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.
my prayers for her and her family....Michael will get what he deserves one day...
From what I have read, documentations was submitted to him, and he would deny it without looking at it.
I'm not sure what you mean by deny it. There are so-called 'foundational requirements' for evidence which any lawyer would know of. It may have been that the lawyer offering the evidence couldn't authenticate it. Without knowing the specifics, it really doesn't mean anything. But, as I told another poster, there is no surer way for a trial judge to be overturned on appeal than to make a mistake on evidenciary admission. Presumably if Judge Greer did so, the parents' attorney raised it on appeal.
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.
What would that prove regarding the husband's fitness to serve as guardian of her person? That is the issue before Judge Greer. As to the reasonableness of the proposed course of action, would you be happy with a judge who weighed his own, lay impressions of Terry over the expert opinions offered him by the parties?
And what is that 'conflict of interest'?
A common law wife and two children by that common law wife. That's it Winston. One would have to be living on a planet in the multiverse not to think that a man in this circumstance "may" be conflicted. It is irrational to claim otherwise.
I just saw this thread and don't have time now to scroll through everything.
But I just cannot believe that this is happening. I mean, yeah I can believe it, but...
Words fail me. If they shut off her feeding tube tomorrow and condemn her to a painful death by starvation/dehydration...
I read one post earlier today that said that Terri can't feel pain because she is unconscious. Well, I haven't been in her hospital room but I always understood unconscious to mean "unable to wake up." Now, we've all seen the pictures of Terri and she is awake, by any definition. I'm not buying the argument that she won't feel pain in this.
And even those in favor of "letting her go" must agree that we treat animals better than that.
I've had two beloved dogs "put down" and as their vet put it, "this is called relaxing to death." It took less than 30 seconds.
Terri will suffer for days. This is completely inhuman.
In the America I once knew majorities were not allowed to violate the inalienable rights of the minority.
You would do well to remember that Mr NRA.
We are all dying; the only difference is how soon. One cannot argue that having some so-called 'terminal' illness makes the difference. When one withdraws medical care, that shortens life. There is less life span than there would have been with the medical care.
but what everyone now faces (and almost every physician will advise) that one must weigh the quality of that life span against its duration. These are the toughest decisions which can be made, BUT they are made every day.
It is simplistic (and I submit wrong) to simply state that the increased length of life span must always trump the quality of that life span. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Who shall make the decision? The person involved if they can and their designated representative when they can't. If they haven't designated someone, the law will.
It is my understanding that, no matter how well she is taken care of, Terry will not get better. If that be true, and assuming Terry is going to stay in the hospital (or nursing home) forever, how would that interfere with the husband's common law relationship? Prevent him from legitimizing the relationship and the kids?
Sorry, I misposted the quotation from another post.
And so we must ask why Judge Greer and the Florida Superior Courts simply ignore the law as written by the Florida Legislature.
"Cf 28 CFR, Ch 1, Subpart B, Sect 35.130 States "Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline FOOD, WATER, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual."
Title V declares that a State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from an action in Federal or State court for a violation of this Act.
There's some major league crap going down in the Florida court system.
(((HUGS))) It is natural and normal to sometimes have feelings of resentment and annoyance toward someone you are responsible for full-time. Caregivers can avoid burn-out by having regularly scheduled relief from their duties...a day they know they can put their loved one into someone else's care for a few hours or a weekend so they can have some time for themselves. It's not shameful to admit to having negative feelings sometimes about your role. That's called being human. Being hard on yourself for not being "perfect" creates useless guilt.
Heck, raising my babies was sometimes an exasperating and exhausting task. Two days a week, I got a break when they went for a few hours to preschool. It saved my sanity! Even just having a friend to swap sitting duties with so each of us could be "free" for a bit was very helpful. Having other caregivers to talk to is also very helpful. Play groups were always about us moms, not so much for the kids...because talking to other people who are struggling with your same issues is very comforting. It's the same thing with caregiver conferences and support groups. I watched my mother-in-law care for her mother and I've seen how challenging it can be when you try to do everything by yourself. The people you are caring for are leaning on you pretty heavily...sometimes you have to have someone YOU can lean on. Hang in there!
winston
My condolences on the loss of your wife. I can't even imagine what you went through. Your experience certainly gives dimension to your viewpoint.
Well, there has to be at least a possible conflict. Obviously, any person "may have" a conflict depending on the facts and while I am not familiar with Florida case law construing that provision, there would have to be at least some fact-based possibility of a conflict. Thus, my question. In order to make the argument, one must have at least a theory as to how the conflict could arise.
This is not a trick question. What's the theory behind your "self-evident" assumption and what are the facts supporting the possibility? Didn't the parents' lawyers argue this to Judge Greer? To the Florida Supreme Court?
If I understand the holding of the Florida courts, you folks may have misunderstood the court's rulings. The State of Florida is not going to withhold food and water; the husband is going to do that. The State of Florida has merely ruled that he is allowed to do it under Florida law and they are not going to displace him as guardian.
On the other hand, I was also not aware of the report of the special guardian ad litem who was appointed at the request of Governor Bush. After visiting Terry several times, Dr. Wolfson issued a detailed report and concluded,
The [guardian ad litem] concludes that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.
Particularly touching -- and relevant to the comments of many posters here -- is the earlier comment of the Court of Appeal,
The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about lifeprolonging procedures. [Citations omitted.] It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for herself. [Citation omitted.]
It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life.
What more can be said.
Decision? What decision is that? Why does there always have to be a decision? This woman has been living in this state for years now. What, if Terri continues to live, does God kill a kitten or something?
Frankly I am sick of unethical people passing judgements on other people's lives or the value thereof. It is not acceptable or humanitarian to subject people's lives to a cost-benefit analysis. Because we have seen the bottom of that slope. It is not pretty.
"In 1931, psychiatrists meeting in Bavaria, Germany decried the traditional expressed compassion of the nineteenth century and proposed a more severe response to chronic mental illness. They proposed sterilization and euthanasia. By 1936 the eradication of the unfit was well enough accepted to merit incidental mention in an official German Medical Journal. When Hitler institutionalized the idea, he required all state institutions to report patients who had been ill for five or more years and who were unable to work. They were required to fill out questionnaires giving the name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore the financial responsibility and so forth. The decision regarding which patients should be killed was made entirely by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in key universities. These consultants never saw the patients themselves. The thoroughness of their scrutiny can be appraised by the work of one expert, who between November 14 and December 1, 1940, evaluated 2109 questionnaires." (Santa Clara Law Review,1997, 387 International Rights Protection Against Psychiatric Political Abuses, George J. Alexander)
"Today's right to a feeding tube will be tomorrow's right to a heart/lung machine and Saturday's right to chemotherapy, and Monday's right to Hillarycare."
What does that have to do with her parent's right to provide the care? Do they not have the right not to see their cherished family member killed?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Right to life...except if you are disabled? How about if the governed give their consent that the disabled should be treated at least as well as a homeless cat?
>>FLe the real story with that photo is -- how was it taken? Date was 2/22, but who authorized it? And how was it released to the press?
My guess is someone in the felos camp authorized that photo under the table as long as it was used in a non-flattering way. Shindlers are not allowed cameras, so obviously THEY didn't do it.
I see that TV station has changed the photo attached to the article.
The link DIRECTLY to that article, I believe is here
http://www2.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/C71211/
Two wives, one legally, one common law and two children by the second in conjunction with a large sum of money when the proceedings started to remove nourishment from wife number 1. I don't think you have an argument and I thik the Florida courts are corrupt. "may" have a conflict under those conditions is, as I said, self evident.
Didn't the parents' lawyers argue this to Judge Greer? To the Florida Supreme Court?
Certainly, to no avail. Which is why the federal government should intervene. Once again Florida courts are renegade.
You have misunderstood the Florida Courts. From the Court of Appeals:
"In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker."
IOW's, the state has the power to order a citizen the death of a citizen under preponderance of evidence rules without the Executive being able to grant clemency.
Now a question for you, who grants that power to any state and should any state have that power? Another question with a self evident answer.
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.