Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

You are not listening. According to her husband, and according to the
Florida courts. They heard arguments and weighed evidence from both sides.

The husband was the one that took it to court. The lower court in Florida
AGREED WITH THE HUSBAND, the judge thought the evidence presented was
consistent with what the husband said, that Terri Schiavo would not want to
continue tube feedings.

If you have something to say about this court decision please do so. If you
want to challenge my knowledge of the facts of this, please present evidence
that what I said was wrong, do not attack me personally please.

The lower court ruling was appealed by the family, the Florida appelate
court upheld the lower court ruling.

The family brought it to the lower court again. This time there was expert
testimony on both sides, mostly regarding the issue of whether or not she
was in a vegetative state, and whether there was any hope for her. Again,
the lower court sided with the husband.

I dont know if that decision was appealed, but there was an appeal to the US
Supreme court that they decided not to hear.

After Florida Govenor Jeb Bush passed a law last fall preventing her feeding
tube removal, this decision was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, and
they decided that the law violated the Florida Constitution.

My point is, the husband has put his evidence for what he thinks his wife
would want under the scrutiny of the courts and they decided with him. I do
not know what was presented. I do not know Mr Schiavo or her parents. I
just know that the process of making decisions was followed correctly, and
it is this process that I am defending, not the husband.

Just because people do not like the decision does not mean it was wrong. It
does not mean it is cruel. It does not mean it is unjustified. You have to
admit the politicians in this case are motivated by the appeal this case has
to conservatives, so they have a conflict of interest too dont they?

All of the difficulty in this case is focused on the husband. But no one is
addressing the underlying aspects of cases like this. This situation is in
no way unique. You can argue against the husband all you want, but it is
not a rational argument because you dont have all the facts. If you want to
argue against the process, that would be a more fruitful argument.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> On Mar 18, 2005, at 7:21 PM, jack syme wrote:
>
>> Withdrawing her feeding tube, in accordance with her wishes and making
>> her comfortable, IS caring for her.
>
> In accordance with her wishes, according to whom? Her husband? Don't make
> me laugh. Please learn about the facts of this case, or don't bother
> writing about it.
>
> Bill Dozier
> Minister of Silly Guitar Sounds
> ------
> "...people should not be fooled into thinking that legalizing
> physician-assisted suicide is the final step. It is merely the next
> step" -- Jonathan V. Last
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 22:03:37 2005