Fed. judge refuses to order feeding tube reinsertion

whats this crap about she is in God's hands now. first off she is in the hands of the people that take care of her. now unless one of them is God or michael landon, she is being taken care of by regular people. she is being starved by regular people. God is not starving her. second it drives some people crazy with this entire theory that God is involved with this or anything else relating to this earth. it is hilarious to involve a theoretical being into this situation. that drives me crazy with what the republicans do. and it drives me crazy that the democrats push for the starvation. this is not complicated like everyone claims. the lady has every right to be alive. no court should tell otherwise in a case like this.

1) Why is it that his ex-gf admitted in court that he lied about Terri wanting to die rather than live like this . The doubt on his credibility should surely be on your and everybody else's mind also? By the way in the dozens of court battles it was only Michael's testimony to her wanting this end to her life. In fact it took him 7 years to recall that it was so.

The key word there is EX-girlfriend. EX's have a way of not having one's best interests at heart, and there is no way to prove purjury on heresay, so it's a pretty safe way to take someone down a peg. Now a question for you. He could have divorced Terri and received 11 million dollars (from various sources) for doing so, and placing her care with her parents. If he DIDN'T care about Terri's wishes, and had selfish interests at heart, then why didn't he do this???

2) Would you want your wife to cease all medical attention when you can walk and interact? As well as if she decided that you were in a PVS would you want her to starve you to death, or go that extra mile to demand euthanasia?

Personally, I'd want her to get me a lethal cocktail in my IV if I were in a PVS (persistent vegetative state), but if my cerebral cortex was as gone as Terri's, it isn't like I'd feel the pain of starving anyhow, so if the only legal alternative (I don't want her going to jail), then yes, I'd want her to starve me to death. I should mention here, that my wife doesn't want this for herself, but she respects my feelings on it. If the tables were turned, she'd want to be kept on life support, and though not my idea, I would respect her wishes in this. Demanding euthanasia is a moot point, it isn't legal yet (for humans), and would simply prolong the process. If anyone leaves me as a vegetable in a hospital bed for 15 years, I will haunt each and every one of them for the end of their days! As for walking and interacting, this isn't the case with Terri, so a moot point. Court=appointed doctors (not doctors from Michael) in around a dozen court cases have agreed that she is in a PVS....

I dont like the pllitical implications of this whole thing, however i still think the husband is a slime ball, imho.

All politics aside, this man all of a sudden remembered after 7 long years what his wife had said (while watching a show)....She had fractures when she was examined...This whole thing stinks. The fact he did not allow her any sun, any therapy whatsoever is also something to think about. That being said, i do agree that the law of the state of Florida should be upheld.

Gazrok: The simple response to your question as to why he didn't give up custodianship to her parents for the $11 million, is that they would have the legal standing at THAT point to civilly take him to court and sue for abuse of Terri through lack of medical treatment and rehabilitation for the past 8 years. At which point the $11 million would be in their pocket not his. So it would be a losing position for him.

As for the ex-gf? I agree that it is potentially so that she was trying to get back at him , unfortunately it does create the doubt regarding the 7 year break between the statement by terri and his recall thereof , it is also convenient that he only recalled it once he had received $600 000 in the personal malpractice suit.

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Mynaeris]

What does any of this have to do with whether or not this woman should be given peace? Like someone said earlier, she's gone. I've seen the CAT-scan, her cerebral cortex is GONE.

LOOK.

www.amptoons.com...

Read this comment from the blorg:

ALA-Anest Says: Hello, I’m a nurse anesthetists and work in Birmingham, Alabama. I live in the Bible belt, born and raised a Christian and I consider myself VERY conservative on politcal issues.

What Cerbrocrat has said, and what Jeremy has just said above me in a more technical sense, is right on point. This woman’s brain is SEVERLY damaged; the cerebral cortex is almost completely gone.

There is not a medication, therapy or experimental science that will ever change her condition. Like an arm or leg that has been amputated, the body can live without parts of the brain, but it will never regenerate. The only problem with my analogy is that although a person can actually function without an arm or leg, that’s not the case without a brain. There’s no such thing as a cortex prosthesis. She will be this way for the rest of her life.

Originally posted by marg6043
Sorry Mynaeris, but regardless of you strong feelings about the woman is not issue here but the law and its decisions and that is the way it should be.

Is not debate here anymore, that is what interest groups want and many are falling for it.

If we can not trust our judicial system to weight the arguments and the facts then who you are going to trust? interest groups that are just using this woman family for their own gain? you think they care? no, they not, look at the polls of the Majority in our nations and what they feel about all this.

Funny even our own poll here in the south shows that the majority believe that government should stay out, and the law should prevail.

Which poll are you refering to marg? If it's the ABC poll it was skewed.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Would you provide a link to your "southern poll"

I would like to address your statement, "If we can not trust our judicial system to weight the arguments and the facts then who you are going to trust? and touch on, "Is not debate here anymore, that is what interest groups want and many are falling for it."

Marg, it is becoming very clear all across the US, judges can't be counted on to weigh arguements and facts based on laws. Our Founding Fathers established our Constitution for the judicial system to interpret. When a case is presented to the court, judges can make their decisions in one of two ways. They can look to the United States Constitution or State laws to see whether it authorizes or forbids the disputed action, or the judges can impose their own social or international views on us dressed up with self-serving jargon.

We have federal judges, unelected and impossible to remove from the bench, making up new “rights” based on their own prejudices and preferences. We face radical leftists at our law schools, and even Supreme Court (in)Justices, demanding that we make the United States Constitution subservient to more “enlightened” laws cherry-picked from the likes of Europe. We face *special interest* smear campaigns against judicial nominees who promise to interpret the laws, rather than invent them.

"Citing of international standards seems to be the latest method that Supreme Court judges are using to subvert our Constitution. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly...on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Justice Breyer added, "We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really -- it's trite but it's true -- is growing together. The challenge [will be] whether our Constitution...fits into the governing documents of other nations."

That statement by (in)Justice O'Connor parallels the socialistic view of another failed lawmaker - the one and only self-admitted war criminal and traitor - John Kerry. The man who would seek world approval for America's actions. The same man who recently lied when he said he would sign his SF-180 and hasn't.

(in)Justice Sandra Day O'Connor should be impeached for such breaches of her oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States.

Recently, Supreme Court (in)Justice Kennedy invoked the “international opinion” as a justification for letting teenage killers off the hook. “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of *international opinion* against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime,” he wrote. (in)Justice Kennedy should be impeached when entertaining an international option and not our constitution.

www.sacunion.com...

California Superior Court (in)Justice Richard Kramer said, "There is "no rational purpose" for the state to restrict marriage to one man and one woman."

In so ruling, Kramer ignored a 1977 California law defining marriage as a relationship "between a man and a woman." He also ignored a 2000 statewide proposition, approved by 61 percent at the polls, which said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

www.beloitdailynews.com...

U.S. District Court (in)Justice James Whittemore defied a Congressional law in the Terri Schiavo case. "Congress passed a law that said that you had to look at this case. Whittenmore simply thumbed his nose at Congress", Santorum said.

www.newsmax.com...

No Marg, I do not trust the judicial system to weigh arguements and facts.

George Washington warned us of such: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence...the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."

Chief

You can post anything you want in search of the debate but, sorry like I said is out of our hands.

And for the polls obviously you are either blind or don't want to face reality, so I leave you at that, this is not longer liberals versus conservatives this about every body voicing their views on how politics should stay away from personal matters.

Terri will pass away and the law rules, if you are against that I am not the one for you to look for, go take it to the judges obviously you think you know better.

I am done with this thread until any other updates comes from the Atlanta court.

Its nothing to debate here.

[edit on 22-3-2005 by marg6043]

Thanks for answering Mynaeris,

Gazrok: The simple response to your question as to why he didn't give up custodianship to her parents for the $11 million, is that they would have the legal standing at THAT point to civilly take him to court and sue for abuse of Terri through lack of medical treatment and rehabilitation for the past 8 years. At which point the $11 million would be in their pocket not his. So it would be a losing position for him.

Fear of a lawsuit would hardly keep ME away from a guaranteed 11 million dollar payday... I doubt receiving money for a divorce provides a legal standpoint for such a suit anyhow. Not to mention, DCF (who is infamous (and I know this rather personally) for inventing abuse where none exists) obviously didn't see anything to the charges, so that right there tells me alot.... Have you dealt personally with DCF? I've seen it, it isn't pretty.

As for the ex-gf? I agree that it is potentially so that she was trying to get back at him , unfortunately it does create the doubt regarding the 7 year break between the statement by terri and his recall thereof , it is also convenient that he only recalled it once he had received $600 000 in the personal malpractice suit.

Sure, there are lots of things that create doubt. On either side. As mentioned though, all of it....whether he's an ass or not, etc. is all immaterial. The point is that the law states the spouse has the say, and it isn't the governor's, president's, or Congress' place to interfere in this. And in doing so, they have grossly overstepped their bounds, and shown a flagrant abuse of the powers of office...even up to the point of threatening the integrity of the Constitution in this pursuit... THAT personally, is what I am outraged about....

Originally posted by Pyros

....... I would suspect that many of them would say that if he truely believed that his wife died when she had her seizure, then why should he not be able to live out the rest of his life and be happy?

i'm with you on that point,

i suppose the lawyers and a befuddled Judiciary more-or-less created
this quagmire....

? Why, wasn't Terri declared 'dead' after the usual 7 year period??

that would have released the estranged husband from the non-existing non-participatory marriage.

Terri, continuing in her 'vegetative' state..i.e. no longer a functioning human being
would then be left to the goodwill of a benefactor, be they Church, Parents
or a charity or foundation...whatever

Terri, given aggressive therapy and perhaps receiving cutting edge
medical treatments might recover to some degree....with her past life
and marriage annulled...& become a 'resurrected' person in the eyes of the law ??

there could / could have been
a positive resolution to this legal entanglement
IF the 'they' were so inclined to address the situation...instead of
just sluffing it off...hoping that the 'problem' would just Go-Away !

Originally posted by St Udio
would then be left to the goodwill of a benefactor, be they Church, Parents
or a charity or foundation...whatever
there could / could have been
a positive resolution to this legal entanglement
IF the 'they' were so inclined to address the situation...instead of
just sluffing it off...hoping that the 'problem' would just Go-Away !

Very good point, I can not just let go, look very closely to whom is the ones that are behind the Terri case, beside the parents.

In that group is where you are going to find the "whys"

The government has NO right to interfere in what is clearly a family matter.


Where does it end?

If I was American, I would be shocked and appalled that a bunch of nitwit politicians can decide the fate of MY wife or MY mother or MY sister.

Be afraid.


jako

Originally posted by marg6043

And for the polls obviously you are either blind or don't want to face reality,
[edit on 22-3-2005 by marg6043]

Marg, just post a link to the poll you referenced.

Chief

Originally posted by Jakomo


The government has NO right to interfere in what is clearly a family matter.


Where does it end?

If I was American, I would be shocked and appalled that a bunch of nitwit politicians can decide the fate of MY wife or MY mother or MY sister.

Be afraid.


jako

Simple and to the point.

What is on trial here is not Terri or her husband or even her family but the governments right to interfere in a family matter.

The choice is simple who would you want to decide youre fate?

Congress or your spouse?

For me the choice is simple and I pray to God I wouldnt have a bunch of people calling my wife a murderess on top of the pain she would already be feeling


PLEASE PEOPLE GET A LIVING WILL.

Love your spouse enough to not put them through this.

I see a lot of this "get a living will"

Be cautioned. Living Wills can be EXTREMELY vague, unclear, and may be used against you if unable to contact your loved one. On the surface they seem like a good idea, but a far better one is to establish legally that in the event you are ever incapacitated, your spouse (etc.) has power of attorney in such a circumstance...

Gaz,

Even with POA the write up may leave some grounds for these types of schenangins. I see it all the time at work when one family member will override wishes and the like.

But you got to admit its better than nothing.

This whole thing makes me sick

So, is this the absolute end to this or will there be another motion?

Even i think by now they should let it be.

I'm just saying to be careful with Living Wills.

There are many different forms, and you want to be as specific as possible to ensure that your wishes are heeded. In the rush to get one filed, don't be hasty, make sure it truly outlines your wishes. Specify the kinds of incapacitation, specify that your spouse (or other designee) must be contacted first, etc. etc.

You don't want to be on life support with a non-descriptive living will, and then a guy down the hall needs a liver...they can't reach your spouse, so you're "let go" to get that liver... Be careful! That's all I'm saying....

From last night's Scarborough Country on MSNBC:

There's a lot of misinformation about Terri Schiavo's medical condition. Dr. William Hammersfahr, a neurologist who was nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work in medicine and physiology, has treated Terri Schiavo. He now joins Scarborough Country to clarify Terri's current medical condition.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I saw it last night on TV and it was shocking. Unfortunately they've made this video so it only works on Windows and have I Mac so I can't verify it works, but hopefully all you Windows people can see it.

So, is this the absolute end to this or will there be another motion?

Won't be the end until she passes...

No doubt they'll try some other kind of political wrangling. I mean look at things they've tried so far....

passed laws they know are unconstitutional
had DCF investigate invented abuse claims
circumvented the entire judicial process

Etc. etc. etc.

They'll try everything in the book to appeal after appeal.

I wouldn't even put it past them to sneak a medicine dropper of liquid food into her room. In fact, I'd be surprised if they WEREN'T doing this. Of course, when she doesn't die after 3 weeks of supposedly no food or water, someone MIGHT get suspicious.... As I said though, little doubt the parents are probably doing this....

EDIT: Is there a non-video text of this doctor (djohnsto)...at work now, no speakers....???

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Gazrok]