An Autopsy Won't End It - (John Leo on the hypocrisy of Michael Schaivo and George Felos)

US NEWS.COM ^ | JUNE 27, 2005 | JOHN LEO

[robertpaulsen]

"It said that all hydration and nutrition should be stopped."

Not his original court order in 2000.

The one to which you're referring was in response to a requested "experimental procedure", or so it was ruled because of a mistake made in the submission of the request.

It was never resubmitted.

[DJ MacWoW]

The request was never resubmitted to the court.

It was filed in February of this year. I think it was denied in March.

[Spiff]

Not his original court order in 2000. The one to which you're referring was in response to a requested "experimental procedure", or so it was ruled because of a mistake made in the submission of the request. It was never resubmitted.

This is the final court order that lead to Terri's death.

[robertpaulsen]

"One thing. Why no legal instrument? Many (most) states require. Not infallible, but better than letting judge be judge, jury and executor."

If Terri had a Living Will or Power of Attorney, we never would have heard of her. If Florida did not accept oral declarations, we never would have heard of her. If either of the interested parties had conceded, we never would have heard of her.

We ended up, however, with a Perfect Storm.

"Why not have a review board analogous to a pardon board in criminal cases ... Texas gives the governor the power to ..."

Well, you're adding an additional layer and you're still putting the final decision into one person's hands -- a political person, no less.

But, if that's the decision of the citizens of that state, then that's fine by me.

[robertpaulsen]

Technically, if it's ordered by a doctor it's "medical care".

"The feeding port could have been maintained by ..."

A surgically implanted feeding tube is medical care. Even in a professional setting, "she suffered from bile stones and kidney stones, according to court papers, and had to have her gallbladder removed. She has ''drop foot,'' where her foot twists downward, and the ensuing pressure resulted in the amputation of her left little toe. She frequently developed urinary tract infections, diarrhea and vaginitis. Several cysts were removed from her neck. Several times, her feeding tube got infected."

[blueriver]

But, if that's the decision of the citizens of that state, then that's fine by me.

The citizens of the state of Florida decided via Terri's Law that Terri should not be killed. It was the judges in the state of Florida that decided that they knew better and declared Terri's Law that was enacted by the Congress of Florida unconstitutional. Therefore it was not the citizens that decided it was the judges.

[billbears]

you don't understand the 5th Amendment (clue: it is not about the rights of prisoners, it is about the rights of persons

The Amendment deals mainly with the rights of prisoners and those under suspicion of a crime. However to float your little boat

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

she received due process through her guardian. She could have been represented by a state appointed lawyer and the outcome would have been the same

I suspect, however, if the State orders your death, you will be screaming to the high heavens for your Constitutional rights and federal review.

No sir, I would not. I would appeal only to the state Supreme Court and that's it. And if you think that is false bravado, I assure you to the depth of my soul I mean that. Federalist #45 is clear and I will not allow my life, or death, to add to the destruction of federalism that Republicans are looking to continue. You want to use my lifeless body for one of your crusades think again.

[RobbyS]

The assumptionthat a judges, especially an elected judge is NOT a political person? That's why these guys get away with murder if you will pardon the implication. In this day and age, does anything think a judge is impartial? In any age, for that matter?

[robertpaulsen]

I asked you first. Wassa matter? Can't support your statement?

[Spiff]

I asked you first. Wassa matter? Can't support your statement?

This is getting stupid. YOU falsely stated that the morphine had been ordered because of the "extreme right to life fanatics" and you said that it was injected into a "vegetable". See post #138 to refresh your memory. Then, in post #229 I asked you to support your statement.

You made the statement first - a false statement - you support it.

[billbears]

PS: You don't understand Scalias holding in Cruzan either. Scalia held that there was nothing in the Constitution proscribing a state from preventing one of their citizens from killing themselves.

LOL!!! Sure I don't. And your very statement also shows me you never read the Wolfson report. Let's look at Scalia's statement in context?

Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature. Though his point of reference was Missouri law relative to an evidentiary standard, his message remains that it is up to states to establish the rules and guidelines in these matters.

I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters:

I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

Tell you what. Go find 9 people in Pinellas County that will set the standard for you in Florida. Because Scalia was clear in Cruzan. It is not, nor was it ever, the business of the national government to get involved with issues such as this. Of course I suppose that could be one small reason they refused to hear the case time and again.

But I don't understand Scalia's decision in Cruzan. Right.....

[robertpaulsen]

And I was quoting (hence the quotation marks) MamaLucci in post #130.

[robertpaulsen]

Hey, Spiff, read my lips -- she had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.

Got it? One more time, she had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.

The court found that previous statements made by her provided "clear and convincing" evidence that she did not want to live in her present condition and ordered the feeding tube removed.

We're not talking about hunger strikes, or suicide, or anything else. I thought I asked you to keep your eye on the ball -- it's everywhere but.

Next time you go off-topic, I will not respond to your post. Just so you know.

[blueriver]

Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature.

Then what business did the judges in Florida have in overruling the Congress and declaring that the law that was passed by the Florida Congress, Terri's Law, was unconstitutional? They did not like the law enacted by the Florida Congress so they declared it unconstitutional and in so doing made there own law, which resulted in the eventual death of Terri.

[Spiff]

Hey, Spiff, read my lips -- she had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Got it? One more time, she had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment.

The court found that previous statements made by her provided "clear and convincing" evidence that she did not want to live in her present condition and ordered the feeding tube removed.

We're not talking about hunger strikes, or suicide, or anything else. I thought I asked you to keep your eye on the ball -- it's everywhere but.

Read my lips, she did not die because medical treatment was removed.

Got it? One more time, she died because the judge ordered that her guardian shall remove all hydration and nutrition. She did not die because medical treatment for her ailments or injuries but was dehydrated/starved to death. Unless you count requiring hydration and nutrition as a disease, disfunction, or ailment.

We're not talking about life-saving medical devices like a respirator. We're not talking about a "vegetable" that was hooked to machines, tubes, and wires that were keeping her alive. She had a constitutional right to have her life protected and to not be denied her right to life.

The next time you go off-topic, I will continue to tell the truth about what happened in Pinellas, Florida where a woman was killed by court ordered dehydration/starvation.

[billbears]

Then what business did the judges in Florida have in overruling the Congress and declaring that the law that was passed by the Florida Congress, Terri's Law, was unconstitutional? They did not like the law enacted by the Florida Congress so they declared it unconstitutional and in so doing made there own law, which resulted in the eventual death of Terri.

Listen very carefully. I'm going to say this one last time. I don't care what Florida's Congress, Supreme Court, or governor chose to do. The main point was that the issue remained within the state, which is what Scalia was pointing out. How Floridians hammer it out is their business, not mine as a North Carolinian, nor that of the US Congress. You want to go stand in Pinellas County and shout Ich bin ein Floridian be my guest. But plan to live there or stay out of the state business of Florida

[robertpaulsen]

SCHIAVO
THERESA MARIE
BELOVED WIFE

BORN DECEMBER 3, 1963
DEPARTED THIS EARTH
FEBRUARY 25, 1990
AT PEACE MARCH 31, 2005

[image of a dove]

I KEPT MY PROMISE

[robertpaulsen]

And if a person has a Living Will or Power of Attorney and requests in writing that they not live in a brain damaged state, with no hope of recovery, supported by artificial means, that's euthanasia also?

[Spiff]

And if a person has a Living Will or Power of Attorney and requests in writing that they not live in a brain damaged state, with no hope of recovery, supported by artificial means, that's euthanasia also?

If someone says they don't want to live in a brain damaged state and someone actively KILLS them (through dehydration/starvation, suffocation, lethal injection, gunshot wound, etc) it is euthanasia which is another word for murder.

[robertpaulsen]

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, MIACHAEL SCHIAVO, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, THERESA SCHIAVO, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.

Here's the original court order to which I was referring:(see page 10, second to the last paragraph)

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf