Schiavo Thread Part the Third

[JohnT]

Link to the first thread (takes you to last post):http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...&goto=lastpost

A link to the second thread (takes you to last post): http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...&goto=lastpost

It's a complete ideological ****storm in here, so put on your wading boots. You have been warned.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Could someone tell me upon what basis the law introduced by Martinez was shot down?

What court did that? Federal court in Florida?

It wasn't shot down. It was either poorly written in a way that allowed the Federal Courts to ignore its intent or it was brilliantly designed to look like it was doing something while leaving the way for the Fed courts to not have to get involved with a very serious Consitutional issue. Probably a bit of both.

[GePap]

To NYE form the other thread-

If the courts had found that she did not ask to die, then that would have been it-what standing would anyone had had to demand her support be taken away if the courts found insufficient evidence for pulling the plug? That is where the court is biased towards life.

So: if it was found she wanted to die, then there is no point of council
If insufficient proof of such a claim was found, then no need for council cause the tube stays.

Maybe if the husband decided to challange the court and began to question such a veridict then a council for Terry would have been called for, but not otherwise.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Then the agent would instruct counsel to oppose termination of care, and would be knowledgable in the background and be able to give counsel competent assistance.

But Mr Schiavo did not go to court to get permission to terminate his wife's care. He went to court to ask it what to do. Therefore the court's job was to determine not whether to "kill" Mrs. Schiavo or not, but simply what Terri's wishes would have been. The two sides were arguing what Terri's wishes were. The court found that Terri would have wanted to die, not that Michael Schaivo had a right and permission to kill her.

[RGBVideo]

I can't believe some of you are bored to spend around ranting and raving about a single case like this... is the whole media of your nation hysteric about this single case? W. just offered to sell with dirt price some of your prime jets to a guy who is damn near getting kicked off from power by his own people, why don't we have a single thread about that but three about some random woman who died years ago?

Self-quote:

Wait... so Schiavo is just a gal who died ten years ago and who ya'll are just using to further your own shallow political agendas? No let's be honest for a second, if any of you truly believes that she can be turned alive back again and any of you wants to save her, why not drive to Florida (why not? you sure are closer to FL than I am) and offer to become her legal guardian of some sort? I'm sure nobody would have any problems if some of you would want to use your own money to upkeep a cute plant in your home.

Why do you bother to argue about this so long, anyway? If you'd be able to change each other's minds about this, you would've done so a long time ago.

[chequita guevara]

Fifteen years ago, and people have volunteered to care for her. That's not the point. The point is she wanted to die rather than be kept in such a state.

[RGBVideo]

From the last thread:

Can your small mind grasp that?

Why you should care about other families' internal strifes so much? No.

[chequita guevara]

I don't. I care when a bunch of hypocritical busybodies hijack the government in order to interfere with someone's internal family problems.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't. I care when a bunch of hypocritical busybodies hijack the government in order to interfere with someone's internal family problems.

Why should you care. I think we need some reeducation. Let's put you in one of those Maoist circles...

[chequita guevara]

What have I ever done to you to deserve that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What have I ever done to you to deserve that?

You haven't yet shot him- that was your first mistake.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
To NYE form the other thread-

If the courts had found that she did not ask to die, then that would have been it-what standing would anyone had had to demand her support be taken away if the courts found insufficient evidence for pulling the plug? That is where the court is biased towards life.

So: if it was found she wanted to die, then there is no point of council
If insufficient proof of such a claim was found, then no need for council cause the tube stays.

Maybe if the husband decided to challange the court and began to question such a veridict then a council for Terry would have been called for, but not otherwise.

The point is getting to the bottom of the patient's wishes when there is a dispute.

This issue is not going to go away.

While JT wrote a very good piece on where sensitivity to the issue is coming from, the real reason this is important is in deciding what happens when there is a dispute.

I am not convinced that Ned has it wrong.

If there is a dispute, the state must assure itself that the patient's interests are looked after before the state uses its power to intervene to terminate support for a life. I am not convinced that a judge has the time to invest into such a question, nor should he or she. Furthermore, it is not the function of a judge to be an advocate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap


You haven't yet shot him- that was your first mistake.

I'm not stupid enough to try and take on the military militarily. That be like trying to take on a bear with my teeth and fingernails.

[TCO]

What do you call those things? And I'm just flaunting the little I learned at USNA poly sci classes. We had a really cool lecture from a spook who was also an O-6 attached to the embassy. He had done some cool things behind the curtain.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Furthermore, it is not the function of a judge to be an advocat.

The judge wasn't being an advocate. The judge was making a finding of fact. That is the purpose of judges.

Another way of looking at it is that the judge was deciding between two parties claiming to represent Terri's interests. Why appoint another one?