The GAL was dismissed because when he found that Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest, Felos filed for his dismissal on the grounds that the GAL (Pearson) was biased. And of course, Greer obliged- as ALWAYS to whatever Felos said or wanted.
That was Greer's ACTIONS through all of this. "If ya don't agree with me, you must be biased, whack, ignored, and/or sealed."
"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."
Really? Kindly discover that Florida statutes, while amended to permit the removal of life-sustaining apparatus, explicitly forbid the withholding of oral hydration.
Was Terri capable of orally ingesting small quantities of fluids? Yes, the documented absence of drooling attests to her ability to swallow her own saliva.
Could her alleged mid-1980s statement to not want to be "kept alive by anything artificial" possibly have included a categorical rejection of oral nutrition and hydration? No, for two obvious reasons. First, then and current Florida statutes make the withholding of oral hydration and nutrition a class A felony, colloquially known as murder. Second, Even the most liberal interpretation of "anything artificial" could not include a spoon or a manually operated dropper.
By the way, at the time of the alleged statement not even feeding tubes were considered life-sustaining apparatus, and their withdrawal -- with or without the patient's consent -- was treated as murder. In view of the fact that Terri has not had a chance to adjust her alleged statement to the subsequent Florida statute-amendment that included feeding tubes, we have to assume that in Terri's mid-1980s mindset even feeding tube withdrawal constitutes the unwanted experience of being murdered.
Regardless of the subtleties pertaining to the feeding tube issue, there is no federal or Florida law permitting the withholding of oral hydration from a patient capable of receiving it. The posting of guards at the patient's door to prevent -- among other things -- the administration of oral hydration can therefore not be seen as anything other than a component in an act of murder.
You may argue that the withdrawal of the feeding tube was for the specific purpose of honoring Terri's alleged wish to not be sustained by "anything artificial," and that her subsequent death resulting from the withdrawal was sanctioned by law. Terri, however, did not die from the feeding tube withdrawal. She died from dehydration effected by the withholding of oral hydration. Had she been given fluids by mouth, as the law states was her right, she would not be dead at this moment, even though her alleged wish of being freed from "anything artificial" would have been honored all the same.
Withholding a vital substance like water by mouth is no less murder than withholding a vital substance like air would be. If, after the feeding tube removal, Terri's room would have been made air-tight to cause her to suffocate, would it have raised your eyebrows? If so, why should it not raise your eyebrows that her room was made watertight by the posting of guards? That is what caused her death, not the debatable merits of feeding tube removal.
Remember that Terri's capacity to orally ingest fluids in small quantity was evidenced by her ability to swallow her own saliva, just as her capacity to orally ingest air was evidenced by the unaided expansion of her ribs. Had it been a respirator that was removed, her natural ability to inhale would have sustained her. Likewise, after the removal of the feeding tube her natural ability to swallow fluids would have sustained her. Now, with which part of the classification of murder in this case do you take issue?