So serious is the crime of murder, in fact, that God prescribes the death penalty to those who do it (Gen. 9:6). The reason given: Man is made in the image of God. By this biblical reasoning - which you have appropriately brought forth in an earlier post - Michael Schiavo should face the death penalty for murdering an innocent human being. The judges, at odds with God's law, are likewise complicit in murder. Of course this will not happen, but their actions will be adjudicated and avenged by the final Judge, absent atonement through Christ.
If you subject the bible to higher criticism, as did your namesake Winston Churchill (brilliant politician, awful theologian ["The Inside of the Cup". New York. Gossett and Dunlap Publishers. May 1912.]), you lose all basis aside from your own subjective feelings for deciding which Scripture is accurate/inspired and which is not. We can then twist things about such that bad is good and good is bad ala Isa. 5:20:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
In the process, we lose the firm foundation and are to be found floating into the oblivion of relativity with the existentialists, atheists, and other poor, hopeless souls.
As to the silence of Scripture on certain explicit activities like drug use, we can draw conclusions from parallel things which are mentioned, such as drunkness, and the body (of a Christian) being the temple of the Holy Ghost. We can also draw conclusions about things such as smoking - certainly not a sin, but foolish for the health.
absent sufficient proof of ill-will to displace him
It seems the proof is there, but his powers are such that he is able to prevent it from ever coming to light. He has jumped through all the legal hoops. Michael Schiavo has not exhibited the open and honest attitude of one with a clean conscience. On the contrary, he is very secretive and "protective" of Terri, as if afraid of some discovery. If he truly loved Terri, he would
* want her family to have complete freedom to visit her.
* order regular dental care (her teeth are presently rotting due to a lack thereof).
* have therapies aimed at improving her quality of life, such as restoring her ability to speak and swallow.
* have the broken bones in her body properly mended (I'm not a doctor and don't know if this is possible. BTW how did she get the broken bones to begin with?)
. They have scrupulously (so far as I can tell and no one here argues to the contrary) reviewed the evidence against the husband and have found that it does not overcome the presumption that he can properly discharge his function of making those decisions.
As someone pointer out earlier, Greer discounted Dr. Gambone's testimony. He accepted Dr. Bambakidis'. Gambone was Terri's doctor for 15 years. Bambakidis spent less than an hour with Terri.
sourceMYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her. FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.
Dr. Melvin Greer [HMMM, ANY RELATION?]
Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.
During a 2002 medical evidentiary hearing, Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he certified Terri as terminally ill so that she could be placed in Hospice Woodside. When questioned under oath why, he said it was because Michael told him to do so.
journals.aol.com/justice1949/JUSTICEFORTERRISCHIAVO/entries/333
and here are 4 articles at TEJ mentioning Dr. Gambone...
In response to your #580, the actions of the courts in this case - not because I don't like the result but rather the vetting criteria for evidence that accepts and eliminates based on a criteria besides merit and provability - shows them to be more advocate than judge. The foregoing demonstrates this. Their actions nullify the weight of your argument drawing on a continued appeal thereto - they have ignored key evidence in this case. Are you prepared to back up a charge that this is all fabricated?
__________
1 John 5:16
I think it is hard to make sense of the entire passage if one posits that 'death' there refers to physical death. I assume you would agree that if John intended that meaning, that meaning would have had to have been intended throughout the passage, i.e. he didn't mean something different by 'death' in 5:16 from his use of the same word in the rest of the passage.
I simply can't make sense of the passage with that presupposition. Can you give me a paraphrase of the passage that would fit within the larger message of John's epistle? Can you suggest any expositor or commentator who has ever suggested that 'death' in the passage referred to physical death?
I certainly agree that murder is serious, I also agree that we can properly reason from those things which are mentioned to those which are not (but you have not made such an argument here) and I do not support or indulge so-called 'higher criticism' (the real WC (apparently) to the contrary notwithstanding). None of these things however argue that 'you shall not murder' really means 'you shall not commit suicide'.
_________________
The Evidence of Husband's Unsuitability for Decision-Making on Behalf of Terry
Here you make two different arguments which can be conjunctive or disjunctive.
Wrongfully Suppressing Evidence
You suggest that husband (i)'... is able to prevent [evidence of unsuitability] from ever coming to light', (ii) 'He has jumped through all the legal hoops' and (iii) he 'has not exhibited the open and honest attitude of one with a clean conscience.'
As to (i), I think every adversary I have ever had has wanted to suppress unfavorable evidence (to him). It is my job as the adversary to see that doesn't happen. Where have husband's adversaries been? Have they been complicit in your view? How did this malevolent guy pull this off?
As to (ii) everyone has to 'jump through the legal hoops' but what does that mean? How, in doing that, did he manage to suppress evidence unfavorable to him?
As to (iii), assuming arguendo that he did the things you mention, how did he keep the court (and opposing counsel) from noticing? Bottom line: Every party to a lawsuit would love to suppress unfavorable evidence, but it is almost impossible to do. The best one can hope for is to 'explain it away'. But frankly that is precisely what judges (and juries) hear everyday and, in my experience, are pretty good at seeing through the fog.
At the very end of your comment, you come back to this and express your unhappiness with a system in which "[You]don't like ... the vetting criteria for evidence that accepts and eliminates based on a criteria besides merit and provability - [and which therefore] shows them to be more advocate than judge." I presume you mean the rules of evidence and there is something about the 1991 nuclear imaging report which you find troubling. You imply but don't say directly that it was excluded from evidence. Is this your objection? What was the basis of exclusion?
Let me just say that a career as a lawyer has convinced me that more injustice occurs from a lack of application of the rules of evidence than from their application. In short, I think they are pretty good at divining the trustworthiness of evidence. I know that's general, but I don't know your specific objection related to the 1991 report.
Improper Weighing
The balance of your argument is that you are more impressed with the probative value of certain evidence than the judge was and you conclude therefore that he improperly weighed it.
You say that the judge valued Bambakidis' testimony more highly than that of Gambone. I'm not sure what he did with Cranford and Greer. But a trier of fact (a judge or jury) always has to weigh one expert's testimony against others. All experts are, to some degree (some more than others) 'hired guns'. But again that is what most judges do pretty well and they count on respective opposing counsel to show the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Moreover, as with any witness, the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor while testifying is very important. That is why appellate courts are not supposed to reweigh the testimony of witnesses -- expert or lay. Even when I read the transcript of the testimony, the test has to be: is there some testimony in the transcript which if believed would support the trier of fact's determination? If so, I must yield to the trier of fact who heard and saw the witness. So, I'm not overly impressed that you could pull out testimony which could have supported the opposite conclusion. That is almost always true - particularly with experts.
I need something more before I could conclude that the process wasn't fair.