Posted on 09/16/2006 8:44:44 AM PDT by Jawn33
Perhaps the last word should go to Pat Flores, the mother of George Melendez, the 31-year-old coma patient who reassured his parents that he wasn't in pain after taking Ambien, as zolpidem is known in the US. He was starved of oxygen when his car overturned and he landed face down in a garden pond near his home in Houston, Texas, in 1998. "The doctors said he was clinically dead - one said he was a vegetable," says Pat. "After three weeks he suffered multi-organ failure and they said his body would ultimately succumb. They said he would never regain consciousness."
He survived and four years later, while visiting a clinic, Pat gave him a sleeping pill because his constant moaning was keeping her and her husband, Del, awake in their shared hotel room. "After 10 to 15 minutes I noticed there was no sound and I looked over," she recalls. "Instead of finding him asleep, there he was, wide awake, looking at his surroundings. I said, 'George', and he said, 'What?' We sat up for two hours asking him questions and he answered all of them. His improvements have continued and we talk every day. He has a terrific sense of humour and he carries on running jokes from the day before.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
How do you know this? What evidence do you have that she made any statement with the intention and expectation that the act of making such statement would cause her to be fatally dehydrated?
Many people over the years have made remarks similar to what Terri is alleged to have made, under circumstances similar to those in which she is alleged to have made hers; during the 1980's, very few such people who made such statements in such circumstances did so with the intention that such statements in and of themselves could have been used to cause them to be fatally dehydrated over a period of almost two weeks. Since there was no way any type of verbal statements could be so used prior to September of 1990 (months after Terri's collapse) the notion that Terri could have intended her statements to be so used when 99% of those who made similar statements in similar circumstances did not, absent explicit evidence of Terri's intention, is preposterous.
This is getting a lot of play. If it turns out to be true, and I'm going to withhold comments about certain individuals until this has been completely dissected and stands up to the intense scrutiny coming its way, it'll be nice confirmation.
But I know I was right to defend Terri with or without this.
Our government sentenced an innocent woman to death because she wasn't able to speak for herself. The Judiciary IS a part of our Government.
I was in a depression for weeks after that occured.
I have NEVER retracted a single statement I made against those, even on FR, that supported this atrocity. For a reason. Heated as the moment was, I stand by everything I said then. About them and about what was allowed to happen.
Science, I'm sure, will eventually prove me right. Whether this is the moment of truth, or sometime in the future. But supporting what is right shouldn't take scientific confirmation before someone joins the bandwagon to choose to support LIFE instead of DEATH.
Nor do polls dicate to me what is right. For one thing, the American people were lied to about Terri so the polls were based on misinformed opinions of the case to begin with. For another polls overwhelmingly supported Iraq and the WOT intially. What happened? persisent brainwashing campaign by the MSM, partisan oneupmanship and too many weak American souls that have grown "weary" of a war they aren't even literally putting their lives on the line to fight. The public isn't always right. And even when they are, they aren't always able to withstand consistent pressure to renounce their position. I stood against them on Terri, and I still stand against them on Terri.
that is not a traveler that is a rabid dog
There is no point in debating these folks. I read too many posts of joyous celebration that this poor woman was starved to death. It is sickening. God will be their judge; I suspect it won't be pretty.
If something falls under an exception to the hearsay rule, it's not hearsay. And plenty of people have been convicted based on evidence that falls under an exception to the hearsay rule.
To the contrary, people here are upset that the law was not followed, except to the extent that a baseball pitch which bounces on the ground in front of home plate while the batter watches motionless is a "strike" if the umpire calls it one.
I, and many of the people here, have read the court filings and rulings. Unlike some people, however, many of use do not believe that every word that comes forth from a judge's pen is automatically true.
Having won a multimillion lawsuit for funds to get Terri going again at her maximum for natural life, hino was a skunk, a rat, a fiend, and a bum to turn his back on that. Or else not to have given the money back if he had forgotten about Terri's "wishes" in a senior moment. Of course this is the kind of kool aid that travelers try to sell to us all.
I thought that anything one person claimed to have been said by another was hearsay (they "heard" it and "said" it) but that not all hearsay was inadmissible. Even when hearsay is admissible, there are often significant restrictions on the uses to which it can be put or the inferences that may be drawn therefrom.
Generally, by my inderstanding, there are two objections to hearsay:
The court cites Joan's friendship with Terri as a basis for its decision. It ignores, however, the fact that Joan apparently didn't think Terri was very serious about what are now claimed to be her "wishes" (as evidenced by the fact that she never discussed them with anyone, nor kept herself very well informed of Terri's condition). How then is the court not substituting its own judgement of Terri's earnestness for that of Terri's best friend who, unlike any of the judges, had actually met Terri and (if she is to be believed) gotten to know her?
rage against the machine, cat.
Please identify specific statements made by anyone other than Michael Schiavo, Scott Schiavo, or Joan Schiavo. Since Terri's family also includes her parents and siblings, "most" of her family would have to include someone other than the Schiavos listed above.
Yeah, pointless I know, but I like developing new arguments. I think the "best friend" angle is interesting; the only way I can see that Joan can possibly be telling the truth about being Terri's "best friend" is if she didn't think Terri was being very serious when talking about her wishes. Surely if Terri was serious about her wishes, her best friend would at least do enough research into her condition to determine if they were applicable and would thus know what a feeding tube was.
I wonder if anyone can counter that argument, or if they'll just ignore it like almost all the rest.
Interesting! Never thought of that.
No wonder Greer threw out all the nurses' testimony. It was too damning.
Carla Sauer Iyer had all the attributes of a highly credible witness. She had no interest other than telling the truth. Actually, she testified against interest, just to tell the truth. She had contemporaneously reported Michael's suspicious acts to the police a) at the risk of her job [which she lost], and b) at the risk of being punished for filing a false report. She backed her story with her deeds.
She never changed her story and her story was as plain as pudding as far as Terri was concerned. She related the most everyday incidents, lovingly, and mentioned other witnesses to support her own daily hands-on experience caring for Terri. All completely lifelike and believable. It was her statements about Michael that cut too close to the bone for Felos and Greer. But she has never budged on that story either. In one way or another, four other nurses gave testimony supporting Iyer's about both Terri and Michael.
The statements were fatally vague, even if she made the remarks. They had no resemblance to a legal contract. If Terri did indeed say, "I don't want to live this way," it is good femalese for "Michael, you are a bum. Get a steady job and treat me right." No sensible person would take it to mean, "Kill me."
What struck me about Terri's alleged comments -- and I hope any interested lawyers will check this out -- is that they were tailored to fit the exact status of Florida right-to-privacy law as it stood many years later when this was argued in court.
The window for legally withdrawing hydration and nutrition from a patient is very small and tricky. The patient may not simply ask to die -- assisted suicide is illegal. The guardian may not make medical decisions for the ward, nor may he make any decisions medically harmful to the ward. The only way to do it is for the patient to give informed consent to refusing further medical treatment, which falls under an alleged right to privacy. (Food and water were not medical treatment when it was possible for Terri to make her comments.) And this must be "clear and convincing."
I invite any lawyers to review the testimony of Scott and Joan Schiavo about what Terri supposedly said in casual conversations from ten or fifteen years earlier. See if it does not seem tailored the teensy death window of the law as it stood so many years later. Note the careful allusion to "tubes" -- as if a simple feeding tube could conjure the spectre of a patient at death's door hooked up to giant machines with IVs running every which way. Terri was not hooked up to any machines.
One other detail. Scott and Joan didn't remember these bits of conversation with Terri until they had had a personal meeting with Michael's attorney, George Felos.
Wow, what a heart-wrenching experience. What love, as you hung in there with your daughter.
Thanks for sharing that.
No, in the court record. Why don't you read the testimony yourself instead of quoting biased sources? Here's a link. Michael Schiavo's testimony about refusing antibiotics to Terri
Some things that look like hearsay aren't hearsay - e.g. business records, official reports, admissions of a party opponent. Some things are still hearsay in a technical sense, but not inadmissible hearsay -- excited utterances, res gestae, and so forth.
The exact classification is important only to lawyers of a scholarly bent -- the real question is "is it in?" or "is it out?" The test is whether there are what the courts call "independent guarantees of trustworthiness." Excited utterances fall under this category, because they are usually made without forethought in the heat of the moment. Deathbed statements ditto, because the speaker was in the article of death and presumably had the fear of God before his eyes. Official records (unless the books were being cooked) are also made without forethought. Statements against interest ditto.
Statements of a party-opponent are a little different. It's not really an independent guarantee, but the party is there and can be examined and cross-examined until his eyes rattle for the benefit of the jury. Then the jurors can decide between his original statement and his testimony in court.
Pretty boring stuff for a Sunday morning.
What an experience! Blessings to you for your devotion to your daughter.
No, 'tain't :-)
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.