Posted on 04/04/2005 9:12:57 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
I'm still praying for you. Does that scare you?
Depends. What are you praying for?
Can anyone verify?
I believe he is legally blind, not deaf ... but he does seem to have a very large deaf ear where new evidence and affidavits would call his prior rulings into question. But then, most judges have a similar ear.
Since when is hearsay, clear and convincing evidence?
You're mixing apples and oranges.
In Florida, oral wishes are admissible in a court of law ever since the 1990 decision of In Re Guardianship of Browning.
"Browning, in other words, was Florida's Cruzan. And it went further than Cruzan did, to recognize in so many words that the right to have life support disconnected was a (state) constitutional right."
"Significantly, in the Browning case, the Florida Supreme Court found that the right attaches, so long as "the patient has expressed his or her desires in a 'living will,' through oral declarations, or by the written designation of a proxy to make all health care decisions in these circumstances."
Florida law requires the judge to have "clear and convincing" evidence as to the wishes of the patient.
Biased yes, interested, not so sure.
I wouldn't rely on the St. Petersburg Times for much of anything. It's left of the New York Times and just as accurate.
No foolin'.
He's a disgrace to the cloth and, from the looks of things, guilty of premeditated murder in the first degree.
Michael either forgot, or he lied under oath when he said that he had promised Terri he'd take care of her for the rest of his life. He said he needed money to pay for his education to become a nurse, so that he could keep his vow to Terri that he would take care of her for the rest of his life. Which is it? Did he forget, or did he lie?
Slavery used to be up to each state too. If we no longer consider ownership of humans to be a state issue, why should extermination of humans be a state issue?
Terri's best friend testified in favor of Terri, not against her. Michael's brother's wife was not Terri's best friend. Michael claims she was, because that suits his purpose. The Saint Pete Times supports Michael. They reported many of his claims as if they were facts. Biased? Absolutely!
He's legally blind. He wasn't able to see the videos of Terri responding. The sound was never played in court, so he didn't hear the doctor telling her what a good job she was doing. Some of the most compelling evidence in Terri's favor was never seen or heard by any court. When President Bush signed into law the provisions that would allow Terri to finally have her day in court, advocates of involuntary euthanasia derided the law, claiming it deprived Terri of her right to be starved and dehydrated to death whether she wanted to be or not. They brag that hundreds of patients per week are exterminated under similar circumstances, with little or no fanfare. Yet they have the audacity to take issue with comparisons to the Nazi euthanasia program that they brag about emulating. Go figure.
He did take care of her. When the 1996 CAT scan showed that Terri was brain damaged with no hope of recovery, he set about fulfilling her wish not to live that way.
He took care of her all right. Just not the way the jury thought he would. They must have been misled by that "for the rest of my life" statement. I guess what he really meant was "I'll take care of that bitch if it takes me the rest of my life." He sure did.
One of life's mysteries.
The statement is 100% true either way.
So you're saying that, during the trial, Michael should have known (or did already know) that Terri was brain damaged beyond hope of anything resembling recovery. That he knew he wouldn't be needing any of that money for her care. That she wouldn't partially recover her brain functions, forcing him to spend thousands on her rehabilitation?
That is what you're saying?
But if that's true, why wait until 1997 to do something about it? He had the money in 1993. Why wait?
Hmmmm, it logically follows (as the Hemlock radicals maintain--more or less) that we ought to issue every depressed person a loaded revolver, since its a lot cheaper to society than meds or counseling. Besides some people are just a burden to everyone else in their life--family, friends and all.
After all, if they blow their head off, its their decision, and who am I (or the law) to stand in their way, eh?
NOT!!!!
Who's life is it anyway?
It has to be Who gave you life to begin with.
For to protect our own lives under possible future adverse circumstance -- or the lives of our children (the case of the Schindlers) -- the Judges, the medical workers and civil authorities who would allow Murder by Judicial Order to occur have become our mortal enemies.
Ah. So Living Wills and Durable Powers of Attorney are just scraps of paper to you, huh?
Wasn't Browning another victim of Greer's judicial homicide?
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.