Posted on 03/20/2005 12:29:52 PM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
ROTFL. Of course not.
The effect of the USSC refusing to hear the case means they upheld the earlier decision which was in Michael Schiavo's favor.
"Not really sure what you mean"
If there were reasons to seek his removal as guardian, I would have removed her from the situation without permission. Actually, I would have objected to his sole guardianship in the beginning. Joint guardianship...at most.
Any who are serious about the issue of euthanasia would. Otherwise, they haven't given enough thought to the issue. Most 26 year olds haven't given enough thought to the issue and don't know what they think about it. And those that do, have living wills.
But I remember being young and watching a movie with my husband and telling him, not for me. Admittedly, a Living Will is preferable.
It's essential. If you don't need one, then it's not necessary. If the LW is to mean anything at all, then it has to be the only means by which the incapacitated person can speak for him or herself above the wishes of the family.
But every day in this country people have stomach tubes and life support removed based on their family's wishes.
But not if some family wants them to live. As you observed, that's what we have here.
Here's the deal:
If starving Terri will not hurt her, then having her live in this state will not harm her either. But if she is suffering, then the starvation and dehydration is nothing less than torture.
Great, then you're situation is very different from Terri's. Even Michael doesn't say she "told him over and over again." He didn't even mention the one casual remark she supposedly made, until years after she was incapacitated. The bottom line is that there's isn't clear and convincing evidence that she'd want to be put down. Greer was exposing his incompetence - or some ideological agenda (I believe it's the incompetence of a hack local judge/former county commissioner) - in basing a death order on such scanty evidence. Florida law says where the evidence isn't clear and compelling, you don't withdraw the tube. He blew it, and he's as stubborn as he is stupid (as a judge), so he won't back down. The appellate courts don't review the facts, so they can't be any help.
Fortunately, the congressional bill would let a federal judge review the whole thing - de novo - as if new, from the ground up. No court has taken a second look at the facts that Greer based his judgment on. Now that that might happen, we may soon see how very wrong - and stupid - he was/is.
Then let MS take the family to court
But he doesn't ... does he
Could it be that nasty little thing called discovery??
Well, well.
And others testified she was not bulimic. Like I said, depends on who you believe. Her husband was the first one to suggest she was bulimic, fwiw.
...Lazzara appeared interested in the issues. He asked for the official transcript of the Sept. 17 hearing, where Greer refused to protect Terri's interests.According to Anderson in a filing, when the Schindlers in their petition for therapy for their daughter reminded Greer that an incapacitated ward like Terri has a right to essential services and rehabilitation and that it is the duty of a judge in a guardianship proceeding to protect those rights and to prevent any harm being done by a guardian – Greer declared from the bench that if he acted on Terri's behalf in this regard, Schiavo would move for his disqualification on grounds of "bias."
Lazzara also asked for part of the court transcript from a medical malpractice trial in Nov. 1992, when Schiavo sued Terri's doctors for not having diagnosed her physical condition. He claimed it was the likelihood that she was bulimic that led to her collapse, a condition her doctors should have caught.
Schiavo told the six-member jury that he needed money for his wife's future care. He said he was studying to be a nurse "because I enjoy it and I want to learn more about how to take care of Terri."
When asked by his lawyer how he felt about being married to Terri at that point in time, he answered: "I feel wonderful. She's my life and I wouldn't trade her for the world. I believe in my wedding vows."
Asked to explain further, he said, "I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."
He did not testify that Terri had, years before, told him she wouldn't want to be fed or kept alive "by artificial means." That claim came later.
Two people can be held to be credible who say opposing things.
"Considered evidence" is not the same as "sufficient evidence." The threshold for sufficiency is pretty high for contracts over $500, land transfers, and wills. A reqest to be denied life support fits in there somewhere, but in general the bias is toward keeping the patient alive.
Well in this case Michael Schiavo saying that Terri would not want to be artifically be kept alive under oath in testimony and seen as credible was upheld all the way up to the USSC.
Not having a living will means someone else will decide whether or not you live. That's all. Sometimes they'll keep you alive, sometimes they'll off you.
?
And are you telling me that refusing the case manes they ruled that Terri has been given all of her rights as a US citizen, under law ,to her own representation in court?
You might want to get that important information to the insurance company that paid off to Schaivo so they can get their money back -- because that is EXACTLY what the jury found in that case.
Whatever. Michael Schiavo's testimony was upheld.
Or have they not had that issue in front of them and that is what Congress and the Senate are trying to figure out?
Don't you mean "What is Judge Greer?" Funny but I can't get the idea out of my head that he and others might be involved in a Satanic cult.
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.