I did like the attorney with Terri's brother. Well-spoken and authoritative. He just might get something done, such as get the doctors to present their opinions again.
He said that she has never had any legal representation, never had her day in court.
Greta and others don't ask Felos enough pointed, hard questions. They never, that I've seen, corner Michael on his malpractice testimony. Nobody ever uses clips of other interviews. If I were Terri's lawyer, I would demand that previous testimony and these tapes be entered into evidence.
I have a question, though, if there is no law allowing Terri's tube to be removed, what code is the judge basing his verdict on?
A statute passed in 1999 classifies a feeding tube as being among the "extraordinary life-preserving measures" that can be discontinued if there is clear and compelling evidence that the patient does not want them.
Unfortunately, if Judge Greer finds the testimony of Michael's sister-in-law on that subject to be "clear and compelling evidence", no appeals court is allowed to question his judgement.
Her tube can be removed if it was her wishes and if it was stated in a living will or advance directive. Since she had neither, it is allowed to be removed from her IF she is terminal (she's not) or PVS (which she doesn't qualify for under Florida law) AND if there is clear and convincing evidence that those were her wishes prior to her incapacitation. The laws have been thoroughly misapplied to Terri. The judge counts Michael's hearsay testimony and his brother's and sister-in-law's hearsay testimony as passing the clear and convincing standard.
Never mind that when she allegedly said this, she couldn't have been referring to feeding tubes, because that didn't become part of the law until 1999. Never mind that she could have felt pressured by his family to 'fit in' during some alleged discussion of the topic. This was not 'informed consent' by any stretch of the imagination, but since Greer said this is what it is, it doesn't seem to matter what anyone else says to the contrary. I don't think that if Terri were to be able to tell Judge Greer herself that she wanted to live that he would allow it. He is that determined to see her die.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0765/titl0765.htm&StatuteYear=2004&Title=%2D%3E2004%2D%3EChapter%20765
Florida statutes include a feeding tube as life prolonging procedure thanks to Jim King. This may have been a self serving inclusion since we know that at least one of his parents had cancer.
The patient must meet the Statute definition of pvs. Greer used Dr Cranford's definition of pvs and not the state statute definition.
Euthanasia is illegal in Florida and it is a felony to deny food, water, and necessary care to an elderly or disabled person.
So you tell me if we don't have a direct conflict in our statutes.