Schiavo judge's other 'right-to-die' case

World Net Daily ^ | March 24, 2005

[amdgmary]

Judge George Greer, the Florida county jurist at the center of the Terri Schiavo case, ruled against a woman who was fighting to keep her husband alive in 2000.

While Greer has ruled consistently with husband Michael Schiavo, who seeks to terminate his wife's life by depriving of her of food and water, the parallel case suggests the judge may have a predisposition to removal of any life-support devices rather than an inclination toward the legal guardian.

The 2000 case heard by Greer involved the life of St. Petersburg lawyer Blair Clark, a University of South Florida professor. After suffering a heart attack Sept. 9, 2000, his children, who stood to inherit much of his estate, claimed they wanted to honor his wishes to remove him from a ventilator and feeding tube and allow him to die. His wife, Ping, however, believed his condition could improve with therapy and claimed only one month later treatments had not been given enough time.

Unlike Terri Schiavo, Blair Clark, 58, had a living will, which stated: "If the situation should arise in which there is no reasonable expectation of my recovery from severe physical or mental disability, I request that I be allowed to die and that life-prolonging procedures not be provided."

However, his wife believed there was still a reasonable expectation of recovery.

"His living will did not say, 'Don't save me, just let me die,'" his wife pleaded. "They want to kill Blair and I don't know why. I want to ask, 'What's the rush?' I'm the only one who wants to save him. Every time I say yes, they say no. I had to go to court to give him blood."

But on Oct. 24, 2000, Greer ruled in favor of the children and against the wishes of the wife, ordering all mechanical ventilation and intravenous nutrition stopped.

Ping Clark, of Chinese descent, argued that four days of Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture treatments had showed promise. She asked only for 30 more days of ventilator support and treatments.

Clark relied heavily on the opinion of neurologists, some of whom claimed Clark's chances of recovery were no greater than one in a thousand.

"If you love somebody, one in 1,000 is a chance worth taking, argued Dennis Rogers, Ping Clark's attorney.

After the ruling, Clark's wife was distraught and couldn't bear to visit the hospital to watch him die.

"I cannot see him die," she cried. "I know how much he wants to live. They'll be guilty their whole lives for killing Blair Clark."

Clark died a week after the ruling, Oct. 31, 2000.

Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday by order of Greer at the request of her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, who contends Terri had expressed a wish to not live under her present condition. Parents Robert and Mary Schindler dispute the court's finding that their daughter is in a "persistent vegetative state," citing numerous physicians who believe she is responsive and could benefit from therapy.

[ClancyJ]

In Terri's case, who says you have to recover? She could not recover, but that does not mean you kill her.

If recovery is the criteria - all of us are there. You don't recover from blood pressure, heart conditions, cancer, diabetes, ms, parkinson's on and on. But you live with it.

Which is why we need to leave dying to the Lord. Man can not be trusted because the world is made of imperfect humans. Why would we be willing to turn over our life or death to imperfect humans to rule on.

We do not murder other people and I'm beginning to think it is time that doing so carries penalties. A few murder cases might remind the medical, hospice, end-of-life panels that man is not given the authority to murder Americans- no matter how they justify it, no matter how they sell it, no matter how desperate the need to kill others is.

[elli1]

Unless she was cut out of the will entirely, she'd be better off with the principal of her share rather than merely the interest income.

Wasn't thinking of interest income. Was thinking about other forms of unearned income like income from things like real property investments. Better to be collecting the rents on an entire apartment complex than settling an estate and be collecting the rents on a percentage of the apartments in the complex sort of thing.

Bringing it up only to point out that 'following the money' can mean that there are multiple trails to explore.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[winstonchurchill]

You don't recover from blood pressure, heart conditions, cancer, diabetes, ms, parkinson's on and on. But you live with it.

No, I'm not a pagan (Aristotelean) fatalist; I'm a Biblical Christian. God gave me a mind to use. It is that mind that is the very 'image of God'. When that mind is gone, I don't just 'live with it' -- or more accurately, 'live without it.'

Which is why we need to leave dying to the Lord. Man can not be trusted because the world is made of imperfect humans.

Although by styling your fatalism as 'leaving dying to the Lord, because men are too imperfect' you try to give it a vaguely Biblical ring, that's a little too close to the crackpots who kill all their little children while spouting Bible verses and then say it is because 'the world is too imperfect' to allow them to live in it. Yes, The Bible tells us we have a sin nature, but no, that does not prevent us from living and making decisions in this world -- including the decision as to the proper time to leave it.

We do not murder other people ... no matter how desperate the need to kill others is.

I agree. But ending our own life, at the appropriate time, is not 'murder' (except in the weird world of RCC dogma) and it is certainly not 'killing others'. All the florid and overwrought words cannot change it. If you find the fatalistic world of paganism comforting, you may have it. Just don't try to force me to go there with you.

[ClancyJ]

What are you talking about - paganism? I did not even mention paganism.

I am not trying to force you to go anywhere - we are just discussing our views.

My beliefs are simple. We are told Thou Shalt Not Kill. We are tried, convicted and sentenced when we commit murder. What is the difference in starving a person to death because we judged her to be unworthy to live and the parent that starves their children to death by locking them in a cage?

There is none. We just dress it up in different reasonings to make it appear it is the best for the victim, they could never get well, etc.

There is a great difference in withdrawing medical treatments from a person whose body is dying to prevent extra trauma when it will not bring that person back to life and in man evaluating a patient and deciding that the person should die (for whatever reason).

Man is not God and will never handle life and death decisions better than God does. Any person is an idiot to want man deciding whether they can live or they should die.

And the reasons - because when man does it - it is murder. We are not God and man does not need to assume that responsibility because it only leads to more and more killing of others - never less.

These are my views - can't help it if you resent them.

[ClancyJ]

Obviously no murder? You must be kidding.

We don't know her true state because further tests were denied.

Because you would not wish to live in that state has nothing to do with Terri. It is Terri's decision and only hearsay was used to determine it.

This was the law yes, but the law was abused in this case since it picked and chose which laws to follow.

And, mainly, when did the criteria for a 41 year old woman become that she has to recover? Recovery is not the criteria for life or death. Unless you are pro-euthanasia.

So, we have a test case with Terri as the sacrifice to enter into the law books that hearsay evidence is sufficient to determine patient's wishes. We have the state killing an American citizen thereby denying her her constitutional rights.

Since when did severely handicapped people lose their constitutional right to life?

[winstonchurchill]

We don't know her true state because further tests were denied.

This nonsense gets repeated often enough around here and the gullible begin to believe it. There were 15 years (!) of tests while she was degraded beyond belief with slurry pumping and diapers. Will you admit that right was done when the autopsy shows her brain was gone? Probably not. Don't confuse your fevered mind with facts.

It was both legal and moral for her to be allowed to die -- that was her wish. You don't like it so you have closed your mind to the possibility, but it is true nonetheless.

[winstonchurchill]

This was the law yes, but the law was abused in this case since it picked and chose which laws to follow.

Sure and all those dozens of judges -- both state and federal -- were 'in' on the big conspiracy, weren't they? If you think so, you are a fool. The decision to allow her to finally die was a carefully-reviewed and properly-decided legal case. Moreover, it was the only moral outcome.

Now, go rant some more.

[ClancyJ]

We disagree. I will not go through all the facts that you want to ignore since it has been repeated many times.

It was legal because the law had been manipulated by the end-of-life panel to include the continually alter the recommendations they made that were automatically without legislature oversight approved.

The euthanasia movement has a very strong support in Fla. Many were involved in hospice, lobbys and even the end-of-life panel. (Ignore if you wish).

If her brain was gone - that still does not give any the right to kill her. (Why is that so hard for you to admit?)
It is not determined that she wished not to live in that situation unless you take the word of a husband who wanted her dead. Of course, her family did not believe this. Don't they have the right to speak up for their daughter.

The correct thing would have been for Michael to get a divorce and turn the daughter over to the parents. If later her condition worsened they could re-visit this suppposed wish if they wanted.

Why are you so very willing to deny the parents the right to take care of their daughter that no one else wanted? She was considered garbage and they were not even allowed to have the garbage. Why? Because the precedent for "hearsay accepted" would not have been met in the courts (the euthanasia group desperately wanted this-i.e. Felos). Another reason? Michael wanted all of the funds put in a trust so that Medicaid would pay for her hospice fees. He would not get these until she died.

The courts stood up to the law - correct. But in doing so, they killed a 41 year old woman who had to pass the test of would she recover. You don't have to pass that test - only a poor defenseless woman whose husband wanted her dead. Other people live in her condition - but not poor Terri - she had to die.

Oh, the law. There is a law in Florida that in a disabled person the feeding tube CANNOT be removed. Of course, they ignored this law and instead chose to believe the hearsay evidence. They also ignored a federal subpoena and ignored a law calling for a re-review of the case with new eyes. Just WHY?

Now - none of this will change your mind because apparently you want the option to off those you feel would not want to live in a certain state. However, this is still a man judging the life of another and presuming that he has the authority and the right to do so even though it violates the constitutational rights of the other.

Explain to me when does a person lose their constitutional rights in America? When they are disabled? When some pompous elite person determines they would not want to live in a certain condition (especially if it furthers the agenda of that elite person).

Just how do you protect any of us in the country from a ghoul deciding we are to be done away with? You can't and you sure well know it.

[ClancyJ]

I am no fool. Check the state laws all over the country concerning end-of-life criteria and find out just who is making recommendations of changes and how they are put into law.

And I will rant about it because I do not intend to just sit here and allow SOME to continually change the laws so that they have the ability to determine when someone has to die.

This is America and we do not have the state kill its citizens no matter how profitable it is for the insurance companies, the welfare groups, the relatives. And, if you are willing for men all over the country to be making decisions about when someone must die - you are the fool because you are setting up another Nazi state and absolutely tearing down the America we all grew up with.

I am not buying into the cheap sales tactics of the death culture and I cannot imagine why any would. It means death to ALL of us - not just the ones that will give us their estates.

And it makes us murderers and ghouls. Who wants to be a ghoul or a murderer? Not me.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

NEVER sign a living will! I can be your death sentence. It is used to withhold treatment, never to allow it.

Instead, download the Will to Live from the National Right to Life website. This is extremely important!!

http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/index.html

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

If you want some other scary information on the euthanasia industry, do some research on viaticals or "life settlements." There is a lot of proven fraud and criminal activity and it all has to do with the prospect that the sooner you die, the sooner the investors collect. Creepy stuff. If you ping Calpernia she can get you started.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "... his children, who stood to inherit much of his estate, claimed they wanted to honor his wishes to remove him from a ventilator and feeding tube and allow him to die...."

Response: Sure. Their motive is based upon pure compassion(warped compassion, but none-the-less compassion.)Death by LOVE! An exciting new concept.

[Free Vulcan]

Exactly my point. Michael Schiavo presented less than credible evidence, contradicted himself repeatedly, and Greer regularly ignored better evidence from the Schindler's side in favor of Schiavo. This is so well documented here on FR it's not worth rehashing.

Schiavo didn't have any more of a case than this woman had. So to be consistent, Judge Greer should have decided against him.

[winstonchurchill]

Exactly my point. Michael Schiavo presented less than credible evidence, contradicted himself repeatedly, and Greer regularly ignored better evidence from the Schindler's side in favor of Schiavo. This is so well documented here on FR it's not worth rehashing. Schiavo didn't have any more of a case than this woman had. So to be consistent, Judge Greer should have decided against him.

Well, you may think it 'documented' on FR, but isn't it strange that the parents' lawyer didn't 'document' it during the trial? Why do you think that is? Were they controlled by the 'end-of-life' lobby in FL too?

You see the problem is that the only evidence Judge Greer had was that put on by the respective lawyers in court as to Terri's desires. On that score, he had three (3) separate conversations which Terri had with (i) Michael, her husband, (ii) Scott, her brother-in-law and (iii) Joan, her sister-in-law in which she indicated that she didn't want to be maintained artificially. Then the parents' lawyers put on the mother who recited a contrary conversation which the mother said she had with Terri at age 11 or 12.

Now you contend that Michael's lawyers presented "less than credible evidence" [than the parents did], but how is that so? Three conversations as an adult on one side versus one conversation as a pre-teen girl. If the content of those conversations were reversed, wouldn't it be obvious that it would be a miscarriage of justice to accept the conversation of the pre-teen girl against the three separate adult conversations?

The fact is the only reason you contend the evidence accepted by the Court was less credible is because you don't like the outcome. Too bad, Judge Greer is a Christian and a Republican and not one of those result-oriented liberal judges you seem to like so much. Then he could have looked for the 'desired' outcome and picked the parents' highly suspect testimony.

[winstonchurchill]

I do not intend to just sit here and allow SOME to continually change the laws so that they have the ability to determine when someone has to die.

I will fight hard for your right to write your living will and insist that your body be kept alive as long as you wish after your brain is gone. Even if you don't write a living will, I think any court should (and would) accept your fevered statements here as clear evidence of your desires for yourself. So, I will do my best to see you are pumped and diapered indefinitely since that is your wish.

And, by the way, I will do so even if your parents, your children, your brothers and sister, your friends, your physicians -- or anyone else wants to see you allowed to die. I believe your wishes should trump any of those others.

However, you should, in fairness, concede the same to Terri and me. We want our wishes -- not our parents or others -- to be enforced. Just that simple.

What seems to bug you folks is that Terri wanted to be allowed to die, even though her parents and most of you wanted to continue to pump her and diaper her for another 15 years.