Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000
per Fox
Yes, and even though I don't agree with the whole euthanasia thing, you cannot discount someone's written wish.
Just out of curiouslity, since you are a trial lawyer. For a moment, put yourself on the side of representing the parents in this particular proceeding. Would you have argued, on behalf of the Shindlers, that the three witnesses giving this tesitimony regarding having such close ties to one another, (i.e. husband, husband's brother and sister-in-law) should be given less weight than if the three witnesses were independent of one another? Clearly (at least to me) the brother and sister-in-law have an interest in helping their brother achieve his goal in this so that he can "get on with his life", so to speak.
Then go away or find another "mentally sanitized thread".
No one is holding your down starving you and locking you in one room for years with nothing but a computer.
Of course...that is called bias, and goes to the credibility of the witnesses. However, the law put the decision in the hands of the trial judge, and he found them to be credible.
True, but i think life support terminology needs to change. Life support is for breathing, not for eating. If we can breath on our own than we should be allowed to eat. If I was in a PVS and could breath, I better get fed! If I can't breath than let me go! We have gone overboard when deciding to stop feeding someone that can breath!
Nor is hearsay.
Also the court seems to fail to address the obvious conflict of interest position of the one uttering the said hearsay evidence.
And you also seem very happy to ignore that fact.
In matters much less serious then life or death decision where one stands to gain financially,people have to recuse themselves from participating in decision making on boards everywhere.
I seem to recall a hell of a fuss being made over Cheney's past relation to Halliburton, and Iraq contracys, soldiers dying for oil and blah blah blah.
doesn't have to be...nazi by association. Not all nazi's are German.
Excuse me, but if you don't want to hear it than why are you on FR and responding to it? Go away!
Yet, another well reasoned argument. I'll attempt to respond to your blistering logic anyway.
You have entirely misunderstood my statements. It's the sanctity of marriage that concerns me. Not what kind of jerk she married.
All the doctors that FELOS hired and GREER appointed were found CREDIBLE.
WHY? Because Judge Greer had already made up his mind Terri should DIE before he ever heard any of the evidence on the case. And I can prove it.
Are you a parent?
No poll is fair unless you are limited to only one man one vote.
I think the concern is that since it's his word against hers, and without documentation, to err on the side of death puts every man and woman sitting in a nursing home at risk that a less than scrupulous loved one paying for said care will come forward and say:
"Yeah - uh - Aunt Gertie - she told me back in 1993 there that she didn't want no part of dis here nursing home and lying in a bed all day, so - uh - go ahead and stop feedin' the money syphon - I mean, my LOVELY aunt."
Yes, this is why I figured that DNR orders would include no food, sad as it is.
I second that!
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but like it or not, Michael is the husband, and there is a legal precedence as to the utterance between a huband and wife. He may have broken his vows according to the church but that is a matter for the church.
"One of the first lessons in law shool is to seek the "unstated rationale." The system is manipulable and manipulated by powerful players."
Look, I suppose there is an "unstated rationale" in just about any facet of the law. From a strict constructionist perspective, however, there is little reason to look for a so-called "unseen hand" in the legal realm. Text is everything.
If the members of Congress had written this bill with sharper pencils, there would be a different outcome. The bottom line is that the legislation was a compromise. There were not enough votes to pass a bill...that actually had teeth.
I read that Michael claims they were watching TV or a movie dealing with such issues, and Terri said something like "I wouldn't want to live like that!" (As most of us probably have!). I've read nothing to indicate that even he claims they had a detailed discussion about precisely what conditions would provide the trigger.
I and Pastor jsut met with a guy who pastor went through basic with 43 years ago, he retired from the Corp after more than 30 years with stars on his shoulders. He said to Pastor:
"Bob, did you ever think we were fighting so that judges could use hearsay evidence to kill a woman?"
Eventually we are going to publish a whole lot of things from these meettings.
Thanks for the ping,
Jake
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.