I understand judges must make those decisions, but even the most superficial look at what he didn't allow in (coincidentally 90% of it was from Terri's parent's side), it's hard not to conclude there was bias. We're not talking about dividing up grandma's estate here, Terri was a living, breathing human being, he was literally deciding whether she would be allowed to continue living. She had committed no crime, she was an innocent with no voice, but with the same constitutional rights as you or I. As a matter of fact, he was constitutionally mandated to be sure her rights as a handicapped person were not violated under the American with Disabilities Act. Given that, Greer had an extra responsibility to Terri. There's a reason most courthouses have a statue or carving of justice blindfolded and holding a scale. Greer had the blind part right, but failed miserably when it came to balancing the scales.
If I had any doubts about his lack of concern for Terri or her rights they were dispelled with his last 2 rulings. Even if you believe he ruled correctly when ordering her death you can't deny the cruelty he exhibited, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Just because her guardian made a request doesn't mean he had to grant it. He denied her the constitutionally guaranteed right to worship without government interference (supposedly he doesn't even have the authority to do this, but he did) by denying her communion as she lay slowly starving to death. There was NO good reason legal or otherwise to deny her this small connection to humanity, her church and her God. She was a devout Catholic and these are the rites of her church and are sacred. If that wasn't enough, he granted MS permission to have her cremated (while allowed by the church, many Catholics are still uncomfortable with it) and sent to Pennsylvania so that even in death she would be unable to be mourned and cared for by her friends and family. These are not unbiased rulings and would in no way violate his death ruling. She would still die on schedule, just with a little more compassion. Instead, she died with her "husband", a man who could barely hide his contempt for her in public and his freaky lawyer for whom the "death process" was practically orgasmic at her side. I can barely comprehend any of this it's so disgusting.
Sort of. Remember, the issue was whether or not she had decided whether or not she would continue living in such a state. The judge found reason to believe she had, and the appellate courts found no reason to overturn that decision. The law just sucks in that area - the simplest way to remedy it, I suppose, would be to change the law such that life support of any sort can only be withdrawn if there is a clear written directive from the person themselves. That may wind up not being such a hot deal for people who don't want to hang around but didn't bother to do a living will, but it seems to me that this would solve the problem nevertheless. If the law had some provision like that, this whole mess would have been avoided right from the start.
He denied her the constitutionally guaranteed right to worship without government interference....by denying her communion as she lay slowly starving to death.
Actually, that's not true - she received Easter communion.
If that wasn't enough, he granted MS permission to have her cremated (while allowed by the church, many Catholics are still uncomfortable with it) and sent to Pennsylvania so that even in death she would be unable to be mourned and cared for by her friends and family.
Well, you know, as a practical legal matter, he really didn't need the judge's permission for any of that. As next-of-kin, the funeral and internment arrangements are solely at his discretion - when my (Catholic) father in law passed, my wife preferred to have him cremated and interred near us, and we all really didn't give a damn what the rest of his relatives wanted. She was an only child, he was unmarried at the time, and the law gave her absolute authority over it all, pretty much the same as Michael Schiavo. It might have been nice if he'd shown some respect for their wishes, but frankly, after a decade of the sorts of things they've been saying in public about him, I really can't fault him much for not really caring what they wanted. Assuming he's telling the truth, of course.