Let me ask you a few simple questions. Please try to answer them without getting side-tracked.
(1) Judge Greer has had a motion pending before him since 2002 challenging Michael Schiavo's guardianship. Why do you suppose that in over two years Judge Greer hasn't found time to schedule it?
(2) Michael Schiavo and his doctors testified, prior to receiving a "malpractice" award, that his wife's prognosis was good and that he would help her get better. Immediately after receiving the award, he discontinued and forbade all attempts at therapy. Only after Michael met overtly-pro-Euthenasia lawyer(*) did he "remember" that when his wife saw a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan, she expressed a wish not to live "hooked up to tubes". Would a reasonable person given those facts find Michael's testimony about his wife's "expressed wishes" credible?
(*)Google "Litigation as spiritual practice", the title of George Felos' book, if you think the characterization is unfair.
(3) Karen Ann Quinlan, the person whose case Terri had allegedly alluded to, was hooked up to the ventilator at the time of her court battle. After her parents lost and she was disconnected from the ventilator, she did not die in minutes as predicted, but lived on for years because she was allowed to receive air on her own. Would a desire to not to be "hooked up to tubes" [assuming Terri ever said such a thing] represent a desire to be killed, or a desire to receive therapy so that she could live without anything 'artificial'?
(4) At the time Terri made her alleged statement, the very notion of denying food and water to someone who would otherwise starve or dehydrate would have been considered so grossly unacceptable as to be beyond consideration. Would a reasonable person consider it plausible that what Terri really meant to say was "...and if the Florida legislature should pass a statute sometime while I'm incapacitated that redefines the term 'life supprot' to include food and water, I'd like you to deny those so that I'm fatally and painfully dehydrated?
People are accusing Greer of corruption because he makes rulings that no reasonable person could make. If you disagree with my judgements of what's "reasonable", please explain why.
"Only after Michael met overtly-pro-Euthenasia lawyer(*) did he "remember" that when his wife saw a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan, she expressed a wish not to live "hooked up to tubes". Would a reasonable person given those facts find Michael's testimony about his wife's "expressed wishes" credible?"
TAdams8591 adds: Or analgous and relevant? And answers:
Just a point I thought of last night, someone else may have already mentioned it:
When Karen Ann Quinlan was taken off the VENTILATOR, she began breathing on her own and was fed by a FEEDING TUBE. TEN YEARS LATER SHE DIED A NATURAL DEATH - while on a FEEDING TUBE.
To say removing Terri's FEEDING TUBE is ANALGOUS to taking Karen Ann Quinlan off a VENTILATOR is INCREDIBLY FLAWED and furthermore, a bold faced LIE.