Replies

The problem is, the panel of physicians was approved by the court, which appears to be pro-death. I believe I have read that the judge admitted once to having read only one of six favorable reports filed by physicians on behalf of Terri Schindler.

Don't you think Terri ought to be given a chance to have therapy, if there are doctors who say there are possiblilities for Terri?

Bingo.

The lawyer and the judge too have a track record of being devoutly pro-death, pro-euthanasia, pro-killing of the inconvenient.

The bias is painfully obvious. Blatantly so.

There is no way that this woman qualifies as "persistent vegetative" under the laws that pertain to such. The judge decided to declare her such, in a daring assault on the law.

His "lift a spoon" and "ask for a ham sandwich" criteria for his "litmus test" would leave an awful lot of bodies in the hospice's dump room.

Starting with those in Christopher Reeve's condition, and including every newborn infant, up to six months of age, or older.

Not to mention gramps.

And not to mention all of us, sooner or later.

And the judge's decisions have been reviewed three times all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, and once up through the Federal system, including an appeal to the SCOTUS, which refused even to hear it -- which means there weren't even four justices who thought there might be anything worth looking at.

What do I think? I think that the law is that when a patient is unable to make decisions for herself, and has left no written instructions, her closest relative makes the call. Mrs. Schiavo's parents have spent ten years trying to get Mr. Schiavo relieved of his guardianship, and have failed to persuade any judge, anywhere, state or Federal, that he is not acting appropriately in her best interests.

And no, I don't think just because some other grieving relatives manage to dig up another doctor who has not examined the patient who thinks he might do some good trying something else is a good enough reason to prolong this any further.