Posted on 08/28/2003 5:20:42 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
There is a ton of stuff on Hugh out there to read. His wife initially got $500,000 in life insurance, as I recall, and then went after more money from the state. She lives in Kentucky again, here ya go.
Nervy gal, ya think? Looks like killing her husband got her a new line of work. Sorry to be so rude about her, but I really, really think she was cruel.
The most telling piece of information about Schiavo was how he got Terri's parents to sign a legal document giving him sole guardianship over her. He apparently did this days after she became ill. M. Schiavo is a cool calculating despicable human life form. Part of what really bothers me is how he is getting away with all of this. It is so unfair.
Excerpts: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is the result of two Supreme Court cases. At its core, the doctrine is a recognition of the principle that the inferior federal courts "generally" do not have the power to exercise appellate review over state court decisions. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal review of lower state court decisions, just as it precludes review of the decisions of a state's highest court.
In order to determine the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the fundamental and appropriate question is whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from that judgment. Stated otherwise, is the plaintiff seeking to set aside a state court judgment or is he presenting an independent claim? If the injury alleged resulted from the state court judgment itself, Rooker-Feldman directs that the lower federal courts lack jurisdiction even if the alleged injury resulted from a state court action which was unconstitutional or erroneous and even if the plaintiff failed to raise their federal constitutional claims in a state court.
....It is thus obvious that the injury of which plaintiff complains resulted from an order of the state court and the relief which he seeks is the setting aside of that order and the entry of one more to his liking. It is precisely this type of case which the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits the federal courts from hearing. As we do not have this jurisdiction to hear this action, it must be dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Lazz...whatshisname, I've lost my copy - in essence, directed the Schindlers & their attorney, and I think that was kinda nice of him. Perhaps they could use the U.S. Constitution, that of protection under law.
Typos are mine. 'nite
It was the idea of the doctors themselves, to kill them.
What this is, in reality, imo, is plain old simple discrimination. Against the mentally incompetent or lacking.
A baby with a very treatable defect is born, but because the infant also has Downs, the parents are allowed to starve it to death. Why? Because it would have a lesser quality of life as a Downs syndrome person.
If an infant without Downs had the defect, easily treatable with surgery, they would never think to ask the parents about forgoing treatment and allowing starvation. But it happened, and it was an initial opening to what we are seeing now.
You see how they are taking our stance on parental rights, so important to us as conservatives, and making them evil? At least I think so.
Now the courts are telling us what is "quality of life" that deserves to live, and if the family wants to eliminate them for a lesser ability, then so be it. Just like they began not too long ago, asking pregnant women about aborting infants when tests showed that the infant might have a defect. Remember when that was a novel thing?
It's a subtle creep into the same arianism of the nazis.
Anyway, Here is another good one from Wesley that I wanted to post here.
It is partially why I looked for and found the one on the teen diabetic that I posted earlier, where the hospital actually suggested that the parents kill her because the insurance had run out.
Working in healthcare, I have been suspicious from the start that rising healthcare costs are a biggie behind all of this.
There is no chance that you will convince another doc to take your mom who needs a feeding tube at another hospital because the first hospital is kicking you out for lack of insurance.
Disabled = no rights, in contrast to what we think happens in this country, just as Terri's father has said.
I am now reading the chapter on Germany in my newly acquired book, which I cannot recommend to you all highly enough, Forced Exits, and it is extremely disturbing to see the parallels.
Equal protection. Exit protocol. Judge Greer's ignorance of Terri's true condition & his refusal to accept video & audio tapes as proof.
I've got to go to bed.
It happened more than 10 years ago. I was pregnant with my third child and the controversy over Baby Doe was still swirling.
Baby Doe was a newborn boy who was born with Down Syndrome and a defect in his esophagus that needed surgical correction before he could drink from a bottle. Although this operation was routine for newborns with this problem, Baby Doe's parents refused it, and a court upheld their decision. Several parents came forward offering to adopt Baby Doe and even pay for the operation. They were rebuffed, and Baby Doe died six days later without being fed.
I was shocked. Why didn't the court or the law protect Baby Doe from such obvious discrimination? How could the parents' lawyer maintain that it was a "loving decision"? Did that mean that parents who make sure their disabled children receive life–saving treatment are unloving?
Four months later I gained a new understanding of the gravity of those questions when my daughter, Karen, was born with Down Syndrome and an even more serious condition than Baby Doe's: a life–threatening heart defect. I was stunned when Karen's doctor said that there was an operation available with an 80 to 90 percent success rate, but that he would support my husband and me "100 percent" even if we chose not to operate.
I was furious. As a nurse, I knew that such an operation would have been presented as a technological blessing, not an option, if my baby were not mentally retarded. I told the doctor that I resented such discrimination, that my daughter had rights of her own, and that if he was prejudiced against children with Down Syndrome, he could not touch her.
To the doctor's credit, he recognized his well–intentioned mistake and promised that he would do his absolute best for my daughter. And he did.
But it frightened me that there was such a biased attitude among even good, caring doctors. Could I really trust any of those health–care providers on whom my child and I depended? I came to realize that Baby Doe's parents "private" decision had an enormous impact on public policy and attitudes, leaving my baby at risk if I did not protect her.
Even though both Baby Doe and my Karen died several years ago (one by parental decree, one despite the best medical care), I found them often on my mind as I followed the Christine Busalacchi controversy. She, like Baby Doe and Karen, had mental disabilities, although at different points on the disability spectrum. Christine's father, like Baby Doe's parents, felt his child had no quality of life and went to court to prevent feeding. Mr. Busalacchi also "won" the right not by changing the law but by political and judicial aquiescense.
But the same question raised in the Baby Doe case must be raised again: Should parents have absolute power over their children's lives or do the state and society have an obligation to ensure that everyone, disabled or able–bodied, has a right to necessary care and treatment?
We have forgotten that, before the Baby Doe case, the answer used to be obvious.
Why do we view harm to children and the elderly as an issue that the state and society must address regardless of family involvement, while maintaining that no one may even question whether a father has a right to act on his opinion that his mentally disabled daughter would be better off dead? Are mentally disabled people any less vulnerable?
The Busalacchi controversy was not about making a medical decision: Christine was neither dying nor too sick to receive food. In fact, in 1991, she was able to take most of her food by mouth before her father insisted that only the feeding tube be used.
The controversy was not about the severity of disability: There are many people who cannot smile, eat, or laugh like Christine could (even as a so–called "reflex") who are currently receiving care and treatment. And despite the offensive and medically untestable label of "vegetative," a recent study showed that most of the families studied were unwilling to withdraw food and water.
No, the issue is really about equality. No one should be denied care or treatment required for others just because he or she has a mental disability.
But for now, the Missouri Supreme Court and the state administration have refused to act on cases such as Busalacchi's, allowing family choice to be the overriding issue. And, as I personally found out, it is not hard to find doctors or others who would be willing to concur with the family in death decisions.
It is families like mine who have tried to give their mentally disabled loved ones the best quality of life possible who must now watch sadly as the planned death of Christine Busalacchi is portrayed as a victory for family rights.
The disability rights movement has had great success in ensuring access to parking spots, public buildings and education for the disabled. It's a tragedy when the disabled cannot be ensured access to something as simple as food and water. Top Copyright © 2001-2002. (Lifeissues.net) Kochi, Japan. All
We need the "pound that rock." (John Gruden, 2002 Buccaneers). On Monday, it's time to start CALLING Governor Bush again. He got nowhere with Judge Greer. Jeb needs to go back to the legislature because that's why the problem begins, the EXIT PROTOCOLS in the Florida Statutes are designed for starvation without representation. (it becomes a Federal matter IMO because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL & VIOLATES THE ADA Act.) If Judge Lazzara is a good, little Clinton appointee, he'll cry "state's rights". Maybe Gov. Bush is waiting for J. Lazzara's next decision but WE'VE GOT TO KEEP CALLING GOVERNOR BUSH and urge our friends to do the same. Our CONTACT LIST is at Post #1753.
We're almost at 2000 posts. I haven't been this focused since the 2000 recounts here in Fla.
Jeb's re-election was more labor intensive but I feel I am serving something greater than myself by helping Terri.
The right to die movement has quietly slipped their agenda into our laws because "death is not a fun topic" for anyone but them. They ran with it where they saw opportunities.
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.