Posted on 03/16/2005 10:06:33 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A state appeals court has refused to block the expected removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on Friday.
YES on HR 1151
OK- Lexinom was a good freeper and typed up the court ruling so here is the ruling from Judge Greer from March 7, 2005. It denies the Schindlers their appeal to feed Terri naturally should her feeding tube be removed. In other words, she is to be starved to death by judicial order.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURST FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROBATE DIVISION
File No. 90-2908-GD-003
IN RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO,
Incapacitated.
MICHAEL SCHIAVO,
Petitioner,
Vs.
ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY SCHINDLER,
Respondents.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on March 7, 2005 on Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means after the assisted nutrition and hydration are discontinured. The Court heard the argument of Daniel C. Gibbs, III, Esq., for the Respondents, and of George J. Felos, Esq., foe the Petitioner.
Having also reviewed portions of declarations or affidavits of several doctors, which were submitted to the Court by Respondents, it has become clear that the motion is part and parcel of Respondents' Fla. R. Civ. P Rule 1.540(b)(5) motion of medical evaluations. The same declarations are being used for both motions and the motion appears to be an alternative pleading to the 1.540(b)(5) motion. Both are asking for an experimental procedure. The Court reasons that if the 1.540(b)(5) motion is granted, there is no need for this motion. If the 1/540(b)(5) motion is denied, the Court should not do indirectly what it has not done directly. It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this 8 day of March, 2005.
Signed George W. Greer
Circuit Judge
Copies to all lawyers
Last night on Nightline, Michael Schiavo looked at the camera and said Terri won't be starved. It will be painless. Slowly her electrolytes will diminish and "she'll drift off to a nice little sleep and pass on to be wtih God.
This week my daughter was given several articles on euthanasia, pro and con, for a writing assignment. An article from the Ithaca Journal March 3, 2000 involves a woman NY Atty Gen Eliot Spitzer tried to keep alive against the wishes of the family and the ruling of a court. A compromise allowed the hospital to provide hydration and nutriition, but the patient was unable to tolerate the sugar nutrition mixed in with the water. Here's the description of her death, as there was no other way to provide her with nutrition:
"Without nutrition to provide protein to make cells, [her] body began consuming the protein in her body... Her body is basically starting to devour itself...Doctors have been using skin patches to administer pain medication, but [her] skin is deteriorating and that is becoming difficult."
__________
1 John 5:16
I think it is hard to make sense of the entire passage if one posits that 'death' there refers to physical death. I assume you would agree that if John intended that meaning, that meaning would have had to have been intended throughout the passage, i.e. he didn't mean something different by 'death' in 5:16 from his use of the same word in the rest of the passage.
I simply can't make sense of the passage with that presupposition. Can you give me a paraphrase of the passage that would fit within the larger message of John's epistle? Can you suggest any expositor or commentator who has ever suggested that 'death' in the passage referred to physical death?
I certainly agree that murder is serious, I also agree that we can properly reason from those things which are mentioned to those which are not (but you have not made such an argument here) and I do not support or indulge so-called 'higher criticism' (the real WC (apparently) to the contrary notwithstanding). None of these things however argue that 'you shall not murder' really means 'you shall not commit suicide'.
_________________
The Evidence of Husband's Unsuitability for Decision-Making on Behalf of Terry
Here you make two different arguments which can be conjunctive or disjunctive.
Wrongfully Suppressing Evidence
You suggest that husband (i)'... is able to prevent [evidence of unsuitability] from ever coming to light', (ii) 'He has jumped through all the legal hoops' and (iii) he 'has not exhibited the open and honest attitude of one with a clean conscience.'
As to (i), I think every adversary I have ever had has wanted to suppress unfavorable evidence (to him). It is my job as the adversary to see that doesn't happen. Where have husband's adversaries been? Have they been complicit in your view? How did this malevolent guy pull this off?
As to (ii) everyone has to 'jump through the legal hoops' but what does that mean? How, in doing that, did he manage to suppress evidence unfavorable to him?
As to (iii), assuming arguendo that he did the things you mention, how did he keep the court (and opposing counsel) from noticing? Bottom line: Every party to a lawsuit would love to suppress unfavorable evidence, but it is almost impossible to do. The best one can hope for is to 'explain it away'. But frankly that is precisely what judges (and juries) hear everyday and, in my experience, are pretty good at seeing through the fog.
At the very end of your comment, you come back to this and express your unhappiness with a system in which "[You]don't like ... the vetting criteria for evidence that accepts and eliminates based on a criteria besides merit and provability - [and which therefore] shows them to be more advocate than judge." I presume you mean the rules of evidence and there is something about the 1991 nuclear imaging report which you find troubling. You imply but don't say directly that it was excluded from evidence. Is this your objection? What was the basis of exclusion?
Let me just say that a career as a lawyer has convinced me that more injustice occurs from a lack of application of the rules of evidence than from their application. In short, I think they are pretty good at divining the trustworthiness of evidence. I know that's general, but I don't know your specific objection related to the 1991 report.
Improper Weighing
The balance of your argument is that you are more impressed with the probative value of certain evidence than the judge was and you conclude therefore that he improperly weighed it.
You say that the judge valued Bambakidis' testimony more highly than that of Gambone. I'm not sure what he did with Cranford and Greer. But a trier of fact (a judge or jury) always has to weigh one expert's testimony against others. All experts are, to some degree (some more than others) 'hired guns'. But again that is what most judges do pretty well and they count on respective opposing counsel to show the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Moreover, as with any witness, the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor while testifying is very important. That is why appellate courts are not supposed to reweigh the testimony of witnesses -- expert or lay. Even when I read the transcript of the testimony, the test has to be: is there some testimony in the transcript which if believed would support the trier of fact's determination? If so, I must yield to the trier of fact who heard and saw the witness. So, I'm not overly impressed that you could pull out testimony which could have supported the opposite conclusion. That is almost always true - particularly with experts.
I need something more before I could conclude that the process wasn't fair.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondents' Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED.DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this 8 day of March, 2005.
Signed George W. Greer
Last night on Nightline, Chris Bury asked George Felos, Michael's attorney, about the money. Felos blithely said it had gone for "medical care, governorship expenses, costs and fees,"
Greer's governorship expenses? Felos' own costs and fees?
Both lead ineluctably to physical death. Both involve the withdrawal of human intervention to prolong physical life. When that withdrawal occurs, death is inevitable.
You stated that you "made the decision to end chemotherapy and pursue hospice care only" -how did this end your wife's suffering?
She passed away and the suffering ended. Hospice care is solely palliative, i.e. pain reduction; it abandons all efforts to cure or extend life.
E: Incorrect. The 'court' has declared that no one is allow to give her a spoon either. Her family is forbidden to even feed her jello. why? is that 'extraordinary means'?
Please read my sentence again: "What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) 'alive.'" The question is who is the decision-maker.
Can you not see that, if the right of the husband is sustained and he decides that ending nutritional maintenance is appropriate, allowing others to countermand the effect of the instruction would undermine the first two decisions? The 'no spoon' and 'no jello' decisions flow from the first determinations, i.e. the husband's right to make the decision and the nature of the decision he makes.
Is the sheriff's report the 1991 nuclear imaging report or something different?
What is the evidence behind the charge that the judge was "less than honorable"?
Our society does not give husbands the right to kill their wives. The husband CANNOT decide that it is OK to starve her to death according to our values and laws. We do not accord one individual the right to kill another person.
What do you mean? The Triumvirate's is feverishly trying to murder Terri not because she's PVS, but because THEY KNOW DA?N WELL SHE ISN'T.
In your #590 you cited a couple of instances of 'past treatment' which you felt were important. "* [failure to] order regular dental care (her teeth are presently rotting due to a lack thereof). * [failure to] have therapies aimed at improving her quality of life, such as restoring her ability to speak and swallow. * [failure to] have the broken bones in her body properly mended (I'm not a doctor and don't know if this is possible. BTW how did she get the broken bones to begin with?)"
Standing alone, there is no evidence that any of these explain Terry's present inability to feed herself. Isn't the whole problem here a dispute as to whether all the 'therapies' in the world could restore her ability to speak and swallow?
Look, I realize it is hard to say that someone should be allowed to die when their own condition prevents them from living. But physical life is not the ultimate value. If Terry knows Christ, she will live forever -- and she won't need a feeding tube.
Where would this stop? Suppose all she needed to survive (beyond the feeding tube] was a 'little' heart/lung machine? Suppose the machine cost $1 million? Suppose $1.95?
Suppose there were 1 chance in 100 she could survive for 10 years in that condition, would you want to overrule the (hypothetically honest and caring) husband? How about 1 chance in a million?
You can't write such a law and you really don't want to. Let her go home.
Most interesting post 87. Explains a whole lot. The question is, will something be done about it?
Yes, that is true, but our society does give husbands the right to decide when to withdraw continuing medical care when their wives cannot decide (and vice-versa). That is what is happening here. The problem is that Terry can't eat by herself.
BTW, I have long had a durable power of attorney demanding precisely this outcome were I ever to be left in Terry's pitiable state.
I haven't read through the whole thread to understand how you know this. Just attending a church does not necessarily make someone a "devout Christian."
The former "devout" pastor at my father's church is engaging in this scam: Insinuate yourself into the lives of the elderly by providing very welcome assistance getting groceries, driving, doing errands, etc. Then get the elderly person to legally adopt you. Of course you get the person to leave her "devoted son" the estate. This was discovered when he and his wife appeared as surviving son and daughter in a number of obituaries, including that of my grandmother's best friend. He unsuccessfully tried this with my widowed aunt. He's now involuntarily retired (for other reasons), but still scamming away.
ORECON:
This account has been banned or suspended.
just thought you'd like to know :-)
gee.....that's just a real shame!
Yeah, I'm sure gonna miss him...NOT!!!
|
|
lol....one less aggravating troll.
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.