Replies

"Some things are more valuable and more important than obeying the laws of the state. Human life is one of them. If you are only looking at the this issue from the perspective of law, then you are not seeing the whole picture."

Either we have the concept of removing people from life support codified in the law, or we do not. Florida does have that in its laws.

The question, then, comes down to how that law is written and how it is applied.

Many here are opposed to any such laws, and I can respect that point of view, even though I disagree with it. The fact remains, however, that such laws are in place.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, the legal process has been long and has gone through many hearings and appeals. This case is about the law.

If enough people disagree with these laws, then they should devote their efforts to changing them. But...as long as laws permitting such removal from life support (which includes feeding and hydration in Florida) then the question becomes one of law.

I'm not there. I don't know any of the principals in the case. I have not read every court transcript. Because of that, I cannot make a judgment regarding this particular case. That's not my job.

As for myself, I executed a very precise living will in California, and re-executed it when I moved to Minnesota. My wife has done the same. It is a legal matter, based on my own desires, and will not be opposed, because I have made it absolutely clear under what circumstances I wish to have artificial life support (including feeding and hydration) ceased. Very clear.

I recommend that everyone execute such a document. If you wish for every means to be taken to prolong life, then you can put that in there, too, and it will be done. There is no excuse for leaving these things for family to decide, when you have to power to make such decisions for yourself.

Terri did not do that, but Florida law has options in such cases. The courts have ruled. Again, I do not know all of the details, so I must rely on those who do.

I've seen so much half-truth and supposition on this topic now for the past year or so. It has become impossible to tell exactly where the truth lies. So, I turn to the transcripts.

You may wish to do something else, and that's fine. You can protest the current state of affairs, and that's fine, too. However, without meeting the legal requirements for a challenge, you'll find that your efforts will not gain the result you want.

We are a nation of laws. If the laws are wrong, in your yes, change them by convincing others that they are wrong.

Quite eloquently put. I wish I had said it. I have been trying to track down all the legal citations in this case and have not had much success.

Florida tried by initiating a new law. The courts told them that that law interfered with a court ruling, and was therefore invalid because of 'checks and balances'.

Where is the check on the judiciary? It used to be the Executive and the Legislative branches, but the judiciary ruled that that wasn't permissable.

There is a higher law. It is called natural law. When positive law (i.e. federal/state/local law) is in conflict with natural law, then we must follow the natural law. This is why, for example, Nazis were not off the hook for following orders. Of course we should strive to change the positive laws so that they are in agreement with natural law. But we don't have to wait for the positive laws to be in agreement with natural law in order to be justified in violating positive law that is contrary to natural law.

-A8

Suggest you read this about Florida law on hearsay evidence -- which is the only evidence used to claim that Terri "didn't want to live like this", stated by her husband.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366225/posts?page=1402#1402

Florida law

90.802 Hearsay rule.--Except as provided by statute, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

765.401 The proxy.--

(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a
surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to
make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in
the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent
to act:

(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with
the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging
procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the
patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the
patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the
patient's best interest.

1,402 posted on 03/19/2005 9:16:05 PM PST by AndrewC

If enough people disagree with these laws, then they should devote their efforts to changing them. But...as long as laws permitting such removal from life support (which includes feeding and hydration in Florida) then the question becomes one of law.

Duh.

Well, we (the Congress, the legislature in FL< etc.) CHANGED the law - at the state level, and at the federal level.

And Judge Greer, in his blind hatred of Terri, threw those laws out. He refused to admit contrary testimony - based on nothing more than the fact that he didn't want to hear it.

And the democrats, in their hatred of pro-life Christians, are championing her death.

Black people would still be slaves if your process had been followed.