Posted on 04/20/2006 1:37:42 PM PDT by AZRepublican
LOL...touche!
You'd be amazed how many posters here don't know the difference, seemingly.
I don't have time to dig for the old info, but my past study of this issue leads me to think Charlie Crist is as culpable as almost anybody down there for what happened to Terri.
Gotta run for now...
Isn't Judge Greer legally blind?
She was allowed to expire and now truly at peace.
Since she was not in need of anything except artificial means of nutrition, I think there was arguably a moral fault with removing those means. It wouldn't matter if removing such nutrition been her written wish or not, the moral dilemma would still exist. The courts (and there were multiple involved) determined her wishes under the law despite interference, protestations, propaganda, etc. If anything, she got more due process than nearly any one in similar circumstance.
The husband did not murder. He may have killed, but it wasn't murder. The moral of the story is get yourself a living will if you want to avoid the potential becoming another case like Mrs. Schiavo.
In talking to some people who think what happened to Terri was right and proper (except for her meddling parents dragging everything out), it seems there's a perception that Terri's supporters are engaging in unfair ad hominem attacks against Michael.
While it is true that Terri's supporters are greatly disparaging Michael's character, it needs to be pointed out that if Michael is a liar, there is no credible evidence of Terri's wishes (it's highly plausible that a liar would find relatives willing to perjure themselves). Those who support Terri's parents aren't trying to overrule Terri's wishes, but instead trying to uphold Terri's real wishes against the fake "wishes" invented by her murderous "husband".
All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
There was not such a long line. There were hacks, sure. But not credible witnesses willing to say she was not PVS.
If you see a murder taking place and you can do something to stop it, should you ignore it because you're part of the gubmint? I say no.
Michael claims that. The coroner noted that while severe brain damage was observed, only tests on a living patient could have determined her true condition. Note that technologies such as PET scans had advanced quite considerably since 1993, but Michael forbade their use. Why?
Check the time line, it wasn't until then that they turned on him.
First of all, Terri's parents paid the costs of Terri's rehab prior to the malpractice award. If they had sought repayment from it, I would not think it unreasonable.
More notably, Terri's parents turned on Michael because Michael started obstructing all therapy for Terri. Check the timing on that. Why do you suppose Michael would suddenly declare there's no hope for recovery, as soon as Terri's trust fund had money to see the doctors which had been earlier recommended but which Michael couldn't previously afford?
The courts (and there were multiple involved) determined her wishes under the law despite interference, protestations, propaganda, etc.
Michael went to court with his own testimony and that of his brother and other brother's sister. They were not subject to cross-examination. Because they were not effectively cross-examined at that time, it was forevermore impossible to legally challenge the findings of that court with regard to Terri's supposed wishes.
Had Michael et al. been subjected to effective cross-examination, it would have become quite apparent that the "wishes" in question were those of Michael Schiavo and George Felos, rather than those of Terri.
Governor Bush was trying to let the family do just that - not a "husband" with a live-in girlfriend.
Here is another affidavit the Judge Greer threw out.
.
From his affidavit:
To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense no longer there. As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience withdraw her feeding and hydration. No, I could not. I could not withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose face brightens in the presence of others. --3/23/2005
Sure, I see now.
Governor Bush saw it as right-to-life issue instead of a right-be-left-alone issue. Good people were represented on both sides of this issue.
The court order was 'shall remove nutrition and hydration.' That also meant 'orally' if anyone got any ideas. Did you follow the case close enough to understand that part of it?
Nonsense. Peterson had the decency to do it quickly.
That makes no sense. Greer would not allow any credible evidence that was positive for Terri. That is why he is speaking at the:
The Legacy of the Terri Schiavo Case:
Why is it so hard to die in America?
The University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics 10th Anniversary Symposium
Look over the names VERY carefully:
Some people saw it as a right-to-life issue. Others saw it as a right-to-be-left-alone issue.
Calling names to the legitimate opposition is not productive. Jeb Bush never did that, and that's why he's loved in this state.
Greer would not allow any credible evidence that was positive for Terri
I strongly disagree with that statement. Judge Greer was fair to both sides.
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.