Posted on 03/21/2005 2:14:45 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000
Just on Fox: Judge going back to chambers to review plaintiff (parents) request for restraining order and tube reinserted.
I knew a man who had stomach cancer so had most of his stomach removed and he had to be fed by the feeding tube. There came a time when the cancer returned and he said he didn't want to go through anymore so just remove the feeding tube and let him die.
Now this person was able to tell everyone his wishes, which Terri is not but it does point to a circumstance which is permissable to do.
...bringing back to mind the storming of the Florida home of Elian Gonzales on Easter morning. Satan is at his vilest at the holiest time of the year. And it's pretty easy to spot his pawns at those times.
God tends to use us, people, to do His will.
Ditto that.
Michael is the one I'd like to see slowly starved to death. If their roles were reversed, I'm fairly sure that Terri would show compassion for the jerk.
I think the calls for Jeb Bush to bring automatic weapons to bear on the situation are extreme.
A respirator and a feeding tube are entirely different things.
Food and water will not keep a terminally ill person alive for long. Terri won't die unless they kill her. Kill Her. Witholding food and water is an overt act. There are people in prison for that, too.
who are the rest of us to judge them
We are the people who do not want euthanasia in this country.
People need to get a grip and look at this from the standpoint of the dying who do not wish to be sustained in this manner. Why should they be kept alive against their will?
I don't believe anyone should be forced to receive medical care against their wishes. Neither do I believe anyone else BUT the patient can make that call to refuse care as minimal as a feeding tube. So the families who have taken upon themselves the decision to starve their loved ones *are* guilty of their deaths.
Completely playing devil's advocate here(no pun intended, ofcourse), but how do you know His will?
;-)
If I were about to retire, there is NO WAY I'd move to Florida.
Conceivably, if there were some evidence besides 7-year-old hearsay which has zero corroboration with anything preceding it (yes, I know Michael's relatives testified too, but I see no reason to think they didn't start "remembering" it as a consequence of discussions with Felos).
Further, I see no reason to believe that she'd rather be stuck in a hospice room for years with no fresh air or sunshine, then be at home with loving parents who dote over her, take her outside, maybe get a cat, and generally try to make her life pleasant. Michael's behavior is only consistent with one hypothesis: he doesn't want Terri's condition ever to improve. Why?
And I really must know: what legitimate reason is there for the prohibition against oral food and hydration?
Would you happen to know where to find it? I searched for a good while today and was unable to come up with particular statutes that discuss what FL considers to be life support. I know the legislation was changed to include feeding tubes in recent years and I would love to read it and know when it was passed.
Truth be told, there is a part of me that says if she really doesn't want to live this way, I don't want to wish it on her, but since that's not clear and she's being killed by simple hearsay, I can't give full vent to that feeeling.
What's worrisome is the absolute flaccid and passive acceptance of this by the majority of people, we've become inured to death. Little babies are dumped on the sidewalk, people are used to it. Babies dismembered in utero, flushed down a toilet or a sink, people are used to it. It is frightening, sickening and enraging, but we get the society we deserve because we asked for this, we voted for this.
I'm not directing any of this at you, I'm just venting, so thanks for listening.
Even in a tough situation for Michael, the media will take his side and cover up the important parts of the testimony.
My guess is that the federal courts want as little to do with this case as possible. Therefore, one way or another, Michael will probably not be "subjected to cross-examination." Hope I'm wrong.
"accept the possibility that she did tell her husband ..."
Well, I can. I think it's quite possible. But that's not what matters. What matters is whether it's also possible that she didn't say this. Also, what exactly she meant, and whether she might have changed her mind.
We will never know if the federal courts don't take up this case, and take it up seriously. That was the purpose of the congressional intervention.
The Judge is going to give his decision later tonite. He'll want to have as many of the demonstrators leaving the protest in front of his building (or get them tired) as possible before rendering his decision. Then his decision will be to not put the feeding tube back in, and he will dismiss the case, knowing that it will then immediately be appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeals located in Atlanta. All the focus will then go over there. This judge by doing it this way, will avoid having the case end up in his court and his having to deal with all the Schiavo supporters on his doorstep and the daily ordeal of having to handle a case he'd rather not handle. What judge would? He doesn't want to end up like Judge Greer has, with constant threats against his life, and protesters in front of his home or office. So, this judge will punt the political hot potato over to the Atlanta judges, who can make a decision without having all the Florida protesters screaming at them over in Atlanta. So, expect the results later tonite (I'd guess around 9pm or later). Expect him to dismiss the case, with no feeding tube put back in, and therefore extricate himself from ever having to deal with this case except for oh so briefly tonite. Once it's in Atlanta, his part is finished and he will breathe a sigh of relief.
It takes a unanimous agreement among twelve randomly-chosen people to sentence a criminal to death. Do you think twelve randomly-selected people would find self-serving hearsay testimony by a man about his wife's "wishes" credible if the man had moved in with, sired two children by, and pledged to marry, another woman? Would testimony by his relatives which was similar but not corroborative be seen as reliable, or as "Hey, can you help me out bro'?"
I would suggest that 90% of people, given access to the undisputed facts of the case, would smell a rat. The likelihood of 12 all managing not to seems pretty remote. Why is a single person allowed to sentence to death a woman who's not accused of any crime, when it takes a unanimous vote of 12 to sentence to death a convicted murderer?
That's correct.
I posted this on another Terri Thread. I might as well post it here.
During the time Michael was trying to get a $20 million dollar settlement so he could “take care” of Terri, he never mentioned her desire to die. He only mentioned it 10 years later after Terri's collapse when he and his brother suddenly remembered that it was Terri's wish to die instead of living in such a manner.
”It was a somber family gathering in the days after Michael Schiavo's grandmother died in 1988. Doctors had tried to revive the woman despite her written directive that she not be resuscitated. As family talked at a luncheon after her death, someone recalled Terri Schiavo speaking her mind.Nevertheless, just as late as last week - March 18, Michael told Larry King the following:"Terri made mention at that conversation that, "If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine,"' Scott Schiavo, Michael Schiavo's brother, told lawyers years afterward.
“As lawyers and the public debate Mrs. Schiavo's life, a look back at hundreds of pages of court transcripts reveals testimony largely forgotten in the national debate about her right to die.
That testimony helped a judge decide in 2000 that Mrs. Schiavo, left severely brain damaged after collapsing in 1990, would not want to be kept alive by artificial means.
Like almost everything in the case, recollections about Mrs. Schiavo's words are disputed. Some remembrances are called outright inventions. LINK
“Shortly after saying his determination to end Terri's life was about her wishes, Schiavo changed his story in the King interview. Asked if he understood her family's feelings, he said: "Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want. ..." LINK
The point is that those people are dying from the cancer already, while Terri was *not dying* before they yanked her feeding tube.
Sounds fine with me. What matters are (1) that the case receive a de novo hearing, and (2) that Terri isn't murdered before then.
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.