Posted on 04/07/2005 8:16:31 AM PDT by 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.
"Living wills" can be and ARE misconstrued. Also, over time, medical technology (that might ameliorate a previously dire situation) advances; and, one's own wishes may change.
It's much better to designate a trusted person to have durable power of attorney over your medical decisions, than to have a "living will."
Don't count on your next-of-kin being designated your legal guardian. Judges discount that kinship ALL THE TIME and transfer guardianship to the person THEY prefer.
See Do You Need an Advance Directive?, put out by the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide for some VERY STARTLING examples of abuses of "living wills."
...the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive ... or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her ...
You're welcome! :)
Agreed.
BTTT
On another thread, someone was actually telling me "Terri wasn't killed."
This is the kind of truly depraved mindset we're dealing with here..
The fact is, if you have a living will, you have to resign yourself to the fact that they may starve and dehydrate you even if there is some hope.
The only thing that's telling is that Greer wouldn't even give 30 days. I'd love to know if the hospice was involved, though.
They probably weren't *her* kids.
I'll say this and then leave.
You are the ones that have been wrong for all these years. You are the ones who have repeatedly mis-stated the law. Haven't you ever wondered why, despite all the repeated hearings, trials, appeals and dozens of Judges reviewing the law, Judge Greer's decisions have never been overturned??
Or are you so deluded that you actually believe that the entire judiciary, law enforement, EMTs and the treating phyisicians are ALL involved in some massive conspiracy against Terri Schiavo. A conspiracy involving dozens if not hundreds of proffesional people, virtually none of whom knew Terri or Michael Schiavo.
No, despite the dulusions of people on this board, there is no conspiracy, only hysteria.
She was born in China, he's a professor. Chances are the family hates her in part because she's much younger than him.
As well as the meaning of "life prolonging procedures."
Check out this link.
http://libertytothecaptives.net/scientology_clearwater_bar_association_judge_greer.html
This is the kind of truly depraved mindset we're dealing with here..
Either she was living or she was dead. If she was living, she was killed. If they think she was already dead, what's their basis for that opinion? I find that some people just haven't thought it through. It's a "new" concept.
I think they probably think she was already "dead." Another variation on that theme is: "she died 15 years ago." I'm not sure what the basis of their opinion is. My guess is they agree with the "right-to-die" doctor (I forget his name).
It would seem that Greer sides with whatever family members stand to gain financially from a patient's death. What a ghoul.
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.