I know facts are inconvenient little things, but the reason is -- hold on to your tinfoil hat now -- Judge Greer never ordered any such thing. All of his orders are scanned and available at www.abstractappeal.com. So take an hour or two and go read them all and report back when you find one that says he is "... ordering that no one can give Terri food or water by mouth."
We'll wait. Hint: you won't find it because it didn't happen. The only -- repeat only -- decision for which the husband/guardian needed judicial authorization was the removal of the feeding tube. That's what he got. That's what every court from here to Timbuktu has reviewed and found wholly justified by Terri's expressed wishes and her PVS.
Wanna take the challenge? I thought not. More fun to make things up, isn't it?
So who is making things up now?
Wanna take the challenge? I thought not. More fun to make things up, isn't it?
From Abstract.com:
"Another motion resolved last week was the Schindlers' motion to permit Terri to be given food and water orally once the feeding tube is discontinued. You can read that motion here from the Terri's Fight site. The motion included the following lines:
"Discontinuing her "artificial life support" in the form of assisted feeding should not also automatically sentence her to death. Instead, Terri should be permitted to attempt to eat and drink by natural means. Ill people often get well, or at least get better. The opportunity to attempt to feed Terri by natural means may demonstrate Terri is able to swallow and to eat and drink naturally.
"In denying this motion, Judge Greer stated wrote that the motion appeared to ask for an experimental procedure and that the documents provided in support of this motion were the same ones provided with another motion based on new medical evidence. The court ruled that this motion was thus duplicative and that whether new tests should be conducted will stand or fall with the other pending motion. You can read the order here.
"Frankly, that ruling surprised me. I had read the motion as a request that she be given food, as any person in a medical care setting might, even if her feeding tube is removed. The language quoted above, though, does make the motion seem as if the request is actually for a form of therapy, rather than as a basic human right."
So, who's lying now?