[Gunslingr3]

If this was written into a novel, most book stores would put it in the fiction section. It's just unreal what the courts are doing.

Are you crazy? Our courts are supposed to take papal directives? Good grief!

[BykrBayb]

Nobody said that! Please don't repeat the lies told by Terri's estranged husband in pursuit of her murder. Our courts are not supposed to order the murder of innocent disabled people.

[CedarDave]

Are you crazy? Our courts are supposed to take papal directives? Good grief!

No, but her beliefs on religion should be considered given she was a practicing Catholic prior to her "accident." One can't help but wonder if there was an Islamic component to the case how fast the ACLU and similar groups would come to her aid.

[phenn]

According to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Warner v. Boca Raon, (and I'm paraphrasing), the State must overreach constitutionally guaranteed religious liberties of the individual. Likewise, the state cannot cause someone to do something that their doctrine forbids.

That their doctrine forbids. Meaning, the state can't cause Theresa to be euthanized if her faith forbids it.

[N. Beaujon]

Are you crazy? Our courts are supposed to take papal directives? Good grief!

You've clearly missed the logic. As a practicing Catholic (at the time of her incapacity), a papal directive implicitly weighs on her belief system and ipso facto her own medical care. Unless Terri has renounced her beliefs while in a coma one should assume that the papal directive regarding euthanasia is not only relevant but binding on her caregivers. The issue, then, is one of Terri's religious freedom, not the papal directive.

Counself for Terri should have been allowed to develop the argument that your religious freedom does not end simply because you become incapacitated. It's a winning argument because the precedents for tolling statutes, decisions, judgements, etc. upon incapacity of the subject party are too numerous to mention.

On another note, ironic how the courts are so willing to give weight to her supposed desire for euthanasia when she was a healthy 21 year old (told to no one but her "husband" in an offhand comment; a completely unreliable and not disinterested party to the actual case!) But her lifelong beliefs as a practicing Catholic are not only irrelevent but presumeably, to this court, unreliable.

I do know one thing. If God is watching over this case, and I presume He is, the justices of the Florida court of Appeals, Terri's husband and his lawyers will find themselves a nice warm place in hell.

[BykrBayb]

Here's what was actually said regarding the relevence of the Pope's statement.

Attorney David Gibbs III, representing the Schindlers in their appeal, said, “We believe that the Papal Declaration, issued in March of 2004, is new evidence that as a matter of law should require a new hearing into what Terri’s wishes would be today, given her devout faith and her current inability to speak for herself.

Where is your source indicating they said our courts should be run by the Vatican, and judges should take papal directives? Did you get that idea from someone who's trying to kill Terri?