Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
That is a factually incorrect statement. The trial court judge based his decision on proof and that decision has been upheld many times by many courts. Interestingly, though I have not reqd the trial transcript, I do not think her parents presented any proof that she wanted to live other than those videos which, though heartbreaking to watch because although there but for the Grace of God go I, all qualified medical experts conclude the expressions she makes do not indicate anything other than q persistent veg. state; i.e. she is unaware of anything and the tiny fraction of her brain that is left is her is operating her basic life support systems which reaquire no conscious effort.
In the end, no malfeasance on the part of the husband has been demonstrated other than in false innuendo. Thus, Florida law dictates that he has the final say. Regardless, it still makes great fodder for the R party to use to feed the anti-liberal movement seen of late. Thus, therein is the political interest.
Finally, I read where her husaqnd was offered a million dollars by a private party and the ability to keep any remaining money currently used to care for her if he relinquished his rights to the parents. He declined. That to me suggests his interests are not pecuniary as suggested  |
Ahh, welcome back Jason. Thanks for this post.
There's so much misinformation surrounding this case that it is scary. Randi was discussing it with a caller and she informed that caller that no judge has ever ruled against Michael Schiavo, they have all ruled to remove the feeding tube. All 16 judges in 23 separate instances.