maggie may - labrat:
Rest in peace Terri.

Nice piece Dean, but it's a moot point now.
3.31.2005 9:58am
Rita (www):
Not entirely moot. Like Steve said a few days ago, getting stuck with a bad finding of fact happens a lot more often than most people think.
3.31.2005 10:08am
Rhianna (aka rmschoon) (mail) (www):
Bizarre link Dean. I got that the lawyer in question seems to have a moral aversion to any right-to-die case even if in writing. If this is so, why the biz todo about the 'Hurry up and Die' crap?

Yeah, the Schindlers got a bad deal. Fix it now to prevent it in the future. You can not grandfather laws in the US to make something illegal that was legal previously. That's just the way our system of law works. Also don't go off with the 'murder' charges that have been threatened. (Who would you serve anyway? The Judge that ordered the removal, the actual medical personel that did the dead or her husband? Oh, I know, let's serve the SCOTUS and the 11th Circuit!) Also, what's with the belief that because the Schindlers had a bad lawyer that Terri didn't want as Michael said?

Oh, and on the law front, it has been accepted fact. I find it highly amussing in a very bad way that supposed 'scholars' of the Bible can't figure out where the spouse taking precendece comes from. What Bible have they been studying lately, the Auto Bible?
3.31.2005 1:00pm
Dean Esmay:
What I gather is that the lawyer thinks there's a lot of abuse in "right to die" cases. Given what we saw transpire in this travesty, I'm inclined to agree with him.

I'll never believe justice was done in this case. It's opened my eyes about the need for more than living wills. It looks to me like "right to die" laws are far too easily abused and need an overhaul, badly.
3.31.2005 5:05pm
Rhianna (aka rmschoon) (mail) (www):
That is fine. However the writer assures us that there will be massive increases of children murdering their parents to get at cash. On what grounds are these scurillous accusations founded? Or are they just hyper lies used as scare tactics?

If this is what passes for rational on the 'culture of life' side, count me firmly on the 'KILL TERRI' side. I'd rather die than live in that state of being, no matter what you, my parents or the lawyer in question like. And I also firmly support the spouse as being the legal guardian unless PROOF can be supplied as to their unfitness.

(Hint Dean, an acussation of hearsay on Free Republic 6 years after it happened is no where near the burden of proof needed imo, or it appears the court system's.)
3.31.2005 5:41pm
Dean Esmay:
Rhianna: He's got a blog, and an email address, right there. Why don't you go ask him yourself rather than making assumptions?

Rita: Sorry for not responding to your comment earlier--yeah this case has definitely opened my eyes to how findings of fact can be slippery and how there's not much recourse if the first judge or either lawyer in the initial case don't do all they should. I don't know how to reform it but I suspect this case will result in reforms.
3.31.2005 5:53pm
Scott Harris (mail) (www):
Too many people assume that they KNOW what Terri Schiavo would have wanted - on both sides of this issue. Most people just don't know, so they substitute the logic of "What would I want done if I were in that situtation?"

I submit that that is insufficient to order the death of this woman. The FACT that many of us would not choose to live as Terri Schiavo did the last fifteen years is not relevant. Also, people on the Right-to-die side of the argument do not KNOW that Terri was truly in a permanant vegetative state (PVS). They simply assume that is the case. But neither the judge, nor Michael Schiavo would allow a PET scan or a MRI, because there was a possibility such diagnostic tools might lead to a more favorable diagnosis than PVS.

But does everyone know that not only did the judge order the removal of the feeding tube. He also prohibited oral feeding and oral administration of water, ordering that such attempts would be "experimental." He, and Michael Schiavo did not want to find out if Terri could swallow water and food, lest it intefere with the death sentence. That is barbaric. Since when is drinking a glass of water "experimental." Her parents were prohibited, BY ARMED GUARDS, from even allowing a cube of ice to touch her lips.

It is one thing to allow a loved one to die by withholding artificial measures of care. It is quite another to refuse to allow normal oral administration of food and/or water, and to refuse to avail yourself of diagnostic measures that would settle the issue of Terri's status.

Was Terri's life ended 15 years ago, or was it ended today? Anyone who says they know is lying. But we do know that our system of justice failed her, her family, and us. We should know that every measure was taken to rightfully determine her status, and that normal care apart from a machine was impossible. But we don't. THAT is something I cannot abide.

I am not necessarily outraged by the death of Terri Schiavo. But I am outraged by the callous arrogance of a judge, and a legal system that refused to act in humility and acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, they were wrong. Don't feed her with a tube? Fine. Refuse to allow her parents to try to feed her water (and possibly food) orally - barbaric.
3.31.2005 7:56pm
Scott Harris (mail) (www):
Not being a physician, I am willing to defer to others on this issue:

Guardians and medical surrogates have the power to approve or deny medical treatments, provided that they do so in a reasonable way. A deeply comatose person who is unable to swallow because of irreversible brain damage may properly have fluids and food withheld. But guardians do not have the authority to starve a patient who is awake, alert, perhaps responsive, and able to swallow.

This probate judge apparently reasoned that (1) since guardians have the power to withhold fluids from persons in irreversible coma, and (2) since they have the power to withhold medical treatments in general, then (3) they therefore have the power to withhold fluids from patients who are awake, possibly responsive, and able to swallow. This is madness.

This strange conclusion requires that attempts at normal drinking be construed as a medical treatment. But the judge went even farther into the abyss. He . . . er . . . reasoned that to drink normally would be an experimental procedure, and thus he chose to forbid it. To rebut decisively the claim that dehydration is peaceful and painless, we merely need to ask its advocates to apply it to murderers on death row.


I suggest those who are so exercised by people wanting to spare Terri's life read this article, as well.
3.31.2005 8:02pm
KathyK (mail) (www):
Scot, I wish they had allowed oral feeding. I do think that active euthanasia (which is what it amounts to if you stuff food and water down the throat of someone who can only swallow saliva) would have been far kinder (both to her, if there was anything left, and to those who had to watch her die) than starving/dehydrating her to death.
3.31.2005 8:51pm
maggie may - labrat:
Scott - I do believe you hit the nail on the head! Excellent post.
3.31.2005 8:56pm
Rhianna (aka rmschoon) (mail) (www):
Scott, very excelent post.

I do not defend the actions of Mr. Schavio or the judge in the case. I would first have prefered her to have stated unequivically her wishes. Barring that, I believe Mr. Schavio should have given her to her parents to care for. If even that was forbidden I'd have prefered her to be given a Morphine overload. Sadly, none of those were viable options to all the parties of the case.

However, in the US we have laws. The judge in this case did somethings I don't agree with (and Schavio was far worse than what Rose called him over on QOAE). However flawed, and I believe this was seriously flawed, we live by the rule of law in the US and not by the mob mentality.

This is the pure point of my argument. We change the law when we see problems. We can not possibly hope to forsee every problem with every law, but I admire Gov. Bush for saying his power has limits within the bounds of the law, and for staying within those limits.
4.1.2005 2:52am
Rhianna (aka rmschoon) (mail) (www):
It isn't an assupmtion Dean. It's what he posted on the article you chose to link.
Terri Schiavo and the "I Love You But Please Die" Movement: In the uneven recent remake of "The Stepford Wives," Bette Midler plays the author of a bestselling memoir about her relationship with her mother entitled "I Love You, But Please Die."

That book would have sold very well indeed among Academy Award voters, who fell in love with the drab little euthanasia movie "Million Dollar Baby."

The Baby Boom Generation tends to get what it wants in terms of social attitudes and policies, and the first wave of Baby Boomers (the Bill Clinton cohort born in 1946) is now 59. Their surviving parents are mostly octogenarians and nonagenarians, who are getting past the decorative and cuddly part of old age. But a lot of these parents of Baby Boomers are quite asset-rich, especially if they are homeowners in Blue States, where housing prices have gone up much faster over the last 25 years than in Red States.

In Jane Austen novels, the characters hardly ever shut up about inheritances, but in modern America the whole topic is semi-taboo.

So, to summarize, millions of Blue State Baby Boomers, and a somewhat smaller fraction of Red State Baby Boomers, are in line to inherit a bundle ... but not if Mom or Dad lives forever or, especially, if his or her slowly declining health requires a fortune in expensive care. A nice quick fatal heart attack would do the trick, but with Lipitor and the like these days, oldsters are going slower.

So, when you wonder why a lot of people, especially Democrats, are okay with starving Terri Schiavo to death instead of having her kept expensively alive, follow the money.

It's hardly the only reason for the distribution of opinions on this case, but it's definitely one reason, and part of a big topic that almost nobody wants to talk about in 21st Century America.

The "I Love You But Please Die" Syndrome Embodied in Federal Law:

Under the current estate tax law pushed through by the Bush Administration in 2001, the inheritance tax drops from 45% to 0% on January 1, 2010, then rises to 55% on January 1, 2011.

That sounds less like a carefully-considered law than a high concept black comedy movie pitch:

Potential heirs spend 2009 desperately trying to keep their billionaire Granny alive, then spend 2010 desperately trying to kill her by New Year's Eve. It's "Kind Hearts and Coronets" meets "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" meets "Throw Momma From the Train." The script practically writes itself. (The climax is, of course, in Times Square -- hopefully, Dick Clark will be well enough to do a cameo. And we could write in a heroic IRS agent battling to keep Grannie alive in return for the IRS going easy on the film's financial backers' audits.)
4.1.2005 2:55am
Dean Esmay:
I do not see that as the writer "assuring us that there will be massive increases of children murdering their parents to get at cash," nor do I see them as "scurrilous accusations" or "hyper lies." It strikes me as a expressing a deep concern given the state of the law we appear to be in at the moment. But if you're certain that he's making it as an absolute prediction or is "lying" (lying about what?) you might want to ask him for clarification.
4.1.2005 4:38am