Posted on 05/22/2004 7:07:30 AM PDT by floriduh voter
Believers in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence:
Where is Terri's independence?
I'm talking about her independence to learn and to be free from her lonely room.
To kick off Terri's May-June 2004 Dailies, our first article is by Deroy Murdock of Scripps Howard News Service.
Let Terri Schiavo's Parents Restore Her Dignity. May 22, 2004
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/images/columnists/deroymurdock.jpg
Derry Murdock
People with Java can watch some videos or click here to see written transcripts.
http://www.trincomm.org/marshall/player/finn.cfm?Bandwidth=56&Title=finn
Lindermann was exposed in 2003, but we just kind of forgot about him. So there is no trilogy of evil "judges" in Terri's fight: there's a quadruple of evil "judges." I put "judges" in quotation marks because they fall so far short of basic standards of decency.
http://www.flcircuitconference.com
Hit the bar that says "Officers."
Isn't that something how her name pops up every now and then?
Her address is:
Rm. 423, 315 Court Street
Clearwater, FL 33756
Her phone number is:
(727) 464-3232
It's important that we convey to the JQC that we know of the existence of the Conference of Circuit Court Judges and although the Chairs seem to consistently come from Pinellas County, no Chair or other member "ever" brought up Terri's Guardianship case which has been a trainwreck for at least ten years. Terri's property's been sucked up by the HINO's atty and Terri's very life has almost been stolen away from her 2 of 3 times now.
How can they meet and Terri's Guardianship case not come up? Maybe it has but THEY DID NOT ACT. All the more reason for the Fla Legislature and the Governor to create Terri's Law.
The judicial branch of the State of Florida is SERIOUSLY FLAWED if the top is not using their authority to oversee and point out defects throughout our Circuit Civil system throughout the state.
Marjorie Nighbert's story is aso sad. People really need to read carefully what these living wills have in them before they sign one.
GEORGIE GREER'S ON THE CONFERENCE OF CIRCUIT CIVIL JUDGES. No wonder they don't look at his POOR RECORD in Pinellas County.
I think he's on the Guardianship Monitoring Committee as well. He's placed himself so that he can bury "incoming" before it becomes a problem.
It looks like Lenderman is no longer on the Conference panel.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Remember that she transfered from criminal court relatively recently. I have not heard that she's said anything publicly, but if the case ever fell to her, she could be disqualified for having made a public statement. (Unlike Baird & Greer, who got away with it, I might add.)
Furthermore, it's an annual meeting. Maybe it hasn't been scheduled since she transfered, or became chair. I'm not disputing your statements. I'm saying that a history of her membership would be very useful, in more ways than one.
The judicial branch of the State of Florida is SERIOUSLY FLAWED if the top is not using their authority to oversee and point out defects throughout our Circuit Civil system throughout the state.
I'm in NY, and I can see from here that it's seriously flawed. A bunch of judges want to murder Terri.
I don't think I've ever heard of her. I'm going to do a search.
Yep, you can literally sign up for your own execution with a living will. How scary does it get?
CREATING A DISPOSABLE CASTE
by Wesley J. Smith
December 8, 1995
"Robert [Wendland] will need to learn to adjust to no stimulation," reads the sign above the cognitively and physically disabled man's bed at Lodi Memorial Hospital West. This means that for much of the time, Robert lies in bed, without lights, music or television. He may only have visitors for 1 1/2 hour per day.
This is a sea change in Robert's care. After 16 months in a coma caused by injuries received in an auto accident, Robert woke up and, until recently, was receiving physical and speech therapy to rehabilitate him. Robert appeared to be slowly improving. Indeed, he progressed so far in less than a year that he can maneuver himself in a motorized wheel chair through hospital corridors.
It is claimed by Robert's doctor, that the recent change in Robert's care is required by a problem with his blood sugar. But it may not be coincidental that Robert's activities have been diminished just as a court battle rages over his right to live. You see, Robert is the subject of a bitter controversy. His wife, Rose Wendland, wants to cut off the "medical treatment" of food and fluids provided through a tube. In fact, Robert would be dead now but for his mother and sister, Florence Wendland and Rebekah Vinson, fighting to keep him alive. Despite the fact that Robert is conscious and interactive, Rose's decision to cause Robert's death is supported unanimously by the Lodi Memorial Hospital ethics committee. However, a close look at the committee's approval reveals some disturbing facts. As far as is known, no one argued on behalf of saving Robert's life. The nurses and therapists, the very people who spend the most time with Robert, were never asked to appear before the committee. (Several were upset with the decision.) Indeed, the ombudsman, whose specific job is to advocate on Robert's behalf, wasn't even aware that Robert was able to manipulate a motorized wheel chair, when she too decided to support Rose's plans.
Wait, there's more. Right after Robert's mother and sister received an anonymous tip and decided to go to court to save his life, Robert was moved from a ward where he was known by staff who truly care about him, to another, where he would be cared for by strangers. The reason given, according to court testimony, was that Robert's initial caregivers were getting too involved with his case. But disability rights activists say that one way to make cognitively- disabled persons regress, and therefore appear less conscious, is to make them depressed. One way to depress such disabled persons is to remove them from a familiar environment, which is essential to their cognitive improvement.
As if that weren't disturbing enough, it now appears that Robert may have received inadequate medical care. Board certified neurologist and psychiatrist Vincent Fortanase, who has looked into Robert's case on behalf of Robert's mother and sister, has found disturbing facts from a review of Robert's medical records and discussions with his doctors and other care givers. For example, even though Robert has been awake almost a year, an electroencephalogram (EEG), which can help diagnose problems in the brain, has not been performed. Moreover, Dr. Fortanase determined that Robert may be having seizures. Yet, he has never received neuropsychological testing, important along with the EEG, because patients with seizures often respond to medication. Given appropriate treatment, Robert might obtain a higher level of interactive capability.
Dr. Fortanase recommends that Robert be transferred to a rehabilitation center that, unlike Lodi Memorial Hospital, specializes in treating brain-injured patients. There, he would be able to receive the diagnostic and specialized care he so obviously needs.
If that is to happen, it may not be soon. At Rose's request, the hearing to determine Robert's fate was just delayed from December 18, to March 4, 1996.
Robert's case is not unique. In Florida, the brother of 83 year-old stroke patient Marjorie Nighbert, decided to cut off her tube feeding, allegedly because of the terms contained in her advanced directive. Marjorie was not unconscious. During her starvation, she specifically asked nurses for food. This was so upsetting to one nurse that she blew the whistle. Enter the court, where, after a hurried investigation, it was determined that Marjorie was not medically competent to retract her advanced directive (in other words, to ask for the "treatment" of food). Thus, even though she had asked to be fed, the starvation was allowed to continue. Ms. Nighbert died on April 5, 1995.
All over the country, in hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities, conscious but cognitively disabled and aged people are being denied adequate care and/or are being starved and dehydrated to death in the name of patient autonomy, "quality of life", and "best interests of the patient" determinations. But what is really going on is the creation of a disposable caste of people, whom we, the healthy, find too emotionally painful, too expensive or too inconvenient to care for, and whose intentional killing we increasingly find all too easy to rationalize.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/DisposableCaste.html
********************************
The lack of stimulation, etc., that they did to Robert Wendland, sounds exactly what the HINO is doing to Terri. The death dealers sure know what to do to break a person.
Robert Wendland died of pneumonia today (July 17, 2001). His mother was at his side. Neither his wife nor his children were.
During the last several weeks of her son's life, Florence Wendland was not permitted to take him out of his room. She was denied all knowledge about the state of his health.
She does not know if he was properly turned or how or whether he was treated for pneumonia. She did not even know what ailed him. She has been denied access to all medical records and all medical information about his care. Florence Wendland learned of the purported cause of his death via a press release sent out by Lawrence Nelson, Rose Wendland's attorney, which he issued after her son had died. [Emphasis mine]
The fight to save Robert Wendland from dehydration was not in vain. A dangerous legal precedent was avoided. The lives of other disabled people, whose names we will never know, may well have been saved.
But this was merely a holding action. Unless we are able to convince society that disabled people like Robert Wendland have lives of equal moral worth, our society will continue to discount their humanity and brush off their deaths.
In the meantime, as we mourn the loss of Robert, we can only send our most sincere condolences to Robert's mother, who stayed with him to the end, his sisters and brother, who were allied with her to save his life, and all of those who believed fervently in Robert's right to live his life fully as a disabled man.
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/wend2.htm
**********************************
I'm not posting this to discourage anyone. However, I thought everyone might be interested in how this case parallels Terri's. I'm absolutely astounded to see how much the HINO, et al, must have studied this case. It looks very obvious just how methodical the HINO has been.
What a horrible crowd of judges, almost makes one think of a conspiracy. Conjures up an image of them chanting and dancing like the "Dancing Itos" on Leno.
Terri's case has far reaching implications and has revealed just how rotten the judicial system is in Florida where they apparently enjoy nearly unlimited power.
315 Court St. Is the address for the downtown Clearwater courthouse. Today will be my first chance to eyeball J. Greer. If his body language is anything like J. Baird's was, I will make note. They crouch down in their leather chairs in black robes and look like vultures, heads lowered.
Robert was shuffled away from quality care wing and things went downhill from there. His mom and sister tried to save him. HE WAS STARVED TO DEATH.
Hugh Finn was brain damaged but he was not brain-dead.
Local News: Two days before Michele planned to remove her husband's feeding tube Marshall organized a 400-member protest outside of Finn's nursing home to designed to heighten State awareness of his effort to halt Michele's plan.
His chances for success appeared to increase when Virginia's Health Department and Department of Medical Assistance got involved. Each agency sent representatives to assess Hugh's condition.
According to an affidavit filed by Virginia's Attorney General's office, a nurse from the Department of Medical Assistance reported that Hugh responded to her greeting with "Hi" and appeared to brush his hair from his forehead.29 As court documents indicate, this fueled the state's argument that Hugh was not in the process of dying and more importantly not in a persistent vegetative state. The Commonwealth stated that "failure to restrain or enjoin the withholding and/or withdrawal of nutrition and/or hydration will result in irreparable harm to Hugh Finn."
FV: Hugh Finn said hello to a medical tech and even brushed his own hair. He was euthanized anyway.
Michele filed for an emergency injunction to bar the state from having a "nurse observe Finn for 48 hours and to have an outside neurologist examine him."30 Judge Hoss, however, refused to grant her request, and the state's health department was permitted to continue its investigation to ensure that Hugh's rights were not being violated.
As the health department investigators began to assess his medical condition, Hugh's family, including wife Michele, met Sept. 28, 1998. They unanimously "decided to remove the feeding tube helping keep him alive, while imploring state officials who [had] become involved in the case to" leave them alone, according to an article in The Washington Post. In agreeing to withdraw Hugh's medical treatment, his family decided "not to ask the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn a Prince William County judge's ruling" that allowed Michele to proceed with the withdrawal. Hugh's brother, Edward, stated in the article that the family had "concluded that even if we kept Hugh alive, [they did not] think his quality of life would ever be anything to speak of." 31
After months of disagreement, the decision came as a shock to the state officials who had become involved in the case at the family's request. Reunited, the Hugh's entire family attempted to convert what had become a public affair into a private decision. However, the government was not ready to bow out of the picture.
Virginia Governor James S. Gilmore III stepped in at the last minute and attempted to intervene in the family's decision to remove Hugh's feeding tube. Reacting to a plea by Michele Finn's sister, Elaine Glazier, Gilmore filed a petition before the Prince William County Court at 10 p.m. Sept. 30, 1998.32 The state based its argument on the Virginia Code Section 54.1-2990, which indicated:
The state, it now essentially argued that regardless of his prognosis, Hugh was not dying. Gilmore believed Virginia Code Section 2.1-49 gave him the authority to interfere in this case. According to Gilmore, the law provides inter alia that:
Pursuant to his duty to protect or preserve the general welfare of the citizen's of the Commonwealth, the Governor may institute any action, suit, motion or other proceeding on behalf of its citizens…34
He determined that the law was failing to protect Hugh's legal rights and interests.
Judge Hoss, however, upheld his earlier decision to proceed with the withdrawal of nutrition fluids by citing a "1992 Virginia law [that] specifically allows withholding treatment from patients in persistent vegetative states."35 That ruling did not derail Gilmore, and he appealed unsuccessfully before the Virginia Supreme Court. Despite attempts by Gilmore, Hugh's feeding tube was removed on Oct. 1, and eight days later he died.
The Finns' ordeal was not the first to move from the hospital room to the courtroom. Prior to the Finn case, many state courts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court have had to decide similar cases. Many of these were used to argue both sides' positions in the Finn case. Most cases either highlighted the state interests for getting involved in this otherwise private decision, or the arguments suggesting that the U.S. Constitution affords each citizen a right to privacy that includes decisions regarding the continuation of medical life-sustaining treatment.
In what has become a frequently cited decision in end-of-life cases, In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647 (1976), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that although a state has an interest to preserve human life, there is a more compelling liberty interest involved. A person in a persistent vegetative state has a broad right of privacy that can be asserted by a surrogate or guardian. The court stated:
Our affirmation of Karen [Quinlan's] independent right of choice, however, would ordinarily be based upon her competency to assert it. The sad truth, however, is that she is grossly incompetent and we cannot discern her supposed choice based on the testimony of her previous conversations with friends, where such testimony is without sufficient probative weight. Nevertheless we have concluded that Karen's right of privacy may be asserted on her behalf by her guardian under the peculiar circumstances here present36.
The court addressed not only privacy, but also other complex issues such as the definition in of death and the role of physicians and the state in declaring it. These were relevant issues because Karen Quinlan's doctors as well as the state opposed removing her feeding tubes. Although the Quinlan decision set no legal precedent, the opinion has provided support to similar cases at both the state and federal levels.
Several Supreme Court cases have dealt with end-of-life issues similar to the Hugh Finn situation. In Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), the Court pondered the constitutional question of whether a state had legitimate interests in interfering with a family's decision to end the life of their daughter who they claimed would not want to continue life in her irreversible condition.39 The right of privacy was again a central issue.
The petitioner, Nancy Cruzan, was involved in an automobile accident and left in a permanent vegetative state. Her parents, co-petitioners, sought to have her nutrition and hydration tubes removed, which would ultimately cause her death. However, the hospital refused to remove them without court approval. After the trial court initially being granted permission to remove the tubes, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the decision citing the petitioners' failure to meet the state's "clear and convincing evidence standard."40
Missouri has a general interest in the protection and preservation of human life, as well as other, more particular interests at stake. It may legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of an individual's choice of life and death. The state is also entitled to guard against potential abuses of surrogates who may not act to protect the patient.41
According to the Court, the clear and convincing evidence standard places a necessary burden on those seeking to remove the life support from an incompetent individual because of the risk of error. It stated:
An erroneous decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo, with at least the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated by an event such as an advancement in medical science or the patient's unexpected death. However, an erroneous decision to withdraw such treatment is not susceptible of correction.42
The Court reasoned that although Missouri's clear and convincing evidence standard may have frustrated Cruzan's "not-fully-expressed desires, the Constitution does not require general rules to work flawlessly."
The Hugh Finn case and Cruzan illustrate how important it is for a person to plan for such tragic events. Both of these families could have been saved a lot of grief and expense had their loved one made adequate preparations. As discussed in the next section, there are several means to clearly express one's wishes that can effectively minimize the chances of state interference.
...one must examine the reasons this country was founded. The first settlers arrived in the early 17th Century to escape religious persecution. In the centuries that followed, these largely Christian people established a government to protect their beliefs and way of life. Although the Constitution promotes a separation of church and state, it was clearly founded on religious principles. It is these same principles that oftenv influence the nation's lawmakers and the decisions they make. This influence is inevitable because religion is often the foundation for most Americans' moral code.
The basic beliefs on which most religions are based are that life is sacred, and the end of it, in most cases, marks the entrance into the realm of the Creator. Hence, a government designed by religious people naturally has a stake in ensuring that its citizens live and die in accordance societal standards. Combine this interest with the government basic responsibility of protecting the welfare of its citizens, and it becomes apparent how death of any kind quickly falls under the state's umbrella. As recognized in myriad court cases, the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and welfare of its citizens, especially those who cannot protect themselves. Although death is a private matter among family members, the severity and finality of it warrant some governmental intrusion. Death affects more than the person in a terminal condition and his or her family. It involves doctors, health insurance providers, hospitals, and other institutions with financial and legal stakes in the patient's well being. The government also is obligated to protect them, and that means it must occasionally regulate this otherwise private matter.
Is "brain dead" dead enough? Though a state's involvement in end-of-life issues might seem burdensome, a decision by the government to exclude itself from death inevitably would lead to abuse, including inappropriate cessation of life support and euthanasia. As stated in Cruzan, an error in judgement in the decision to halt life- supporting treatment is not fixable. Though laws define various terminal conditions, including brain death and a persistent vegetative state, controversies over diagnosis and conflicting medical definitions leave many uncertainties in this area. That is why the idea of a broad right of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution is not fully embraced by the laws or the Courts.
Although the government restricts end-of-life decisions, it also provides a means for citizens to exercise self- determination. Living wills offer a citizen the opportunity to express his or her desires about end-of-life care should he or she become incapable of communicating them. Recognized in some form in every State in the Union, these preparations can effectively limit governmental intrusion into this private matter. Unfortunately for Hugh Finn's family, he did not draft a living will prior to the accident, and hence left open a series of questions that permitted state intervention.
In theory, self-determination is an ideal concept, and the Constitution and common law make limited efforts to ensure it. However, as quoted in Cruzan, the Court stated in Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), that "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."50
Nancy Cruzan died, Robert Wendland and Hugh Finn. WHO DECIDES? The healthy inconvenienced spouse or family member or, perhaps a stranger.
HINO's attorney's must have gotten the "right to privacy" stuff from one of the above noted cases because that's his favorite "argument" in Court.
1. Isolate them in a single room and never let them get any fresh air.
2. Start isolating them from family members who may disagree with current protocol.
3. If the loving family sees their loved one is in need of treatment and therapy, TAKE THEM TO COURT.
4. Let the court decide - and they're trustworthy, aren't they?
5. Take the financial resources from the disabled person and give it to a pro death attorney for FEES.
6. Kinda take care of the disabled American but not the care they should get in case they catch an illness before the euthanization.
7. Spread the word that everyone including the Governor is crazy for using their powers to protect the handicapped knowing that rehab and long term care should be the alternative to death for death's sake.
If there are problems in the starvation plan, try all of the above repeatedly until successful.
1. Sensory Deprive them in a single room and never let them get any fresh air.
2. Start isolating them from family members who may disagree with current protocol.
3. If the loving family sees their loved one is in need of treatment and therapy, TAKE THEM TO COURT.
4. Let the court decide - and they're trustworthy, aren't they?
5. Take the financial resources from the disabled person and give it to a pro death attorney for FEES.
6. Kinda take care of the disabled American but not the care they should get in case they catch an illness before the euthanization.
7. Spread the word that everyone including the Governor is crazy for using their powers to protect the handicapped. Rehab efforts and long term care should be the alternative to death for death's sake.
8. If there are problems in the starvation plan, try all of the above repeatedly until successful.
I don't know what happened to my other list but it's not right. Gotta go to court. Be back later. FV
You will be in the courtroom today, for You are not confined, as this mother's child is. Every breath that is taken to speak in her defense, You have given. Every breath that is taken to speak against her life, You have given. Truth will be told ... lies will be told ... and one judge is appointed to rule righteously and well.
Father, we recommit beloved Terri to Your care, for she cannot be sustained without You ... none of us can. Great is the evil aligned against her, but greater are You, O God. Let the light of truth come out of today's courtroom ... may this mother's child be one step closer to the day when You will sweep away all obstacles and Terri's family can finally care for her ... helping her to live. Turn these hearts of stone into flesh and blood ... let these merchants of death know fear, for the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. We plead for her life, in the Name of Jesus, we pray, Amen ...
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.