Florida Lawyer's Perspective on Terri Schiavo
Dean
I know it's all but over, but I found nothing surprising in this Florida lawyer's perspective on how Terri Schiavo's family got shafted by the system.
(Read it before commenting. Link via Scott Harris.)









Nice piece Dean, but it's a moot point now.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
I suggest those who are so exercised by people wanting to spare Terri's life read this article, as well.
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.