Agreed to consider the petiition when? Much longer and it won't matter if they agree to the petition or not.
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
So will they pop her back on the tube while this is all hashed out?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that Terri is going to live.
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that Terri is going to live.
Well, she wasn't in top shape to start with... 13 days w/o any food or water has to have had an effect.
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7306432/site/newsweek/
This is a Newsweek article, "The Legacy of Terri Schiavo" and I'm not certain if it's especially biased, but it does seem to be fairly comprehensive (not majorly in-depth though, just 4 pages), in case anyone is interested.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
new newsweek article has more detail than most i've seen. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7306432/site/newsweek/
...she had reached as much as 250 pounds?at which point she went on a NutriSystem diet and quickly lost about 100 pounds. Soon thereafter, she met Michael Schiavo at a community college, and he asked her out. "She fell for the first guy who came along and paid any attention to her
When they decided to start a family, Terri had trouble getting pregnant, and sought help from an obstetrician. By that time, Terri weighed 110 pounds, and had a figure she proudly flaunted by wearing bikinis for the first time.
In the early years of her condition, Michael and the Schindlers got along harmoniously, even living together in a house on the Gulf Coast for a while. They ensured that Terri received all variety of therapies, including physical, occupational and recreational. When those didn't work, Michael flew her out to California, where a doctor implanted platinum electrodes into her brain as part of an experimental procedure that ultimately failed. Back in Florida, Michael enlisted family members to record audiotapes of their voices, which he played for Terri on a Walkman. He was fastidious about Terri's appearance, spraying her with Picasso perfume and outfitting her in stirrup pants and matching tops from The Limited. At one Florida nursing home, he was so demanding that administrators sought a restraining order against him. But Gloria Centonze, who worked there at the time (and by coincidence later married into the family of Michael's future girlfriend), recalls a frequent comment among the nurses: "He may be a bastard, but if I was sick like that, I wish he was my husband." To better care for Terri, Michael even enrolled in nursing school.
One of the Schindlers' witnesses, Terri's childhood friend Diane Meyer, claimed that the topic of life support once came up in a conversation they had about the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, whose feeding tube was removed in 1985. "How did they know she would want this?" Terri allegedly asked Meyer. "How did they know she wouldn't want to go on?" Testifying for his brother Michael, Scott Schiavo recounted an exchange he had with Terri after seeing Michael's grandmother hooked up to a ventilator. As Scott recalls it today, "I can still see Terri looking right into my eyes and saying, 'Not me. No way. I would not want to live like that'."
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Insomniak
I'm generally supportive of letting people make their own decisions, which Terri Schiavo did.
No one needs you, or me, making decisions for them.
I wouldn't my life determined on the basis of hearsay, would you?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: preCRT
Don't waste your time arguing with rip or luvly, neither one is capable of admitting when they are wrong nor capable of seeing the truth.
Still wondering why Schiavo's attorney argues that Terri is a "vegetable" and then boasts that her room is filled with flowers and soft music and she has a teddy tucked under her harm.
Care to explain?
Care to explain why the father said she looked like death warmed over last Friday and the next day, Saturday, recanted his observations of her condition and said she looked all rosey? Hmmm.
If it's not bad enough that the state is killing the daughter, now the left-wing wackos are vilifying the father.
It's an upside down world.
Originally posted by: polm
Rip, please stop posting all of these Rush "Dittos" ! If we wanted to hear Limbaugh's comments, we would listen to his daily radio comedy show.
People put flowers in the room of sick people ALL THE TIME, even when those sick people are not aware . They do this to make both themselves, guests, and possibly the Spirit of the sick person, feel better. Was I trying to impress the world when I took flowers to the bedside of my grandmother when she had just had a total debilitating and brain destroying stroke ? She never saw the flowers, but it made me feel better to surround her SOUL with beauty. OK ? Get it ??
In a cold hosiptal room, a flower can represent the beauty of G-D. Whether or not the patient is consiously aware of that is not at all the point.
Oh, and just like HeaterCore said: "one last time in case you missed it: The testimony was not hearsay" .
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that Terri is going to live.
Well, she wasn't in top shape to start with... 13 days w/o any food or water has to have had an effect.
Yeah, it's certainly not doing her any good.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's not working for me.
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I really don't think that when people wish and hope for a loved one to recover from these catostrophic failures to their
organic systems that they can conceive of the damage that occurs, and the consequences of dealing with the end result.
Those that are faced with the remanants of the living being when it's all said and done have
no way of taking care of the remaining shell that they will now have to deal with on a daily basis.
It's sad and tragic to loose a loved one, but sometimes less tragic than the consequences
of keeping that loved one in a never ending state of suspended animation -
totally dependant on life support for as long as they can, with no prospect for recovery.
No, you misunderstand it. It is indeed hearsay especially in the case where the person alleged to have made the statement is not alive or is incapacitated to testify. Here are links for you to read: What is hearsay?Originally posted by: HeaterCore
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Insomniak
I'm generally supportive of letting people make their own decisions, which Terri Schiavo did.
No one needs you, or me, making decisions for them.
I wouldn't my life determined on the basis of hearsay, would you?
For...the...last...freaking...time...will you morons stop acting like you know the law because you've seen a few episodes of CSI? I've seen this "hearsay" charge so many times that it must've gone out on official GOP letterhead.
The testimony of those supporting Michael's side was not hearsay. For that matter, the testimony of her mother and sister, on the other side, was not hearsay. Got it?
Hearsay, according to a somewhat simplified definition, is "[e]vidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness." The witnesses in this case personally heard, or at least claimed to have heard, Terri make certain statements. Since they personally heard these statements, they were reporting to the court their own "personal knowledge."
Did you really think that a witness can never testify to statements made in their presence? That a rape victim can't tell the court what her attacker said to her, only what he did? Or, more likely, did you not bother to power on any neurons before passing along some stupid talking point you'd read on a blog?
Phew. That said, you're obviously more than free to doubt their testimony. I certainly have questions about why the court lent enough credence to oral evidence to satisfy a "clear and convincing" standard; but unlike a lot of people I'm willing to admit that I wasn't in the courtroom to evaluate all of the evidence and that maybe, just maybe, the judge who has been upheld four hundred times might've been right.
Anyhow, one last time in case you missed it: The testimony was not hearsay.
-HC-
Originally posted by: DearQT
No, you misunderstand it. It is indeed hearsay especially in the case where the person alleged to have made the statement is not alive or is incapacitated to testify. Here are links for you to read: What is hearsay?
Hearsay Evidence. The court, however, is allowed to make exceptions to the hearsay rule.
Courts generally employ rules of evidence during trials, and a well known rule of evidence holds that hearsay is admissible to prove something only in limited circumstances. Under Florida law, there are about 30 or so such circumstances. You could say that one of them applies here, such as the exception for statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind. You could also say that Terri's statements were not hearsay, since they were offered to prove she said those words, not to prove that what she said was true. Hearsay is an out of court assertion offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Those are evidentiary reasons why the testimony was admissible. There's a better reason. A constitutional reason. Terri had, and every Florida citizen has, a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to decide that certain medical treatments should not be used to prolong her life. The Florida Supreme Court has clearly decided that this right can be exercised through written and oral statements.
In the landmark 1990 case In re Browning, Florida's high court explained that a surrogate attempting to determine what the ward would do can rely on the ward's written or oral statements. The court said:
"A surrogate must take great care in exercising the patient's right of privacy, and must be able to support that decision with clear and convincing evidence. Before exercising the incompetent's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must satisfy the following conditions:
1. The surrogate must be satisfied that the patient executed any document knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence, and that the evidence of the patient's oral declarations is reliable;
2. The surrogate must be assured that the patient does not have a reasonable probability of recovering competency so that the right could be exercised directly by the patient; and
3. The surrogate must take care to assure that any limitations or conditions expressed either orally or in the written declaration have been carefully considered and satisfied."
The court also explained how the surrogate may have to defend any decision regarding the ward's orally declared wishes from a challenge by another person interested in the ward's welfare:
"We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate.
* * *
Although a surrogate may rely on oral statements made by the incompetent, while competent, to exercise the incompetent's wishes to forego life-sustaining treatment, the presumption of clear and convincing evidence that attaches to a written declaration does not attach to purely oral declarations. Oral evidence, considered alone, may constitute clear and convincing evidence. However, the surrogate would bear the burden of proof if a decision based on purely oral evidence is challenged.
Because the only issue before the court is a determination of the patient's wishes, challenges generally would be limited to that issue. For example, there may be challenges to claims that the declaration was not executed knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence; that the patient had changed his or her mind after executing the declaration; that the declaration was ambiguous; that the conditions or limitations contained in the declaration were not satisfied; that the surrogate or proxy was the one actually designated; and, of course, that there was a reasonable probability that the patient would regain competency. When the only evidence of intent is an oral declaration, the accuracy and reliability of the declarant's oral expression of intent also may be challenged."
(all emphasis added).
I quote these passages at length to show that the Florida Supreme Court has confirmed the ability of Florida citizens to use oral statements, not just written ones, to exercise their fundamental right to decline medical treatment. The rules of evidence help define how facts can be proved at trial, but they cannot be used to preclude the admission of statements that effectuate a fundamental constitutional right.
An assertion that the ward made a particular statement may certainly be challenged as unreliable -- that the ward never said it -- but there is no question that evidence of the ward's oral statements is admissible evidence, or that oral statements may constitute clear and convincing evidence. That's the law.
By the way, I want to correct one thing. I don?t want to be technical about it. But the statement is not hearsay. Let me tell you why. It?s called in law a verbal act. That is, it is a statement allegedly made by Terri Schiavo simply testified to by her husband.
It?s not testimonial. It is a statement.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: preCRT
Don't waste your time arguing with rip or luvly, neither one is capable of admitting when they are wrong nor capable of seeing the truth.
Still wondering why Schiavo's attorney argues that Terri is a "vegetable" and then boasts that her room is filled with flowers and soft music and she has a teddy tucked under her harm.
Care to explain?
Care to explain why the father said she looked like death warmed over last Friday and the next day, Saturday, recanted his observations of her condition and said she looked all rosey? Hmmm.
If it's not bad enough that the state is killing the daughter, now the left-wing wackos are vilifying the father.
It's an upside down world.
Hmmm, wonder why they did this in the middle of the night???
Rip, Savage and the rest may still rejoice in Veggie land yet:
3-30-2005 Federal Appeals Court OKs Schiavo Review
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court early Wednesday agreed to consider a petition by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube.
Now, the court is considering the request for a new trial rather than whether the state court rulings have met legal standards under Florida law, which is what federal courts have done in the case up to now.
Federal courts were given jurisdiction to review Schiavo's case after Republicans in Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation over the weekend aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life.
I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Originally posted by: conjur
Judge issues smackdown to Congress and the President!
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdfI concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: conjur
Judge issues smackdown to Congress and the President!
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdfI concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Awesome.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Fyi. Michael Schiavo should be investigated. E-mail the Coroner's Office and insist on an autopsy so we can find out the truth.
If Terri ultimately dies, it is the publically stated intention of Michael Schiavo to have her immediately cremated. The Pinellas County Medical Examiner's office (District 6) would need to certify such cremation.
review the policy Link
The Medical Examiner should NOT do so if there is a question about the proximate cause of her death (or face adverse licensing action in Florida).
For future reference, though I hope it need not be used any time soon, the email for the Coroner's office is mailto:wpellan@co.pinellas.fl.us.
Should Terri die, everyone must immediately demand a waiver of certification for cremation and an investigation, including autopsy to determine proximate (and immediate) cause of death. Since Dr. Baden (forensic pathologist) believes the injuries are not consistent with Michael Schiavo's story, an autopsy would perhaps develop evidence that would put Michael Schiavo behind bars, and perhaps "retire" the miserable excuse of a judge, George Greer.
Link
MS has already odered an autopsy upon her death. Next baseless allegation....
Fixed.Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: conjur
Judge issues smackdown to Congress and the President!
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdfI concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Awesome.
WooHooo, high 5-fives all around, a woman with less than half the normal brain tissue and no cerebral cortex who cannot ingest food and water normally is going to die because she would have wanted it that way! Time to break out the champagne! Let the celebration begin!
Originally posted by: conjur
Fixed.Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: conjur
Judge issues smackdown to Congress and the President!
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdfI concur in the denial of rehearing en banc in this case because any further
action by our court or the district court, would be improper, as I explain below.
An axiom in the study of law is that ?hard facts make bad law.? The tragic
events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the
resulting passionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as
?hard facts.? And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress
have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for
dispassionate discharge of duty.
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some
members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of ?activist
judges.? Generally, the definition of an ?activist judge? is one who decides the
outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one
sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal
precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy
it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and
executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at
odds with our Founding Fathers? blueprint for the governance of a free people ?
our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that
Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en
banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 (?the Act?) is unconstitutional and, therefore,
this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1
special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise
have in this case.
Awesome.
WooHooo, high 5-fives all around, a woman with less than half the normal brain tissue and no cerebral cortex who cannot ingest food and water normally is going to die because she would have wanted it that way! Time to break out the champagne! Let the celebration begin!
Besides, who died and made you her guardian?
Oh yeah...NO ONE!