstrations of support for Terri’s parents, who are courageously doing all they can to defend their daughter’s right to life as her husband, her legal guardian, continues his quest to see that her food and water is denied. Not one bishop has offered Terri’s parents his public support. There is a courageous priest who has tried to provide Terri with Holy Communion. His efforts were thwarted by police officers who banned him from giving the Eucharist to Terri. As far as we can tell, not one bishop spoke out at such an outrage or applauded the commitment of this priest to be a true shepherd for Terri in what appeared to be her final days.
As the moments continued to pass, and the very life ebbed out of this lovely young woman at the center of this storm of controversy, one could only wonder what it really means to be innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, as I reflect on the burden of proof that never evolved prior to Terri’s death sentence, it occurs to me that some day, the most important Judge of all will have to deal with certain people who were aware of the travesty but chose to avoid a controversy because “difficult cases” are a bother. At that time, He will have amassed a burden of proof with regard to their culpability in the case of Terri Schiavo. In His court, justice will be done.
So Christopher Reeve is definitely a dead man in your hands!
I doubt this is so, but in any case, why do you think she stopped walking and eating orally (it in fact she was able to do so)?
As to the rest of your comments and many similar ones here), I have never tried to defend her husband nor any of his actions - they are irrelivant to me. What is relevant is that IMO no one should be forced to continue living artifically when in Terri's condition - when they have expressed in the past that they would not want to do so.
Accoring to your ending rationale (God finishing waht he starts), everything that happens then is God' will - including Terri's husband actions. Ergo, if they remove her feeding tube and she dies, then according to you that would be God's will. why do you want to interfer?
If you will sit back and think for a second about what you are posting I hope you will realize that you have not carried your thought out to a logical conclusion.
At what point might God choose to save you? Or are you so illogical that if God doesn't work in YOUR time you would not allow him to "save" you? Or maybe God shouldn't have given man the gift of modern medicine to keep you alive for a reason that is not selfishly YOUR own!...
I am not proposing this is 100% correct, I'm just asking, have you thought about it?
You are ignoring my previously expressed point about the previously expressed wishes of an unconcious person.
If 15 years is not enough time - do you propose that I/she be artifically sustained for eternity?
Why is a feeding tube needed - to allow God time to think it over?
See this is where you have not thought it out...The feeding tube is needed to FEED HER! Do you propose that people who need oxygen be taken off of if they need it to help them breathe, I know many able people who need it!
Who's time are we talking about, hers or God's? There are many out there that have to have the same treatment that have less problems...do you propose we starve them just because they need a feeding tube?
What makes you think God doesn't want her to be fed by a feeding tube? Is it wrong in your eyes for God to want to keep her alive this way for even 15 more years...?
Are you trying to tell God what to do and how to act?
My son included...you, Normally a Lurker don't have a clue about which you speak. By all means make that assertion and your will be known by writing it down or tatooing it on your chest. But how dare you speak on the behalf of others.
Terri didn't write it down nor was there a law at the time she made her "alledged" comments to Michael and "his" family that the judge allowed for dehydration and death by starvation. IMHO, the judge erred here as well. Applying a new law that was written well after the "alledged" comment was made by her.
I wouldn't want to be disabled like my son nor Terri, but if by God's will I was, I can surely say I wouldn't want to be starved and thirsted to death. We therefore wouldn't do it to our son or our worst enemy. Just cruel and utmost inhumane way to treat anybody! Our son smiles often and is quite content in his simple but loved life. He is a blessing and has positively touched hundreds of peoples lives without saying a word. How many of us have that kind of testimony?
BTW, last week we had a stray dog show up on our property, the dog was severely malnourished, bones apparent all over. The first thing my children and I did was get some water and food for the poor thing. This all happened while Terri was starving, not because she didn't desire to be fed or drink but because people around her were barred from doing what would be natural for them to do, nourish her.
I challenge you to go for 3 days without any food or liquid, half the time Terri did and report back to us your honest experiences. Then maybe we will have something to discuss further.
Terri was able to swallow. She was able to rally receive food. I apologize, I did not mean to imply that SHE walked but rather that her family took her out on walks with them.
Obviously, you know very little of how nursing homes and long term care facilities operate?? Feeding tubes are often, sadly, placed in patients for convenience of nursing staff. The shorthandedness of help is one reason. There is a high turnover rate among CNS so it is reasonable that this was the reason that Terri had this tube inserted. Also, could be that her husband ordered this.
As to the rest of your comments and many similar ones here), I have never tried to defend her husband nor any of his actions - they are irrelivant to me. What is relevant is that IMO no one should be forced to continue living artifically when in Terri's condition - when they have expressed in the past that they would not want to do so.
No one should be forced to die either and NO ONE should be starved or dehydrated to death. I challenge you, an assumably healthy male, to go without liquid and nutrition for only a couple of days. Until you do, you cannot justify this method of death. I have stated many times that I would not want to live if I had to be on life support. Unfortunately, I did not realize that life support also included food. I do not wish to be on a ventilator BUT I do not wish to be starved to death REGARDLESS of my mental capacity.
Terri left nothing stating her desires. It is all hearsay. Terri did NOT object to her father putting his mother, her grandmother on a ventilator. As a matter of fact, Terri was very diligent about visiting and caring for her grandmother in this state while the grandmother was in a nursing facility. THIS, my friend, would have been the oportune time for Terri to make her wishes known to her family. She did not. Yet, her husband says that when HIS grandmother was in the same condition ( what are the odds of that? )that she stated "no tubes for me". This decision is based on he said she said testimony. Because there is NO clear indication of what Terri DID want, she should be aloowed to live, receive the therapy necessary to her recovery, albeit limited, and to ask HER. As it has been stated here multiple times, when in doubt err on the side of life.
Accoring to your ending rationale (God finishing waht he starts), everything that happens then is God' will - including Terri's husband actions. Ergo, if they remove her feeding tube and she dies, then according to you that would be God's will. why do you want to interfer?
If you are a believer in the bible you will note that it says, "He who has begin a good work in you is FAITHFUL to complete it". God does not do anything half way. He completes what He starts. I would say that even includes taking home one of His children. Could it be that Terri's collapse was not something that He designed? That it was at another's hands? Maybe her own, IF she was suffering from an eating disorder? You are also cognizant that there is evil on this earth as well and that man can choose to do evil rather than God's will. He allows man to choose.
Terri Schiavo is not in any misery. When her father told her that hubby had won court order to remove her feeding tube, she tried to climb out of her chair. People do awake from these states. The brain is the least understood organ in the human body.
BTW, ABC has pulled the link to its story on Patti White Bull, the woman who awoke from a 16 year coma!
This was the original link. It worked yesterday - today, it's dead!
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/miraclewoman991229.html
Patti White Bull, 42, a New Mexican woman who fell into a coma during childbirth, sat up dressed herself and asked to go to the mall this Christmas, according to her family and nursing staff.
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/01/06/current/fpage_9.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/miraclewoman991229.html
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.