Posted on 03/23/2005 2:34:59 PM PST by gopwinsin04
State officials say they are considering removing Terri Schiavo from hospice, by force if necessary, despite numerous court orders upholding the removal of the artificial nutrition tube that has kept her alive for 15 years.
Lucy Hadl, secretary of the Department of Children and Families, said Wednesday morning that her staff is relying on a state law that gives the department the authority to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable adult who is 'suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury.'
Hadl said that the DCF would have to file a petition in order to remove Schiavo, but that 'it doesn't mean we'd have to have judicial approval in advance of taking the action if we believed it met the threshold for doing it.'
Hadl said that seven years of court rulings backing Schiavo's husband Michael, in his contention that Terri Schiavo did not wish to be kept alive artificially would not stop the DCF from taking action.
'We're not compelled to look at prior judicial proceedings,' Hadl said.
What we are compelled to look at is the presenting circumstances and any allegiations of abuse and neglect that we have recieved. So we have to deal with those and fufill out statutory responsibility.'
(Excerpt) Read more at palmbeachpost.com ...
Inadvertently, you have swerved into the crux of the matter. The courts have said it, but there is question that Terri herself said it. The courts, using conflicted personnel, based their rulings on hearsay evidence, something not normally done when a person's life is at stake. Show me a legally binding, unaltered document that specifies Terri's wishes, signed by Terri herself, appropriately notarized and documented, then I'll believe it (and even then, I don't believe she, or any rational person, would wish to be starved to death). Until then, you're basing your judgment on hearsay, much of it offered by a person whose interests are obviously conflicted. Condemning an innocent person to die on the basis of such evidence is legally questionable, not to mention morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible.
So it's okay with you to starve a woman who has become disabled. How do you suggest we treat people who are born disabled? Should there be a panel to decide which lives are worthy of being lived? And then what?
WHAT CAN I DO BESIDES POUND MY KEYBOARD???
Being on one's deathbed and being a vegetable for 15 years are two different things.
Stop trying to make connections that aren't there and then when I don't make them call me a dumb ass. You sound silly and pompous.
"The courts have said it, but there is question that Terri herself said it. The courts, using conflicted personnel, based their rulings on hearsay evidence, something not normally done when a person's life is at stake. Show me a legally binding, unaltered document that specifies Terri's wishes, signed by Terri herself, appropriately notarized and documented, then I'll believe it (and even then, I don't believe she, or any rational person, would wish to be starved to death). Until then, you're basing your judgment on hearsay, much of it offered by a person whose interests are obviously conflicted. Condemning an innocent person to die on the basis of such evidence is legally questionable, not to mention morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible."
Well put. Mind if I plagiarize?
Just saw another post that says Terri's brain is virtually disintegrating. That's what I was afraid of.
That's exactly what I was thinking . . .
Guaranteed this did not happen.
I bet she asked for a cold Dr. Pepper and a slice of pizza too.
Pure propaganda.
Rampant and foolish.
I see I misdirected my response. It should have been posted to FReeper Jimmyclyde. My bad.
I ask myself the same question. Prayers, calls, emails, hoping; and if no one does what it takes to save her life in the mean time, I am thinking about throwing up all other plans and driving to Florida. I think the FL legislature will do it, I think Governor Bush will do it, I think the Supreme Court will do it . . . But ultimately, I don't think I can spend Good Friday with her dying of thirst, if she is still dying . . . just a show of solidarity, but if enough people are there, I am sure it will bring about the correct response too.
She is a vegetable, her brain does not function and has turned in a liquid state. And to top it off it was her wish (as decided by numerous courts) that she not live like this.
Stop forcing your views and morality on this poor women and let her die as she wanted.
Someone said it well yesterday:
As 'mildly pro-right-to-die' blogger Ace of Spades noted, 'You need a written contract for any lease of land that lasts more than one year; it seems very odd to me indeed that the taking of a human life requres only one hearsay statement from one interested party.'
In 1677, the Statute of Frauds required that certain contracts be put in writing to be enforceable. It begins
"FOR prevention of many Fraudulent Practices which are commonly endeavoured to be upheld by Perjury and Subornation of Perjury Bee it enacted by the Kings most excellent Majestie..."
I was suggesting that we are already well into that. That doing or not doing will each result in unintended consequences.
That was a very good article - sums it up well.
"Guaranteed this did not happen."
And how do you guarantee that? Were you there? Have you ever been in the same room with Terri?
How about this: I guarantee that she never said she would want to be starved to death if she were physically impaired.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Send in Janet Reno and her red pickup truck.
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.