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.
SmarterThanYou said:logic tells us that the courts decision based on multiple witness accounts indicate that she wished not to live like this precipitate my position. Thats logic. Everyone else is using emotion because they 'suspect' the husband of ulterior motives so they'll disregard any facts in the issue.
Feel free to, however make sure it used appropriately, or it will fall flat, just like your argument here has.thanks, i'll certainly remember to use that argument next time a hypothetical future legal battle argument is made here from the conservative side.
What evidence do you seek? A court, upheld on numerous appeals, already determined by "clear and convincing evidence," that Terri would not want to continue in this state.
ReillyT said:What evidence do you seek? A court, upheld on numerous appeals, already determined by "clear and convincing evidence," that Terri would not want to continue in this state. During the hearing, they heard the testimony of multiple witnesses on behalf of the Schindlers and Mr. Schiavo on this issue. Absent a living will (which was not required in Fla.), this is pretty much all the evidence.
They also considered the possibility that Terri might recover, and based on the testimony of court appointed doctors, determined that she could not recover or be rehabilitated. They noted that Mr. Schiavo took Terri to California for experimental therapy when no progress was made through doctors in Florida, and this therapy also held no hope for rehabilitation. Spinal cord fluid has backed into portions of her brain and killed it. Nothing more can be done.
I understand people are passionate about this, but the courts did exactly what they were supposed to do. They evaluated whether Terri could be rehabilitated and determined she could not. The sought to determine what her wishes were before she died, and determined that her wish would be to stop living.
ReillyT said:So do you not believe that oral contracts should be enforced? They are all the time. The court generally (there are definite exceptions) draws no distinction between whether an agreement was oral or written, provided evidence of the contract is strong enough.
You obviously haven't read the court record. The court found the very opposite. Three people testified that this would be her wish, one of which was her husband. I thought marriage was supposed to be a sacred relationship, the strongest our laws recongize. The court also found no credible evidence that she would want to continue in this state, except her statements to her mother when she was 11 years old. She just didn't talk to the rest of her family about this issue.
The courts make dumb ass decisions all the time---doesn't make em rightReillyT said:Perhaps the knowledge that he failed to protect his wife's wishes and that now she will be left in a state in which she never wanted to live.
Interesting take on this issue, he is either obsessed or a batterer. You obviously don't see much gray in your life. However, I wouldn't say both possibilities are equal in their likelihood since a court already determined, after hearing the evidence, that she did not want to live like this.
no1tovote4 said:Hearsay evidence is not enough IMO when speaking of taking a life in this manner. Multiple witness accounts? One of the two witnesses that I read about in the Judge's ruling was the mother who is on the other side of the battle. She stated that at one time Terry mentioned this to her in passing but that later conversations were quite different and that this would not be her wish. The Judge took only that part of her testimony that could support his judgement, the other witness was the Husband who has conflicts of interest that can lead one to believe that other things may be influencing his testimony.
I love my wife dearly and as much as I would not want her to die, if those were her wishes in a similar situation I would follow them through no matter what her parents wished or said otherwise. now, maybe i'm the daft one but I lose a wife either way it goes. What I couldn't live with is allowing her to live a tortured life at the behest of her selfish parents by walking away from it instead of fulfilling my love for her by providing her the peace she wants.Bonnie said:At some point this case will end, once the parents and or the other side have exhausted all possibilties, and either the parents or her husband will have to live with the consequences. Lets look at it from this perspective...The parents have much more to lose than her husband. If he walks away from this what harm will be done to him, if the parents walk away they loose a daughter.
Is that a future legal argument? because in the 14 years this has been going on, no evidence of any kind has been found to implicate her husband in the development of her collapse.Bonnie said:Yes it's entirely possible that the husband is just really obsessed about a conversation they had about her not wanting to live like that, and it is also entirely possible that he doesn't want her to be rehabilitated becasue if she can talk again she might remember how she came to be in that brain damaged state.
would they lose? or perhaps they would fight long enough and use enough emotional appeal to gather a large public interest, state government support, and eventually US congressional support to keep her alive.Bonnie said:If Terri had made a will none of this would be happening now. Sure her parents would have fought for a while maybe two years but they would have lost, and rightly so.
so if one wants to fulfill the wishes of the spouses right to die, there must be no gain whatsoever.Bonnie said:This case is not the typical case, there is too much here to be taking the word of one man who has a lot to gain form her death.
dilloduck said:The courts make dumb ass decisions all the time---doesn't make em right
no1tovote4 said:I read the judges ruling and the court record. There were only two witnesses mentioned in the ruling one was the mother who stated as I presented above.
perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the assisted suicide laws then. laws passed by the republican majority.ScreamingEagle said:What bothers me is that some want to "put her out of her misery" (this is debatable) by placing her into more misery, days of extreme misery. This is logical?
If the "logical" Court is going to order them to kill her, why can't the Court issue the order to kill her humanely? I'm sure it was not her wish to die in great pain. That certainly is not following her wishes.
ReillyT said:Three people testified that this would be Terri's wish. The only conversation Terri had with her mother about this issue was when Terri was 11 years old. Otherwise, her mother was only testifying about what, from what she believed about Terri generally, Terri would want. The judge weighed the credibility of all the witnesses and found in Mr. Schiavo's favor.
Hearsay is not impermissible in every court hearing. In probate in Florida, probably because the dead and severely disabled cannot speak for themselves, hearsay is obviously permissible. Otherwise, evidence could never be presented about someone's wishes who did not leave a will, which presumably happens a lot.
ReillyT said:
SmarterThanYou said:perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the assisted suicide laws then. laws passed by the republican majority.
ReillyT said:You would rather be making the dumb ass decisions?
no, i told you who and how the assisted suicide law was passed.no1tovote4 said:You make the assumption that everybody on the site is Republican, you could not be more incorrect.
no1tovote4 said:I think we should require a will. I have not stated that they have reached beyond their powers or that it was not permissable but have stated that it is my opinion that hearsay in the case of life and death should not be enough. I would not convict somebody of an offense that called for the death penalty on such evidence why would I believe it is okay to kill the innocent on such flimsy evidence. The reasonable doubt here is huge and we should require a better account of evidence than only hearsay in cases that involve life and death decisions.
I personally would not want somebody who had conflicts of interest making choices for me at such a time, whether it was the family wanting to save my life or the spouse wanting to take it. As I stated before, this case in particular has caused me to make a living will so that that will not be the case for me in the future.
Stating that the court decided in this case this way does not make this any more right to me. Without knowing her wishes 100% we should not kill a person by stavation, especially not based in testimony from people with conflicts of interest which both sides have in this case.
SmarterThanYou said:no, i told you who and how the assisted suicide law was passed.
Did you support or oppose assisted suicide?
SmarterThanYou said:I love my wife dearly and as much as I would not want her to die, if those were her wishes in a similar situation I would follow them through no matter what her parents wished or said otherwise. now, maybe i'm the daft one but I lose a wife either way it goes. What I couldn't live with is allowing her to live a tortured life at the behest of her selfish parents by walking away from it instead of fulfilling my love for her by providing her the peace she wants.
Is that a future legal argument? because in the 14 years this has been going on, no evidence of any kind has been found to implicate her husband in the development of her collapse.
would they lose? or perhaps they would fight long enough and use enough emotional appeal to gather a large public interest, state government support, and eventually US congressional support to keep her alive.
so if one wants to fulfill the wishes of the spouses right to die, there must be no gain whatsoever.
Bonnie said:Um yes Reilly it's still the will of the people which is why the legislative branches are getting involved in this now, judges are not soley the law!!!
