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 ...
Maybe beating the stuffing out of someone and breaking lots of bones causes stress.
You can't argue with a politician's logic.
I heartily agree with that part.
Far as the rest goes, I wouldn't let any kids near Peter Pan. lol
I know it's hard for you to admit you are wrong, and you would make a heck of a good ACTIVIST judge.
Even after ACTIVIST Judge Greer saw all of this evidence, he still ordered Terri's murder:
The parents testified their daughter never talked to them about life support. But, they and Meyer (Terri's friend) said, Mrs. Schiavo supported placing her grandmother on a ventilator and opposed Karen Ann Quinlan's parents, who gained national attention in the 1970s when fighting to remove their daughter from life support
http://www.sptimes.com/News/012800/TampaBay/Family_says_marriage_.shtml.
David Gibbs III, the attorney for Schiavo's parents, filed a motion Wednesday asking Greer to vacate his 2000 ruling and hold a new trial.
He says Greer discounted Meyer's testimony because he wrongly believed Quinlan was dead in 1982.
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/03/Tampabay/Quinlan_name_resurfac.shtml
"The court discredited Ms. Meyer's testimony because of its OWN MISTAKEN CONCLUSION (emphasis mine) that Karen Ann Quinlan was dead in 1982. In reality, Ms. Quinlan was very much alive in 1982," Gibbs wrote. "Ms. Quinlan did not die until 1985, some nine years after her court case ended and her respirator was removed."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200503\CUL20050303b.html
This is a REALLY great article, IMO
Although I noticed something I'll address in a moment so that may have been a moot point.
Part of me that desired to have the 'right' thing done, from an emotional standpoint, would have requested the Florida legislature pass a bill explicitly for this case. However as Hamilton points out the legislature should not do so. Pass legislation so that it doesn't happen in the future but not for a specific case that has already been decided. Unfortunately, once the case was decided by Greer or the Florida Supreme Court, according to #81, it was out of the hands of the Florida legislature, not to mention out of the hands of the federal legislature as outlined in #45
And you don't even realize how much it pains me to give Hamilton credit for anything
Doesn't make any sense ot me, but pursue it if you wish and keep me posted.
>> Keep that closed mind, it suits you.
Mind your manners, please.
When we are dealing with the limitations in a Federal Republic we can not allow emotions to override reason, else we'll have laws on everything. I do not see how you can override Hamilton's reasoning without breaking down barriers that exist for a reason
"In response to the denial of food and fluids to Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the National Right to Life Committee is calling on state legislatures throughout the nation to move to protect people with disabilities from being denied food and fluids. The organization is issuing a “Model Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act.”
“Far from being an isolated instance, the attempted starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler-Schiavo is typical of the denial of food and fluids in less publicized cases taking place daily in nursing homes and hospitals across America,” said Burke J. Balch, J.D., director of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee.
“For years, people who never asked to die have been quietly starved without much public attention, based on state laws and court opinions that permit third parties to make deadly decisions with little or no scrutiny or accountability,” Balch said. “The outcry over the Schindler-Schiavo case has awakened millions of Americans to the inhumanity of this practice. Now we must act to reverse this trend, and restore a presumption against starvation and dehydration.”
The proposed model law, drafted to be easily adaptable for each state, is written to be constitutional under the governing precedents of the United States Supreme Court. It would create a presumption that those incapable of making health care decisions would wish to get food and fluids so long as their provision is medically possible, would not itself hasten death, and can be digested or absorbed so as to sustain life.
The presumption would not apply if the person has specifically authorized withholding or withdrawal in an applicable legal document (advance directive). To comply with governing court precedent, the presumption would also not apply if there is clear and convincing evidence the person gave express and informed consent to rejection of food and fluids. The bill carefully defines “express and informed consent” to ensure that casual or uninformed statements cannot be used to meet the “clear and convincing” evidence test.
“We must not let the horror and outrage over the attempted starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler-Schiavo dwindle and die away before we have acted to secure protection for the thousands facing s similar fate,” said NRLC Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D. From National Rifgt to Life...
This act shall be known and may be cited as the [STATE NAME] “Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act”.
Section 2. Definitions
A. “Attending physician” means the physician who has primary responsibility for the overall medical treatment and care of a person.
B. “Health care provider” means a person who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized by the law of this state to administer health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession.
C. “Express and informed consent” means consent voluntarily given with sufficient knowledge of the subject matter involved, including a general understanding of the procedure, the medically acceptable alternative procedures or treatments, and the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures, to enable the person giving consent to make an understanding and enlightened decision without any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion.
D. “Nutrition” means sustenance administered by way of the gastrointestinal tract.
E. “Person legally incapable of making health care decisions” means any person who:
1. Has been declared legally incompetent to make decisions affecting medical treatment or care, or
2. In the reasonable judgment of the attending physician, is unable to make decisions affecting medical treatment or other health care services, or
3. Is a minor.
F. “Physician” means a physician licensed by [relevant state statute].
G. “Reasonable medical judgment” means a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.
Section 3. Presumption of Nutrition and Hydration Sufficient to Sustain Life
A. It shall be presumed that every person legally incapable of making health care decisions has directed his or her health care providers to provide him or her with nutrition and hydration to a degree that is sufficient to sustain life.
B. No guardian, surrogate, public or private agency, court, or any other person shall have the authority to make a decision on behalf of a person legally incapable of making health care decisions to withhold or withdraw hydration or nutrition from such a person except in the circumstances and under the conditions specifically provided for in Section 4 of this act.
Section 4. Presumption of Nutrition and Hydration, When Inapplicable
The presumption pursuant to Section 3 of this act shall not apply:
A. To the extent that, in reasonable medical judgment:
a) provision of nutrition and hydration is not medically possible,
b) provision of nutrition and hydration would hasten death, or,
c) because of the medical condition of the person legally incapable of making health care decisions, that person would be incapable of digesting or absorbing the nutrition and hydration so that its provision would not contribute to sustaining the person’s life.
B. If the person executed a directive in accordance with [state advance directive statute] specifically authorizing the withholding or withdrawal of nutrition and/or hydration, to the extent the authorization applies.
C. If there is clear and convincing evidence that the person, when legally capable of making health care decisions, gave express and informed consent to withdrawing or withholding hydration or nutrition in the applicable circumstances.
Section 5. Civil Remedies
A. A cause of action for injunctive relief may be maintained against any person who is reasonably believed to be about to violate or who is in the course of violating this act, or to secure a court determination, notwithstanding the position of a guardian or surrogate, whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the person legally incapable of making health care decisions, when legally capable of making such decisions, gave express and informed consent to withdrawing or withholding hydration or nutrition in the applicable circumstances.
B. The action may be brought by any person who is:
(a) The spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the person;
(b) A current or former health care provider of the person;
(c) A legally appointed guardian of the person;
(d) The state protection and advocacy agency, or
(e) A public official with appropriate jurisdiction to prosecute or enforce the laws of this state.
C. Pending the final determination of the court, it shall direct that nutrition and hydration be provided unless it determines that Section 4A is applicable.
And it fits within the limitations. I have no problem with this law. It doesn't address Schiavo's case but it was begun by the concerns that happened under Schiavo's case.
Post #792 deserves it's own thread. I'd like to bookmark it.
I am rather surprised frankly to see so many here at FR supporting the murder of Terri!
Just a bit of info for anyone who is new here which only scratches the surface:
Michael Schiavo is a sadist who euthanized Terri's two cats, and far worse, admitted on the Larry King show that he had his parents starved to death when they were sick with cancer, etc., and abused Terri before the collapse, and continues to abuse her. He wouldn't allow her to have therapy to talk (she could say a few words), he wouldn't allow her to have therapy to swallow better (she COULD swallow soft foods), he turned her family's pictures around in her room, wouldn't allow her to go outside for some fresh air, wouldn't allow sunlight in her room, wouldn't allow her see the cute little dogs that are brought around to cheer patients, wouldn't allow her teeth to be brushed, etc.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/bulletins/terri/lkl1.htm
CALLER: Yes. Does it bother you that the death is so slow? Maybe Dr. Kevorkian-style would be a faster, more peaceful way?
SCHIAVO: Removing somebody's feeding is very painless. It is a very easy way to die. Probably the second better way to die, being the first being an aneurysm.
And it doesn't bother me at all. I've seen it happen.
-->I had to do it with my own parents.
Thank YOU..from the bottom of my heart. Really!
here is what you said in that little black banner..
Don't believe everything you think.
How about this? I believe some of what I read. When I see the actual medical report offered to me at Pinellas Park by one who had access to it, and it is the official document, I give it just a little credibility. Maybe it is just me.
Yes, it shows all the broken bones which occurred in the timeframe of Michael's tender caress. Who do I believe, you or my lying eyes?
8mm
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.