Posted on 06/22/2005 8:06:02 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" asked Joseph Welch in his famous confrontation with the pathologically cruel Joe McCarthy. "Have you left no sense of decency?"
More than a half-century later, I would ask the same question of Florida's governor, Jeb Bush.
In an abuse of power that has been widely denounced, and has even appalled many of his own supporters in the Republican Party, Governor Bush has tried to keep the Terri Schiavo circus alive by sending state prosecutors on a witch hunt against her husband, Michael.
The state attorney who has been pushed by the governor into pursuing this case told me yesterday he has seen nothing to indicate that a crime was committed. Nevertheless, the inquiry continues.
Governor Bush asked Bernie McCabe, the state attorney for Pinellas County, to "take a fresh look" at this already exhaustively investigated case to determine, among other things, whether Michael Schiavo had perhaps waited too long to call for help after discovering that his wife had collapsed early one morning 15 years ago.
Mr. McCabe did not seem particularly enthusiastic about his mission. "I wouldn't call it an investigation," he told me in a telephone conversation. The word "investigation," he said, "is a term of art in my business."
He then explained: "When I conduct an investigation, it would mean that I have a criminal predicate. In other words, that I have some indication that a crime has occurred. That's my job...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That has nothing to do with what I said.
Terri could NOT HAVE WANTED to be dehydrated, since that was not legal before she was injured. She "could" have said she didn't want a ventilator or whatever, but not that she wanted to be dehydrated. They applied a NEW law RETROACTIVELY to Terri. That is clearly wrong.
Here's the bone scan info -
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/TERRI_BONESCAN.HTM
and info from the 2003 lawsuit ( note ONE fracture )
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1371794/posts
That is not the reality; there were corroborating witnesses as well. Further,
...the right of a patient, who is in an irreversibly comatose and essentially vegetative state to refuse extraordinary life-sustaining measures, may be exercised either by his or her close family members or by a guardian of the person of the patient appointed by the court. (John F. Kennedy Mem'l Hosp. v. Bludworth Florida Supreme Court, 1984)
Your right about me not hearing all the evidence, but your wrong about the court hearing it all. The court refused to hear all the evidence. The court seems to have relied more heavily on legal precedences and policies that favored the husband as the legal guardian, then on determining her will.
This is just bad policy.
As for the higher courts, if your are even remotely aware and honest about the case you must admit they didn't review this finding from anymore then a statutory "plain error" perspective. And those of us who followed this case years before it became big news, have heard much more evidence on this matter then they had.
In fact, I maintain that my opinion on what she wanted is more reliable then the original judges and the courts. It shouldn't be, but it is. She deserves more a more reliable opinion then mine, but the courts gave her less of one.
Thank you for the research. But I'm afraid it undermines the idea that the court rulings should be taken as the final word on Terri's will.
If the courts applied the above policy (which I maintain they did), then they hardly needed to bother with what Terri wanted (which I maintain they didn't).
Although I do concede that in Terri's case there was any extraordinary life sustaining measures, but it is clear that Judge Greer thought it was.
Although I do concede that in Terri's case there was notany extraordinary life sustaining measures...
You want more? From Browning,
FN5. Section 765.04(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987) permits competent adults to order the withholding or withdrawal of "life-prolonging procedures" under certain conditions. Section 765.03(3) of the Florida Statutes (1987) specifically excludes the provision of sustenance from the term "life-prolonging procedure." We note that the legislature has since expanded the definition of "life-prolonging procedure" to include the provision of sustenance. Effective October 1, 1990, a patient may authorize the withholding or withdrawal of nutrition or hydration under certain circumstances. Ch. 90-223, Laws of Fla.
I said it was statutory, and oh boy, the guy arguing against me proves me right.
Who needs allies with opponents like you?
No, they didn't. Clearly, you are incorrect, or that would have been legitimate grounds to get the ruling overturned on appeal. Again, from the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals:
The trial judge followed and obeyed the law as set out by the precedent of the Supreme Court of Florida and by the general laws adopted by the Legislature
Michael may have the right to scuttle away, and hide in dark shadows. But casting him as the victim? No way.
Follow the money trail, pure and simple!!!
In fact, he didn't lose his wife. He kept legal custody of that property until he got permission to have it destroyed. By that time she wasn't really an actual wife, other than in as a legal fiction. The woman he had a family with was his real wife at that point.
Again, just follow the money trail, pure and simple!!!
There's a link here I seem to be missing. Maybe you can illuminate things.
Yes, the link you are missing is the ability to think rationally rather than emotionally. I can't help you with that.
I'm only talking about the finding of fact that Terri didn't want to live in a PVS. It looks like you switched the subject to cover whether she was actually in a PVS, which was covered by doctors in their testimony. The evidence that she didn't want to live in a PVS was fairly weak IMO and was disputed by the Schindlers. My understanding of the situation is that it takes gross abuse of judicial discretion to get the apellate court to reverse a ruling for this reason and it rarely happens.
You never know, you might learn something from Hannity or the lawyer Patricia Anderson. I think I'll post some transcipts anyway, which you are certainly free to not read.
LOL..LOL..LOL, may I repeat..LOL.
If you and the euthanasia crowd get their way people like my spouse will not ever get a chance to live.
This is not about what you and your spouse want it's about the presidence that is being set. I know you saw the AMA report. With the support of people like you and the Euthanasia lobbyists in Clearwater who promoted Terri's death, the AMA just this week created a presumption of death. People who they determine are disposable and have no guardian or a living will die as a result.
What else would you like to impose on myself and my family by supporting this movement?
My spouse suffered severe brain damage (prognosis poor)and had only a 10% chance of living.
Thank God they were wrong at a time when the presumption of life was the standard.
Although the presumption of life has changed, doctors will continue to be wrong and people are going to die needlessly without a chance.
Bottom line...Keep yours and your spouse's "dying" will to yourselves.
My spouse and I have a will to live.
This is a disgusting article.
And the 'MoveOn' posters on the thread are as well...
In the case of Terri Schiavo, the 'activism' that was needed from judges was to enforce the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking a citizen's life when they haven't been convicted of a capital crime.
Your 'activist judges' strawman is getting rather tattered. Won't even scare the nervous crows away any more...
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.