Printable View
I don't know if he is exempt or not, but it should be his decision hands down, without any complaint or legality involved. If anyone wants to interviene, then the responsibily should be handed over to them, and then the husband should be able to move on with his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
Sorry, didn't realize you were talking about someone else.
That's what her immediate family is trying to do. Michael Schiavo has already moved on with his life, as he has a "fiance" and two children from that civil union.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Well, the problem with euthanasia being applied or revoked by using a law is that it can either be misused if applied, or the deserving people won't benefit, if not applied. Such issues must be dealt with on a case to case basis, as we cannot generalize the situations and therefore the remedies. And this could probably have been the best example for such an approach, clearly wasted by almost everyone involved. The husband and the family lost it when they decided to seek legal recourse to their respective arguments, the courts have lost it by giving conflicting decisions and thereby simply playing with the poor woman's life (I mean whatever is left of that). I think it's utterly revolting to see the woman lying in a state where her feeding tube ha been removed for a couple of weeks, while an appeal is being heard in some upper court, and if the appeal is granted, she might get her feeding tube back. There's absolutely no respect to her life/death. She has become just another toy in the game.
With the US constitution being as it is, I won't find it surprising if the President enacted a law forcing the doctors to keep her medically alive, and the governor of the state passed a law forcing the doctors to remove her life support and let her die. Whether the woman survives this turmoil (ironic, isn't it?), and stays alive or dies, it will have been a cruel joke played by the government, the society and the judiciary on her life.
I cannot understand why there is no medical opinion sought (or if sought then not enough publicised) over her present state, chances of her recovery, extent of her recovery and a likely timeframe for her recovery.
It would have been a great act on part of Bush (yeah, I hate giving him tips to become more popular worldwide :() to proclaim this to be a personal and medical issue and ask the concerned judge to take into account only the medical aspects and the opinions of the nearest family and decide the case, and declare that that decision would be the final on the matter. Whether she lived after that or died, it would be much much better than the present state.
.
I believe that the medical profession wants to stay as far away from this as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
As I said in earlier posts, more than 800-plus people a day have feeding tubes/life support removed - and the pains of death mitigated by morphine - in emergency rooms, hospitals and hospices around the world.
None of that is for public opinion - and the less "simple minded people" have to think about it the better - they only over react and think they can force their personnal (uneducated) views through litigation.
I also believe that the husband does not want this to become a legal battle between medical opinions. The battle is over custodial rights to make medical decisions on a profoundly disabled person.
Not with that method. They aren't starving her, they're torturing her. Two to four weeks before she dies? That's what I would call cruel and unusual.
I've made the effort to find some links to back up my opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I appreciate your point of view - give me an education as to how you arrived at it.
Two to four weeks of not even trying to save her. Who knows what they could accomplish in that time? Oh yeah... during that time, she's going purely on what's already in her. Dehydration isn't something you go for because you're bored. It really sucks, and forcibly putting someone through it for four weeks when they have no choice but to comply is, in my opinion, a torture that she doesn't deserve, regardless of her physical state.
szlamany - you slay me!!! We agreed with each other on the immigration issue and we disagree on the right to life issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Why do you say that someone who has a different opinion is "simple minded" or "uneducated"??? This is obviously a highly charged issue, and we can agree to disagree without being nasty. What's your particular "education" with this issue? From what you've said, you are a programmer with some programming experience in the medical field. Doesn't make you an "expert" on the issue with a "superior intellect"! It's just a different opinion.
All these words keep coming up here that I can't accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
This is not "right-to-life" - she is dead - granted that is my opinion, but also the opinion of every medical review she has had in the past 15 years.
I'm not trying to be nasty - the last poster (before you) did not answer my question - I wanted to see something that could educate me in his point of view. All I got was more of his "point-of-view".
I don't see the removal of a feeding tube (not a good medical description of what she had - but that's what the media loves to refer to it as) as starvation.
Did you just type "I don't see the removal of a feeding tube as starvation"?????Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
That does not compute!!!!
You see - it's not a feeding tube. It's a medical procedure - just like intubation and saline solution drips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
It's very romantic to think they are feeding her with a tube - but that isn't the case.
This is just one snippet of the legal standing of all this:
You see these are the facts that I cannot dispute - I hugely support this point of view, and I would more than welcome some other "backed-up" legal perspective of this. Even organized religion has a hard time with this "ethical" question.Quote:
Those arguments had been heard and rejected by every court of final jurisdiction that has reviewed "right to die" cases since Quinlan in 1976 and Brophy in 1983 first occasioned consideration of these questions. They took on renewed strength, however, when presented at a televised news conference by a state governor claiming he had a duty to intervene to protect the interests of the most vulnerable of the state's citizens.
A Prince William Circuit Court judge and subsequently the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the Governor's argument that removing the feeding tube that had sustained the severely brain damaged Hugh Finn for three and a half years would constitute euthanasia. In an emergency ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding that the withdrawal of nutrition and fluids from a patient in Hugh Finn's condition merely permitted the natural process of dying; it was not an illegal "mercy killing."
Starvation (which I have had the pleasure to experience) is not terribly pleasant, but not terribly unpleasant either.
However, in this case, I have never heard any evidence to suggest that she will experience any suffering, and I have heard evidence that she will not experience any suffering. Therefore, I would tend to believe that she will not suffer.
Timeshifter: I also, do not understand what you were trying to say. Two to four weeks is enough time to do....what? I don't understand what you feel could be done in that time? Are you suggesting that she should be actually killed, or are you suggesting that she could be 'made well'?
9 days. Just as long as the last guy lasted in '98.
Wife wanted to stop the feeding, Virginia Govenor delayed it.
Finally, she got her wish, and he lasted 9 days before he passed away.
Okie dokie. You mean in two to four weeks somebody could try and save her. As if they just sat on their bums all of 15 years, twiddling their thumbs and whatnot, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
Yeah, ending her life quick would actually be a relief, but that could be illegal. I agree with the legal point presented in an earlier post, which also explains the "feeding tube" matter very clearly as per the existing laws.
So I guess she will die a "natural" death under the present conditions, and not be "killed" in any way or on any grounds.
Yes, and the latest report on BBC does mention that the court-appointed panel of doctors has found her condition to be irreversible. Though the medical fraternity has not joined in with their opinions, I really think there's no two ways about her condition. Every mention of doctors and their views about her condition says the same thing: It's not going to improve.
.
I think the argument must be resolved by each individual as and when the situation occurs them, personally. I have instructed my wife to conduct research into any condition I might fall prey to and if it there's no cure on the horizon - say within 10 years - unplug me, let me die, and chop me into little bits for the scientists to play with.
The dillema for individuals I think is what do you value most:
- The value of life
A life of value
The moralist will always cling to the first, the more practical will always hide behind the second. I think there must be a little of each. How much of each? Well, that's the argument isn't it.
I have left explicit orders to roll me up and smoke me upon death.
While singing "You light up my life"?Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
I don't think the value of life vs life of value is quite the issue in the current case. There are plenty of people who do not want to see a loved one die...let's see....probably about 7 billion or so.
With advances in medical technology, we will have an increasingly hard time defining when life ends, and the battle will grow more intense.
found on the Internet:
:thumb:Quote:
In light of recent national events, I want it to be known to my best man that, should I become an actual vegetable, it is my desire to have the feeding tube removed.
However, the water tube is to remain in place, with the saline solution replaced with 80% medium-shelf Irish Whiskey (Bushmills, Jameson, possibly Powers), and the remaining 20% to stay water (to account for on-the-rocks ice meltage).
The whiskey solution is to remain in place until I die of alcohol poisoning, malnutrition, or extreme happiness.
Thanks Buddy.
She's dead.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7293186/
Wow. The article was 8 minutes ago. I'm watching the morning news program, and they don't even have it yet.
I am sickened that people would actualy allow this to happen. Since her wishes were not know they should have ruled in favor of the family. Now you have this nonsense that her burial site will be kept secret. Her husband is clearly a cold person.
Why is that? Why rule in favor of the family in an uncertain case? I realize that you have to rule in favor of somebody, and the law is written that you rule in favor of the legal guardian, which in this case was the husband. How would you alter the law such that the ruling would always turn out the way you want it to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
I realize that doesn't sound right, but I hope you understand the meaning. You have to have some rule for the court to use if the court is to make a ruling. What rule do you use? Should the decision be made always in favor of prolonging the life of the body (I don't believe she had a mind anymore)? Should the ruling be made in favor of whoever will actually pay for the next step (it's a serious question, because somebody will have to pay, and pay big)?
As medical advances continue, we will be able to keep increasingly non-viable bodies 'alive' in the future. Somebody has to decide how this is handled, or we run the risk of creating body warehouses where otherwise dead people are maintained in some state through the expenses of the living.
If my brain is gone, let my body be gone as well.
Let's let this thread go, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think it was right that she was allowed to die, but that doesn't mean I'm correct for believing that, it's best just to let people believe what they choose.
Every state law is different in this matter. However I see no reason why they could not have re-heard this case at the parents behest throwing out the original finding of fact by the first judge to hear this case 15 years ago. New evidence and witnesses have come to light and could have shed some new light on this case.Quote:
Why is that? Why rule in favor of the family in an uncertain case? I realize that you have to rule in favor of somebody, and the law is written that you rule in favor of the legal guardian, which in this case was the husband. How would you alter the law such that the ruling would always turn out the way you want it to?
Obviously the ruling should be made after hearing all the facts in the case. The only thing the parents were asking were to start from scratch and hear all the evidence in this case. The reason so many appeals were denied was because of the original finding of fact in this case by the original judge. Somehow this judge was able to determine that Terri wanted to die based on something her husband overheard her say while they were watching a movie. Funny how this guy only remembered this after he got the settlement money.Quote:
I realize that doesn't sound right, but I hope you understand the meaning. You have to have some rule for the court to use if the court is to make a ruling. What rule do you use? Should the decision be made always in favor of prolonging the life of the body (I don't believe she had a mind anymore)? Should the ruling be made in favor of whoever will actually pay for the next step (it's a serious question, because somebody will have to pay, and pay big)?
The problem is in this case the body took care of itself and only needed sustenance through the use of a feeding tube. This however is also in dispute due to the fact that nurses that had taken care of Terri had fed her by using a spoon. We never could find out if this was a possibility due to the fact of her husband not allowing a “Swallow Test” which could have determined if this was possible.Quote:
As medical advances continue, we will be able to keep increasingly non-viable bodies 'alive' in the future. Somebody has to decide how this is handled, or we run the risk of creating body warehouses where otherwise dead people are maintained in some state through the expenses of the living.
If my brain is gone, let my body be gone as well.
I think this is a tragedy and I find it equally disturbing that so many people were actually in favor of starving this woman to death. One has to wonder how far will society go in deciding who should live and who should die. The Nazi’s were all about weeding out the handicapped and infirmed as they were a drain on society. It sends chills down my spine when I hear people putting value on human life simply because “they wouldn’t want to live like that”.
X
Did you read this in the National Inquirier or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
None of your facts are right - not the legal, about the husband or the medical.
Sorry - you might have chills but your uninformed and unreliable opinions and how you feel the government should act on them is an atrocity.
I just said this on another thread about gun-rights - we are 50 states - the state of Florida does not have to answer to any other state or the federal government on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
No actually, I think Xanith heard all of this on CNN since I heard a report which the post is basically an exact quote of. I can't exactly remember if it was CNN or not since there's so much news on this right now.
At this point, I hope Terri rests in peace. I hope both the Schindler and the Schiavo families can be healed from this terrible ordeal. And, I hope everyone will get a living will, so that there are no issues like this in the future and our country can move on.
Are you sure it wasn't FOX? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
To me it's not the ruling it's the process by which the ruling was derived. All the facts should have been heard. The judge was just plain arrogant. I hope Tom DeLay sitcks it to them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7351884/
DeLay is talking out of both sides of his mouth - he is taking purely political advantage of this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
His unhappiness about the Federal court handling of this is absurd - they had no binding power over the state court on this at all - and they basically said just that.
If DeLay keeps this up he should be run out of office by his constituency.
This was never a political argument - and it was barely a court argument. It's always been a medical decision between the husband and the medical team that watched over her.
And what would he gain from taking any action?Quote:
Posted by szlamany
DeLay is talking out of both sides of his mouth - he is taking purely political advantage of this situation.
I can't see how you would say that since the Federal courts have no power over the state courts that would be his only reason for being unhappy.Quote:
Posted by szlamany
His unhappiness about the Federal court handling of this is absurd - they had no binding power over the state court on this at all - and they basically said just that.
Seems like you have been talking to your buddy Ed Kennedy again. :rolleyes:Quote:
Posted by szlamany
If DeLay keeps this up he should be run out of office by his constituency.
A federal level inquiry? Are we kidding? For a medical/state court issue? The legislative part of our government isn't supposed to constantly evaluate the judicial branch. It's absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
What would he gain - having this be debated for another 6 months - having his face splattered all over the media in support of a non-issue. That's poor leadership...
The senate created what they thought was going to be a federal court review of this - Bush signed it - the federal court basically ignored it.Quote:
I can't see how you would say that since the Federal courts have no power over the state courts that would be his only reason for being unhappy.
Creating a senate suppoena for a brain-dead person be escorted to Washington for questioning seems like grandstanding to me.
There was no arrogance at the federal judicial level - simply smart judges realizing the law and not wanting to become political pawns in this debate.
I'm a full fledged Republican - but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay homage to an idiot like DeLay...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
Bush was forced to sign the legislation to keep above the argument - that was his only way to remain neutral.
Who said anything about wanting the legislative part of the government to constantly evaluate the courts? I can't see how you would think one instance constitutes constant evaluation.Quote:
Posted by szlamany
A federal level inquiry? Are we kidding? For a medical/state court issue? The legislative part of our government isn't supposed to constantly evaluate the judicial branch. It's absurd.
It seems in the past decade or so the congress decides that they should investigate all the time. Ollie North - 9/11 - drug approvals - Iraq - Saddam - and on and on...
In my opinion they are supposed to bring the "views" of the states they represent to the federal level - so that new laws could properly include everyone.
The federal Supreme court was the place to bring this Florida-state debate. They opted not to hear it. That is supposed to be the end of it.
Strong arm tactics from the legislative body are inappropriate.
Szlamany - It is incumbent on the executive and legislative branches to step into any case when there are so many questionable findings. Especially, when the case is in regard to a human life... Regardless of the fact that it may be a life you may not like or want for yourself.
This is what is commonly known as a balance of power. We're supposed to have a system of checks and balances designed to protect civil rights. My daughter just did a project about it in her third grade Civics class. It shocks me that so many people in our country don't recognize this fact.
Since Theresa Schiavo had no living will, and there were such questionable motives on the part of the "husband", then all due care should have been taken when deciding whether or not to remove her feeding tube. I know your argument will be that the case was dragged through the courts for 15 years. But, I don't call "full review" a series of motions by the family and then denials by the same judge, Judge George Greer. What followed? A slew of refusals by the higher courts to review the case.
“Reasonable doubt” was raised regarding Theresa Schiavo’s cognizant abilities; therefore, the courts should have kept her alive while the case was exhaustively investigated, protecting her Constitutional right to life.
One of the most disgusting parts of the whole affair is that Judge Greer refused to both the swallow test, and then refused the natural feeding of Theresa Schiavo upon the removal of the feeding tube. It would have been most inconvenient for the courts and Michael Schiavo if Theresa Schiavo could actually eat and sustain herself without the feeding tube after its removal. (And another thing, I don't believe that starvation and dehydration lead to a "peaceful" death. Witnesses to it can't tell me that it is, only those who have experienced it.)
That is a third grade understanding you just threw at me. Due process is not knee-jerk reacting to something after the tube is pulled out. Due process would have been spending the 15 years changing the federal laws to override state rights on this issue. Jumping onto the issue after Florida ran out of options (appeals to appeals for 15 years) is not the checks and balance system the founding fathers put into place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
This had nothing to do with any of the three branches of our federal government - can't you see that?
Florida felt that 15 years was enough - I cannot speak for Florida - I'm in Connecticut. I personally cannot believe that the branches of government in Florida allowed this judge you speak of to ignore the plight of the women.Quote:
Since Theresa Schiavo had no living will, and there were such questionable motives on the part of the "husband", then all due care should have been taken when deciding whether or not to remove her feeding tube. I know your argument will be that it was dragged through the courts for 15 years. But, I don't call "full review" a series of motions by the family and then denials by the same judge, Judge George Greer. What followed? A slew of refusals by the higher courts to review the case.
“Reasonable doubt” was raised regarding Theresa Schiavo’s cognizant abilities; therefore, the courts should have kept her alive while the case was exhaustively investigated, protecting her Constitutional right to life.
One of the most disgusting parts of the whole affair is that Judge Greer refused to both the swallow test, and then refused the natural feeding of Theresa Schiavo upon the removal of the feeding tube. It would have been most inconvenient for the courts and Michael Schiavo if Theresa Schiavo could actually eat and sustain herself without the feeding tube after its removal. (And another thing, I don't believe that starvation and dehydration lead to a "peaceful" death.)
I don't believe in that kind of conspiracy theory - doesn't work for me - doesn't fire me up.
Do you want judges to be able to override the medical testing procedures of doctors as a general matter of law? If that law does not exist, then a judge cannot order a medical test. IF that law does exist, where does that put us all? I don't want to be there - so fight for this change in your state alone and leave the rest of us out of it.
Malim very well said. I do understand szlamany's point of view as to congress constantly feeling the need to intervene but i think in this case the reasons were justified. I don't know much about the Judicial process but last time i checked hersay was not admissible evidence to be use as a means to sway a verdict one way or the other.
Thank you for the compliment about my third grade understanding of civics especially since I'm basing it on my daughter's project -- and she has quite a high I.Q.! :) [GLOW][BEAM] Besides, our government was not set up to be complicated. It was set up to be quite straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Have you read any of the court documents? I have. What would have been the harm in doing a full review of the case to ensure that the poor disabled woman was receiving her Constitutional rights? Can you see that? You can not tell me you don't see inconsistencies in this case!!!!
I am not a consiracy theorist. I have read the facts of the case and I believe that since Theresa Schiavo HAD NO LIVING WILL then she should have had a de novo review of her case. Once again, I ask, what would have been the harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I believe the harm in that would have been that it never would have ended - the mother was not going to let go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
And I really don't have an opinion on that - it's a private family matter - complicated - but private.
If the parents could not get their legal point of view listened to again, then I feel that they either had truly poor legal representation or had a case that didn't warrant further review.
But I honestly don't have enough passion left to further debate this - it's too far removed from me.
Sale of living will documents is way, way up - how silly a society we live in...
Armed with my anthrax kit, my disaster recovery plan, my living will and my "dont-drink-that-coffee-it's-too-hot" warning - I finally feel safe.
Szlamany - I overlooked your questions. I apologize. In answer to them:
No, not as a general matter of law. But, if there are extenuating circumstances, as there are in this case, then certainly yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
It puts us in a place of caution over pulling the feeding tube against the wishes of a disabled person who may not have wanted it pulled.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Good suggestion. I have already contacted my state representatives. Believe it or not, "leave the rest of us out of it" does not leave me alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Since there was no living will the courts should have erred on the right to life and not pulling the tube.
P.S. If I couldn't fire you up with my conspiracy theory, maybe I can fire you up with this: I don't believe in abortion either!
We have finally gotten to the root of your argument! :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
There would have been none. The past refusals by the Federal courts to hear the case was simply absurd. This absurdity turned to arrogance after they were asked by Congress to review the case.Quote:
Posted by Malim
What would have been the harm in doing a full review of the case to ensure that the poor disabled woman was receiving her Constitutional rights?
If you don't mind me being curious, where do you fit in these categories? I happen to be born in 1963 - in NYC...Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
But my version of crusading causes and everybodies rights doesn't seem to match yours...
Quote:
According to the research of Robert W. Wendover, the Managing Director of the Center for Generational Studies (please remember that these are generalizations): The Matures (born 1929-1950) believe in hard work, duty, sacrifice, thriftiness, right vs. wrong and that one should work quickly; The Baby Boomers (1946-1970-yes there is some overlap) believe in personal fulfillment, optimism, crusading causes, buy now/pay later, everybody's rights, and that it is important to work efficiently; Generation X'ers (1970-1989) believe that we live with uncertainty, that balance is very important in one's life, that you should live for today, save, save, save, right is according to their context, and every job is a contract; and The Millennials (1990- ) believe that work should be fun, things are on their terms, they earn to spend, right and wrong depends on the situation and technology has all the answers.
You are absolutely right. In this situation the judiciary should be censored!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
The judiciary is the most corruptible branch of government that there is. Don't get me wrong, I have utmost respect for the position of the judiciary, however, if a judge is making wrong findings, Constitutionally, they should be questioned by the legislature and the executive branches.
1973 born in NYC. The research by Robert W. Wendover sounds interesting. I would consider myself in the Baby Boomer, Generation X overlap.
I don't understand the importance of the question. I have views that are valid regardless of which generational category I might have happened to be a member of.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I am an early Gen-X baby, meaning I am older and not younger. Now, are you going to pull my feeding tube??? :lol:
szlamany it's not polite to ask a lady her age. :blush:
I think that szlamany wanted to see if your views were consistant with the views expressed by the majority of the people in the said category.
All views are valid - especially in this country - it's one of the basic building blocks of what we all are. I would never take away your right to speak your point of view - and I cherish the fact we can all speak like we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malim
My curiosity was in that I wanted to know if I was speaking with another baby-boomer or not.
I've always been in the "people-analysis" area of software systems, from K-12 school systems, college systems to health processing (birth-to-death!) systems. Find myself in lots of meetings discussing points that are in some way related to this very issue - even if minimally.
And didn't I tell you - I'm always right :bigyello:
1. What? And you said you were removed from the issue! Yuck - I wouldn't want your job!Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
2. You left that part out!
:afrog:
Malim, why would you want a De Novo ruling?
In the original ruling, there were five doctors, two from each camp, and a fifth tie-breaker. They did the examination, and the court found no compelling evidence for....I forget the exact language, but you can find it easily enough.
So what is the De Novo supposed to do? Are we to find 7 doctors this time? Stack the deck? Keep looking until the answer comes out the way you want?
The Schindlers stated in court that they would probably have fought even had there been a living will. This isn't uncommon, living wills are as readily contestable as any other will, it just depends on the wishes of the living (the deceased are understandably silent on the issue).
Of course you could say that it would be reasonable for a De Novo ruling, but obviously it couldn't be with the first five doctors who were clearly incompetent (you dismiss their opinion), and it couldn't be with the same judge (you dismiss his judgement, so why trust him again).
In this case, the court proceeded according to the law enacted by the state of Florida.
The balance of powers is that the legislature passes the law, and the courts uphold them. Had that been the whole story, the issue would have been resolved years ago. Unfortunately, it wasn't the whole story.
The Connecticut Congressman Chrisyopher Shays said, "Our party believes in states rights....unless the state does something we don't agree with."
That pretty much sums of the Republican stance at this point.
I feel that quote is an indication of how far the national Republican party has drifted from the basic platform they stood for in the past. Connecticut - and Shays - did not forget that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
A De Novo review was not intended to determine whether Theresa Schiavo was in a Persistent Vegetative State. It was intended to determine, as required under Florida law, whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Theresa Schiavo ever stated that she wouldn't want to live in the condition that she was in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Theresa Schiavo didn't have a living will. Whether her parents would have fought even if she had one is irrelevent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Michael Schiavo was the one who brought the government into the situation when he went to court to have Theresa Schiavo's feeding tube removed even though his wife wasn't dying. Of course the Schindlers had the right to respond by appearing on their daughter's behalf.
When a judge is making significant errors in fact in a case, especially a case where a human life is involved, then the legislative and the executive branches are responsible to intervene. When Judge Greer ordered that Theresa Schiavo could not be fed by natural means after the feeding tube was removed, that was it for me. If she had been on a respirator, and it had been removed, and she began to breathe on her own, would he have ordered that she be smothered?
This isn't a partisan issue. There are people from both parties on each side of this issue.
Malim - from what I've read the court appointed doctors said she was in PVS. The court ordered a medical review to see if the parents had a leg to stand on and it was decided they did not.
I'm starting to think that there is a lot of misinformation floating around on both sides of this argument. That's a shame - it only serves to rally people for a cause that has no valid platform.
That fact that Terri Shiavo wanted to not be sustained while "dead" was proven in court by statements she made to 2 different people...
No, the fact that Theresa Schiavo wanted to not be sustained while "dead" was not proven in court by statements by 2 different people. There was more than enough reasonable doubt surrounding both statements to warrant a De Novo review of the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
You are taking your opinion of her state, by stating she was "dead", and putting it into the issue. Should all brain damaged "dead" people be euthanized? Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line by stating who has the authority. In the state of Florida, as in most of the states (see the latest Time magazine for a breakdown of how the law stands state by state), the decision is made by the husband. In this case, the husband was Michael, and he made a decision. The court found that he made the decision based on the evidence at hand, and ruled in accordance with the statutes in effect at the time of the ruling. That should have been the end of it. Somebody is authorized to make a call in a case like this. The courts determined that the person making the call was in fact the one authorized by law to make the call, and that the call was made on a sound understanding of the situation. THAT is where the line is drawn now, and THAT is how it worked out. You may not like it, but it is the law in Florida.
Under Florida law, the Schindler's lacked the right to intervene, unless the medical finding was not correct.
As for Clear and Convincing evidence, I disagree with that, though I have not read the relevant Florida statutes. In the presence of a living will, a challenge can still go forward. In the abscence of a living will, then it is a judgement call. This judgement is made hundreds of times a year. Generally, a family reaches consensus, and an action is taken. Had the family reached consensus in this case that Terri preffered not to be kept alive, then this would never have reached the national news. She would have died years ago.l
Therefore, this is not a case of Terri's wishes. Had the family reached a consensus, regardless of what it was, that consensus would have been carried out. Terri's wishes in this case were irrelevant IN FACT, because the issue would have been resolved by the consensus. If the consensus had disregarded her statements, ANY result could have been the one chosen.
So when you argue for a review of the Clear and Convincing evidence of her desires, you should keep in mind that her desires would have been totally irrelevant had the two parties come to an agreement. The law in Florida is clear on how to resolve this type of conflict, and the ruling was in accordance with the law. You may not like it, but that is what the law is there for, to guide a decision that generally is dealt with without court intervention.
I know that had it been me, I would have died ten years ago. I don't need a living will. My family would try all they could, but once they realized that I would never again be me, they would cry, but they would let me go. That is how it should be.
Shaggy Hiker -
The clear and convincing evidence clause is in the law for a reason. It is there to prevent someone from carrying out wishes that are not in accordance with the wishes of an incapacitated human being. There is reasonable doubt that Michael Schiavo's wishes were in accordance with any statement Theresa Schiavo may or may not have made. He did not clearly state that these were her wishes from the beginning of her ordeal. He only remembered them after he received the $1.5 million medical malpractice award. Michael Schiavo should have been removed as Theresa Schiavo's guardian years ago. He continually violated Florida State Law reguarding guardianship. And, Judge George Greer was his accomplice
It is irrelevent to conjecture what would have come to pass had the families been able to come to consensus. The fact is, they didn't. Everyone keeps arguing what they would want in this situation. What anyone of us would want in a similar situation is irrelevent.
Why did Judge Greer deny Theresa Schiavo from being fed by natural means after the feeding tube was removed? If she had been on a respirator, and was able to breathe after the respirator was removed, she wouldn't have been smothered. If you look at the facts in this case - not a case where it is clear what the incapacitated person wanted - or a case where the family comes to a consensus - and compare the facts in this case to Florida State Law, Judge Greer violated so many statutes that he should be impeached.
Malim, both Shaggy Hiker and I have said exactly the same things over and over again in this thread. The last post by Shaggy Hiker was extremely well worded, but you simply to not agree with it.
That's fine - you don't have to agree with it.
The judge never denied Terri being fed - he denied the constant and medically unreasonable requests by the parents. If this statement is not true - please give me a solid link that backs up your version.
And by the way Shaggy - 800+ people a day are removed or prevented from being put on artificial forms of life support - that's the number I heard stated by a medical professional.
Recently a colleage of mine had a very, very old mother that some doctors wanted to intubate instead of allowing to pass. We are talking 90+ years old. The nurses made sure to give this person the facts of how a 90+ year old on breathing tube, becomes feeding tube, becomes kidney failure and a very bad end would be in store. This must have been a very hard decision to make - but certainly not one that anyone should ever get involved in who does not have a right to be in it.
We somehow have to "remove" this issue from the political agenda - it's not right for it to be there.