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.
NO, sir, he REFUSED. From what I have read, documentations was submitted to him, and he would deny it without looking at it. He also has not seen any of the videos of Terri. AND, you would think, since there is such a descrepancy about Terri's condition, he would go see for himself. I would think any normal person would do that. After all, Terri herself is as much, if not more so, evidence as any documentation, videos, etc. So, dear sir, he is NOT seeing the evidence; he is refusing to see it!
Not if they're all getting some monetary benefits. Did you ever read The Empire Journal, or check out Robert W. Melton's site? Kind of like those little towns that had speed traps set up? Everyone was in on it. So, it's not too hard when there's $$$$ involved! How about the Medicaid fraud that was discovered by that Suncoast Hospice down there??? Check out a few things; do some research. It's NOT a pretty world, especially down there in Pinellas County!
..........the brain part.........
:-)
I think the appeal to Scripture is an appeal to the principles of natural law and moral obligation, which, originally anyway, under-girded our laws.
I am not a believer in 'natural law' (an RCC concept) but no one here has expressly argued that. If someone did, I suppose that would send me back to Aquinas.
"Moral obligation" is even squishier. It must derive from something. It certainly can arise from Scripture. If one were to posit 'natural law', it could arise from that. But it is, in any event, derivative.
Appealing on the basis of those principles may be persuasive, but overcoming the private decision making of the adulterous husband/guardian is a power already within the purview of the state. For example, there are no novel state powers required to remove a guardian for cause. 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated. 825.103 Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties. 733.504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal. Thus the private decision-making of the guardian is not the ultimate dispositive question, as in "the question is who is the decision-maker" (in this case, the husband). Guardians have certain obligations and duties. Failing them, he may be removed The guardian does not have the final say. He is subject to all court orders.
I agree entirely. Indeed, you make my point. So long as we focus on the dispute as to which private party is the proper one to exercise decision-making power for Terry, there is nothing novel and the courts are well-positioned to resolve such disputes.
My point, precisely, is that is what Judge Greer has done and what the appellate courts have reviewed. He heard the evidence and did not remove the husband and the appellate courts reviewed his decision and affirmed it.
However, this case has had so many bizarre irregularities that if this case were not one to demonstrate justification for removal for cause, imo there isn't any such thing.
I've been listening to the 'bizarre irregularities' alleged here and, as of yet, haven't heard any that a reasonable judge couldn't properly find outweighed by other evidence. In fact, the nature of the arguments here convince me that most who object to the husband's retaining his role do so because of the result of the course of action which he proposes.
That, to me, is not sustainable. If he proposes a lawful course of action -- and the courts have reviewed that as well -- then it follows that he should not be removed for that reason.
The objection I have with regard to the use of the word, "irreversible" in conjunction with "debilitating condition", is that it is, as far as I can tell, entirely novel. It used to be used only in such cases as terminal illness or immanent death.
Here you begin the transition -- common to the arguments here -- to the objections to the course of intended conduct. That's fair to argue, of course, but one must point to a basis for state interference in what has otherwise been a rather common focus of private decision-making.
First, by "irreversible" I mean merely that the condition is not 'transitory' and is stable. Obviously, if the husband proposed to remove a feeding tube for a transitory condition, it would make a large difference in the reasonableness of his proposed course of action. So, whether the condition is stable and permanent or transitory and reversible makes a big analytical difference.
[To justify withholding nutrition and hydration] ... indicates to me that the present terrain is already very long and very fast down the slippery slope, and we are losing our brakes.
Interestingly, I argue the same argument from the other side: giving the state the power to trump private decision-making on this ill-defined ground of 'natural law' or perhaps 'moral obligation' is dangerous. As I said in #671 above,
That is a dangerous (and wholly novel) principle. If maintenance of any type or degree of physical life is the highest good and the state is authorized to trump all private decision-making, we will not like the 'brave new world' which will follow. Our loved ones will be forcibly kept 'alive' regardless of their quality of life or their pain and suffering because, as the PETA-types would gladly tell you, nothing is more important than physical life.
Actually, decisions to withhold surgical procedures which would prolong life are made every day in hospitals across this land and not always in the face of traditional terminal diseases -- even though the lack of the procedure makes some type of death-inducing complication hugely more likely or even inevitable. These decisions often involve infants with terrible debilitating handicaps of extreme mental retardation, etc. All of those decisions are far better made by private parties, after weighing medical advice, than by the nanny state guided by PETA-type absolutism.
I believe those who would have the state preserve physical life at all costs are those who have disconnected the brakes.
The smiley face is made by using the Wingdings font and typing the capital letter J. In order to see it in the yellow font I used, I had to make the background blue.
If she COULD feed herself, but needed dialysis due to kidney problems, would Michael be pursuing withdrawing dialysis? If she could feed herself, but needed insulin injections to stay alive (and could not do this for herself) would he pursue withholding insulin? If she was able to feed herself, but required an ostomy (which she could not do for herself) due to digestive failure, what then? If she needed oxygen supplementation for weak lungs, what then? A pacemaker?
Some of the patients I cared for had no families to take care of them because they had outlived their parents or had been abandoned, but I never heard of anyone pursuing their death simply because they were incapable of living independently or having a quality of life I take for granted. Some of them made me sad, but it never occurred to me that they should not be taken care of.
Terri has parents and other people who are willing to take care of her and feed her by whatever means she needs until she dies. Parents of children BORN with similar disabilities may care for them their whole natural lives and do everything possible to keep these individuals healthy and comfortable whether they EVER speak, laugh, walk, or do anything "normal" people do. People are dramatically disabled in accidents every year...brain injuries, spinal cord injuries. Many of them require permanent round-the-clock care ever after. There are people willing to take care of these people, whether they ever speak again or do any of the things they were able to do before they were forever changed. If these people are worthy of such care, I don't understand why this woman should be singled out for death. She is no better and no worse off than many other people in a similar state. Death is not imminent, but she does require special feeding. So did many of the people I worked with.
I honestly don't know, but it seems to me that Terri's needs are fairly low-tech and basic. Fifteen, twenty, forty years...if there are people willing and able to take care of her needs, I see no reason to essentially euthanize her.
I didn't stop feeding my dog when old age made him decrepit and weak. When the time came to ease him out of this life, I didn't do so by starving him to death. If Terri was utterly incapacitated by a stroke tomorrow and was on life-support...if there was then a plug to pull on Terri and facilitate death promptly, to me that's a little different than the method they are suggesting, when death is not imminent. I wouldn't wish euthansia by starvation and dehydration on my dog, I certainly wouldn't wish it on a human being, whether she was capable of understanding what was happening to her or not.
Sometimes I think about those people I used to care for and remember all the ways they changed my life for the better. They might not have had the kind of life I would want for myself or my children, but it was better for me to have been a part of the group who loved and cared for them than to be part of any group who felt they'd be better off gone. There was a reason for them. A reason why they were in the world. A reason for their "being". I don't know what that reason is or was, but caring for them changed ME and blessed ME.
Maybe Terri's life plays a similar role in the bigger picture? Maybe she's not here for "her" anymore, but for the rest of us.
If you look at the trends world wide, the direction is most definitely towards euthanasia, not preserving life. I see no support for "preserving physical life at all costs" as you say. Conversely, I see many frightening trends towards euthanasia. The assisted suicide law in Oregon and the "elimination" of imperfect infants in the Netherlands (even without parental permission) are just 2 examples of this trend. Our society has always had provisions to protect those who could not protect themselves- children, the elderly, the infirm, etc - That is why I believe Terri should be protected. She cannot protect herself. Besides, if you are going to err, why not err on the side of life? After all, once she has been starved to death, there will be no going back. On Judge Greer- perhaps you are right that he simply weighted the evidence he saw differently than I would have but what if he is an activist judge? There are plenty of them out there, legislating from the bench as we speak. What if he just doesn't like the Schlinders? Is tired of the case? He is the only judge that has ruled on the motions so who is to say that he is King Salomon? After all, he ruled (as I posted last night) that feeding her naturally constituted an experimental procedure and therefore denied the Schlinders their appeal to feed her should the tube be removed. One more thing- if her death is so justifiable, why don't they give her a lethal injection?
You, on the other hand remind me of lawyers I know that think they are always right. It seems to me that we can have a debate over this issue without being condescending.
I think what your comment brings to this discussion is that it doesn't lend itself to facile answers and certainly not to simple ones. That's why I believe so strongly in private decision-making, not state-imnposed decision-making. I agree with your point about activist judges.
I remember how quickly my wife went downhill and shudder to think of having had to initiate some legal proceeding and persuade some liberal judge (armed with a 'maintain physical life at all costs' statute) in order to stop chemotherapy and let my dear wife die.
I think a lot of people here distrust the husband (perhaps justifiably so) and were upset that Judge Greer didn't displace him. But to now get the Congress to enact some slapdash law to try to overrule Judge Greer is crazy. Imagine literally having to make a 'federal case' out of every decision which could affect live or death.
This is insanity. As your post so movingly proves, this is not about one woman, but about the proper legal procedure which could and would affect hundreds of thousands of people.
My wife and I talked about incapacitation many, many times. Although seldom in the presence of others. We did both write 'durable powers of attorney' but even there the general statements are intended to guide the decision-maker, not generate more litigation.
The husband in Terry's case may be a bad apple, I don't know. I do know that the parents had their (many) day(s) in court and did not persuade Judge Greer that the husband met the criteria for removal under Florida law. I have no reason to believe that Judge Greer did not try to make the best decision he could. Moreover, I have no reason to believe that either lawyer pulled any punches. I suspect that they each put up every bit of evidence they thought would help their case.
So, my view is that the principle of private decision-making of these sensitive decisions is crucial and that any rule which involved the state in every such decision would be disasterous. Thus, I conclude that efforts to change the law by involving the state in every such decision would be a terrible, terrible thing.
I would let Terry go home now.
I hesitate to ignite new flames, but I think assisted suicide and the state-initiated euthanasia are two-entirely different things. I think to require people whose lives have become intolerable to use crude and cruel means (i.e. blowing your brains out with a shotgun) to end their lives when much more humane means are within the monopoly control of 'doctors' is tragic. If they don't want to 'assist', OK. Just give me the drugs and I will do the rest.
The Netherlands law is the logical outgrowth of transferring these life or death decisions to the state, as many here would now do. The idea that the state can kill my children is incredible for a supposedly civilized society.
Thus, I support so-called 'assisted' suicide and oppose state-controlled euthanasia.
[I am a Biblical Christian and (obviously) not a catholic. If you have faith in RCC dogmas about suicide, your answer would obviously be much different.)
I did not intend to be 'condescending' and apologize if it came across that way. I am tired of people here insulting the judge and suggesting he was taking money, just because they don't like the result.
That was what my comment was directed to. I have had many clients over the years who, if they lost the case, said the judge was 'on the take.' They simply couldn't envision that an honest judge might weigh the evidence differently than they did. I told them precisely what I said here, "consider the possibility that he might be right and you might be wrong."
Yes, and honest judge would. BUT, Greer is far from honest as he won't EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!!! Did you not read my Post #681??
http://nationalreview.com/comment/johansen200503160848.asp
Sorry, I can't link - I haven't figured it out yet.
I'm not at all sure about that. This recent online Field poll
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2155.pdf
shows that those who self describe as Catholic, are only little different than the general population. 65% agree with assisted suicide.
I don't care what motivates Greer to ignore the law, I do care that he and the superior courts have blatantly disregarded it.
This is the point that has been made over and over in this forum: she won't "go home" unless she is killed- starved. I would "go home" under those circumstances, too. The difference between Terri and your wife is that Terri is not dying. Sadly, your wife was. You made sure she was as comfortable as was humanly possible as she died. Terri is not dying. She will not die soon unless she is killed. The state of Florida is proposing to initiate a process that will end her life intentionally. This is not an "unplug the machine" choice.
Listening to Levin - just a moment ago, used the "remove the tube" lingo. That is the thing in this matter which is not getting full exposure.
That is so fine, lsee. We have just a bit experience in this area, caring for 90 year old and blind Edward. What you say about having oneself changed by serving some of the "least of these" is absolutely correct. Though, at least for me, it is a daily battle to get it done; I have to change every day, when I find myself annoyed and inconvenienced by his presence. (That is a shameful thing to admit, because he is a better man than I will ever be.)
Then, on good days, I can collect myself, do the right things, and get the blessing.
Thanks for the great source. This affadavit is astounding. And to think Greer is doing everything he can to ignore it -- He must have marching orders from someone he fears more than the American peoples' reaction to institutionalized murder of the innocent.
May God have mercy on our passivity in Terry's defense. If someone doesn't take appropriate action, we are all in big trouble.
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.