Terri Schiavo's tube will be reinserted soon

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
So then I ask you: Where in the constitution does it say Terri Schiavo's has a right to a feeding tube?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh that's good. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Denying someone food and water is attempted murder, and it is therefore the place for government to intervene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if what you are saying is correct, why would it be the place for the FEDERAL government to intervene?

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
So then I ask you: Where in the constitution does it say Terri Schiavo's has a right to a feeding tube?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have this entire case resting one one judge's opinion of Michael Schiavo's story (which changed after he was awarded the money for her "rehabilitation.") The family contends that the court did not base its ruling on a proper burden of proof and therefore her 5th amendment right to due process was violated. If that turns out to be the case, then yes, she had a constitutional right to keep being fed. Also, Terri Schiavo is a Catholic. Euthenasia is against the Catholic faith, and therefore removing it without her express permission is a violation of her religious freedom, which I believe is also buried somewhere in that pesky constitution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
We have this entire case resting one one judge's opinion of Michael Schiavo's story

[/ QUOTE ]
Like it or not, that is how the court system works. The trial court (be it by a judge or jury) determines the facts. Appellate courts only apply the facts (as determined by the trial court) to the law.

[ QUOTE ]
The family contends that the court did not base its ruling on a proper burden of proof and therefore her 5th amendment right to due process was violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the courts have disagreed with the family in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]
Euthenasia is against the Catholic faith, and therefore removing it without her express permission is a violation of her religious freedom, which I believe is also buried somewhere in that pesky constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Her guardian is speaking for her. For all practical purposes, what the guardian says is what Terri says. Trial court (who listened to all of the evidence, unlike you or I) held that Terri's desire was to have her tube removed. The fact that it runs counter to her purported religious beliefs (as if all catholics believe everything that the church stands for) is interest but irrelevant --- on second thought, it's really not even that interesting.)

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So then I ask you: Where in the constitution does it say Terri Schiavo's has a right to a feeding tube?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have this entire case resting one one judge's opinion of Michael Schiavo's story (which changed after he was awarded the money for her "rehabilitation.") The family contends that the court did not base its ruling on a proper burden of proof and therefore her 5th amendment right to due process was violated. If that turns out to be the case, then yes, she had a constitutional right to keep being fed. Also, Terri Schiavo is a Catholic. Euthenasia is against the Catholic faith, and therefore removing it without her express permission is a violation of her religious freedom, which I believe is also buried somewhere in that pesky constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This case was not based entirely on one judge's decision. Get the facts straight before you make statements like that. The case went through multiple appeals and the final appellate court, in which several justices concurred, ruled unanimously in favor of Michael Schiavo.

[elwoodblues]

One last point about the deprivation of her religious beliefs --- where is the state actor? Neither Schiavo (husband) nor the hospice are government actors, therefore the constitutional prohibition of denying free exercise of religion don't apply to them.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
This case was not based entirely on one judge's decision. Get the facts straight before you make statements like that. The case went through multiple appeals and the final appellate court, in which several justices concurred, ruled unanimously in favor of Michael Schiavo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one court ruled that it was Terri's will to die. Their ruling was based on hearsay. The apellate courts are not allowed to overturn the lower courts' findings of fact. Their hands are tied. The lower court blundered, and the appelate courts are left without a remedy.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
One last point about the deprivation of her religious beliefs --- where is the state actor? Neither Schiavo (husband) nor the hospice are government actors, therefore the constitutional prohibition of denying free exercise of religion don't apply to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The courts allowing Michael Schiavo and the hospice to remove the feeding tube are the government actors.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Their ruling was based on hearsay

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent a living will, how else would a guardian demonstrate the desire of the ward in this type of case? The whole reason that husbands are chosen to be guardians is because they are more likely to know the wishes of their spouses than anyone else. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, that is the most logical/rational decision to make.

Anyone who is married, answer this for me --- assume you don't have a living will. Who would you want as your guardian if you were in a similar position as Mrs. Schiavo --- your spouse, or your parents? I would be SHOCKED if anyone would say that their parents are more likely to have an intimate knowledge of your beliefs than your spouse.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their ruling was based on hearsay

[/ QUOTE ]

Absent a living will, how else would a guardian demonstrate the desire of the ward in this type of case? The whole reason that husbands are chosen to be guardians is because they are more likely to know the wishes of their spouses than anyone else. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary, that is the most logical/rational decision to make.

Anyone who is married, answer this for me --- assume you don't have a living will. Who would you want as your guardian if you were in a similar position as Mrs. Schiavo --- your spouse, or your parents? I would be SHOCKED if anyone would say that their parents are more likely to have an intimate knowledge of your beliefs than your spouse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would normally be the case, however the spouse waited SEVEN YEARS before he miraculously recalled this supposed verbal living will. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would subject what he says to just a wee itty bitty bit more scrutiny.