Posted on 03/23/2005 9:01:53 AM PST by areafiftyone
In keeping in mind who would honor Terri's wishes in this matter it is important to remember that the Schindler family has testified that they would continue the forced feeding even if Terri had told them she would not want it...So who to believe?
That point, that the Schindler's would act a certain way, is only useful as a matter of determining how they interpreted Terri's words. That is, they may take her comment "I don't want to die on a respirator" as not extending to the withholding of food and water.
I haven't seen all of the pleadings, plenty of blame to go around. Triumph of process over substance.
I think the point is that it is for those in a PVS-- not those on death row who aren't in a PVS.
Reading your comments from a different point of view (other than yours) I found it confusing because it jumped around a bit. Now that you have ironed things out, I understand and apologize for the offense.
"I am Christian and conservative, as is my wife. We believe that removing the tube is the right action as we both would not want to kept alive ourselves."
PistolPaknMama wrote:
"That's fine. Neither do I. However in this case, there is only the testimony of an unreliable witness regarding what Terri would want. That is the central issue, regardless of what you and I want for ourselves."
Miss Behave writes:
Michael "Husband" Schiavo: "When is that B*TCH gonna die?"
I think that's a bit paranoid. I read the decisions, and it looks like they are perfectly applying the current law that had already failed Terry. That law left it up to the discretion of the courts, and that discretion is ruled by law and precedent, unless of course you have an activist judge.
, making enforcement by the President and governors explicitly optional, stripping the court generally of the power of mandamus and not allowing any decisions at all on social issues.
Wow, an autocracy! Not good.
His state given right trumps her God given Constitutional right to life?
Again, more DIM talking points. The law W signed in Texas was the result of a legislature that would not agree to a better law. W signed the bill into law because it was better than the existing law. Check it out...
The left has set women back with this one.
If I understand things correctly, we have a 'husband' who is dictating the fate of his first wife. This guy is currently living with a woman, has lived with her for some time,with whom he has produced children. If this is true then she is his common law wife.
Were they married in the Catholic Church? Could the Church annul the marriage, and would that, taken along with the fact of his second relationship, present some legal argument for divorce, thus ending his control over her?
Exactly!! Shouldn't her being Catholic speak for itself, and your point about His having kids outside of this marriage, it has to be grounds for annulment or something, right?!
Here's an interesting story.
The execution was halted late Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Terry Means in Fort Worth.
Means was acting on an appeal from Staley's lawyer who argued the convicted killer is mentally incompetent and should not be put to death.
"Judge Means' order was that nobody's ever heard this guy's competency question," attorney Jack Strickland said.
Yeah right. So they worked late.
Hey, don't forget that they had to listen to the media say mean, mean things about them.
Movies=motives.... why am I messing up THAT bad?
No...what we have is a husband who abdicated his authority and responsibility for his wifes medical care to the courts. Decause of reasons I can't begin to fathom, he chose to let the Court render the decision that dictated the fate of his wife. It was one of the first of many concessions that have been made in favor of the Schindlers.
Starbucks is a buck sixty for 16oz and fifty five cents for (55+) seniors in the 12oz size ~ here. :)
Exercising life and death decisions by a spouse is for the benefit of the incapacitated spouse. What benefit is Terri getting from being starved to death?
If she was on life support, which she is NOT I could somewhat understand if heroic and extraordinary methods were being employed to keep this woman alive. It would be a tough and heart-wrenching decision. But this is not the case. The woman is being starved to death plain and simple. This will be the only reason for her death.
On her death certificate,if she perishes this way, it should read: Cause of Death: Starvation by 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.