Posted on 03/23/2005 2:34:59 PM PST by gopwinsin04
Thanks for your comments.
A lot of food for thought.
Have a good night.
There actually isn't an order ordering the feeding tube removed, mate.
BTTT
Please God!!!
I notice you didn't answer my question.
What should we do with people who are born disabled?
Your views of biology are peculiar, to say the least - humans cannot become vegetables. That phrase was coined to dehumanize the helpless.
I'm really not absolutely clear on this, and I don't have an original source -- just FR, but my understanding is that Felos was involved in getting Florida law changed to classify feeding tubes as life support. And I guess the law allows removal of "life support" from anyone diagnosed with PVS, at the decision of the guardian. This is why Greer admitted only medical testimony that Terri is in PVS.
The doctor from the Mayo Clinic said she is not in a PVS. So who are you going to believe, the doctor or the blind mullah, Greer?
BTTT!!!!!!!
But consider the following:
First, and most importantly, "living wills" are usually revoked by their authors when they become sick. The intentions of healthy people, especially healthy young people, almost never correspond to their actual intentions when ill. (I know this from thirty years of practice, much of it with seriously or terminally ill people). Only persons who cannot communicate "stick to" their prior wishes, but they have no choice.
Secondly, you cannot consent or make a contract to be killed. Jack Kervorkian is (rightly) still in prison for his crimes. Dressing this contract up as a "living will" does not change the issue.
On the contrary side, management decisions are made every day by hundreds of families on behalf of seriously ill patients that result in their death (or, more properly, that change the timing of their death). These decisions are not murders, and are usually not intentional killings, which remain very rare despite the fact that no true "mercy killing" has ever been successfully prosecuted.
The Schiavo case exists because of widespread confusion regarding the above issues, and the unsuitable surrogacy of Michael Schiavo. People want more from "living wills" than they can possibly deliver.
I fear that the result of this is going to be legalized direct killing a la the Netherlands.
As far as I know Terri has never been on life support
but my understanding is that Felos was involved in getting Florida law changed to classify feeding tubes as life support.And I guess the law allows removal of "life support" from anyone diagnosed with PVS, at the decision of the guardian.
But again, this is my original question: Has in fact, the Florida law been changed to classify feeding tubes as life support? How on earth could that happen? Do you mean a law was changed back then specifically for the legal guardian of Terri Schiavo without any judicial review? I'm still not understanding this.
I tried googling, but all I could find was that, in one filing, Gibbs (the family's lawyer) argued that, even if Terri had expressed the intention Michael claims, feeding tubes were not considered life support under Florida law in the 80s. Sounds like the law has been changed since then; as I said, I read on FR that Felos was an advocate for changing it.
So Felos petitioned the court to change the law as it stood in Florida to make feeding tubes considered "life support"? And that's why the feeding tube was allowed to be removed from Terri? And all we hear today is that Congress and the President should not have intervened in this case to change the law for one person. Did that not happen already in Terri's case by Felos then?
He may also be on the Board of the hospice involved, and I think I saw that Greer is, too. Florida may be as corrupt as Massachusetts (yes, I'm from MA).
This book is a frightening journey into the mind of a man who publicly endorses euthanasia on disabled people who are not terminally ill. Much of the book describes his bizarre spirituality. He actually wrote that he believes he is a god and that he has the power to read people's minds.
Perhaps Wallace is "arrogant," although I haven't seen that in reading a couple of his posts.
However, there's little question that the judiciary has become arrogant. In the Schiavo case, Greer has managed to become the very symbol of Judicial Arrogance, through the simple expedient of ignoring the requirement to "choose life." While Greer is not the first jurist to go this route, (Roe v Wade's majority was...) he is the first who has achieved national exposure by ignoring this principle on a living adult.
I have no idea what motivates Greer (and the rest of the FLA appeals-types, or for that matter the Federalistas who have simply contravened the will of Congress in the last 3 days.) I have no idea why Greer does not examine evidence which tends to contradict that which he has already examined. I have no idea why he does not say "Well, there are newer and better medical technologies which may give me a better understanding of Terri's condition...."
But I DO have an idea that this arrogant jackass Greer has gone a long way toward demolishing the concept that the United States is a "chosen land." And the consequences of his arrogance have yet to be played out--but they will be significant.
He has certainly assisted those who are making the case that the Judiciary as a whole is out of control and in LaLaLand. Further, he is personally making the case that Judges Will Not Be Questioned.
Only 140 years ago, the US lost 600 thousand men partially over the Dred Scott decision.
My response to Greer: your decision cannot stand in any society which respects First Things. It MUST not stand.
So do I, and why for one moment should we compare it to 'the Netherlands' when another viable comparison is the Third Reich?
Who shall be the 'judge' of 'viability,' and what will be the criteria?
For what it's worth, here is part of the Federal court's decision.
"There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo," Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull of the appellate court wrote in their 32-page decision. "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law . . . must be applied to her case."
Doesn't look like judicial activism to me.
It is not judicial activism on the part of either Federal court that has reviewed the Florida case. However, it is a rubber stamp of what appears to be a flawed decision by the court of original jurisdiction.
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.