Exellent idea, windchime. I will do the same.
I am confused about the amicus curia briefs of Crist and Bush. How can Crist seem to be on one side and the governor seem to be on the other side? Please clarify.
"I hope FReepers , especially those who have been hypercritical of Governor Bush , will do the same."
I started to, and then I went back and read again what he actually said. I agree with what he said here:
"The support - caring even where there is no curing - affirms human solidarity in both directions: care-giver and care-receiver. It is a human virtue to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and in that act of caring we affirm that it is a human person we care for - not some mere physiological process."
The following leaves too much wiggle-room, and does not address the Constitutionality nor MORALITY of the State taking upon itself the role of God, acting as the arbiter of life and death in cases where the condemned is INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME.
"The Governor submits this memorandum to ensure that the Court consider the critical distinction between removing artificial life support and the deliberate killing of a human being by starvation and deydration. These are two different actions. The first is performed according to state law and is allowed under Florida's constitutional right to privacy. The second is prohibited by the right to life enshrined in the Florida and federal Constitutions. The Governor submits that REMOVAL OF THE FEEDING TUBE WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING BY MEDICALLY ACCEPTED MEANS WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF CAN INGEST FOOD AND WATER ON HER OWN, WITH OR WITHOUT REHABILITATIVE THERAPY, CONSTITUTES THE DEPRIVATION OF HER LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW" [i.e, 14th Amendment law, I presume, which is not the higher law referred to in the Delaration of Independence, which stated that our right to life came from God and not the State.]
"....Services to rehabilitate Terri's swallowing musculature are necessary (without them, she will surely die), and so fall within that retained right....." Terri SHOULD be allowed the rehabilitation to try to restore her ability to swallow food, BUT HER LIFE SHOULD NOT HINGE ON WHETHER SHE CAN SWALLOW FOOD OR NOT. TERRI IS ALIVE AND CONSCIOUS! SHE IS GOD'S CHILD; SHE HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME, AND THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO MURDER HER. PERIOD!
It also does not address the issues brought forth in pc93's INCREDIBLE letter @ #1126 of this thread, to the Governor's office, one of which is that Terri's injuries were not investigated by the authorities. It does not address the fact that in spite of all the courtroom and media hype, TERRI DOES NOT FIT INTO THEIR CATEGORY OF 'UPPER BRAIN DEATH', NOR DOES SHE FIT INTO THE CATEGORY OF PVS.
It's a START, and may give us more time, and for that, I am grateful, but these other issues MUST be addressed, starting with WHY Terri's husband, with all the skullduggery brought up about this case, is not REMOVED from her guardianship until ALL of these issues are resolved. I did a little research at Blackstone's this morning, because I still had a link in my history file (my google is not working.) This is what it had to say about guardians, in part:
BOOK I.
Ch. 17.
"...they forget, how much it is the guardian's interest to remove the incumbrance of his pupil's life from that estate, for which he is supposed to have so great a regard... k.
k The Roman satyrist was fully aware of this danger, when he puts this private prayer into the mouth of a selfish guardian : Pupillum utinam, quem proximus baeres Impello, expungam. Perf. 1. 12. [ anyone translate?]
l c. 44.
m 1 Inft. 88.
n This policy of our English law is warranted by the wise institutions of Solon, who provided that **** no one should be another's guardian, who was to enjoy the estate after his death. (Potter's Antiqu. l. 1. c. 26.) And Charondas, another of the Grecian legislators, directed that the inheritance should go to the father's relations, but the education of the child to the mother's; that the guardianship and right of succession might always be kept distinct. (Petit. Leg. Att. l. 6. t. 7.)
o Co. Litt. 88.
.{FE}
The RIGHTS of PERSONS.
BOOK I.
Ch. 17.
....... In order therefore to prevent disagreeable contests with young gentlemen, it has become a practice for many guardians, of large estates especially, to indemnify themselves by applying to the court of chancery, acting under it's direction, and accounting annually before the officers of that court. For the lord chancellor is, by right derived from the crown, the general and supreme guardian of all infants, as well as idiots and lunatics ; that is, of all such persons as have not discretion enough to manage their own concerns. ***** In casé therefore any guardian abuses his trust, the court will check and punish him ; nay sometimes proceed to the removal of him, and appoint another in his stead p. "
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch17.htm [I replaced the 'f' with s's wherever I could]
I will give Jeb the benefit of doubt on this for now, and am even more inclined to believe he has a heart and Terri's welfare in mind after reading the two articles posted by phenn. And I will e-mail him to thank him, and will continue to pray that God give him guidance.