Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
You said-> No one took away Terri's right to life, but many tried (thankfully unsuccessfully) to take away her right to die. Her parents may not have agreed with her, you may not have agreed with her, but she (like me and most of us if we were ""
I don't for one minute believe Terri wanted to Die. Why don't you read this excellent article and then tell me you want the person who can't even get the night/morning of the original incident straight, - to be the very one who decides Terri should die.
http://theempirejournal.com/409051_you_be_the_judge_was_terr.htm
Do you even read your messages before hitting the "post" button?
If not, you should try it. Because what we see above is truly warped.
Perhaps you should consider doing your side a favor and stop posting on this topic.
Pick one:
Life in America in 1979. With 1979's civil liberties, cultural standards, television programming, radio programing, level of smut and pornography. Democrat President, Senate, House.
Life in America in 2005. Current laws (judges a law unto themselves, Patriot Act), cultural standards (same sex marriage, Terry Schiavo et al,), television programing (seen a sit com lately?), radio programming (Howard Stern?), level of pornography (every store, every cable system, every hotel room, everywhere). Republican President, House and Senate.
Choose one. I dare you!
I must confess - I am not in favor of the Democratic Party, but after 20+ years of (more of less) of increasing "conservatism" and Republican dominance, how much more of this great continual improvement can we take???
The courts found otherwise.
Of course if you knew her better than her own husband did, then by all means tell us what you know about this.
LOL! If you think Jeb Bush did everything he could, you are a sad bamboozled useful idiot.
So?
The issue of whether Terri supposedly spoke her wishes is not one where fraud upon the court could ever be proven, true.
But in my opinion, even if she didn't specifically state it to Michael, I believe given the opportunity to foresee such a situation, she would have opted NOT to be sustained in this condition by a feeding tube.
I must, however, express some alarm at your attitude here, which would seem to suggest that the requirement for 'clear and compelling evidence' means nothing, if it can be satisfied by vague guesses about what someone would want.
The bigger evidential question in my mind is whether Terri really was PVS. To my mind, Michael's behavior suggests strongly that he didn't think she was. That would be the real point of focus in determining if there was a fraud upon the court; hopefully Delay can subpoena relevant documents before they are destroyed.
However as I've already said, I don't think I could have made the difficult decision to remove her feeding tube. I would have prefered to just turn responsibility over to her parents who were willing to keep her alive no matter what.
Glad to hear that.
That still doesn't mean it would be the best thing for Terri or what she really would have wanted given the choice.
Would Terri have wanted her parents to suffer as Michael has made them do for many years, or would Terri have wanted her parents to get whatever joy they could out of her continued presence?
Until it's you who tells everyone you know that you don't want to be starved but the High Almighty Court starves you anyhow.
"My agreement with U.S. Supreme Court decision that every individual has the constitutional right to control his or her own medical treatment."
That is NOT what the Shiavo case was about AT ALL.
Everybody knows that this was a euthanasia case, no ifs and s or buts. Greer and Michael S. presumed to decide for Terri Schiavo. They did not prove Terri's wishes beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that Terri was killed having less rights than a convicted murderer. Jorge: What if they were wrong? What if Terri in fact did want to live and was screaming for mercy on the inside while she was starved to death, but couldnt voice that desire?
(and btw, if there is a 'constitutional right' to control medical treatment, why do we have the FDA regulating that?)
"Change the law that makes the spouse responsible as the primary caretaker?"
In *all* cases?
So if a spouse attempts to kill someone, and leaves them instead in a mentally disabled state, they can complete the murder legally? Interesting. Repellant, but interesting.
"I don't think there are any easy answers to this, even if you are correct about the husband."
Choose life unless there is crystal clear evidence otherwise establishing the intent ofthe patient. And under no circumstances deny people food and water, especially if they are not terminally ill (Terri was not); that's not 'medical care', that basic humanity.
No easy answers, but correct ones.
I want to be cremated - never mind it's against my religion and my family's wishes - and I want you, Michael, to take my ashes to PENNSYLVANIA so my folks can't pay their respects. And don't even give my Mom a lock of my hair, whatever you do!!
Please euthanize my 2 beloved cats. Melt down my wedding ring to make lovely jewelry for yourself. Find yourself a girlfriend and have two kids with her.
While I'm dying from dehydration and starvation, I want STRANGERS in the room - especially two weird ghoulish lawyers who have an obsession with death and dying. I wouldn't want my family in the room when I die. Why would I want THEM in there?
Oh, and I want you, Michael dear, to pay out over half of the money that was supposed to go for my care and rehab to those lawyers.
And finally, Michael, I want you and those lawyers to make lots of money on book and movie deals that make my family members look like the bad guys, the pro life folks look like religious kooks, and you and your lawyers look like heros.
I know you love me sooooo much, Michael dear, that you will follow my wishes exactly as I have stated them to you. All my love.
"He decided, after more than a decade of judicial proceedings -- that, in fact, Schiavo was a PVS patient and that she clearly would not have wanted to be kept alive in that condition."
And another judicial proceeding that cost millions declared OJ Simpson 'not guilty' of killing his girlfriend.
Courts and Judges err. Greer erred in both the main points. She was neither PVS nor was her intent truly clear. Greer merely ignored the evidence that diagreed with that conclusion.
"The totality of evidence just doesn't seem to meet the "clear and convincing" standard defined by Florida case law, cited above."
Indeed.
Thanks for a good summary of the evidence in re Shiavo.
And, for that matter, was also screaming for mercy on the outside except that Michael's guards kicked out of the room anyone who could offer credible witness to that effect?
I fought like everything to get Pres. Bush back in the White House. However, I no longer have confidence in him. To come out and just say " we need to err on the side of life"......and then go back in the White House and not assure the American People he would do everything he could to get to the bottom of this( as has Tom DeLay!), he has taken away our security that he is taking leadership seriously. He led agressively in 9/11, but failed to do so with a single young woman fighting for her life.
"And between those who believe in the constitutionally grounded right of patients to refuse extraordinary life-saving medical treatment,"
Food and water are not extraordinary, nor are they medical treatments.
Also, there is no evidence that Terri wanted to refuse any of this. Feeding tubes came about so that hospitals, nursing homes, etc, would not have to have a person feeding each patient 3 times a day. In other words, they were used for the convenience of the staff, not for medical treatment.
Also, feeding tubes may well, have not even been around when Terri was found unconscious in 1990, they certainly were not well enough known to have been an issue regarding life and death decisions.
"Choose one. I dare you! "
2005. Easy call. How could I go back to life with just 3 channels and NO FREE REPUBLIC, INTERNET, computers, technology, prosperity, etc.
Sure there is more smut and wierdness. or maybe not. maybe its just more open because technology is opening doors to things that werent possible, and its more open. Human nature has been the same though ...
SitComs? Archie Bunker "All in the Family" was a great hit. But it was awful. Watching reruns is almost painful. "Will and Grace" is also awful ... so I dont watch it. But back then you had 3-4 channels and no VCRs or recorders or channel surfing, etc.
Today, we have a more healthy conservative movement and conservative media.
In 1993, one of my "life dream" goals was to see a Republican House and Senate. I didnt expect it to happen so soon, in 1994.
I wouldnt turn back the clock. Fix what is broken about today and move on.
I didn't see that, but think that was Michael mocking Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, not expressing his personal sentiments.
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.