Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Some interesting information on George Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo. Follow the links at the bottom too.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/oct/03102304.html

Excerpt

Quote:

A special on Felos published in the St. Petersburg Times in 2001 revealed that Felos, has taken on about 10 right-to-die cases in the last decade. The in depth interview with Felos notes he is into meditation, yoga, and inviting friends over to chant, "I am that I am. I am that I am." Of his beliefs he told the paper, "I believe that Christ was God incarnate and was resurrected. But, by the same token, I believe that there were other incarnations of God as well."

He relates that in one case similar to Terri's he stared into the woman's eyes and while she could not speak he claims his spiritual side heard her soul cry out "Why am I still here?"

0 Replies

Well, I guess from a traditionalist's point of view, this is pretty "out there" stuff.

What is is that Hamlet said about there being more going on than is dreamt of in Horatio's philosophy?

0 Replies

Quote, "He relates that in one case similar to Terri's he stared into the woman's eyes and while she could not speak he claims his spiritual side heard her soul cry out "Why am I still here?"

I would think that most people in a vegetative state who have not filled out a living trust would also have their soul cry out "Why am I still here?" Especially in a situation like Terri's where she's been unable to communicate her wishes for fifteen years.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Thomas wrote:
That's not the case I have read about. In the case I have read about, it was a "he said, she said" tie between her husband's version and the parents' version. The husband's version prevailed because under Florida law, he was the next of kin, and it's the next of kin who decides.

Hardly a case of "he said, she said". I think Nimh has posted extensively from the court rulings. You are free to disagree with the courts decision but don't turn it into something it wasn't. The court looked at a lot of evidence in this case. [..]

Several people testified as to Terri's wishes on both sides. The court looked at that testimony and made a decision based on what it felt was true and what wasn't. The court included its reasoning in its decision. The husband prevailed when it came to Terri's wishes not because he was next of kin but because the preponderance of evidence was on his side. When it came to Terri's medical condition, the husband prevailed because all credible medical evidence pointed to Terri being in PVS. Again, the court wrote extensively about why it ruled the way it did.

The ethical question of pulling a feeding tube is one thing. The legal question of evidence is something quite different. The case was decided based on the evidence. The case was appealed based on the evidence. [..]

The court used the "clear and convincing" standard that Debra demanded [..]. Judge Greer wrote that the evidence was "clear and convincing". The appeals court has said there is not any evidence that the "clear and convincing" standard wasn't met.

I had started to respond to Thomas, but I see that Parados already said it all, and better. Thanks again P.

0 Replies

I just read the entire opinion issued by Judge Greer. His opinion was based on no evidence but was based purely on those he found most 'credible in their statements. He even stated in his opening remarks that she had been 'comastose' for all that time which was a direct contradiction to the later medical testimony. He extrapolated a concept of 'not wanting to be kept alive by a machine' to being dispensed hydration and nutrition. I think he was wrong and that he ordered the death of a woman based on hearsay evidence or statements by people with motive no matter how credible he might have believed it to be.

None of the other judges reviewed the 'evidence' but rather reviewed the process that judge Greer used and declared it correct. That the judge was 'within his rights' to order her death does not make it right. I will favor a law passed quickly that removes 'the right' for a judge to make such a decision under similar circumstances.

But Debra was right. There was no evidence. Only opinion expressed by people all who had a motive for giving such opinion.

0 Replies

It has further occurred to me that Terri may have been a victim of some poor 'lawyering'. Perhaps the case seemed so cut and dried at the time they went before the judge, Terri's side was not adequately prepared or documented. And once the decision came down, other judges were unwilling to hear any additional evidence.

0 Replies

What exactly was Micheal's motive here, Fox? I'd like to see him slandered a little more, is all, so I thought I would ask.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There was no evidence. Only opinion expressed by people all who had a motive for giving such opinion.

What motives would those be?

0 Replies

That has already been asked and answered numerous times Cyclop and I don't want to rehash it here. I believe the courts have ordered the death of an innocent woman. I am going to do whatever I can to make sure it doesn't happen ever again.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Several people testified as to Terri's wishes on both sides. The court looked at that testimony and made a decision based on what it felt was true and what wasn't. The court included its reasoning in its decision. The husband prevailed when it came to Terri's wishes not because he was next of kin but because the preponderance of evidence was on his side.

I'm sorry, parados, but I missed this post of yours when you posted it, and I have only now picked it up via nimh quoting it. (Thanks, nimh!) After that, I tried to find a copy of the original (2003) decision and check the primary source myself. But it appears that everyone on the Web is pointing to a file on terrisfight.org, and that file is no longer on their server. (Which, it appears, is circumstantial evidence against their version of the story.)

I'll try again later on the court order. For now, based on the impressive debunking job you have done here, I am now assuming that I was wrong and you are right. Sozobe, nimh, and co. were right to salute you. Keep up the good work!

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I just read the entire opinion issued by Judge Greer.

Where? I'd like to read it too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That has already been asked and answered numerous times Cyclop and I don't want to rehash it here. I believe the courts have ordered the death of an innocent woman. I am going to do whatever I can to make sure it doesn't happen ever again.

Including those on death row?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That has already been asked and answered numerous times Cyclop and I don't want to rehash it here. I believe the courts have ordered the death of an innocent woman. I am going to do whatever I can to make sure it doesn't happen ever again.

Including those on death row?

Reasoning: If she can't stop every innocent death in the universe, her attempt to stop one category of innocent deaths must be unethical.

0 Replies

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Thanks!

0 Replies

You're welcome. Mind you I am no attorney. But Debra is. Smile

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What exactly was Micheal's motive here, Fox? I'd like to see him slandered a little more, is all, so I thought I would ask.

Cycloptichorn

The guardian ad litem appointed by Judge Greer specifically reported to the judge that Michael could not provide clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wishes due to his conflict of interest because he would profit from her death.

The Judge dismissed the guardian ad litem's report concerning Michael's conflict of interest by stating something to the effect that "regrettably, money overshadowed the entire case providing a conflict of interest for all parties."

And, that's only the beginning . . . .

0 Replies

My point was that I keep hearing "poor innocent Terri." Terri was the cause of her own demise by way of her eating disorder, not an innocent victim of a horrible accident or someone falsely accused of a heiness crime for which she must die. (As many woman on death row)

I don't mean that to sound cold. Just true. She wasn't an innocent victim, IMO, until the public got a hold of the story and propped her up on a pedestal.

Here it is for all to see: Good God, and all others involved, please do not leave me in a vegetative state to rot for 15 years in a hospital bed. PLEASE, let me go to the arms of Jesus to live for eternity in peace. If ya'll wanna fight it out and become hateful to one another, let it be over something besides me cause I won't know the difference. Oh, and don't you dare air a video of me in such a state all over the world to satisfy your own need to feel righteous.

Signed: Squinney (all happy with herself)

0 Replies

Yeah, squinney.

She wasn't innocent. She sort of brought about her own death....like gay people did with AIDS.

Wasn't a popular connection then, and it isn't now. I'm always incredulous when people say this. Where does that judgemental air come from?

0 Replies

After reading the opinion, I have to admit that Lola, parados, and nimh were right, and I was wrong. The court did assess which party was more trustworthy, and it trusted Mr. Schiavo's account over the Schindler's. On the face of it, the court's reasoning on this point strikes me as straightforward and sensible.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know