Civil Disobedience and Terry Schaivo

[SmarterThanYou]

It appears from previous posts that this was squelched and could not be entered into evidence.

many times during the state appeals process the second district ordered the lower courts to re-examine new evidence. After denying the motions for appeal the second district then denied the appeal. They HAD to have found the reasons for the denial valid. Otherwise, what you're eluding to is that the whole state of floridas court systems are corrupt and need to be swept away.

 

[MyName]

Personal experiance or they just are afraid it will happen to them

Maybe both.
One thing is for certain....we really dont know what the other person's experience or fears is/are do we? Not unless they share them.
And who wants to do that and open themselves up to personal attack, judgement adn ridicule.

Fear is a big thing.
Makes people act like idiotic assholes

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The judge in federal court was only allowed to see the same information the lower state court was using, so in effect this was only a hearing to see whether or not the Schindlers can reopen the case with all this additional information, that of course was denied, and he said as much in his briefing when he wrote that based on the infor mation givne him he could nto warrant a new look at the case.

this makes no sense. Enough people cry to congress to warrant a federal review that ONLY allows the federal judge to look at the same information as the lower court was using? Why the hell did congress even bother then?

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe both.
One thing is for certain....we really dont know what the other person's experience or fears is/are do we? Not unless they share them.
And who wants to do that and open themselves up to personal attack, judgement adn ridicule.

Fear is a big thing.
Makes people act like idiotic assholes

First it is assumed she is in torture---then it is demanded that the torture be stopped---Is she out of it or not ?????

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The same thing you are doing to Bonnie? I don't know, seek the answer within yourself...

I'll say it again, I was polite at the beginning until I was insulted. Should I be the passive one and be trounced upon?

 

[MyName]

I'll say it again, I was polite at the beginning until I was insulted. Should I be the passive one and be trounced upon?

Show me.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Show me.

start at the beginning of this thread. then move forward.

 

[no1tovote4]

many times during the state appeals process the second district ordered the lower courts to re-examine new evidence. After denying the motions for appeal the second district then denied the appeal. They HAD to have found the reasons for the denial valid. Otherwise, what you're eluding to is that the whole state of floridas court systems are corrupt and need to be swept away.

No, what I allude to is to change the law in order to have the presumption of life when there is not certainty of what the patient wanted. In this case it was "preponderance of evidence" and the Judge was not allowed to apply reasonable doubt. There is clearly reasonable doubt as to the wishes of Terry Schiavo in this case, but that was not the standard that could be applied. Judges make rulings based on written law, not the intention of the law. Since the actions of Michael on his orders to the nurses were not in question, but Terry's expressed wishes there was no application in order to have this put into account at the trials. Since they were refused before the Federal Judge also refused them.

Looking at the applied law will often make people suggest changes to the law in order to protect rights better, I have not suggested anything of the sort.

I believe the judges made their rulings according to current law, but that the law should be reviewed and changed in order to better protect patients.

 

[Eightball]

By the way, this Atlanta Federal Judge is a Clinton Appointment. That I did hear on the news.

Not Elected, but an appointment.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'll say it again, I was polite at the beginning until I was insulted. Should I be the passive one and be trounced upon?

The post I put forward had nothing to do with insulting or being rude, it was in answer to your question, "Why must we insist on everyone behaving in specific and directed ways or we pass judgement on them?"

I believe you expect everybody to behave in your directed manner, and therefore have passed judgement on them and their opinion. I informed you that you were, in that question even, partaking in the same action and suggested that introspection could be used to give answer to your question.

 

[MyName]

start at the beginning of this thread. then move forward.

I have more times than I care to think about. and I told you what I thought about all that and they 'why-fors' already.

What I dont get....well, nevermind. it doesnt matter what I dont get.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

No, what I allude to is to change the law in order to have the presumption of life when there is not certainty of what the patient wanted. In this case it was "preponderance of evidence" and the Judge was not allowed to apply reasonable doubt. There is clearly reasonable doubt as to the wishes of Terry Schiavo in this case, but that was not the standard that could be applied. Judges make rulings based on written law, not the intention of the law. Since the actions of Michael on his orders to the nurses were not in question, but Terry's expressed wishes there was no application in order to have this put into account at the trials. Since they were refused before the Federal Judge also refused them.

Looking at the applied law will often make people suggest changes to the law in order to protect rights better, I have not suggested anything of the sort.

I believe the judges made their rulings according to current law, but that the law should be reviewed and changed in order to better protect patients.

but in those cases where a court appoints a guardian for the person, in this case 3 seperate ones, you have way more input that just following the law to the letter. The courts were then responsible for terri's civil rights and protections and not subject to the one sided argument posed by either the family or the husband, although their testimony was considered.

 

[dilloduck]

but in those cases where a court appoints a guardian for the person, in this case 3 seperate ones, you have way more input that just following the law to the letter. The courts were then responsible for terri's civil rights and protections and not subject to the one sided argument posed by either the family or the husband, although their testimony was considered.

bottom line---law says a spouse can let the other spouse die

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The post I put forward had nothing to do with insulting or being rude, it was in answer to your question, "Why must we insist on everyone behaving in specific and directed ways or we pass judgement on them?"

I believe you expect everybody to behave in your directed manner, and therefore have passed judgement on them and their opinion. I informed you that you were, in that question even, partaking in the same action and suggested that introspection could be used to give answer to your question.

Thank you. I will certainly take that into account. My apologies if I've prejudged anyone.

 

[MyName]

Thank you. I will certainly take that into account. My apologies if I've prejudged anyone.

THANK YOU!

I love when your mind is open - thats when youre deserving of your moniker (but hey, Im the wife....I can say that and sorta mean it even :funnyface

 

[no1tovote4]

but in those cases where a court appoints a guardian for the person, in this case 3 seperate ones, you have way more input that just following the law to the letter. The courts were then responsible for terri's civil rights and protections and not subject to the one sided argument posed by either the family or the husband, although their testimony was considered.

That still doesn't mean that it was decided beyond reasonable doubt, only to the "preponderance of evidence" as this was not a criminal case. I believe that in matters of life or death it is important to decide with a certainty, and not to allow such doubt to be present. Since in this case the law only allows for a specific standard to be placed it would be necessary to review the law, not the action of the court.

You keep missing the fact that I do not object to the decisions of the Judges, they made the correct decisions according to current FL law. I simply am of the opinion that the laws should be reviewed and changed in order to better protect the patient in cases where there is clear doubt as to the wishes of the patient, as in this one.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

bottom line---law says a spouse can let the other spouse die

thats a very limited and negative way to interpret that law dillo. The laws, of all 50 states I believe, dictate that the spouse is responsible for all medical decisions when the other is incapacitated or unable to talk unless there is a living will or advanced directive. It assumes, rightly so I believe, that the sanctity of the husband/wife relationship transcends the evil or vindictive. Thats why we also have law enforcement to investigate possible crimes and court systems to help protect the rights of those in question when theres doubt raised, as in this case.

 

[dilloduck]

thats a very limited and negative way to interpret that law dillo. The laws, of all 50 states I believe, dictate that the spouse is responsible for all medical decisions when the other is incapacitated or unable to talk unless there is a living will or advanced directive. It assumes, rightly so I believe, that the sanctity of the husband/wife relationship transcends the evil or vindictive. Thats why we also have law enforcement to investigate possible crimes and court systems to help protect the rights of those in question when theres doubt raised, as in this case.

If the spouse can't communicate, all you have to say is that my spouse wanted to die if this ever happened to him/her.

 

[MyName]

bottom line is this.

You and I have been through some pretty scary things wiht my health.
Youre afraid of your rights being taken away as a husband wanting to uphold my wishes as the patient. I can understand that. I think that anyone wuuld.
I dont know if this woman's husband is doing that - I dont know that he isnt.
NONE of us know this.

I think that people would be better received when they are so vehemently opposed or for ANY position if they would explain WHY they hold the opinion of said position.

But again, thats just my opinion.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That still doesn't mean that it was decided beyond reasonable doubt, only to the "preponderance of evidence" as this was not a criminal case. I believe that in matters of life or death it is important to decide with a certainty, and not to allow such doubt to be present. Since in this case the law only allows for a specific standard to be placed it would be necessary to review the law, not the action of the court.

You keep missing the fact that I do not object to the decisions of the Judges, they made the correct decisions according to current FL law. I simply am of the opinion that the laws should be reviewed and changed in order to better protect the patient in cases where there is clear doubt as to the wishes of the patient, as in this one.

We can review all the laws that are there but we'll still end up with one of two things. we'll either remove the entire possibility of a 'right to die' or we'll end up questioning the decisions of judges for all eternity and never get anywhere. Lots of people are uncomfortable with the line from time to time but overall I think that the system works fine. Are there exceptions? always, we see it every day. Thats what appeals were designed for though.