Posted on 03/31/2005 6:55:11 AM PST by Eurotwit
Breaking now on CNN
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I know, and for someone that grew up not even going to church, I was enthralled by the whole process---
I believe in God and have read the Bible, call myself a Christian, but whenever I have tried going to church I have had some bad experiences--so, I do like by father said he did before he died--I have my own church time with God!
Anyway, I do love the pomp and pagentry of the Catholic faith, and I also love to hear the prayers of Jewish people during their holy days---
I guess that is why I love FR---I get to "mingle" with so many different people of different backgrounds, social status, lifestyles, ages, education, etc., but I don't have to worry about getting my feelings hurt if I dress the wrong way, or lick my fingers after eating fried chicken...lol
I went to a midnight mass once with my best friend, up until that time I didn't even know she was Catholic, it didn't matter, my friends were never picked by what denomination they were. It was the most beautiful church I had ever been in, I will never forget it.
I don't know if I've ever met any Jews. If they were they didn't tell me and I didn't ask, we didn't care. Their prayers do sound nice, I agree.
I've met so many different people on here, the majority of them sound like someone I would call a friend should we ever meet.
Or, wiping the pizza sauce off you chin and wipe your hands on the leg of your pants. Something I would bop my kids over if they ever did that while growing up. Uncouth, is what I'd tell them. Boy if they could see me sitting at my keyboard with all manner of food remnants on my pant legs. :-)
ping...sorry...it's how I feel.Well..... Just my opinion, but I think they did all they could, under the LAW.
Do the Bush's wish they could have done more? I think so. :(
Oh, yeah, the pizza sauce, I forgot---
You, my friend, must be a mirror image of me when I am freeping!!!
Unfortunately, those responsible for Terry's death will not feel any guilt, why? Because they are too busy slandering Terry's family. The cruelty of it all is almost too much to bear.
Okay, when do we insert counsel into the equation, and when do we not? Because I haven't seen any sort of criteria for that out of you yet.
"Conflict of interest" is the best I can do, sorry. There's always a little conflict of interest in any relationship, so there's sliding scales and balancing tests.
For lawyers, at least, there are mandatory ethics classes, and mandatory annual refreshers, and monthly mailings from the State Board setting forth ethical rulings and disciplinary proceedings, and if you're stumped you can call the State Board and get an advisory opinion.
But none of these work if the lawyer in question is hubristic, loony, or delusional.
"No, it doesn't. But it does begin the process of understanding how this really happened, without which we're pretty likely to see it happen again."
I agree. First thing we have to do is not forget about it. Next is educate others what did happen here. And last, find a legal way to end this. There is no way that someone should be put to death in this country without the opportunity to have their rights protected. In this case, Terri could not do that herself and the judge went overboard at ignoring her rights, even though the whole case was about her life.
Remember to ask your congressman or senator why they didn't mandate relief. That's one I've been wondering about myself.
Well, we were talking about Terri Schiavo. When the tube was to be removed for the first time at the request of Michael, a GAL was appointed. He did not think that MIchael was convincing as to the wishes of Terri. He was essentially fired and was not replaced. Terri was not represented by counsel following that until Terri's law was passed. Additionally, she should have had counsel prior to that time when Michael first directed no treatment for a urinary tract infection. This was so egregious(even though the record indicates consultation with her doctor) that the facility in which she was being treated challenged that decision.
http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm
In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a "do not resuscitate" order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael cancelled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility.
Additionally, she should have had counsel prior to that time when Michael first directed no treatment for a urinary tract infection.
Why? What would counsel have accomplished that wasn't accomplished anyway? He made a bad decision, the medical professionals challenged that bad decision, as the law explicitly permits, and the decision was rescinded. So basically, it looks to me like the system as it currently exists achieved the desired end in that particular situation. So what, then, does counsel buy you, other than one more hungry lawyer with BMW payments at the table?
The naïvete here is amazing. Do you really think that this is a case of the Judiciary's going against the will of the Legislation or the Executive? The agents in each of these branches are following their marching orders and cover for each other. What is the result of the criminal caper in Florida? That is really the only question worth answering because it alone points to the agenda. Here is a skeletal chronology:
1. The elderly and infirm represent a financial liability and cut into the bottomline of the Social Security trust fund and of the mega insurance corporations.
2. Psychopaths like Dr. Cranford are given the opportunity of establishing the academic rationale for euthanasia via publications like the New England Journal of Medicine.
3. Florida, as the state with the greatest per capita aged population is picked as the arena for a grand litigation show aimed at putting life-end issues under judicial control.
4. Schwein Schiavo gets recruited by Schwein Felos because he offers the possibility of a test case likely to be pursued through all stages of the Florida Judiciary.
5. A judge on the take is found who commits to hold the fort throughout the entire litigation show.
6. Elite donors endow various organizations dedicated to selling euthanasia as a socially benevolent policy.
7. Schwein Felos and the Euthanasia lobby help King and the Florida Legislation to amend Florida statutes to include feeding tubes under the heading of life-support apparatus.
8. Schwein Greer retroactively applies the new statute to Terri's case.
9. The corporate media, beholden to the elite group pushing euthanasia, creates public misperception by presenting the struggle as fueled by an unreasonable "religious right."
10. The Florida Legislature passes "Terri's Law," making sure to let it be known that they did so under pressure from the religious right.
11. The ACLU happily enters the fray to fight Terri's Law on constitutional grounds.
12. Jeb Bush makes a great show of defending Terri's Law, knowing that it is the perfect vehicle for getting all levels of the Florida Judiciary united in opposition.
13. Federal Legislation and George Bush play their respective roles in the bogus effort to save Terri.
14. The corporate press again riles up the public to resist the unreasonable "religious right."
15. Both the federal and the Florida Legislations manage to prove themselves powerless against the courts and public opinion.
16. Both the federal and the Florida chief executives declare themselves bound by "the law."
17. Thus shielded, Schwein Greer issues a final order of feeding tube removal and appends the illegal injunction against oral feeding and hydration.
18. The corporate press continues distorting the issue as one of politics.
19. Terri is brought to a premature death -- not through the withdrawal of the feeding tube, but by suppressing her constitutional right to receive oral hydration.
20. The felony act of withholding oral hydration is now elevated to the status of law, even though both federal and Florida statutes prohibit it.
21. A class A felony is thus turned into a legally permissible procedure and acknowledged as such by the acquiescence of the federal and state chief executives.
22. The corporate press hails the outcome as a victory of privacy against governmental intrusion, when in fact it is the very opposite.
23. The "religious right" gets appeased by vigorous finger-pointing at the "out-of-control courts," and quickly reunites behind the fascist leaders whom they view as victims and as the only hope for "reforming the courts."
24. After a few years of court-ordered murders it will be safe for state legislators everywhere to write the criminal procedure of oral dehydration into permanent statutes.
25. In future feeding tubes will be inserted into the targets, regardless of whether they are needed. The idea is to have "life-sustaining apparatus" that can be ordered withdrawn as a cover for also preventing oral hydration and nutrition. Job done.
26. The Bush boys shed crocodile tears over Terri's fate on their way to celebrating with their corporate fat-cat buddies, knowing that their "good intentions" will be defended to the death by the ultra-gullible.
So what? And the reason an attorney should have been appointed at that time is that Michael's action was demonstrably injurious to the well-being of Terri.
744.391 Actions by and against guardian or ward.--If an action is brought by the guardian against the ward, or vice versa, or if the interest of the guardian is adverse to that of his or her ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward in that particular litigation. In any litigation between the guardian and the ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward. If there is a conflict of interest between the guardian and the ward, the guardian ad litem shall petition the court for removal of the guardian. Judgments in favor of the ward shall become the property of the ward without the necessity for any assignment by the guardian or receipt by the ward upon termination of guardianship. The guardian may receive payment and satisfy any judgment in behalf of the ward without joinder by the ward.
Sorry, but the Catholics were the only group to so identify themselves as calling folks on the other side "murderers". I would have criticized anyone who made that insult. I do not criticize those I cannot identify.
Anyone who calls anyone else a "murderer" over this issue, or any other in FR, is going to be subject to well-earned, well-deserved criticism.
That priest gave all the Catholics away.
Tell me who the others were, and I'll criticze them too!
So basically, the permanent counsel effectively has a veto over every single thing the guardian does, by the simple expedient of forcing the guardian into court to defend every single decision. And your family will be happy with this arrangement, where a complete stranger comes in and demands that they answer to him insofar as your care is concerned, will they? Seems a bit doubtful to me - if you don't think you or your family would enjoy being subjected to that, and I don't think that I or my family would enjoy being subjected to that, then odds are lots of families would object, and hence this is going nowhere fast.
A good guardian ad litem shouldn't waste a court's time with things that are obviously reasonable, but you are correct that guardians ad litem can be a pain in the butt.
... but without somebody to oppose guardians' actions incapacitated wards would have zero protection.
The guardians are supposed to provide that protection, as the ones who know you best and care about you most. I fail to see how replacing your loved ones with strangers "protects" you better. Now, granted, the law isn't perfect, and there will occasionally be cases that fall through the cracks, because the law isn't perfect. So the question is, is the attempt to perfect it worth the intrusion on families we're talking about? Because I'm pretty sure it's not...
If a guardian is, in fact, worthy of trust than a guardian at litem does nothing but waste time and money. Unfortunately, there's no magical way to know if a guardian is in fact worthy of trust. Having a stranger serve as guardian at litem isn't a great approach, for a variety of reasons, but I don't know of any other method for protecting wards from unscrupulous guardians.
To return to my earlier example, suppose a guardian wants to use a ward's money to buy a Rolls Royce in which to transport him. The guardian claims the Rolls Royce has features that would make it especially suitable for the purpose. A guardian ad litem looking at such an intended purpose should recognize that the guardian might be making the purchase to enhance his own prestige rather than to benefit the ward; he should thus research other vehicles to determine whether the Rolls Royce represents the best use of funds, or whether another vehicle that was equally suitable for the Ward could be had cheaper.
I'll readily admit that GAL's have their own potential conflict of interest, insofar as they want to have lots of billable time but have little incentive to work especially hard on research. Nonetheless, I don't really know of any better way to prevent unscrupulous guardians from acting contrary to their wards' interests. Do you?
I cannot help but believe that JUSTICE will eventually be done here, and the Pro-Death Left--including Michael and Felos and Greer--will end up taking a major black eye in the brouhaha...MUD
"So what?" So saying that someone was "essentially fired" is misleading BS, and intentionally misleading BS at that, that's what. It misrepresents the situation by suggesting that the guardian was involuntarily removed as some sort of retaliation for his recommendations, when that is absolutely false, and you know it.
And the reason an attorney should have been appointed at that time is that Michael's action was demonstrably injurious to the well-being of Terri.
That's not what I asked - I asked you what an attorney would have accomplished that wasn't accomplished anyway, what an attorney would have done that wasn't done anyway. Riddle me that one, Batman.
Why I believe you should unfurl Ol' Glory and display her again.
You and your husband began to fly our flag at the beginning of Ronald Reagan's presidency. A pretty good reason to start I'd say.
But RR was not without deep sorrow over not being able to curb, let alone end, abortion. In meeting with Mother Teresa in 1985 she all but compelled him to end this abominable practice. But as hard as his efforts were RR failed to do so, and 1 1/2 million infants were and are still aborted each year in this country.
But not for a second did RR ever lose faith in the greatness of America and in Americans.
"I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead" --- RR November 5, 1994
Perhaps the most important reason you should run Ol' Glory back is to prevent this scenario from occurring:
One of the neighbor's kids is riding her bicycle by your house and notices that there is no more flag. She's a charming little girl, the goodness of youth abounds in her. She is representative of the next generation we'll pass onto custodianship of America. When she asks, "Joanie, why did you take the flag down?"
Will you tell her what you told us in you post above?
I know I've no business in trying to convince you otherwise, but that wasn't going to stop me from expressing my feelings. :^)
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.