Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2023 Fundraising Target: $77,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $47,709
61%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 61%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Cboldt

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 5:04:23 PM PDT · 664 of 1,034
    Cboldt to spectre
    But how do we know what people in a PVS think? That's the issue.

    Oh. As for people who are "thinking about dying," I don't think the thoughts of the group of people who have cancer (and it's pain and so forth) are going to be similar to the thoughts of a group of people who don't have cancer.

    It is interesting, how people with cancer vacillate between "I want to die" and "I don't want to die." I can think of times that I felt like I'd like to die. Sometimes from sheer embarrassment ;-)

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 5:00:14 PM PDT · 663 of 1,034
    Cboldt to spectre
    But how do we know what people in a PVS think? That's the issue.

    Not from a legal point of view. The essential element to justify the withholding of food and water is the patient's wishes. PVS is not a necessary element under Florida law.

    Supreme Court of Florida.

    In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING.
    STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
    v.
    Doris F. HERBERT, etc., Respondent.

    No. 74174.

    Sept. 13, 1990.

    BARKETT, Justice.

    We have for review In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

    Whether the guardian of a patient who is incompetent but not in a permanent vegetative state and who suffers from an incurable, but not terminal condition, may exercise the patient's right of self-determination to forego sustenance provided artificially by a nasogastric tube?

    Id. at 274. [FN1] We answer the question in the affirmative as qualified in this opinion.

    FN1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Estelle Browning died on July 16, 1989, at the age of 89. Although the claim is moot, we accept jurisdiction because the issue raised is of great public importance and likely to recur. In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Fla.1989); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984).

    I. THE FACTS

    On November 19, 1985, a competent Estelle Browning executed a declaration that provides, in part:

    If at any time I should have a terminal condition and if my attending physician has determined that there can be no recovery from such condition and that my death is imminent, I direct that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn when the application of such procedures would serve only to prolong artificially the process of dying.

    In addition, Mrs. Browning stipulated that she desired not to have "nutrition and hydration (food and water) provided by gastric tube or intravenously." [FN2]

    FN2. The entire form is reproduced in the appendix of the district court's opinion. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

    At eighty-six years of age, Mrs. Browning suffered a stroke.

    ...

    The consensus of the medical evidence indicated that the brain damage caused by the hemorrhage was major and permanent and that there was virtually no chance of recovery. Death would occur within seven to ten days were the nasogastric feeding tube removed. However, Mrs. Browning's life could have been prolonged up to one year as long as she was maintained on the feeding tube and assuming the absence of infection.

    http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/browning.txt <--

    Browning was 86 and a stroke victim. She did have a written advance directive. The patient was not PVS and was not terminal. Florida court system held that starving her to death was legal. Note the decision dates to 1990, before the Florida statute was changed so that the definition of "life-prolonging procedure" was expanded to specifically include "artificially provided sustenance and hydration."

    Chapter 765, Florida Statutes 2004 <-- 765.101(10)

    Note also the recitiations in Browning's living will. These were construed by the Florida District Court of Appeals in such a way as to find that Browning was legally terminal. That a scheduled natural death by dehydration, under the fact circumstances of the case, was what Browning wanted, and was therefore legal.

    This is also the case that lays the groundwork for the assertion that Michael somehow did the blood family a favor, by following the "more strenuous" legal course before starving Terri to death. The alternative, less strenuous course, is to starve her to death with no permission required from the court.

  • Happy ending for 'grandma'? ( Dehydration & Starvation case similar to Terri )

    04/14/2005 4:54:56 PM PDT · 29 of 63
    Cboldt to hershey
    Couldn't someone in the family, maybe grandma, sue Gaddy for atttempted murder?

    Murder, attempted nurder, etc. are criminal. Criminal charges may be brought ONLY by an authorized official, e.g. District Attorney.

    Mae, or members of her family, may have civil (money damages) causes of action against any number of players. Hospital, doctor, hospice, Gaddy all contributed. Damages might be tough to calculate. And Gaddy (and all the rest) may be found not liable, on the rationale that they acted in good faith and on belief.

    First things first. Get Mae better, correct the Living Will and adjust the Last Will, terminate Gaddy's financial Power of Attorney.

    Then, look into charges of "wasting" (Gaddy has a fiduciary obligation to Mae on the POA); and any other available cause.

  • Happy ending for 'grandma'? ( Dehydration & Starvation case similar to Terri )

    04/14/2005 4:48:50 PM PDT · 26 of 63
    Cboldt to uvular
    And why did a hospice accept a patient that, as far as we know, was not diagnosed as 'soon to die'? Last week, the hospice's attorney was unavailable for comment; anyone heard if she's back and will talk?

    I'm not certain exactly how it works, but have speculated that the scenario, or justification, is based on the doctor or family making a "quality of life" judgement. Gaddy was reported to have said that what with glacoma, and now this heart problem, it's time for Mae to go to Jesus. Gaddy concluded that dying was in Mae's best interests. That decision is used to bootstrap a death by dehydration. That is, decision is to stop feeding and watering, therefore the patient will die in 6 months. SInce the patient will die within 6 months, the patient is eligible for hospice.

    Counsel for hospice will not be making any public statements. Count on it. And while I'd love to see a VERY public civil trial or criminal prosecution, I doubt either is in the cards.

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:33:13 PM PDT · 660 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach
    maine-iac7: doctor's have said the opposite - that 9 out of 10 who previously had a living will - when actually in that situation - change their minds.

    Peach: I'll wait while you provide a link. That is contrary to everything I've heard and read.

    The page that the "9 of 10 decide not to do the assisted suicide thing" has some other studies that might be interesting to readers.

    http://www.cancerpage.com/news/about.asp?id=7 <-- Lots of studies
    Will to live fluctuates among dying patients. <--

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:24:14 PM PDT · 655 of 1,034
    Cboldt to DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
    I'm no moderator, but there does seem to be a diference between a person outing them self (Buckhead did that too), and having others repeat their real name. It's nice to be respectful, well resepctful to be nice. Oh crap, I'm all twisted up now. Anyway, if someone says "please don't use my real name," I personally would find it easy to respect that request. No need for a ruling from "the officials" on that one.

    IMO, and FWIW, the way the real name was used came off as taunting too.

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:16:39 PM PDT · 649 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach
    I think a lot of us are talking at cross purposes here.

    Clearly. But I'm just providing links without much in the way of commentary or personal opinion.

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:15:32 PM PDT · 647 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach
    I hadn't noticed that [Smoky Backroom] either, cyn.

    The thread is mostly argumentative banter without much useful analysis or thoughtful commentary. Signal to noise is heavily on the "noise" side.

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:13:21 PM PDT · 644 of 1,034
    Cboldt to cyncooper
    I just noticed this thread is in the Smoky Backroom!

    AAiieeeee!!!! Second hand smoke, second hand smoke!!!! We're all gonna dieeeEEEEE!!!!

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:11:42 PM PDT · 642 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach; maine-iac7
    maine-iac7: doctor's have said the opposite - that 9 out of 10 who previously had a living will - when actually in that situation - change their minds.

    Peach: I'll wait while you provide a link. That is contrary to everything I've heard and read.

    Study: Most Change Mind About Assisted Suicide (7/3/2002)

    Nearly 90% of people who ask their doctors to help them kill themselves later change their minds, US researchers report.

    http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=4563 <-- Link

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 4:03:15 PM PDT · 634 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach; maine-iac7
    maine-iac7: doctor's have said the opposite - that 9 out of 10 who previously had a living will - when actually in that situation - change their minds.

    Peach: I'll wait while you provide a link. That is contrary to everything I've heard and read.

    This isn't on that point, but it is an interesting survey. The "Would trust ... " serious of questions is interesting. People don't trust the courts, it would seem ;-)

    http://sda.berkeley.edu:7502/D3/GSS02/Doc/gs020099.htm#terminal

  • Happy ending for 'grandma'? ( Dehydration & Starvation case similar to Terri )

    04/14/2005 3:51:17 PM PDT · 15 of 63
    Cboldt to uvular
    I too, want to hear directly from Mae-and her granddaughter. Curious why granddaughter or her attorney would not make some sort of statement, if she's on the up and up.

    I respect the family's wishes to get off the public stage.

    But I want to see the hospital and hospice out in full, bright lights. Why the need for a court order to obtain treatment? How was the move to obtain an emergency guardianship justified? Why "go adversarial" against treatment for Mae? How did they justify the withholding of adequate food and water to sustain life?

    I think there are also possible legal causes of action against many of these players. Mae could win a lawsuit, and donate the proceeds to an "honesty in hospice" cause. That'd be pretty cool.

  • Happy ending for 'grandma'? ( Dehydration & Starvation case similar to Terri )

    04/14/2005 3:41:57 PM PDT · 8 of 63
    Cboldt to Enterprise
    I am curious if Ora Mae Magouirk has had a chance now to clearly communicate exactly what her desires are regarding extended medical care.

    She certainly needs to revisit her Living Will. It's a confusing document, and she may not really want to be starved and dehydrated, EVEN IF she is in a coma or PVS.

  • Happy ending for 'grandma'? ( Dehydration & Starvation case similar to Terri )

    04/14/2005 3:40:27 PM PDT · 7 of 63
    Cboldt to Mr. K
    I wonder how much 'granddaughter' was expecting fron her will?

    The estate is a quarter million+, per court filings.

    http://www.blogsforterri.com/docs/MagouirkOrderApril1%5B1%5D.pdf <--

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 3:05:53 PM PDT · 620 of 1,034
    Cboldt to justshutupandtakeit
    However it [Congress] cannot tell those courts what to do or how.

    Congress establishes rules of procedure, and other details (e.g., sentencing requirements, statutory remedies, statutory causes of action, etc.), certainly more than "allocating jurisdiction and establishing salaries, organization and size of courts."

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 1:36:36 PM PDT · 574 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach
    I must have been smarter back then and just avoided threads that looked like so much conspiracy theory.

    Rivero's threads ran the range from believable to really whacky. But most of the subject material was topical, e.g., Ron Brown, John Huang, Vince Foster, etc. I'm surprised you avoided those.

    Anyway, point being that the hypotheses advanced here, and quality of supporting reseach and analysis, is always in a state of flux.

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 1:23:47 PM PDT · 555 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Peach
    FR used to be a place where events were actually researched. Now we're just a dumping ground for every conspiracy theory to come along.

    Signal to noise here has an ebb and flow. I'm sure the helpful and cooperative aspects of the general tenor could be better.

    Used to be all sorts of wild conspiracy stuff here. Remember Rivero?

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 12:40:31 PM PDT · 506 of 1,034
    Cboldt to Central Scrutiniser
    Are you afraid to answer a yes or no question. Am I a nazi?

    Reminds me of a joke.

    A celebrity went to visit a nursing home for a charity event and was dismayed that no one seemed to recognize him. He started thinking that, perhaps, the old folks were just being polite by not accosting him for autographs and the like. So he went up to one old lady and said, "Do you know who I am?"

    The lady smiled and instantly the celebrity was reassured that the fame he'd worked so hard for hadn't slipped away. The old lady said, "Don't worry. The nurse can tell you who you are."

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 10:15:27 AM PDT · 405 of 1,034
    Cboldt to EternalVigilance
    Who can deny that Terri Schiavo's right to life was alienated from her?

    The short definition of inalienable is "not transferrable" or "not assignable."

    Terri's life was not transferred or assigned to anybody else.

    The question of whether or not her death was proper is contentious. But best I can tell, most people posting here have their minds made up one way or the other as to the legal and moral propriety of that. The case will be (hypothetically) relitigated many times in law reviews, op-eds, and likely even in the halls of Congress.

    It is what it is. I've got my mind pretty well made up too, FWIW.

  • DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

    04/14/2005 10:00:18 AM PDT · 387 of 1,034
    Cboldt to EternalVigilance
    inalienable ... means it 'cannot be taken away'.

    Actually (pet word of mine), it describes something that can belong to one person, but can't be taken from that person and given to another. Even things (like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) that belong to one person can be taken from that one person, but taking "liberty" from a first person does not give "liberty" to a second. Likewise with "life." Likewise with "pursuit of happiness," and even "happiness" itself. Each person has it, or not. But you can't take your liberty and give it to an incarcerated person. You can't take your life and cause the dead to rise.

    Sorta takes the raw emotional power away from the word "inalienable," since it doesn't exalt the thing being named. The word "inalienable" is just a sterile observation.