Posted on 03/21/2005 2:45:19 PM PST by AntiGuv
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (AP) -- Armed with a new law rushed through Congress over the weekend, the attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents pleaded with a judge Monday to order the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reinserted.
U.S. District Judge James Whittemore did not immediately make a ruling after the two-hour hearing, and he gave no indication on when he might act on the request.
The hearing came three days after the feeding tube was removed. Doctors have said Schiavo could survive one to two weeks without the tube.
During the hearing, David Gibbs, an attorney for the parents, said that forcing Terri Schiavo to die by starvation and dehydration would be "a mortal sin" under her Roman Catholic beliefs.
"It is a complete violation to her rights and to her religious liberty, to force her in a position of refusing nutrition," Gibbs told Whittemore.
But the judge told Gibbs that he still wasn't completely sold on the argument. "I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that you have a substantial likelihood" of the parents' lawsuit succeeding, the judge said.
George Felos, one of the attorneys for husband Michael Schiavo, told Whittemore that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts and that forcing the 41-year-old severely brain damaged woman to endure another re-insertion of the tube would violate her civil rights.
"Every possible issue has been raised and re-raised, litigated and re-litigated," Felos said. "It's the elongation of these proceedings that have violated Mrs. Schiavo's due process rights."
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed at 1:45 p.m. Friday, the third such time she had begun what Felos described as "her dying process." On both previous occasions, the tube was re-inserted by court order.
Hello, SR92.
You sound like an aeroplane.
You're new.
Show me a federal judge and I'll show you a self-absorbed, egomaniac who's first instinct is to deny power to anyone other than his own law clerk.
You make the "Rule of Law" a god then.
Torie,
My beloved said that as I was wailing and gnashing my teeth. He said it's going to go up the chain.
unfortunately, he also said that both judges probably want her dead to make it moot.
Like I really needed to hear said what I've been thinking.
The judge may be blind, but he knows precisely what he is doing.
Judge Greer and his fellow travelers Schiavo and Felos have much to fear of a Federal investigation into the Terri Schiavo matter. There is much more than simple ignorance. There gives the appearance of a conspiracy to deprive a citizen of her civil rights, to deprive her of her life and to defraud the government of considerable funds.
Terri Schiavo sustained severe injury and brain damage, that is clear. The failure treat her seems to be more than a mere coincidence. She has reportedly been denied treatment mandated under federal and state laws. The denial seems to be as the result of a conspiracy between her “husband” and this fellow Felos, watched over by a blind judge, Greer.
She is not “brain dead”, that is clear. What she would have wanted done in this situation is not known, except by the very contradictory words of a person claiming to be Terri’s husband who is living with another woman while fathering two of her bastards. Words only remembered after he got paid for her misery.
A final thought, if dying of starvation and dehydration is such a fine way to go, why don’t we use it on criminals and pound dogs?
He's doing it for his ego, whichever way he decides.
If he has decided to hear the case, he's stretching it out so as not to appear to have been stampeded by the Republican Congress and President.
If on the other hand he has decided not to hear the case, then he is stretching it to be vindictive and "punishing" a Republican Congress and President for having "questioned" the ruling of a fellow Dethocrat judge in a lower court.
He is also delaying the appeal of his decision to Atlanta by another full day. This is no longer a case about Teri but a power struggle and God saves us all if these blood thirsty savages prevail.
No. He's just very sure he can't be jailed if she dies. When a person is immune from prosecution if just frees them to do and say a lot of interesting things.
Think of the judge as a three year old with no boundaries and you pretty much got it down pat. I do not mean to insult anyone's three year old -it's just that at that age they've figure out a good tantrum in public with a weak parent can him/her just about anything.
"While the statute makes no reference to the traditional equitable concern of "balancing equities," it is a crucial factor in the judge's determination: i.e., the court must exercise its discretion "in favor of the party most likely to be injured . . . If denial of an injunction would result in great harm to the plaintiff, and the defendants would suffer little harm if it were granted, then it is an abuse of discretion to fail to grant the preliminary injunction." [> Robbins v. Sup.Ct. (County of Sacramento) (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 205, 211 Cal.Rptr. 398, 401 (emphasis added)]"
No death by dehydration without a living will. Period. Of course, I would also in on my planet substitute lethal injection for dehydration, but it isn't my planet.
I do not make the rule of law God. The rule of law governs this nation and is vital to everyone's security. God is an entirely separate issue. Jesus never espoused using the army to establish his kingdom on Earth, he said quite the contrary. Christians were totally non-violent and died happily as martyrs rather than resist. There is no sensible basis for starting a violent insurrection in support of God's law, and I do not expect to see you on tv under arrest for launching such an insurrection. Let's get back to discussing Terri Schiavo.
Even William Penn -- the pacifist Quaker -- climbed to the deck with sword in hand when he had to.
No choice. Had to be in the same district.
Of course, should the judge deny to hear it, I think it would be absolutely wonderful if the Congress disbanded that judge's bench... And they do have the constitutional rights to do that.
And, yes, I'm serious. Wouldn't bother me one bit.
Might even saves some lives.
Impression:
The patient is not in coma.
She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best.
She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.
She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. She responds to music. She differentiates sounds from voices.
She differentiates specific people's voices from others.
She differentiates music from stray sound.
She attempts to verbalize.(!!!!!)
She has voluntary control over multiple extremities
She can swallow.(!!!!)
She is partially blind
She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.
She can feel pain.
On this last point, it is interesting to observe that the records from Hospice show frequent medication administered for pain by staff.
With respect to specifics and specific recommendations in order to carry out the instructions of the Second District Court of Appeal:
From a neurological standpoint: The patient appears to be partially blind.
She needs a full opthamological evaluation and visual evoked potentials done to flash and checkerboard patters. The opthamological examination is to evaluate her retina and her ophthalmic nerve to try to determine the cause of her visual limitations and if any treatment exists. The evoked potentials looks at the nerve between the eye and the visual centers in the brain, to see if there is treatable damage and the type of damage, if any in these areas.
This is important, as for individuals to interact with her...
*snip*
Communication: She can communicate. She needs a Speech Therapist, Speech Pathologist, and a communications expert to evaluate how to best communicate with her and to allow her to communicate and for others to communicate with her.
Also, a treatment plan for how to develop better communication needs to be done.
*snip*
ENT: The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated). Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube.(!!!!!) She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.
*snip* Her physical exam and videotapes also suggest a spinal cord injury is also present, as she has much better control over he face, head, and neck, than over her arms and legs.
This reminds one of a person with a spinal cord injury who has good facial control, but poor use of arms and legs. It is possible that a correctable spinal abnormality such as a herniated disk may be found that could be treated and result in better neurological functioning. This should be looked for, as may be treatable.
Thus, there may be an injured disk or spinal cord; the disk injury is more treatable, the spinal cord injury, if present without a disk injury, may be more difficult to treat.
A person with a spinal cord injury and hypoxic encephalopathy will need different treatment and rehab recommendations than one who just has a hypoxic encephalopathic.
Interestingly, I have seen this pattern of mixed brain (cerebral) and spinal cord findings in a patient once before, a patient who was asphyxiated. *snip* ____________________________ William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.
Adding to that that the living will need not necessarily be written, but it must be in a tangible medium which authenticates the role of the alleged producer.
Handwritten is fine. Notarized is fine. A xeroxed document where the signature is also xerox, not so fine. A videotape showing the person speaking, fine. A recollection by an estranged husband, not so fine. Etc.
That reads like his "report" rather than his testimony. I don't have a link to his testimony, but others here do. You'll know it when you see it - there is a lot of discussion of his "Nobel Prize nomination."
For example, a local store I love to frequent is going out of business. I and the employees go to court for an order to stop it, based on them losing their jobs and me losing a great place to shop. Maybe we will suffer greater harm than the chain will if it can't close this one store right away. But unless we can convince the judge we have a legal basis for our lawsuit and we are likely to win in the end, he isn't going to order the store to stay open. Balancing harms makes no sense unless the plaintiff has a legal right to assert.
"Oh, that it may be His will that Terri would be the tool of His strength in this evil day of corruption."
I can only add . . . Amen!
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.