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.
Ugh!
"Substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits" is only ONE consideration. The other is "immediate and irreparable harm" which will OBVIOUSLY occur.
I think one trumps the other in this case. If the subject dies, the case will die and we'll never KNOW whether the parents will prevail on the merits, will we?
President Bush should issue an executive order to withhold meals from all convicted incarcerated felons on death row.
What crossed my mind earlier today was "Terri's death is a Westernized Honor Killing."
I'm so serious. For the 'sake' of saving the face of those terribly evil people (false pride) they would glady and eagerly sacrifice her.
I was so stunned I stopped dead in my tracks when that crossed my mind.
But I don't think we even need to explore that. If withholding the tube is not a choice she can make or has made, which is what the Schindlers are arguing, then a decision by others to withdraw can't be a sin on her part.
It's just a crummy argument.
The de novo nature of the federal hearing is not intended to return to square one. The U.S. district judge will be looking at the record to determine if the patient was accorded the due process to which she was entitled and if findings of fact and conclusions of law as adjudged by Judge Greer are sufficiently supported by the record. His hearing is in the nature of a post conviction petition in an analogous criminal setting. The supervening issue is: Is the trial court's judgment adequately supported by the law that was applied in the context of the record facts. Witness credibility and controverted factual allegations are not weighted by the district judge, he is bound by the record, law and evidentiary sufficiency in his determination of due process.
I don't understand why the lawyers didn't argue that in 15 years great strides have been made in medical science and Terri has not had access to that science. She has been deprived of that right.
I wouldn't think it's even close to the only thing they're arguing to Judge Whittemore. Just what the MSM has thought to be ear-tickling.
SR92,
Your name sounds like an aeroplane.
I'm not being subliminal, here!
It really does sound like an fast jet!
It's neat sounding.
But I understand if you thought otherwise: You do not know me and may have thought I was insulting your name.
By being "proo-active!"
If that's how it's being looked at, I would hope that one issue is how buzzword-PVS got confounded with Florida law PVS.
Now, THAT was a con-game excellent, from an historical perspective.
Considering what we knew Uncle Joe had already done and had a good idea of what he was going to do.
And, sad to say, our hands were not clean, either.
Hold for a sec.
Here is how it would/could/should (by church standards, if they're followed) go down:
Terri told MS she'd want to die.
No trust in God = despair = suicide.
No what is called by the laymen 'last rites,' and it used to be, she couldn't even be buried on church property.
Which is why it caught me off guard when I heard she was given 'last rites' before they actually commenced to killing her.
Note: I realize there is a proper name for 'last rites.' It's just what I always heard it refered to as, by the Catholics people (other than the priests).
Either the priest was saying in his actions that MS was clearing lying, or the priest was in error to give someone whom he was to believe commited suicide 'last rites.'
Catholics, please forgive me, if I explained it incorrectly.
This judge states to a certainty that death by starvation and dehydration is not painful based on unrebutted medical opinion. Now, I don't know how precedents work, but if greer sucessfully pulls of this killiing, it seems to me that all the conclusions that led to it being established gain rock solid currency which would be nearly impossible to dislodge.
This is an absolute abomination.
BTW, I do not believe she told him that.
I imagine they dream of a new Nurenberg and build stick concentration camps in their spare time.
Sure it is. Someone decides to rape your nieghbor's wife, and you volunteer to knock at her door -- because she knows you and she'll open the door for you? How Kind! Yet by that kindness you become a rapist too. A completely culpable accomplice.
Another thing: suppose you find in your mailbox one day the title to a car you never bought or otherwise acquired, but you know the whereabouts of the vehicle and a key. If you take the car, but never legitimately acquired, you are committing theft despite existence of the state-issued title in your hand. If you know that the title was issued in error, it does not confer ownership.
Michael knows Greer's findings are predicated upon lies. If this could be proven in a criminal case, the fact that Greer accepted those lies would not protect Michael.
That's an interesting argument.
I'm with you on that. The difference between us and the judge, however, is that we care about her life. The judges have been/are only interested in facts (as they interpret them) and the law (as they interpret those too). Not saying at all that this judge isn't pro-death. It isn't like this is a case the judge hasn't heard about already or even discussed with his peers for the last year. There is no way he came on the scene without an impression of what he would have done had he been in Greer's seat.
But to let her lie there and deteriorate futher while he's out have dinner tonight, thinking about things, is just evil. If he decides in two days the case has merit, it won't do any good if Terri is dead.
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.