26-03-2005 12:05									#481
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Che thinks it's evil right-wingers,

Actually I'm just saying that because I'm tired of the smear campaign against Schaivo. To be honestly truthful, I think it is a case of deeply held convictions on both sides as to what represents the best way to uphold human dignity, and that these views are diametrically and irreconcilable.

But saying that isn't nearly as much fun as impuning the morality of Ned and Drake.

	26-03-2005 12:06									#482
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Capt Dizle Ned, are you trying to break new legal ground here? Is it customary to have counsel appointed? If not, you are asking for a radical departure, a tough sell. I thought the due process claim had been thoroughly reviewed already multiple times?

I'm not sure it has been reviewed, frankly. This case seems to be a case of first impression to the courts on the possible miscarriage of justice by a proceeding where the issue of consent of the incapacitated person is an issue at trial, and there is no lawyer representing the person who will be condemned as a result of the proceedings. Alan Duraswitch of Harvard said that most states require a writing by the victim, or a consensus of the family, in order to terminate life. Florida is almost unique in its law that the testimony of witnesses alone can be sufficient. The problem with this is perjury, of course. Perjury happens where the testifier has adverse interests, as clearly did Michael here.

Deraswitch declared that was opposed to the Florida law. He did not opinine, though, on the question of constitutionality.

What I say here is driven by the basic fairness concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in the original "right to counsel" cases. Where one's life is at stake, adequate representation is mandatory.

I am appalled that this woman faces death on testimony of adverse withnesses alone when she was not represented by counsel at trial.

	26-03-2005 12:07									#483
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No, but the way the mother said it made it seem as if it were a contemporary discussion and not after the fact.

So...neither side has a clue when the discussion happened? Does she claim a date?

	26-03-2005 12:10									#484
	Remove this text

Nice post John. I'd refer you to my posts in the last, locked thread, explaining my belief that this is a run-up to a battle to repeal Roe v. Wade.

Your observations are more elegant but my predictions will prove out, I fear.

	26-03-2005 12:11									#485
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Two other people corraborated his testimony. The mother's testinmony is about an incident that took place three years before the disucssions Terri had with husband and in-laws. According to Terri's mother, when hearing of the Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri said that she disagreed with taking people off of artificial life support. That case occured from 1975 to 1976, which would be when that discussion would have had to have occured, according to the words Terri's mother used. That would be when she was 13, as oppssed to a 24 year-old woman who witnessed what her husband's family went through. Only a fool would think that an adult woman would necessarily have the same views that she had as a child.

I would be interested in hearing the precise testimony of any witness that was not Michael or his brother. What precisely did this mutual friend say?

	26-03-2005 12:13									#486
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Read the article, Ned.

	26-03-2005 12:14									#487
	Got spare money?

Wait- the husband is not to be believed, but the mother is?

She had this event in 1990-by all dates given the Quinlan case was relevant between 1976 and 1986. This might have been before her marriage, who knows? The point is, what the mother says is not even proof against what the husband said- since the point would be to find out what she would have done in HER case, not some third person- people are always hypocrites between what they think should happen to others and to them.

	26-03-2005 12:14									#488
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Capt Dizle Ned, I almost always share your POV and will always respect your position but I think you are coloring outside the lines on this one. I think you are just plainly on the side of the line with George, Jeb, and the religious right on this issue. I think you feel so strongly on this issue you would cast aside all logic and seek any winning argument. Heck, I respect that as well, because I think you are sincere in your beliefs. If I have read you wrong on this, or if I have offended you, I apologize.

I think he wants the patient to have her own attourney appointed so that the patient is represented, not just the parents and the husband.

You'd have to go a little further than that in cases like this though. You'd have to appoint a third party as guardian and then have that third party try to get to the bottom of what the patient really wanted and then that third party could instruct counsel. It is clear that the patient can't.

	26-03-2005 12:15									#489
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by TCO So...neither side has a clue when the discussion happened? Does she claim a date?

No date is claimed in the article. I'm infering fromthe words used, so it's more than likely I'm talking out my ass. But until JohnT had to go and ruin my fun with an acutally serious post, that's pretty much what I was openly and admittedly doing.

	26-03-2005 12:18									#490
	Put an end to popups!

Didn't mean to be such a killjoy.

	26-03-2005 12:20									#491
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, no doubt there was sufficient evidence produced at trial to condemn Terri to death. But Terri had no attorney to test that evidence and to introduce contrary witnesses. Is that fair?

Why would the lawyer introduce ANYONE!!

A lawyer is there to represent the interests of their client. A lawyer can only know the interests of their client if they, well communicate with a client. You are acting as if a lawyer appointed for Terry would have had to assume that her wish was to live, which goes against the very notion of representation and doing what is best for Terry, since Terry could have wanted to die and then her counsel would be acting against her wishes! That would be bad counsel.

This is why this is fundamentally different from a criminal case- in a criminal case its the State making accusations, and it has a very tought standard of proof to meet. This was a civil case given the job of examining what Terry's whishes would have been- any lawyer appointed to her that decided to argue that her wish was to live would not be acting on her behalf, since she can;t communicate her wish, but would really be working for someone else-hence, it would not be Terry's lawyer.

	26-03-2005 12:20									#492
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No date is claimed in the article. I'm infering fromthe words used, so it's more than likely I'm talking out my ass. But until JohnT had to go and ruin my fun with an acutally serious post, that's pretty much what I was openly and admittedly doing.

I think so many other points are more relavant and supportive of your overall argument. I would stick to those rather than these weak reeds.

	26-03-2005 12:21									#493
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You'd have to go a little further than that in cases like this though. You'd have to appoint a third party as guardian and then have that third party try to get to the bottom of what the patient really wanted and then that third party could instruct counsel.

But, that's what Mr Schiavo asked the judge to do. What Ned is arguing is that the judge should have foisted that determinaton of what Mrs. Schiavo wanted onto yet another person, and then have that person represent her . . . to what end? Why would a lawyer be more competent to make that decision than a judge?

	26-03-2005 12:24									#494
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by TCO I think so many other points are more relavant and supportive of your overall argument. I would stick to those rather than these weak reeds.

I have no overall argument. I think the religious right should stick their noses back out of this and leave it to the courts and the family. That's what I'm offended by, that all these strangers think they have a right to interfere with someone private family business, and pretty much primarily based on blatent untruths. But that's what they do. They try and tell people how to live their lives.

	26-03-2005 12:25									#495
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara But, that's what Mr Schiavo asked the judge to do. What Ned is arguing is that the judge should have foisted that determinaton of what Mrs. Schiavo wanted onto yet another person, and then have that person represent her . . . to what end? Why would a lawyer be more competent to make that decision than a judge?

A guardian, not the lawyer.

	26-03-2005 12:26									#496
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Didn't mean to be such a killjoy.

You are right up to a point. Another reason is that the opponents of religion got soft on it over the last 20 years or so and replaced their hard criticism of it with "live and let live".

Big mistake...

	26-03-2005 12:28									#497
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ned wants a court to decide cases such as this as if the death penalty is on the table. That means the 'defendant' needs to be represented.

The only way you could do that would be to have a social worker/agent appointed as guardian, give that social worker a lot of time, power, and resources to get to an understanding of the wishes of the patient, and then have that agent instruct counsel.

It would be very expensive and time consuming for every single case like this.

	26-03-2005 12:28									#498
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

GePap, you make a nice argument but, you know, there are people who believe that if a death row inmate wants to go ahead and die, his or her wishes should be ignored, and efforts made to save them regardless.

This is largely an issue of theology being used as a basis for law making. Isn't it?

	26-03-2005 12:29									#499
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither A guardian, not the lawyer.

The judge was the guardian. The purpose of the hearing was to determine what Terri would have wanted, given that, at the time, both sides admitted Terri was in PVS. It was only after the court ruled that the evidence pointed to Terri's wish being to die if in such a state that the Schindlers began saying she wasn't in PVS.

Any court appointed lawyer or guardian would have to make the same determination, and the losing side would claim that person was acting against Terri's wishes.

	26-03-2005 12:30									#500
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither A guardian, not the lawyer.

Yes, but once the case decided she wanted to die, what would be the point of the lawyer for her?

Just look at your previous post:

quote: You'd have to go a little further than that in cases like this though. You'd have to appoint a third party as guardian and then have that third party try to get to the bottom of what the patient really wanted and then that third party could instruct counsel. It is clear that the patient can't.

And ask yourself, if it was decided she wanted to die, then why have a lawyer at all?

	26-03-2005 12:30									#501
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Capt Dizle GePap, you make a nice argument but, you know, there are people who believe that if a death row inmate wants to go ahead and die, his or her wishes should be ignored, and efforts made to save them regardless.

That's because people aren't trying to save the convict because they believe they are innocent, but because they believe the state has no business executing people.

	26-03-2005 12:31									#502
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

New Thread.

Now wasn't that tidy?

	26-03-2005 12:32									#503
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Capt Dizle GePap, you make a nice argument but, you know, there are people who believe that if a death row inmate wants to go ahead and die, his or her wishes should be ignored, and efforts made to save them regardless. This is largely an issue of theology being used as a basis for law making. Isn't it?

I don't believe in the death penalty. I do believe in the right to end ones life.

And I do agree with you generally, speically with the case you made earlier that this is part of an atttempt by social conservatives to undermine the court system, which they do see as the great check to their power in a number of states and currently federally.

	26-03-2005 12:32									#504
	Inflate your Upload Space

Could someone tell me upon what basis the law introduced by Martinez was shot down?

What court did that? Federal court in Florida?

	26-03-2005 12:33									#505
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

GePap, in the case where the parents, and Ned, are right.

	26-03-2005 12:33									#506
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

lets use the other thread.

	26-03-2005 12:33									#507
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Post in the new thread!

	26-03-2005 12:34									#508
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Then the agent would instruct counsel to oppose termination of care, and would be knowledgable in the background and be able to give counsel competent assistance.

	26-03-2005 12:41									#509
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Wait... so Schiavo is just a gal who died ten years ago and who ya'll are just using to further your own shallow political agendas? No let's be honest for a second, if any of you truly believes that she can be turned alive back again and any of you wants to save her, why not drive to Florida (why not? you sure are closer to FL than I am) and offer to become her legal guardian of some sort? I'm sure nobody would have any problems if some of you would want to use your own money to upkeep a cute plant in your home.

	26-03-2005 12:46									#510
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why should we? Her parents are already there and they have standing.

The important issue is what should happen when there is a dispute among the family about the fate of a patient. With euthenasia being urged more and more, this is an important question.

Can your small mind grasp that?