Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by NewGuy
Want a clue which category you have just dropped yourself into?
Originally posted by Reilly
Actually, if you look at the statement, I use the word everyone in both the first and second clauses. Hence, I drop myself (and you) into both.
The best you have is giving a hard time about not spelling the name correct?
Originally posted by NewGuy
Ok. Given that we take away the supposed religious influence, and have no law about suicide, murder would still be illegal then.
We have no stipulation of any kind left then about suicide.
Assuming it to be completely allowed, (which I cannot logically find any justification for according to intent, not wording of any legal original founding documents), we would then need proof, right?
There is NOT one shred of proof of what she wanted.
There is only another person's opinion.
Given no proof, and the other person's opinion is not proof, and everyone is entitled to life, then what would the logical conclusion be?
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Ok, Heres where we start to tread on the spousal issues. Throughout history we've gone to great lengths to protect the sanctimony of marriage including the respecting of a spouse's rights in decisions of these very types of concerns. Many spouse's have had to make the agonizing decision to stop life supports, removal of feeding tubes due to vegetative states, etc. and etc.
I'm sure there is precedence (I'm at work and not about to spend the time looking up case history) of courts siding with the spouse on these very issues of tube removal. The Florida legislature is interfering with these spousal rights and responsibilities. Now, maybe there is therapuetic hope for Terry, although the courts seemed to have ruled that there isn't. With NO evidence to back up a criminal investigation we MUST give benefit of the doubt to said defendant, in this case the spouse, and also must respect the rights and responsibilities of allowing him to choose for his spouse, in this case Terry.
Originally posted by NewGuy
The American Declaration of Independence
It doesn't matter if she wants to die. She is bound by our documents to live.
Originally posted by Comrade
It's interesting how the framers wrote the part you quoted. In this scenario the Supreme Court had a field day with the whole concept of euthenasia vs. "pulling the plug".
The "Right to life, liberty, and happiness" is not a mandatory obligation to the person. Nor is the governments responsibility to make everyone "live free and happy".
They are simply concepts which the US government cannot infringe upon.
In the poor woman's situation there is neither liberty nor happiness at hand, simply life.
Euthenasia is murder, but a refusal of life support is not. So while it's the responsibility of the government to secure one's viability to live it's not required to force upon another the burden of supporting an unviable life.
Originally posted by NewGuy
The point here, though, is that the parents have long offered rehabilitation, cost coverage, and all the rest but Michael has long denied it and refused them to see her most of the time. There is far more behined those issues, but if the law is to be enforced as your conclusion dictates, they cannot allow him to kill her and they must allow the parents to support her.
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Only if the government wishes to change decades of precedence of the spousal rights and responsibilities, which is what they are trying to do here and why it was made unconstitutional
MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.
MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:
(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.
MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:
Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.
MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terris recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terris level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terris feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavos team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terris ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terris husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.
Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself Dr. Death, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.
MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terris medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terris medical fund on Schiavos attorneys fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavos primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terris medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a houseplant and has used Terris case on national television to promote his newly published book.
MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavos attorney proposed that, if Terris parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavos conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terris medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn. Naturally, Terris parents immediately rejected the offer. Yet, for 4 years, Schiavo has repeatedly implied to the media that he was willing to donate Terris
MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terris 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50
Atty Gwyneth Stanley $10,668.05
Atty Deborah Bushnell $65,607.00
Atty Steve Nilson $7,404.95
Atty Pacarek $1,500.00
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL) $4,511.95
Atty George Felos $397,249.99
Other
1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85
Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95
Total $545,852.34
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I have a hard time believing that all of these facts were entered into a court docket for the record and yet still a judge has ruled on the husbands behalf. Is there an explanation for that?
Originally posted by NewGuy
You do realize that you are asking for detailed summary of a court issue dragging out over several years, at least 2 judges, and more than several hearings, right?
The video can show you all the proof as to her true condition.
I will try to provide the info you are asking for, but this IS a heck of a lot of work that would be easily adressed with the resources on that site. I would be continuing to drag all of this stuff up time after time when you could quicker see what you are looking for specifically in a one-shot deal.
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
No. I'm not asking you to dig up all these records. You've posted a website, maybe slanted towards her parents but I'm not debating that part. Somewhere along the line this case has had to make a point as to whether she is capable of some sort of life or not.
-Ah, but it has been that up until now, there had to be evidence other than 1 passing comment after a television program years earlier to prove her statement. Why is it that the giving of life requires proof, but the taking of one does not?Maybe, just maybe, Terry had told her husband that she didn't want to live a life of having to be cared for in this manner at all. You can either take his word for it or not, but to do anything about not taking his word for it there has to be proof that there was criminal or negligent conduct in regards to it. So far that has not been proven.
Believe me, it sucks that terrys parents may lose their daughter but I can tell you this now, I would not want to be that kind of a burden to my wife and/or kids.
Originally posted by NewGuy
Which is why the definition doesn't apply, as she does not fit that description. Hence, the whole case on this one point is a fraud.
She is the only evidence. If she dies, he is scott free. In addition, he can take the money and run.
Originally posted by NewGuy
The American Declaration of Independence
It doesn't matter if she wants to die. She is bound by our documents to live.
Originally posted by acludem
So New Guy, I take it you oppose living wills? You would force someone to be kept alive who has expressed a wish to be allowed to die with dignity? I find it disconcerting when the so-called "pro-life" movement seeks to replace their judgement for that of the person affected and their family.
acludem
Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
The so called "Pro-Life" movement is also anxious to see lots of dead and disfigured women from coat hanger abortions, they can't wait to get revenge on women who would dare to be more than incubators.
Originally posted by insein
That is one of the worst arguments for Abortion. Prepare to get eaten alive by our "Pro-Life" Women on this board.
