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]
Since he had sole control over much of the evidence dealing with her actual condition, I would say his credibility (or lack thereof) affects the reliability of both types of findings.
What evidence exists that would contradict the notion that Terri was clearly not PVS, but Michael et al. were trying to hide that fact? Note that people not employed by Michael or Greer almost unanimously perceived that Terri was trying to communicate. Michael et al. downplayed those observations, of course, proclaiming all such people biased, but when all of the 'unfiltered' evidence says 'not PVS', the integrity of the guy doing the 'filtering' would seem to say a lot about the reliability of any 'PVS' finding, would it not?
Judge Ito should bear a significant portion of the blame for the Simpson trial result, since he allowed a ridiculous amount of showboating by defense counsel. The prosecuting attorney also made a number of mistakes. I don't see why a jury should be blamed for the fact that they were not given a good, solid, and unambiguous case to work with.
Basically, what jurors would have seen would be a bunch of investigators who could have acted to prevent evidence contamination but failed to do so. It may well be that investigators are often sloppy but defense counsel usually don't call them on it. Even if that's true, though, I would see no reason for jurors to excuse such sloppiness in evaluating the state's case.
My own personal belief about the O.J. case is that (1) Simpson most likely did kill the victims, but (2) there is a significant likelihood that some of the evidence may have been tainted, i.e. that the police framed a guilty man. To be sure, I haven't seen anything close to all the evidence the jury saw, but if I were on a jury and reached those conclusions, I would acquit.
He attempted to carefully manage the evidence after that fact, although he didn't do a great job of it. The videos were created, and we've all seen them.
But the determination of whether Terri was in a PVS at the time of the trial rested entirely on the credibility of the physicians who testified, not Michael's word or his opinion.
His unwillingness to revisit the issue of Terri's condition after the trial and especially before the tube was removed for the last time probably indicates that he was afraid that a new look might reverse the earlier ruling. I think it does. But his opinion of her condition is irrelevant from a judicial standpoint.
I'm splitting hairs here, I know, especially since I think there should have been new tests from a moral standpoint, if nothing else.
From the article: "Todd explained that Gaddy had only a financial power of attorney, not a medical power of attorney, and Magouirk's living will carefully provided that a feeding tube and fluids should only be discontinued if she was comatose or in a "vegetative state" – and she was neither."
Sounds as if there was a medical power of attorney and a living will in effect. Seems granddaughters only had a financial power of attorney. Wonder what grandaughter stands to inherit after she murders her grandmother.
Seems to me granddaughter should be charged with murder since she's going against the specific written wishes of her Grandmother and doesn't have a medical power of attorney where she can dictate what treatment Granny can get.
People can be so greedy that they're willing to kill to get what they want. The granddaughter sickens me.
But who selected those physicians? Had Michael selected a couple of physicians who would actually try to find that Terri was cognitive, I would think the results might have been 4-0 or 3-1 instead of 2-2.
His unwillingness to revisit the issue of Terri's condition after the trial and especially before the tube was removed for the last time probably indicates that he was afraid that a new look might reverse the earlier ruling. I think it does. But his opinion of her condition is irrelevant from a judicial standpoint.
Terri's condition was not evaluated because Felos objected to having any more testing done. Had Michael instructed Felos to allow such testing, firing him if necessary, the court would have had no basis to forbid it on its own.
I'm splitting hairs here, I know, especially since I think there should have been new tests from a moral standpoint, if nothing else.
The issue of whether testing would be allowed rested with Michael rather than the court. Although the court should have required more testing even over Michael's objections, Michael himself should have allowed it even if/though the court didn't require it.
The only way the jury could have acquitted OJ was by doing what they did....refuse to look at the case laid out and the evidence. By not looking at any of the evidence, the timelines and the case as laid out by the prosecutor, they could safely write it all off. To look at it, however, was to realize that, as some analysts had put it, less than 20% of the available evidence would have been sufficient. But that was jury nullification plain and simple. And BTW, there are Freepers here who swear by jury nullification. They believe that a juror has an absolute right to find not guilty if they are in disagreement of the law itself, such as tax evasion, drugs, or weapons violations. This is the reason why I am less than high on juries on occasion.
As for the Schiavo affair, as I said, the states need to look at their laws carefully, and consider technology, living wills, incapacitation, guardianship, etc. As for Greer? Up to the people, but I have seen nothing to disqualify him.
I'm not sure it would revers the outcome. Recall Browning. PVS is not a necessary prerequisite for natural death by starvation, incapacity (inability to contemporaneously provide competent medical instruction) coupled with a previously expressed wish is enough.
I think Greer didn't want to "push his luck," as a non-PVS but incapacitated Schiavo would expand the class of people that could die naturally by dehydration, from those as Browning that had written wishes, to those as Schiavo where the patient's wishes were determined by testimony of others.
I do think that the expanded class (patient's wishes found by clear and convincing evidence and patient is incapacitated) is inevitable under Florida case law. The only difference is the evidence by which the patient's wishes are divined.
As noted just above, I agree that Michael's behavior is largely irrelevant, except inasmuch as it affects how one interprets and weighs his testimonial evidence regarding Terri's wishes.
But I don't see PVS as the critical issue under Florida case law. If the patient is mentally incapacitated (could be dementia, altzheimers, stroke, brain injury, insanity, somehow incompetent or unable to give orders for medical treatment), and is being fed other than by mouth, then that patient is a candidate for natural death by dehydration.
IMO, the critical issue is the determination of the patient's wishes.
With the amount of publicity the case had gotten, a finding that Terri might not be PVS would have totally put the brakes on the case. Such a finding would render totally unjustifiable Michael's refusal to allow therapy to allow Terri to communicate. Although the Hugh Finn case set the precedent that even a clear and unambiguous desire to be given water can be overridden by a court's declaration that someone is incompetant to make such a decision, I don't think a court would have dare to have accepted that argument in a highly-publicized case.
It's also true that most of the media discussion centered on PVS as a necessary prerequisite to justify the natural death by dehydration. So opening that particular can of worms would have been even worse. I am not surprized in the least that the public is generally unaware of the present legal framework. Can't turn up the heat too fast, the frogs will jump out.
Whatever it is, it doesn't resemble justice unless the patient's wishes have been found correctly.
If they didn't the President wouldn't know whether to appoint or dismiss officers of government, and the Congress would not know to initiate tax bills in the House.
Those are only a few examples.
None of the courts were asked by the litigants to determine the constitutionality of any of the matters before them. Be interesting to see what they'd say about a county judge having authority to execute someone without any of the safeguards now in place to protect convicted criminals.
These lengthy threads (over 50 responses) can create their own confusion. Don't let it bother you.
I don't think there's any question that he had made his mind up about Terri's PVS state before filing that legal action. What he thought it was, I don't know, but I'm sure Felos convinced him that he could win on the PVS issue.
At that point, the die was cast. Michael and Felos weren't going to allow any more tests that might contradict their position.
Michael wasn't looking out for Terri's best interests up to the bitter end. That ended sometime before he filed the legal action.
Although I was really, really into this particular thread I've found yours and MACV's stuff difficult to follow in all cases due to the lack of differentiation between who said whats.
Although I was really, really into this particular thread I've found yours and MACV's stuff difficult to follow in all cases due to the lack of differentiation between who said whats.
You'll have to find a new term for that one. Besides, I think you mean me!
I'd have to go back and look, but I've viewed it as a fallback argument for Michael if the "Terri's wishes" argument had failed.
IMHO, Michael should have been deemed to have divorced his wife when he destroyed her wedding rings. He cannot be presumed to have had her interests at heart any time after he admitted in 1993 to having done so.
I'm over it. Both of us got heated over a misunderstanding and it escalated from there. I think the bruises will heal with no hard feelings.
There is no fallback if patient's wishes are not found. That is a necessary prerequisite, for now.
Florida Chapter 765 taken as a whole is, IMO, internally inconsistent; but by choosing through the clauses in a suitable path, the statutes will read as authorizing the outcome of the case.
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.