Affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeals in an almost de-novo review of the case and the FSC in an appeal.
The 2nd District in their ruling wrote...
The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
What a breath of fresh air to read an excellent two-paragraph summary of the case written by an adult stating the facts.
Oh well. Breaks over. Back to the thread. Written by children based purely on their emotions.
Affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeals in an almost de-novo review of the case and the FSC in an appeal.<<
There is no such thing as an "almost de-novo" review.
The appeals court looked at the evidence developed in Judge Greer's trial court, and found that he did not come to a conclusion that they would possibly disagree either in error of law, or MASSIVE error in judgement.
De-novo would mean a new trial, as if the first never happened.
Of course now Terri would not have been "euthanized". They have tightened up the rules. Before 2001 Terri would not have been "euthanized". It was against the rules, and that stopped them from killing her the first time.
So Terri was killed, because in a short window of time, it was legal. What a legal system!
DK
So, money is a determining factor in this judge's decision?
Therefore, some lives deserve life more than others? So, the judge's own family will, of course, be allowed life whereas, those lesser ones will not.
And this is what you consider fairness, sanctity of life, and justice?
I do not and this is exactly the mindset I am fighting.
I will not give a judge the power to make these judgements over me or my family. We are not cattle - we are people who have a constitutional right to the life that God gave us and no man has the authority to sit in judgement of whether we get to live or not. That takes away my constitutional right.
"but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions"
Based on the autopsy. So for all in this state, we should perform an autopsy and then determine if they should live?
The problem here has nothing to do with medical facts but everything to do with the husband. Decisions to "remove tubes" occur daily in this country with no living wills but with the support of the whole family.
As opposed to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard the state must meet in order to execute the most heinous of murderers.
So convicted killers receive better legal protections than a helpless woman.