Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schiavo Appeal Has Been Filed
Fox News

Posted on 03/22/2005 6:13:43 AM PST by sonsofliberty2000

per Fox


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clausvonschiavo; deathocrats; dothewillofgod; euthanasia; godhelpus; goodforgopin06; governmentinstrusion; judicaltyranny; judicialcoup; medicalmurder; meninblack; parentsrights; politcalgain; schiavo; t4; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 1,681-1,696 next last
To: FairOpinion
This makes it painfully obvious, that they WANT to kill Terri

Why isn't it so painfully obvious to everyone, then? I just don't get it.

321 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:15 AM PST by SueAngel (I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as quick as I could.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

Yes, I agree.


322 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:22 AM PST by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Military family member

WHAT???? They have not established a substantial likelihood of SUCCESS? In spite of the fact that SUCCESS is keeping her alive like she HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS?

IMPEACH JUDGE WHITMORE. He is unable to see truth, and therefore unable to sit on the bench.


323 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:24 AM PST by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
"First, the Schindlers maintain that the trial court was required to appoint a guardian ad litem for this proceeding because Michael stands to inherit under the laws of intestacy. When a living will or other advance directive does not exist, it stands to reason that the surrogate decision-maker will be a person who is close to the patient and thereby likely to inherit from the patient. See § 765.401, Fla. Stat. (2000). Thus, the fact that a surrogate decision-maker may ultimately inherit from the patient should not automatically compel the appointment of a guardian. On the other hand, there may be occasions when an inheritance could be a reason to question a surrogate's ability to make an objective decision.

In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, [**7] Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker. [*179]

In this court's decision in In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), we described, in dicta, a method for judicial review of a surrogate's decision. The supreme court's decision affirming In re Guardianship of Browning did not squarely approve or reject the details of our proposed method. However, the supreme court recognized that HN2the circuit court's jurisdiction could be invoked in two manners:

We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.

In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d at 16 (footnote omitted).

In this case, Michael Schiavo used the first approach. Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court [**8] determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.

Second, the Schindlers argue that the trial court should not have heard evidence from Beverly Tyler, the executive director of Georgia Health Decisions. Although it is doubtful that this issue is preserved for appeal, we have reviewed the issue as if it were. Ms. Tyler has studied American values, opinions, and attitudes about the decision to discontinue life-support systems. As a result, she has some special expertise concerning the words and expressions that Americans often use in discussing these difficult issues. She also has knowledge about trends within American attitudes on this [**9] subject.

We have considerable doubt that Ms. Tyler's testimony provided much in the way of relevant evidence. She testified about some social science surveys. Apparently most people, even those who favor initial life-supporting medical treatment, indicate that they would not wish this treatment to continue indefinitely once their medical condition presented no reasonable basis for a cure. There is some risk that a trial judge could rely upon this type of survey evidence to make a "best interests" decision for the ward. In this case, however, we are convinced that the trial judge did not give undue weight to this evidence and that the court made a proper surrogate decision rather than a best interests decision.

Finally, the Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence. We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273. [**10]

In Browning, we stated:

In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker should err on the side of life. . . . In cases of doubt, we must assume that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right of privacy.

In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273. We reconfirm today that a court's default position must favor life.

The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and [*180] very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years [**11] in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

780 so.2d at 178-180.

324 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:27 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

That is a lie.

They did what they are allowed under the Constitution, against public and MSM outcry btw. That was courageous and to be commended.

I assume you advocate they overstep their Constitutional authority? The minute they do that they'll be run out of their respective offices and will be replaced with others a) that support Death b) wouldn't dare think of challenging the Judiciary again by assuming their natural rights to direct the jurisdication of the courts.


325 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:44 AM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal

The law passed by Congress states that the finding of facts by the state court must NOT be determinative.


326 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:48 AM PST by traderrob6 (http://www.exposingtheleft.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Halls
It was a long time ago now, but I seem to recall that Janet Reno snatched Elian the weekend before the 11th Circuit got his case. I remember thinking that that Court would side with Elian and was gleefully anticipating the AG being humiliated by the legal ramifications. Unfortunately, the case never got to the Court and even Alan Dershowitz said her move was illegal. Can anyone confirm that the 11th Circuit did hear the Elian case or is my memory correct?
327 posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:53 AM PST by mrtoby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

great post nicmarlo.


328 posted on 03/22/2005 7:28:04 AM PST by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
We should tell the Germans that we regret fighting the Nazis because many of their "values" have now become "American values." We can say that we have "moved on" and "learned" with their experience.

I totally agree. Much as it pains me to say so.

329 posted on 03/22/2005 7:28:24 AM PST by Terriergal (What is the meaning of life?? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000

Why on EARTH is keeping this woman alive even a QUESTION!? The fact that it has crossed people's minds to let her starve to death makes me ill. This whole debate brings new meaning to the term "brain dead." The liberals are brain dead. Terri Schiavo runs circles around them in the mental capacity department.


330 posted on 03/22/2005 7:28:25 AM PST by pkp1184
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
"What do you think of the possibility of the President ordering the federal marshal service to protect her as a lawfully-subpoenaed witness based on the Congressional summons?"



Either that or an executive action to enforce the Law that Congress passed just after midnight Monday morning and Whittemore virtually ignored in his ruling.

This law's intent is for Terri to have a "de novo" review of her case in federal court.
Start over, in other words.
Whittemore's "opinion" is in error, in my opinion, since he seems to defer to Greer's findings and assumes that the Schindlers don't have a chance to prevail in a new venue.
He's not supposed to do that, according to this Law.

That's just my take on the ruling, as a layman.
331 posted on 03/22/2005 7:28:28 AM PST by Deo volente (God willing, Terri Schiavo will live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Jenya
>>Lanie Davis was on toupee guy Abramson's show or whatever his name is (The Abramson Report), and Lanie was really going to bat for Terri. I just about fell off my chair.<<

Me too, and I will always remember him doing this. He is obviously a man who has some principal...at least on this issue.

Most leftists(including the media) are just recently interested in this case. Very few of them even know the facts and some are only opposing whatever pro lifers support..it is as simplistic as that.
332 posted on 03/22/2005 7:29:08 AM PST by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker; Mo1; Howlin; Peach; BeforeISleep; kimmie7; 4integrity; BigSkyFreeper; RandallFlagg; ...
Court Order denying Schiavo’s parents motion for a TRO, declaratory and injuncitve relief (March 22, 2005)
333 posted on 03/22/2005 7:29:14 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: writer33
It doesn't put you in the best of moods for the rest of the day. Especially, knowing some of the facts that aren't getting reported.

Fox and Friends, however, this morning, had on Carla Iyer. She told the truth. It was very good and extremely condemning of Michael's behavior, all along.

334 posted on 03/22/2005 7:29:34 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Military family member
I am curious as to your opinion of the President making an "Executive Order," or finding. Could that have an impact?

IMO, that would be a dangerous precedent. We Freepers crucified Clinton for making EO's...and rightfully so.

335 posted on 03/22/2005 7:29:35 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: penowa
Fla. started becoming a corrupt state in the late 60's and has gone downhill ever since.
336 posted on 03/22/2005 7:29:43 AM PST by keysguy (Time to get rid of the UN and the ACLU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: SueAngel

"I still can't get over the fact that the judges won't allow her to be fed by hand. If she were on a respirator and they removed it and found that she were able to breath on her own, would they then smother her?????"

You make an excellent point; a better analogy is that this type of thinking would allow any caregiver to keep food and water just out of reach of a child---and see them starve (or, I guess it's dehydrate which is "not painful"/ sarcasm). Their problem they don't have the power to feed themselves.


337 posted on 03/22/2005 7:29:53 AM PST by SolomoninSouthDakota (Daschle is gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"It's looking extremely bad for Terri and the Schindlers at this point."

Practically all options have been exhausted already! My prayer for Terri is either the Lord will have mercy and take her home quickly or if there is a shimmer of hope spare her life and move the heart's of the judges to grant Terri's parent's petitions.
338 posted on 03/22/2005 7:30:05 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Patriotic Rich
The RATS can not win an election 'cause of the majority of Americans...the only place they can win are in the courts 'cause of the liberal scumbags 'toon put on the bench...Wondering if the 11th circuit court will reinsert the feeding tube while this matter can be hashed out? I believe they will.
339 posted on 03/22/2005 7:30:09 AM PST by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sonsofliberty2000

She's running out of time.


340 posted on 03/22/2005 7:30:13 AM PST by Not A Snowbird (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Pajama Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 1,681-1,696 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson