Aside from killing a disabled woman, what’s the controversy?

FreeRepublic ^ | 5/23/2005 | Marvin Galloway

[MHGinTN]

Aside from killing a disabled woman, what’s the controversy?

A cousin asked me the other day, “What’s this Terri Schiavo thing all about down in Florida?” I did my best to catch cousin up to speed on the history of the plight. While on line, a newbie at FreeRepublic cited four points over which the newbie needed confirmation or correction. I did my best to address the problems with the perspective expressed in the four points of interest as stated by the poster.

Clearly, there are different levels to this issue; this is not a simple controversy lending itself to sound byte explanations, though the mainstream media tend to over simplify and use sound byte explanations, usually tainted with the network’s bias –such as the stilted poll done by ABC, for which they received precisely the ammunition they were trolling for, rather than an honest perspective of the American people.

Let’s take a look at the controversy from a perspective other than bedside sadness.

First, there is a lengthy judicial process followed in Florida, and controversy and major dispute beginning with the power and perspective of one Judge Greer. Terri was receiving due process without complaint from any family member, until Judge Greer’s court took over dealing with the controversies. Every appeal following the Greer rulings amounted to other courts rubber stamping Greer’s actions … and therein lies the reason for the Congress of the United States finally getting involved.

That brings us to a second point of controversy, with major political ramifications. A state judge in a Florida court has order that a non-criminal severely disabled woman be put down via starvation and dehydration by ordering that the port for her feeding tube be removed … and a feeding tube is all this woman needs to continue living. [Is food and water actually artificial medical intervention?]

Last week, the United States Congress issued an oversight action authorized by the Constitution in the Third Amendment, in order to give Terri Schaivo assurance that her Fourteenth Amendment rights were not short changed in arriving at her current court ordered sentence of death by dehydration. The bill issued by Congress stated a request for a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case at Federal level. The Federal Judge who received the case chose to ignore the request and do yet again what has been done at every judicial stage in this controversy, glance at Greer’s rulings and stamp them adequate for Terri’s rights.

It is precisely the questionable nature of Greer’s rulings that caused Congress to request a Federal de novo hearing. What if Greer has a bias or new facts have come to light that indicate Terri Schiavo has not in fact received fair and balanced treatment from the court or the court has been in error due to inadequate facts? How can the wrong rulings of a judge be questioned in a process where rubber stamping passes the rulings along without honest ‘de novo’ review? Apparently, not even Third Amendment responsibility of the United States Congress can break the bias of particular court systems.

And therein is the substance of the second major controversy: how can judicial activism and rubber stamping based on political/philosophical bias be corrected, if Congress only requests without any consequences to follow when a judge such as Whittemore (the Federal appeals Judge who received the Congressional request) thumbs his nose at the Congress in their Constitutionally authorized oversight of the judiciary?

Terri Schiavo is not going to be saved from death by dehydration through a conflict between the Legislative and the Judiciary. As things are now progressing, Terri will be dead before the controversy could be resolved. And therein is the substance of a third controversy: what’s the damn hurry to execute Terri Schiavo before full de novo hearing can be accomplished? Is it so outlandish to consider that Judge Greer has a bias that has prevented Terri from receiving fair and balance justice? If a de novo hearing concludes that all court rulings have been sound, without new information changing anything of the findings of fact and promotion of truth, Terri isn’t going to flee to some other jurisdiction and thus be beyond the judge executing her after further review. What’s the hurry to put her down without actual Federal de novo hearing?

And therein lies the fourth controversy: political forces are thrashing the issues around for political empowerment; one force with a heavy bias toward granting to one person the right to kill another alive, sensing human being feels their rite, er excuse me, their right is threatened by de novo review that potentially could change the now obvious destiny of an inconvenient human being; Terri, if granted a fair and thorough review, just might get a stay of execution and then be given therapy that would improve her interactions with her environment, and thus embarrass the faction pushing for this inconvenient human to be put down. Surely the other faction, the one wishing to value even the life of a severely disabled woman, realized that further review might confirm what are already the findings, so that faction was willing to risk the ridicule inevitable from the liberal media in their water-carrying for the other political faction.

So how honest is the faction now demanding that Terri be put down and cremated immediately, without a final de novo hearing? And how cold, political, calculating, and stark is the wrong committed by a Federal judge ignoring the oversight request from the Congress of the United States, to yet again rubber stamp the rubber stamps forwarded up from his fellow Florida Judges?

This truly is an historic controversy, but it remains to be seen if the Congress has the loyalty to our Constitution that would follow through in settling judicial tyranny that is killing one severely disabled woman in Florida.

[Chapita]

Is it a surprise that the pro-death people are liberals?

[Mr. Silverback]

Marvin kicks butt yet again.

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Salvation]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[Salvation]

The Grim Reaper?

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Why bother with the Legislative Branch of Government at all? The representatives of We, the People can enact any laws their hearts desire, but they appear now to be trumped by a lone judge working on his own personal agenda.

[TASMANIANRED]

eggs actly.

[Calpernia]

bump

[MHGinTN]

Thnak you, m'Lady.

[Calpernia]

It is always a pleasure to bump your work!

[tertiary01]

Why bother with the Legislative Branch of Government at all?

Makes me wonder why we bother to pay Federal taxes, if they just let themselves be pushed around by a blind judge.

[John Lenin]

Wow, excellent article, the more you delve into this the more mysterious Judge Greer's actions look.

[MHGinTN]

The judicial rubber stamp has been used often and usually done to cover the nasty mistakes of fellow judges. This is what we're witnessing with this case, in spades! I always thought 'de novo' meant from the start, as in start over and consider ALL records and any new evidence. But then again, for years I was under the mistaken impression that Judges actually wanted Justice not agenda to drive the court system.

[John Lenin]

No one should have a job for life, there is no reason in the world for that. It allows for some real incompetant people to ruin an organization. If nothing else judges should be subject to recall.

[MHGinTN]

Since this thread doesn't get side list priority, here's a bump.

[jwalsh07]

I'm in agreement with your last paragraph Marvin. I think this could have all the unintende consequences of Roe and Doe.

[MHGinTN]

Ping to the article

[MHGinTN]

ping

[MHGinTN]

ping

[MHGinTN]

ping to the article