Posted on 04/25/2005 2:07:07 AM PDT by FairOpinion
I see. Thank you for setting me straight on that.
How do you do that?
Really, don't you think you're being a tad dramatic. It's going to HAUNT this country. Tell me how.
It might not. There is after all a culture that doesn't respect life out there. I do think it will haunt decent God fearing people though.
I was more interested in how you, personally, would have carried out Judge Greer's order to remove the feeding tube.
If the fact that "a human being was starved to death" is repugnant to you, then how would you have carried out the judge's order? Lethal injection? Suffocation? Gun to the head? What?
You are aware that causing death by the legal removal of a feeding tube is not uncommon?
Keep in mind that was two years ago, in 2003. At that time, there was no rush. The parties simply couldn't agree.
Maybe they couldn't agree on the type of swallow test. Or what constitutes a "swallow". Or the number of tries. Or who actually performs the swallow tests. Or who witnesses and interprets the results. Or a whole host of issues.
They may have never even gotten to the part of, "If she can swallow, then what?"
I wouldn't have done it. I think I'd rather go to jail, than kill an innocent person. It would have been kinder to Terri, if Michael had just shot her 15 years ago. It takes a *special* type of person to opt for starving their spouse to death.
I'm quite aware that murdering someone by withholding food and liquids is becoming very common. My aunt was a nurse for many years, and had family members actually ask her to do things, like overmedicate Gramps. The new nurses mistook a DNR for witholding medication, IV's, etc. As their supervisor, she set them straight real quick. She took early retirement when the hospital administration made a rule that everyone had to be available to assist in abortion procedures.
Speaking of Judge Greer, he isn't qualified to sit on the bench. He didn't file the correct paperwork, and should not have been on the ballot. Since this guy has been presiding over almost all the departments in that courthouse, there is a chance that EVERY decision he made, from adoptions to probate, will have to be overturned. Unfortunately, it's a little late for Terri. Maybe Greer can cool his heels in general population for a while. Oh nevermind, his buddies run the freakin' jail...
Ah, now I understand. I thought you were simply objecting to the manner in which Terri died. I didn't realize that you objected to her death.
So, the bottom line is that "starved to death" is not the real issue -- "allowed to die" is the issue with you. See what happens when you use inflammatory rhetoric? You end up confusing people and wasting their time. Not that you care.
The obvious question I have now is, "What if Terri had a Living Will, specifying in writing essentially what she verbally said to her husband, his brother, and her best friend on three separate occassions? Would you allow Terri to die under those circumstances?
How many judges reviewed this case? The last number I heard was 30. Seriously.
None, repeat none, could find fault in his rulings. If 30 professionals looked over your shoulder at your workplace to see if you did anything incorrectly in your job, would they come to the same conclusion?
Give it a rest.
Well, poetic, perhaps, but not dramatic. Haunt as in unintended consequences, repercussions, and also a bit "oh, sh*t what have we done" on the part of some. At some point an awakening of conscience, after a period of "how did things ever get this bad," is not without historical precedent. I refer you to how Germany still bears the Nazi stigma and the numerous ways the German people have been affected by Nazism, about which a little independent observation should satisfy any curiosity you might have.
Living in the times we do (30 plus years of legalized infanticide)and having had the desensitizing experience provided by the media regarding the Terri Schiavo case, it's easier perhaps for Americans to take what happened in some sort of "stride," and to miss the inevitable point that, however bad our reputation in the world, there were certainly some circles in which it was thought that even we would never possibly go that far.
My understanding is that he was appointed to write a report to Governor Bush. I believe he was GAL for only a short period of time, IIRC. The conclusion, in his report, was that Terri could not swallow.
"I have to ask why the GAL didn't request to have them run anyway"
Why stop there? What about requesting an MRI? A PET? Perhaps re-starting therapy just to see what would happen. Why not request the judge to allow some of these whack-job "bariatric" procedures? Accupunture? Medicine men, dancing naked in the moonlight?
Where should the GAL stop? I mean, seriously, you never know for sure unless you try, right? Why, this could drag on forever... to your delight.
LMAOROTF! That was the first thought when I read your previous posts to me on this thread. I know exactly what you're doing, but I tried to answer you as honestly as possible.
I object to a person who can breathe on their own from being murdered. I don't care if it's a long slow death by starvation and dehydration, a fatal beating, or a gunshot. It's still murder. Yes, I object to spousal abuse, and murder for profit and/or convenience.
If Terri had been cared for by someone who loved her and had her best interests at heart, she might have pulled through this like Kate Adamson did. At the very least, intensive therapy would have vastly improved her condition.
My obvious answer is that the best friend you cited, was MS's SISTER IN LAW, not Terri's best friend. The way I now understand DNR's and living wills, I would err on the side of life. I certainly would not pull a feeding tube or IV, until natural death occured. What we need is a "will to live", not a living will. You have to be very specific, or you're screwed.
Since you like to play games, here's a question for you. Let's say that your 2 yr old escape artist manages to get out of the house and drowns in standing water. The baby is revived, but placed on a ventilator, feeding tube, and IV. After a couple of days, the ventilator is removed, but babycakes is breathing on his own. There is some brain activity. Would you decide that this 2 yr old would not want to live like this, and cut off food and water, or would you hang in there and pray for a miracle???
I'm sure you have done plenty of research on this subject, so you must be aware that coma patients can hear, and feel pain.
No, you give it a rest. You've been on these threads probably as long as I have. Have you bothered to look at the hard evidence regarding "Judge" Greer? He is on the bench illegally. Because he should have known that he didn't file his papers correctly, I would say that that every judgement he made should be examined. Imo, that should start with the woman who begged for a restraining order, and he denied it. She was killed by her ex, thanks to that idiot.
You're a grown up. You're here on FR. Don't you know that corrupt birds of a feather, stick together??? Don't you read anything here about corruption?? Of course 30 judges could side with him, because he's one of them. When Greer gets nailed, lets see how many of them stick up for him.
The GAL concludes from the medical records and consultations with medical experts that the scope and weight of the medical information within the file concerning Theresa Schiavo consists of competent, well documented information that she is in a persistent vegetative state with no likelihood of improvement, and that the neurological and speech pathology evidence in the file support the contention that she cannot take oral nutrition or hydration and cannot consciously interact with her environment.1He also had a few other notable recommendations. One of which was to point out the lack of a permanent GAL over the years of dispute, and to recommend appointment of one. (Page 3)
1 But that is not enough. This evidence is compromised by the circumstances and the enmity between the parties (...) To benefit Theresa, and in the overall interests of justice, good science, and public policy, there needs to be a fresh, clean-hands start...
She was both. According to the St. Petersburg Times:
""Terri didn't want to live like that," said Joan Schiavo, Terri Schiavo's best friend, who also testified Monday. "She didn't want people to see her like that. She didn't want to do that to her family and friends."
Or is the St. Petersburg Times in on the conspiracy also?
"The way I now understand DNR's and living wills, I would err on the side of life."
From Judge Greer's ruling, Terri told Joan, her best friend:
"and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent."
So, Terri wanted "the tubes and everything taken out" and you wouldn't do it? You would insist that she live on, against her expressed will?
Who are you to intervene that way? Who are you to go against her constitutional right to refuse medical treatment? Who are you to stick your nose into what is a private affair?
You ask why I'm so passionate about this issue. Well, that's your answer.
I do not want busybodies like you interfering in things that are not your business. Telling my family that they must undergo the financial and emotional hardship of taking care of my brain dead shell of a body knowing all along that I didn't want that.
That's what scares me. Extreme right-to-life fanatics like you who would even pressure Congress to write a law prohibiting me from exercising my constitutional right to refuse treatment because you know better.
There's your difference. You're talking about euthanasia. You're dying to talk about euthanasia because that's where you're on solid ground. You'd love to turn the Terri Shiavo case into euthanasia.
But you can't, and that must really really pi$$ you off.
Oh, I have no interest whatsoever is discussing hypothetical euthanasia situations with you or anyone else on these paticular threads. It's another topic for another thread for another day.
Excuse me. Terri's best interests? With all due respect, WTF does Terri's "best interests" have to do with it?
Terri did not want to live like that. She said that to three people on three separate occassions. A judge heard their sworn testimony and had "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes and ordered the feeding tube removed.
THAT was Terri's "interests".
I suspect you may have more information than I have. What I’ve been trying to get together are the items that are of record, rather than the spin put out by either camp, and I’m not having much success. So I’m going with what I think I know.
With regard to the evidence that was allowed – since I don’t have much of the actual court record, I am assuming that somewhere along the line there may have been motions filed and argued before Judge Greer which limited or restricted what could be put into evidence. This is perfectly legitimate and is done all the time, both in civil and criminal cases. Judges (at least where I live) generally have broad discretion as to what they will and will not allow. Usually these decisions are based on what is permissible under the law and/or whether the testimony would be relevant to the issues at hand. As I understand this particular matter, the major issue was whether or not Mr. Schiavo had the right, absent any written declaration from his wife to the contrary, to have the feeding/hydration tube disconnected. If so, not allowing testimony regarding Mrs. Schiavo’s alleged desire to divorce her husband, for example, might be a perfectly legitimate ruling since such testimony may be viewed as irrelevant to the feeding tube issue, whereas testimony regarding Mrs. Schiavo’s alleged verbal declarations that she wanted to die might be considered relevant.
As to whether or not, Judge Greer was “qualified to be on the ballot” – I’m not sure why you are saying so. Was there some controversy regarding his qualifications when he was elected or nominated? Is it because, as you say, he had certain ties to the hospice, the sheriff and others in the Schiavo matter? With regard to the latter – I can’t say what the law is in Florida, but where I come from, it is not considered unethical for purposes of seeking or holding a judicial office for a candidate to have ties to certain entities or organizations or familial relationships with anyone else in government. However, in a particular case where those individuals, entities or organizations with whom the judge has a relationship become named parties to an action before the judge, a reputable judge, at least where I live, will either, of his own volition, “recuse” or remove himself from that case, or he will disclose to the parties the relationship and offer to bow out of the case if the parties feel such a relationship would compromise his partiality. I don’t have anything to indicate what was done in the Schiavo case in this regard. I can, however, say this: unless the sheriff or the hospice are named parties to the suit, it is likely that Judge Greer’s relationship with them may legitimately not be considered a conflict of interest.
This is all very hard to explain because (a) I’m not a lawyer; (b) I don’t know the law in Florida; and (c) I don’t really have much of the record from this case. There are a lot legal issues even I don’t understand, so how can I explain it to you. A lot of what might be considered unethical is actually very legal. Compounding the problem has been the inadequate reporting by most mainstream media, not to mention the spin put out by both sides (and assorted other non-parties). A lot of things have been said, a lot of allegations and accusations made, but I can’t really be sure for the most part what is and is not for real.
As for my not knowing people who are “abusers, grifters and sociopaths,” well, let me tell you – I’ve worked with and for lawyers for over 30 years and I’ve seen my share of con artists. Guess I’m cynical or jaded. I don’t know. I can tell you though – not everyone who appears smarmy is necessarily unreliable. On the other hand, not everyone who cries a lot and puts on a melodramatic performance is necessarily telling the truth.
Thank you for your courtesy and patience in this debate.
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.