Posted on 04/07/2005 5:34:06 PM PDT by News Hunter
Edited on 04/07/2005 5:39:05 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
And she may not have the grandma's health as her primary interest. But were you aware that it was Gaddy who was feeding granny daily? Were you aware that the judge held a full hearing on Monday? Were you aware that all parties reached an agreement? As I indicated earlier, those are the things you won't find in a WND "news" report because it would tend to mitigate against their agenda. And before I join the vigilante crowd, I would at least like to hear the whole story.
Several other diagnostic tools had been invented since that time and any court worthy of the name would have demanded the best in evidence.
By its very nature, there will always be some subjectivity in any medical evaluation. But I hope this whole Schiavo affair causes states to relook at their laws involving guardianship, living wills and distinguishing between life support and feeding mechanisms. In that respect, this may have done a lot of good.
BTW, I am well aware of how the sick and elderly may well not seem to want to eat.
If we could check through all the records, bet you there's an instance of someone having an elederly relative's false teeth pulled.
I simply can't imagine other cases needing to be as sophisticated as this one.
Perhaps you missed the implied "only."
Government exists to do ONLY that which we cannot do for ourselves. You know, like providing for the common defense.
Tell me how liberal that is.
Really. Who petitioned the court first in Nov of 2003 - to remove MS as guardian?
And then again in 1996 - who petitioned for medical records?
Who again started the maneuvering?
No, but it doesn't mean she wasn't either. It is simply some additional new information that WND and Glen Beck forgot to mention. I would like to know, but if she was in fact feeding granny, then it would seem that alone materially changes what WND is alleging.
Fair enough - though my opinion is that people ought to be able to work this out for themselves, save any PROOF of wrongdoing - and thusly don't need the government to "do for us"
And by proof, I mean incontrovertable, valid proof - not conjecture based on opinion.
Main point here - before the regular flame crew shows up to jerk their knees - the Shindlers didn't like what was going on, and got the courts involved to solve a family dispute. I'm not comfortable with that.
To me, it's very similar to 2000 - the Democrats didn't like the way things were going - so they got the courts involved. Were any of us comfortable with that? You can talk about it being "more important", but legally it's no different.
Or, maybe it became an issue when he called 911.
I suspect that most states including Florida need to review their whole guardianship program.
Maybe no one knew about the what the granddaughter says she was doing but the granddaughter. We need some cooboration of her allegation.
The malpractice suit (which he won) had ZERO to do with the Schindler's later actions.
Or are you saying that the $$ was the reason for them getting involved?
I agree, and it would seem simple to speak with hospice workers who may have seen it. It's part of finding out the whole story.
Big Bump!!
You make of it what you want, but that's a fact!
Is the fact that a human being is eating or not eating a private or public matter?
If the facts in this story are true then somebody should be held accountable for starving this woman to death against her wishes.It seems as though some people view life as something that is worthless after a person is struck with an illness.
I'm not making anything of it. YOU are mixing two completely separate actions/circumstances. His malpractice suit - regardless of whether or not it became a matter of public record - has nothing to do with the Schindler's actions.
Feel free to point out how one has ANYTHING to do with the other. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just not understanding how two completely unrelated issues (other than they both involve Terri) are somehow related, in your mind.
Normally I would think it a private matter, but Ken Mullinax made it public with his version of events. Now some additional information has come out apparently either adding to or contradicting original reports. So I would assume it now to be public, as a probate court has held 2 hearings.
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.