Posted on 12/26/2005 4:49:42 PM PST by FairOpinion
That seems rather cruel in case where such a person - prior to his or her disability - has expressed the desire not to be kept alive in such condition.
So I hear. That is the way it goes. If you cannot play nice with others here, you must go away.
Thank you, I had not heard about the radiologist. Only the "Nobel Prize nominated" Hammesfahr.
bub? anyway, i find much to agree with you, but still hold firm: autopsy report confirmed what MOST doctors had said prior to the autopsy. Everybody in this case took Terri's life seriously. Given what is known now, the decision was reasonable and it was what most people IN HER CONDITION would have wanted if they knew beforehand that they would be in that condition forever.
Don't take it too hard old boy - I said the same thing earlier. These people will chew you up and spit you out in the name of decency and brotherhood. Now I'm going over to the latest ToE thread and settle this Evolution vs ID thing once and for all!
Brings it all back, the entire nightmare. Thanks for all the work you do, backhoe.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1369351/posts
The Bias of Judge George Greer -Dirty Connections
Judges are impartial, right? Not Judge George Greer, the judge that has ordered Terri Schiavo executed by starvation and dehydration, twice.
Our good ole boy judge has worked side by side as county commissioner with Barbara Sheen Todd (county commissioner) for eight years. Barbara Sheen Todd is on the board of, you guessed it, the hospice where Terri Schiavo is kept prisoner by her husband, Michael Schiavo, who lives with another woman that he has two children with.
Also, Judge Greer's fellow judge, Judge John Lenderman is the brother of Martha Lenderman, also on the, you got it, the same hospice board.
Our fine judge accepted as the basis of his rulings, the questionable testimony of Michael Schiavo that Terri would wish to be killed, yet Michael never stated this until after he had received the 1.2 million dollar settlement during which time he portrayed himself as a loving husband that just wanted to bring his wife home and take care of her.
The judge also accepted as the basis of his rulings, the "opinion" of a third doctor who is the brother of a close associate of George Felos, Michael Schiavo's right-to-kill attorney, and very significantly, former Chairman of, you got it again, the same hospice board, Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which operates Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida.
Still have some hair left? Let's see what we can do about that!
Mary Laybak, CEO of Woodside Hospice has direct ties to Euthanasia Society of America and Hemlock for Hospice, an organization that seeks to accelerate the dying process. Federal funds may not be used for these purposes.
The Hospice is a federally funded program designed for terminally ill and those whose death is eminent. Terri has been in Woodside Hospice illegally for three years under Medicaid payments, for free, courtesy of, yep, George Felos. Felos combined and conspired with Michael Schiavo to arrange for Terri's "free" stay at Hospice Woodside as part of an "exit protocol" designed to advance Felos' self-perceived messianic mission of "helping" incapacitated people to die by categorizing them as "terminal," warehousing them, and depriving them of therapy and rehabilitation services.
US Dept of Health and Human Services is currently trying to collect $14.8 million from Florida Suncoast Hospice, owed to them since 1997. The squeaki-clean(not) Hospice is accused of patient brokering and several lawsuits filed by Attorney Jonathan Alpert are pending.
And back to our friend the judge, just what kind of testimony has he weighted to put Terri in a hell on earth without chance of parole?
Judge Greer refused to acknowledge testimony of 10 doctors and 3 nurses who have cared for Terri and who testify that:
a) Terri is not in a persistive vegetative state
b) Terri is able to be rehabilitated with care and therapy
c) Terri’s original injuries are questionable and consistent with spouse abuse and attempted strangulation
d) Terri has been abused and neglected by her husband; denied treatment for infection and possible attempted murder while in nursing home care (discovery of empty insulin vial and temperature in room set at 64 degrees)
Judge Greer instead chose to believe contrary testimony by two of Michael’s representatives who are:
a) A doctor who rarely sees Terri (Dr. Gambone who has now resigned as Terri’s doctor)
b) Ronald Cranford, Hannipeg County Medical Center , Minnesota who makes an avocation of testifying in cases such as Terri's throughout the country, always on the side of dehydration and starvation.
Had enough yet? Wonder what should have been done for Terri? Take a look here.
Read More...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1369351/posts
LOL. Yea, good luck with that.
Like TAdams pointed out, there was no documentation stating that she wanted to die. All YOU have is the testimony of a husband whose motives were questionable.
Gold medal? Ha! You'd win platinum, pal!
Exactly, but the "death with dignity" crowd don't care about that. All that matters is that THEY wouldn't want to live the way she did and because of their projection, murdering Terri was the "right" thing to do.
I'm not going to go back and forth with these folks.
Now you obviously disagree with the courts decision, but the fact remains that he had the authority to make the call, and the only way to stop it would have been to VIOLATE the laws that were in place at the time. That's why congress, Jeb and George Bush could do nothing. They would have had to violate the law, an impeachable offense.
And this is not a "death with dignity" or euthanasia issue. It was a "Who has the right to make end of life decisions" issue. And in that regard it was settled properly. The spouse should be the one with that authority, unless sufficient reason can be found to change that. Or do you want to change that? Who do you want to have that authority? The Government? Because by asking them to intervene in this case, that's what you were asking for.
I for one prefer it the way it is. It should be the family's decision, with the next of kin making the final call.
I then looked into further articles, which confirmed the date you mentioned, but failed to confirm any of the other points you made. When I find myself to be wrong, I admit it. I also like to get the facts straight and get to the truth of a matter as best as one is able.
In that article and others, Cheshire repeatedly uses the term minimally conscious, a fact you conveniently failed to mention as it does not support your contention.
As Cheshire was not picked by either the Schindlers or the Schiavo's or the court for that matter, but is a physician appointed by the Florida Department of Children and Services, there is a greater likelihood his loyalties lie with the truth rather than to the interests of any of the particular parties.
Btw, were Terri braindead, she would have required far more than a feeding tube to remain alive. She would have needed a heart machine or a ventilator.
Person,
Are U brain dead yourself?
Did you read NOTHING valid ABOUT THIS CASE?
I feel sorry for you.
yesnettv
It was precisely because there was no documentation and the parties disagreed regarding Terri's care, that the dispute was taken to the court as MANY FAMILY DISPUTES ARE and is the reason in most jurisdictions, there exists a little thing called FAMILY COURT, which would have been the more proper venue for this case, rather than probate court.
Michael was residing with another woman, with whom he had two children, and therefore his "marriage" to Terri was in name only and was anything but typical. While legally he may still have been her husband MORALLY he was not.
The laws as they currently exist in many places will have to be changed to avoid other similar tragedies.
Not to quibble over details, but she was not "brain dead", just in PVS (permanently vegetative state), a completely different situation I'm lead to understand, so all this bickering about her being brain dead is just pointless.
Used, abused, and promptly forgotten by partisans on both sides. No one gave a good goddamn about the pitiful Mrs. Schaivo herself, many FReepers included. The whole case was a disgusting parade of egomaniacal media whores from start to finish and we are well quit of the whole degrading matter.
I see your point. However my point was that Florida Law was the ONLY thing that mattered in this case. Not feelings, suspicions, documentation or even, dare I say it, morality.
Thus, no where in this country should someone be starved and dehydrated to death without documentation.
So what you want is a law in every state (this is NOT a Federal issue) that would REQUIRE a family to keep a loved one on life support, INDEFINITELY, regardless of the doctors prognosis, unless that family could present WRITTEN approval from the family member in question? You really think that's a good idea? I don't. There simply are to many variables and unique situations that can come up. I think the decision is best left to the next of kin. They are most likely to have the victims best interest at heart. Please note, I said "most likely".
there exists a little thing called FAMILY COURT, which would have been the more proper venue for this case, rather than probate court
Great, another law to pass. All end of life cases should be handled in Family Court. I'm not sure about that one, given all the issues of money and property involved, I feel probate court is the appropriate place to hash that out. But even if it was handled in Family Court, what makes you think it would have turned out any different? Is there a reason you think it would? Wouldn't it be just as dependent on the judge in the case as it is anywhere else?
Michael was residing with another woman, with whom he had two children, and therefore his "marriage" to Terri was in name only and was anything but typical. While legally he may still have been her husband MORALLY he was not.
All that shows is that he did things you, and I for that matter, consider to be morally wrong. He did NOTHING illegal. Sorry, that's just the way it is. It was disgusting of him to behave that way IMO, but NOT ILLEGAL. THAT is the material point.
The laws as they currently exist in many places will have to be changed to avoid other similar tragedies.
THAT is the proper way to address this, not to call for the Governor and the President to BREAK THE LAW, as MANY here did. There are some instances where private citizens disobeying a law is called for. But the standard for Political Leaders to break the law, is far greater IMO. And the life of one person of questionable consciousness was simply not worth the crisis that would have befallen this nation if they had done more than the law allows.
This was a family matter, and should never have been made into the media circus that it was. The family's behavior in that regard repulsed me, as did the behavior of the protesters at the time.
As much as we disagree on this issue, one thing we can agree on. You have the right to petition the government to change the laws as you see fit. And I have the right to vote for or against them depending on their actions. I suspect thats exactly what will happen.
Wow. Ping to you for seeing through all the posturing, and getting to heart of it.
I wonder if Mitch Stacy thinks Roe v. Wade was a "right-to-die case"?
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.