House Panel Seeks to Keep Schiavo Alive

[Narrock]

...I rest my case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is nothing else legally they can do, at all.

Removing the tube is the only legal action allowed in the U.S.

He is a murderer because he went through with her wishes in the only manner legally allowed?

You don't know those were her last wishes.

[Martrae]

The courts seemed pretty sure and if there had been doubt one of the thousands of appeals her parents put out there would have won.

[Langston]

The courts seemed pretty sure and if there had been doubt one of the thousands of appeals her parents put out there would have won.

The only evidence was hearsay... a million people could walk into a courtroom and say that you stole their wallets - does that make it true? This is why hearsay is not admissable in court. Fact of the matter is there was no documentation showing what her wishes were - there was just the word of a few people who supposedly were told this. It was a value judgement by the court and it was based on evidence that, under law, is not to be submitted as "evidence" in our judicial system. I guarantee you if there had been a real documented form of proof of her "intentions" or "desires" it would have been paraded around on the news for all to see... and there wouldn't have been a single appeal made. Not one.

And there weren't "thousands of appeals". Don't exagerate if you're trying to make a point... it detracts from your statement.

I'm not saying that the woman shouldn't have been allowed to pass away - but don't try to make it out like the courts could somehow divine her wishes based on the hearsay evidence that was presented.

It's just one more case of our judicial system legistlating morality. It was wrong for this to ever go to court in the first place - and the fiasco that it became is an embarassment to our entire Justice system and to us, the American people, for allowing it to happen.

I'm frankly disgusted with damn near everyone that involved themselves in this case... the Republicans (for using it as a grandstand attempt to further their agenda), the Democrats (who should have stood up and said that it wasn't the responsibility or the purvue of the government to be involved instead of turning it into an anti-Republican crusade), the Judiciary (for allowing the case to get beyond a preliminary hearing on guardianship with a couple of medical experts to testify on her condition), the President (who should have made a simple statement that he felt it was unfortunate but also outside the realm of responsibility of the Executive branch of the government), the family (for their disgraceful pandering to anyone and everyone to try to "win" the case in the media), Michael Schiavo (because I have this gut instinct that he was not operating with altruistic intentions - can't prove it... but I can't deny my gut reaction to his actions), the media (for turning it into a circus on every news program, radio station, and periodical), and the American people (for feeling like it was their business to try to tell the family or Michael Schiavo that they were "wrong").

The ONLY innocent person in this entire mess is Terri Schiavo herself... and I'm borderline on that, as well, since she created her condition due to her own personal problems instead of getting the medical help she needed to work through her eating disorder to begin with.

This was a case of how stupid people and our government can be - exhibited in a plethora of different, equally loathesome ways.

[Arlos]

Actually, as far as I know, reporting on what someone told you directly is not hearsay. It's 2nd hand reporting that qualifies as hearsay. I mean, it's not tossed out as hearsay when someone in a criminal trial says something to the effect of, "I heard my cellmate said he whacked vinny in the exercise yard." Stuff like that is used in cases all the time. Now, if someone said, "My ex-cellmate said he heard this other guy he used to be cell-mates with say he whacked vinny", THAT would be hearsay.

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm pretty sure someone saying "I heard <Person X> say <Statement>" is not at all the definition of hearsay.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

Yes, 'thousands of appeals' was an exaggeration. It wasn't close to that even tho it FELT like it.

As, Arlos has said, hearsay is when 'someone told me that someone said'. It's not things you hear directly.

The point is that if the courts felt at any point during the original hearings or any of the appeals that she might not have said anything to that effect then they would have called a halt to the whole thing. The court system deals with this kind of situation all the time and have precidents for what is and isn't accepted in these cases.

Aye, as you say damn near everyone involved is despicable, especially the politicians. I can't help wondering if any family could bear the light of such scrutiny and not look bad, however.

[Lyion]

It was adjudicated properly. Feel whatever you want, but due process was performed.

The travesty is the massive intrusion into a private, state family matter by the federal government.

I'm far from a Michael Schiavo fan, but he's had to endure right wing attacks and other unsubstantiated claims and defamation solely because he is doing what he believes his wife wanted before she went into a vegatative state in 1990.

I'm pro life and anti death penalty, so I'm probably the biggest 'life' supporter here. That does not change the fact that we have laws and we have ethics which we should adhere to as a society and as media. Neither were in this case.