Posted on 02/17/2005 1:28:18 PM PST by phenn
That's a great article Wesley Smith wrote after Michael went on Larry King Live. Thanks for posting the link. I hadn't read it in 18 months. Good to be reminded!
For your own case, fair enough. But why do you oppose those who regard Michael's testimony as totally implausible rather than "clear and compelling"?
One of the major weaknesses of the appeals court system is that trial court judges have absolute say over which witnesses and evidence are deemed credible and which are not. Judge Greer is the only judge who has found Michael Schiavos statements regarding Terri's wishes to be credible. Do you believe it is just coincidence that Michael suddenly "remembered" Terri's wishes years after she was incapacitated and after he had earlier testified that he would care for her for the rest of a natural lifespan of 50+ years?
Also, I would suggest that you consider that much of the unpleasantness Terri experiences is a direct result of Michael's actions. Many things could have been done to ease Terri's discomfort except that Michael forbid them. That Michael has done all he can to make Terri's life miserable does not mean her life would continue to be miserable if she were freed of his control.
BTTT!
"For your own case, fair enough. But why do you oppose those who regard Michael's testimony as totally implausible rather than "clear and compelling"?"
I don't think I ever stated my opinion on the specifics of this case in Florida as far as who's right and who's wrong. I was commenting on how this case generated concern on my part for what happens to me when I'm no longer able to decide for myself. My opinion is I would rather die than live like that. If Terri feels (felt) differently... well, it's a shame. We should all decide when we're lucid, so a judge doesn't have to when we're not.
Given that some severely brain-damaged people have made some pretty amazing recoveries, to what extent would you want people to rule out such a possibility in your case before you were starved to death?
Bookmarked
"...to what extent would you want people to rule out such a possibility in your case before you were starved to death?"
To no extent at all. I trust my wife, she knows my wishes. She would make the decision, not a judge, or a court of public opinion. My concern is that she wouldn't be allowed to make that decision because people who have no relation to me think I have a "right to life". Right to life is great, but I'll define what I consider life. I trust my wife to know my mind and no other.
This is fascinating!! I am listening to it now and can't beleive what is being hidden from the public about Terri!!!
Everyone should go back to Post 15 and hear this.
"My point is, if I make my desires clear now, nobody will be arguing about me after I've lost the ability to participate in the debate."
IF you make your desires clear. And even then, nobody would deny your moral right to refuse extraordinary and burdensome medical treatments. But food and water?
Regardless, the evidence showing that Terri made her desires clear is extremely weak. Her husband just happened to "remember" several years later, after promising under oath to take care of Terri for the rest of his life and then winning a million dollar malpractice award, that Terri casually mentioned to him on one occasion "no tubes for me".
She left no written instructions, and told nobody else of her desires. In fact, there is good reason to believe from what she told others that she held the exact opposite view on the subject.
And now, on the flimsiest of evidence, the state of Florida is ready to starve and dehydrate her to death for the third time, two previous attempts having been mercifully stopped. It's because Terri has temporarily lost the ability to "participate in the debate" that makes it imperative to argue for her, and plead for her inalienable right to live and to receive food and water, not to mention the court-ordered therapy that has been so cruelly denied her.
This case is much bigger than a husband's alleged desire to fulfill his wife's wishes.
That fact that George Felos is the husband's attorney is no coincidence, as he is a major proponent of euthanasia. This is merely his "test case", to set precedent for the legal killing of our disabled and elderly citizens.
The husband has already moved on with his life, as if Terri is already dead. He has lived for several years now with a girlfriend, fathering two children. He's merely the convenient plaintiff in this sordid legal process, to play the part of the loving husband. He's a willing accomplice in this awful drama, to be sure, but there are larger and more sinister players in the shadows cheering him on.
The forces arrayed against Terri will not rest until she is dead, or they are stopped.
Actually you won't be starved to death. You will be dehydrated to death. It's a very difficult way to die. Among other things your electrolytes will go out very out of kilter and you could experience hallucinations and multiple seizures.
With some luck they will be able to provide you with enough morphine, but in many past cases they did not.
That may be what you think. It depends on which state you live in, and currently most are in the process of jumping into the fray for the culture of death.
"In addition, the law allows doctors to withdraw a feeding tube even if the entire family disagrees with the decision - - and even if the patient had asked to be kept alive. The statute explicitly legalized the involuntary denial of treatment when a doctor thinks that following a patient's expressed desire for life would be "medically or ethically inappropriate."
"It took Hugh nine days to die of dehydration. I met Joan Finn, his mother, outside the nursing home on October 7th. Obviously distraught she said, "Don't let anyone ever tell you this isn't a horrible way to die. No law should allow this!"
I think it is also worth scrolling down on this page to read about another famous case, that of Robert Wendland. His wife wanted him killed and said on television that he was not going to "wake up". Meantime he was learning to play golf and painting pictures.
Lord hear our prayer.
"But food and water?"
Yes, even food and water... especially if I don't even understand that I need food and water.
"Actually you won't be starved to death. You will be dehydrated to death. It's a very difficult way to die."
I never imagined that there was an easy way to die. It would be difficult for all involved I'm sure, be it dehydration, gunshot, car crash, etc.
And how should people determine your level of understanding?
http://www.hnionline.com
Hammesfahr Neurological Institute: Treatment and Recovery for the Victims of Stroke, Brain Injury, Cerebral Palsy, and Learning Disabilities
"That may be what you think. It depends on which state you live in, and currently most are in the process of jumping into the fray for the culture of death."
Culture of death? Whatever... if that's what you want to call it. I would prefer that to somebody insisting I be kept alive after everthing I consider "life" is gone. Life isn't just a heartbeat.
When you were an infant, you didn't understand that you needed food and water. I'll bet you're happy that someone else understood.
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.