Lower Court’s Decision Against Terri Schiavo
Via How Appealing, here is the judge’s decision denying the request to reinsert Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube.
UPDATE: My preliminary impression is one of surprise at how technical, procedural, and weak some of the claims seem. This impression is strengthened upon reading the complaint submitted by counsel for the parents. I would argue that her right to life is being threatened, because there is insufficient evidence that she wished to end her life under these circumstances. I would argue that no one should die without having the facts of the case decided by a jury — something that cannot happen unless a TRO is granted.
[…] rough Five and seeking a stay. Judge Whittemore’s order denying the injunction. (Here is my initial post on his order.) The 11th Circuit̵ […]
Patterico's Pontifications » A Legal Argument Why the Federal Courts Should Have Granted the Schiavo Injunction (0c6a63) — 4/17/2005 @ 11:39 pm“I would argue that no one should die without having the facts of the case decided by a jury – something that cannot happen unless a TRO is granted.”
Interesting theory. Would this apply to when hospitals or insurance companies reject treatment for non-payment too?
actus (e8ffe9) — 3/22/2005 @ 10:24 pmI hate HMOs and insurance companies. (Sorry, Xrlq.) If someone brings a proper lawsuit, and it’s a life-or-death matter, it’s a jury issue in my opinion.
Patterico (756436) — 3/22/2005 @ 11:03 pmFine, go convene the juries that let O. J. and Robert Blake walk, then present a case to them that’s 100 times more complicated that DNA. And have a heart attack when they rule the same way that 20 judges in 26 trials in 7 courts have ruled.
The American people — the ordinary people who aren’t owned by the poltical parties — are sick and tired of the way the right-to-lifers have fetishized this poor woman. Check the polls.
You’re way out in right field here because you’re refusing to acknowledge the fundamental fact of the case: the woman is severely brain-damaged and has no chance at anything that resembles a meaningful human life. Being a symbol of a raft of unrelated causes (abortion, moral values, gay marriage, domestic violence, or whatever the hobby-horse obsession du jour happens to be) isn’t helping her.
We can all see that you’re exploiting her, and we want you to stop.
Richard Bennett (c5751d) — 3/23/2005 @ 12:59 am“I hate HMOs and insurance companies. (Sorry, Xrlq.) If someone brings a proper lawsuit, and it’s a life-or-death matter, it’s a jury issue in my opinion. ”
I could get behind this sort of policy. Would be a nice step towards national care.
actus (e8ffe9) — 3/23/2005 @ 5:22 amOn the weakness of the complaint – I continue to be amazed. And where are all the big-name high-powered high-profile lawyers that flocked to the public cases like OJ and Peterson?
Claire (222d9a) — 3/23/2005 @ 8:06 am