Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Several bloggers have drawn attention to a strange lead in a Washington Post story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results. The June 16 Post story by David Brown said that "Terri Schiavo died of the effects of a profound and prolonged lack of oxygen to her brain on a day in 1990, but what caused that event isn't known and may never be, the physician who performed her autopsy said…"
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Despite your assertion to the contrary, it wasn't. It was 'testimony' by witnesses who heard what Terri said first-hand.
People I have seen you try to annoy are decent. I do not engage in word wars with people who use words as tools for effect rather than their meaning. I learned that many years ago in my dealing against communists who use that technique.
You simply do not yet have the training to come across as effective.
What I think this argument comes down to is (a) people who think it's okay to kill someone who is handicapped because, in their opinions, that life is no longer worth living, and (b) people who understand that life is scared.
As in abortion, where there is an honest question of whether someone is a human being, viable, or alive or not, killing is not an option. You always, always err on the side of caution. Why? Because individual human lives are one of a kind, we are not dispensible, and because human life is sacred. There is a difference between denying a human being food and water and someone who is dying because their body can no longer process food and water. One is murder, the other is a natural process called dying.
That's all.
scared=sacred. It's early yet and I've only had two cups of coffee!
Please note the thread from Jim Robinson. Tahiti was killed in an accident on Jul 3.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1438089/posts?page=1
R.I.P.
8mm
Why you bother with Malahki is beyond me. He/She is a lost liberal just like all the other liberal trolls that come along on the Terri threads. I have learned if you don't feed the trolls they will go away. Since they think it is ok to be starved and deydrated to death might as well send them on their merry little way!
Oh yeah, he's a liar.
And once you accept the premise that he caused her collapse, it becomes more and more apparent.
I'm not trying to annoy anyone. I'm posting my opinion, and since you don't like it you seem to feel free to constantly insult me.
Oh, well. Easier to insult than reason, I guess.
You sounds like someone who doesn't know the definition of IS or can spin it to mean whatever you want. Go away troll!
They did NOT want him to petition the court to kill her.
Clearly that was not contemplated at that time.
And once he began cohabitating and fathering bastard children, they fought him to keep her alive.
The resolution of Congress of August 29th, 1788, had confirmed in their possessions and titles the French and Canadian inhabitants and other settlers at that post, who, in or before the year 1783, had settled there, and had professed themselves citizens of the United States or any of them, and had made a donation to every head of a family, of the same description of four hundred acres of land, part of a square to be laid off adjoining the improvements at the post.
The Secretary of the north-western government, in the absence of the Governor, has carried this resolution into effect, as to all the claims to which he thought it could be clearly applied: there remain, however, the following description of cases, on which he asks further instructions:
1. Certain cases within the letter of the resolution, but rendered doubtful by the condition annexed, to the grants of lands in the Illinois country. The cases of these claimants, fifteen in number, are specially stated in the papers hereto annexed, number 2, and the lands are laid off for them but remain ungranted till further orders.
2. Certain persons who, by removals from one part of the territory to another, are not of the letter of the resolutions , but within its equity, as they conceive.
3. Certain heads of families, who became such soon after the year 1783, who petition for a participation of the donation, and urge extraordinary militia service to which they are exposed.
4. One hundred and fifty acres of land within the village granted under the former government of that country, to the Piankeshaw Indians, and on their removal sold by them in parcels to individual inhabitants , who in some instances have highly improved them both before and since the year 1783.
5. Lands granted both before and after 1783, by authority from the commandant of the post, who, according to the usage under the French and British governments, thinking himself authorized to grant lands, delegated that authority to a court of civil and criminal jurisdiction, whose grants before 1783, amount to twenty-six thousand acres, and between that and 1787, (when the practice was stopped,) to twenty-two thousand acres. They are generally in parcels from four hundred acres down to the size of house lots; and some of them under considerable improvement. Some of the tenants urge that they were induced by the court itself to come and settle these lands under assurance of their authority to grant them, and that a loss of the lands and improvements will involve them in ruin. Besides these small grants, there are some much larger, sometimes of many leagues square, which a sense of their impropriety has prevented the grantees from bringing forward. Many pretended grants, too, of this class are believed to be forgeries, and are, therefore, to be guarded against.
6. Two thousand four hundred acres of good land, and three thousand acres of sunken land, held under the French, British, and American governments, as commons for the use of the inhabitants of the village generally, and for thirty years past kept under inclosure for these purposes.
The legislature alone being competent to authorize the grant of lands in cases as yet unprovided for by the laws. The Secretary of State is of opinion that the report of the Secretary of the north-western government, with the papers therein referred to, should be laid before Congress for their determination.
Authentic copies of them are herewith enclosed to the President of the United States.
88 Jefferson's Works
Opinion on certain proceedings of the Executive in the North-western Territory.
December 14, 1790. The Secretary of State having had under his consideration, the journal of the proceedings of the Executive in the North-western Territory, thinks it his duty to extract therefrom, for the notice of the President of the United States, the articles of April 25th, June 6th, 28th, and 29th. Some of which are hereto annexed.
Conceiving that the regulations , purported in these articles, are beyond the competence of the executive of the said government, that they amount, in fact, to laws, and as such, could only flow from its regular legislature.
That it is the duty of the general government to guard its subordinate members from the encroachments of each other, even when they are made through error or inadvertence, and to cover its citizens from the exercise of powers not authorized by the law. The Secretary of State is of opinion that the said articles be laid before the Attorney General for consideration, and if he finds them to be against law, that his opinion be communicated to the Governor of the North-western Territory, for his future conduct.
Prayer request: Freeper Jack "Tahiti"Glennon killed in an accident on July 3
8mm
Terri however was not committing a contract. Her remark was offhand. In no sense did it carry the expectation or weight of a contract. It is mere hearsay.
Forgive me but you are no Conservative! Real Conservatives don't believe in deydrating anyone to death! Go away troll. Oh, i have no problem calling you or your other troll friends trolls, seeing that6 is exactly what you are!
See my reply to another poster above. It was hearsay.
These are your words. Smoke'em if you got 'em.
Your comments reflect a lack of understanding of what I said. Please reread what I said about words as tools.
And thanks for the bump.
Hearsay. It's defined in popular culture as something you heard someone else say. The legal definition is a bit different, but let's stick with the popular definition for now.
Lots of people believe that what you heard someone else say isn't admissible in court. That's not true. In the federal court system and Florida's courts (and probably every other state's courts), there is a general rule prohibiting hearsay but dozens of rather broad exceptions to the rule.
The fact that there are exceptions to a rule barring hearsay suggests that some hearsay must be okay, while other hearsay is not. What's the difference? Before considering that, it helps to understand what the problem is with hearsay in the first place.
The common assumption seems to be that hearsay is unreliable -- and should be kept out of court -- because the witness might be lying about what someone else said. Let's put this in Michael/Terri terms. I've heard innumerable people say Michael Schiavo should never have been allowed to testify to what Terri told him because he may have been making it up.
That a witness might be lying about what someone else said is a valid concern, but it's no reason to keep such testimony out of court. After all, what's the difference between Michael testifying that he heard Terri say "don't let me live like that" and Michael testifying that he saw Terri run a red light, or that he saw Terri eat broccoli one night? Nothing, in the sense of Michael's truthfulness. Theoretically, a witness could lie about what someone did just as easily as about what someone said. So, no, we don't make a special case out of hearsay because the witness might not be telling the truth.
We make a special case out of hearsay because, even if the witness really heard the statement, the witness might not reliably convey what the original speaker really meant -- either by mistake or because the original speaker wasn't clear.
A well known example of the problem here can be found in the modern classic My Cousin Vinny. When the officer accuses Billy of shooting the convenience store clerk, Billy responds in disbelief, "I shot the clerk?" Later, when the officer takes the stand and is asked to repeat what Billy said when confronted with the charge, the officer testifies, "He said, 'I shot the clerk.'" Subtle difference, but a huge one. The officer got the words right but the meaning wrong. You'd want to talk to Billy to be sure you understood what he really meant.
So the trouble with hearsay isn't that the witness might not be telling the truth about what someone else said. The witness's truthfulness can be an issue no matter what the witness claims to have heard or seen or done. The trouble with hearsay is that without the "someone else" there to examine, it can be very difficult to determine the reliability of the witness's interpretation of the other person's words.
If you look at the exceptions to the hearsay rule -- and there are dozens -- you'll notice that lots of them concern situations where we can be fairly sure of what the speaker meant. I may discuss this in more detail at a later time.
The next time you hear someone say Michael shouldn't have been allowed to testify to what Terri told him, ask if the person is being critical of Michael's ability to convey what Terri really meant or if the person just doubts Michael told the truth. If the answer is that we can't be sure what Terri's words meant, then at least the person's in the ballpark with the problems of hearsay (though it was still admissible...). If the answer is that Michael may have been lying, then the person doesn't really understand hearsay in the first place.
Yesterday, I saw on the news a protester carrying a sign that asked, "SINCE WHEN IS HEARSAY ADMISSIBLE?" I wonder how often protests involve rules of evidence.
I also heard hosts on news shows of three different networks express bewilderment at how the trial court could have relied on hearsay to determine Terri's wishes.
If you've read the trial court's original decision regarding Terri's wishes, then you know the court considered five persons' testimony of what Terri supposedly said to them about what she wanted. That's the supposedly inadmissible hearsay. Some say it shouldn't have been admitted. Others say it can't amount to clear and convincing evidence. "It's not in writing!" they say, as if writings aren't hearsay, or that a writing would eliminate any controversy. (More on that oft-repeated fallacy in a later post.)
I've addressed this issue countless times in emails, but the email flood has gotten too large in the last couple days to respond to each one, and this issue continues to bother people. It doesn't help that the media haven't figured it out. I wish they would. They're supposed to be doing a public service.
So I'll do what I can to clear this up on the blog. Someone tell the news folks.
Courts generally employ rules of evidence during trials, and a well known rule of evidence holds that hearsay is admissible to prove something only in limited circumstances. Under Florida law, there are about 30 or so such circumstances. You could say that one of them applies here, such as the exception for statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind. You could also say that Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Those are evidentiary reasons why the testimony was admissible. There's a better reason. A constitutional reason. Terri had, and every Florida citizen has, a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to decide that certain medical treatments should not be used to prolong her life. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly decided that this right can be exercised through written and oral statements.
In the landmark 1990 case In re Browning, Florida's high court explained that a surrogate attempting to determine what the ward would do can rely on the ward's written or oral statements. The court said:
A surrogate must take great care in exercising the patient's right of privacy, and must be able to support that decision with clear and convincing evidence. Before exercising the incompetent's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must satisfy the following conditions:
1. The surrogate must be satisfied that the patient executed any document knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence, and that the evidence of the patient's oral declarations is reliable;
2. The surrogate must be assured that the patient does not have a reasonable probability of recovering competency so that the right could be exercised directly by the patient; and
3. The surrogate must take care to assure that any limitations or conditions expressed either orally or in the written declaration have been carefully considered and satisfied.
The court also explained how the surrogate may have to defend any decision regarding the ward's orally declared wishes from a challenge by another person interested in the ward's welfare:
We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.
* * *
Although a surrogate may rely on oral statements made by the incompetent, while competent, to exercise the incompetent's wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the presumption of clear and convincing evidence that attaches to a written declaration does not attach to purely oral declarations. Oral evidence, considered alone, may constitute clear and convincing evidence. However, the surrogate would bear the burden of proof if a decision based on purely oral evidence is challenged.
Because the only issue before the court is a determination of the patient's wishes, challenges generally would be limited to that issue. For example, there may be challenges to claims that the declaration was not executed knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence; that the patient had changed his or her mind after executing the declaration; that the declaration was ambiguous; that the conditions or limitations contained in the declaration were not satisfied; that the surrogate or proxy was the one actually designated; and, of course, that there was a reasonable probability that the patient would regain competency. When the only evidence of intent is an oral declaration, the accuracy and reliability of the declarant's oral expression of intent also may be challenged.
(all emphasis added).
I quote these passages at length to show that the Florida Supreme Court has confirmed the ability of Florida citizens to use oral statements, not just written ones, to exercise their fundamental right to decline medical treatment. The rules of evidence help define how facts can be proved at trial, but they cannot be used to preclude the admission of statements that effectuate a fundamental constitutional right.
An assertion that the ward made a particular statement may certainly be challenged as unreliable -- that the ward never said it -- but there is no question that evidence of the ward's oral statements is admissible evidence, or that oral statements may constitute clear and convincing evidence. That's the law.
http://abstractappeal.com/archives/2005_03_01_abstractappeal_archive.html#111167384435979940
Well, he wants to be kept alive if he is ever in Terri's situation which is good since after I asked him what he wanted I told him that I would have kept him alive anyway because I don't believe in assisted suicide or murder.
I've also let my mother in law, parents, etc. know how I feel so that if they want someone to kill them if they are in a non dying state, they'd better ask someone else. Fortunately, they all want to be kept alive unless obviously dying and beyond recovery.
If a person wants to die, let them kill themselves. If they can't kill themselves then too bad. No one has the right to drag my mind and soul down into hell.
If a person specifies that he wants his favorite fishing rod to go to so and so but doesn't put it into writing, does the court go on hearsay in the distribution of property or by the will that's written down and witnessed?
I would say that the court would go with what's written down and that if the person wanted that fishing rod to go to so and so, he should have written it down and had it witnessed.
How can we place less importance on life than property?
And remember, a person's wishes are just that...wishes. I see no problem in honoring wishes if it's feasibly possible and not illegal or immoral.
Later, if there is time, I'll explain more. I've thought about this alot if I am in a difficult medical situation.
Look you statist, I have tried to be as friendly as possible but I'm really tiring of your one sentence statements based on nothing. I don't believe in 'dehydrating anyone to death' (fixed your spelling) but I don't believe in throwing away every rule of law, the Constitution, and the intent of federalism away based on the feelings of people that never met the woman and apparently could care less for the limits the Constitution puts on the federal government if it gets in the way of what you want. You're no better than bleeding heart liberals who want to do everything 'for the children'
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.