Posted on 04/01/2005 8:05:46 PM PST by FairOpinion
Like the Terri starvers?
someone unable to swallow need to be constantly aspirated or they choke.
Terri did not need this
"well i can guarantee the poll itself was not a joke, because i took it"
Thanks for letting us know.
For each new word you learn, you think you have a new fact.
You sound very un-American and anti-Christian.
Courts are reluctant to overrule other courts. Michael was Terri's official husband.
We need to take a hard look at these laws. Terri's parents and siblings were (IMO) obviously better qualified for that role.
More sophistry afoot. If Terri was terminal than so are you and I.
More sophistry afoot. If Terri was terminal than so are you and I. Terminal means you are going to die OF the disease... not die WITH the disease.
Congress did. But judgeskings ignored it.
believe it or not .
in fl hearsay evident by a spouse or inlaw in
allowed.
"Terri's brain was damaged beyond repair."
So, are you in favor of the state killing everyone whose brains is "damaged beyond repair", as in people who had strokes, Down Syndrome, retarded kids, etc. What is the damage point, below which you think that people should be killed?
The judge determined in his ruling based on evidence from court appointed medical team that Terri was in a PVS and thus could not swallow. When he gave the ruling to pull the life support (feeding tube is life support order Florida statue). As part of that ruling he did not allow outsiders to come in and try and interfere with that decision. If she could swallow water on her own she would not have been allowed to die of a natural death (natural for someone in her condition (can't drink or eat) - just like death from kidney failure or heart failure is a natural death for someone in that condition).
also - there were several nurses who took care of Terri who gave affidavits that she not only could swallow - but they had fed her jello, ice cream etc and the she enjoyed it - but they were refused to even try to feed her by mouth - or be arrested.
Now, you're such an advocate of :Michael testified..."
Why shouldn't these nurses have been heard?
Not true...The FSC threw it out and the USSC refused to hear it.
Why always! A person should have the right to starve himself for no better reason than having the blues.
Greer threw it out first. There doesn't seem to be a conservative law that the FSC likes.
People who are mentaly handicapped and even in comas are conscious unlike people in a PVS.
Ah, you admit it! The goal was to kill her, not just to free her of tubes.
As far as the guardian thing, the Schindler attorneys petitioned Judge Greer first (and, I think, the judge prior to Greer). Greer denied the petitions and didn't rule timely on others. The appeals courts agreed with the procedure -- Greer had a right to deny the petition (without saying whether or not he should have denied the petition).
The same thing happened when they asked Greer to recuse himself several times. He said no. Appeals courts said he had a right to say no. No one else looked at the facts as to whether or not there were grounds to remove MS as guardian or Greer as judge.
They granted jurisdiction. They did nothing else ... nothing ... nada ... null set. It turned out, no appropriate legal tools were afforded. I would have been hard pressed to at once do my duty as a federal judge, and come to a different result. Poor lawyering made it worse, but as a federal judge, I would have handled that without much problem. I would have explained what needed to be done. That was not the problem, in the end. On this one, I am rather confident of my opinion now, after having gone this way and that.
Said nurses never testified to that fact in court.
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.