Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Quote:

I'd like to know what evidence was clear and convincing that she would refuse treatment? Really like to see that.

It was presented in open court and would be a matter of public record. Easy enough to drive to the courthouse in Florida and ask to see it. That is if you "REALLY" want to see it.

Lash wrote:

Squinney--

Her parents brought it to the forefront. They have been desperately trying to keep their daughter alive. I don't know why people try to act as though that's not the reality.

Under different circumstances, I think that if they wanted to care for her, her husband should at least consider walking away. However, he is convinced that Terri doesn't want to live this way. So he is acting on her behalf.
You have much more confidence in her husband than I. And, I was responding to Squinney's comment that the Congress had picked this up on their own accord. The Schindlers have begged their help.

Lash wrote:

Bella--

In the absence of evidence that someone wants to die--or doesn't want to die, would you rather err on the side of killing them, or leaving them alive? I think that's the basic question.

That depends. That is a personal choice. We can all say they should do this or that but in reality, the decision lies with the family who is representing the person unable to represent herself. I think it is wrong for the state or gov't to get involved. This is a deeply personal choice.

Families have removed feeding tubes voluntarily because they knew that there was no hope for recovery and that the person being kept "alive" would not want to exist in such a state. However, there are also people who don't care, and want to keep that person around no matter what. Both are choices that are as individual and complex as the families who have to make them.
But your comment to Brandon is that he should find evidence she didn't want to die. I would reiterate in making the decision--one to end a person's life, they should be sure they know her wishes. The onus should be on the one wanting to end her life, not the one wanting to save her.

There is no evidence except for Michael's word. That legally trumps all the handwringing that is going on....[/b]

Brandon,

When you are told of this evidence, you just whine and say it isn't true. At least 3 people testifed to Terri's desire. It has been mentioned here more than once.

We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

This is from the Appeals court ruling that upheld the decision about Terri's choice to not live under this condition...

Quote:

We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000 to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs. Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process.

Bella Dea wrote:

Lash wrote:

Squinney--

Her parents brought it to the forefront. They have been desperately trying to keep their daughter alive. I don't know why people try to act as though that's not the reality.

Under different circumstances, I think that if they wanted to care for her, her husband should at least consider walking away. However, he is convinced that Terri doesn't want to live this way. So he is acting on her behalf.
You have much more confidence in her husband than I. And, I was responding to Squinney's comment that the Congress had picked this up on their own accord. The Schindlers have begged their help.

I do have more confidence than most people, I realize that. However, I believe that he doesn't have anything to gain from her death. And if you are going to talk to anyone about what you'd want in a situation like this, you'd talk to your spouse. Because that is who usually makes these decisions.

Bella--

In the absence of evidence that someone wants to die--or doesn't want to die, would you rather err on the side of killing them, or leaving them alive? I think that's the basic question.

found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence

ROFLMBO.. Who is desperate here? read the statement.

Quote:

found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were important evidence

Are you now incapable of understanding how the English language works? The oral statements were directly related to her wishes to not be kept alive. Somehow you claim they are not? What evidence do you have other than your desperate attempt to not believe what is factual and in front of your face?

In the absence of evidence that someone wants to die--or doesn't want to die, would you rather err on the side of killing them, or leaving them alive? I think that's the basic question.

Lash wrote:

Quote:

In the absence of evidence that someone wants to die--or doesn't want to die, would you rather err on the side of killing them, or leaving them alive? I think that's the basic question.

That is the precise issue the court dealt with. Absence evidence the court does err on the side of keeping them alive. The court however LOOKED at the evidence and decided the evidence outweighed your argument.

Okay, I'm waiting then. Tell me the name of another witness and what he said. What you are saying is, "I have all kinds of great evidence, tons of evidence, mounstains of evidence, but it's over here in this box.

You are like a child. You close your eyes then say something doesn't exist because you didn't see it. Simple because you refuse to see it does NOT mean I have to force you to open your eyes. I am not cruel to children. Go your merry way and don't take any candy from strangers.

But there is no evidence that she did make the choice except for her husband's unsubstantiated claim, which cannot be corroborated based on any other witness or anything she ever wrote down.

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

Okay, I'm waiting then. Tell me the name of another witness and what he said. What you are saying is, "I have all kinds of great evidence, tons of evidence, mounstains of evidence, but it's over here in this box.

That evidence was presented here. That evidence was presented in the court room where an unbiased adjudicator looked at it and said it was "clear and convincing". The evidence was appealed to a higher court and upheld. Now you come along and demand that we "prove to you". Frankly, I am tired of your games. That is all they are games. The evidence is there.

You are like a child. You close your eyes then say something doesn't exist because you didn't see it. Simple because you refuse to see it does NOT mean I have to force you to open your eyes. I am not cruel to children. Go your merry way and don't take any candy from strangers.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

But there is no evidence that she did make the choice except for her husband's unsubstantiated claim, which cannot be corroborated based on any other witness or anything she ever wrote down.

And was he and his claim not challenged by the attorneys for the parents yet found to be credible not once, not twice, but in numerous appeals and filings?

Do you not stand by your word alone sometimes, by your impeccable word, your word which is true without corroboration from others? I do. Each time I find standing by my word to be one of my finer moments.
But then, I practice speaking truth rather than filling the air with snide remarks about who is, or is not, a liar.

Joe(you have my word on that)Nation

Brandon, my advice is for you never to become a lawyer or to represent yourself in a court case.




The court ruled that there is sufficient evidence. If you do not accept the word of the court, then go take it up with them.