Posted on 03/25/2005 12:46:00 PM PST by RGSpincich
excerpt
Dershowitz...
But Florida has said essentially that a statement made to a spouse and repeated in court may be enough. By the way, I want to correct one thing. I don‘t want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. It‘s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband. It‘s not testimonial. It is a statement.
And he is not describing something that is hearsay. He is an eyewitness to that statement. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
No, it's not just you. A lot of us wonder why she could't have swallow therapy, speach therapy etc. and then be able to tell us what she wants.
Was it moi?
I was thinking about this as I drove home from work yesterday. It's absolutely terrifying that we live in a country where the law has evolved into such a mess that its almost become like a game show (What will the circuit court rule, Bob? Place your bets! Wrong? Try again next week in federal court! Press your luck!). And every year, law schools churn out a new crop of these people; its almost graduation time again.
And the whole thing is encouraged by posters here now!
Can you remember back when it was FReepers calling the lefties "crybabies" for their ridiculous appeals and inability to accept a court's ruling?
What a sad state of affairs.
The bad taste is the appearance that Greer sided with the husband from day one and gave only obligatory access to the mother and father.
As for the federal courts, they should install a drive through courthouse. Your life or death decided by judge whitmore's personal opionion in the span of less than two hours. Two hours to keep life or protect the other judges decision of death.
The republicans, no matter how the LA times or NYT spin this incident have shown themselves to be on the right side and winners of this. It is PAINFULLY apparent the democrats had always planned on using Republican conviction, in light in terri dying, as a "ha ha ha" you lost campain.
I find if VERY troubling that Whitmore found it so easy to "game" and "nuance" to find in favor of death in such a short time. That Clinton appointee is a very disturbing judge.
The schindler's were out lawyered only in the sense that it is obvious MS was surrounded by more than felos. Felos had his hemlock society buddies, the kevorkian hanger's on, he had the communist founded ACLU (which seems to be keeping a low profile), and it would not surprise me if Felos was using law students as clerks from a local law school. (class credit for killing a disabled woman)
I do not know much about the Schindler's lawyers. I do seriously believe they are just out gunned and no human being can sustain the endless efforts of the last seven days. Felos has had time for press conferences and "urges" to the schindlers to surrender. He could only do that if he had other people typing and researching.
No. He never testified under oath.
Of course, I agree with you. And appreciate you putting it in easy to understand terms.
It might as well be. You miss the point that the status quo is her being fed, just like my six month old niece. If we stopped feeding my niece it would be an act of murder wouldn't it.
Terri Schiavo is not brain dead as far as anyone can tell. If you are brain dead, you have suffered an irreversible loss of all functions of the brain. If agreed to by at least two physicians, that means you are legally dead, such that your organs can be harvested to help other people.
Instead, Ms. Schiavo is in what many physicians call a "persistent vegetative state," or PVS. That means that she lacks an awareness of herself or other people, cannot engage in purposeful action, does not understand language, is incontinent, and sleeps a lot. To be clinically classified as being in a PVS, these conditions should be irreversible. But from what we know, some doctors dispute one or more of these conditions and believe that it is possible that whatever her symptoms, they are not irreversible.
Her condition is hardly unique. In 1995, when the American Academy of Neurology published its report on people in a persistent vegetative state, it found that there were as many as 25,000 adults and 10,000 children in this country who suffered from PVS. Based on the best studies the academy could find at the time, some adults in a vegetative state 12 months after a devastating injury or heart failure could recover consciousness and some human functions. The chances that such a recovery will occur are very small, but they are not zero.
If they are not zero, then withdrawing a patient's feeding tubes and allowing her to die from a lack of water and food means that whoever authorizes such a step may, depending on the circumstances, be murdering the patient. The odds against it being a murder are very high, but they are not 100%.
This is by Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient James Q. Wilson
He so desperately wants to be a SC justice that he salivates at the very prospect.
Okay..so when 911 arrived, she didn't have the tube in. By your reasoning, her status quo was not to receive any care.
Obviously, you can't use "status quo" as the criterion for deciding what should happen.
How about we go with "Mrs. Schiavo's rights"...?
The legal status quo would be the 7 years that she lived before Michael "remembered" that her wish was to die. Those years would probably precede the years that he has lived with his girlfriend and had children with her. Perhaps if he had divorced her before he remembered, then her parents would have some standing but then would he have gotten the malpractice award? I honestly don't like to impugn him, but how can we ignore the inherent conflicts he has?
I would love to go with Mrs. Schaivo's rights if there were not reasonable doubts as to what they are. If only:
-Michael had remembered her wishes when the condition began
-Somebody other than his own in-laws supported his statements
-The reports of her improvement with some rehabilitation were not available
-Michael did not have economic and relationship incentives to see her dead
It's all so uncertain, except death.
You don't know her wishes, I don't known her wishes, apparently the court thinks it knows her wishes, but the court's knowledge would not be enough for a criminal conviction. I would hate to put a criminal to death with this kind of uncertainty.
Thank you for your reasoned response. Far better and more convincing than many others who claim to be "conservative" as they advocate the stormtroopers marching in.
That being said, I still don't agree with you.
Some things are worse than death. The key to my response to your post is: *I'd hate to see rights denied with so little evidence saying she'd was adamant to live, and her husband saying otherwise.*
Mr. Schiavo even formally offered not to benefit economically from the death, and it was the Schindlers who encouraged the relationship incentive. Why do the Schindlers' changes of heart not matter?
That seems to be a correct interpretation of Judge/Governor Greer's position.
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.