A case of DNR vs. GVT
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
HomeLAN
New Member
Bad move, here. In effect, they want to subpoena her because then a fed law kicks in which disallows causing harm or death to a witness under fed subpeona. Clever, but think about that. What's next? An anti-death penalty set of congressmen subpeona death row inmates on the eve of their executions? Hmmmm.
The Other One
Banned
It's like the situation is out of a creepy Hitchcock movie: Michael Shiavo tries to use the courts to execute his wife, and will have destroyed any evidence of his evil deed by authority of that same court. No body, no autopsy, no evidence, no funeral. Like she never existed. The perfect crime.
Meanwhile, from the "while there's life there's hope or it ain't over 'til it's over" files:
There are too many unanswered question in this case-- See the Timeline at http://www.terrisfight.org/. This is exactly the kind of issue in which the gov. should intervene.
Meanwhile, from the "while there's life there's hope or it ain't over 'til it's over" files:
There are too many unanswered question in this case-- See the Timeline at http://www.terrisfight.org/. This is exactly the kind of issue in which the gov. should intervene.
chcr
Too cute for words
The Other One said:
You've got that backwards, she'd already be dead if the courts and in fact the governor hadn't intervened. I agree that there are a lot of questions, but changing it to an emotional issue ("please don't kill my little girl") is just wrong. The courts have in fact ruled on the case.
Checks & Balances. The courts do not necessarily have final word. That was their ruling in Marbury VS Madison and is the source of many of todays troubles. Judiciary legislation. That's unconstitutional.
The Other One
Banned
chcr said:You've got that backwards, she'd already be dead if the courts and in fact the governor hadn't intervened. I agree that there are a lot of questions, but changing it to an emotional issue ("please don't kill my little girl") is just wrong. The courts have in fact ruled on the case.
It is an emotional issue, and it always has been: flesh and blood should have the final word in life or death decisions of relatives, not a husband who since receiving a $1.2 million malpractice lawsuit award on behalf of his wife has provided only minimal care for her, not allowing any therapy or rehabilition, order her not to be taken outside into the fresh air and sunshine, not even a radio or t.v. turned on in her room. As her husband, he will inherit the remainder of the money when she dies. If he divorces her, he won't get a dime. While still her husband, he has set up house with another woman and fathered 2 children. You have to wonder why he won't give up his legal right as her guardian and let the people who will cherish that obligation have it back: her parents. It's common sense, and basic human decency.
Seems like Shiavo has his OWN emotional issues.
I believe the above sampling from the statute have been violated in one way or another with regards to Terri Shiavo's care.
Greer said in 2002: "The law of the case is that she is gonna die!" in case managment hearings leading up to the October 2002 Evidentiary Trial, when angered at Terri's parent's attorney.
Greer's emotional reaction to an emotional issue. HIS way or the highway.
If her parents want to care for her, then LET them. She is their child. Where is the harm?
Death from dehydration. Not a pretty thought. If this were a true right-to-die case the issue would be "pulling the plug." She is not being kept alive by extraordinary measures, only simply ordinary care: food and water. It's all anybody needs. Shindler Family Statement: "It is amazing to think that, in
America, it is easier to execute someone who has committed no crime
than someone who has."
chcr
Too cute for words
We have a procedure in place for dealing with such a situation. It has been dealt with more than once. It should be over.
If they don't like the procedure, why would they wait until so late in the process to voice objections. Of course, now congress has it so it'll be a political football for as long as they can make it last. I fail to see how that addresses the issue in any way.
If they don't like the procedure, why would they wait until so late in the process to voice objections. Of course, now congress has it so it'll be a political football for as long as they can make it last. I fail to see how that addresses the issue in any way.
They waited because common sense failed and states rights are in the way. They are not pulling the plug on some invalid who has a respirator doing the breathing. They are denying basic human sustenance. If I did that to my child I'd be tried for murder. Hell, if I did that to my dog I'd be tried with a crime.
This is an unusual case with unusual circumstances. Somebody needs to speak for the woman in the bed. Her parents are trying. Her husband wants her dead.
Again, shouldn't we err on the side of life?
This is an unusual case with unusual circumstances. Somebody needs to speak for the woman in the bed. Her parents are trying. Her husband wants her dead.
Again, shouldn't we err on the side of life?
chcr
Too cute for words
Again, it has been to court more than once. The court has decided in favor of the husband each time. Of course, they don't do anything foolish in court like, oh, say, examining the evidence and making an informed decision. Here's a case where "faith" is invloved. If you believe our court system to be so horrfyingly biased, why aren't you trying to overthrow the government? I don't believe you or I have enough information on the case to decide it on it's merits. The woman has been a vegetable for fifteen years, and clearly the courts found no compelling reason for continuing the medical measures that are keeping her "alive." You are listening to an emotional argument ond putting forth a knee-jerk reaction. Certainly your right, I simply disagree.
I've been following this for over two years. It's not emotion. There are doctors saying she is/she isn't in a Persistant Vegetative State. There is ample evidence that she has absolute emotions...smiles at mom, frowns or ignores her husband. There are claims she is trying to speak.
She's had no therapy to see if she is capable of improvement for (13, 14, 15?) years. Virtually every person who has personally visited her has come out saying she's not a vegetable.
Is there harm done by allowing her to live? There certainly is if she's starved to death. Starvation is not the same as ending artificial life support.
She's had no therapy to see if she is capable of improvement for (13, 14, 15?) years. Virtually every person who has personally visited her has come out saying she's not a vegetable.
Is there harm done by allowing her to live? There certainly is if she's starved to death. Starvation is not the same as ending artificial life support.
The Other One
Banned
From a Larry King interview 3-18-05
Mikey Shiavo's Freudian slip....
....May land him in the slammer for perjury. He testified in court that upon watching a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan she made a statement to him, and Shiavo repeated it King in an interview in '03:
With all the stress about making sure his wife dies he is having trouble keeping his stories straight.
Mikey Shiavo's Freudian slip....
....May land him in the slammer for perjury. He testified in court that upon watching a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan she made a statement to him, and Shiavo repeated it King in an interview in '03:
With all the stress about making sure his wife dies he is having trouble keeping his stories straight.
Thulsa Doom
New Member
Im still iffy on the specifics regarding this case. The whole husband thing still bothers me and I still havent had many of my questions answered.
BUT....
Im pretty disgusted with how the repubs are jumping on this to use for their political advantage. I guess nothing is sacred when it comes to scoring political points. Arent these the same folks who recently passed legislation to restrict law suits that could have an impact in a case like this (where they got their original money from)? Arent these the same folks who want to make huge cuts in Medicaid that is helping to cover certain expenses in this woman's hospitalization? The hypocrisy... And dont get me started on Tom Delay who is just tripping over himself to mouth off about this issue. ANYTHING to separate him from of his self made slime trap of corruption hes been fighting all year now. How come congress doesnt hold late night emergency sessions to save every slowly dieing person that slips through the siv that is our health care system? Why are they making legislation for one family? Isnt this representative body supposed to approach their duty from the blunt deliberative broad end of things and not micro manage specific and individual cases? Isnt that a job for the COURTS? And where the hell do they get off saying they can make a medical judgment by looking at a few minutes of film clips when medical professionals MANDATED by the courts to carefully observe and asses the situation have concluded that she is indeed in a vegetative state? What arrogant hubris... Its almost enough to get me to not care about my issues with the husband.
BUT....
Im pretty disgusted with how the repubs are jumping on this to use for their political advantage. I guess nothing is sacred when it comes to scoring political points. Arent these the same folks who recently passed legislation to restrict law suits that could have an impact in a case like this (where they got their original money from)? Arent these the same folks who want to make huge cuts in Medicaid that is helping to cover certain expenses in this woman's hospitalization? The hypocrisy... And dont get me started on Tom Delay who is just tripping over himself to mouth off about this issue. ANYTHING to separate him from of his self made slime trap of corruption hes been fighting all year now. How come congress doesnt hold late night emergency sessions to save every slowly dieing person that slips through the siv that is our health care system? Why are they making legislation for one family? Isnt this representative body supposed to approach their duty from the blunt deliberative broad end of things and not micro manage specific and individual cases? Isnt that a job for the COURTS? And where the hell do they get off saying they can make a medical judgment by looking at a few minutes of film clips when medical professionals MANDATED by the courts to carefully observe and asses the situation have concluded that she is indeed in a vegetative state? What arrogant hubris... Its almost enough to get me to not care about my issues with the husband.