It's a little more than that I don't agree. I didn't agree with my friend spending five years in maximum security either but there was a perverse sort of logic to it. And he still has the whole rest of his life after all.
I am concerned that this ruling amounts to saying that the incapacitated patient is not a person and can be starved to death at the will of the guardian. I am also concerned that there does not appear to have been any law against failing to provide this woman with medical care for all these years. Since it is illegal to discriminate against the disabled, there would seem to be a constitutional issue. Yes, the lower court did rule and in the absence of a constitutional issue this would probably be enough. But can anyone here say Dred Scott? Yes, if in fact she was PVS her death may have been welcomed by her; the tragedy is that we will never know. Dana On Apr 7, 2005 12:47 PM, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So if I believe the both of you (Sam and Dana), either > > 1) The judge who was there heard all of the evidence that he deemed > necessary and made a decision based on that. > > 2) The evidence was not submitted by the Schindlers. > > Either way, in the end, this is just you disagreeing with the judge's > decision. Now think that the judge should be replaced because he either > 1) Followed the procedures of the court or; > 2) Made a ruling that you disagreed with, but every other court in Florida, > including the Federal courts, did? > > Ever heard of the 4th Amendment? If he ignored the 4th (due process) in > order circumvent the procedures of the court in order to reverse a ruling, > wouldn't that be activism? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... > > - Matt Small > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:38 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: 2 Branches of Gov't Enough. > > oh yeah, those 33 affidavits that weren't admitted because these > doctors hadn't examined her. Come to find out that the doctors who > testified at the original trial hadn't examined her either... but the > judge believed them. Makes me wonder if personal belief didn't have a > large part in this story. > > Dana > > On Apr 7, 2005 12:34 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It WAS submitted and it was all ignored by this Judge, making him an > > activist Judge. > > > > On Apr 7, 2005 11:17 AM, Matthew Small wrote: > > > I don't see how that constitutes an "activist judge". He made a > decision in > > > accordance with the law, he stuck by it. > > > > > > Additionally, why was this evidence that she was not PVS not submitted > in > > > this first place? > > > > > > - Matt Small > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153135 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
