Posted on 03/19/2005 9:18:52 AM PST by EveningStar
Note: The first sentence of that post says it's from another freeper who sent it to me via freepmail. Don't be impressed with me :-)
Thank you.
What did I write? I wasn't clear. I thought and will go back and see but the first sentence did say/should say:
Sent to me from another freeper who said the following...That person read the 900+ pages of medical transcript.
Thank you.
I made that observation and subsequent statement after a "timeline of events" was posted by someone defending the Schindler's on this very thread. As I said, legal experts and scholars have said that Micheal has done everything within reason up to and including to yesterday. The only mistake made in this entire case is the fact Terri has no living will, so both families are fighting tooth and nail for something they themselves are only assuming.
Now a story.... Recently a friend of the family had died, he lived modestly, but it turns out he had saved millions of dollars in the local bank. His greedy sister argued that money was hers. His living will said that every red cent was to go to the school for their new gymnasium and band practice room. She fought tooth and nail, and she lost in the state court because he had it written down in a Living Will as part of his estate.
Apparently you are mistaken. Another poster has admitted making the statement.
======
.
OK. Thanks. I think we're all good now.
But what does that have to do with this discussion?
Plenty. You initially didn't know what the hell you were talking about, furthermore, I'm not even Catholic, but I am well aware of just how even the basic functions of the Catholic church operate.
It appears Terri was given Last Rites and Communion. So, my original statement is correct.
Only after I corrected you.
To: Peach
I know that last rites were administered yesterday; I don't think last rites always involve a host as so often patients are not in any condition to receive the host.
A few drops of the host were dropped into her Gastronomy tube.
The Judge ORDERED the priest COULD NOT GIVE IT TO HER BY MOUTH.
JEEZ, they are going to kill her and the excuse for not giving her the HOST by mouth is that SHE MIGHT CHOKE ON IT?
102 posted on 03/19/2005 1:04:07 PM CST by UCANSEE2
Sorry, I didn't mean to be so snippy. Seems the media and talking heads are the ones who say "heart attack" which is incorrect. Just as they mistakenly exchange coma/PVS, which are also different. Anyways, I apologize.
well....?
No problem, and Thank you.
A very interesting concept. You think there is a court out there that might let some murderer be dehydrated to death?
A slave, pedophile, or murderer has more rights than Terri. Those trying to kill her are Nazis.
I never replied to the post you copied, which is #102. You were corrected by others however, and those who corrected you, seem to be in initial agreement with me.
Yours is an interesting concept, called "twisting my words around" to suit your argument. That's not what I said.
"I think she's alive in name only"
I agree.
This bill Congress is going to pass does not really upset me. I may reduce my next RNC contribution to a $1 with a little note attached, but I still would never vote for Kerry or Hillary. But I do not know why others are so happy over this. The end result should be the same, tube removed. But they must not think much of the idea, of anybody being able to appeal any end-of-life case to Federal Court. It’s only good for Terri. Because of the way it is written, directed at one Florida Court, one Florida District and the Florida Supreme Court, you might see the Florida Supreme Court along with Mike Schiavo ask for an immediate ruling from US Supreme Court to have law overturned saying it violates Florida Court ruling based on Florida Constitution and US Supreme Court Rulings. Legislative interference in settled law!!
But if it gets that far, this lets a Federal District Court judge look at it. The only court that could overturn legality of removing feeding tubes from PVS individuals is the Supreme Court [if they wanted to reverse all their previous decisions].
A Federal District Court or even Circuit Court of Appeals is going to review the rulings by Judge Greer and the Florida Second District Court to ensure they comply with Florida Law, the Florida Constitution, US Law and the US Constitution. They do. They will uphold the ruling. Until a Federal Court directs the tube reinserted, Florida has no reason to reinsert it, it violates the Florida Constitution. [the legislation does not direct anyone to insert a feeding tube – they were afraid to put that in – to specific]. U.S. Congress is just giving Schindler's the right to appeal the ruling to Federal District Court. That court has already refused the case, but not on the merit, because it did not have jurisdiction, but it has seen all the rulings.
99% of the arguments posted here would not make it out of 9th grade civics class, let alone into a court of law. They are wishful thinking not supported by Court Rulings and either Constitution.
I quit with the first one at this site. Mike Schiavo violated Florida law as her guardian by not submitting a 'plan'. None needed. The court submitted the plan back in 2000. Remove the feeding tube as per Terry's wishes.
I do not see how the Florida legislature can pass a law that would not violate the Florida Constitution. And then it would more than likely violate the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Cruzan v. Director Missouri Dept of Health and upheld in Washington v. Glucksberg and Quill v. Vacco. The court made it clear, you cannot kill someone [assist in suicide]but there is a right to have life support [including feeding tubes which is considered medical treatment] disconnected. A Federal District Court or Federal Court of Appeals could not overturn that.
I do not see a Federal District Court Judge 'retrying' the case [did Terri express she does not want to live this way] It will review procedure and then ensure the evidence can be interpreted as 'clear and convincing'.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20031029.html - Florida Constitution and FLorida Legislature [back in '93]
Unlike the Federal Constitution, the Florida Constitution contains an explicit right of privacy. Article I, Section 23 provides: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein."
The Florida courts have read this provision to place a heavy burden of justification on the government when it attempts to regulate matters of a deeply personal nature. The leading case on withdrawal of a feeding tube is the 1990 decision of In Re Guardianship of Browning. There, the Florida Supreme Court expressly found as a matter of state constitutional law what the U.S. Supreme Court only intimated: the state may not override the clearly expressed wishes of a patient to be disconnected from a feeding tube.
Browning, in other words, was Florida's Cruzan. And it went further than Cruzan did, to recognize in so many words that the right to have life support disconnected was a (state) constitutional right.
[cont] Relying on the Browning precedent, the Florida trial and intermediate appellate courts have repeatedly found that the feeding tube should be removed from Terri Schiavo. They have rejected the Schindlers' contention that their daughter may some day recover. They have also rejected their contention that she would wish to be kept alive in the hope of a future medical miracle.
Based on extensive medical testimony, the trial and appellate courts have determined that Terri Schiavo has suffered massive and irreversible brain damage. And, based largely on the testimony of Michael Schiavo as to Terri's statements while she was alive, these courts have further found that under these circumstances, she would have chosen to die rather than to continue indefinitely attached to a feeding tube.
The appellate court's June 6, 2003 decision is typical of the Florida courts' performance in this case in its thoroughness and care. After scrutinizing the extensive testimony in the case, the court affirmed the trial judge's decision not to revisit the question whether Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state.
Prior to rendering its decision, the court saw the same videotape that has since been aired on television. The judges' response is worth quoting at some length:
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.
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.