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]
Do we know he didn't. We know he held a second hearing at which all parties were in agreement. So I don't know any details.
If the Schindlers had left it alone, the end of the malpractice suit would have been the end of it. Period. I'm beginning to think that you're being deliberately obtuse.
THEY were the ones to start the whole circus. Try actually reading a timeline of events sometime. The malpractice suit has ZERO to do with the Schindlers' petitioning for guardianship, etc, etc, etc.
Unless - as I metioned - you're saing that they only got involved to get their hands on the money. That would be the ONLY way the malpractice settlement had anything to do with the next three steps in the whole circus - which were initiated by the Schindlers.
The simple minded simply cannot understand such complexities. You are no different from those DU idiots you would condemn on the left for their rants. I apologize for thinking that you could comprehend the full story rather than your simple but stupid yes/no.
It is interesting how no self-proclaimed "turkey" has yet been able to honestly answer the question "Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo?"
Not sure what a self proclaimed turkey is. I would envision a turkey as having a very simple mind, one that could not comprehend any complexities...one that could not get past a yes/no without completely using up what little gray matter it had.
You remain disingenuous, even if I spelled it wrong the first time.
When you decide to insult someone, at least spell it correctly.
Interesting. Hope someone checks it out. That would be a hoot.
Hopefully, a bit more independent than Beck and WND...LOL!
Information is contained in an article, not knowledge. Knowledge is in your mind, hopefully.So yes, I have other information.
Now that the philosopy lesson is over, would you care to share the other information so that all of us here in search of the truth can learn?
Communicate with others rather than with you.
So I presume a cheap insult where none was given you is your response to a thoughtful post?
THAT is worth checking into. The guy on Glenn Beck said he used to work in Washington, D.C.
Maybe the story is a trap afterall. Then again, every Democrat was NOT a proponent of killing Terri Shindler-Schiavo. Sometimes a person changes his/her mind when an issue hits home.
IIRC, Mike is the one that petitioned the court in the very first place. He had to, because the doctors won't ordinarily (short of a mistake) cause natural death by starvation unless the paperwork is in order. It is true, however, that the Schindlers opposed Mike at the hearing.
Not a great analogy, but some building or use regulations require that neighbors be given notice of intent, and an opportunity to object. THe person with the proposed building or use initiates the process.
I'm not comfortable with that.
I think it's okay that there is some form of legal check on terminating basic care. What is the alternative, dueling?
Why is it that insults seems to be your only conversational tool? No one, to my knowledge insulted you.
You are much the same about this story. You either: 1. Fear that it is true...... or 2. Your senses do not permit you to read the story and sense who is telling the truth.
I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but some of us here are in search of the truth and simply do not take a first story, especially one put out by an agenda driven organization as gospel. And of course, the newspaper story that followed contained information significantly different from the WND story. But then, apparently you know it all, and do not need any further information.
This 81 year old lady, by the way with a history of longevity in her family, is most likely being killed because others are tired of dealing with her. Plain and simple.
The only thing plain and simple here is you.
It's possible that he is BOTH, a DEM political operative, and wanting to keep his Aunt Mae alive in accordance with her wishes, and against the wishes of Gaddy.
It bothers me that anybody would be subjected to natural death by starvation, DEM or GOP.
And you know this, how? Oh, yes, Glenn Beck told you. How sweet.
Right, let's assume that is correct. Fire the judge immediately and arrest Gaddy. Oh darn, there's that pesky old question of accuracy again. Was it ex-parte? Was the judge aware of other parties to the issue? Why were all parties in agreement at the following Monday's hearing? Why did Mullinax' attorney say that everyone was on the same side here? Why did WND fail to mention that Gaddy was hand feeding granny at the hospice? Or is none of that worth you time, since you have made up your mind?
We need to be careful until we know. But you are right, this is neither a Democrat or Republican issue. After all, Greer is a conservative and highly religious Republican, and he has been branded as the anti-Christ here.
I believe Mike petitioned the court for permission to schedule a natural death by dehydration, and the cases mushroomed from there.
Who, after all, would force the losing party to pay?!
Please don't confound the "circus" with government involvement!
It appears to have been so, as the only potential opposing parties were unaware of the proceeding, being at the hospice and not called to the court.
Was the judge aware of other parties to the issue?
Irrelevant. His awareness of other parties has no effect on the order. Gaddy has the order that grants her guardianship. Obviously, the judge is now aware there are other parties, because he has held hearings with them.
Why were all parties in agreement at the following Monday's hearing?
"Agreement" is a broad term. Agreement about what? SOmetimes people "agree" in the general, but object to the specific. E.g., I had a neighbor agree to pay half of the price of some trees to make a natural barrier at our property line. He refused to pay half, because $500 was too much. In this case, the parties may have "agreed" that Mae would be fed, but Gaddy's interpretation is "as much jello as Mae can take by mouth," while the others pictured intubation. Also, the agreement may have been on the narrow question of what course of medical action would be taken to address the dissection; surgery vs. medication and rest. I think, FWIW, that the agreement was limited to letting 2/3 doctors decide how to treat the dissection.
Why did Mullinax' attorney say that everyone was on the same side here?
See above. "On the same side" is also indefinite. You and I are "on the same side," even though we may have vigorous disagreements.
Why did WND fail to mention that Gaddy was hand feeding granny at the hospice?
A fair question. Maybe they didn't know. But, I wonder what "hand feeding" consists of, and whether it is adequate to nourish Mae's body. That issue isn't settled with the observation that Gaddy is hand feeding Mae.
We need not get past that part to be concerned. After all the implication is that a living will has no impact on the privilege of the guardian to create legal conditions that can result in your death.
That's the real issue here. After all, none of us are the guardian, and it's not likely we will ever be directly involved in this case.
We really have to do something about these legal shenanigans that can trick us into being killed.
first degree murder
Well, Greer may be a maniac, but he is a registered Republican and a Baptist, and is known for his conservatism. Additionally the 40 plus judges who reviewed this case come from all across the political spectrum.
"Potential" opposing parties may not be sufficient in some jurisdictions, and thus the Friday hearing may not have been ex-parte. But in any case, the Monday hearing should have cured that.
"Agreement" is a broad term. Agreement about what?
Well, as I understand it, that Gaddy would be the guardian, and that 3 doctors would be assigned to review the case. Other parts of the agreement are as of now not public.
See above. "On the same side" is also indefinite. You and I are "on the same side," even though we may have vigorous disagreements.
It was reported that he also stated that all parties to the conflict had only the best interests of Mae in mind.
A fair question. Maybe they didn't know. But, I wonder what "hand feeding" consists of, and whether it is adequate to nourish Mae's body. That issue isn't settled with the observation that Gaddy is hand feeding Mae
No it isn't, but it is relevant information and was overlooked by WND. Also, if you can believe WND and Mullinax, this would be the 12th day Mae is without nurishment. If so, she may be close to the record.
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.