Posted on 04/02/2005 6:21:27 AM PST by rhema
Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?
Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?
If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?
How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?
Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?
Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.
Most folks thought it was a good policy.
It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
The law has already changed to stop parents from being the guardians of their children, so why did Michael have so much many rights??? You would think the courts could see his bad intentions!!
If a minor child wants to get birth control or an abortion, the PARENT has no right to this information and they CAN NOT stop the child!
Yet, a man with a new woman and children, was allowed to KILL his wife.
The law should not just be imparted by letter-of-the-law, there should be some compasion for morals and ethics.
The law, by itself, can be turned into a very ugly thing, and even limiting a spouses rights could turn ugly by granting too much authority to the government and courts!
This is why the expansion of the government into our daily affairs is very dangerous. Terri could have married a more decent man.
In the end, perhaps, the real power should stay in our own hands.
When there are no written instructions and people come out "remembering" conversations 7 years later after previously saying they didn't know what robertpaulsen would've wanted, then yes, I would think something fishy was going on and would try to prevent him from being starved to death. Especially if I had heard him say that 'where there's life there's hope.'
Perhaps the horrible outcome of Terri's life,
has influenced the Pope to not take a feeding tube!
All these events are very strange.
I wonder who the new pope will be,
and how his selection may change world events.
We live in VERY interesting times.
And we will live to see
it all.
I am pro-Terri...
But I think a lot of Americans thought only about how they would be disgusted to be hooked to a feeding tube and vegetative. That they wouldn't want to have to look after such a family member, the inconvenience factor.
They were too lazy to look further which is that Terri had a loving family willing to care for her. That Mikey Schiavo's case is built on lies and he has the creepiest, scummiest euthanasia lawyer in America helping him kill Terri. There was a heck of a lot wrong with this picture
There is habeas corpus as well as other forms of review to make sure that if a court makes any important error, the defendant can be spared the death penalty.
Civil proceedings are generally designed with a much lower threshold of proof, because so often all that is at stake is property, and our system puts protecting property rights much lower than protecting life and liberty.
So a civil proceeding can now be used to decide that a helpless innocent woman accused of no crime would have wanted to die.
It is a violation of the Constitutional right to due process, pure and simple. But the tyrants in black robes do not see someone who is severely disabled as a real person people whose life is as worthy of protection as that of a mass murderer.
No cost/benefit analysis regarding resources and quality of life is appropriate, but I think that is what is going on. Sure, Terri's family was willing to pay for her care, but our wise men in black robes are concerned about other cases, where State funds would be needed to care for severely disabled people. The wise men understand the need to make sure that it is easy to kill disabled people who could evnetually end up being a burden to the taxpayer.
Those of us who care about Terri being killed are too emotional to make judgments like this. We don't see the big picture like judges do who are so much smarter and more rational than us. They know what is good for society much better than we or those dead white male drafters of Constitution knew.
.
GOD Save the Vulnerable...
from the Bullies.
1 Bully husband =
1 dead wife.
1 Meek as a Lamb POPE =
A renewal of LOVE for all,
Eternally
.
Most Americans are amoral brain dead sheep, who believe exactly what the democrat media tells them.
.
JOHN-PAUL II held up Suffering as a Gift from GOD.
MICHAEL SCHIAVO held down Suffering as a tool to kill a wife with.
One of them, it seems, is on for a real big surprise after the Earth leaves from beneath their feet forever..?
.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Here are parts of a recent filing in the Federal District Court. It appears from this that the error relating to Quinlan's date of demise is a factor for the testimony of both Mrs. Schindler and of Terri's friend.
VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT DECISION BASED ON CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD...91. The State trial court relied on the testimony of five individuals (Mary Schindler, Diane Christine Meyer, Michael Schiavo, Scott Schiavo, and Joan Schiavo) regarding comments made by Terri about artificial life support for incapacitated persons.
91. [Rasmusen- a typo, should have been 92] Mary Schindler, Terri's mother, testified that Terri, commenting about the Karen Ann Quinlan case (Woman in pvs on a respirator), stated that the father should just leave her alone and not attempt to remove the life support.
93. Diane Christine Meyer, a friend of the family, testified about a similar "end-of-life" conversation with Terri in 1982 in which Terri stated that she did not approve of the parents' attempts to remove life support from Quinlan.
94. Judge Greer discounted the Quinlan reference testimony of Mrs. Schindler and Ms. Meyer based on his erroneous personal belief that Karen Ann Quinlan had died in 1976, rather than June 11, 1985 when Quinlan actually died, stating in his February 11, 2000 Order that Ms. Meyer "appeared believable at the offset" [sic] but then became "mystified" when Ms. Meyer insisted on the fact that Quinlan was still alive in 1982.
95. Judge Greer's personal error tainted the credibility of Mrs. Schindler's and Ms. Meyer's testimony even though it was his plain error and therefore, his lack of credibility (as surrogate) that was the "evidence" underlying his February 11, 2000, Order.
http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/490 <-- HTML of Count 8 of Amended Complaint
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/FederalAmendedComplaint.pdf <-- Amended Complaint
Depends if they also were forced to wear panties on their heads. Now there's a real crime. /sarcasm
I'm surprised to see this printed in a MSM newspaper.
If there had, indeed, been "clear and convincing" evidence (such as, in writing), and, if Terri were being kept alive by "life-support equipment," then Terri's wishes should be honored.
How can an imperfect human judge determine as "clear and convincing evidence" what was clearly hearsay evidence as passed on by her husband?
On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of disabled persons, young and old (including healthy babies) who are unable to feed themselves and must be hand fed by others. Each might soon die if left unfed.
We might remember the words of the following:
"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me." by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
When will "they" come for you and me?
Excellent point!
Absolutely! Same goes for adult children who want to pull a feeding tube and let ma or pa die a slow death. Notice I said feeding tube, not ventilator, or heart/lung machine.
Btw, living wills are dangerous. Get something called a will to live, or a medical power of attorney.
No beatings from me. Some of us have wondered about the timing of His Holiness's insertion of a feeding tube and his natural death, vs how Terri died.
This will be headline news for quite a while, because now the Church will be selecting a new pope. Roger Cardinal Mahoney is in Rome, and let me tell ya, he never met a camera he didn't like :( I lived in his archdiocese, so I know.
I don't think you read my post correctly.
The Quinlan respirator was removed in 1976. The judge made a mistake by concluding that Quinlan died when the respirator was removed (a logical conclusion, but wrong).
Now, examine the testimony of the friend:
"93. Diane Christine Meyer, a friend of the family, testified about a similar "end-of-life" conversation with Terri in 1982 in which Terri stated that she did not approve of the parents' attempts to remove life support from Quinlan."
The parents attempts to remove. Meaning that life support had not yet been removed. Which means the conversation must have taken place prior to 1976.
If the conversation did indeed take place in 1982, Terri would have stated that she did not approve of the parents' removal of life support from Quinlan.
Do you see now how the judge's error was irrelevant?
Fine. Then if you're brain damaged and you couldn't swallow food and needed a feeding tube, I could not, in good conscience, allow you live and take up valuable space.
You're never going to get better, your desire to live is causing untold grief amongst your family, your care is forcing your spouse to go through your savings and she is considering selling the house to keep your sorry a$$ alive, your insurance company won't pay until you're dead ... No. I'm sorry, but I would consider that wrong to let you live.
So there.
You know, I thought convenience was the reason one of the "care facilities" that my mom stayed at talked me into having a feeding tube installed. She was there for physical therapy after hip replacement surgery. They told me, in smooth, quiet tones, that mom couldn't swallow food anymore. What??? She's sitting there swallowing saliva right in front of us!
While my mom had advanced Alzheimer's and dementia, she was cooperative with the staff. At first, they had her doing cognitive therapy, like putting pegs into a peg board, but said she couldn't handle walking through parallel bars. Meanwhile her weight was dropping. I saw her every day, and I started bringing baby food with me to feed her. No one would watch her swallow! Every day, I would ask the physical therapy department when they were going to work with my mom. One therapist, she didn't work there on a regular basis, committed the sin of sitting my mom down with a tray of soft food. She was so hungry, she polished the tray with her roll.
The regular therapists were outraged. They behaved so unprofessionally, that I got my mom out of there ASAP. The final place she was at was wonderful. It was a small board and care for Alzheimers patients, and it was in a single family home enviroment. As a matter of fact, we started worrying that she was eating too much. We celebrated her birthday, Christmas, Mother's Day, and she got to see her first greatgrandaughter. She may not have known who we were, but she was darn glad to see us.
No, I don't think in my mom's case that it was a matter of convenience. Her nourishment came in a prepackaged bag that hung on an IV stand. No, what they did was hook her up and leave her sit. I didn't see any extrordinary effort on their part regarding the tube. No, they simply tagged her as a USELESS EATER, but they didn't count on me yelling BS. Lol, the therapists started hiding from me :-D
Yep, I got a dog in this fight...
ping
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.