If he did cure her, I'd be pretty pissed off. He's got more important things to worry about than some woman in Florida.
That would be surprising; I doubt they worded it so that any other similar case would be treated the same. They don't have to specifically name the subject - just put in enough criterea that only one person would meet. You'll never find a name attached to those tax break laws either.From what I've read, they were VERY careful not to sconce that law as Terri specific.
I think we are talking about the same thing. The intent was to apply it to Terri's case.They don't have to spcifically name the subject - just put in enough criterea that only one person would meet.
Yep.
Damn you! You took my response almost word for word!!!
oh well
18 THINGS WE LEARNED FROM THE SHIAVO CASE...
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case.
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly editted videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistant vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistant state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, democratic activist even though he is a conservative, republican, Southern Baptist.
Well said, Nbadan.
By the way, it is interesting to note that the Pope asked not to go back to the Hospital (where I am sure they would find a way to give him "life support") should his situation get worse -which is what is happening.
You are right Neo...the Judge shouldn't decide.....nor should her parents or anyone else aside from her legal guardian.God should determine that transistion, not Judge Greer in Terri's situation.
If Mel would experiance the life Teri lead for 15 years for only 1 day, I bet he would feel differently.
Foreign Fan - I guess you don't listen to the news much because it was reported earlier this week that the Pope's living will stated that he wanted to be kept alive by any means possible for as long as possible. That would include life support!!
I thought conservative republicans didn't give a crap what Hollywood thinks.
I also would like to say that it was man keeping schivo alive, not god.
By the grace of God.
Good post Dan.
The biggest tragedy of this entire situation involves the politicizing of what should have otherwise been a private affair.
When watching FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, or any other news station, one must ask themselves: why is this news?
Damn it all, now I have to agree with Dan on something
Good points, I dont agree with all of them, but they are good points.
BUT, I am pro-life and I dont hope he dies. I think your statement does not reflect MOST pro-lifers.
i dont see what your point is...by law, a husband is legally en led to make decisions for an incapacitated(vegetative) wife...its not illegal to cheat on your wife is it? morally wrong, but not legally. when did catholic faith become our set of laws in this country?lets see 1. husband in charge of "vegatative wife" 2.husband has girlfriend and two kids out of wedlock(strongly denouced in catholic faith) yet
3. husband is allowed to make life or death decisions for wife
what conflict of interest? that the judges, whose job it is to interpret law, actually, um, interpreted the law and ruled based on what those laws state? sounds like your beef should be with the legislative branch, not judicialdoes anyone here see a terrible conflict of interest here...............evil has taken away justice in this country
If only that was what really happened.
You act as if Michael Schiavo could waltz right into court and, in essence, terminate Terri's life by just asking for it. He had to prove, in a court of law, with admissible evidence, that Terri wished for her life to be terminated. He had to do that not by a preponderance of the evidence (a little more evidence in favor than against), but by clear and convincing evidence (evidence strong enough to convince to a near-certainty). Apparently, in the eyes of Judge Greer and all of the appellate courts that reviewed his determination, Michael Schiavo came forward with evidence that clearly and convincingly showed that Terri did not wish her life to be extended by artificial means. It was up to Terri's guardian or her family to come forward with evidence to negate the showing that Michael made. They apparently did not do that. Whether that was because they couldn't or simply because they wouldn't, the fact is that they didn't.
This isn't about "activist" judges or corrupt spouses. It's a tragic situation, but one which the governing law, when applied to the facts known to the trial court at the time of its decision, produced the result.
My question is this: why aren't more people up in arms like this when someone is wrongly convicted of a captial crime and sentenced to death or life in prison? It's an analogous situation, but we barely pay attention to the numerous exonerations that advances in DNA evidence is producing. We don't spew vitriol at prosecutors who take weak cases to trial on dubious cir stantial evidence. But, if you buy the hype about Michael Schiavo's "evilness," aren't those prosecutors pretty much the same?
Yeah, nothing like a de-sensitized public to allow the most horrendous atrocities.
Mercy would infer suffering...
I thought she was unable to discern pain or discomfort.
So, which is it?
She is gone. Case closed.
So, no murder should be prosecuted?
Victim is gone...case closed?
I don't consider it murder and neither did the courts.
Yeah, the courts didn't consider slavery illegal, uncons utional, or inhumane for a couple of hundred years either. Your point?
But we are not talkiing about slavery are we? Your point?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote