Replies

>>But Judge Greer, I'm sure feels otherwise, and he NEEDS to consider her 'terminal' in order to remove her nutrition. There were 2 or 3 tiny phrases added to state law around 1999 [senator King's legacy] that Greer is using.

One of these additions is vital to Judge Greer's actions against Terri: That one refers to an 'end of life condition' (ie: a 'terminal condition'), in which:

1) the patient has suffered a significant loss of function,
2) the patient can no longer feed him/herself, AND
3) there is no compelling proof the patient can ever get better <<

Do you know where those words are written in the statutes? I'm having trouble finding them. Obviously, I define the word "terminal" as in the end of her life. For hospice care, that period of time has been defined as six months or less. Since Terri was in a hospice situation for at least four years, she clearly doesn't fit the meaning of the word "terminal" the way hospice intended it. Or is hospice enough of a money-making venture that they are willing to "overlook" the intent? Certainly Mary Labyak would like to have it redefined.

I'm not in a position to do much searching right now, and i see I didn't use the exact correct phrases since I was recalling the details from memory...

but here's a post that had some FL statute numbers defining
'end-stage' and 'terminal'

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971896/posts?page=672#672

To: kimmie7; dandelion; windchime
Here's a portion of the Supreme Court of Fla's denial. If this is the way the law is written, a person can be murdered even if they're not in a coma. Check out that Fla. Statute which is referenced in the following paragraph. It's a bad piece of legislation.

SCOFLA "cognition is not a prerequisite for withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures when there are no advance directives. Section 765.401(3), Florida Statutes, provides that absent evidence of patient intent, such medical procedures can be withheld or withdrawn when that decision is in the “patient’s best interest.” That statute by reference to Section 765.305, allows such decisions to be made for patients who are in “end-stage” or “terminal” conditions (765.305(2)(b)), said conditions not defined by lack of cognition (765.101(4) and (17)). 6. The affidavit attached to Petitioners’ motion has also been filed in the trial court, and no doubt will, upon the resolution of this round of appeals, form the basis of Petitioners’ next motion for relief from final judgment. After a fulltrial, and now after an additional 2 years of extensive medical tests and examinations and an eight-day hearing with six medical experts including four neurologists, Petitioners now seek to challenge the conclusions of the trial and appellate courts with the opinion of a speech pathologist who has worked for seven years. That fact that someone disagrees with the findings of eminent neurologists and the opinions of the courts is insufficient for this court or any court to further delay the implementation of the ward’s medical treatment wishes. 7. Again, for the reasons set forth in the Emergency Motion to Vacate Stay,Respondent requests that the emergency motion for stay be denied.

FV SAYS: Terri is not in end-stage or terminal condition and it's not in her best interest to be starved to death. Florida's Supreme Court argued themselves into a conundrum. I don't think they followed one of the statutes they cited about "in the best interest". The Supreme Court of Florida wants Terri dead too, no matter what.
672 posted on 09/02/2003 by floriduh voter

Apparently 765.305 is the scum legislation being cherished
as a legacy by Senator King....

Terri Schiavo’s life can be terminated only under certain narrow conditions. Those conditions are set forth in Fla. Stat.§ 765.305(2): there is no “reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity”

and the “patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetativestate, or the patient’s physical condition is terminal.”

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004173/posts?page=367#367
=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=.=

Title XLIV
CIVIL RIGHTS
Chapter 765
HEALTH CARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
View Entire Chapter

765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--

(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures
from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II
unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of
life-prolonging procedures.

(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be
satisfied that:

(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the
right could be exercised by the patient.

(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the
patient's physical condition is terminal.
posted on 10/30/2003 by AbsoluteJustice

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1011241/posts?page=71#71

..........and somewhere there are more details of FL's legal
definition for 'end-stage'