euthanasia

"Conservatives Today, Thinking Right"

"The Terri Shaivo Case"

Euthanasia In America???

Can anything from Roe v. Wade be applied in the Shiavo case?

Yes, I think it can.

The following quotes would seem to apply all too well.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated when hearing Roe v. Wade:

"The plaintiff should be allowed to receive the medical treatment she was seeking through a court injunction, even though it was still against Texas state law at the time."

Why?

Because the plaintiffs rights were in limbo at the time the court case was brought before the court, so as not to deny Roe her right to the "possible" outcome in that court case should abortion become legal through Roe v. Wade, she was granted the "right" before the case was heard.

Why does this have relevance to the case concerning Ms. Shiavo?

JUDICIAL REVIEW

In all court cases I have read about, the Judge or Judges have referred to past case law to help guide them in making a decision, based on other judicial determination and law interpretation. Sort of like looking for guidance from other examples similar to the situation. In legal terminology this is known as stare decisis.

In the case of Roe v. Wade it was stated that the matter of abortion was:

"...capable of repetition, yet evading review because of its shortness in time."

Yet Justice Blackmun noted however, that just because Roe was granted injunctory relief that granted her rights to a medical abortion, thus ending her pregnancy, it did not moot her case, and it would go on, and a decision would be reached on the matter as to it's legality, or illegality concerning women's rights to abortions.

THE LAWS OF THE LAND

This was certainly not done in the case concerning Ms. Shiavo, especially when it came to Ms. Shiavo's rights. And her rights, just like every American's are promised protection through and by the laws of the United States;

Among the various articles that throughout history have guaranteed conviction of these rights are the following:

- the Declaration of Independence;
- Art. IX of the Confederation;
- and Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution.

Let alone the promise stated in Amendment V in the Bill of Rights which plainly states:

"...nor shall any person be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

NOTHING IN WRITING

Also remember that Michael Shiavo had nothing in writing to substantiate his claim that what he claimed were Terri's wishes were actually Terri's wishes. The Court merely made a decisive ruling based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence.

When was the last time you were able to use your word only for a loan, or any other major transaction you were pursuing? And I'll bet you wouldn't even think of trying that with any probate record.

WAS THE LAW FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH

If this case was truly carried out in a Judicial manner in the way all other court cases are carried out in America, there would be a hearing, both sides would present evidence;

-evidence explaining Ms. Shiavo's "current" medical state
-and the plaintiffs would introduce evidence to support the claim that Mr. Shaivo had a potential "conflict of interest in determining the future of his wife's medical decisions".

But none of these things have been allowed to happen. Why?

So, valid legal questions remain in this medical/judicial case:

Has the judicial process guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment been carried out and exhausted for the benefit of Ms. Shiavo in this situation as guaranteed in the Constitution?

Has Ms. Shiavo's situation been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", by examination of factual data, medical input from both sides under oath, and a preponderance of ALL evidence, including new and conclusive medical testing.

Does Michael Shiavo's current arrangement present a conflict of interest?

Without definite proof of that, there should have been a calling for the reinsertion of the feeding tube until the case was settled in a fair and balanced court, where both sides were represented. This not being allowed was to not provide justice for the weakest among us. That goes against the very principles of this Country's foundings.

After all as was stated in Roe v. Wade, this case is capable of repetition, yet may evade review, because of its shortness in time.

Many people want to claim that this should be argued on the side of legal ethics instead of morality. If you can guarantee me that all of the above has been granted to Ms. Shiavo, then I will be satisfied that her legal rights were exhausted and her right to a fair trial was carried out.

But if you can't then this was death by Judicial fiat.

For far too long activist courts have told American citizens how they will live....

and this time, how they will DIE.

People Involved in this case:

Michael Shiavo
George Felos
Judge George Greer
Florida State Legislature
The "Church" of Scientology

Scientology statement:

"You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

(HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965 REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970).