Posted on 03/23/2005 2:34:59 PM PST by gopwinsin04
State officials say they are considering removing Terri Schiavo from hospice, by force if necessary, despite numerous court orders upholding the removal of the artificial nutrition tube that has kept her alive for 15 years.
Lucy Hadl, secretary of the Department of Children and Families, said Wednesday morning that her staff is relying on a state law that gives the department the authority to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable adult who is 'suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury.'
Hadl said that the DCF would have to file a petition in order to remove Schiavo, but that 'it doesn't mean we'd have to have judicial approval in advance of taking the action if we believed it met the threshold for doing it.'
Hadl said that seven years of court rulings backing Schiavo's husband Michael, in his contention that Terri Schiavo did not wish to be kept alive artificially would not stop the DCF from taking action.
'We're not compelled to look at prior judicial proceedings,' Hadl said.
What we are compelled to look at is the presenting circumstances and any allegiations of abuse and neglect that we have recieved. So we have to deal with those and fufill out statutory responsibility.'
(Excerpt) Read more at palmbeachpost.com ...
Legally, it does. Among other things, it means that there is a very high likelihood that if Terri were to receive therapy from someone who actually wanted her to communicate, she could. In which case there would be no need to guess about her wishes.
Yes. it does.
For instance, based on your comments here, you could be said to be 'minimally conscious'.
Just a joke, son. Just a Joke.
Now, the real point is that there is a difference. Just as there is between COMA and PVS.
The difference is also in how it relates to the law. The ability to put Terri to death is allowed by a law in Florida that requires three components, one of which is a diagnosis of PVS.
Did you know that the DOCTOR whose name appears on the original diagnosis of PVS is not signed by the doctor. This is also one of the legal requirements.
Terri is being illegally killed, and you don't mind?
Suppose there's a fiend and there's some question as to whether there's oil underneath it. Geologist #1 spends a day looking and finds none. Geologist #2 spends half a day and finds none. Geologist #3, who has at times managed not to find oil when it was bubbling up around his ankles spends half a day and finds none. Geologist #4 spends eight days looking and finds some. Geologist #5 spends ten days looking and finds some.
Is there oil? Three geologists say no, two say yes. So I guess by a 3-2 vote there's no oil.
I would assume that none of them have seen her in person. You don't seem to fully grasp how our justice system works. The appelate judge rules on the facts set before him. If the judge feels it is necarsary to call an additional witness he can do so.(no judge has felt compelled to do so) If the judge feels that video is not an adequate forum for him to assess the situation he can order another means of observation.(no judge has felt compelled to do so)
The law in Florida says that the spouse makes the decision in a case like this. The parents sued to have this changed, they fought for fifteen years in many different courts and before many different judges, everyone one of these judges agreed that Terri did not want to live in a PVS. Her parents then partitioned the legislature of Florida to change the law. This attempt also failed.
Doesn't that seem a little bit unusual, especially since Terri was mobile in 1993 and there's no legitimate reason for her to have become less so. It's not as though she was attached to a roomful of equipment.
You don't seem to fully grasp how our justice system works.
I understand it perfectly.
The appelate judge rules on the facts set before him. If the judge feels it is necarsary to call an additional witness he can do so.(no judge has felt compelled to do so) If the judge feels that video is not an adequate forum for him to assess the situation he can order another means of observation.(no judge has felt compelled to do so)
Yup. Which means that if a trial court judge decides to restrict what gets on the record, no appellate court judge will even know about anything the trial court judge doesn't want them to see.
The law in Florida says that the spouse makes the decision in a case like this.
No, it doesn't. A spouse may have first claim at guardianship, but guardians are required to act in their wards' best interest. Since Michael has consistently failed to do so in many ways, big and small, he is no longer legally eligible to be her guardian. Unfortunately, Greer refuses to hear any challenges to Michael's guardianship nor even force Michael to attend a deposition (which would be one of the first steps of such a challenge).
The parents sued to have this changed, they fought for fifteen years in many different courts and before many different judges, everyone one of these judges agreed that Terri did not want to live in a PVS.
How many of those judges have heard any evidence Greer didn't want them to hear?
Her parents then partitioned the legislature of Florida to change the law. This attempt also failed.
As for the claims Terri is PVS, how much weight should be given to the testimony of a "doctor" who has given a PVS diagnosis to a subject that could maneuver a motorized wheelchair? A PVS diagnosis means nothing more than a failure to find signs of cognition. A doctor who isn't looking very hard for such signs isn't apt to find them.
Merely by going back and reviewing the reasons given by the various courts for rejecting the appeals.
Jefferson was worried about one judge overruling the clear will of the people, not executive trying to overpower the ruling of over twenty judges over fifteen years.
And what is the rule of the people? Isn't it what their elected representatives say it is? Meaning the Congress? So what is your beef with the action our elected representatives took?
I do not believe Terri Schiavo has any idea what is happening to her. If it can be PROVEN otherwise I would change my position.
Well, that's a noble sentiment if you really mean it. I choose to take you at your word. The whole problem, and what the majority of us here are arguing, is that nothing can be PROVEN if Terri is dead.
As I've stated before, there are 2 or 3 nurses who have cared for Terri who claim they have fed Terri by mouth and that she was able to swallow. Michael has explicitly denied testing or therapy to see if Terri could eat on her own. Do you agree with me that the acceptance of food by Terri would be a good indication of Terri's wishes?
It's my understanding, although I admit I could be wrong about this, that Terri could eat but not enough to sustain her. For this reason, and more importantly for the benefit of her caretakers, the feeding tube was inserted. After that, rather than continue therapy to help her to be fed by mouth completely, the feeding tube became her only source of sustenance.
You have Judge Greer on record (read the court records) saying: (I'm paraphrasing) 'I don't want anyone trying to feed that girl' - after Terri's sister was caught with a jar of baby food and a spoon trying to feed her.
Finally, I would like to address the troll issue with you. I don't believe I called you a troll, certainly not a "liberal troll". But there are certain posters on the other side who I believe spout things they know are nonsense just to get a rise out of those here who are very emotional about this. I am incapable of believing there is high emotion on the death side of the debate, therefore the baiting is quite trollish. I suppose they think they're cute, but it's just plain juvenile. The best way to deal with it is to try to ignore it, difficult as it is. (I gave in to the temptation myself.)
Bottom line - you don't qualify. Not that you care what I think, but I care what you think and I appreciate your more measured responses.
But this rash is another story, so itchy...
Okay, this is my last reply to you. That was funny.
You may be able to fill her mouth with water but I doubt anyone in that condition would ever be able to eat normally on their own. They wouldn't even be conscious of the act of eating anyway...
There are many people who can eat normally, but nonetheless use a feeding tube because
Do you have proof that can be proved in a court of law regarding this?
My problem is with the lynch mob mentality of some of the people trying to "save" Terri. Proof means nothing just wild and raw emotions ready and willing to override any law, including the Constitution itself, that gets in their way!
May I remind you that the law and justice are not necessarily synonymous. Look at the former Soviet Union and present day Cuba as examples. Indeed, we are an independent nation because our Founding Fathers rejected an unjust king and Parliament. In any case, no law need be violated. Rather, the executive and/or legislative branches of the government of Florida need to assert their authority over that of an out-of-control judicial branch. 2.
2. All of the 20+ judges who have ruled that it was Terri's wish not to be kept alive in her current state are part of a pro-death conspiracy.
You are, of course, referring to the same august Florida jurists who blessed voter fraud in 2000 and almost foisted Al Gore on this nation. In any case, all the judges other than Greer have done is to ratify the proceedings of the court of original jurisdiction. That is not meaningful judicial review.
3. The separation of powers laid out in the Constitution are more like guidelines which can be broken if enough people get upset.
Please refer to point one. The judicial branches of both the Federal government and state governments have long ago gone well beyond the bounds of the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Please read The Federalist Papers for clarification on this matter.
4. The federal government should be allowed to interfer (sic) with any state law that it deems unsatisfactory.
You're right on this count. President Bush should have told his kid brother that, as governor of Florida, he had the tools needed to prevent this judicially sanctioned execution.
5. All people would choose to live in a vegetative state.
You have ignored evidence, posted on FR and publicized on numerous other Web sites and on conservative talk radio, which contradicts the MSM/Deathocrat/RINO assertion that Terri Schiavo is in a vegetative state.
Wallace all you do is accuse those who disagree with you of being liberals or trolls. Can't you allow for the chance that someone may trust the decision of over 20 judges, and 15 years of appeals? You need to understand that you are not the authority on what is consevitive and what is a liberal talking point. So many of your arguments are weakened by the fact that you come off as so very arrogant. Try and get over yourself enough to understand that this is not as clear-cut a case as you want it to be.
I do not claim to be 100% correct on this issue, thats why I'm up at 12:38 discussing it. Rather than insulting people why don't you try and convinve them you are correct.
I'm going to bed so I'll make it quick.
I'll need to look at the case a little closer, its not that I don't believe what your saying I just have a hard time believing that with all of the evidence you say is out there no judge has ruled in favor Terri's parents.
You have certainly given me alot to think about.
Good-night.
Read Amendment XIV. There are more requirements than the state law simply being "unsatisfactory", but in Terri's case Amendment XIV would seem to authorize intervention.
Note that historically the fact that appellate courts have been willing to ignore gross violations of laws does not preclude a "due process" challenge. In at least one appellate court decision, the court held that appointing a proxy for Terri would have been redundant since Greer played that role. The statute says a judge may not do that, and an appellate court's declaration that they didn't see anything a separate proxy would have done differently does not make it kosher.
ping to 815
5. All people would choose to live in a vegetative state.
You have ignored evidence, posted on FR and publicized on numerous other Web sites and on conservative talk radio, which contradicts the MSM/Deathocrat/RINO assertion that Terri Schiavo is in a vegetative state.
He also ignored that there was a witness who said Terry got upset at Ann Quinlan (or whatever her name is), which contradicts what her husband says about her wishes.
LOL!!!
That was funny!! :)
Have a good night.
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.