Schiavo Thread Part the Third

[Ned]

I found this in today NYTimes:

"In 1998, when Mr. Schiavo asked a court's permission to remove his wife's feeding tube, the Schindlers challenged, leading to a trial. That is when Michael and Scott Schiavo and their sister in-law Joan Schiavo testified that Ms. Schiavo had told them never to prolong her life artificially.

Scott Schiavo testified that after his grandmother was on life support at the end of her life, Ms. Schiavo had told him: "If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there."

Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court found the testimony constituted "clear and convincing" evidence of Ms. Schiavo's wishes, and her feeding tube was removed in April 2001. It was reconnected days later, after a former girlfriend of Mr. Schiavo called a radio station to say he had told her he had no idea whether his wife would have wanted life-prolonging measures."

"That led to new testimony, but it did not change Judge Greer's mind, partly because the girlfriend recanted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/national/26families.html?pagewanted=3&th&emc=th

The three withness who testified were all Schiavo family members. Their testimony was contradicted by a girlfriend who later recanted. However, there are other witnesses who were present when Schiavo made the statement to the former girlfriend who support the original statement of the girlfriend.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kalius


Oerdin: There's no tangible proof. The courts have to make a decision though, and it's more likely that five different, non-related people's word against the family's is more convincing. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, the point is it's more convincing, and that's all it comes down to.

I think there were only three witnesses, all of who were adversely interested to Terri continued existence.

There also appear to be people who flatly contradict the Schiavos who have no interest whatsoever.

As to the decision by the Florida Court, other states have ruled that parol testimony alone is insufficient to establish the facts by "clear and convincing" evidence. Alan Duruswitch, Harvard law, agrees that permitting the issue to be establish by parol testimony is "wrong."

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Wrong as usual. There was only Terri finally getting her wishes honored. To bad bastard right to lifers had to keep playing politics with this woman's last request.

David Bois and Alan Duraswitch are bastard right to lifers?

Also, there clearly was a death sentence. The only way this passes constitutional muster is if Terri consented to it. THAT issue must be established by clear and convincing evidence under Florida law. The question whether that issue was established sufficiently in this case is the very issue before the federal courts now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kalius


How Testimony != tangible proof however you twist it... like I said in the rest of the post though, they made the right choice because it was the more convincing case.

Kalius, I would hope in the future this issue could be tried to a jury with adequate legal representation for the victim. I would be more comfortable that due process was observed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kalius


IIRC there was a test case in the EU about this, and it was decided that just because people do not feed you doesn't mean you are being denied your human rights... if you can't feed yourself that's your problem, not anybody else's.

Morally a bit iffy, but I think the courts basically thought "Just because they can't do it themselves doesn't mean the upkeep of their life falls onto unwilling people"

Kalius, did that test case also consider whether it was a violation of human rights to deny a parent the right to feed their daughter in absence of a clear expression by her that she did not want to be kept alive?

[Frozzy]

Kalius, I would hope in the future this issue could be tried to a jury with adequate legal representation for the victim. I would be more comfortable that due process was observed.

The former, yes, the latter... is impossible because what you are trying to represent is the basis of debate in the first place.

Kalius, did that test case also consider whether it was a violation of human rights to deny a parent the right to feed their daughter in absence of a clear expression by her that she did not want to be kept alive?

I cannot recall the exact details of the case (I only remember it vaguely), but I'll try to find out tommorow for you. I think it went to a number of courts though... I'm tired *yawn*.

[Ned]

Also, I can only imagine the outcry if Rummy ordered the prisoners at Gitmo to be starved to death regardless of their consent.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kalius


The former, yes, the latter... is impossible because what you are trying to represent is the basis of debate in the first place.

Kalius, the role of the attorney is to assume that the victum wants to live and force those who say otherwise to prove it with competent evidence.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Wow, your conspiracy theory just is a 180 compared to CNN's coverage. Now I must decide if I trust CNN or that website you linked. decisions, decisions.

Like I've told other people, I can't really help you if your main source of news is the television. Not even worth talking to you if that is the case.

And I fail to see how pointing out Michael Schiavo's obvious conflict of interest equates to engaging in conspiracy theories. I'm not saying he definitely has ulterior motives, just that there is definitely reason to doubt his portrayal by some as an ideal husband and guardian.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think it would shock the conscious of the oridinary person to say that the testimony of Michael Schiavo alone was sufficient under the circumstances of this case where he had such great adverse financial and personal interests.

I was certainly shocked.

David Bois and Alan Duraswitch are bastard right to lifers?

Don't forget Ralph Nader. Can't believe he and George W. Bush agree on something...

[Sava]

https://www.footballfansfortruth.com

Drake, your sources are pure garbage. Don't embarass yourself further by posting any more bull****.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It isn't up to the attourney which way to argue. It is up to the guardian, like with kids in tough cases. In a case like this the guardian needs to spend a very large amount of time becoming familiar with the pateint, her life, her friends, and her caregivers.

Then the guardian may advise/instruct a lawyer which way to go.

In other words, the guardian should do the judge's job, instead of the judge.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It behooves the state to try to get to know her wishes before flipping the switch.

That's what the state did.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The Federal Judge denied most of Terri's Federal Claims in part on the basis that their was no state action.

Terri has no claims. Terri doesn't exist. Those are Terri's parents' claims. And Terri's parents have been shown to be liars.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ned
The Federal judge also said the sufficiency of evidence to establish "clear and convincing" was a state matter, not a federal matter, in considering the issue of "due process." I think this is crap. Not only is this relevant in on this issue, I also think the adequacy of legal representation is at issue.

I think it would shock the conscious of the oridinary person to say that the testimony of Michael Schiavo alone was sufficient under the circumstances of this case where he had such great adverse financial and personal interests.

Even if he told the truth, does this not open the door to some husband in the future offing his incapacitated wife for the insurance money or convenience or whatever? I.e. his wishes, not hers?

When my granma died, it was amazing how half the people argued to pull the plug because of the drain of taking care of her or implication of putting her in a home. Other half argued to let her live because of enjoying companionship. NOONE asked what her wishes were. It was like...sorry...you're 88...you got more than the average already anyhow.