There was a court order denying a motion by the Schindler’s to feed/hydrate orally. If Michael had “allowed” the use of ice chips, he himself would have been violating that court order.
regards,
widdley
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Can you clarify?
Then what agency do we rely on to settle disputes, if not an independent and disinterested court system? Or is it your contention that the courts, at least in this case, were neither independent or disinterested? What is your evidence for such a claim?
The courts did not decide what Terri Schiavo “should” have wanted. They decided what she did want. The evidence is overwhelming. It came from multiple witnesses, not one of which had any reason to lie. You clearly disagree, although you’ve provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim. But disregarding that, you do not do your argument any service by misrepresenting what the court’s decision means.
True, but if three people say Siege wanted to die, and one person says Siege wanted to live, why should the one person’s word be believed over the other three? What if the one person has a history of mental illness? What if they have a history of antagonism with Siege? How close a relation must that one person be to exercise this veto power? Sibling? Cousin? Good friend? Do they all get a say in what a person’s last wishes might have been? What if Siege does leave a living will, but that one person claims it was a forgery? How do we determine which story is true, except through the courts you evidently despise?
I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong as a matter of law. Simply having a family member say, “That’s not true” does not, in and of itself, create reasonable doubt. Otherwise, every accused criminal who’s mom says “My baby would never do such a thing,” would walk. If one family member makes a claim regarding a legal matter, and another family member disputes it, it is the function of the courts to determine which claim is true. That’s the entire purpose of having a judiciary!
I am under the impression that the court order specified that Michael’s directions be followed.
Now this stance I can understand and respect. Even while disagreeing.
What tried my patience in the multiple threads about this case were the unsubstaniated claims that there were significant differences of opinion about her condition among physicians who had actually evaluated her. There were not. I’m a physician, I’ve read the testimony and the evidence, and I saw no need for further testing, consultation, or evaluation based on what has already been done.
I also found it frustrating to read assertions about the character and actions of Michael Schiavo being constantly stated as proven, when in fact they were for the most part entirely without substantiation.
Can you see how people who care about the facts can get very frustrated when non-factual tales are repeated over and over as the linchpin of someone’s argument? Especially when those individuals presenting said argument refuse to address the issue that the points they make are based on demonstrably false assumptions?
If you can see those things, I can respectfully disagree with you. If you can’t see that, then my mind will file you away with posters like lekatt: Someone with whom it’s pointless to engage in a dialogue, and pointless to even waste my time reading what they write.
That was not what you said in this threat itself:
My blood pressure is fine, you on the other hand are certifying yourself as the minister of disinformation.
BTW care explain the other lies I mentioned you are pretending to ignore?
If you take out the hyperbole and the, yet another, lie about it being for the convenience of the family, you’ve finally got it. Do you have a problem with this statement?
I don’t know what the basis for your impression is but here’s the court order.
wonderwench, one more question for you, since you brought Catholicism into the mix. My brother converted to Catholicism when he married his wife and my best friend’s husband is also Catholic. They, by the way, do go to church regularly. If my brother, my sister-in-law, or my best friend’s husband decided I should be kept on life-support despite what I’ve told my brother and my best friend because it’s in accordance with their beliefs, would that be all right with you? I should also point out that the Catholic bishop in my city did not support the Schindlers in this case.
CJ
Looks like I’ve screwed up yet another link. You’ll have to type in the specifics.
regards,
widdley
The citing of the court decision as being the final proof of Terri’s wishes presupposed a belief in the infallibility of the judiciary and a belief that secular law is of the highest order. Not everyone is in agreement on these points.
In a nation of law, of which I a supporter, the court is the proper place to resolve disputes. This doesn’t mean we have to agree with the outcome. We are, however, obligated to follow the law - while retaining the right to speak out and peacefully protest. We also have the right to lobby for changes in the law which led to decisions which we do not support in order to prevent future occurences.
The courts did not decide what Terri Schiavo “should” have wanted. They decided what she did want. The evidence is overwhelming. It came from multiple witnesses, not one of which had any reason to lie. You clearly disagree, although you’ve provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim. But disregarding that, you do not do your argument any service by misrepresenting what the court’s decision means.
The evidence is not overwhelming. It is a They Said vs. They Said. None of the witnesses for withdrawing nutrition were from her blood-nuclear family. This schism is enough to raise doubt for some people, myself included. If the few witnesses (and there were not many) if enough for you, then fine. We will just have to agree to disagree.
If Terri had left a Living Will, that would have been overwhelming evidence. Judge Greer tipped his hand when he cited the convenience of the family in an early decision.
*True, but if three people say Siege wanted to die, and one person says Siege wanted to live, why should the one person’s word be believed over the other three? What if the one person has a history of mental illness? What if they have a history of antagonism with Siege? How close a relation must that one person be to exercise this veto power? Sibling? Cousin? Good friend? Do they all get a say in what a person’s last wishes might have been? What if Siege does leave a living will, but that one person claims it was a forgery? How do we determine which story is true, except through the courts you evidently despise?
[/quote]
First - in our society, one individual is important. We do have the concepts of minority rights and the tyranny of the majority. Just because a majority says something, that doens’t make the default position one of believing them over one individual.
Second, horrible real life situations make very bad law. The big lesson for us to draw is the importance of a Living Will. The court system will never be able to mediate and reconcile two divergent factions in such situations.
I do not despise the courts - I just do not worship them as infallible.
*I’m sorry, but you are simply wrong as a matter of law. Simply having a family member say, “That’s not true” does not, in and of itself, create reasonable doubt. Otherwise, every accused criminal who’s mom says “My baby would never do such a thing,” would walk. If one family member makes a claim regarding a legal matter, and another family member disputes it, it is the function of the courts to determine which claim is true. That’s the entire purpose of having a judiciary!
[/QUOTE]
Another area in which we must agree to disagree. It was not just a mother saying my baby would never do that. The family, including siblings with whom she was reasonabley close, was quite united and vociferous. We are agreed that the judiciary has a role in resolving such disputes. My hope would be that we do things to remove the need to have many more such tragedies resolved in the courts.
Oops, I’m screwed that up. It should have been:
If you take out the hyperbole, the lie about what the court found, and the lie about it being for the convenience of the family (only two lies in one post, you’re slowing down), you’ve finally got it. Do you have a problem with this statement?
Meh - I am still not used to a no Edit button policy.
Here is the problem: the courts based their decision on what the loves remembered and the evidence the doctors of the loved ones presented, the judge was there only to arbitrate between the loved ones. THE STATE then butted in to decide what you should have wished, the vast majority of Americans deemed THAT evil, you are not really thinking this straight. The state was not the courts, the state were congress and the president getting into what it was already arbitrated, read and learn.
I agree 100% with that.
By the way, you’ve repeatedly referred to Michael Schiavo as Ms. Schiavo’s “estranged” husband. At what point did he become “estranged” and what do you base this on? At the time of Ms. Schiavo’s collapse, they were actively trying to have a child together. That hardly qualifies as estranged in my book. For several years he tried a variety of therapies to help her, even, if memory serves, travelling to California in hope that something might reverse her PVS. According to him, he stayed in this fight because he wanted to make sure his wife’s wishes were respected and she was well-cared for throughout this ordeal. If you’re going to say his dating and eventually falling in love with someone else makes him “estranged” then what’s your feeling about her parents having encouraged him to date other people?
I am rather goopily in love with someone right now. In fact, he was one of the five of us at dinner last night. If anything should happen to me, no matter how much I love him, I would expect him to move on after a lot less than 15 years. I’d be upset with him if he waited even 4 years. To me, Mr. Schiavo’s actions throughout this ordeal are indicative of a man who loved and respected his wife and wanted to make sure what she wanted was done.
CJ
That’s your quote, right? I don’t see the word ‘recently’ in your claim. Perhaps you can point me to the post.
They tested her for 7 years, that’s not adequate enough? Why? Explain why those 7 years of testing wasn’t enough. The PET scan is worthless because of her injury. I posted the difference between a CAT and PET scan. Clearly a CT scan is superiour for her injury.
Keep grasping at those strings…
I’ll toss you bone; do you now believe that those 7 years of testing were enough or should they have continued testing her, increasing the risk of killing her?
Sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree. The courts do represent the State.
What is it about the word adequately that you do not understand?
It is an opinion. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion. It had been years since tests were performed. What harm would it have done to perform the tests requested by her family?
I would consider my husband estranged if he lived with another woman and had children with her.
But I guess I’m just funny that way.
That’s a mischaracterization of my stance. I am not basing my agreement with the courts on my agreement with the courts. I am basing it on the evidence presented by both sides. One side clearly had the stronger case. If you’re willing to argue the case on the merits of the evidence, and not on projections of what you think the other side believes, I’m more than happy to oblige.
Why does being a blood-relation to Terri make their testimony more credible?
Why do you consider a living will to be so much more reliable than testimony from multiple people as to her directly stated wishes, none of whom have any stake in the outcome of the trial?
And what do you mean by Judge Greer “tipping his hand”?
No, but do you have any reason to disbelieve the majority in this case?
None of which speaks to their credibility. Again, why do you think their claims were stronger than Michael Schiavo, who, as her spouse, spent more time with her, and would be more intimatly familiar with her personality, beliefs, and desires than her siblings?
Well, that much we can agree on.
Would you consider him “estranged” if he did that several years after you had died?